中国学习者英语心理动词语义组织和语义表征研究
|
摘要
心理动词作为表征人类心理活动动词的一个子类，近年来受到了越来越多国内外语言学家和心理学家的关注，其研究主要涉及心理动词的特征、组织、分类和语义组织等方面。
在传统的汉语语法动词分类中，把属于心理活动的动词作为一个词类来研究由来已久。早在1898年，马建忠就在其所著的《马氏文通》中对心理动词的定义和分类进行了研究。吕叔湘（1942）则是较早明确地将心理动词单独列为一类，并以“心理活动”来命名的学者之一。此后，黎锦熙（1954）、黄伯荣和廖序东（1980,1997）、邢福义（1990）、周有斌和邵敬敏（1993）、王红斌（2002）、张积家和陆爱桃（2007）等一些国内学者围绕心理动词的判定、分类和语义组织等陆续进行了一些深入的研究，并逐步明确了“心理动词”这一概念。
国外对心理动词的研究主要以Davidson (1970)、Schwanenflugel et al（.1994，1996，1999）、Clark et al.(1996)、Alexander et al.（1998)、Olson et al.（2006)等人的研究为代表，主要涉及英语心理动词的组织特征与认知理论之间的关系、英语心理动词与建构主义心智理论发展观之间的关系、英语心理动词组织与智力水平不同的儿童心理活动元认知概念发展之间的关系、不同概念领域和不同文化中心理动词的组织特征等。
语言是人类心理活动的一种重要表现形式。作为表征人类心理活动的动词，心理动词与人们的认知和思维密切相关，它们可以在一定程度上反映出人们的认知水平与思维的复杂程度。透过语言镜像折射对中国学习者英语心理动词语义组织和语义表征进行研究，一方面可以使我们了解英语心理动词语义组织和语义表征在学习者大脑中的特征，另一方面可以使我们了解不同阶段学习者其英语学习认知思维的不同特点。
纵观国内外心理动词的研究，大多偏重理论方面的探讨，而在实证研究方面相对比较薄弱，尤其是在心理动词的语义组织、组织维度和语义表征等方面。因此，本课题将运用Bloom(1956)的认知领域分类理论和双语者的语义表征理论，以不同英语水平的中国学习者为研究对象，采用心理语言学中常用的问卷调查和基于反应时范式的内隐认知研究方法，对学习者大脑中英语心理动词的语义组织特征和语义表征特点进行研究。具体研究问题如下：
1．中国学习者大脑中英语心理动词的语义组织有何特征？
（1）中国学习者大脑中英语心理动词的语义组织具有哪些整体特征？不同水平二语学习者英语心理动词的语义组织各有哪些不同？
（2）中国学习者大脑中英语心理动词的语义分层组织具有哪些整体特征？不同水平二语学习者英语心理动词的语义分层组织各有哪些不同？
2．中国学习者英语心理动词的语义表征有何特点？
（3）中国学习者英语心理动词的语内语义表征有何整体特点？不同水平二语学习者英语心理动词的语内语义表征各有哪些不同？
（4）中国学习者英语心理动词的语际语义表征有何整体特点？不同水平二语学习者英语心理动词的语际语义表征各有哪些不同？
本研究采用问卷调查和语义启动范式来探究中国英语学习者大脑中英语心理动词的语义组织特征和语义表征特点。具体来说，我们进行了英语心理动词的自由分类问卷调查（实验一）、英语心理动词词对的相似性程度判断问卷调查（实验二）、英语心理动词语内语义启动效应检验（实验三）和英语心理动词语际语义启动效应检验（实验四）四个实验，从不同角度、不同层次考察了中国学习者英语心理动词的语义组织特征和语义表征特点。其中，实验一和实验二主要对第一个大问题做出回答，实验三和实验四则主要回答第二个大问题。
通过对实验数据的细致分析和讨论，本研究得出如下结论：
结论一表明，当我们把不同水平的二语学习者作为一个整体考察他们大脑中英语心理动词的语义组织特征时，多维标度分析和回归分析的结果显示，相对于一维模型和二维模型来讲，三维模型是学习者大脑中英语心理动词语义组织的最佳组织模式。对不同英语水平的学习者而言，无论他们处于英语学习的哪一个阶段，即无论是高中生、本科生或研究生，他们大脑中英语心理动词的语义组织都是比较相似的，三维模型均是模型拟合优度最好的一个模型，这说明学习者大脑中英语心理动词的最佳结构模型是三维组织模型。这三个组织维度分别是信息加工维度（information processing）、语义相关维度（semantic-relatedness）和确定性维度（certainty）。其中，“信息加工维度”占的比重最大，是学习者英语心理动词语义组织最明显的组织维度和属性特征。不过，“语义相关维度”和“确定性维度”所占的比重虽然偏小一些，但都是学习者英语心理动词语义组织必不可少的两个组织维度。
结论二表明，当我们把不同水平的二语学习者作为一个整体来考察他们大脑中英语心理动词语义分层组织的特征时，多维标度分析和分层聚类分析的结果显示，这些英语心理动词从最初的六个范畴经过五步的特征凝聚后，最终形成了以信息加工属性为主要特征的区分维度。对不同英语水平的学习者来讲，无论是高中生、本科生或研究生，总体来看，他们大脑中对英语心理动词的初始范畴属性和最终的范畴属性都是比较相似的，即经过五步的特征凝聚后，最后都形成了以信息加工属性为主要特征的区分维度，但中间也有一些明显的差别。具体来讲，高中生对英语心理动词的认知侧重于对“知识”和“理解”等认知领域内较低水平的把握，本科生侧重的是“分析”和“应用”等较为高级的认知水平，而到了研究生阶段，学习者对这些英语心理动词的认知活动则侧重于“综合”和“评估”等认知领域的高级水平。这说明，随着学习者英语水平的不断提高，他们对英语心理动词的知识重组能力和认知学习的水平也在不断提高，逐渐从认知学习的低级阶段过渡到认知学习的高级阶段。
结论三表明，当我们把不同水平的二语学习者作为一个整体来考察他们在英语心理动词语内语义启动效应检验中的表现时，T检验和方差分析的结果显示，学习者对有语义关系目标词的反应时间少于对无语义关系目标词的反应时间，但两者之间的时间差异不具有显著性。对不同英语水平的学习者来讲，除高中组外，其它两个组（本科组和研究生组）的被试对有语义关系目标词的反应识别时间均少于对无语义关系目标词的反应识别时间。不过，三个被试组内每两个不同的反应时间之间都不具有显著性差异。这表明，无论学习者处于哪一个英语学习阶段，从他们对英语心理动词提取的表现来看，其结果都没有显示出显著的语内语义相关特征，这进一步说明，学习者大脑中并不是按照语内语义相关原则对英语心理动词进行组织和贮存的。
结论四表明，当我们把不同水平的二语学习者作为一个整体来考察他们在英语心理动词语际语义启动效应检验中的表现时，T检验和方差分析的结果显示，学习者对语义对应目标词的反应时间普遍要少于对语义不对应目标词的反应时间，且两个不同的反应时间之间存在显著性差异。对不同英语水平的学习者来讲，无论是高中生、本科生或研究生，他们对语义对应目标词的反应时间均少于对语义不对应目标词的反应时间，且各个被试组内两个不同的反应时间之间均存在显著性差别。这表明，无论学习者处于哪一个英语学习阶段，从他们对英语心理动词的提取表现来看，其结果都表现出了显著的语际语义对应特征，这进一步说明，学习者大脑中是明确按照语际语义对应原则对英语心理动词进行组织和贮存的。
此外，当对学习者在语内语义启动效应和语际语义启动效应检验中的表现进行比对时，我们发现被试对同一语言语内语言形式的反应识别速度明显快于对不同语言间语际语言形式的反应识别速度。这说明，跨语言的语际语义整合与同一语言语内语义整合存在着显著性差异，即语义表征并非是超语言的，而是存在着两个不同的语义表征系统。
总之，本课题从心理语言学视角运用实证研究的方法对中国以英语作为外语的学习者大脑中英语心理动词语义组织特征和语义表征特点进行了研究，拓展和丰富了英语心理动词的相关研究领域和研究成果。同时，本研究对我国外语教学也具有一定的启示作用。无论是对学习者大脑中语义组织特征的研究还是对语义表征特点的研究，结果均表明高中阶段到本科阶段是学习者英语心理动词语义组织及语义表征变化最为关键的学习阶段。到了本科阶段，由于“高限”效应（ceiling effect）的出现，学习者语义组织的发展和词汇语义知识的重组都出现了比较稳定的态势。到研究生阶段后，尽管学习者英语心理动词的语义组织和语义表征依然在不断地发展，但相对来讲，与本科阶段变化不大。因此，无论是教师还是学习者，都一定要抓住高中阶段到本科阶段这一关键时期。在这一时期，一方面，教师要有意识地培养学生发展较高认知水平的思维能力，如多进行“分析”、“综合”和“评估”等较高认知水平的思维训练；另一方面，要努力想尽各种办法帮助学习者构建强大的词汇语义网络，以促进他们准确、快速地提取词汇语义相关知识。
Mental verbs, as a subclass of verbs, represent the mental activities of human beings.They have been drawing the attention of linguists and psychologists, whose studies aremainly involved in these verbs’ features, organization, classification, semantic structure,etc.
Mental verbs have long been studied as a class of verbs in Chinese grammar. As earlyas in1898, Ma Jianzhong (1845-1990) defined and classified mental verbs in his Ma ShiWen Tong, the first grammar book in China, while Lu Shuxiang (1904-1998) is the firstscholar who, in1942, clearly categorized mental verbs and named them “mental activities”.Since then, many other researchers, such as Li Jinxi (1954), Huang Borong and LiaoXudong (1980,1997), Xing Fuyi (1990), Zhou Youbin and Shao Jingmin (1993), WangHongbin (2002), Zhang Jijia and Lu Aitao (2007), have done in-depth studies in theidentification, classification, and semantic organization of such verbs, and have graduallycome up with the clear concept of “mental verbs”.
Studies on mental verbs abroad are mainly found in Davison (1970), Schwanenflugelet al.(1994,1996,1999), Clark et al.(1996), Alexander et al.(1998), Olson (2006), etc.,primarily focusing on the relations between the organization of English mental verbs andthe theories of mind, between English mental verbs and the constructivist theory of mind,and between the organization of English mental verbs and the development ofmetacognitive concepts about thinking in gifted and non-gifted children, on mental verbsin different conceptual domains and different cultures, etc.
