中国高校日语专业学生格助词使用的影响因素研究
|
摘要
格助词是日语中一类非常重要的功能词,表示句中动词和名词之间复杂多变的关系。关于格助词及其用法的文献数不胜数,从这点也可以看出格助词重要性之一斑。由于一个格助词有多种用法,而相似的用法又由不同的格助词来承担,很容易混淆,所以格助词使用对日语学习者来说一直都是一个难点。
在二语习得领域,格助词使用的研究主要在日本进行。目前为止的研究表明,格助词的使用对日语学习者来说有着不小的难度,即使学习者水平提高了,格助词的误用仍然很多。另外,格助词使用会受到母语、学习者水平、动词的语义类别等因素的影响,但这些研究很少涉及整个格助词系统的使用情况,大多是就一两个格助词的少数用法展开调查研究。另外,目前还很少有研究揭示不同水平学习者的格助词使用有何异同,更不用说对学习者格助词使用策略及其效率的描述和探讨了。
基于以上研究背景,笔者试图通过两种互相联系并互为补充的数据收集手段,从不同角度对中国日语专业大学生的格助词使用情况作出全景描述,揭示该受试群体的格助词使用的整体情况,不同水平学习者的异同,影响格助词正确率的语句因素,以及他们的格助词选择策略使用情况。首先,笔者通过面向不同年级的日语专业学生的一个格助词完形填空测试,揭示学习者格助词使用的总体情况,不同水平学习者在使用格助词时的异同,以及哪些语句因素会影响格助词使用的正确率；然后,从上述受试中选取14名,通过对他们的事后访谈来还原学习者的格助词使用策略并进一步探讨不同策略的频率和效率。
本研究在数据分析上采取了定量和定性相结合的方法。定量分析揭示出不同水平学习者格助词使用情况的异同,以及会影响格助词使用正确率的语句因素。而定性分析则涉及对学习者自我报告的分析以及不同水平学习者之间的策略使用比较,其结果为理解学习者格助词使用的认知过程和策略使用提供了宝贵的资料。
根据分析结果,本研究得到了如下主要发现：
1.中国日语专业大学生格助词使用的总体正确率尽管有70%左右,但是各用法之间的正确率存在着很大的不平衡。而且,即使是同一种用法,与不同动词搭配的格助词正确率也很不平衡。这说明学习者仅仅熟悉某些用法和某些搭配,在整体上掌握得不太好。
1)中国日语专业大学生的格助词使用的整体水平在四年内有显著提高,但不同的格助词用法呈现出不尽相同的发展模式。因为格助词用法是一个很复杂、庞大的系统,所以学习者在掌握这个系统时也呈现出了比较复杂的路径,大部分用法的正确率有进步,而一小部分则有退步。
2)不同水平的学习者在格助词的误用上有很大的共性,这说明格助词用法的难点是相对固定的,不太会随着学习者水平的提高而发生变动,这些难点应当成为教学中讲解格助词用法时的重点。
2.格助词使用正确率确实会受到某些语句因素的影响。
1)格助词的类别对格助词使用正确率有显著影响,必有格助词的正确率显著低于可选格助词。其原因主要是大部分可选格助词都有汉语对应词,学习者可以根据母语来选择,而必有格助词很少有汉语对应词,学习者无法依赖母语,只能靠记忆。
2)动词难度级别与格助词正确率并非成反比。这可能是因为难度级别取决于动词本身,而不涉及动词的格搭配等方面,所以动词难度级别的高低并不等同于动词格搭配的难易。难度级别低的常用动词往往搭配变化较多,反而难以掌握。
3)动词态的种类对格助词正确率有显著影响,与使役态相关的格助词正确率最高,被动态次之,主动态最低。因为使役态和被动态有可供套用的固定句型,而且其数量很有限,便于记忆,而主动态句型众多,记忆起来较为困难,容易混淆。
3.学习者在选择格助词时会运用不同的策略。
1)学习者使用五大类策略：应用规则、翻译成汉语、根据记忆中的程式语、根据语感和类推。
2)“应用规则”是使用频率最高的策略,占所有策略的65%,而“类推”是使用频率最低的策略,只占1.5%。另外,“翻译成汉语”是效率最高的策略,正确率达到了82%,“类推”则是效率最低的策略,正确率仅为37%。
3)高水平学习者比中级水平学习者更多地使用“根据语感”策略,更少地使用“翻译成汉语”策略,这说明随着学习者水平的提高,他们开始更多地依赖语感,而更少地依赖母语。另外,在策略使用的效率上,高水平学习者全面超过了中级水平学习者。
该研究充实了格助词使用研究的现有文献,具有一定的理论和实践意义。在理论上,本研究的发现证实了在某些特定的情况下,“翻译成母语”也是一种有效的策略,虽然母语在二语习得中很多时候会带来负迁移,但正迁移也是存在的,对其作用不应该一概否定,需要具体问题具体分析。另外,本研究对格助词的理论分类对后续研究也有一定的参考意义。在研究方法上,本研究采用定量和定性相结合的手段,揭示了日语学习者格助词使用的变化规律,以及会影响格助词正确率的语句因素,这无疑会对格助词习得,乃至二语习得理论有所贡献。在实践上,本研究证明了格助词使用发展变化的复杂多样性,对格助词的教学有一定参考价值。通过对学习者的格助词选择策略的研究发现,日语学习者在使用格助词时过度依赖规则,而固定搭配的使用不够,这是今后的格助词教学中应该注意的问题。我们应该强调固定搭配在语言学习中的作用,这也是使学习者的日语更加地道的一个必要条件。
Case particle is a category of function words of great importance in the Japanese language, serving to exhibit the complicated relationship between verbs and nouns. The fact that there is considerable literature on case particle shows its importance. Due to the multiple uses of a single case particle as well as different case particles assuming similar functions, which naturally adds up to the confusion, the use of case particles remains one of the perennial problems for Japanese learners.
In SLA, research on case particle use was mainly conducted in Japan. The existing research usually shows that the use of case particles poses great difficulties for Japanese-as-a-second/foreign-language (JSL/JFL) learners, and it is affected by such factors as L1, the semantic category of verbs and so on. There are few studies dealing with the use of case particles systematically. Most investigations have focused on a few uses of one or two case particles. Moreover, research seldom aims at revealing the similarities and differences of case particle uses among learners of various levels, much less at describing and exploring the case particle use strategies adopted by learners and their correspondent efficiencies.
