基于美国当代英语语料库对中国学生英语作文中词汇应用能力研究
|
摘要
英语写作是英语专业最难提高的语言技能之一。虽然教师和学生都投入了不少的时间和精力，但效果却总是不尽如人意。国内外诸多学者研究发现学习者词汇能力是写作能力的一个十分重要的构成因素，外语写作能力与词汇能力密切相关。Melk（1997）进一步研究发现，学生词汇量大并不一定就能写出好作文，产出性词汇能力（productive skill）才是写作能力的重要体现。然而以教材为核心的传统写作教学方法存在语言的自然性和内容的新颖性不够、例证偏少、信息输入渠道狭窄等问题，这是导致写作教学中学生对语言的输入量不足、学习兴趣不高的主要原因。Tim Johns于20世纪90年代提出的数据驱动学习(Data-DrivenLearning)是一种新的基于语料库的外语学习方法，它的基本原理是指引学生利用海量的语料库数据，观察、概括和归纳语言使用现象，自我发现语法规则、意义表达及语用特征。将DDL应用于专业英语写作教学中，可以引发教学活动中语言学习者的学习策略、学习内容以及学习手段等方面的变化。
由美国杨百翰大学Mark Davies领衔学术团队开发的美国当代英语语料库(COCA)是目前在线免费的最好英语语料库之一。它收集的是1990年以来的美国英语语料，分口语、小说、新闻、流行杂志、学术期刊5大类和37小类，并且各大类语料呈均衡分布。目前该语料库的库容量已达4.5亿词，并且每年分两次增加2000万词汇量。它不仅是观察美国英语使用和变化的一个窗口，也是一个理想的英语学习宝库。
本研究以美国当代英语语料库为教学平台，将过程教学法与数据驱动学习手段有机结合，引导学生在写作教学过程中的各个阶段（写作前、写作过程中、写作后）充分应用该库来提高词汇应用能力，从而达到提高写作质量的目的。本研究提出的假设是:美国当代英语语料库对提高学生作文中的词汇应用能力有帮助。基于以上假设，本研究主要要回答以下三个问题：
1）专业英语本科二年级学生理解COCA中语料是否有难度？难度有多大？
2）COCA对提高专业英语学生作文的词汇丰富度是否有帮助？
3）如何在写作教学的主要环节中利用COCA来提高学生的词汇应用能力？
本研究将采用定量和定性相结合的方法来研究。包括实验法、问卷法、访谈法、试卷测试等。定量研究部分主要通过Range3.2、AntConc等语料库检索软件和句酷批改网自动批改作文来获取数据。其中词汇丰富度主要通过考察学生作文中词汇密度、多样性和复杂度等来了解。词汇密度测量学生作文中的实词比例；词汇多样性采用类符与形符比（type-token ratio, TTR）；词汇复杂度由“词汇概貌”来测量（lexical frequency profile，LFP），它反映文本中2000常用词族，学术词族（AWL）及不在这两个范围内的其它词族（off-list词族）的比例。
本研究有以下四个方面的主要发现。首先,将COCA直接应用于英语专业二年级英语写作教学来辅助学习是可行的，但有一定难度。从COCA中随机抽样语料，经过Range32检索软件分析，发现COCA语料在其三个基础词表的词汇达80%，其在非基础性词汇中有近70%的词汇为名词。这些名词对学生理解COCA中的句子没有太大影响；对学生理解能力测试结果显示：学生对语料库语料的准确理解力已达到70%左右；个别访谈得知学生在理解测试卷中翻译不准的内容主要是专有名词，但他们基本能猜测出其大意。其次，实验班学生在使用COCA辅助作文教学后，其词汇丰富度有一些变化。实验班后测与前测相比差异显著，实验班后测与对比班后测有差异，但无显著差异。原因可能有两个方面：一是实验班在培训COCA语料库检索技巧阶段占用了一些写作课时间；二是部分学生，特别是基础较差学生对语料库培训课程不重视，导致后来检索能力差而失去应用COCA信心。第三，在“写作前”阶段，COCA对学生“头脑风暴”能起到联想提示作用，同时对专业术语规范表达有促进作用，但主要只是在写部分话题的说明文时效果较为明显。在“写作中”阶段学生并不愿意应用，主要是认为时常检索容易打断写作思路，导致效率低。另外写作课教室虽然是多媒体教室，已开通网线，但学生课桌上无操作平台，目前课堂上不能直接应用。在“写作后”修改阶段应用可以提高学生词汇应用能力，使学生的用词更地道、表达更得体。第四，在利用COCA辅助写作教学中，将其与其它工具如英语词典等配合使用效果更好。
本研究就如何在写作教学中有效应用COCA提高学生词汇应用能力进行了一些有益探索，为解决目前专业英语写作教学中的诸多问题提供一个新的思路。但还有许多局限与不足。一是写作中词汇应用能力的提高是一个漫长的过程，而本研究实验时间短，实验数据说服力还很有限；二是实验过程中发现学生两极分化严重，而却没有能很好的解决。三是由于时间和精力所限，实验只是考察了学生词汇应用能力，没有涉及句法、语篇、文体和文化等视角和层面。
English writing is one of the most difficult language skills for English majors.Much effort has been made in this aspect on the part of both teachers and students.However, students' writing ability is still far from satisfactory. Many researchers inboth abroad and inland have found that learners’ competence of lexical application isone of the key factors, that is，writing competence in foreign language is closelyrelated to lexical ability. Melk（1997）found that the student who has large vocabularymay not be a good writer and his productive skill in lexicon is the key factor. But thetraditional textbook-centered approach suffers from the following weaknesses: lack ofnaturalness, non-novelty，inadequate examples and narrow input, the above of whichare the main reasons for less input and students’ boredom.
Data-Driven Learning is a new corpus-based method which is first mentioned byTim Johns in1990s. Its basic principle is guiding students observe, generalize andconclude the patterns of language usage and self-find grammar patterns, meanings andpragmatic characteristics. It changes learners learning strategies, learning materialsand learning methods.
The Corpus of Contemporary American English(COCA)，built by Mark Daviesin Brigham Young University, is one of the best English corpora till now and it hasbeen free online since February,2008. The text materials come from all aroundAmerica in the fields of spoken, fiction, newspaper, magazine and academic. It is abalanced corpus and has450million words from the year1990to2012and anothernew20million words will be added each year. It is not only a window to observe theusage and change of American English, but also an ideal treasury for English learners.
This paper, integrating process approach with DDL, guides students to applyCOCA, which is regarded as a teaching platform, to improve their lexical abilityduring prewriting, writing, revising periods. This paper proposes a hypothesis: COCAcan be helpful in improving the Chinese English-major-students’ competence of lexical application. Based on the hypothesis, the paper should answer the followingquestions:
1) Is it difficult for English majors to read the material in COCA? And howmuch degree it is?
2) Can COCA be helpful to improve student’s lexical richness?
3) How should COCA be applied in the periods of English writing?
Qualitative and quantitative methods are employed in this study. They includeexperimental method, questionnaire, interview, test, etc. Some other methods, such asJukuu (a station which can correct students’ composition automatically by computer),Range3.2and AntConc (corpus tools), are also used to get and analyze data. Lexicalrichness consists of lexical density (LD), lexical variation (LV) and lexicalsophistication (LS). Lexical density (LD) measures the proportion of lexical words inall words. Lexical variation is computed by type-token ratio (TTR). Lexicalsophistication (LS) is revealed through “Lexical Frequency Profile”(LFP) which wasdesigned specially for L2learners to work out the percentage of2000high-frequencyword families, Academic Word families (AWL) and word families beyond the twocategories (Off-the-list).
