中国大学生英语多义词词义习得研究
|
摘要
多义词是语言中的普遍现象。而多义词学习也是语言学习的难点之一,特别是对多义词比喻意义的学习,因为许多多义词的词项经常是以其派生的比喻意义出现的(Low,1988)。同时,多义词词义的复杂性往往造成学生阅读时词义猜测的困难。Bensoussan & Laufer(1984)通过实证研究证明,和其它词相比,学习者在猜测多义词词义时表现得要更差一些。因此,如何提供有效的词义教学策略将有助于大学生对多义词比喻意义的猜测和学习。
要学好多义词,就有必要了解多义词内部的语义关系。从历时和横时的角度来讲,多义词有其基本意义和派生意义,核心意义和边缘意义。多义词的不同意义在本质上是有联系的,其多种意义的形成是有理据的:词义是由基本意义通过隐喻和转喻两种基本手段转化而来。辐射和连锁是多义词词义演变的两种主要形式。一般来说,多义词的核心意义和边缘意义之间的联系易于辨认,但是两个比喻意义的联系一般不容易发现(Verspoor & Lowie,2003)。
认知语言学认为,多义词被看着是一种范畴现象,其多种意义以原形为中心形成一个范畴,其成员之间具有家族相似性。因此,多义词具有其引申意义和原形意义。同时,隐喻和转喻是人们对抽象范畴进行概念化的有力的认知工具,这种认知方式在多义词的多种义项中也得到了充分的体现。因此,从认知角度理解多义词能从根本上帮助我们了解多义词的各种意义的由来及关系,从而有助于掌握其意义。
本文作者以中国大学生在英语多义词学习中存在的问题为基础,运用实证研究分析了在两种不同的条件下,对多义词比喻意义的猜测和学习会产生两种截然不同的结果。本研究试图解答下列问题:
第一、和提供边缘意义相比,给学生提供核心意义是否有助于他们对多义词比喻意义的猜测?
第二、和提供边缘意义相比,给学生提供核心意义是否会影响他们对多义词比喻意义的短时记忆?
第三、和提供边缘意义相比,给学生提供核心意义是否有利于他们对多义词比喻意义的长时记忆?
对以上问题的研究主要通过多义词的测试来完成的。本研究以语义网络、精确阐释、认知语言学以及相关的研究为理论基础,采取词汇测试的形式进行素材
Polysemy is prevalent in language. It is one of the difficult parts in language learning, especially for the figurative senses of polysemous words. Many polysemous lexical items occur more frequently in their derived figurative senses than in their original literal senses (Low, 1988). In addition, the complicate nature of polysemous words often result in the difficulty of guessing meanings in reading. Bensoussan & Laufer (1984) found that learners performed far worse on guessing the meaning of polysemous words than on guessing the meaning of other words. How to provide the effective strategy of teaching meanings will contribute to the guessing and retention of the figurative senses of polysemous words.To know the internal meaning relation is beneficial to learning polysemous words. Diachronically and synchronically, polysemous words have primary and derived meaning, core and peripheral meaning. The multiple meanings of these words are by nature related and are motivated. They are transferred from the primary meaning by devices of metaphor and metonymy. Concatenation and radiation are the two processes of meaning development. In general, the semantic link between a core sense and a figurative sense is usually one that can be easily discovered and understood, but the link between two figurative senses may not be so clear (Verspoor& Lowie, 2003).In cognitive linguistics, polysemy is regarded as a categorizing phenomenon, i.e., related meanings of words form categories centering around a prototype and bearing family resemblance relations to one another. Thus, polysemous words have prototype meaning and extended meanings. And cognitive linguists have shown that metaphor and metonymy are powerful cognitive tools for our conceptualization of abstract categories (Ungerer & Schmid, 2001). This way is fully reflected in polysemy. Consequently, interpreting polysemy from cognitive approach can help learners know the development processes of multiple meanings, which facilitates their learning of the meanings of polysemous words.The current study intends to investigate guessing and learning of the figurative
senses of polysemous words by two groups of Chinese EFL college students. The thesis aims at answering the following questions: (1) Whether the students provided with a core sense will result in better guessing of figurative senses of polysemous words than those provided with a non-core sense? (2) Whether the students provided with a core sense will lead to better short-term retention of figurative senses of polysemous words than those provided with a non-core sense? (3) Whether the students provided with a core sense will lead to better long-term retention of figurative senses of polysemous words than those provided with a non-literal sense?The method used in this study is mainly the vocabulary tests of 16 polysemous words the author designed. The subjects involved in the study were 74 freshmen of both English major and non-English major from Weinan Teachers' College, Shaanxi, China. They were randomly divided into two groups according to the experimental conditions. The tests were carried out in the students' regular