Given the background as reviewed, the present study attempted to give a comprehensive description of the case particle use by university students who majored in Japanese, with the employment of two interrelated and complementary data-collecting methods. The study was intended to exhibit the overall condition of the students' case particle use under test conditions, the similarities and differences among learners of diverse levels, the factors that affect the accuracy of their case particle use, and their strategies in case particle use. It was intended todisplay, through a cloze test for students of different grades, an overall picture of their case particle use, the similarities and differences of case particle use by learners of different levels, and the factors that may influence the accuracy of case particle use. It was also intended to move on to reveil the strategies adopted by learners and their efficiencies correspondently, through the method of retrospective interviews with14selected students after the cloze test.
The present study employed both quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection. The quantitative analysis revealed the similarities and differences in case particle use between learners'of different levels and between factors that influence the accuracy of case particle use, while the qualitative analysis centered on analyzing the leaners'self-reports and compares learners of different levels, for the purpose of exploring the learners'cognitive process and strategy use with regard to case particle use.
Data analysis yields the following findings:
1. The overall accuracy rate of case particle use by university Japanese majors is about70%, and there is a huge imbalance between uses of different case particles. Moreover, the accuracy of the same case particle use varies with the verbs it collocates with. This shows that learners might be familiar with certain collocations and certain usages but have not achieved full command of the use of a case particle.
1) The Chinese JFL learners make remarkable progress in their case particle use over the four years in college. However, the use of different case particles follows different development paths across the four years. This shows the complexity of the Japanese case particle system.
2) The misuse of case particles by JFL learners of different levels showed great similarities. That is to say, the difficult points of case particle use are relatively similar to all learners, and these points should be emphasized in classroom instructions.
2. The accuracy rate of case particle use was affected by some linguistic factors.
1) The accuracy rate was affected by the type of case particles. The accuracy rate of obligatory case particle use was significantly lower than that of optional case particle use. This can be attributed to the fact that most optional case particle can be translated into Chinese, but most obligatory case particle can not.
2) The accuracy rate was not inversely proportional to the difficulty level of verbs. That is, the students may achieve a high accuracy rate of case particle use if the particle collocates with a verb of a difficult level but a low accuracy rate if it collocates with a verb of an easy level. Easy verbs as high frequency words tend to collocate with various case particles in various contexts. As a result, their collocations may be difficult to learn. In contrast, difficult verbs tend to collocate with fewer case particles in fewer contexts, and their collocations may be easier to learn.
3) The accuracy rate was affected by the type of verb's voice. The accuracy rate of the case particle which relates to causative voice is the highest, and that relates to active voice is the lowest. The possible reason is that the sentence patterns of causative and passive voice are limited in range and therefore easier to learn, but those of active voice are broad in range and therefore harder to remember.