The major findings in this thesis are summarized in the following four aspects:First of all, it is possible for English majors to use COCA directly in English writingcourse.80%of the words in the materials selected from COCA by random samplingare in the three basic wordlists and nearly70%of the words which are not in the threebasic wordlists are proper nouns which students can guess the meanings. That meansthe proper nouns will not stand in their way for the students to understand the text.From the test paper, we know that undergraduate student can translate most thesentences in random sampling. The second major finding in the thesis is that theexperimental group has made much great progress than the control group in lexicalrichness. The third major finding is that COCA used during brainstorming beforewriting can help to stimulate students’ thinking, figure out brilliant thought, whichespecially appears in expository writing. But during the “writing” period, it is notreadily apparent. One reason is that computers in writing classroom have not been set up for networking and teachers and students cannot retrieve information in COCAdirectly. Another reason is that retrieval during the writing may confuse the train ofthe thought. COCA used in revising period may be helpful to improve the students’competence of lexical application, to make their writing more authentic andappropriate. The fourth finding is that if COCA is used in conjunction with Englishdictionary, the effects will be better.
Though a new way has been found in developing competence of lexicalapplication in English writing, the research, inevitably, is limited and imperfect inmany aspects. Firstly, the improvement of writing ability is a long, complicatedprocess, but the experiment experienced only10months, so some data this paper gotdoes not sound persuasive. Secondly, in experimental group, the gap between theexcellent students and the poor ones widened, but the problem has not been solved.Thirdly, this paper only involves the students’ competence of lexical application, doesnot touch on many other aspects, which are also very important in improving writingability, such as syntax, text, stylistics, and culture.
由美国杨百翰大学Mark Davies领衔学术团队开发的美国当代英语语料库(COCA)是目前在线免费的最好英语语料库之一。它收集的是1990年以来的美国英语语料，分口语、小说、新闻、流行杂志、学术期刊5大类和37小类，并且各大类语料呈均衡分布。目前该语料库的库容量已达4.5亿词，并且每年分两次增加2000万词汇量。它不仅是观察美国英语使用和变化的一个窗口，也是一个理想的英语学习宝库。
本研究以美国当代英语语料库为教学平台，将过程教学法与数据驱动学习手段有机结合，引导学生在写作教学过程中的各个阶段（写作前、写作过程中、写作后）充分应用该库来提高词汇应用能力，从而达到提高写作质量的目的。本研究提出的假设是:美国当代英语语料库对提高学生作文中的词汇应用能力有帮助。基于以上假设，本研究主要要回答以下三个问题：
1）专业英语本科二年级学生理解COCA中语料是否有难度？难度有多大？
2）COCA对提高专业英语学生作文的词汇丰富度是否有帮助？
3）如何在写作教学的主要环节中利用COCA来提高学生的词汇应用能力？
本研究将采用定量和定性相结合的方法来研究。包括实验法、问卷法、访谈法、试卷测试等。定量研究部分主要通过Range3.2、AntConc等语料库检索软件和句酷批改网自动批改作文来获取数据。其中词汇丰富度主要通过考察学生作文中词汇密度、多样性和复杂度等来了解。词汇密度测量学生作文中的实词比例；词汇多样性采用类符与形符比（type-token ratio, TTR）；词汇复杂度由“词汇概貌”来测量（lexical frequency profile，LFP），它反映文本中2000常用词族，学术词族（AWL）及不在这两个范围内的其它词族（off-list词族）的比例。
本研究有以下四个方面的主要发现。首先,将COCA直接应用于英语专业二年级英语写作教学来辅助学习是可行的，但有一定难度。从COCA中随机抽样语料，经过Range32检索软件分析，发现COCA语料在其三个基础词表的词汇达80%，其在非基础性词汇中有近70%的词汇为名词。这些名词对学生理解COCA中的句子没有太大影响；对学生理解能力测试结果显示：学生对语料库语料的准确理解力已达到70%左右；个别访谈得知学生在理解测试卷中翻译不准的内容主要是专有名词，但他们基本能猜测出其大意。其次，实验班学生在使用COCA辅助作文教学后，其词汇丰富度有一些变化。实验班后测与前测相比差异显著，实验班后测与对比班后测有差异，但无显著差异。原因可能有两个方面：一是实验班在培训COCA语料库检索技巧阶段占用了一些写作课时间；二是部分学生，特别是基础较差学生对语料库培训课程不重视，导致后来检索能力差而失去应用COCA信心。第三，在“写作前”阶段，COCA对学生“头脑风暴”能起到联想提示作用，同时对专业术语规范表达有促进作用，但主要只是在写部分话题的说明文时效果较为明显。在“写作中”阶段学生并不愿意应用，主要是认为时常检索容易打断写作思路，导致效率低。另外写作课教室虽然是多媒体教室，已开通网线，但学生课桌上无操作平台，目前课堂上不能直接应用。在“写作后”修改阶段应用可以提高学生词汇应用能力，使学生的用词更地道、表达更得体。第四，在利用COCA辅助写作教学中，将其与其它工具如英语词典等配合使用效果更好。
本研究就如何在写作教学中有效应用COCA提高学生词汇应用能力进行了一些有益探索，为解决目前专业英语写作教学中的诸多问题提供一个新的思路。但还有许多局限与不足。一是写作中词汇应用能力的提高是一个漫长的过程，而本研究实验时间短，实验数据说服力还很有限；二是实验过程中发现学生两极分化严重，而却没有能很好的解决。三是由于时间和精力所限，实验只是考察了学生词汇应用能力，没有涉及句法、语篇、文体和文化等视角和层面。
English writing is one of the most difficult language skills for English majors.Much effort has been made in this aspect on the part of both teachers and students.However, students' writing ability is still far from satisfactory. Many researchers inboth abroad and inland have found that learners’ competence of lexical application isone of the key factors, that is，writing competence in foreign language is closelyrelated to lexical ability. Melk（1997）found that the student who has large vocabularymay not be a good writer and his productive skill in lexicon is the key factor. But thetraditional textbook-centered approach suffers from the following weaknesses: lack ofnaturalness, non-novelty，inadequate examples and narrow input, the above of whichare the main reasons for less input and students’ boredom.
Data-Driven Learning is a new corpus-based method which is first mentioned byTim Johns in1990s. Its basic principle is guiding students observe, generalize andconclude the patterns of language usage and self-find grammar patterns, meanings andpragmatic characteristics. It changes learners learning strategies, learning materialsand learning methods.
The Corpus of Contemporary American English(COCA)，built by Mark Daviesin Brigham Young University, is one of the best English corpora till now and it hasbeen free online since February,2008. The text materials come from all aroundAmerica in the fields of spoken, fiction, newspaper, magazine and academic. It is abalanced corpus and has450million words from the year1990to2012and anothernew20million words will be added each year. It is not only a window to observe theusage and change of American English, but also an ideal treasury for English learners.
This paper, integrating process approach with DDL, guides students to applyCOCA, which is regarded as a teaching platform, to improve their lexical abilityduring prewriting, writing, revising periods. This paper proposes a hypothesis: COCAcan be helpful in improving the Chinese English-major-students’ competence of lexical application. Based on the hypothesis, the paper should answer the followingquestions:
1) Is it difficult for English majors to read the material in COCA? And howmuch degree it is?
2) Can COCA be helpful to improve student’s lexical richness?
3) How should COCA be applied in the periods of English writing?
Qualitative and quantitative methods are employed in this study. They includeexperimental method, questionnaire, interview, test, etc. Some other methods, such asJukuu (a station which can correct students’ composition automatically by computer),Range3.2and AntConc (corpus tools), are also used to get and analyze data. Lexicalrichness consists of lexical density (LD), lexical variation (LV) and lexicalsophistication (LS). Lexical density (LD) measures the proportion of lexical words inall words. Lexical variation is computed by type-token ratio (TTR). Lexicalsophistication (LS) is revealed through “Lexical Frequency Profile”(LFP) which wasdesigned specially for L2learners to work out the percentage of2000high-frequencyword families, Academic Word families (AWL) and word families beyond the twocategories (Off-the-list).
The major findings in this thesis are summarized in the following four aspects:First of all, it is possible for English majors to use COCA directly in English writingcourse.80%of the words in the materials selected from COCA by random samplingare in the three basic wordlists and nearly70%of the words which are not in the threebasic wordlists are proper nouns which students can guess the meanings. That meansthe proper nouns will not stand in their way for the students to understand the text.From the test paper, we know that undergraduate student can translate most thesentences in random sampling. The second major finding in the thesis is that theexperimental group has made much great progress than the control group in lexicalrichness. The third major finding is that COCA used during brainstorming beforewriting can help to stimulate students’ thinking, figure out brilliant thought, whichespecially appears in expository writing. But during the “writing” period, it is notreadily apparent. One reason is that computers in writing classroom have not been set up for networking and teachers and students cannot retrieve information in COCAdirectly. Another reason is that retrieval during the writing may confuse the train ofthe thought. COCA used in revising period may be helpful to improve the students’competence of lexical application, to make their writing more authentic andappropriate. The fourth finding is that if COCA is used in conjunction with Englishdictionary, the effects will be better.