classes including two stages: in the first stage the guessing and the short-term retention of the figurative senses of polysemous words were tested. Two weeks later, the long-term retention test of the figurative senses of polysemous words was administered. And then scoring was performed and SPSS software was applied for statistical analysis.The analysis and discussion result in some findings: first, providing core sense to students can help them guess the figurative senses of unfamiliar polysemous words than providing non-core sense. Because providing the core sense enables learners to create meaningful links between core sense and peripheral senses, helping them to interpret the figurative senses. Second, compared with the peripheral sense, providing core sense to students will not affect the short-term retention of the figurative senses of polysemous words. Third, providing core sense to students at the guessin
要学好多义词,就有必要了解多义词内部的语义关系。从历时和横时的角度来讲,多义词有其基本意义和派生意义,核心意义和边缘意义。多义词的不同意义在本质上是有联系的,其多种意义的形成是有理据的:词义是由基本意义通过隐喻和转喻两种基本手段转化而来。辐射和连锁是多义词词义演变的两种主要形式。一般来说,多义词的核心意义和边缘意义之间的联系易于辨认,但是两个比喻意义的联系一般不容易发现(Verspoor & Lowie,2003)。
认知语言学认为,多义词被看着是一种范畴现象,其多种意义以原形为中心形成一个范畴,其成员之间具有家族相似性。因此,多义词具有其引申意义和原形意义。同时,隐喻和转喻是人们对抽象范畴进行概念化的有力的认知工具,这种认知方式在多义词的多种义项中也得到了充分的体现。因此,从认知角度理解多义词能从根本上帮助我们了解多义词的各种意义的由来及关系,从而有助于掌握其意义。
本文作者以中国大学生在英语多义词学习中存在的问题为基础,运用实证研究分析了在两种不同的条件下,对多义词比喻意义的猜测和学习会产生两种截然不同的结果。本研究试图解答下列问题:
第一、和提供边缘意义相比,给学生提供核心意义是否有助于他们对多义词比喻意义的猜测?
第二、和提供边缘意义相比,给学生提供核心意义是否会影响他们对多义词比喻意义的短时记忆?
第三、和提供边缘意义相比,给学生提供核心意义是否有利于他们对多义词比喻意义的长时记忆?
对以上问题的研究主要通过多义词的测试来完成的。本研究以语义网络、精确阐释、认知语言学以及相关的研究为理论基础,采取词汇测试的形式进行素材
Polysemy is prevalent in language. It is one of the difficult parts in language learning, especially for the figurative senses of polysemous words. Many polysemous lexical items occur more frequently in their derived figurative senses than in their original literal senses (Low, 1988). In addition, the complicate nature of polysemous words often result in the difficulty of guessing meanings in reading. Bensoussan & Laufer (1984) found that learners performed far worse on guessing the meaning of polysemous words than on guessing the meaning of other words. How to provide the effective strategy of teaching meanings will contribute to the guessing and retention of the figurative senses of polysemous words.To know the internal meaning relation is beneficial to learning polysemous words. Diachronically and synchronically, polysemous words have primary and derived meaning, core and peripheral meaning. The multiple meanings of these words are by nature related and are motivated. They are transferred from the primary meaning by devices of metaphor and metonymy. Concatenation and radiation are the two processes of meaning development. In general, the semantic link between a core sense and a figurative sense is usually one that can be easily discovered and understood, but the link between two figurative senses may not be so clear (Verspoor& Lowie, 2003).In cognitive linguistics, polysemy is regarded as a categorizing phenomenon, i.e., related meanings of words form categories centering around a prototype and bearing family resemblance relations to one another. Thus, polysemous words have prototype meaning and extended meanings. And cognitive linguists have shown that metaphor and metonymy are powerful cognitive tools for our conceptualization of abstract categories (Ungerer & Schmid, 2001). This way is fully reflected in polysemy. Consequently, interpreting polysemy from cognitive approach can help learners know the development processes of multiple meanings, which facilitates their learning of the meanings of polysemous words.The current study intends to investigate guessing and learning of the figurative