3. The students used different strategies in selecting case particles and their use of strategies had some special features.
1) Five categories of case particle selection strategies were found to be applied by the learners:Applying rules, Translating into L1, Retrieving formulaic sequences from memory, Turning to language feel and Drawing analogy.
2) In terms of frequency, Applying rules was the most frequently used strategy, and its proportion was65%. In terms of efficiency, Translating into L1was the most efficient strategy, and the accuracy rate as a result of its usage was82%.
3) High-level learners were found to use Turning to language feel strategy more frequently and use Translating into LI strategy less frequently than intermediate-level learners. As to the efficiency of strategy use, high-level learner did better than intermediate-level learners in all kinds of strategies.
The findings of the present study enrich the existing literature on case particle use, and thus have some theoretical and pedagogical implications. Theoretically, the findings confirm that the positive transfer of L1in SLA does exist, though on many occasions it brings in negative transfer. The study sheds light on the theoretical categorization of case particles. Methodologically, the combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis helps to reveal the development path of learners'case particle use and reveal the factors that will affect the accuracy rate of case particle use, and this undoubtedly will contribute to SLA research. Pedagogically, the present study confirms the complexity of case particle use, and will be of some help to the teaching of case particles. Enough attention should be paid to the over-reliance on rules and the insufficient use of formulaic sequences in case particle instruction henceforth.
在二语习得领域,格助词使用的研究主要在日本进行。目前为止的研究表明,格助词的使用对日语学习者来说有着不小的难度,即使学习者水平提高了,格助词的误用仍然很多。另外,格助词使用会受到母语、学习者水平、动词的语义类别等因素的影响,但这些研究很少涉及整个格助词系统的使用情况,大多是就一两个格助词的少数用法展开调查研究。另外,目前还很少有研究揭示不同水平学习者的格助词使用有何异同,更不用说对学习者格助词使用策略及其效率的描述和探讨了。
基于以上研究背景,笔者试图通过两种互相联系并互为补充的数据收集手段,从不同角度对中国日语专业大学生的格助词使用情况作出全景描述,揭示该受试群体的格助词使用的整体情况,不同水平学习者的异同,影响格助词正确率的语句因素,以及他们的格助词选择策略使用情况。首先,笔者通过面向不同年级的日语专业学生的一个格助词完形填空测试,揭示学习者格助词使用的总体情况,不同水平学习者在使用格助词时的异同,以及哪些语句因素会影响格助词使用的正确率；然后,从上述受试中选取14名,通过对他们的事后访谈来还原学习者的格助词使用策略并进一步探讨不同策略的频率和效率。
本研究在数据分析上采取了定量和定性相结合的方法。定量分析揭示出不同水平学习者格助词使用情况的异同,以及会影响格助词使用正确率的语句因素。而定性分析则涉及对学习者自我报告的分析以及不同水平学习者之间的策略使用比较,其结果为理解学习者格助词使用的认知过程和策略使用提供了宝贵的资料。
根据分析结果,本研究得到了如下主要发现：
1.中国日语专业大学生格助词使用的总体正确率尽管有70%左右,但是各用法之间的正确率存在着很大的不平衡。而且,即使是同一种用法,与不同动词搭配的格助词正确率也很不平衡。这说明学习者仅仅熟悉某些用法和某些搭配,在整体上掌握得不太好。
1)中国日语专业大学生的格助词使用的整体水平在四年内有显著提高,但不同的格助词用法呈现出不尽相同的发展模式。因为格助词用法是一个很复杂、庞大的系统,所以学习者在掌握这个系统时也呈现出了比较复杂的路径,大部分用法的正确率有进步,而一小部分则有退步。
2)不同水平的学习者在格助词的误用上有很大的共性,这说明格助词用法的难点是相对固定的,不太会随着学习者水平的提高而发生变动,这些难点应当成为教学中讲解格助词用法时的重点。
2.格助词使用正确率确实会受到某些语句因素的影响。
1)格助词的类别对格助词使用正确率有显著影响,必有格助词的正确率显著低于可选格助词。其原因主要是大部分可选格助词都有汉语对应词,学习者可以根据母语来选择,而必有格助词很少有汉语对应词,学习者无法依赖母语,只能靠记忆。
2)动词难度级别与格助词正确率并非成反比。这可能是因为难度级别取决于动词本身,而不涉及动词的格搭配等方面,所以动词难度级别的高低并不等同于动词格搭配的难易。难度级别低的常用动词往往搭配变化较多,反而难以掌握。
3)动词态的种类对格助词正确率有显著影响,与使役态相关的格助词正确率最高,被动态次之,主动态最低。因为使役态和被动态有可供套用的固定句型,而且其数量很有限,便于记忆,而主动态句型众多,记忆起来较为困难,容易混淆。
3.学习者在选择格助词时会运用不同的策略。
1)学习者使用五大类策略：应用规则、翻译成汉语、根据记忆中的程式语、根据语感和类推。
2)“应用规则”是使用频率最高的策略,占所有策略的65%,而“类推”是使用频率最低的策略,只占1.5%。另外,“翻译成汉语”是效率最高的策略,正确率达到了82%,“类推”则是效率最低的策略,正确率仅为37%。
3)高水平学习者比中级水平学习者更多地使用“根据语感”策略,更少地使用“翻译成汉语”策略,这说明随着学习者水平的提高,他们开始更多地依赖语感,而更少地依赖母语。另外,在策略使用的效率上,高水平学习者全面超过了中级水平学习者。
该研究充实了格助词使用研究的现有文献,具有一定的理论和实践意义。在理论上,本研究的发现证实了在某些特定的情况下,“翻译成母语”也是一种有效的策略,虽然母语在二语习得中很多时候会带来负迁移,但正迁移也是存在的,对其作用不应该一概否定,需要具体问题具体分析。另外,本研究对格助词的理论分类对后续研究也有一定的参考意义。在研究方法上,本研究采用定量和定性相结合的手段,揭示了日语学习者格助词使用的变化规律,以及会影响格助词正确率的语句因素,这无疑会对格助词习得,乃至二语习得理论有所贡献。在实践上,本研究证明了格助词使用发展变化的复杂多样性,对格助词的教学有一定参考价值。通过对学习者的格助词选择策略的研究发现,日语学习者在使用格助词时过度依赖规则,而固定搭配的使用不够,这是今后的格助词教学中应该注意的问题。我们应该强调固定搭配在语言学习中的作用,这也是使学习者的日语更加地道的一个必要条件。