Though a new way has been found in developing competence of lexicalapplication in English writing, the research, inevitably, is limited and imperfect inmany aspects. Firstly, the improvement of writing ability is a long, complicatedprocess, but the experiment experienced only10months, so some data this paper gotdoes not sound persuasive. Secondly, in experimental group, the gap between theexcellent students and the poor ones widened, but the problem has not been solved.Thirdly, this paper only involves the students’ competence of lexical application, doesnot touch on many other aspects, which are also very important in improving writingability, such as syntax, text, stylistics, and culture.
引文
Aitchison J. Words in the Mind: An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon [M]. Oxford:Blackwell,1994.
Arnaud, P. J. L. Objective Lexical and Grammatical Characteristics of L2WrittenCompositions and the Validity of Separate-component Tests [A]. P. J. L. Arnaud&H. Bejoint (eds.). Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics[C]. London: MacMillan,1992:133-145.
Bachman, L. F. Fundamental considerations in language testing[M]. New York:Oxford University Press.1990.
Bax, S. Putting technology in its place: ICT in modern foreign language learning [A].In: Field, K.(Eds.), Issues in Modern Foreign Language Teaching[C]. Routledge.2000:208-219.
Bax, S. CALL-past, present and future [J]. System.2003,31(1):13-18.
Beglar, D. A Rasch-based validation of the Vocabulary Size Test [J]. LanguageTesting,2010,27(1):101-118.
Bhtia,V. K. Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings[M].London: Longman.1993.
Bialystock, E. Acquisition of literacy in bilingual children [J]. Language Learning,2002,52(1):159-199.
Biber, D. University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.2006.
Canale, M&Swain, M. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to secondlanguage teaching and testing[J]. Applied Linguistics,1980,1:1-47.
Chambers, A.&Bax, S. Making CALL work: towards normalization [J]. System,2006,(34):465-479.
Chaudron, C. In take: On models and methods for discovering learners' processing ofinput [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,1985,7(1):1-14.
Cook, V. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching[M]. London:Routledge,1991:40.
Corder, S. P. The significance of learner's errors [J]. International Review of AppliedLinguistics in Language Teaching,1967(5):161-170.
Cortes, V. Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examplesfrom history and biology [J]. English for Specific Purposes.2004,(23):397-423.
Coxhead，A. A New Academic Word List [J].TESOL Quarterly.2000,34(2):230-238.
Davie, M. The advantage of using relational databases for large corpora: speed,advanced queries, and unlimited annotation [J]. International Journal of CorpusLinguistics.2005，（10）：301—28.
Davie, M. The360million word Corpus of Contemporary American English.(1900-2007)[A]. Unpublished manuscript. Paper presented an AmericanAssociation for Corpus Linguistics,2008.
Ellis N. Vocabulary acquisition: The implicit ins and outs of explicit cognitivemediation[A]. Ellis N. Implicit and explicit learning of languages[C]. New York:Academic Press,1994.211-282.
Ellis N. Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order[J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.1996,(18):91-126.
Ellis N. Cognitive approaches to SLA [J]. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics.1999,(19):22-42.
Ellis, R. The Study of Second Language Acquisition[M]. Oxford University Press,1994.
Elman J. L. et al. Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development[M]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press,1996.
Engber, C. A. The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESLcompositions [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing.1995,4(2):139-155.
Farris, C. R. Current composition: Beyond process vs. product [J]. English Journal1987,76:28-34.
Flower, L.&J. R. Hayes. A cognitive process theory of writing [J]. College English.1981,44:765-77.
Fureaux, Clare. Process writing[A]. In Johnson, K.&H. Johnson(eds.), EncyclopedicDictionary of Applied Linguistics[Z].1998:257~260. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gass, S. Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies[J].Applied Linguistics.1988,(9):198-217.
Gass, M. S.&Selinker, L. Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course[M]. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers,2001.
Gass S. and L. Selinker. Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course [M].NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,2001.
Grabe, W. Written discourse analysis. In R. B. Kaplan, A d’Anglejan, J. R. Cowan, B.Kachru, G. R. Tucker,&H. Widdowson (eds.), Annual review of appliedlinguistics (Vol.5)[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press.1985:101-123.
Grabe W.&Kaplan, R. B. Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguisticperspective [M]. New York: Longman.1996.
Granger, S.(ed.). Learner English on Computer. Addison Wesley Longman, London&New York.1998.
Granger, S., E. Dagneaux&F. Meunier (ed.). International Corpus of LearnerEnglish. UCL Presses Universitaires de Louvain.2002.
Granger, S., Huang, J.&petch-Tyson, S.(ed.). Computer Learner Corpura, SecondLanguage Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. Language Learning andLanguage Teaching6. Benjamins, Amsterdam&Philadelphia.2002.
Halliday, M. A. K., McIntosh, A.&Strevens, P. The Linguistic Sciences andLanguage Teaching [M]. London: Longmans.1964
Halliday,M.A.K.Corpus studies and probabilistic grammar[A]. In Aijmer, K.&Altenberg, B.(eds.) English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of JanSvartvik [C]. London and New York: Longman.1991.
Halliday,M.A.K.1993.Quantitative studies and probabilities in grammar. In MichaelHoey (ed).Data, Description, Discourse [C]. London: HarpeCollins Publisher.1993:1-25.
Harley, B.&King, M. L. Verb lexis in the written compositions of young L2learners[J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,1989,2:415-440.
Haussler H. Corpora and Their Use in Research and Teaching [EB/OC]. Http://folk.Quoi. No/hassled/us-corpora, html.2001.
Henriksen B. Three dimensions of vocabulary development [J]. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition.1999,(21):303-318.
Henry, A. R. Second Language Rhetoric in Process: A Comparison of Arabic,Chinese, and Spanish [M]. New York: Peter Lang.1993:125-268.
Hill J. Collocational competence [J]. English Teaching Professional.1999,(11):3-6.
Hunston, S.&G. Francis. Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-driven Approach to theLexical Grammar of English [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.2000.
Hymes, D. H. On communicative competence[A]. In: J. B. Pride&J. Holmes (eds.),Sociolinguistics. Selected Readings[C]. Harmondsworth: Penguin.1972:269-293.
Ito, Y. Effect of reduced forms on ESL learners' input–intake process [J]. SecondLanguage Studies,2001,20(1):99-124.
Izumi, S. Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: Insearch of the psycholinguistics rational of the output hypothesis [J]. AppliedLinguistics.2003,24(2):168-192.
James W. Psychology: Briefer Course [M]. MIT Press.1890.
Johns, T. Data-driven learning: The perpetual challenge. In B. Kettemann&G. Marko(eds.). Teaching and Learning by Doing Corpus Analysis. Amsterdam: Rodopi.2002:107-117.
Kaeding, F. H ufigkeitsw rterbuch der deutschen Sprache [M]. Steglitz bei Berlin:Selbstverlag des Herausgebers.1898.
Kennedy, G. An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics[M]. London: Longman.1998.
Krashen, S. D. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implication [M]. London:Longman,1985:87.
Krashen, S. The input hypthesis:issues and implications [M]. London: Longman,1986.
Krashen, S. Comprehensible output?[J]. System.1998(26):175-182.
Kumaravadivelu, B. Understanding Language Teaching: From Method toPostmethod [M]. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum,2006.
Langacker, R. Cognitive grammar as a basis for language instruction [A]. In RobinsonP&Ellis, N.(eds.). Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics[C]. New York andLondon: Routledge.2008:66-88.
Larsen-Freeman, D. Chaos/Complexity science and second language acquisition [J].Applied Linguistics,1997,18(2).
Lave, J.&E. Wenger. Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral Participation [M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1999.