Language is one important method manifesting human mental actions or states. Mental verbs, as a representation of man’s mental activities, are closely connected withpeople’s cognition and thinking, and can reflect, to a certain extent, people’s cognitivelevel and their complexity of thinking. Through the mirror reflection of language and thestudy of the semantic organization and the semantic representation of mental verbs, we can,on the one hand, find their characteristics in EFL learners’ mind, and on the other,understand the distinctive cognitive thinking features of the learners with different Englishproficiency levels.
Although many achievements have been made in the studies of mental verbs at homeand abroad, more emphasis has been laid on theoretical rather than empirical studies,especially in the respect of their semantic organization, organizational dimension, semanticrepresentation, and so on. This study, based on Bloom’s (1956) cognitive domain theoryand bilingual semantic representation theory, will conduct questionnaire surveys andreaction-time-paradigm-based implicit cognition research to probe into the semanticorganization and semantic representation of English mental verbs in Chinese EFL learners’mind. The specific research questions are as follows:
1. What are the semantic organization features of English mental verbs in ChineseEFL learners’ mind?
(1) What overall features does the semantic organization of English mental verbsexhibit in Chinese EFL learners’ mind? What are the distinctive semantic features ofEnglish mental verbs for learners with different English proficiency levels?
(2) What overall features does the semantic processing structure of English mentalverbs reveal in Chinese EFL learners’ mind? What are the distinctive semantic processingfeatures of English mental verbs for learners with different English proficiency levels?
2. What characteristics does the semantic representation of English mental verbsdemonstrate in Chinese EFL learners?
(3) What overall features does the intra-semantic representation of English mentalverbs exhibit in Chinese EFL learners? What are the distinctive intra-semantic features ofEnglish mental verbs for learners with different English proficiency levels?
(4) What overall features does the inter-semantic representation of English mentalverbs exhibit in Chinese EFL learners? What are the distinctive inter-semantic features ofEnglish mental verbs for learners with different English proficiency levels?
With questionnaire surveys and semantic priming paradigms, this study is aimed atmaking a thorough inquiry of the features of the semantic organization and semanticrepresentation of English mental verbs in Chinese EFL learners’ mind. Specifically, fourexperiments have been carried out: free classification of English mental verbs (Experiment1), similarity judgment task of English mental verb pairs (Experiment2), intra-semanticpriming effect test (Experiment3) and inter-semantic priming effect test (Experiment4).Experiments1and2are designed to answer question1while Experiments3and4are toanswer question2.
Through a careful analysis and discussion of the experimental data, four majorfindings are reported as below:
The first finding concerns the overall and distinctive features of English mental verbs’semantic organization in EFL learners’ mind. MDS (multidimensional scaling) analysesand regression analyses have demonstrated that, when learners are viewed as a whole, the3-dimensional model is the optimal organization mode of English mental verbs’ semanticorganization in EFL learners’ mind, better than the1-dimensional model and2-dimensionalmodel. As for the learners with different English proficiency levels, their semanticorganization of English mental verbs are quite similar, whether they are high schoolstudents, undergraduates or graduates. Of the three models, the3-dimensional one has thebest goodness of fit, showing that it is the optimal structure of English mental verbs in EFLlearners’ mind. The three dimensions are information processing dimension,semantic-relatedness dimension, and certainty dimension, of which the informationprocessing dimension takes the largest proportion and is also the most importantorganizational dimension of English mental verbs’ semantic organization while thesemantic-relatedness dimension and certainty dimension are indispensable.
The second finding relates to the overall and distinctive features of English mental verbs’ semantic processing structure in EFL learners’ mind. MDS analyses and hierarchicalcluster analyses have indicated that when learners are viewed as a whole, the mental verbshave eventually formed an information processing dimension as the distinguishing featureafter a5-step cluster agglomeration. For the learners with different English proficiencylevels, the initial cluster features and the ultimate cluster features of English mental verbs’semantic processing structure in their mind are quite similar. The attributes of theseEnglish mental verbs have experienced a5-step aggregation and all finally formed theinformation processing dimension as the ultimate distinguishing feature, though obviousdifferences between the subjects exist. The English mental verbs’ semantic processingfeatures in different learners’ mind have revealed their various cognitive thinking levels.Specifically, high school students have shown more “knowledge” and “comprehension”features in their semantic organization of English mental verbs, which are regarded as thelower level in Bloom’s cognitive domain (1956). Undergraduate students have paid moreattention to “analysis” and “application” features, the higher cognitive thinking level inBloom’s cognitive domain. Graduate students have focused more on “synthesis” and“evaluation” features, the highest cognitive thinking level according to Bloom. This showsthat with the improvement of learners’ English proficiency, both their lexical semanticknowledge reorganization and cognitive thinking have gradually been promoted, from alower cognitive thinking level to a comparatively higher level.
The third finding involves the examination of learners’ mental verbs’ intra-semanticpriming effect. T-test analyses and variance analyses have shown that when learners areviewed as a whole, they have reacted more quickly to the words with semantic relationsthan to the words without semantic relations. However, the RT (reaction time) differencebetween them is not significant. As for the learners with different English proficiencylevels, two groups (the undergraduate students’ group and the graduate students’ group)have reacted more quickly to the semantic-related words than to the semantic-unrelatedwords. However, the RT difference among all the three groups is not significant. Thissuggests that for all learners, their retrieval of English mental verbs has not shown significant intra-semantic-related features. This further illustrates that the organization andstorage of English mental verbs in learners’ mind are not based on the intra-semanticprinciple.
The fourth finding relates to the examination of learners’ mental verbs’ inter-semanticpriming effect. T-test analyses and variance analyses have shown that learners viewed as awhole have reacted more quickly to the words with semantic correspondence than to thewords without semantic correspondence. As for the learners with different Englishproficiency levels, all the three groups (the high school students’ group, the undergraduatestudents’ group and the graduate students’ group) have reacted more quickly tosemantic-corresponding words than to semantic-non-corresponding words. And their RTdifference is also significant. This suggests that all learners’ retrieval of English mentalverbs has shown significant inter-semantic-correspondence features. This further illustratesthat the organization and storage of English mental verbs in learners’ mind are based on theinter-semantic principle.
When we compare the T-test results between the three groups of subjects in theintra-semantic priming experiment and the inter-semantic priming experiment, we’vefound that learners have reacted more quickly to the intra-language form than to theinter-language form, irrespective of their English proficiency level. And the RT differenceis significant. This shows that there is a significant RT difference between theinter-language semantic integration and the intra-language semantic integration. Thisindicates that the semantic representation of English mental verbs is not beyond languageform recognition and that there are two separate semantic representation systems, ratherthan one, in bilingual learners’ mind.
In conclusion, this study, probing into the semantic organization and semanticrepresentation of English mental verbs in Chinese EFL learners’ mind from the perspectiveof psycholinguistics with the empirical method, is an expansion and enrichment of Englishmental verbs’ theories. Besides, the findings of the study have implications for foreignlanguage teaching in China. Both the study of semantic organization characteristics and that of semantic representation features in Chinese EFL learners’ mind have shown that thetime between high school and college is critical in the development of learners’ semanticorganization and semantic representation of English mental verbs. At college, due to theoccurrence of the ceiling effect, the development of learners’ semantic organization and thereorganization of semantic knowledge are relatively stable. As for graduates, although theirsemantic organization and semantic representation keep developing, there is littledifference between them and undergraduate students. Therefore, both teachers and learnersof English should make the best use of the time from high school to college. During thisperiod, teachers should, on the one hand, cultivate students’ cognitive thinking ability bydesigning more activities with higher cognitive requirements, such as “analysis”,“integration” and “evaluation” both in and out of class. On the other hand, teachers shouldtry every possible means to help learners construct a strong and powerful lexical semanticnetwork to promote their quick and effective retrieval of lexical semantic knowledge.