Case particle is a category of function words of great importance in the Japanese language, serving to exhibit the complicated relationship between verbs and nouns. The fact that there is considerable literature on case particle shows its importance. Due to the multiple uses of a single case particle as well as different case particles assuming similar functions, which naturally adds up to the confusion, the use of case particles remains one of the perennial problems for Japanese learners.
In SLA, research on case particle use was mainly conducted in Japan. The existing research usually shows that the use of case particles poses great difficulties for Japanese-as-a-second/foreign-language (JSL/JFL) learners, and it is affected by such factors as L1, the semantic category of verbs and so on. There are few studies dealing with the use of case particles systematically. Most investigations have focused on a few uses of one or two case particles. Moreover, research seldom aims at revealing the similarities and differences of case particle uses among learners of various levels, much less at describing and exploring the case particle use strategies adopted by learners and their correspondent efficiencies.
Given the background as reviewed, the present study attempted to give a comprehensive description of the case particle use by university students who majored in Japanese, with the employment of two interrelated and complementary data-collecting methods. The study was intended to exhibit the overall condition of the students' case particle use under test conditions, the similarities and differences among learners of diverse levels, the factors that affect the accuracy of their case particle use, and their strategies in case particle use. It was intended todisplay, through a cloze test for students of different grades, an overall picture of their case particle use, the similarities and differences of case particle use by learners of different levels, and the factors that may influence the accuracy of case particle use. It was also intended to move on to reveil the strategies adopted by learners and their efficiencies correspondently, through the method of retrospective interviews with14selected students after the cloze test.
The present study employed both quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection. The quantitative analysis revealed the similarities and differences in case particle use between learners'of different levels and between factors that influence the accuracy of case particle use, while the qualitative analysis centered on analyzing the leaners'self-reports and compares learners of different levels, for the purpose of exploring the learners'cognitive process and strategy use with regard to case particle use.
Data analysis yields the following findings:
1. The overall accuracy rate of case particle use by university Japanese majors is about70%, and there is a huge imbalance between uses of different case particles. Moreover, the accuracy of the same case particle use varies with the verbs it collocates with. This shows that learners might be familiar with certain collocations and certain usages but have not achieved full command of the use of a case particle.
1) The Chinese JFL learners make remarkable progress in their case particle use over the four years in college. However, the use of different case particles follows different development paths across the four years. This shows the complexity of the Japanese case particle system.