Laufer, B.&Nation, P. Vocabulary size and use: lexical richness in L2writtenproduction[J]. Applied Linguistics.1995,16(3):307-322.
Leech,G. The State of the Art in Corpus Linguistics [A]. In Aijmer, K.&Altenberg,B.(eds.) English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik[C].London and New York: Longman.1991.
Leech, G.“Preface”, Learner English on Computer. Longman, New York.1998.
Leech，G.&M. Short. Style in fiction [M]. London and New York: Longman.1981
Leow, R. P. To simplify or not to simplify: A look at intake [J]. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition.1993,15(3):333-355.
Leow, R. P. Modality and intake in second language acquisition [J]. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition.1995,17(1):79-89.
Levy, M. Computer-assisted language learning: context and conceptualization [M].New York: Oxford University Press.1997.
Levy, M.&Stockwell, G. Call dimensions: options and issues in computer-assistedlanguage learning [M]. London: Lawrence erlbaum associates publishers.2006.
Lewis, M. The Lexical Approach: The State of ELT and the Way Forward [M]. Hove,England: Language Teaching Publications.1993.
Lewis M. Implementing the Lexical Approach: Putting Theory into Practice [M].Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications.1997.
Linnarud, M. Lexis in composition: A performance analysis of Swedish learners’written English. Malmo, Sweden: LiberF&lag Malmo.1986.
Louw, B. Irony in the Text or Insincerity in the Writer? The Diagnostic Potential ofSemantic Prosodies[A]. In M. Baker, G. Francis&E. Tognini-Bonelli(eds.). Textand Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,1993:156-159.
MacWhinney, B. The competition model: The input, the context, and the brain [A]. InPeter Robinson (ed.). Cognition and Second Language Instruction [C].Cambridge: University Press,2001:69-90.
McClure, E. A comparison of lexical strategies in L1and L2written Englishnarratives[J]. Pragmatics and Language Learning.1991,2:141-154.
McEnery, T., A. Wilson. Corpus Linguistics(2ndedition)[M]. Edinburgh UniversityPress,2001.
Meara, P. The dimensions of lexical competence [A]. In: Brown, G. et al.Performance and Competence in Second Language Acquisition [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1996:35-53.
Meara P. Towards a new approach to modeling vocabulary acquisition[A]. In:Schmitt N and M McCarthy. Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1997:109-121.
Melk, F. Receptive vs. productive aspects of vocabulary. In: Schmitt&M. McCarthy(Eds.). Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy[C]. New York:Cambridge University Press,1997.
Moon R. Vocabulary connections: multi-word items in English [A]. In: Schmitt N andM McCarthy. Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy [C].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1997:40-63.
Nation, I. S. P. How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening?[J]. TheCanadian Modern Language Review.2006,63(1):59-82.
Nattinger, J. R.&DeCarrico, J. S. Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching [M].Oxford: Oxford University Press.1992.
Oxford R. Language Learning Strategies [M]. New York: Newbury House,1990.
Patrikis, P. C. The evolution of computer technology in foreign language teaching andlearning [A]. In: Debski, R. Gassin, J.&Smith, M.(Eds.). Language learningthrough social computing [C].Parkville, Australia: Applied LinguisticsAssociation of Australia.1997:159-177.
Postman, N. Technology: the surrender of culture to technology [M]. New York:Vintage.1993.
Pawley, A.,&F. Syder. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Native-like selection andnative-like fluency.[A]. In Schmidt, J. R. R.(Ed.), Language and Communica-tion [C]. London: Longman.1983:191-226.
Prince P. Second language vocabulary learning: The role of context versus
translations as a function of proficiency [J]. The Modern Language Journal.1996,(80):478-493.
Raimes, A. What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study ofcomposing [J]. TESOL Quarterly.1985,(19):229-258.
Read, J. Assessing vocabulary[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.2000.
Reid, J. Responding to different topic types: A quantitative analysis from a contrastiverhetoric perspective. In B. Kroll (ed.). Second language writing: Research insightsfor the classroom[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1990:198
Robinson, G. Effective feedback strategies in CALL: learning theory and empiricalresearch [A]. In: P. Dunkel (Eds.), Computer-assisted language learning andtesting [C]. New York: Newbury House.1991:155-167.
Robinson, P. Syllabus design[A]. In: M. Long&C. Doughty (eds.). Handbook ofLanguage Teaching[M]. Oxford: Blackwell.2009.
Rogers, E. Diffusion of Innovations [M]. New York: Free Press.1995.
Sharkey N. Connectionist Natural Language Processing [A]. Readings fromConnection Science [C]. Oxford: Intellect books,1992.
Schmidt, R. Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency[J].Second Language Acquisition.1992(14):357-385.
Schmitt N. Vocabulary learning strategies [A]. In: Schmitt N and M McCarthy.Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy [C]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.1997:199-227.
Shehadeh, A. Comprehensible output, from occurrence to acquisition: An agenda foracquisition research [J]. Language Learning.2002,52(3):597-647.
Sheppard, K. Two feedback types: Do they make a difference?[J]. RELC Journal,1992（23）:103~110.
Shook, D, J. What foreign language reading recalls reveal about the input-to-intakephenomenon [J]. Applied Language Learning.1999,10(1&2):39-76.
Simpson, R.&J. Swales. Introduction: North American perspectives on corpuslinguistics at the millennium[A]. In: R. Simpson&J. Swales(eds.). CorpusLinguistics in North America [C]. Michigan: The University of MichiganPress.2001.
Sinclair, J.&A. Renouf. A lexical syllabus for language learning [A]. In: R. Carter&M. McCarthy (eds.). Vocabulary and Language Teaching [C]. London: Longman.1988.
Svartvik, J. Corpora are becoming mainstream[A]. In: J. Thomas&M. Short. UsingCorpora for Language Research[C]. London: Longman.1996.
Swain, M. Communication competence: Some roles of comprehensible input andcomprehensible output in its development [A]. In: S. Gass&C. Madden (eds.).In-put in Second Language Acquisition [C]. Boston: Heinle&Heinle.1985:235-253.
Stern, H. H. Fundamental concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.1983.
Swain, M. Three functions of output in second language learning [A]. In: G. Cook&B Seidlhofer (eds.). Principles of and Practice in App lied Linguistics [C].Oxford: Oxford University Press,1995:125-144.
Swain, M. Communicative competence: some role of comprehensible input andcomprehensible output in its development[A]. In: Gass and Madden(Eds.). Inputin SLA [M]. Rowley, Mass: Newburry House.1985.
Terrell T. Acquisition in the natural approach: the binding/access framework [J].Modern Language Journal.1986,(70):3:213-27.
Thorndike, E. The Teacher’s Word Book [M]. New York: Teachers College,Columbia University.1921.
Thorndike, E.1932. A Teacher’s Word Book of20,000Words [M]. New York:Teachers College, Columbia University.1932.
Tognini-Bonelli, E. Corpus Linguistics at Work [M].Amsterdam: John Benjamins.2001.
Tribble, C.&G. Jones. Concordances in the Classroom [M]. London: Longman.1990.
Waller, T. Characteristics of near-native proficiency in writing[A]. In: H. Ringbom(ed.), Near-native proficiency in English[C]. Abo: Abo Akademic University.1993:183-294.
Walshe, R. D. What’s basic to teaching writing?[J]. English Journal,1979,68:51~6.
Warchauer, A Developmental Perspective on Technology in Language Education[J].TESOL Quarterly,2002(36):453-475.
Weigle, S. C. Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.2002.
West, L. A General Service List of English Words [M]. London: Longman.1953.
Widdowson, H. G. On the limitation of linguistics applied [J]. Applied Linguistics2000,21,1:35.
Willis, J.&D. Willis. Collins COBUILD English Course[M]. London: HarperCollins.1988.
Willis, D. The Lexical Syllabus: A New Approach to Language Teaching [M].London: Collins ELT.1990.
Willis, D. Rules, Patterns and Words: Grammar and Lexis in English LanguageTeaching[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.2003.
Yang, Yonglin. Trends in the teaching of English writing [J]. Language Learning,1995,(12):71~74.
Yoon, H.&Hirvela, A. ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2writing[J].Journal of Second Language Writing.2004,13(4):257-283.Zimmerman C. B. Historical trends in second language vocabulary instruction [A].In：Coady, J. and T. Huckin. Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition[C].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1997:5-19.