在传统的汉语语法动词分类中，把属于心理活动的动词作为一个词类来研究由来已久。早在1898年，马建忠就在其所著的《马氏文通》中对心理动词的定义和分类进行了研究。吕叔湘（1942）则是较早明确地将心理动词单独列为一类，并以“心理活动”来命名的学者之一。此后，黎锦熙（1954）、黄伯荣和廖序东（1980,1997）、邢福义（1990）、周有斌和邵敬敏（1993）、王红斌（2002）、张积家和陆爱桃（2007）等一些国内学者围绕心理动词的判定、分类和语义组织等陆续进行了一些深入的研究，并逐步明确了“心理动词”这一概念。
国外对心理动词的研究主要以Davidson (1970)、Schwanenflugel et al（.1994，1996，1999）、Clark et al.(1996)、Alexander et al.（1998)、Olson et al.（2006)等人的研究为代表，主要涉及英语心理动词的组织特征与认知理论之间的关系、英语心理动词与建构主义心智理论发展观之间的关系、英语心理动词组织与智力水平不同的儿童心理活动元认知概念发展之间的关系、不同概念领域和不同文化中心理动词的组织特征等。
语言是人类心理活动的一种重要表现形式。作为表征人类心理活动的动词，心理动词与人们的认知和思维密切相关，它们可以在一定程度上反映出人们的认知水平与思维的复杂程度。透过语言镜像折射对中国学习者英语心理动词语义组织和语义表征进行研究，一方面可以使我们了解英语心理动词语义组织和语义表征在学习者大脑中的特征，另一方面可以使我们了解不同阶段学习者其英语学习认知思维的不同特点。
纵观国内外心理动词的研究，大多偏重理论方面的探讨，而在实证研究方面相对比较薄弱，尤其是在心理动词的语义组织、组织维度和语义表征等方面。因此，本课题将运用Bloom(1956)的认知领域分类理论和双语者的语义表征理论，以不同英语水平的中国学习者为研究对象，采用心理语言学中常用的问卷调查和基于反应时范式的内隐认知研究方法，对学习者大脑中英语心理动词的语义组织特征和语义表征特点进行研究。具体研究问题如下：
1．中国学习者大脑中英语心理动词的语义组织有何特征？
（1）中国学习者大脑中英语心理动词的语义组织具有哪些整体特征？不同水平二语学习者英语心理动词的语义组织各有哪些不同？
（2）中国学习者大脑中英语心理动词的语义分层组织具有哪些整体特征？不同水平二语学习者英语心理动词的语义分层组织各有哪些不同？
2．中国学习者英语心理动词的语义表征有何特点？
（3）中国学习者英语心理动词的语内语义表征有何整体特点？不同水平二语学习者英语心理动词的语内语义表征各有哪些不同？
（4）中国学习者英语心理动词的语际语义表征有何整体特点？不同水平二语学习者英语心理动词的语际语义表征各有哪些不同？
本研究采用问卷调查和语义启动范式来探究中国英语学习者大脑中英语心理动词的语义组织特征和语义表征特点。具体来说，我们进行了英语心理动词的自由分类问卷调查（实验一）、英语心理动词词对的相似性程度判断问卷调查（实验二）、英语心理动词语内语义启动效应检验（实验三）和英语心理动词语际语义启动效应检验（实验四）四个实验，从不同角度、不同层次考察了中国学习者英语心理动词的语义组织特征和语义表征特点。其中，实验一和实验二主要对第一个大问题做出回答，实验三和实验四则主要回答第二个大问题。
通过对实验数据的细致分析和讨论，本研究得出如下结论：
结论一表明，当我们把不同水平的二语学习者作为一个整体考察他们大脑中英语心理动词的语义组织特征时，多维标度分析和回归分析的结果显示，相对于一维模型和二维模型来讲，三维模型是学习者大脑中英语心理动词语义组织的最佳组织模式。对不同英语水平的学习者而言，无论他们处于英语学习的哪一个阶段，即无论是高中生、本科生或研究生，他们大脑中英语心理动词的语义组织都是比较相似的，三维模型均是模型拟合优度最好的一个模型，这说明学习者大脑中英语心理动词的最佳结构模型是三维组织模型。这三个组织维度分别是信息加工维度（information processing）、语义相关维度（semantic-relatedness）和确定性维度（certainty）。其中，“信息加工维度”占的比重最大，是学习者英语心理动词语义组织最明显的组织维度和属性特征。不过，“语义相关维度”和“确定性维度”所占的比重虽然偏小一些，但都是学习者英语心理动词语义组织必不可少的两个组织维度。
结论二表明，当我们把不同水平的二语学习者作为一个整体来考察他们大脑中英语心理动词语义分层组织的特征时，多维标度分析和分层聚类分析的结果显示，这些英语心理动词从最初的六个范畴经过五步的特征凝聚后，最终形成了以信息加工属性为主要特征的区分维度。对不同英语水平的学习者来讲，无论是高中生、本科生或研究生，总体来看，他们大脑中对英语心理动词的初始范畴属性和最终的范畴属性都是比较相似的，即经过五步的特征凝聚后，最后都形成了以信息加工属性为主要特征的区分维度，但中间也有一些明显的差别。具体来讲，高中生对英语心理动词的认知侧重于对“知识”和“理解”等认知领域内较低水平的把握，本科生侧重的是“分析”和“应用”等较为高级的认知水平，而到了研究生阶段，学习者对这些英语心理动词的认知活动则侧重于“综合”和“评估”等认知领域的高级水平。这说明，随着学习者英语水平的不断提高，他们对英语心理动词的知识重组能力和认知学习的水平也在不断提高，逐渐从认知学习的低级阶段过渡到认知学习的高级阶段。
结论三表明，当我们把不同水平的二语学习者作为一个整体来考察他们在英语心理动词语内语义启动效应检验中的表现时，T检验和方差分析的结果显示，学习者对有语义关系目标词的反应时间少于对无语义关系目标词的反应时间，但两者之间的时间差异不具有显著性。对不同英语水平的学习者来讲，除高中组外，其它两个组（本科组和研究生组）的被试对有语义关系目标词的反应识别时间均少于对无语义关系目标词的反应识别时间。不过，三个被试组内每两个不同的反应时间之间都不具有显著性差异。这表明，无论学习者处于哪一个英语学习阶段，从他们对英语心理动词提取的表现来看，其结果都没有显示出显著的语内语义相关特征，这进一步说明，学习者大脑中并不是按照语内语义相关原则对英语心理动词进行组织和贮存的。
结论四表明，当我们把不同水平的二语学习者作为一个整体来考察他们在英语心理动词语际语义启动效应检验中的表现时，T检验和方差分析的结果显示，学习者对语义对应目标词的反应时间普遍要少于对语义不对应目标词的反应时间，且两个不同的反应时间之间存在显著性差异。对不同英语水平的学习者来讲，无论是高中生、本科生或研究生，他们对语义对应目标词的反应时间均少于对语义不对应目标词的反应时间，且各个被试组内两个不同的反应时间之间均存在显著性差别。这表明，无论学习者处于哪一个英语学习阶段，从他们对英语心理动词的提取表现来看，其结果都表现出了显著的语际语义对应特征，这进一步说明，学习者大脑中是明确按照语际语义对应原则对英语心理动词进行组织和贮存的。
此外，当对学习者在语内语义启动效应和语际语义启动效应检验中的表现进行比对时，我们发现被试对同一语言语内语言形式的反应识别速度明显快于对不同语言间语际语言形式的反应识别速度。这说明，跨语言的语际语义整合与同一语言语内语义整合存在着显著性差异，即语义表征并非是超语言的，而是存在着两个不同的语义表征系统。
总之，本课题从心理语言学视角运用实证研究的方法对中国以英语作为外语的学习者大脑中英语心理动词语义组织特征和语义表征特点进行了研究，拓展和丰富了英语心理动词的相关研究领域和研究成果。同时，本研究对我国外语教学也具有一定的启示作用。无论是对学习者大脑中语义组织特征的研究还是对语义表征特点的研究，结果均表明高中阶段到本科阶段是学习者英语心理动词语义组织及语义表征变化最为关键的学习阶段。到了本科阶段，由于“高限”效应（ceiling effect）的出现，学习者语义组织的发展和词汇语义知识的重组都出现了比较稳定的态势。到研究生阶段后，尽管学习者英语心理动词的语义组织和语义表征依然在不断地发展，但相对来讲，与本科阶段变化不大。因此，无论是教师还是学习者，都一定要抓住高中阶段到本科阶段这一关键时期。在这一时期，一方面，教师要有意识地培养学生发展较高认知水平的思维能力，如多进行“分析”、“综合”和“评估”等较高认知水平的思维训练；另一方面，要努力想尽各种办法帮助学习者构建强大的词汇语义网络，以促进他们准确、快速地提取词汇语义相关知识。
Mental verbs, as a subclass of verbs, represent the mental activities of human beings.They have been drawing the attention of linguists and psychologists, whose studies aremainly involved in these verbs’ features, organization, classification, semantic structure,etc.
Mental verbs have long been studied as a class of verbs in Chinese grammar. As earlyas in1898, Ma Jianzhong (1845-1990) defined and classified mental verbs in his Ma ShiWen Tong, the first grammar book in China, while Lu Shuxiang (1904-1998) is the firstscholar who, in1942, clearly categorized mental verbs and named them “mental activities”.Since then, many other researchers, such as Li Jinxi (1954), Huang Borong and LiaoXudong (1980,1997), Xing Fuyi (1990), Zhou Youbin and Shao Jingmin (1993), WangHongbin (2002), Zhang Jijia and Lu Aitao (2007), have done in-depth studies in theidentification, classification, and semantic organization of such verbs, and have graduallycome up with the clear concept of “mental verbs”.
Studies on mental verbs abroad are mainly found in Davison (1970), Schwanenflugelet al.(1994,1996,1999), Clark et al.(1996), Alexander et al.(1998), Olson (2006), etc.,primarily focusing on the relations between the organization of English mental verbs andthe theories of mind, between English mental verbs and the constructivist theory of mind,and between the organization of English mental verbs and the development ofmetacognitive concepts about thinking in gifted and non-gifted children, on mental verbsin different conceptual domains and different cultures, etc.
Language is one important method manifesting human mental actions or states. Mental verbs, as a representation of man’s mental activities, are closely connected withpeople’s cognition and thinking, and can reflect, to a certain extent, people’s cognitivelevel and their complexity of thinking. Through the mirror reflection of language and thestudy of the semantic organization and the semantic representation of mental verbs, we can,on the one hand, find their characteristics in EFL learners’ mind, and on the other,understand the distinctive cognitive thinking features of the learners with different Englishproficiency levels.
Although many achievements have been made in the studies of mental verbs at homeand abroad, more emphasis has been laid on theoretical rather than empirical studies,especially in the respect of their semantic organization, organizational dimension, semanticrepresentation, and so on. This study, based on Bloom’s (1956) cognitive domain theoryand bilingual semantic representation theory, will conduct questionnaire surveys andreaction-time-paradigm-based implicit cognition research to probe into the semanticorganization and semantic representation of English mental verbs in Chinese EFL learners’mind. The specific research questions are as follows:
1. What are the semantic organization features of English mental verbs in ChineseEFL learners’ mind?
(1) What overall features does the semantic organization of English mental verbsexhibit in Chinese EFL learners’ mind? What are the distinctive semantic features ofEnglish mental verbs for learners with different English proficiency levels?
(2) What overall features does the semantic processing structure of English mentalverbs reveal in Chinese EFL learners’ mind? What are the distinctive semantic processingfeatures of English mental verbs for learners with different English proficiency levels?
2. What characteristics does the semantic representation of English mental verbsdemonstrate in Chinese EFL learners?
(3) What overall features does the intra-semantic representation of English mentalverbs exhibit in Chinese EFL learners? What are the distinctive intra-semantic features ofEnglish mental verbs for learners with different English proficiency levels?
(4) What overall features does the inter-semantic representation of English mentalverbs exhibit in Chinese EFL learners? What are the distinctive inter-semantic features ofEnglish mental verbs for learners with different English proficiency levels?
With questionnaire surveys and semantic priming paradigms, this study is aimed atmaking a thorough inquiry of the features of the semantic organization and semanticrepresentation of English mental verbs in Chinese EFL learners’ mind. Specifically, fourexperiments have been carried out: free classification of English mental verbs (Experiment1), similarity judgment task of English mental verb pairs (Experiment2), intra-semanticpriming effect test (Experiment3) and inter-semantic priming effect test (Experiment4).Experiments1and2are designed to answer question1while Experiments3and4are toanswer question2.
Through a careful analysis and discussion of the experimental data, four majorfindings are reported as below:
The first finding concerns the overall and distinctive features of English mental verbs’semantic organization in EFL learners’ mind. MDS (multidimensional scaling) analysesand regression analyses have demonstrated that, when learners are viewed as a whole, the3-dimensional model is the optimal organization mode of English mental verbs’ semanticorganization in EFL learners’ mind, better than the1-dimensional model and2-dimensionalmodel. As for the learners with different English proficiency levels, their semanticorganization of English mental verbs are quite similar, whether they are high schoolstudents, undergraduates or graduates. Of the three models, the3-dimensional one has thebest goodness of fit, showing that it is the optimal structure of English mental verbs in EFLlearners’ mind. The three dimensions are information processing dimension,semantic-relatedness dimension, and certainty dimension, of which the informationprocessing dimension takes the largest proportion and is also the most importantorganizational dimension of English mental verbs’ semantic organization while thesemantic-relatedness dimension and certainty dimension are indispensable.