senses of polysemous words by two groups of Chinese EFL college students. The thesis aims at answering the following questions: (1) Whether the students provided with a core sense will result in better guessing of figurative senses of polysemous words than those provided with a non-core sense? (2) Whether the students provided with a core sense will lead to better short-term retention of figurative senses of polysemous words than those provided with a non-core sense? (3) Whether the students provided with a core sense will lead to better long-term retention of figurative senses of polysemous words than those provided with a non-literal sense?The method used in this study is mainly the vocabulary tests of 16 polysemous words the author designed. The subjects involved in the study were 74 freshmen of both English major and non-English major from Weinan Teachers' College, Shaanxi, China. They were randomly divided into two groups according to the experimental conditions. The tests were carried out in the students' regular classes including two stages: in the first stage the guessing and the short-term retention of the figurative senses of polysemous words were tested. Two weeks later, the long-term retention test of the figurative senses of polysemous words was administered. And then scoring was performed and SPSS software was applied for statistical analysis.The analysis and discussion result in some findings: first, providing core sense to students can help them guess the figurative senses of unfamiliar polysemous words than providing non-core sense. Because providing the core sense enables learners to create meaningful links between core sense and peripheral senses, helping them to interpret the figurative senses. Second, compared with the peripheral sense, providing core sense to students will not affect the short-term retention of the figurative senses of polysemous words. Third, providing core sense to students at the guessin
引文
Anderson, J. R. The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: New York: Erlbaum, 1983.
Anderson, J. R. Cognitive Psychology and Its Implication (4th edition). New York: Freeman, 1995.
Beheydt. L. The semantization of vocabulary in foreign language learning. System, 15 (1): 55-67,1987.
Bensoussan, M., & B. Laufer. Lexical guessing in context in EFL reading comprehension. Journal of Research in reading, 7: 15-32, 1984.
Boers, F. Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Linguistics, 21(4): 553-571, 2000a.
Boers, F. Enhancing metaphoric awareness in specialized reading. English for Specific Purposes, 19: 137-147, 2000b.
Carroll, D. V. Psychology of Language. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Coady, J. Research on ESL/EFL vocabulary acquisition: Putting it in context. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J.coady (Eds), Second language reading and vocabulary (pp. 3-24). Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1993.
Craik, F. I. M., & R.S. Lockhart. 1972. Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11: 671-684,1972.
Craik, F. I. M., & E. Tulving. Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104: 268-294, 1975.
Deignan, et al. Teaching English metaphor using cross-linguistic awareness-raising activities. ELT Journal, 51/4: 352-360, 1997.
Dupuy, B., & S, Krashen. Incidental vocabulary acquisition in French as a second language. Applied Language Learning, 4: 55-63,1993.
Durkin, K., & J. Manning. Polysemy and the subjective lexicon: semantic relatedness and the salience of intraword senses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. VI8(6): 577-612,1989.
Eysenck, M. W. Incidental learning and orienting tasks. In Puff, C. R. (Eds.). Handbook of Research Methods in Human Memory and Cognition, (pp.197-228). New York:
Academic Press, 1982.
Frantzen, D. Factors affecting how second language Spanish students derive meaning from context. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2): 168-99, 2003.
Jimenez et al. Effects of word linguistic properties on phonological awareness Spanish children. Journal of Educational psychology, V87 (2): 193-201, 1995
Goulden, R., P. Nation, & J. Read. How large can a receptive vocabulary be? Applied Linguistics, 11(4): 341-363,1990.
Gu Yongqi & R. K. Johson. Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Language learning Outcomes. Language Learning, 46 (4): 643-679, 1996.