Zipf, G. The Psycho-Biology of Language: An Introduction to DynamicPhilology[M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.1935/1965.
陈鹤琴.语体文应用字汇[M].上海：商务印书馆.载陈秀云、陈一飞（编）.陈鹤琴全集（第六卷）[M].南京：江苏教育出版社.1928:55-114.
陈坚林.现代英语教学组织与管理[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000.
陈坚林.现代外语教学研究—理论与方法[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2004.
陈坚林.大学英语教学新模式下计算机网络与外语课程的有机整合—对计算机“辅助”外语教学概念的生态学考察[J].外语电化教学，2006，（12）：3--10
陈坚林.计算机网络与外语课程的整合---一项基于大学英语教学改革的研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2010.
陈坚林、赵学旻.关于编制商务英语立体教材的探讨[J].外语电化教学，2003,(6）:44-47.
陈建林.大学英语专业学生作文中词汇丰富性研究—基于CEW语料库的跨体裁对比研究[A].见邹申.英语专业写作教学语料库建设与研究[M].上海：复旦大学出版社，2011.
陈伟平.增强学生词块意识，提高学生写作能力[J].外语界，2008:48-53.
崔淑珍.西方英语写作学的元学科研究[D].上海：上海外国语大学，2009.
戴炜栋,张雪梅.对我国英语专业本科教学的反思[J].外语界,2007,(4).
邓联健、杨烈祥.二语习得中的吸收假设[J].外语教学,2006,(3):46-50.
刁琳琳.英语本科生词块能力调查[J].解放军外国语学院学报，2004,(4）：35-38.
董洪学、初胜华.基于计算机网络语料库驱动的英语写作教学模式研究[J].外语电化教学,2010,(5)：27-32.
方玲、汪兴富.美国当代英语语料库（COCA）的自主学习应用[J].中国外语，2010，（6）：79-84.
高翔.语言输入理论的认知分析[J].外语与外语教学,2005(6):15-17.
桂诗春.新编心理语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
桂诗春、杨惠中.中国学习者英语语料库[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2003.
桂诗春.语用域意识与二语习得[J],中国外语教育，2008，（1）
桂诗春.基于语料库的英语专业语言学语体分析[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2009
桂诗春、冯志伟、杨惠中、何安平、卫乃兴、李文中、梁茂成.语料库语言学与中国外语教学[J].现代外语（季刊），2010，（4）：419-426.
郭强.论基于网络的英语专业学生毕业论文写作教学[J].外语与外语教学,2004,(10):18-21.
何安平.语料库辅助英语教学入门[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2010.
何宇茵.基于美国当代英语语料库的中国文化词汇研究[J].山东外语教学，2010,(1）：8.
胡文仲.建国60年来我国外语教育的成就与缺失[J].外语界,2009,(5).
纪小凌.范写与读写结合对英语写作水平影响的比较研究[J].2009,(5):65-71
蒋婷，杨梅.数据驱动学习与专业英语写作创新[J].重庆大学学报（社会科学版），2006，（6）：115-120.
雷蕾、韦瑶瑜.VocbProfile在英语教学中的应用[J].外语电化教学,2005,(4):104.
李红.可理解性输出假设的认知基础[J].外语与外语教学,2002(2):10-12.
李文中.语料库，学习者语料库与外语教学[J].外语界，1999，（1）.
梁茂成、李文中、许家金.语料库应用教程[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2010.
梁茂成、熊文新.文本分析工具PatCount在外语教学与研究中的应用[J].外语电化教学，2008，（5）：71-76.
刘东虹.词汇量在英语写作中的作用[J].现代外语，2003，（4）.
卢仁顺.“输出假设”研究对我国英语教学的启示[J].外语与外语教学,2002(4):34-37.
罗时英.语料库在英语专业写作教学中的应用[J].温州职业技术学院学报，2011，（1）：89-92.
罗时英.致使动词get的语义韵与语用特征---一项基于COCA的研究[J].解放军外国语学院学报，2011（1）.
马广惠、文秋芳.大学生英语写作能力的影响因素研究.外语教学与研究.1999,(4):34-39.
繆海燕,孙蓝.非词汇化高频动词搭配的组块效应---一项基于语料库的研究[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2005,(3):40-44.
濮建忠.英语词汇教学中的类联接、搭配及词块[J].外语教学与研究，2003，（6）：438—445.
束定芳.外语教学改革：问题与对策[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2004.
唐锦兰、吴一安.在线英语写作自动评价系统应用研究述评[J].外语教学与研究,2011,(2).
唐叶青、苏玉洁.功能语言学视角下的英语专业写作教材研究[J].外语界，2009（6）
滕延江、刘世铸.基于语料库的英语写作教学新模式[J].外语电化教学，2006（6）：49-54.
汪榕培.英语词汇学高级教程[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2002.
汪兴富，Mark Davies，刘国辉.美国当代英语语料库（COCA）-英语教学与研究的良好平[J].外语电化教学，2008（5）：27-33.
王初明、牛瑞英、郑小湘.以写促学[J].外语教学与研究,2000,(3):207-212.
王初明.外语“写长法”的教学理念[A].外国语言学及应用语言学研究[M].北京：中央编译出版社，2002：99-105.
王克非.语库分析，循此门径---序[A].见：桂诗春.基于语料库的英语语言学语体分析[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2009.
王金、蔡慧萍、罗毅.基于网络平台的体验英语写作模式研究[J].外语电化教学，2012:22-26.
王俊菊.二语写作认知心理过程研究评述[J].外语界，2007，（5）：2-9.
王立非，梁茂成.计算机辅助第二语言研究方法与应用[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2007：64-67.
王颖.基于语料库的大学英语词汇教学[J].长沙大学学报，2005，（1）：119-121.
王智兰.古代庐山文化的形成与发展[D].厦门：厦门大学，2002.
王佐良、丁往道.英语文体学引论[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2001.
卫乃兴.典型搭配、中间语搭配和异常搭配[A].见杨惠中、桂诗春、杨达复.基于CLEC语料库的中国学习者英语分析[A].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2005
文秋芳，王立非，梁茂成.中国学生英语口笔语语料库（2.0版）.北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2005.
许家金.词汇中心教学法的交际观---理论溯源与反思[J].中国外语教育，2009，（4）：38-45.
徐启龙.基于网络语料库的英语新词用法调查研究—以Google为例[J].外语电化教学，2011（1）.
杨慧、隗雪燕.网络写作课“写作学习语料库”中的教师评阅[J].外语电化教学,2005,(4):40~43.
杨惠中.语料库语言学导论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2002.
杨节之.网络语料库与课堂英语教学[J].外语电化教学，2004，（5）：46-51.
杨丽芳.移动学习在大学英语词汇学习中的应用[J].外语电化教学，2012，（4）：54-58.
杨永林.体验英语写作[Z].北京：高等教育出版社，2004.
杨玉晨.英语词汇的板块性及其对英语教学的启示[J].外语界，1999,（3）：24-27.
阳志清,刘晓玲.外语学习效率模式理论框架[J].外语与外语教学,2002(1):37-40.
于飞、张慧芳.写作教学中的“成果教学法”、“过程教学法”和“内容教学法”浅析[J].外语界，1996，（3）：38-40.
张继东.英语专业学生书面写作的发展特征研究[A].见邹申.英语专业写作教学语料库建设与建设[M].上海：复旦大学出版社，2011:71
张键.传媒新词英译：问题与对策[D].上海:上海外国语大学，2008.
张金福.指导学生利用网络语料库自我修改英语作文[J].疯狂英语（教师版），2009，（2）：24-28.
赵继政.背诵对英语语块习得的影响[J].外语教学理论与实践，2008,(4):45-49.
赵慰彬.从动/名词搭配失误看母语迁移对二语习得的影响[A].见基于CLEC语料库的中国学习者英语分析[C].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2005:284.
甄凤超.语料库数据驱动的外语学习思想、方法和技术[J].2005
郑佩芸.基于网络书面实时交流的大学英语口语拓展教学研究[D].上海：上海外国语大学，2011.
