摘要
词汇是语言的基本模块，也是语言交际的必要条件。词汇学习的过程是语言学习的根本任务之一，是学习者对词汇知识不断积累和巩固的动态过程。传统意义上的听、说、读、写四项技能都是以词汇知识的掌握和应用为基础的。听和读是理解性的，被认为是接受性技能，需要用接受性词汇知识来完成；说和写是产出性技能，需要用产出性词汇知识来完成。接受性和产出性词汇的评估手段是通过词汇检测量表来完成的，即研究者根据自行需要，选择若干适合的接受性或产出性词汇进行相应的测试。被测试的知识包括词汇量和词汇深度两个层面。纵观前期的研究，词汇评估较多的采用词汇量表进行接受性或产出性词汇检测，但对于接受性和产出性词汇的定义，及接受性和产出性词汇知识的划分研究的偏少。另一方面，在二语词汇知识与二语读、写技能关系的研究中词汇知识与阅读或词汇与写作之间的关系研究较多，将词汇知识、阅读和写作放在一个框架中进行研究的较少。这与我们对二语词汇知识和二语词汇应用能力之间的重要认识形成了强烈的反差。这便是本研究的根本动机之一。
本研究建立了两个模型:一个是词汇知识模型，其中包括接受性词汇量、产出性词汇量、接受性词汇深度、产出性词汇深度四个变量。另一个模型是词汇知识和词汇应用能力之间关系模型。这些模型通过LISREL软件进行计算和处理，本研究的主要的研究成果包括以下几个方面
（1）本研究沿着接受性和产出性两个维度确认了词汇量、词汇深度和词汇应用能力之间的关系。第一个维度是检验了接受性词汇量、接受性词汇深度和接受性词汇应用能力之间的相关性和预测性。第二维度是检验了产出性词汇量、产出性词汇深度和产出性词汇应用能力之间的相关性和预测性。通过检验发现，接受性词汇量和接受性词汇应用能力之间的相关性为.743;接受性词汇深度和接受性词汇应用能力之间的相关性为.749。即接受性词汇量、接受性词汇深度和接受性词汇应用能力之间的相关性较高，有较强的联系。接受性词汇量和接受性词汇深度之间的相关性为.818，呈高度相关。第二维度的检验发现产出性词汇量和产出性词汇应用能力之间的相关性为.316;产出性词汇深度和产出性词汇应用能力之间的相关性为.873。产出性词汇深度比产出性词汇量对产出性词汇应用能力之间的相关性要强，产出性词汇深度对产出性词汇应用能力之间呈高度相关，而产出性词汇量对产出性词汇应用能力为中度相关。产出性词汇量和产出性词汇深度之间的相关性为.451,成中度相关。以上的相关关系研究为之后的结构模型的研究奠定了基础。
（2）在结构模型中建立两个测量模型：一个测量模型是接受性词汇知识概念，这个概念是由接受性词汇量和接受性词汇深度构成。在研究中接受性词汇量和接受性词汇知识之间的相关系数为0.614；接受性词汇深度与接受性词汇知识之间的相关系数为0.609。通过这些相关系数可以证明这样一个假设：接受性词汇量和接受性词汇深度可以用来代表接受性词汇知识。同理，在研究中产出性量和产出性词汇知识之间的相关系数为0.761；产出性词汇深度与产出性词汇知识之间的相关系数为0.764。通过这些相关系数可以证明另一个假设：产出性词汇量和产出性词汇深度可以用来代表产出性词汇知识。所以这两个假设证明了接受性词汇知识和产出性词汇知识中所代表的变量是相关的也是不同的。而且，对于接受性词汇知识来说，接受性词汇量和接受性词汇深度是代表着接受性词汇知识的两个方面：词汇的数量，即测试者所拥有多少的词汇和词汇的质量，即测试者拥有词汇的程度。对于产出性词汇知识使用同样的划分。词汇量和词汇深度显示着学习者从不方面对词汇的掌握。
(3)在结构模型中，八个假设中有六个假设得到了验证，其中有两个假设没有得到支持。在六个假设中，产出性词汇知识对产出性词汇应用能力不但有正向性影响，而且产出性词汇知识对产出性词汇应用能力的影响最强，其路径系数达到r=.61, p<0.05。探究其原因在于产出性词汇知识的其中的一个变量，词汇定义对产出性词汇应用能力之间有着紧密的联系。除了产出性词汇知识和产出性词汇应用能力的影响力最强以外，在整个六个假设中，接受性词汇知识对接受性词汇应用能力的路径系数r=.57, p<0.01，即接受性词汇量对接受性词汇应用能力的正向影响能力同样较强。该论断也被前期的研究所印证。除此之外，接受性词汇知识对产出性词汇应用能力影响的路径系数为r=.37, p<0.01；产出性词汇知识对接受性词汇应用能力影响的路径系数为r=.39, p<0.01。
通过上述的四个论断的对比发现，产出性词汇知识对产出性应能力的影响要大于产出性词汇知识对接受性词汇应用能力的影响；接受性词汇知识对接受性的词汇应用能力的影响要大于接受性词汇知识对产出性词汇应用能力的影响。前期研究对该论断有两种解释。一种观点认为是接受性和产出性有着明显的界限，接受性和产出性通过不同的途径进行获取。Nation（2001）认为“被动词汇不可能随时转换成主动词汇”。这样一个结论可以用来解释为什么产出性词汇知识对接受性词汇应用能力的影响和接受性词汇知识对产出性词汇应用能力的影响较小。另一种观点认为接受性和产出性没有明显的界限，接受性和产出性按照线性发展起来的。这样的一个观点可以用来验证产出性词汇知识和产出性词汇应用能力之间和接受性词汇知识和接受性词汇应用能力有着较强的影响。
在六个假设中，有两个假设是双向的关系。一个是接受性词汇应用能力和产出性词汇应用能力之间的相关系数为r=.42, p<0.05。接受性词汇应用能力和产出性词汇应用相关关系为中度相关。这一论断也得到了前期研究的支持。在前期研究中接受性词汇应用能力和产出性词汇应用能力之间也成中度相关。