Geeraerts, D., S. Grondelaers., & P. Bakema. The structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming, and context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1994.
Haastrup, K. The learner as word processor. AILA Review, 6: 34-46,1989.
Hazenberg S. & J. H. Hulstijn. Defining a minimal receptive second-language vocabulary for non-native University students: An empirical investigation. Applied Linguistics, 17(2): 145-163,1996.
Hatch, E., & C. Brown. Vocabulary, Semantics and Language Education. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Hu, Chieh-fang. Phonological memory, phonological awareness and foreign language word learning. Language Learning, V53 (3): 429-462, 2003.
Hulstijn, J. H. Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51(3): 539-558, 2001.
Ittzes, I. Lexical guessing in isolation and context. Journal of Reading, 34, 360-366, 1991.
Jimenez, J. E., et al. Effects of word linguistic properties on phonological awareness Spanish children. Journal of psychology, V 87(2): 193-201, 1995.
Lakoff & Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Lakoff, G Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Langacker, R. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical perspectives. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1987.
Langacker, R. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1991.
Laufer, B. How much lexis is necessary for reading comprehension? In P. Arnaud & H. Boint (Eds.). Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics. London: Macmillan, 1992.
Laufer, B. What's in a word that makes it hard or easy: Some intralexical factors that affect the learning of words. In Schmitt, N. & M. McCarthy. (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp.140-155). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1997a.
Laufer, B. The lexical plight in second language reading. In Coady, J. & Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp.20-34). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1997b.
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition in a Second Language: The Construct of Task-Induced Involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22/1: 1-26, 2001.
Lawson, M. J. & D. Hogben, The vocabulary-learning strategies of foreign language students. Language learning, 46 (1): 101-135, 1996.
Low, G On teaching metaphor. Applied Linguistics, 9/2: 125-147,1988.
Lowie, W. M. Cross-linguistic influence on morphology in the bilingual mental lexicon. Studia Linguistica, 54 (2): 175-185, 2000.
Leech, G Semantics. Harmendsworth: Penguin, 1981.
Li, Xiaolong. Effects of vocabulary clues on inferring and remembering meanings of new words. Applied Linguistics, 9: 402-13,1988.
Li, Yongzhong. A cognitive Approach to Metonymy in Language. Shanghai: DongHua University Press, 2004.
Lin, Chengzhang. An Introduction to English Lexicology. Wuhan: Wuhan University Press, 1997.
Lin, Fumei. Modern English Lexicology. Hefei: Anhui Educational Press, 1985.
Low, G On teaching metaphor. Applied Linguistics, 9/2: 125-47, 1988.
Lyons, J. Linguistic Semantics: An introduction. Beijing: Foreign Language teaching and Research Press, 2000.
MacLennan, C. 'Metaphor and prototypes in the learning and teaching of grammar and vocabulary'. International Review of Applied Linguistics XXXII/1: 97-110, 1994.
Mondria, J. A., & M. Wit-de Boer. The effects of contextual richness on the guessability and the retention of words in a foreign language. Applied linguistics, 12/3: 249-267,1991.
Mondria, J. A. Vocabulary acquisition in foreign language instruction: The effects of context and guessing on retention. Unpublished doctorial dissertation, University of Groningen, 1996.
Mori. The role of context and word morphology in learning new kanji words. The Modern Language Journal, V 87(3): 404-420, 2003.
Morin. Derivational morphological analysis as a strategy for vocabulary acquisition in Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, V 87(2): 200-221, 2003.
Nagy, P. On the role of context in first- and second-language vocabulary learning. In N.Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 64-83). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Nassaji, H. L2 vocabulary learning from context: strategies, knowledge sources, and their relationship with success in L2 lexical inferring. TESOL Quarterly, 37/4: 645-70, 2003.
Pei-Wen. Semantics of Modern English. Nanjing: Nanjing University Press, 2001.
Rijpma, M. T. The effectiveness of the learning strategy of core meaning on guessing and retention of second language polysemous words. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Groningen, 1999.
Rosch, Eleanor and Caroline B. Mervis. Family resemblances: studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7: 573-605, 1975.