2) The misuse of case particles by JFL learners of different levels showed great similarities. That is to say, the difficult points of case particle use are relatively similar to all learners, and these points should be emphasized in classroom instructions.
2. The accuracy rate of case particle use was affected by some linguistic factors.
1) The accuracy rate was affected by the type of case particles. The accuracy rate of obligatory case particle use was significantly lower than that of optional case particle use. This can be attributed to the fact that most optional case particle can be translated into Chinese, but most obligatory case particle can not.
2) The accuracy rate was not inversely proportional to the difficulty level of verbs. That is, the students may achieve a high accuracy rate of case particle use if the particle collocates with a verb of a difficult level but a low accuracy rate if it collocates with a verb of an easy level. Easy verbs as high frequency words tend to collocate with various case particles in various contexts. As a result, their collocations may be difficult to learn. In contrast, difficult verbs tend to collocate with fewer case particles in fewer contexts, and their collocations may be easier to learn.
3) The accuracy rate was affected by the type of verb's voice. The accuracy rate of the case particle which relates to causative voice is the highest, and that relates to active voice is the lowest. The possible reason is that the sentence patterns of causative and passive voice are limited in range and therefore easier to learn, but those of active voice are broad in range and therefore harder to remember.
3. The students used different strategies in selecting case particles and their use of strategies had some special features.
1) Five categories of case particle selection strategies were found to be applied by the learners:Applying rules, Translating into L1, Retrieving formulaic sequences from memory, Turning to language feel and Drawing analogy.
2) In terms of frequency, Applying rules was the most frequently used strategy, and its proportion was65%. In terms of efficiency, Translating into L1was the most efficient strategy, and the accuracy rate as a result of its usage was82%.
3) High-level learners were found to use Turning to language feel strategy more frequently and use Translating into LI strategy less frequently than intermediate-level learners. As to the efficiency of strategy use, high-level learner did better than intermediate-level learners in all kinds of strategies.
The findings of the present study enrich the existing literature on case particle use, and thus have some theoretical and pedagogical implications. Theoretically, the findings confirm that the positive transfer of L1in SLA does exist, though on many occasions it brings in negative transfer. The study sheds light on the theoretical categorization of case particles. Methodologically, the combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis helps to reveal the development path of learners'case particle use and reveal the factors that will affect the accuracy rate of case particle use, and this undoubtedly will contribute to SLA research. Pedagogically, the present study confirms the complexity of case particle use, and will be of some help to the teaching of case particles. Enough attention should be paid to the over-reliance on rules and the insufficient use of formulaic sequences in case particle instruction henceforth.
引文
池原悟ほか(编) ，1999,日本语语汇大系(CD-ROM版)，东京：岩波书店。
石绵敏雄，1999，现代言语理论と格，东京：ひつじ书房。
市川保子，1997，日本语误用例文小辞典，东京：凡人社。
内山润，2002，韩国人日本语学习者の格助词の习得に関する研究，言语科学论集(6)：37-48。
小池清治，1997,现代日本语文法入门，东京：筑摩书房。
国际交流基金、日本国际教育协会，2006,日本语能力试验出题基准[改订版]，东京：凡人社。
迫田久美子，2001，学习者の文法＊理方法，野田尚史ほか，日本语学习者の文法习得，东京：大修馆书店。
佐藤修子、虑凤俊，1993,大连外国语学院日本语学部学生の日本语作文に见られる误用，北星论集(文)(30)：107-124。
高木真美，2001，「助词の习得と误用」に関する调查，昭和女子大学大学院日本语教育研究纪要(1)：50-56。
高桥太郎、金子尚一、金田章宏、斋美智子、铃木泰、须田淳一、松本泰丈，2005,日本语の文法，东京：ひつじ出版。
田洼行则，1997,误用分析Ⅲ，明治书院企画编集部(编)，続日本语误用分析，东京：明治书院。
朴在权，1997，现代日本语·韩国语の格助词の比较研究，东京：勉诚社。
益冈隆志、田窪行则，1987，格助词，东京：くろしお出版。
益冈隆志、田窪行则，1992,基础日本语文法(改订版)，东京：くろしお出版。
村松惠子，1987，日中语对照研究—中国语の干涉による日本语格助词の误用分析一，日本福祉大学研究纪要(73)：27-47.
森田良行，2007，助词·助动词の辞典，东京：东京堂出版。
Chamot, A.U. (1987). The learning strategies of ESL students. In Wenden, A. & J. Rubin (Eds.) Learner Strategies in Language Learning (pp.71-83). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice Hall.
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. London: Longman.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners'errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics,5,161-169.