The second finding relates to the overall and distinctive features of English mental verbs’ semantic processing structure in EFL learners’ mind. MDS analyses and hierarchicalcluster analyses have indicated that when learners are viewed as a whole, the mental verbshave eventually formed an information processing dimension as the distinguishing featureafter a5-step cluster agglomeration. For the learners with different English proficiencylevels, the initial cluster features and the ultimate cluster features of English mental verbs’semantic processing structure in their mind are quite similar. The attributes of theseEnglish mental verbs have experienced a5-step aggregation and all finally formed theinformation processing dimension as the ultimate distinguishing feature, though obviousdifferences between the subjects exist. The English mental verbs’ semantic processingfeatures in different learners’ mind have revealed their various cognitive thinking levels.Specifically, high school students have shown more “knowledge” and “comprehension”features in their semantic organization of English mental verbs, which are regarded as thelower level in Bloom’s cognitive domain (1956). Undergraduate students have paid moreattention to “analysis” and “application” features, the higher cognitive thinking level inBloom’s cognitive domain. Graduate students have focused more on “synthesis” and“evaluation” features, the highest cognitive thinking level according to Bloom. This showsthat with the improvement of learners’ English proficiency, both their lexical semanticknowledge reorganization and cognitive thinking have gradually been promoted, from alower cognitive thinking level to a comparatively higher level.
The third finding involves the examination of learners’ mental verbs’ intra-semanticpriming effect. T-test analyses and variance analyses have shown that when learners areviewed as a whole, they have reacted more quickly to the words with semantic relationsthan to the words without semantic relations. However, the RT (reaction time) differencebetween them is not significant. As for the learners with different English proficiencylevels, two groups (the undergraduate students’ group and the graduate students’ group)have reacted more quickly to the semantic-related words than to the semantic-unrelatedwords. However, the RT difference among all the three groups is not significant. Thissuggests that for all learners, their retrieval of English mental verbs has not shown significant intra-semantic-related features. This further illustrates that the organization andstorage of English mental verbs in learners’ mind are not based on the intra-semanticprinciple.
The fourth finding relates to the examination of learners’ mental verbs’ inter-semanticpriming effect. T-test analyses and variance analyses have shown that learners viewed as awhole have reacted more quickly to the words with semantic correspondence than to thewords without semantic correspondence. As for the learners with different Englishproficiency levels, all the three groups (the high school students’ group, the undergraduatestudents’ group and the graduate students’ group) have reacted more quickly tosemantic-corresponding words than to semantic-non-corresponding words. And their RTdifference is also significant. This suggests that all learners’ retrieval of English mentalverbs has shown significant inter-semantic-correspondence features. This further illustratesthat the organization and storage of English mental verbs in learners’ mind are based on theinter-semantic principle.
When we compare the T-test results between the three groups of subjects in theintra-semantic priming experiment and the inter-semantic priming experiment, we’vefound that learners have reacted more quickly to the intra-language form than to theinter-language form, irrespective of their English proficiency level. And the RT differenceis significant. This shows that there is a significant RT difference between theinter-language semantic integration and the intra-language semantic integration. Thisindicates that the semantic representation of English mental verbs is not beyond languageform recognition and that there are two separate semantic representation systems, ratherthan one, in bilingual learners’ mind.
In conclusion, this study, probing into the semantic organization and semanticrepresentation of English mental verbs in Chinese EFL learners’ mind from the perspectiveof psycholinguistics with the empirical method, is an expansion and enrichment of Englishmental verbs’ theories. Besides, the findings of the study have implications for foreignlanguage teaching in China. Both the study of semantic organization characteristics and that of semantic representation features in Chinese EFL learners’ mind have shown that thetime between high school and college is critical in the development of learners’ semanticorganization and semantic representation of English mental verbs. At college, due to theoccurrence of the ceiling effect, the development of learners’ semantic organization and thereorganization of semantic knowledge are relatively stable. As for graduates, although theirsemantic organization and semantic representation keep developing, there is littledifference between them and undergraduate students. Therefore, both teachers and learnersof English should make the best use of the time from high school to college. During thisperiod, teachers should, on the one hand, cultivate students’ cognitive thinking ability bydesigning more activities with higher cognitive requirements, such as “analysis”,“integration” and “evaluation” both in and out of class. On the other hand, teachers shouldtry every possible means to help learners construct a strong and powerful lexical semanticnetwork to promote their quick and effective retrieval of lexical semantic knowledge.
引文
Alexander, J.M.&Schwanenflugel, P.J.(1996). Development of metacognitive concepts about thinkingin gifted and nongifted children: recent research. Learning and Individual Differences,8(4):305-325.
Alexander, J.M., Carr, M.,&Schwanenflugel, P.J.(1995). The development of metacognition in giftedchildren: directions for future research. Developmental Review,(15):1-37.
Alexander, J.M., Noyes, C.R., MacBrayer, E.K., Schwanenflugel, P.J.,&Fabricius, W.V.(1998).Concepts of mental activities and verbs in children of high and average verbal intelligence. GiftedChild Quarterly,42(1):16-28.
Anderson, L. W.(等著).蒋小平(等译).(2009). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, andAssessing—A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Complete Edition).北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
Barstch, R.&Wellman, H.(1995). Children Talk about the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Belletti, A.&Rizzi, L.(1988). Psych-verbs and Theta-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory,(3):291-352.
Best, J.B.(著).黄希庭(等译).(2000).认知心理学(第五版).北京:中国轻工业出版社.
Bloom, B.S.(1956). Taxonomy of Education Objectives: Cognitive Domain. New York: Longman Inc.
Booth, J.R.&Hall, W.S.(1995). Development of the understanding of the polysemous meanings of themental-state verb know. Cognitive Development,(10):529-549.
Cacciari, C.&Levorato, M.C.(2000). The semantic structure of vision verbs: a psycholinguisticinvestigation of Italian. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,12(1):87-106.
Carroll, D.W.(2000). Psychology of language. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Carroll, J.B., Davies, P.,&Richman, B.(1971). The American Heritage Word Frequency Book. NewYork: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Chen, D.(1996). Acquisition of English Psych Verbs by Native Speakers of Chinese and French.Montreal: McGill University.
Chen, H.C.&Ng, M.L.(1989). Semantic facilitation and translation priming effect in Chinese-Englishbilinguals. Memory&Cognition,(17):454-462.
Cheung, H., Chen, H.C.,&Yeung, W.(2009). Relations between mental verb and false beliefunderstanding in Cantonese-speaking children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,(104):141-155.
Clark, M.D., Schwanenflugel, P.J., Everhart, V.S.,&Bartini, M.(1996). Theory of mind in deaf adultsand the organiztion of verbs of knowing. Journal of Deaf Studies&Deaf Education,(1):179-189.
Collins, A.M.&Loftus, E.F.(1975). A spreading activation theory of semantic priming. PsychologicalReview,(82):407-428.
Craik, F.I.M.&Lockhart, R.S.(1972). Levels of processing: a framework for memory research. Journalof Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,(11):671-684.
Cruse, D.A.(著).汪榕培(译).(1992).原型理论与词汇语义学(下).外语与外语教学,(5):1-5.
D’Andrade, R.(1987). A folk model of the mind. In D. Holland&N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural Models inLanguage and Thought (pp.112-148). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davidson, D.(1970). Mental Events. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
De Groot, A.M.B.&Nas, G.L.J.(1991). Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates incompound bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language,(30):90-123.
D rnyei, Z.&Csizér, K.(2002). Some dynamics of language attitudes and motivation: Results of alongitudinal nationwide survey. Applied Linguistics,(23):421-462.
Eysenck, M.W.&Keane, M.T.(1995). Cognitive Psychology. Esat Sussex: hove.
Fabricius, W.V., Schwanenflugel, P.J., Kyllonen, P.C., Barclay, C.R.,&Denton, S.M.(1989).Developing theories of the mind: children’s and adults’ concepts of mental activities. ChildDevelopment,(60):1278-1290.
Fellbaum, C.(1990). English verbs as a semantic net. International Journal of Lexicography,(3):278-301.
Fisher, C.&Gleitman, L.R.(2002). Breaking the linguistic code: current issues in early languagelearning. In C.R. Gallistel (Ed.), Learning, Motivation, and Emotion (Vol.3): Stevens’ Handbook ofExperimental Psychology. New York: John Wiley&Sons.
Fisher, C., Gleitman, H.,&Gletitmen, L.R.(1992). On the semantic content of subcategorization frames.Cognitive Psychology,(23):331-392.
Flavell, J.H.(1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive developmentinquiry. American Psychology,(34):906-911.
Frenck-Mestre, C.&Prince, P.(1997). Second language autonomy. Journal of Memory and Language,(37):481-501.
Gagne, R. M.(著).皮连生(等译).(2004).教学设计原理.上海:华东师范大学出版社.
Geeraerts, D.(著).李葆嘉、司联合、李炯英(译).(2013).欧美词汇语义学理论.北京:世界图书出版公司.
George, D.&Mallery, P.(著).何丽娟、李征、韦玉(译).(2011). SPSS统计分析简明教程.北京:电子工业出版社.
Glanzer, M.&Duarte, A.(1971). Repetition between and within languages in free recall. Journal ofVerbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,(10):625-630.
Glass, A.L., Holyoak, K.J.,&Santa, J.L.(1986). Cognition (2nd Ed.). New York: Random House.
Goggin, J.&Wickens, D.D.(1971). Proactive interference and language change in short-term memory.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,(10):453-458.
Gola, A.A.H.(2012). Mental verb input for promoting children’s theory of mind: a training study.Cognitive Development,(27):64-76.
Halliday, M.A.K.&Matthiessen, C.M.I.M.(1999). Construing Experience through Meaning: aLanguage-based Approach to Cognition. New York: Cassell.
Halliday, M.A.K.(1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Herrmann, B.F., Silliman, E.R., Bahr, R.H., Fasnacht, K.S.,&Federico, J.E.(2006). Mental state verbproduction in the oral narratives of English-and Spanish-speaking preadolescents: an exploratorystudy of lexical diversity and depth. Learning Disabilities Research&Practice,21(1):44-60.
Holmes, J.&Meyerhoff, M.(2003). The Handbook of Language and Gender. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hoskens, M.&De Boeck, P.(1991). An implicit theory of intelligence-related mental activities. Journalof Personality,59(4):793-814.
Howard, A.A., Mayeux, L.,&Naigles, L.R.(2008). Conversational correlates of children’s acquisitionof mental verbs and a theory of mind. First Language,28(4):376-402.