另一个双向的关系的是接受性词汇知识和产出性词汇知识的相关系数为r=.60, p<0.01。接受性词汇知识和产出性词汇知识之间的相关关系可以通过Melka（1997），Palmbeg（1987）和Henriksen（1999）提出的“联系理论”来解释。联系理论认为接受性词汇知识和产出性词汇知识之间存在着一个从被动到主动的连续过程。按照这个理论来说，接受性词汇知识和产出性词汇知识也是一个连续的过程，所以接受性词汇知识和产出性词汇知识有着相关性。另一个理论是Meara（1997）提出词汇知识和头脑中的词源相联系理论。该理论认为主动性词汇会在学习者的头脑中成为主动词汇；被动词汇会在学习者头脑中成为被动词汇。主动词汇和被动词汇之间有着根本的联系。所以说接受性词汇知识和产出性词汇知识有着紧密的联系。
本研究所得到的研究成果在理论上、方法上和教学实践方面都有重要的意义。在理论上对二语词汇知识和二语词汇应用能力的概念进行了合理的界定和划分，弄清了词汇知识和词汇应用能力之间的关系及构建出了他们之间的模型。在方法上，本研究采用了模型构建，验证和文本分析等方法相结合。在教学实践的层面，该研究有助于全面把握二语词汇知识在二语词汇应用能力中的地位和作用，认清学习者词汇产出面临的主要问题。
The relationship between lexical knowledge and lexical proficiency mainly reports a study on the correlation between L2 lexical knowledge and lexical proficiency. Its primary focus is on the relationship between L2 lexical knowledge and L2 lexical proficiency. Its secondary focus is on conceptualizing L2 receptive lexical knowledge and L2 productive lexical knowledge.
In the study, two measurement models and one structure model are established. The first measurement model is of receptive lexical knowledge, which consists of receptive lexical size and depth of receptive lexical knowledge. The second measurement model is of productive lexical knowledge, which consists of productive lexical size and depth of productive lexical knowledge. One structure model aims at studying the relationship between lexical knowledge and lexical proficiency. These models are submitted to confirmation through the use of the LISREL program. Major findings are summarized as follows:
(1) The strong correlation between receptive/productive lexical size and depth of receptive/productive lexical knowledge confirms the hypothesis that receptive/productive lexical size and depth of receptive/productive lexical knowledge are related to each other. As receptive/productive lexical size increases, depth of receptive/productive knowledge tends to increase too. The strong correlation also suggests that receptive/productive lexical size and depth of receptive/productive lexical can explain the concept—receptive/productive lexical knowledge. Receptive/ productive lexical size and depth of receptive/productive lexical knowledge are two different aspects of receptive/productive lexical knowledge—quantity and quality. Receptive/productive lexical size reflects the quantity of lexical use, i.e., how many words a learner can employ in communication. Depth of receptive/productive lexical knowledge reflects the quality of lexical use, i.e., how a learner uses different native-like words to achieve accurate and fluent communication.