Corder, S. P. (1971). Idiosyncractic dialects and error analysis. International Review of Applied Linguistics,9,149-159.
Croft, W. (1990). Typology and Universals. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing:A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,24,143-188.
Ellis, N. C. & Schmidt, R. (1998). Rules or associations in the acquisition of morphology? The frequency by regularity interaction in human and PDP learning of morphosyntax. Language and Cognitive Processes,13,307-336.
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). Making sense of frequency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,24,275-285.
Laufer, B. (1997). 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: Cambridge University Press.
Nagano.T.(2012).青空文库品词别频度表,from http://t-nagano.info/research/aozoraFreq/docs/aozoraJapaneseWordFreqList.pdf
Namei, S. (2004). Bilingual lexical development:A Persian-Swedish word association study. International Journal of Applied linguistics,14,363-388.
Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. New York:Newbury House.
O'Maley, M. J. & A. U. Chamot. (1990) Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies:a synthesis of studies with implications for teacher training. System,17,235-247.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies:What Every Teacher Should Know. New York:Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the "good language learner" can teach us, TESOL Quarterly,9, 41-51.
Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies:theoretical assumptions, research history and typology. In Wenden, A. & J. Rubin (Eds.) Learner Strategies in Language Learning, (pp.15-30). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice Hall.
Schachter, J. (1983). A new account of language transfer. In Gass. S. & Selinker. L. (Eds.), Language Transfer in Language Learning. Rowlery, MA:Newbury House.
Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Stern, H. H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern Language Review,31,304-318.
Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreigner talk, and repair in interlanguage. Language Learning,30,417-431.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input Processing and Grammar Instruction in Second Language Acquisition. Norwood New Jersey:Ablex.
Weinstein, C. & Mayer, R. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. Wittrock (Eds.) Handbook of Research on Teaching. New York:Macmillan
Yu, J. (2010) The use of prepositions by tertiary-level Chinese EFL learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nanjing University, Nanjing.
庵功雄,2005,新日本语学入门—考察语言的结构,北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
布莱克[Blake, B.J.],2005,格范畴(第二版),北京：北京大学出版社。
陈万霞,2002,英语学习者作文中的搭配错误分析,解放军外国语学院学报(1)：60-62。
戴炜栋、束定芳,1994,对比分析、错误分析和中介语研究中的若干问题—外语教学理论研究之二,外国语(5)：1-7。
邓少春,2001,英语词汇量调查问题探讨,外语教学与研究(3)：57-62。
丁言仁,2004,背诵英语课文—现代中国高等院校中传统的语文学习方法,西安：陕西师范大学出版社。
邓鹂鸣、王香云,2007,背诵式语言输入对中国学生二语写作能力发展的有效性研究,外语教学(4)：52-56。
董卫、付黎旭,2003,背诵式语言输入在大学英语教学中的作用,外语界(4)：56-59。
高远,2002,对比分析与错误分析,北京：北京航空航天大学出版社。
胡学云,1992,语感的概念和语感形成的规律,外语教学(2)：7-14。
卡罗尔[Carroll, D.W.],2007,语言心理学(第四版),上海：华东师范大学出版社。
科林伍德[Collingwood, R. G],1985,艺术原理,北京：中国社会科学出版社。
理查兹等[Richards, C. J., Platt, J., & Platt, H.],2000,朗文语言教学及应用语言学辞典,北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
李金满,2004,语言标记性和语言习得,南通工学院学报(社会科学版)(4)：67-70。
李荣宝,2002,双语语义表征及其通达机制：对外语学习者的心理学研究,福州：福建人民出版社。
刘绍龙,1996,外语语感与外语教学,山东外语教学(2)：27-28,81。
马书红,2010,英语空间介词语义成员的分类与习得—基于范畴化理论的实证研 究,解放军外国语学院学报(4)：64-69。
森山卓郎,2006,日语基础语法新讲—描写语法导论,北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
谭晶华、毛文伟,2011,中国日语学习者语料库CLIC建设及应用综述,日语学习与研究(4)：23-30。