Jackendoff, R.(1990). Semantic Structure. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R.(1992). Language of the Mind: Essays on Mental Representation. Cambridge:Massachusetts.
Jackendoff, R.S.(1987). The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry,(18):369-412.
Jin, Y.S.&Fischler, I.(1987). Effects of concreteness on cross-language priming lexical decision. Paperpresented at the Southeastern Psychological Association Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia.
Johnson, C.N.&Maratsos, M.P.(1977). Early comprehension of mental verbs: think and know. ChildDevelopment,(48):1743-1747.
Johnson, C.N.&Wellman, H.M.(1980). Children’s developing understanding of mental verbs:remember, know and guess. Child Development,51(4):1095-1102.
Juffs, A.(1996). Learnability and the Lexicon: Theories and Second Language Acquisition Research.Amsterdam&Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kirsner, K., Smith, M.C., Lockhart, R.S., King, M.L.,&Jain, M.(1984). The bilingual lexicon:language specific units in an integrated network. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,(23):519-539.
Kroll, J.F.&Sholl, A.(1992). Lexical and conceptual memory in fluent and nonfluent bilinguals. In R.J.Harris (Ed.), Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publisher.
Kroll, J.F.&Stewart, E.(1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: evidence forasymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory andLanguage,(33):149-174.
Kruskal, J.B.&Wish, M.(1978). Basic Concepts of Multidimensional Scaling. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.
Landau, B., Sabini, J., Jonides, J.,&Newport, E. L.(2000). Perception, Cognition, and Language.Cambridge: Massachusetts.
Mandler, J.M.(1985). On the comprehension of temporal order. Language and Cognitive Processes,1(4):309-320.
Marr, D.(1982). Vision. San Francisco: Freeman.
McKoon, G.&Ratcliff, R.(1992). Spreading activation vs. compound cue accounts of priming:mediated priming revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory andCognition,(18):1155-1172.
McLaughlin, B.(1987). Theories of Second Language Learning. Edward Arnold: London.
Meara, P.(1982). Vocabulary acquisition: a neglected aspect of language learning. In V. Kinsella (Ed.),Surveys I: Eight State-of-the-art Articles on Key Areas in Language Teaching (pp.100-126).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meara, P.(1984). The study of lexis in interlanguage. In A. Davies, A. Howart,&C. Criper (Eds.),Interlanguage. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Meyer, D.E.(1970). On the representation and retrieval of stored semantic information. CognitivePsychology,(1):242-300.
Meyer, D.E.&Schvaneveldt, R.W.(1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: evidence of adependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology,(90):227-234.
Meyer, D.E., Schvaneveldt, R.W.,&Ruddy, M.G.(1974). Loci of contextual effects on visualword-recognition. In P.M.A. Rabbitt (Ed.), Attention and Performance. London: Academic Press.
Miller, G.&Fellbaum, C.(1991). Semantic networks of English. Cognition,(41):197-229.
Miller, G.&Johnson-Laird, P.N.(1976). Language and Perception. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Moore, C., Bryant, D.,&Furrow, D.(1989). Mental terms and the development of certainty. ChildDevelopment,(60):167-171.
Moore, C., Furrow, D., Chiasson, L.,&Patriquin, M.(1994). Developmental relationships betweenproduction and comprehension of mental terms. First Language,(14):1-17.
Nakau, M.(1994). Principles of Cognitive Semantics. Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten.
Neely, J.H.(1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of currentfindings and theories. In D. Besner&G.W. Humphreys (Eds.), Basic Processes in Reading: VisualWord Recognition. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Olson, D.R.(2003). Psychological Theory and Educational Reform: How School Remakes Mind andSociety. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Olson, D.R., Antonietti, A., Liverta-Sempio, O.,&Marchetti, A.(2006). The mental verbs in differentconceptual domains and in different cultures. In A. Antonietti, O. Liverta-Sempio,&A. Marchetti(Eds.), Theory of Mind and Language in Developmental Contexts (pp.31-64). Dordecht, TheNetherlands: Springer.
Papafragou, A., Cassidy, K.,&Gleitman, L.(2007). When we think about thinking: the acquisition ofbelief verbs. Cognition,(105):125-165.
Pascual, B., Aguado, G., Sotillo, M.,&Masdeu, J.C.(2008). Acquisition of mental state language inSpanish children: a longitudinal study of the relationship between the production of mental verbsand linguistic development. Developmental Science,11(4):454-466.
Pesetsky, D.(1995). Zero Syntax: Experiencer and Cascades. Cambridge: Massachusetts.
Psychology Software Tools, Inc.(Producer).(2002). E-prime(version2.0).
Random House Roget’s Thesaurus.(2012). NewYork: The Ballantine Publishing Group.
Rips, L.J.&Conrad, F.G.(1989). Folk psychology of mental activities. Psychological Review,(96):187-207.
Rosch, E.(1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,(104):192-233.
Rosch, E.H.(1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology,(4):328-350.
Saeed, J. I.(2000). Semantics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Schwanenflugel, P.J., Fabricius, W.V.,&Alexander, J.M.(1994). Developing theories of mind:understanding concepts and relations between mental activities. Child Development,(65):1546-1563.
Schwanenflugel, P.J., Fabricius, W.V.,&Noyes, C.R.(1996). Developing organization of mental verbs:evidence for the development of a constructivist theory of mind in middle childhood. CognitiveDevelopment,(11):265-294.
Schwanenflugel, P.J., Fabricius, W.V., Noyes, C.R., Bigler, K.D.,&Alexander, J.M.(1994). Theorganization of mental verbs and folk theories of knowing. Journal of Memory and Language,(33):376-395.
Schwanenflugel, P.J., Henderson, R.,&Fabricius, W.V.(1998). Developing organization of mentalverbs and theory of mind in Middle Childhood: evidence from extensions. DevelopmentalPsychology,(34):512-524.
Schwanenflugel, P.J., Martin, M.,&Takahashi, T.(1999). The organization of verbs of knowing:evidence for cultural commonality and variation in theory of mind. Memory&Cognition,27(5):813-825.
Schwanenflugel, P.J.&Rey, M.(1986). Interlingual semantic facilitation: evidence for commonrepresentational system in the bilingual lexicon. Journal of Memory and Language,(25):605-618.
Segalowitz, N.&De Almeida, R.(2002). Conceptual representation of verbs in bilinguals: semanticfield effects and a second-language performance paradox. Brain&Language,81(1-3):517-531.
Shatz, M., Wellman, H.M.,&Silber, S.(1983). The acquisition of mental terms: a systematicinvestigation of the first reference to mental state. Cognition,(14):301-321.
Shinzato, R.(2003). Some observations concerning mental verbs and speech act verbs. Journal ofPragmatics,(36):861-882.
Skehan, P.(1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sousa, D. A.(2005). How the Brain Learns to Read. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Spanoudis, G.C.&Natsopoulos, D.(2011). Memory functioning and mental verbs acquisition inchildren with specific language impairment. Research in Developmental Disabilities,(5):1-11.
Tanenhaus, M.(1988). Psycholinguistics: an Overview. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tanenhaus, M.K.&Carlson, G.N.(1989). Lexical structure and language comprehension. In W.Marslen-Wilson (Ed.), Lexical Representation and Process. Cambridge: Massachusetts.
Taylor, I.(1971). How are words from two languages organized in bilinguals’ memory? CanadianJournal of Psychology,(25):228-240.
Taylor, I.(1976). Similarity between French and English words--A factor to be considered in bilinguallanguage behavior. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,(5):85-94.
Thompson, C.K.&Lee, M.(2009). Psych verb production and comprehension in agrammatic Broca’saphasia. Journal of Neurolinguistics,(22):354-369.
Tulving, E.(1972). Episodic and semantic memory. In E. Tulving&W. Donaldson (Eds.), Organizationof Memory. New York: Academic Press.
Valette, R.M.&Disick, R.J.(1972). Modern Language Performance Objectives. New York: Harcourt,Brace&Jovanovich.
Wal, T.V.(2004). Folksonomy: coinage and definition, available online at http://vanderwal. Net/folksonomy. Html, accessed on Aug.12,2013.
Wellman, H. M.&Estes, D.(1987). Children’s early use of mental verbs and what they mean.Discourse Process,(10):141-156.
Zhang, B., Jiang, X.&Shi, W.(1994). Semantic and repetition priming between-and within-language.In Q. Jing (Ed.), Information Processing of Chinese Language. Beijing: Beijing Normal UniversityPublishing Group.
安德森(著).秦裕林、程瑶、周海燕、徐玥(译).(2012).认知心理学及其启示(第七版).北京:人民邮电出版社.
常松、王瑞明、李利、谢久书.(2013).非熟练双语者言语产生中非目标语言的激活范围.心理发展与教育,(1):54-60.
陈昌来、金珍我.（1998).论汉语句子语义结构中的语义成分经事和感事.烟台师范学院学报,(3):45-51.
陈富国.(1990).多维标度法的理论与方法.心理科学通讯,(4):36-41.
陈月明.(1995).汉语词汇的思维特征管窥--兼及语言与思维之关系.宁波大学学报,(2):1-9.
崔伯阜.(1963).语法基础知识.南京:江苏人民出版社.
崔艳嫣、刘振前.(2010).二语心理词库组织模式发展的实证研究.外语教学,(3):35-38.
戴曼纯、刘晓英.(2008).中国英语学习者心理动词习得实证研究.外语学刊,(5):114-122.
戴曼纯.(2000).论第二语言词汇习得研究.外语教学与研究,(3):138-144.
丁勉哉.(1959).现代汉语语法讲义(上册).上海:华东师范大学出版社.
董秀梅.(1991).谈汉语的心理动词.聊城师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版),(4):115-119.
范晓、杜高印、陈光磊.(1987).汉语动词概论.上海:上海教育出版社.
范小月、王瑞明、吴际、林哲婷.(2012).熟练和非熟练中英双语者不同认知控制成分的比较.心理科学,(6):1304-1308.
丰竞.(2003).现代汉语心理动词的语义分析.淮北煤炭师范学院学报,(1):106-110.
高耀墀.(1957).现代汉语语法.郑州:河南人民出版社.
桂诗春.(1991).实验心理语言学纲要.长沙:湖南教育出版社.
桂诗春.(2000).新编心理语言学.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
何安平.(2003).基于语料库的英语教师话语分析.现代外语,(2):161-170.
胡文飞.(2011).渐进性、迁移性与有灵性的融合:中国学习者对心理动词的产出现状分析.外国语文,(4):58-63.
华宏仪.(1980).实用汉语语法.济南:山东人民出版社.