(2) Eight hypotheses are raised in the structure model, six of which prove effective. Among six hypotheses, the coefficient between productive lexical knowledge and productive lexical proficiency is r=.61, p<0.05, the strongest one among all coefficient, which meant that productive lexical knowledge can exert positive effects on productive lexical proficiency. Similarly, the coefficient between receptive lexical knowledge and receptive lexical proficiency is r=.57, p<0.01, which meant that receptive lexical knowledge can also exert positive effects on receptive lexical proficiency. The findings confirm the hypothesis that productive dimensions of lexical proficiency tend to be more closely related to language production, and receptive dimensions tend to more closely relate to language comprehension. However, the two dimensions of receptive lexical knowledge (i.e., receptive lexical size and depth of receptive lexical knowledge) as a whole do not correlate markedly with the productive lexical proficiency. In other words, productive lexical knowledge discriminates from receptive lexical proficiency. Two paths between receptive lexical knowledge and productive lexical proficient and between productive lexical knowledge and receptive lexical proficient are r=.37, p<0.01 and r=.39, p<0.01 respectively.
Among six hypotheses, there is a high correlation between receptive lexical knowledge and productive lexical knowledge (r=.60, p<0.01). Some researchers (e.g., Paribakht & Wesche, 1997, 1999) believe that receptive and productive lexical knowledge are learned linearly and gradually appropriate productive knowledge. Other researchers (e.g., Lee, 2003, Meara, 1990) emphasize the obvious discontinuity between them. The present finding can serve as a footing on the relation between receptive and productive lexical knowledge. The other correlation between receptive lexical proficiency and productive lexica proficiency is r=.42, p<0.05. The result in the present study is found similar coefficient in previous study.
This study has a number of implications in the study. Theoretically, this study clearly defines L2 lexical knowledge and L2 lexical proficiency, and clarifies the relationship between these two components and models the relationship between L2 lexical knowledge and lexical proficiency. Methodologically, each L2 lexical measure is defined clearly. The Structure Equation Model adopted in the study may be an insightful way to gauge L2 lexical knowledge and L2 lexical proficiency. Pedagogically, the present findings provide practical implications for L2 lexical teaching and L2 lexical learning.
引文
1. Alderson, J. C. (1984). Reading in a foreign language: A reading problem or a Language problem? In J. A. Alderson and A. H. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a Foreign Language (PP. 1-27). London: Longman.
2. Anderson, J. R. (1976). Language memory and thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C (1998). The atomic components of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In J. T. Guthrie (Ed.), Comprehension and Teaching: Research Reviews. Newark, DL:International Reading Association.
5. Anderson, R.C., & Nagy, W. E. (1991). Word meaning. In R. Barr. M. L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson (Eds), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp.690-724). New York: Longman. Amaud, P. J. L., & Bejoint, H. (1992). Vocabulary and applied linguistics. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan.
6. Astika, G. G. (1993). Analytical assessment of foreign students’writing.RELC Journal, 24,6l-72.
7. Ausubel, D. P. (1964). Adults versus children in second-language learning:Psychological considerations.Modern Language Journal, 48,420-424.
8. Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1982). The construct validation of some components of communicative proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 499-465
10. Banchman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1989). The construct validation of self-ratings of communicative language ability. Language Testing, 6 (1), 14-29
11. Banchman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. Barks, D., & Watts, P. (2001) Textual borrowing strategies for graduate-level ESL writers. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections (pp. 246-267). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press
13. Bauer, L. & Nation, P. (1993).Word families.International Journal of Lexicography, 6,253-279.
14. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G.,& Kucan, L. (2003). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: Guilford.
15. Beck, I. L., Mckeown, M. G., & Omanson, R.C. (1982). The effects and uses of diverse vocabulary instructional techniques. In M. Mckeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp.147-163). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16. Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., & Mckeown, M. G. (1982). Effects of ling-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational psychology, 74(4), 506-521.
17. Beglar, A. & Hunt, A. (1999). Revising and validating the 2000 word level and the university word level vocabulary tests. Language Testing,16,131-162.
18. Biemiller, A., & Slonim, N. (2001). Estimating root word vocabulary growth in normative and advantaged populations: Evidence for a common sequence of
19. vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 498-520
20. Bloch, J., & Chi, L. (1995) A comparison of the use of citations in Chinese and English academic discourse. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research & Pedagogy (pp. 231-274). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
21. Britt, M.A.,& Aglinskas , C. (2002). Improving students’ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 485-522.