郑树堂、卫乃兴.关于大学英语课培养语言能力等情况的研究[J].外语界，1996，（4）.
郑玉荣.基于历时学习者语料库的中国英语专业学生词汇与句法发展研究[D].上海：上海外国语大学，2011.
周文娟.基于“云”资源的英语泛在生态学习研究[J].2012，（4）：49-53.
邹申.英语专业写作教学语料库建设与建设[M].上海：复旦大学出版社，2011.
高等学校外语专业教学指导委员会英语组.高等学校英语专业英语教学大纲[Z].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000.
Arnaud, P. J. L. Objective Lexical and Grammatical Characteristics of L2WrittenCompositions and the Validity of Separate-component Tests [A]. P. J. L. Arnaud&H. Bejoint (eds.). Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics[C]. London: MacMillan,1992:133-145.
Bachman, L. F. Fundamental considerations in language testing[M]. New York:Oxford University Press.1990.
Bax, S. Putting technology in its place: ICT in modern foreign language learning [A].In: Field, K.(Eds.), Issues in Modern Foreign Language Teaching[C]. Routledge.2000:208-219.
Bax, S. CALL-past, present and future [J]. System.2003,31(1):13-18.
Beglar, D. A Rasch-based validation of the Vocabulary Size Test [J]. LanguageTesting,2010,27(1):101-118.
Bhtia,V. K. Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings[M].London: Longman.1993.
Bialystock, E. Acquisition of literacy in bilingual children [J]. Language Learning,2002,52(1):159-199.
Biber, D. University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.2006.
Canale, M&Swain, M. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to secondlanguage teaching and testing[J]. Applied Linguistics,1980,1:1-47.
Chambers, A.&Bax, S. Making CALL work: towards normalization [J]. System,2006,(34):465-479.
Chaudron, C. In take: On models and methods for discovering learners' processing ofinput [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,1985,7(1):1-14.
Cook, V. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching[M]. London:Routledge,1991:40.
Corder, S. P. The significance of learner's errors [J]. International Review of AppliedLinguistics in Language Teaching,1967(5):161-170.
Cortes, V. Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examplesfrom history and biology [J]. English for Specific Purposes.2004,(23):397-423.
Coxhead，A. A New Academic Word List [J].TESOL Quarterly.2000,34(2):230-238.
Davie, M. The advantage of using relational databases for large corpora: speed,advanced queries, and unlimited annotation [J]. International Journal of CorpusLinguistics.2005，（10）：301—28.
Davie, M. The360million word Corpus of Contemporary American English.(1900-2007)[A]. Unpublished manuscript. Paper presented an AmericanAssociation for Corpus Linguistics,2008.
Ellis N. Vocabulary acquisition: The implicit ins and outs of explicit cognitivemediation[A]. Ellis N. Implicit and explicit learning of languages[C]. New York:Academic Press,1994.211-282.
Ellis N. Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order[J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.1996,(18):91-126.
Ellis N. Cognitive approaches to SLA [J]. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics.1999,(19):22-42.
Ellis, R. The Study of Second Language Acquisition[M]. Oxford University Press,1994.
Elman J. L. et al. Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development[M]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press,1996.
Engber, C. A. The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESLcompositions [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing.1995,4(2):139-155.
Farris, C. R. Current composition: Beyond process vs. product [J]. English Journal1987,76:28-34.
Flower, L.&J. R. Hayes. A cognitive process theory of writing [J]. College English.1981,44:765-77.
Fureaux, Clare. Process writing[A]. In Johnson, K.&H. Johnson(eds.), EncyclopedicDictionary of Applied Linguistics[Z].1998:257~260. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gass, S. Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies[J].Applied Linguistics.1988,(9):198-217.
Gass, M. S.&Selinker, L. Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course[M]. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers,2001.
Gass S. and L. Selinker. Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course [M].NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,2001.
Grabe, W. Written discourse analysis. In R. B. Kaplan, A d’Anglejan, J. R. Cowan, B.Kachru, G. R. Tucker,&H. Widdowson (eds.), Annual review of appliedlinguistics (Vol.5)[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press.1985:101-123.
Grabe W.&Kaplan, R. B. Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguisticperspective [M]. New York: Longman.1996.
Granger, S.(ed.). Learner English on Computer. Addison Wesley Longman, London&New York.1998.
Granger, S., E. Dagneaux&F. Meunier (ed.). International Corpus of LearnerEnglish. UCL Presses Universitaires de Louvain.2002.
Granger, S., Huang, J.&petch-Tyson, S.(ed.). Computer Learner Corpura, SecondLanguage Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. Language Learning andLanguage Teaching6. Benjamins, Amsterdam&Philadelphia.2002.
Halliday, M. A. K., McIntosh, A.&Strevens, P. The Linguistic Sciences andLanguage Teaching [M]. London: Longmans.1964
Halliday,M.A.K.Corpus studies and probabilistic grammar[A]. In Aijmer, K.&Altenberg, B.(eds.) English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of JanSvartvik [C]. London and New York: Longman.1991.
Halliday,M.A.K.1993.Quantitative studies and probabilities in grammar. In MichaelHoey (ed).Data, Description, Discourse [C]. London: HarpeCollins Publisher.1993:1-25.
Harley, B.&King, M. L. Verb lexis in the written compositions of young L2learners[J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,1989,2:415-440.
Haussler H. Corpora and Their Use in Research and Teaching [EB/OC]. Http://folk.Quoi. No/hassled/us-corpora, html.2001.
Henriksen B. Three dimensions of vocabulary development [J]. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition.1999,(21):303-318.
Henry, A. R. Second Language Rhetoric in Process: A Comparison of Arabic,Chinese, and Spanish [M]. New York: Peter Lang.1993:125-268.
Hill J. Collocational competence [J]. English Teaching Professional.1999,(11):3-6.
Hunston, S.&G. Francis. Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-driven Approach to theLexical Grammar of English [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.2000.
Hymes, D. H. On communicative competence[A]. In: J. B. Pride&J. Holmes (eds.),Sociolinguistics. Selected Readings[C]. Harmondsworth: Penguin.1972:269-293.
Ito, Y. Effect of reduced forms on ESL learners' input–intake process [J]. SecondLanguage Studies,2001,20(1):99-124.
Izumi, S. Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: Insearch of the psycholinguistics rational of the output hypothesis [J]. AppliedLinguistics.2003,24(2):168-192.
James W. Psychology: Briefer Course [M]. MIT Press.1890.
Johns, T. Data-driven learning: The perpetual challenge. In B. Kettemann&G. Marko(eds.). Teaching and Learning by Doing Corpus Analysis. Amsterdam: Rodopi.2002:107-117.
Kaeding, F. H ufigkeitsw rterbuch der deutschen Sprache [M]. Steglitz bei Berlin:Selbstverlag des Herausgebers.1898.
Kennedy, G. An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics[M]. London: Longman.1998.
Krashen, S. D. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implication [M]. London:Longman,1985:87.
Krashen, S. The input hypthesis:issues and implications [M]. London: Longman,1986.
Krashen, S. Comprehensible output?[J]. System.1998(26):175-182.
Kumaravadivelu, B. Understanding Language Teaching: From Method toPostmethod [M]. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum,2006.
Langacker, R. Cognitive grammar as a basis for language instruction [A]. In RobinsonP&Ellis, N.(eds.). Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics[C]. New York andLondon: Routledge.2008:66-88.
Larsen-Freeman, D. Chaos/Complexity science and second language acquisition [J].Applied Linguistics,1997,18(2).
Lave, J.&E. Wenger. Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral Participation [M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1999.
Laufer, B.&Nation, P. Vocabulary size and use: lexical richness in L2writtenproduction[J]. Applied Linguistics.1995,16(3):307-322.
Leech,G. The State of the Art in Corpus Linguistics [A]. In Aijmer, K.&Altenberg,B.(eds.) English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik[C].London and New York: Longman.1991.
Leech, G.“Preface”, Learner English on Computer. Longman, New York.1998.
Leech，G.&M. Short. Style in fiction [M]. London and New York: Longman.1981
Leow, R. P. To simplify or not to simplify: A look at intake [J]. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition.1993,15(3):333-355.