黄伯荣、廖序东.(1980).现代汉语(试用本).兰州:甘肃人民出版社.
黄伯荣、廖序东.(1997).现代汉语(下册).北京:高等教育出版社.
黄荣.(2009).心理词典与英语词汇教学.语文学刊·外语教育教学,(10):22-23.
贾冠杰.(2006a).认知神经科学与双脑外语教育模式.外语与外语教学,(12):20-22.
贾冠杰.(2006b).英语词汇--诸多文化的混合体.中国外语,(5):58-61.
贾冠杰.(2008).多语心理词汇模式与二语习得研究.外语与外语教学,(6):27-31.
姜孟、王鲁男、赵思思、廖巧云.(2013).中国EFL熟练双语者语篇加工中“物用性”提取的心理现实性及母语优势效应.材料来自“第三届全国语言认知神经与二语习得高层论坛”，2013年7月15日-17日.
李更春、贾冠杰.(2013).英语程式语心理表征研究.西藏大学学报,(2):174-180.
黎锦熙、刘世儒.(1959).汉语语法教材.北京:商务印书馆.
黎锦熙.(1992).新著国语文法.北京:商务印书馆.
黎锦熙.(1954).新著国语文法.上海:商务印书馆.
李红.(2003).第二语言语义提取中的词汇知识效应.现代外语,(4):385-393.
李临定.(1990).现代汉语动词.北京:中国社会科学院出版社.
李秋杨.(2010).汉英思考类动词语义的多角度考察.北京:中央民族大学.
李荣宝、彭聃龄.(1999).双语者的语义表征.现代外语,(3):255-272.
李荣宝、彭聃龄.(2001).双语表征研究的理论与实验方法.当代语言学,(4):289-304.
李永才、付玉萍.(2009).英语学习者心理词汇发展规律调查.外语电化教学,(5):32-38.
李之群.(1997).趣味心理学.武汉:华中理工大学出版社.
廖巧云、王鲁男、孟丽君、姜孟.(2013).汉语因果句的理解通达机理.材料来自“第三届全国语言认知神经与二语习得高层论坛”，2013年7月15日-17日.
廖序东.(1999).《马氏文通》所采用的研究方法.语言研究,(2):1-11.
凌冰.(1954).语法知识提要.北京:大众出版社.
刘月华、潘文娱、故韡.(1983).实用现代汉语语法.北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
卢福波.(1994).谈汉语动词的相关性及其对句法结构的制约作用.世界汉语教学,(4):25-28.
卢纹岱.(2011). SPSS统计分析(第四版).北京:电子工业出版社.
吕叔湘.(1942).中国文法要略.北京:商务印书馆.
吕叔湘.(1953).语法学习.北京:中国青年出版社.
马建忠.(1898).马氏文通.北京:商务印书馆.
潘菽.(1998).意识-心理学的研究.北京:商务印书馆.
彭聃龄、张必隐.(2004).认知心理学.杭州:浙江教育出版社.
祁庆倩.(2011).现代汉语心理动词的内部时间结构.安徽大学学报(哲学社会科学版),(3):85-90.
施树森.(1957).汉语语法提要.南京:江苏人民出版社.
索尔索(著).何华(译).(2006).认知心理学.南京:江苏教育出版社.
唐青叶.(2004). like类与please类心理动词的视角研究.外语教学,(3):39-43.
王初明.(1990).应用心理语言学—外语学习心理研究.长沙:湖南教育出版社.
王汉松.(2000).布鲁姆认知领域教育目标分类理论评析.南京师大学报(社会科学版),(3):65-71.
王红斌.(2002).现代汉语心理动词的范围和类别.晋东南师范专科学校学报,(4):62-64.
王红斌.(2004).包含名宾心理动词的事件句和非事件句.南京师大学报(社会科学版),(2):139-144.
王甦、汪安圣.(2008).认知心理学(重排本).北京:北京大学出版社.
王文斌、徐睿.(2005).英汉使役心理动词的形态分类和句法结构比较分析.外国语,(4):22-29.
王寅.(2001). Lakoff&Johnson笔下的认知语言学.外国语,(4):15-21.
王钟林.(1979).现代汉语语法.呼和浩特:内蒙古人民出版社.
文雅丽.(2007).现代汉语心理动词研究.北京:北京语言大学.
吴积才、程家枢.(1981).现代汉语.昆明:云南人民出版社.
吴世雄、陈维振.(1994).语义模糊与词典定义.外语学刊,(2):53-62.
谢龙汉、尚涛.(2012). SPSS统计分析与数据挖掘.北京:电子工业出版社.
邢福义.(1990).现代汉语.北京:高等教育出版社.
徐浩、高彩凤.(2013).跨语言构式启动中句法和语义的启动力研究.现代外语,(1):47-54.
徐睿、王文斌.(2005).心理动词也析.宁波大学学报,(3):65-69.
药盼盼、李妮、陈宝国.(2012).词根频率对汉语母语者英语屈折词和派生词表征方式的影响.外语教学与研究,(5):694-704.
袁义林.(1988).心理动词刍议.烟台师范学院学报(社科版),(4):53-58.
张积家.(2013).新版的语言关联性假设.材料来自“第三届全国语言认知神经与二语习得高层论坛”，2013年7月15日-17日.
张积家、陈月琴、谢晓兰.(2005).3-6岁儿童对11种基本颜色命名和分类研究.应用心理学,(3):227-232.
张积家、和秀梅.(2004).纳西族亲属词的概念结构.心理学报,(6):654-662.
张积家、林新英.(2005).大学生颜色词分类的研究.心理科学,(1):19-22.
张积家、陆爱桃.(2007).汉语心理动词的组织和分类研究.华南师范大学学报（社会科学版）,(1):117-123.
张积家、彭聃龄.(1993).汉字词特征语义提取的实验研究.心理学报,(2):140-147.
张积家、彭聃龄、张厚粲.(1991).分类过程中汉字的语义提取(II).心理学报,(2):139-143.
张积家、张厚粲、彭聃龄.(1990).分类过程中汉字的语义提取(I).心理学报,(4):397-405.
张家合.(2007).试论古汉语心理动词研究.学术论坛,(6):183-185.
张京鱼.(2001).汉语心理动词及其句式.唐都学刊,(1):112-115.
张京鱼.(2001).英汉心理使役动词应用对比研究.外语研究,(3):46-50.
张京鱼.(2004).心理动词与英语典型使役化结构.四川外语学院学报,(5):97-101.
张萍.(2010).中国英语学习者心理词库联想模式对比研究.外语教学与研究,(1):9-16.
张全生.(2001).现代汉语心理活动动词的界定及相关句型初探.语言与翻译,(2):6-10.
张淑静.(2004a).中国英语学习者心理词汇：性质与发展模式.郑州：河南大学出版社.
张淑静.(2004b).重组二语心理词汇.四川外语学院学报,(2):66-75.
张淑静.(2005).二语心理词汇和母语心理词汇的差异.四川外语学院学报,(5):103-107.
张淑静.(2008).二语心理词汇的发展路径.四川外语学院学报,(6):120-124.
赵俊华、张大均.(2006).词汇的语义表征及其启动效应研究现状与问题.心理科学,(3):752-754.
赵俊华、张大均.(2010).思维风格与英语词汇语义表征类型的关系.心理科学,(2):346-348.
郑福南、秦旭卿.(1983).汉语语法新编.长沙:湖南教育出版社.
钟志英、何安平.(2012).中国英语学习者对高频非习语英语程式语的心理表征研究.外语教学与研究,(6):886-898.
周有斌、邵敬敏.(1993).汉语心理动词及其句型.语文研究,(3):32-36.
朱智贤.(1989).心理学大辞典.北京:北京师范大学出版社.
Alexander, J.M., Carr, M.,&Schwanenflugel, P.J.(1995). The development of metacognition in giftedchildren: directions for future research. Developmental Review,(15):1-37.
Alexander, J.M., Noyes, C.R., MacBrayer, E.K., Schwanenflugel, P.J.,&Fabricius, W.V.(1998).Concepts of mental activities and verbs in children of high and average verbal intelligence. GiftedChild Quarterly,42(1):16-28.
Anderson, L. W.(等著).蒋小平(等译).(2009). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, andAssessing—A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Complete Edition).北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
Barstch, R.&Wellman, H.(1995). Children Talk about the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Belletti, A.&Rizzi, L.(1988). Psych-verbs and Theta-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory,(3):291-352.
Best, J.B.(著).黄希庭(等译).(2000).认知心理学(第五版).北京:中国轻工业出版社.
Bloom, B.S.(1956). Taxonomy of Education Objectives: Cognitive Domain. New York: Longman Inc.
Booth, J.R.&Hall, W.S.(1995). Development of the understanding of the polysemous meanings of themental-state verb know. Cognitive Development,(10):529-549.
Cacciari, C.&Levorato, M.C.(2000). The semantic structure of vision verbs: a psycholinguisticinvestigation of Italian. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,12(1):87-106.
Carroll, D.W.(2000). Psychology of language. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Carroll, J.B., Davies, P.,&Richman, B.(1971). The American Heritage Word Frequency Book. NewYork: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Chen, D.(1996). Acquisition of English Psych Verbs by Native Speakers of Chinese and French.Montreal: McGill University.
Chen, H.C.&Ng, M.L.(1989). Semantic facilitation and translation priming effect in Chinese-Englishbilinguals. Memory&Cognition,(17):454-462.
Cheung, H., Chen, H.C.,&Yeung, W.(2009). Relations between mental verb and false beliefunderstanding in Cantonese-speaking children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,(104):141-155.
Clark, M.D., Schwanenflugel, P.J., Everhart, V.S.,&Bartini, M.(1996). Theory of mind in deaf adultsand the organiztion of verbs of knowing. Journal of Deaf Studies&Deaf Education,(1):179-189.
Collins, A.M.&Loftus, E.F.(1975). A spreading activation theory of semantic priming. PsychologicalReview,(82):407-428.
Craik, F.I.M.&Lockhart, R.S.(1972). Levels of processing: a framework for memory research. Journalof Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,(11):671-684.
Cruse, D.A.(著).汪榕培(译).(1992).原型理论与词汇语义学(下).外语与外语教学,(5):1-5.
D’Andrade, R.(1987). A folk model of the mind. In D. Holland&N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural Models inLanguage and Thought (pp.112-148). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davidson, D.(1970). Mental Events. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
De Groot, A.M.B.&Nas, G.L.J.(1991). Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates incompound bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language,(30):90-123.
D rnyei, Z.&Csizér, K.(2002). Some dynamics of language attitudes and motivation: Results of alongitudinal nationwide survey. Applied Linguistics,(23):421-462.