22. Brown, A.L.,& Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22.1-14.
23. Brown, A. L., Day, J. D. & Jones, R. S. (1983). The development of plans for summarizing texts. Child Development, 54, 968-979.
24. Brown, R.W.,& McNeill, D. (1966).The“tip of the tongue”phenomenon.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,5,325-337.
25. Brown, T.S.& Perry, E L.0991).A comparison of three learning strategies for ESL vocabulary acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 655-670.
26. Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics,1,1-47.
27. Carroll, D. (1999). Psychology of language (3rd ed.).Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks.
28. Carlisle, J. F. , Beeman, M., David, L. H., & Spharim, G. (1999). Relationship of metalinguistic capabilities and reading achievement for children who are becoming bilingual. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 459-478.
29. Carson, J. G. (1992). Becoming Biliterate: First language influences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(1), 37-60.
30. Chapelle, C. A. (1994). Are C-tests valid measures for L2 vocabulary research? Second Language Research, l0, 157-187.
31. Chapelle, C. A. (1998). Construct definition and validity in SLA research.In L.E. Bachman & A.D. Cohen (Eds). Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp.32-70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33. Clark, E. V. (1993). The Lexicon in acquisition.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
34. Clark, E. V. (1997). Conceptual perspective and Lexical choice in acquisition. Cognition, 64, 1-37.
35. Coady, J. M., Carrell, E., & Nation, P. (1985). The Teaching of vocabulary in ESL from the perspective of schema theory. Milwaukee:Midwest TESOL.
36. Coady, J., Magoto, J., Hubbard, P. ,Crraney, J., & Mokhtari, K.(1993).High frequency vocabulary and reading proficiency in ESL readers.In T.Huckin, M.Haynes & J.Coady (Eds).Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp.217-228).Norwood,NJ: Ablex.
37. Coffman, G. A. (1994). The influence of question and story variations on sixth graders’summarization behaviors. Reading Research and Instruction, 34(1), 19-38.
38. Collins, A., & Loflus, E. F. (1975).A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407-428.
39. Cook, V., & Newton, M. (1996). Chomsky’s universal grammar:An introduction (2nd ed.), Oxford: Blackwell.
40. Connor, U., & McCagg, P. (1983). Cross-cultural differences and perceived quality in written paraphrases of English expository prose. Applied Linguistics 4(3), 259-268.
41. Connor, U. M., & Kramer, M. G. (1995). Writing from sources: Case studies of graduate students in business management. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.) Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
42. Corson, D. (1995). Using English Words. Dordrecht, Netherland: Kluwer Academic.
43. Coxhead, A. (2000). A New Academic Word List. TESOL Quarterly,34, 213-238.
44. Cronbach, L. J. (1942). An analysis of techniques for diagnostic vocabulary testing. Journal of Educational Research, 36, 206-217.
45. Cruse, D. A. (2000). Meaning in language:an introduction to semantics and pragmatics.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
46. Cumming, A. (1988). Writing expertise and second language proficiency in ESL writing performance. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Education, Univeristy of Toronto.
47. Cumming, A., Grant, L., Mulcahy-Ernt, P., & Powers, D. E. (2005). A teacher-verification study of speaking and writing prototype tasks for a new TOEFL. TOEFL Monograph 26. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
48. Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Erdosy, U., Eouanzoui, K., & James, M. (2005). Differences in written discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks f or next generation TOEFL. Assessing Writing, 10 (1), 5-43.
49. Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Powers, D., Santos, T., & Taylor, C. (2000). TOEFL 2000 writing framework: A working paper. TOEFL monograph 18. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
50. Cumming, A., & Mellow, D. (1996). An investigation into the validity of written indicators of second language proficiency. In A. Cumming & R. Berwick (Eds), Validation in language testing (pp.72-93). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
51. Cumming, A., Rebuffot, J., & Ledwell, M. (1989). Reading and summarizing challenging texts in first and second language. Reading and writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 201-219.
52. Currie, P. (1998). Staying out of trouble: Apparent plagiarism and academic survival. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 1-18.
53. D’Anna, C. A., Zechmeister, E. B., & Hall,J.W.0991).Toward a meaningful definition of vocabulary size.Journal of Reading Behavior,23, 109-122.
54. Davis, F. (1994). Designing a writing syllabus in English for academic purposes: Process and Product. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Academic Writing: Process and Product (ELT Document: 129). Modern English Publications in association with the British Council.
55. de Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46(3), 529-555.