Leow, R. P. Modality and intake in second language acquisition [J]. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition.1995,17(1):79-89.
Levy, M. Computer-assisted language learning: context and conceptualization [M].New York: Oxford University Press.1997.
Levy, M.&Stockwell, G. Call dimensions: options and issues in computer-assistedlanguage learning [M]. London: Lawrence erlbaum associates publishers.2006.
Lewis, M. The Lexical Approach: The State of ELT and the Way Forward [M]. Hove,England: Language Teaching Publications.1993.
Lewis M. Implementing the Lexical Approach: Putting Theory into Practice [M].Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications.1997.
Linnarud, M. Lexis in composition: A performance analysis of Swedish learners’written English. Malmo, Sweden: LiberF&lag Malmo.1986.
Louw, B. Irony in the Text or Insincerity in the Writer? The Diagnostic Potential ofSemantic Prosodies[A]. In M. Baker, G. Francis&E. Tognini-Bonelli(eds.). Textand Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,1993:156-159.
MacWhinney, B. The competition model: The input, the context, and the brain [A]. InPeter Robinson (ed.). Cognition and Second Language Instruction [C].Cambridge: University Press,2001:69-90.
McClure, E. A comparison of lexical strategies in L1and L2written Englishnarratives[J]. Pragmatics and Language Learning.1991,2:141-154.
McEnery, T., A. Wilson. Corpus Linguistics(2ndedition)[M]. Edinburgh UniversityPress,2001.
Meara, P. The dimensions of lexical competence [A]. In: Brown, G. et al.Performance and Competence in Second Language Acquisition [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1996:35-53.
Meara P. Towards a new approach to modeling vocabulary acquisition[A]. In:Schmitt N and M McCarthy. Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1997:109-121.
Melk, F. Receptive vs. productive aspects of vocabulary. In: Schmitt&M. McCarthy(Eds.). Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy[C]. New York:Cambridge University Press,1997.
Moon R. Vocabulary connections: multi-word items in English [A]. In: Schmitt N andM McCarthy. Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy [C].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1997:40-63.
Nation, I. S. P. How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening?[J]. TheCanadian Modern Language Review.2006,63(1):59-82.
Nattinger, J. R.&DeCarrico, J. S. Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching [M].Oxford: Oxford University Press.1992.
Oxford R. Language Learning Strategies [M]. New York: Newbury House,1990.
Patrikis, P. C. The evolution of computer technology in foreign language teaching andlearning [A]. In: Debski, R. Gassin, J.&Smith, M.(Eds.). Language learningthrough social computing [C].Parkville, Australia: Applied LinguisticsAssociation of Australia.1997:159-177.
Postman, N. Technology: the surrender of culture to technology [M]. New York:Vintage.1993.
Pawley, A.,&F. Syder. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Native-like selection andnative-like fluency.[A]. In Schmidt, J. R. R.(Ed.), Language and Communica-tion [C]. London: Longman.1983:191-226.
Prince P. Second language vocabulary learning: The role of context versus
translations as a function of proficiency [J]. The Modern Language Journal.1996,(80):478-493.
Raimes, A. What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study ofcomposing [J]. TESOL Quarterly.1985,(19):229-258.
Read, J. Assessing vocabulary[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.2000.
Reid, J. Responding to different topic types: A quantitative analysis from a contrastiverhetoric perspective. In B. Kroll (ed.). Second language writing: Research insightsfor the classroom[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1990:198
Robinson, G. Effective feedback strategies in CALL: learning theory and empiricalresearch [A]. In: P. Dunkel (Eds.), Computer-assisted language learning andtesting [C]. New York: Newbury House.1991:155-167.
Robinson, P. Syllabus design[A]. In: M. Long&C. Doughty (eds.). Handbook ofLanguage Teaching[M]. Oxford: Blackwell.2009.
Rogers, E. Diffusion of Innovations [M]. New York: Free Press.1995.
Sharkey N. Connectionist Natural Language Processing [A]. Readings fromConnection Science [C]. Oxford: Intellect books,1992.
Schmidt, R. Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency[J].Second Language Acquisition.1992(14):357-385.
Schmitt N. Vocabulary learning strategies [A]. In: Schmitt N and M McCarthy.Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy [C]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.1997:199-227.
Shehadeh, A. Comprehensible output, from occurrence to acquisition: An agenda foracquisition research [J]. Language Learning.2002,52(3):597-647.
Sheppard, K. Two feedback types: Do they make a difference?[J]. RELC Journal,1992（23）:103~110.
Shook, D, J. What foreign language reading recalls reveal about the input-to-intakephenomenon [J]. Applied Language Learning.1999,10(1&2):39-76.
Simpson, R.&J. Swales. Introduction: North American perspectives on corpuslinguistics at the millennium[A]. In: R. Simpson&J. Swales(eds.). CorpusLinguistics in North America [C]. Michigan: The University of MichiganPress.2001.
Sinclair, J.&A. Renouf. A lexical syllabus for language learning [A]. In: R. Carter&M. McCarthy (eds.). Vocabulary and Language Teaching [C]. London: Longman.1988.
Svartvik, J. Corpora are becoming mainstream[A]. In: J. Thomas&M. Short. UsingCorpora for Language Research[C]. London: Longman.1996.
Swain, M. Communication competence: Some roles of comprehensible input andcomprehensible output in its development [A]. In: S. Gass&C. Madden (eds.).In-put in Second Language Acquisition [C]. Boston: Heinle&Heinle.1985:235-253.
Stern, H. H. Fundamental concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.1983.
Swain, M. Three functions of output in second language learning [A]. In: G. Cook&B Seidlhofer (eds.). Principles of and Practice in App lied Linguistics [C].Oxford: Oxford University Press,1995:125-144.
Swain, M. Communicative competence: some role of comprehensible input andcomprehensible output in its development[A]. In: Gass and Madden(Eds.). Inputin SLA [M]. Rowley, Mass: Newburry House.1985.
Terrell T. Acquisition in the natural approach: the binding/access framework [J].Modern Language Journal.1986,(70):3:213-27.
Thorndike, E. The Teacher’s Word Book [M]. New York: Teachers College,Columbia University.1921.
Thorndike, E.1932. A Teacher’s Word Book of20,000Words [M]. New York:Teachers College, Columbia University.1932.
Tognini-Bonelli, E. Corpus Linguistics at Work [M].Amsterdam: John Benjamins.2001.
Tribble, C.&G. Jones. Concordances in the Classroom [M]. London: Longman.1990.
Waller, T. Characteristics of near-native proficiency in writing[A]. In: H. Ringbom(ed.), Near-native proficiency in English[C]. Abo: Abo Akademic University.1993:183-294.
Walshe, R. D. What’s basic to teaching writing?[J]. English Journal,1979,68:51~6.
Warchauer, A Developmental Perspective on Technology in Language Education[J].TESOL Quarterly,2002(36):453-475.
Weigle, S. C. Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.2002.
West, L. A General Service List of English Words [M]. London: Longman.1953.
Widdowson, H. G. On the limitation of linguistics applied [J]. Applied Linguistics2000,21,1:35.
Willis, J.&D. Willis. Collins COBUILD English Course[M]. London: HarperCollins.1988.
Willis, D. The Lexical Syllabus: A New Approach to Language Teaching [M].London: Collins ELT.1990.
Willis, D. Rules, Patterns and Words: Grammar and Lexis in English LanguageTeaching[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.2003.
Yang, Yonglin. Trends in the teaching of English writing [J]. Language Learning,1995,(12):71~74.
Yoon, H.&Hirvela, A. ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2writing[J].Journal of Second Language Writing.2004,13(4):257-283.Zimmerman C. B. Historical trends in second language vocabulary instruction [A].In：Coady, J. and T. Huckin. Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition[C].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1997:5-19.
Zipf, G. The Psycho-Biology of Language: An Introduction to DynamicPhilology[M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.1935/1965.
陈鹤琴.语体文应用字汇[M].上海：商务印书馆.载陈秀云、陈一飞（编）.陈鹤琴全集（第六卷）[M].南京：江苏教育出版社.1928:55-114.
陈坚林.现代英语教学组织与管理[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000.
陈坚林.现代外语教学研究—理论与方法[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2004.