Schmitt, N. Tracking the incremental acquisition of second language vocabulary: A longitudinal study. Language Learning, 48 (2): 281-317, 1998.
Schmitt & Zimmerman, Derivational Word Forms: How do learners know? TESOL, V36 (2): 145-171, 2002,
Schoen, L. M. Semantic Flexibility and Core Meaning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 17/2: 113-123,1988.
Schouten-van Parreren, C. Individual differences in vocabulary acquisition: A qualitative experiment in the first phase of secondary education. In J. L. Arnaud & H. Bejoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 94-101). Basingstoke, England: Macmillan, 1992.
Stein, B. S., et al. Differences in the precision of self-generated elaborations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111: 399-405, 1982.
Taylor, J. R. Linguistic Categorization: Prototype in Linguistic Theory. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Torgesen, J.S., et al. Effects of two types of phonological awareness training on word learning in kindergarten children. Journal of Educational psychology, V84 (3): 364-370, 1992.
Ullmann, S. Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning. New York: A Barnes & Noble Paperback, 1979.
Ungerer & Schmid. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Verspoor, M. H. True blue: A cognitive linguistic approach to vocabulary acquisition. In Smieja B. & Tasch M. (Eds.), Human contact through language and linguistics (pp. 203-217). Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1997.
Verspoor & Lowie. Making Sense of Polysemous Words. Language Learning, 53(3): 547-586, 2003.
Xing, Xiuchong. The Effect of Semantic Motivation on the Comprehension of English Polysemants, unpublished master's thesis, 2001.
Zhang, Weiyou. A Course in English Lexicology. Wuhan: HuaZhong University Press, 2003.
Zhang, Yunpei. An Introduction to Modern English Lexicology. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press, 1988.
白解红,多义聚合现象的认知研究,外语与外语教学,2001,12.
段满福,谈英语一词多义现象,内蒙古大学学报,2004,5.
桂诗春,《实验心理语言学纲要》,长沙:湖南教育出版社,1997.
桂诗春,《新编心理语言学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
束定芳,《现代语义学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
李国南,《辞格与词汇》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001.
梁宁建,《当代认知心理学》,上海:上海教育出版社,2004.
陆国强,《现代英语词汇学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,1994.
吕煦,《实用英语修辞》,北京:清华大学出版社,2004.
汪榕培,卢晓娟,《英语词汇学教程》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,1997.
汪榕培,《英语词汇学高级教程》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002.
王文斌, 词及词义心理研究——对心理词典论的考察,现代外语,2002,4.
王寅,《语义理论与语言教学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001.
谢葵,一词多义与英语教学,江西师范大学学报,1999,3.
余建英,何旭宏,《数据统计分析与SPSS应用》,人民邮件出版社,2003.
赵艳芳,《认知语言学概论》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000a.
赵艳芳,周红,语义范畴与词义演变的认知机制,郑州工业大学学报,2000b,4.
赵艳芳,认知语言学的理论基础及形成过程,外国语,2001,1.
张文忠,吴旭东,课堂环境下二语词汇能力的认知心理模式,现代外语,2003,10.
Anderson, J. R. Cognitive Psychology and Its Implication (4th edition). New York: Freeman, 1995.
Beheydt. L. The semantization of vocabulary in foreign language learning. System, 15 (1): 55-67,1987.
Bensoussan, M., & B. Laufer. Lexical guessing in context in EFL reading comprehension. Journal of Research in reading, 7: 15-32, 1984.
Boers, F. Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Linguistics, 21(4): 553-571, 2000a.
Boers, F. Enhancing metaphoric awareness in specialized reading. English for Specific Purposes, 19: 137-147, 2000b.
Carroll, D. V. Psychology of Language. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Coady, J. Research on ESL/EFL vocabulary acquisition: Putting it in context. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J.coady (Eds), Second language reading and vocabulary (pp. 3-24). Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1993.
Craik, F. I. M., & R.S. Lockhart. 1972. Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11: 671-684,1972.
Craik, F. I. M., & E. Tulving. Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104: 268-294, 1975.
Deignan, et al. Teaching English metaphor using cross-linguistic awareness-raising activities. ELT Journal, 51/4: 352-360, 1997.