56. de Bot, K., & Schreuder, R. (1993). Word production and the bilingual lexicon. In R. Schreuder & B. Weltens (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon (pp. 191-214). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
57. Elley, W.B.(1991).Acquiring literacy in a second language:the effect of book-based programs.Language Learning,41, 375-411.
58. Ellis. R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition.Basil Blackwell:Oxford.
59. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
60. Ellis. R. (1995). Modified oral input and the acquisition of word meanings.Applied Linguistics, 16,409-441.
61. Engber, C.A. (1995). The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(2), 139-155.
62. Entwisle, D. R. (1966). Word association of young children. Baltimore Johns. Hopkins University Press.
63. Faerch, C., Haastrup, K., & Phillipson, R. (1984). Learn language and language teaching. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.
64. Fischer, U. (1994). Learning words from context and dictionaries: An experimental Comparison. Applied Psycholingusitics, 15, 551-574.
65. Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development . Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 39-50.
66. Flahive, D.E., & Bailey, N. H. (1993). Exploring reading/writing relationships in adult second language learners. In J. G. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom: Second Language perspective (pp. 128-140). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
67. Fraser, W. S.(1999).Lexical processing strategy use and vocabulary learning through Reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 225-241.
68. Fries,C.C.(1945).Teaching and learning English as a foreign language.Ann Arbor.University of Michigan Press.
69. Glendinning, L., & Gleitman, H. (1997). What is a language made out of? Lingua, 100, 29-55.
70. Gaims, R.,&Redman, S. (1980). Working with words:A guide to teaching and learning vocabulary.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
71. Gass, S.M. (1988a). Second language vocabulary acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 9, 92-106.
72. Grass, S., & Selinker, L. (1994).Second language acquisition:An introductory course. Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
73. Grabe, W. (2001a). Notes toward a theory of second language writing. In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), On Second Language writing (pp39-57). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
74. Grabe, W. & Kaplan,R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: an applied linguistics perspective. Harlow, England: Longman.
75. Goulden, R., Nation, P. & Read, J. (1990). How large can receptive vocabulary be? Applied Linguistics, 11, 341-363.
76. Hasstrup, K., & Henriksen, B., (2000). Vocabulary acquisition: Acquiring depth of knowledge through network building. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10, 221-240.
77. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). The construction of knowledge and value in the grammar of scientific discourse, with reference to Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis (pp. 136-156). New York: Routledge.
78. Hammann, L. A., & Stevens, R. J. (2003). Instruction approaches to improving students’writing of compare-contrast essays: An experimental study. Journal of Literacy Research, 35(2), 731-756.
79. Harley, B.(1995).Introduction:The lexical in second language research.In B. Harley (Ed.).Lexical issues in language learning (pp.1-3 1).New York:John Benjamins.
80. Harley, B. (1996). Introduction: Vocabulary learning and teaching in a second language. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 53(1), 3-12.
81. Harley, B., & Roberge, B. (1996). Teaching vocabulary: An exploratory study of direct techniques. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 53 (1), 281-304.
82. Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds). The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp.1-27). Marwah, NJ: Laurence Erbaum.
83. Head, M. H., Readence, J. E., & Buss, R. R. (1989). An examination of summary writing as a measure of reading comprehension. Reading Research and Instruction, 28 (4), 1-11.
84. Henriksen, B. (1999). Three dimensions of vocabulary development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 303-317.
85. Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1986). Producing written summaries: Task demands, cognitive operations, and implications for instruction. Review of Educational Research, 56 (4), 473-493.
86. Hirvela, A. (2004). Connecting reading and writing in second language writing instruction. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
87. Hogben, D., & Lawson, M.J. (1994). Keyword and multiple elaboration strategies for vocabulary acquisition in foreign language learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology,19,367-376.
88. Horowitz, D. M. (1986). What professors actually require: Academic tasks for the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 20 (3), 445-462.
89. Huckin, T., & Coady, J. (1999).Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 181-93.
90. Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
91. Hyland, K. (1999). Disciplinary discourse: Writers stance in research articles. In C. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing Texts, Processes and practices (99-120). London: Longman.
92. Hymes, D.(1972).On communicative competence.In J.B.Pride& J.Holmes (Eds.).Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). New York: Penguin.
93. Jiang, N. (2000). Lexical representation and development in a second language. Applied Linguistics, 21,617-637.
94. Jiang, N. (2002). Form-meaning mapping in vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 617-637.
95. Jiang, N. (2004). Semantic transfer and its implications for vocabulary teaching in a second language. Modern Language Journal,88,416-432.