唐承贤,1997,差错分析综述,外语教学与研究(2)：46-50。
汤富华,2008,语感与语言本能,外语与外语教学(4)：1-4。
汤富华,2010,感觉语感的感觉—语感还是直觉,外语学刊(3)：148-150。
王尚文,2000,语感论(修订本),上海：上海教育出版社。
王文贤、平川美穗,2004,日语专业高年级作文中“／、”“二”“尹”误用浅析,日语学习与研究(2)：38-42。
王文贤、魏晓艳,2006,从两次口语测试看早期日语学习者的语言内化过程,日语学习与研究(1)：47-52。
王忻,2006,中国日语学习者偏误分析,北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
吴桂金,2003,从语言学习的心理过程看外语语感的培养,山东师范大学外国语学院学报(3)：15-17。
吴珺,2006,从日语自动词、他动词的误用探讨母语的干扰,日语学习与研究(2)：17-20。
小泉保、船城道雄、本田晶治、仁田义雄、塚本秀树(编),1996,日本语基本动词词典,北京：外语教学与研究出版社
杨端和,2004,语言研究应用SPSS软件实例大全,北京：中国社会科学出版社。
杨连瑞、张德禄、范琳、刘静、卢敏,2007,二语习得研究与中国外语教学,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
俞理明,2004,语言迁移与二语习得—回顾、反思和研究,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
张景祥,2000,英语语感漫谈,外语教学(1)：88-92。
张萍,2009,中国英语学习者心理词汇联想模式研究,南京：东南大学出版社。
周平、陈小芬,2009,新编日语第一册(修订本),上海：上海外语教育出版社。
周平、陈小芬,2010,新编日语第二册(修订本),上海：上海外语教育出版社。
朱中都,1999,英语写作中的汉语负迁移,解放军外国语学院学报(2)：28-30。
石绵敏雄，1999，现代言语理论と格，东京：ひつじ书房。
市川保子，1997，日本语误用例文小辞典，东京：凡人社。
内山润，2002，韩国人日本语学习者の格助词の习得に関する研究，言语科学论集(6)：37-48。
小池清治，1997,现代日本语文法入门，东京：筑摩书房。
国际交流基金、日本国际教育协会，2006,日本语能力试验出题基准[改订版]，东京：凡人社。
迫田久美子，2001，学习者の文法＊理方法，野田尚史ほか，日本语学习者の文法习得，东京：大修馆书店。
佐藤修子、虑凤俊，1993,大连外国语学院日本语学部学生の日本语作文に见られる误用，北星论集(文)(30)：107-124。
高木真美，2001，「助词の习得と误用」に関する调查，昭和女子大学大学院日本语教育研究纪要(1)：50-56。
高桥太郎、金子尚一、金田章宏、斋美智子、铃木泰、须田淳一、松本泰丈，2005,日本语の文法，东京：ひつじ出版。
田洼行则，1997,误用分析Ⅲ，明治书院企画编集部(编)，続日本语误用分析，东京：明治书院。
朴在权，1997，现代日本语·韩国语の格助词の比较研究，东京：勉诚社。
益冈隆志、田窪行则，1987，格助词，东京：くろしお出版。
益冈隆志、田窪行则，1992,基础日本语文法(改订版)，东京：くろしお出版。
村松惠子，1987，日中语对照研究—中国语の干涉による日本语格助词の误用分析一，日本福祉大学研究纪要(73)：27-47.
森田良行，2007，助词·助动词の辞典，东京：东京堂出版。
Chamot, A.U. (1987). The learning strategies of ESL students. In Wenden, A. & J. Rubin (Eds.) Learner Strategies in Language Learning (pp.71-83). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice Hall.
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. London: Longman.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners'errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics,5,161-169.
Corder, S. P. (1971). Idiosyncractic dialects and error analysis. International Review of Applied Linguistics,9,149-159.
Croft, W. (1990). Typology and Universals. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing:A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,24,143-188.
Ellis, N. C. & Schmidt, R. (1998). Rules or associations in the acquisition of morphology? The frequency by regularity interaction in human and PDP learning of morphosyntax. Language and Cognitive Processes,13,307-336.
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). Making sense of frequency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,24,275-285.
Laufer, B. (1997). 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: Cambridge University Press.
Nagano.T.(2012).青空文库品词别频度表,from http://t-nagano.info/research/aozoraFreq/docs/aozoraJapaneseWordFreqList.pdf
Namei, S. (2004). Bilingual lexical development:A Persian-Swedish word association study. International Journal of Applied linguistics,14,363-388.
Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. New York:Newbury House.
O'Maley, M. J. & A. U. Chamot. (1990) Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies:a synthesis of studies with implications for teacher training. System,17,235-247.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies:What Every Teacher Should Know. New York:Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the "good language learner" can teach us, TESOL Quarterly,9, 41-51.
Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies:theoretical assumptions, research history and typology. In Wenden, A. & J. Rubin (Eds.) Learner Strategies in Language Learning, (pp.15-30). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice Hall.