Dupuy, B., & S, Krashen. Incidental vocabulary acquisition in French as a second language. Applied Language Learning, 4: 55-63,1993.
Durkin, K., & J. Manning. Polysemy and the subjective lexicon: semantic relatedness and the salience of intraword senses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. VI8(6): 577-612,1989.
Eysenck, M. W. Incidental learning and orienting tasks. In Puff, C. R. (Eds.). Handbook of Research Methods in Human Memory and Cognition, (pp.197-228). New York:
Academic Press, 1982.
Frantzen, D. Factors affecting how second language Spanish students derive meaning from context. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2): 168-99, 2003.
Jimenez et al. Effects of word linguistic properties on phonological awareness Spanish children. Journal of Educational psychology, V87 (2): 193-201, 1995
Goulden, R., P. Nation, & J. Read. How large can a receptive vocabulary be? Applied Linguistics, 11(4): 341-363,1990.
Gu Yongqi & R. K. Johson. Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Language learning Outcomes. Language Learning, 46 (4): 643-679, 1996.
Geeraerts, D., S. Grondelaers., & P. Bakema. The structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming, and context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1994.
Haastrup, K. The learner as word processor. AILA Review, 6: 34-46,1989.
Hazenberg S. & J. H. Hulstijn. Defining a minimal receptive second-language vocabulary for non-native University students: An empirical investigation. Applied Linguistics, 17(2): 145-163,1996.
Hatch, E., & C. Brown. Vocabulary, Semantics and Language Education. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Hu, Chieh-fang. Phonological memory, phonological awareness and foreign language word learning. Language Learning, V53 (3): 429-462, 2003.
Hulstijn, J. H. Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51(3): 539-558, 2001.
Ittzes, I. Lexical guessing in isolation and context. Journal of Reading, 34, 360-366, 1991.
Jimenez, J. E., et al. Effects of word linguistic properties on phonological awareness Spanish children. Journal of psychology, V 87(2): 193-201, 1995.
Lakoff & Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Lakoff, G Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Langacker, R. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical perspectives. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1987.
Langacker, R. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1991.
Laufer, B. How much lexis is necessary for reading comprehension? In P. Arnaud & H. Boint (Eds.). Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics. London: Macmillan, 1992.
Laufer, B. What's in a word that makes it hard or easy: Some intralexical factors that affect the learning of words. In Schmitt, N. & M. McCarthy. (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp.140-155). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1997a.
Laufer, B. The lexical plight in second language reading. In Coady, J. & Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp.20-34). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1997b.
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition in a Second Language: The Construct of Task-Induced Involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22/1: 1-26, 2001.
Lawson, M. J. & D. Hogben, The vocabulary-learning strategies of foreign language students. Language learning, 46 (1): 101-135, 1996.
Low, G On teaching metaphor. Applied Linguistics, 9/2: 125-147,1988.
Lowie, W. M. Cross-linguistic influence on morphology in the bilingual mental lexicon. Studia Linguistica, 54 (2): 175-185, 2000.
Leech, G Semantics. Harmendsworth: Penguin, 1981.
Li, Xiaolong. Effects of vocabulary clues on inferring and remembering meanings of new words. Applied Linguistics, 9: 402-13,1988.
Li, Yongzhong. A cognitive Approach to Metonymy in Language. Shanghai: DongHua University Press, 2004.
Lin, Chengzhang. An Introduction to English Lexicology. Wuhan: Wuhan University Press, 1997.
Lin, Fumei. Modern English Lexicology. Hefei: Anhui Educational Press, 1985.
Low, G On teaching metaphor. Applied Linguistics, 9/2: 125-47, 1988.
Lyons, J. Linguistic Semantics: An introduction. Beijing: Foreign Language teaching and Research Press, 2000.
MacLennan, C. 'Metaphor and prototypes in the learning and teaching of grammar and vocabulary'. International Review of Applied Linguistics XXXII/1: 97-110, 1994.
Mondria, J. A., & M. Wit-de Boer. The effects of contextual richness on the guessability and the retention of words in a foreign language. Applied linguistics, 12/3: 249-267,1991.