96. Joe, A., Nation, P., & Newton, J. (1997). Sensitive vocabulary tests.Unpublished Manuscript.
97. Johns, A. M. (1991). Interpreting an English competency examination: The frustrations of an ESL science student. Written Communication, 8 (3), 379-401. Johns, A. M. & Mayes, P. (1990). An analysis of summary protocols of university ESL students. Applied Linguistics, 11(3), 253-271.
98. Johnson, D.D. (2000). Just the right word: Vocabulary and writing. In R. Indrisano& J. R. Squire (Eds.), Perspectives on writing: Research, theory, and practice (pp.162-186). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
99. Kim, S. A. (2001). Characteristics of EFL reader’s summary writing: A study with Korean university students. Foreign Language Annuals, 34(6), 569-580.
100.Kirkland, M. R., & Saunders, M. A. P. (1991). Maximizing student performance in summary writing: Managing cognitive load. TESOL Quarterly, 25(1), 105-121.
101.Krashen, S.(1989).We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Addition evidence for the input hypothesis. Modern Language Journal,73.440-464.
102.Krashen, S.(1993). The ease for free voluntary reading.Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 72-82.
103.Krashen, S. & Terrell. T. (1983). The natural approach:Language acquisition in the Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon.
104.Kroll, J. E, Michael, E., Tokowicz, N., & Dufour, R. (2002). The development of lexical fluency in a second language. Second Language Research, 18, 137-171.
105.Kruse, H., Pankhurst, J., & Sharwood S., (1987). A Multiple word association probe in second language acquisition research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 141-154.
106.Kucera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). A computational analysis of present-day American English. Rhode Island: Brown University Press.
107.Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.
108.Lado, R. (1990). Towards a lexico-semantic theory of language and language learning. The Georgetown Journal Language and Linguistics, 96-100.
109.Lakoff, G. (1987).Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
110.Langan, J. (1993). Ten steps to advancing college reading skills. Townsend Press.
111.Laufer, B. (1990). Ease and difficulty in vocabulary learning: Some teaching implications. Foreign Language Annuals,23,147-156.
112.Laufer, B. (1992). The development of lexis in the production of advanced L2 learners, The Modern Language Journal,75, 440-448.
113.Laufer, B.(1994).The lexical profile of second language writing:Does it change over time? RELC Journal, 25, 21-33.
114.Laufer, B. (1995). Beyond 2000: A measure of productive lexicon in a second language.In L.Eubank, L. Selinker & M.Sharwood S., (Eds).The current state of interlanguage (pp. 265-272).Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
115.Laufer, B.(1997). The Lexical plight in second language reading: Words you don't know, words you think you know, and words you don’t guess.In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp.20-34). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
116.Laufer, B. (1998).The development of passive and active vocabulary in second language: Same or different? Applied Linguistics,19,255-271.
117.Laufer, B. & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Lingusitics,16,307-322.
118.Laufer, B & Nation, P. (1999). A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability Language testing, 16, 33-51.
119.Laufer, B., & Paribakht, T. S. (1998). The relationship between passive and active vocabularies:Effects of language learning context.Language Learning,48,365-391.
120.Laufer, B., Elder, C., Hill, K., & Congdon, P. (2004). Size and strength: Do we need both to measure vocabulary knowledge? Language Testing, 21(2), 202-226.
121.Laufer, B. & Goldstein, Z. (2004).Testing vocabulary knowledge: size, strength, and computer adaptiveness. Language learning, 54(3), 399-436.
122.Laufer, B. & Paribakht, T. S. (1998). The relationship between passive and active vocabularies: Effects of language learning context. Language learning, 48(3), 365-391.
123.Lee, S. H. (2003). ESL learners’vocabulary use in writing and the effect of explicit vocabulary instruction. System, 31, 537-561.
124.Leki, I. & Carson, J. (1994). Students’perceptions of EAP writing instruction and writing needs across the discipline. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 81-101.
125.Levelt, W.J.M. (1989). Speaking From intension to articulation. Cambridge, MA: Bradford.
126.Lewis, M.(1997).Implementing the lexical approach.Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
127.Linnarud, M. (1986). Lexis in composition: A performance analysis of Swedish learners’written English. Malmo, Sweden: Liber Forlag Malmo.
128.Mason, B., & Krashen, S. (1997). Extensive reading in English as a foreign language. System, 25(1), 91-102.
129.McCarthy, M. (1990). Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
130.Mckeown, M. G. (1993). Creating effective definitions for young word learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(1), 17-31.