Schachter, J. (1983). A new account of language transfer. In Gass. S. & Selinker. L. (Eds.), Language Transfer in Language Learning. Rowlery, MA:Newbury House.
Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Stern, H. H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern Language Review,31,304-318.
Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreigner talk, and repair in interlanguage. Language Learning,30,417-431.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input Processing and Grammar Instruction in Second Language Acquisition. Norwood New Jersey:Ablex.
Weinstein, C. & Mayer, R. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. Wittrock (Eds.) Handbook of Research on Teaching. New York:Macmillan
Yu, J. (2010) The use of prepositions by tertiary-level Chinese EFL learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nanjing University, Nanjing.
庵功雄,2005,新日本语学入门—考察语言的结构,北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
布莱克[Blake, B.J.],2005,格范畴(第二版),北京：北京大学出版社。
陈万霞,2002,英语学习者作文中的搭配错误分析,解放军外国语学院学报(1)：60-62。
戴炜栋、束定芳,1994,对比分析、错误分析和中介语研究中的若干问题—外语教学理论研究之二,外国语(5)：1-7。
邓少春,2001,英语词汇量调查问题探讨,外语教学与研究(3)：57-62。
丁言仁,2004,背诵英语课文—现代中国高等院校中传统的语文学习方法,西安：陕西师范大学出版社。
邓鹂鸣、王香云,2007,背诵式语言输入对中国学生二语写作能力发展的有效性研究,外语教学(4)：52-56。
董卫、付黎旭,2003,背诵式语言输入在大学英语教学中的作用,外语界(4)：56-59。
高远,2002,对比分析与错误分析,北京：北京航空航天大学出版社。
胡学云,1992,语感的概念和语感形成的规律,外语教学(2)：7-14。
卡罗尔[Carroll, D.W.],2007,语言心理学(第四版),上海：华东师范大学出版社。
科林伍德[Collingwood, R. G],1985,艺术原理,北京：中国社会科学出版社。
理查兹等[Richards, C. J., Platt, J., & Platt, H.],2000,朗文语言教学及应用语言学辞典,北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
李金满,2004,语言标记性和语言习得,南通工学院学报(社会科学版)(4)：67-70。
李荣宝,2002,双语语义表征及其通达机制：对外语学习者的心理学研究,福州：福建人民出版社。
刘绍龙,1996,外语语感与外语教学,山东外语教学(2)：27-28,81。
马书红,2010,英语空间介词语义成员的分类与习得—基于范畴化理论的实证研 究,解放军外国语学院学报(4)：64-69。
森山卓郎,2006,日语基础语法新讲—描写语法导论,北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
谭晶华、毛文伟,2011,中国日语学习者语料库CLIC建设及应用综述,日语学习与研究(4)：23-30。
唐承贤,1997,差错分析综述,外语教学与研究(2)：46-50。
汤富华,2008,语感与语言本能,外语与外语教学(4)：1-4。
汤富华,2010,感觉语感的感觉—语感还是直觉,外语学刊(3)：148-150。
王尚文,2000,语感论(修订本),上海：上海教育出版社。
王文贤、平川美穗,2004,日语专业高年级作文中“／、”“二”“尹”误用浅析,日语学习与研究(2)：38-42。
王文贤、魏晓艳,2006,从两次口语测试看早期日语学习者的语言内化过程,日语学习与研究(1)：47-52。
王忻,2006,中国日语学习者偏误分析,北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
吴桂金,2003,从语言学习的心理过程看外语语感的培养,山东师范大学外国语学院学报(3)：15-17。
吴珺,2006,从日语自动词、他动词的误用探讨母语的干扰,日语学习与研究(2)：17-20。
小泉保、船城道雄、本田晶治、仁田义雄、塚本秀树(编),1996,日本语基本动词词典,北京：外语教学与研究出版社
杨端和,2004,语言研究应用SPSS软件实例大全,北京：中国社会科学出版社。
杨连瑞、张德禄、范琳、刘静、卢敏,2007,二语习得研究与中国外语教学,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
俞理明,2004,语言迁移与二语习得—回顾、反思和研究,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
张景祥,2000,英语语感漫谈,外语教学(1)：88-92。
张萍,2009,中国英语学习者心理词汇联想模式研究,南京：东南大学出版社。
周平、陈小芬,2009,新编日语第一册(修订本),上海：上海外语教育出版社。
周平、陈小芬,2010,新编日语第二册(修订本),上海：上海外语教育出版社。
朱中都,1999,英语写作中的汉语负迁移,解放军外国语学院学报(2)：28-30。