陈坚林.大学英语教学新模式下计算机网络与外语课程的有机整合—对计算机“辅助”外语教学概念的生态学考察[J].外语电化教学，2006，（12）：3--10
陈坚林.计算机网络与外语课程的整合---一项基于大学英语教学改革的研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2010.
陈坚林、赵学旻.关于编制商务英语立体教材的探讨[J].外语电化教学，2003,(6）:44-47.
陈建林.大学英语专业学生作文中词汇丰富性研究—基于CEW语料库的跨体裁对比研究[A].见邹申.英语专业写作教学语料库建设与研究[M].上海：复旦大学出版社，2011.
陈伟平.增强学生词块意识，提高学生写作能力[J].外语界，2008:48-53.
崔淑珍.西方英语写作学的元学科研究[D].上海：上海外国语大学，2009.
戴炜栋,张雪梅.对我国英语专业本科教学的反思[J].外语界,2007,(4).
邓联健、杨烈祥.二语习得中的吸收假设[J].外语教学,2006,(3):46-50.
刁琳琳.英语本科生词块能力调查[J].解放军外国语学院学报，2004,(4）：35-38.
董洪学、初胜华.基于计算机网络语料库驱动的英语写作教学模式研究[J].外语电化教学,2010,(5)：27-32.
方玲、汪兴富.美国当代英语语料库（COCA）的自主学习应用[J].中国外语，2010，（6）：79-84.
高翔.语言输入理论的认知分析[J].外语与外语教学,2005(6):15-17.
桂诗春.新编心理语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
桂诗春、杨惠中.中国学习者英语语料库[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2003.
桂诗春.语用域意识与二语习得[J],中国外语教育，2008，（1）
桂诗春.基于语料库的英语专业语言学语体分析[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2009
桂诗春、冯志伟、杨惠中、何安平、卫乃兴、李文中、梁茂成.语料库语言学与中国外语教学[J].现代外语（季刊），2010，（4）：419-426.
郭强.论基于网络的英语专业学生毕业论文写作教学[J].外语与外语教学,2004,(10):18-21.
何安平.语料库辅助英语教学入门[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2010.
何宇茵.基于美国当代英语语料库的中国文化词汇研究[J].山东外语教学，2010,(1）：8.
胡文仲.建国60年来我国外语教育的成就与缺失[J].外语界,2009,(5).
纪小凌.范写与读写结合对英语写作水平影响的比较研究[J].2009,(5):65-71
蒋婷，杨梅.数据驱动学习与专业英语写作创新[J].重庆大学学报（社会科学版），2006，（6）：115-120.
雷蕾、韦瑶瑜.VocbProfile在英语教学中的应用[J].外语电化教学,2005,(4):104.
李红.可理解性输出假设的认知基础[J].外语与外语教学,2002(2):10-12.
李文中.语料库，学习者语料库与外语教学[J].外语界，1999，（1）.
梁茂成、李文中、许家金.语料库应用教程[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2010.
梁茂成、熊文新.文本分析工具PatCount在外语教学与研究中的应用[J].外语电化教学，2008，（5）：71-76.
刘东虹.词汇量在英语写作中的作用[J].现代外语，2003，（4）.
卢仁顺.“输出假设”研究对我国英语教学的启示[J].外语与外语教学,2002(4):34-37.
罗时英.语料库在英语专业写作教学中的应用[J].温州职业技术学院学报，2011，（1）：89-92.
罗时英.致使动词get的语义韵与语用特征---一项基于COCA的研究[J].解放军外国语学院学报，2011（1）.
马广惠、文秋芳.大学生英语写作能力的影响因素研究.外语教学与研究.1999,(4):34-39.
繆海燕,孙蓝.非词汇化高频动词搭配的组块效应---一项基于语料库的研究[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2005,(3):40-44.
濮建忠.英语词汇教学中的类联接、搭配及词块[J].外语教学与研究，2003，（6）：438—445.
束定芳.外语教学改革：问题与对策[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2004.
唐锦兰、吴一安.在线英语写作自动评价系统应用研究述评[J].外语教学与研究,2011,(2).
唐叶青、苏玉洁.功能语言学视角下的英语专业写作教材研究[J].外语界，2009（6）
滕延江、刘世铸.基于语料库的英语写作教学新模式[J].外语电化教学，2006（6）：49-54.
汪榕培.英语词汇学高级教程[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2002.
汪兴富，Mark Davies，刘国辉.美国当代英语语料库（COCA）-英语教学与研究的良好平[J].外语电化教学，2008（5）：27-33.
王初明、牛瑞英、郑小湘.以写促学[J].外语教学与研究,2000,(3):207-212.
王初明.外语“写长法”的教学理念[A].外国语言学及应用语言学研究[M].北京：中央编译出版社，2002：99-105.
王克非.语库分析，循此门径---序[A].见：桂诗春.基于语料库的英语语言学语体分析[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2009.
王金、蔡慧萍、罗毅.基于网络平台的体验英语写作模式研究[J].外语电化教学，2012:22-26.
王俊菊.二语写作认知心理过程研究评述[J].外语界，2007，（5）：2-9.
王立非，梁茂成.计算机辅助第二语言研究方法与应用[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2007：64-67.
王颖.基于语料库的大学英语词汇教学[J].长沙大学学报，2005，（1）：119-121.
王智兰.古代庐山文化的形成与发展[D].厦门：厦门大学，2002.
王佐良、丁往道.英语文体学引论[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2001.
卫乃兴.典型搭配、中间语搭配和异常搭配[A].见杨惠中、桂诗春、杨达复.基于CLEC语料库的中国学习者英语分析[A].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2005
文秋芳，王立非，梁茂成.中国学生英语口笔语语料库（2.0版）.北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2005.
许家金.词汇中心教学法的交际观---理论溯源与反思[J].中国外语教育，2009，（4）：38-45.
徐启龙.基于网络语料库的英语新词用法调查研究—以Google为例[J].外语电化教学，2011（1）.
杨慧、隗雪燕.网络写作课“写作学习语料库”中的教师评阅[J].外语电化教学,2005,(4):40~43.
杨惠中.语料库语言学导论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2002.
杨节之.网络语料库与课堂英语教学[J].外语电化教学，2004，（5）：46-51.
杨丽芳.移动学习在大学英语词汇学习中的应用[J].外语电化教学，2012，（4）：54-58.
杨永林.体验英语写作[Z].北京：高等教育出版社，2004.
杨玉晨.英语词汇的板块性及其对英语教学的启示[J].外语界，1999,（3）：24-27.
阳志清,刘晓玲.外语学习效率模式理论框架[J].外语与外语教学,2002(1):37-40.
于飞、张慧芳.写作教学中的“成果教学法”、“过程教学法”和“内容教学法”浅析[J].外语界，1996，（3）：38-40.
张继东.英语专业学生书面写作的发展特征研究[A].见邹申.英语专业写作教学语料库建设与建设[M].上海：复旦大学出版社，2011:71
张键.传媒新词英译：问题与对策[D].上海:上海外国语大学，2008.
张金福.指导学生利用网络语料库自我修改英语作文[J].疯狂英语（教师版），2009，（2）：24-28.
赵继政.背诵对英语语块习得的影响[J].外语教学理论与实践，2008,(4):45-49.
赵慰彬.从动/名词搭配失误看母语迁移对二语习得的影响[A].见基于CLEC语料库的中国学习者英语分析[C].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2005:284.
甄凤超.语料库数据驱动的外语学习思想、方法和技术[J].2005
郑佩芸.基于网络书面实时交流的大学英语口语拓展教学研究[D].上海：上海外国语大学，2011.
郑树堂、卫乃兴.关于大学英语课培养语言能力等情况的研究[J].外语界，1996，（4）.
郑玉荣.基于历时学习者语料库的中国英语专业学生词汇与句法发展研究[D].上海：上海外国语大学，2011.
周文娟.基于“云”资源的英语泛在生态学习研究[J].2012，（4）：49-53.
邹申.英语专业写作教学语料库建设与建设[M].上海：复旦大学出版社，2011.
高等学校外语专业教学指导委员会英语组.高等学校英语专业英语教学大纲[Z].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000.