131.McNamara, T. (1995). Modeling performance: Opening Pandora’s Box. Applied Linguistics, 16 (2), 159-179.
132.McNamara, T. (1996). Measuring second language performance. London: Longman.
133.Meara, P. (1978). Learners’word associations in French. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 3, 192-211.
134.Meara, P.(1980). Vocabulary acquisition: A neglected aspect of language learning.Language Teaching and Linguistics: Abstracts, 13, 221-246.
135.Meara, P. (1983). Word association in a foreign language: A report On the Birkbeck Vocabulary Project. Nottingham Linguistic Cricular, 2, 29-37.
136.Meara, P. (1984).The study of lexis in interlanguage.In A. Davies, C. Criper & A. E. R. Howatt (Eds.). Interlanguage (pp.225-236).Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.
137.Meara, P. (1990). A note on passive vocabulary. Second Language Research, 150-154.
138.Meara, P. (1996a). The dimensions of lexical competence. In G. Brown, K. Malmkjaer and J. Williams (Eds). Performance and competence in second language acquisition(pp. 35-53). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
139.Meara, P. (1996b). The third dimension of lexical competence. Paper presented at the 11th AILA Congress.Jyvaskyla, Finland.
140.Meam, P. (1997). Towards a new approach to modeling vocabulary learning. In N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy (Eds). Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 109-121). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
141.Meara, P. (2002). The rediscovery of vocabulary. Second Language Research, 18, 393-407.
142.Meara, P., & Buxton, B. (1987). An alternative to multiple choice vocabulary tests.Language Testing, 4, 142-154.
143.Meara, P., & Jones, G. (1990). Eurocentres vocabulary size test 10KA. Zurich:Eurocentres Learning Service.
144.Meara, P. (1999a). The vocabulary Knowledge framework. Retrieved April 30, 2005, from http://www/swan.ac.uk/cals/calsres.wilbrary/pm96d.htm/
145.Meara, P. (1999b). Cronbach’s Alpha. Retrieved February 20, 2006, from http://www.swan.ac.uk/cals/ encyclopedia/cronbach’s_Alpha.htm/
146.Melka, F. (1997). Receptive vs. productive aspect of vocabulary. In N. Schmitt &M.McCarthy (Eds). Vocabulary:Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp.94-102).
147.Meyer, G. (1990). Non-technical vocabulary in technical language. Paper delivered at AILa congress in Thessalonika.
148.Miller, G. A. (1996). The science of words. New York: Science American Library.
149.Miller, G. A. (1998). Nouns in Word Net. In C. Fellbaum (Eds). Word Net-an electronic lexical database (pp.23-46).Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.
150.Miller, G. A. (1999). On knowing a word. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 1-19.
151.Milton, J. L., & Meara, P. (1995). How periods abroad affect vocabulary growth in a foreign language. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics, 107/108, 17-34.
152.Moore, J. C., & Surber, J. R. (1992). Effects of context and keyword methods on second language vocabulary. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17, 286-292.
153.Morgan, B. Q., & L. M. Oberdeck. (1930). Active and passive vocabulary. In Bagster-Collins, E. W. (Ed.) Studies in Modern Language Teaching (pp. 213-221). New York: Macmillan.
154.Nagy, W. E., & Herman, P. A.(1987). Breath and Depth of vocabulary knowledge: Implications for acquisition and instruction.In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.).The nature of vocabulary acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
155.Nagy, W. E., & Scott, J. A. (2000). Vocabulary processes. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.) Handbook of reading research (Vo.3, pp. 269-284). Mahwah, NJ. Lawrence Erlhaum.
156.Nation, P. (1983). Testing and teaching vocabulary, Guidelines, 5, 12-25.
157.Nation, P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary, Massachusetts: Newbury House.
158.Nation, P. (2001a). Learning vocabulary in another language.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
159.Nation, P.(200l b).Using small corpora to investigate learner needs:Two vocabulary research tools.In M.Ghadessy, A.Henry & L.Roseberry(Eds.).Small corpus studies in ELT (pp.31-45).Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
160.Nation, P., & Waxing, R. (1997). Vocabulary size, text coverage and word lists. In R. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.). Vocabulary:Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 6-19).Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
161.Newell, G.E. (1998).“How much are we the wiser?”: Continuity and change in writing and learning in the content areas. In N. Nelson & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), The reading-writing connections (pp. 178-202). Chicago, IL: University of ChicagoPress.
162.Olson, D. R. (1994). The world on paper: The conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and reading, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
163.Olson, D. R, (2001). What writing is. Pragmatics & Cognition, 9(2), 235-253.