Mondria, J. A. Vocabulary acquisition in foreign language instruction: The effects of context and guessing on retention. Unpublished doctorial dissertation, University of Groningen, 1996.
Mori. The role of context and word morphology in learning new kanji words. The Modern Language Journal, V 87(3): 404-420, 2003.
Morin. Derivational morphological analysis as a strategy for vocabulary acquisition in Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, V 87(2): 200-221, 2003.
Nagy, P. On the role of context in first- and second-language vocabulary learning. In N.Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 64-83). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Nassaji, H. L2 vocabulary learning from context: strategies, knowledge sources, and their relationship with success in L2 lexical inferring. TESOL Quarterly, 37/4: 645-70, 2003.
Pei-Wen. Semantics of Modern English. Nanjing: Nanjing University Press, 2001.
Rijpma, M. T. The effectiveness of the learning strategy of core meaning on guessing and retention of second language polysemous words. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Groningen, 1999.
Rosch, Eleanor and Caroline B. Mervis. Family resemblances: studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7: 573-605, 1975.
Schmitt, N. Tracking the incremental acquisition of second language vocabulary: A longitudinal study. Language Learning, 48 (2): 281-317, 1998.
Schmitt & Zimmerman, Derivational Word Forms: How do learners know? TESOL, V36 (2): 145-171, 2002,
Schoen, L. M. Semantic Flexibility and Core Meaning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 17/2: 113-123,1988.
Schouten-van Parreren, C. Individual differences in vocabulary acquisition: A qualitative experiment in the first phase of secondary education. In J. L. Arnaud & H. Bejoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 94-101). Basingstoke, England: Macmillan, 1992.
Stein, B. S., et al. Differences in the precision of self-generated elaborations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111: 399-405, 1982.
Taylor, J. R. Linguistic Categorization: Prototype in Linguistic Theory. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Torgesen, J.S., et al. Effects of two types of phonological awareness training on word learning in kindergarten children. Journal of Educational psychology, V84 (3): 364-370, 1992.
Ullmann, S. Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning. New York: A Barnes & Noble Paperback, 1979.
Ungerer & Schmid. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Verspoor, M. H. True blue: A cognitive linguistic approach to vocabulary acquisition. In Smieja B. & Tasch M. (Eds.), Human contact through language and linguistics (pp. 203-217). Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1997.
Verspoor & Lowie. Making Sense of Polysemous Words. Language Learning, 53(3): 547-586, 2003.
Xing, Xiuchong. The Effect of Semantic Motivation on the Comprehension of English Polysemants, unpublished master's thesis, 2001.
Zhang, Weiyou. A Course in English Lexicology. Wuhan: HuaZhong University Press, 2003.
Zhang, Yunpei. An Introduction to Modern English Lexicology. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press, 1988.
白解红,多义聚合现象的认知研究,外语与外语教学,2001,12.
段满福,谈英语一词多义现象,内蒙古大学学报,2004,5.
桂诗春,《实验心理语言学纲要》,长沙:湖南教育出版社,1997.
桂诗春,《新编心理语言学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
束定芳,《现代语义学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
李国南,《辞格与词汇》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001.
梁宁建,《当代认知心理学》,上海:上海教育出版社,2004.
陆国强,《现代英语词汇学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,1994.
吕煦,《实用英语修辞》,北京:清华大学出版社,2004.
汪榕培,卢晓娟,《英语词汇学教程》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,1997.
汪榕培,《英语词汇学高级教程》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002.
王文斌, 词及词义心理研究——对心理词典论的考察,现代外语,2002,4.
王寅,《语义理论与语言教学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001.
谢葵,一词多义与英语教学,江西师范大学学报,1999,3.
余建英,何旭宏,《数据统计分析与SPSS应用》,人民邮件出版社,2003.
赵艳芳,《认知语言学概论》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000a.
赵艳芳,周红,语义范畴与词义演变的认知机制,郑州工业大学学报,2000b,4.
赵艳芳,认知语言学的理论基础及形成过程,外国语,2001,1.
张文忠,吴旭东,课堂环境下二语词汇能力的认知心理模式,现代外语,2003,10.