Eysenck, M.W.&Keane, M.T.(1995). Cognitive Psychology. Esat Sussex: hove.
Fabricius, W.V., Schwanenflugel, P.J., Kyllonen, P.C., Barclay, C.R.,&Denton, S.M.(1989).Developing theories of the mind: children’s and adults’ concepts of mental activities. ChildDevelopment,(60):1278-1290.
Fellbaum, C.(1990). English verbs as a semantic net. International Journal of Lexicography,(3):278-301.
Fisher, C.&Gleitman, L.R.(2002). Breaking the linguistic code: current issues in early languagelearning. In C.R. Gallistel (Ed.), Learning, Motivation, and Emotion (Vol.3): Stevens’ Handbook ofExperimental Psychology. New York: John Wiley&Sons.
Fisher, C., Gleitman, H.,&Gletitmen, L.R.(1992). On the semantic content of subcategorization frames.Cognitive Psychology,(23):331-392.
Flavell, J.H.(1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive developmentinquiry. American Psychology,(34):906-911.
Frenck-Mestre, C.&Prince, P.(1997). Second language autonomy. Journal of Memory and Language,(37):481-501.
Gagne, R. M.(著).皮连生(等译).(2004).教学设计原理.上海:华东师范大学出版社.
Geeraerts, D.(著).李葆嘉、司联合、李炯英(译).(2013).欧美词汇语义学理论.北京:世界图书出版公司.
George, D.&Mallery, P.(著).何丽娟、李征、韦玉(译).(2011). SPSS统计分析简明教程.北京:电子工业出版社.
Glanzer, M.&Duarte, A.(1971). Repetition between and within languages in free recall. Journal ofVerbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,(10):625-630.
Glass, A.L., Holyoak, K.J.,&Santa, J.L.(1986). Cognition (2nd Ed.). New York: Random House.
Goggin, J.&Wickens, D.D.(1971). Proactive interference and language change in short-term memory.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,(10):453-458.
Gola, A.A.H.(2012). Mental verb input for promoting children’s theory of mind: a training study.Cognitive Development,(27):64-76.
Halliday, M.A.K.&Matthiessen, C.M.I.M.(1999). Construing Experience through Meaning: aLanguage-based Approach to Cognition. New York: Cassell.
Halliday, M.A.K.(1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Herrmann, B.F., Silliman, E.R., Bahr, R.H., Fasnacht, K.S.,&Federico, J.E.(2006). Mental state verbproduction in the oral narratives of English-and Spanish-speaking preadolescents: an exploratorystudy of lexical diversity and depth. Learning Disabilities Research&Practice,21(1):44-60.
Holmes, J.&Meyerhoff, M.(2003). The Handbook of Language and Gender. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hoskens, M.&De Boeck, P.(1991). An implicit theory of intelligence-related mental activities. Journalof Personality,59(4):793-814.
Howard, A.A., Mayeux, L.,&Naigles, L.R.(2008). Conversational correlates of children’s acquisitionof mental verbs and a theory of mind. First Language,28(4):376-402.
Jackendoff, R.(1990). Semantic Structure. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R.(1992). Language of the Mind: Essays on Mental Representation. Cambridge:Massachusetts.
Jackendoff, R.S.(1987). The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry,(18):369-412.
Jin, Y.S.&Fischler, I.(1987). Effects of concreteness on cross-language priming lexical decision. Paperpresented at the Southeastern Psychological Association Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia.
Johnson, C.N.&Maratsos, M.P.(1977). Early comprehension of mental verbs: think and know. ChildDevelopment,(48):1743-1747.
Johnson, C.N.&Wellman, H.M.(1980). Children’s developing understanding of mental verbs:remember, know and guess. Child Development,51(4):1095-1102.
Juffs, A.(1996). Learnability and the Lexicon: Theories and Second Language Acquisition Research.Amsterdam&Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kirsner, K., Smith, M.C., Lockhart, R.S., King, M.L.,&Jain, M.(1984). The bilingual lexicon:language specific units in an integrated network. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,(23):519-539.
Kroll, J.F.&Sholl, A.(1992). Lexical and conceptual memory in fluent and nonfluent bilinguals. In R.J.Harris (Ed.), Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publisher.
Kroll, J.F.&Stewart, E.(1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: evidence forasymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory andLanguage,(33):149-174.
Kruskal, J.B.&Wish, M.(1978). Basic Concepts of Multidimensional Scaling. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.
Landau, B., Sabini, J., Jonides, J.,&Newport, E. L.(2000). Perception, Cognition, and Language.Cambridge: Massachusetts.
Mandler, J.M.(1985). On the comprehension of temporal order. Language and Cognitive Processes,1(4):309-320.
Marr, D.(1982). Vision. San Francisco: Freeman.
McKoon, G.&Ratcliff, R.(1992). Spreading activation vs. compound cue accounts of priming:mediated priming revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory andCognition,(18):1155-1172.
McLaughlin, B.(1987). Theories of Second Language Learning. Edward Arnold: London.
Meara, P.(1982). Vocabulary acquisition: a neglected aspect of language learning. In V. Kinsella (Ed.),Surveys I: Eight State-of-the-art Articles on Key Areas in Language Teaching (pp.100-126).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meara, P.(1984). The study of lexis in interlanguage. In A. Davies, A. Howart,&C. Criper (Eds.),Interlanguage. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Meyer, D.E.(1970). On the representation and retrieval of stored semantic information. CognitivePsychology,(1):242-300.
Meyer, D.E.&Schvaneveldt, R.W.(1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: evidence of adependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology,(90):227-234.
Meyer, D.E., Schvaneveldt, R.W.,&Ruddy, M.G.(1974). Loci of contextual effects on visualword-recognition. In P.M.A. Rabbitt (Ed.), Attention and Performance. London: Academic Press.
Miller, G.&Fellbaum, C.(1991). Semantic networks of English. Cognition,(41):197-229.
Miller, G.&Johnson-Laird, P.N.(1976). Language and Perception. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Moore, C., Bryant, D.,&Furrow, D.(1989). Mental terms and the development of certainty. ChildDevelopment,(60):167-171.
Moore, C., Furrow, D., Chiasson, L.,&Patriquin, M.(1994). Developmental relationships betweenproduction and comprehension of mental terms. First Language,(14):1-17.
Nakau, M.(1994). Principles of Cognitive Semantics. Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten.
Neely, J.H.(1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of currentfindings and theories. In D. Besner&G.W. Humphreys (Eds.), Basic Processes in Reading: VisualWord Recognition. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Olson, D.R.(2003). Psychological Theory and Educational Reform: How School Remakes Mind andSociety. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Olson, D.R., Antonietti, A., Liverta-Sempio, O.,&Marchetti, A.(2006). The mental verbs in differentconceptual domains and in different cultures. In A. Antonietti, O. Liverta-Sempio,&A. Marchetti(Eds.), Theory of Mind and Language in Developmental Contexts (pp.31-64). Dordecht, TheNetherlands: Springer.
Papafragou, A., Cassidy, K.,&Gleitman, L.(2007). When we think about thinking: the acquisition ofbelief verbs. Cognition,(105):125-165.
Pascual, B., Aguado, G., Sotillo, M.,&Masdeu, J.C.(2008). Acquisition of mental state language inSpanish children: a longitudinal study of the relationship between the production of mental verbsand linguistic development. Developmental Science,11(4):454-466.
Pesetsky, D.(1995). Zero Syntax: Experiencer and Cascades. Cambridge: Massachusetts.
Psychology Software Tools, Inc.(Producer).(2002). E-prime(version2.0).
Random House Roget’s Thesaurus.(2012). NewYork: The Ballantine Publishing Group.
Rips, L.J.&Conrad, F.G.(1989). Folk psychology of mental activities. Psychological Review,(96):187-207.
Rosch, E.(1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,(104):192-233.
Rosch, E.H.(1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology,(4):328-350.
Saeed, J. I.(2000). Semantics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Schwanenflugel, P.J., Fabricius, W.V.,&Alexander, J.M.(1994). Developing theories of mind:understanding concepts and relations between mental activities. Child Development,(65):1546-1563.
Schwanenflugel, P.J., Fabricius, W.V.,&Noyes, C.R.(1996). Developing organization of mental verbs:evidence for the development of a constructivist theory of mind in middle childhood. CognitiveDevelopment,(11):265-294.
Schwanenflugel, P.J., Fabricius, W.V., Noyes, C.R., Bigler, K.D.,&Alexander, J.M.(1994). Theorganization of mental verbs and folk theories of knowing. Journal of Memory and Language,(33):376-395.
Schwanenflugel, P.J., Henderson, R.,&Fabricius, W.V.(1998). Developing organization of mentalverbs and theory of mind in Middle Childhood: evidence from extensions. DevelopmentalPsychology,(34):512-524.
Schwanenflugel, P.J., Martin, M.,&Takahashi, T.(1999). The organization of verbs of knowing:evidence for cultural commonality and variation in theory of mind. Memory&Cognition,27(5):813-825.
Schwanenflugel, P.J.&Rey, M.(1986). Interlingual semantic facilitation: evidence for commonrepresentational system in the bilingual lexicon. Journal of Memory and Language,(25):605-618.
Segalowitz, N.&De Almeida, R.(2002). Conceptual representation of verbs in bilinguals: semanticfield effects and a second-language performance paradox. Brain&Language,81(1-3):517-531.
Shatz, M., Wellman, H.M.,&Silber, S.(1983). The acquisition of mental terms: a systematicinvestigation of the first reference to mental state. Cognition,(14):301-321.
Shinzato, R.(2003). Some observations concerning mental verbs and speech act verbs. Journal ofPragmatics,(36):861-882.
Skehan, P.(1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sousa, D. A.(2005). How the Brain Learns to Read. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Spanoudis, G.C.&Natsopoulos, D.(2011). Memory functioning and mental verbs acquisition inchildren with specific language impairment. Research in Developmental Disabilities,(5):1-11.
Tanenhaus, M.(1988). Psycholinguistics: an Overview. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tanenhaus, M.K.&Carlson, G.N.(1989). Lexical structure and language comprehension. In W.Marslen-Wilson (Ed.), Lexical Representation and Process. Cambridge: Massachusetts.
Taylor, I.(1971). How are words from two languages organized in bilinguals’ memory? CanadianJournal of Psychology,(25):228-240.
Taylor, I.(1976). Similarity between French and English words--A factor to be considered in bilinguallanguage behavior. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,(5):85-94.
Thompson, C.K.&Lee, M.(2009). Psych verb production and comprehension in agrammatic Broca’saphasia. Journal of Neurolinguistics,(22):354-369.
Tulving, E.(1972). Episodic and semantic memory. In E. Tulving&W. Donaldson (Eds.), Organizationof Memory. New York: Academic Press.
Valette, R.M.&Disick, R.J.(1972). Modern Language Performance Objectives. New York: Harcourt,Brace&Jovanovich.
Wal, T.V.(2004). Folksonomy: coinage and definition, available online at http://vanderwal. Net/folksonomy. Html, accessed on Aug.12,2013.
Wellman, H. M.&Estes, D.(1987). Children’s early use of mental verbs and what they mean.Discourse Process,(10):141-156.
Zhang, B., Jiang, X.&Shi, W.(1994). Semantic and repetition priming between-and within-language.In Q. Jing (Ed.), Information Processing of Chinese Language. Beijing: Beijing Normal UniversityPublishing Group.
安德森(著).秦裕林、程瑶、周海燕、徐玥(译).(2012).认知心理学及其启示(第七版).北京:人民邮电出版社.
常松、王瑞明、李利、谢久书.(2013).非熟练双语者言语产生中非目标语言的激活范围.心理发展与教育,(1):54-60.
陈昌来、金珍我.（1998).论汉语句子语义结构中的语义成分经事和感事.烟台师范学院学报,(3):45-51.
陈富国.(1990).多维标度法的理论与方法.心理科学通讯,(4):36-41.
陈月明.(1995).汉语词汇的思维特征管窥--兼及语言与思维之关系.宁波大学学报,(2):1-9.
崔伯阜.(1963).语法基础知识.南京:江苏人民出版社.
崔艳嫣、刘振前.(2010).二语心理词库组织模式发展的实证研究.外语教学,(3):35-38.
戴曼纯、刘晓英.(2008).中国英语学习者心理动词习得实证研究.外语学刊,(5):114-122.
戴曼纯.(2000).论第二语言词汇习得研究.外语教学与研究,(3):138-144.
丁勉哉.(1959).现代汉语语法讲义(上册).上海:华东师范大学出版社.
董秀梅.(1991).谈汉语的心理动词.聊城师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版),(4):115-119.
范晓、杜高印、陈光磊.(1987).汉语动词概论.上海:上海教育出版社.
范小月、王瑞明、吴际、林哲婷.(2012).熟练和非熟练中英双语者不同认知控制成分的比较.心理科学,(6):1304-1308.
丰竞.(2003).现代汉语心理动词的语义分析.淮北煤炭师范学院学报,(1):106-110.
高耀墀.(1957).现代汉语语法.郑州:河南人民出版社.
桂诗春.(1991).实验心理语言学纲要.长沙:湖南教育出版社.
桂诗春.(2000).新编心理语言学.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
何安平.(2003).基于语料库的英语教师话语分析.现代外语,(2):161-170.
胡文飞.(2011).渐进性、迁移性与有灵性的融合:中国学习者对心理动词的产出现状分析.外国语文,(4):58-63.
华宏仪.(1980).实用汉语语法.济南:山东人民出版社.
黄伯荣、廖序东.(1980).现代汉语(试用本).兰州:甘肃人民出版社.
黄伯荣、廖序东.(1997).现代汉语(下册).北京:高等教育出版社.
黄荣.(2009).心理词典与英语词汇教学.语文学刊·外语教育教学,(10):22-23.
贾冠杰.(2006a).认知神经科学与双脑外语教育模式.外语与外语教学,(12):20-22.
贾冠杰.(2006b).英语词汇--诸多文化的混合体.中国外语,(5):58-61.
贾冠杰.(2008).多语心理词汇模式与二语习得研究.外语与外语教学,(6):27-31.
姜孟、王鲁男、赵思思、廖巧云.(2013).中国EFL熟练双语者语篇加工中“物用性”提取的心理现实性及母语优势效应.材料来自“第三届全国语言认知神经与二语习得高层论坛”，2013年7月15日-17日.
李更春、贾冠杰.(2013).英语程式语心理表征研究.西藏大学学报,(2):174-180.
黎锦熙、刘世儒.(1959).汉语语法教材.北京:商务印书馆.
黎锦熙.(1992).新著国语文法.北京:商务印书馆.
黎锦熙.(1954).新著国语文法.上海:商务印书馆.
李红.(2003).第二语言语义提取中的词汇知识效应.现代外语,(4):385-393.
李临定.(1990).现代汉语动词.北京:中国社会科学院出版社.
李秋杨.(2010).汉英思考类动词语义的多角度考察.北京:中央民族大学.
李荣宝、彭聃龄.(1999).双语者的语义表征.现代外语,(3):255-272.
李荣宝、彭聃龄.(2001).双语表征研究的理论与实验方法.当代语言学,(4):289-304.
李永才、付玉萍.(2009).英语学习者心理词汇发展规律调查.外语电化教学,(5):32-38.
李之群.(1997).趣味心理学.武汉:华中理工大学出版社.
廖巧云、王鲁男、孟丽君、姜孟.(2013).汉语因果句的理解通达机理.材料来自“第三届全国语言认知神经与二语习得高层论坛”，2013年7月15日-17日.
廖序东.(1999).《马氏文通》所采用的研究方法.语言研究,(2):1-11.
凌冰.(1954).语法知识提要.北京:大众出版社.
刘月华、潘文娱、故韡.(1983).实用现代汉语语法.北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
卢福波.(1994).谈汉语动词的相关性及其对句法结构的制约作用.世界汉语教学,(4):25-28.
卢纹岱.(2011). SPSS统计分析(第四版).北京:电子工业出版社.
吕叔湘.(1942).中国文法要略.北京:商务印书馆.
吕叔湘.(1953).语法学习.北京:中国青年出版社.
马建忠.(1898).马氏文通.北京:商务印书馆.
潘菽.(1998).意识-心理学的研究.北京:商务印书馆.
彭聃龄、张必隐.(2004).认知心理学.杭州:浙江教育出版社.
祁庆倩.(2011).现代汉语心理动词的内部时间结构.安徽大学学报(哲学社会科学版),(3):85-90.
施树森.(1957).汉语语法提要.南京:江苏人民出版社.
索尔索(著).何华(译).(2006).认知心理学.南京:江苏教育出版社.
唐青叶.(2004). like类与please类心理动词的视角研究.外语教学,(3):39-43.
王初明.(1990).应用心理语言学—外语学习心理研究.长沙:湖南教育出版社.
王汉松.(2000).布鲁姆认知领域教育目标分类理论评析.南京师大学报(社会科学版),(3):65-71.
王红斌.(2002).现代汉语心理动词的范围和类别.晋东南师范专科学校学报,(4):62-64.
王红斌.(2004).包含名宾心理动词的事件句和非事件句.南京师大学报(社会科学版),(2):139-144.
王甦、汪安圣.(2008).认知心理学(重排本).北京:北京大学出版社.
王文斌、徐睿.(2005).英汉使役心理动词的形态分类和句法结构比较分析.外国语,(4):22-29.
王寅.(2001). Lakoff&Johnson笔下的认知语言学.外国语,(4):15-21.
王钟林.(1979).现代汉语语法.呼和浩特:内蒙古人民出版社.
文雅丽.(2007).现代汉语心理动词研究.北京:北京语言大学.
吴积才、程家枢.(1981).现代汉语.昆明:云南人民出版社.
吴世雄、陈维振.(1994).语义模糊与词典定义.外语学刊,(2):53-62.
谢龙汉、尚涛.(2012). SPSS统计分析与数据挖掘.北京:电子工业出版社.
邢福义.(1990).现代汉语.北京:高等教育出版社.
徐浩、高彩凤.(2013).跨语言构式启动中句法和语义的启动力研究.现代外语,(1):47-54.
徐睿、王文斌.(2005).心理动词也析.宁波大学学报,(3):65-69.
药盼盼、李妮、陈宝国.(2012).词根频率对汉语母语者英语屈折词和派生词表征方式的影响.外语教学与研究,(5):694-704.
袁义林.(1988).心理动词刍议.烟台师范学院学报(社科版),(4):53-58.
张积家.(2013).新版的语言关联性假设.材料来自“第三届全国语言认知神经与二语习得高层论坛”，2013年7月15日-17日.
张积家、陈月琴、谢晓兰.(2005).3-6岁儿童对11种基本颜色命名和分类研究.应用心理学,(3):227-232.
张积家、和秀梅.(2004).纳西族亲属词的概念结构.心理学报,(6):654-662.
张积家、林新英.(2005).大学生颜色词分类的研究.心理科学,(1):19-22.
张积家、陆爱桃.(2007).汉语心理动词的组织和分类研究.华南师范大学学报（社会科学版）,(1):117-123.
张积家、彭聃龄.(1993).汉字词特征语义提取的实验研究.心理学报,(2):140-147.
张积家、彭聃龄、张厚粲.(1991).分类过程中汉字的语义提取(II).心理学报,(2):139-143.
张积家、张厚粲、彭聃龄.(1990).分类过程中汉字的语义提取(I).心理学报,(4):397-405.
张家合.(2007).试论古汉语心理动词研究.学术论坛,(6):183-185.
张京鱼.(2001).汉语心理动词及其句式.唐都学刊,(1):112-115.
张京鱼.(2001).英汉心理使役动词应用对比研究.外语研究,(3):46-50.
张京鱼.(2004).心理动词与英语典型使役化结构.四川外语学院学报,(5):97-101.
张萍.(2010).中国英语学习者心理词库联想模式对比研究.外语教学与研究,(1):9-16.
张全生.(2001).现代汉语心理活动动词的界定及相关句型初探.语言与翻译,(2):6-10.
张淑静.(2004a).中国英语学习者心理词汇：性质与发展模式.郑州：河南大学出版社.
张淑静.(2004b).重组二语心理词汇.四川外语学院学报,(2):66-75.
张淑静.(2005).二语心理词汇和母语心理词汇的差异.四川外语学院学报,(5):103-107.
张淑静.(2008).二语心理词汇的发展路径.四川外语学院学报,(6):120-124.
赵俊华、张大均.(2006).词汇的语义表征及其启动效应研究现状与问题.心理科学,(3):752-754.
赵俊华、张大均.(2010).思维风格与英语词汇语义表征类型的关系.心理科学,(2):346-348.
郑福南、秦旭卿.(1983).汉语语法新编.长沙:湖南教育出版社.
钟志英、何安平.(2012).中国英语学习者对高频非习语英语程式语的心理表征研究.外语教学与研究,(6):886-898.
周有斌、邵敬敏.(1993).汉语心理动词及其句型.语文研究,(3):32-36.
朱智贤.(1989).心理学大辞典.北京:北京师范大学出版社.