164.Palmberg, R. (1987). Patterns of vocabulary development in foreign-language learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 201-220.
165.Paribakht, T. S. & Wesche, M. B. (1993). Reading comprehension and second language development in a comphrehension-based ESL Program. TESL, Canada Journal, pp, 9-29.
166.Paribakht, T. S. & Wesche, M. B. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary acquisition. In J. Coady and T. Huckin (Eds.) Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition (pp. 174-200). Cambridge University Press.
167.Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patch writing in academic second-language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 317-345.
168.Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others’words: Text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 201-230.
169.Pigada, M., & Schmitt, N. (2006). Vocabulary acquisition from extensive reading: A case study. Reading in a Foreign language, 18, 1-34.
170.Pitt, M., White, H., & Krashen, S. (1989). Acquiring second language vocabulary through reading: A replication of the clockwork orange study using second language acquirers. Reading in a Foreign Language. 5(2), 271-275.
171.Qian, D. D. (1999). Assessing the roles of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge. Canadian Modern Language Reviews, 56. 282-307.
172.Qian, D. D. (2002). Investigating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and academic reading performance: An assessment perspective. Language Learning, 52, 513-536.
173.Qian, D. D. (2004). Evaluation of an in-depth vocabulary knowledge measure for assessing reading performance. Language Testing, 21, 28-52.
174.Qian, D. D. & Schedl, M. (2004). Exploring encoding and retrieval effects for assessing reading performance. Language Testing, 21 (2), 28-52.
175.Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 229-258.
176.Read, J. (1988). Measuring the vocabulary knowledge of second language learners. RELC Journal, 19, 12-25.
177.Read, J. (1989). Towards a deeper assessment of vocabulary knowledge.Paper presented at the 8th Congress of the International Association of Applied Linguistics. Sydney, Australia.
178.Read, J. (1993). The development of a new measure of L2 vocabulary knowledge. Language Testing,10, 355-371.
179.Read, J. (1995). Validating the Word Associates Format as a measure of depth of vocabulary knowledge. Paper presented at the 17th Language Tasting Research Colloquium, Long Beach, CA.
180.Read, J. (1997). Vocabulary and testing. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.). Vocabulary:Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp:303-320).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
181.Read, J. (1998). Validating n test to measure depth of vocabulary knowledge. In A. Kunnan (Ed.). Validation in language assessment (pp.41-60).Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
182.Read, J.(2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
183.Read, J., & Chapelle, C. A. (2001). A framework for second language vocabulary assessment. Language Testing, 18(1), 1-32.
184.Read, J. (2004). Research in teaching vocabulary. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 146-161.
185.Richards, J. C. (1976). The role of vocabulary teaching.TESOL Quarterly,10.77-89.
186.Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (Eds). (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (3rd ed.). London: Pearson Education.
187.Santos, M. (2000). Analyzing Academic Vocabulary and contextual Cue Support in Community College Textbooks. Unpublished qualifying paper, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA.
188.Santos, M. (2003). Three Studies on the Academic Vocabulary Knowledge of U.S. Language-minority Community College Students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA.
189.Santos, M., & Astika, G. (2003). Some findings on the academic vocabulary skills of language-minority community college students. Focus on Basics, 6, 7-9. Retrieved March 20, 2005, from http://www.ncsall.net/?ed=175/
190.Sarig, G. (1993). Composing a study-summary: A reading/writing encounter. In J. G. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom:Second language perspective (pp.161-182). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
191.Schmidt, R. (1995). Attention and awareness in foreign language learning. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
192.Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Eds). Cognition and second languageInstruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
193.Schmitt, N. (1995). The word on words:An interview with Paul Nation. The Language Teacher, 19, 5-7.
194.Schmitt, N. (1998a). Tracking the incremental acquisition of second language vocabulary: A longitudinal study. Language Learning,48, 281-317.
195.Schmitt, N. (1998b). Quantifying word association responses: what is native-like? System, 26, 389-401.
196.Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
197.Schmitt, & McCarthy, M. (Eds.). (1997). Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and Pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
198.Schmitt, N., & Meara, P. (1997), Researching vocabulary through word knowledge framework:word associations and verbal suffixes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,19, 17-36.
199.Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behavior of two new versions of the Vocabulary levels Test. Language Testing, 18, 55-88.
200.Schoonen, R., van Gelderen, A., de Glopper, K., Hulstijin, Simis, A., Snellings, P., & Stevenson, M. (2003). First language and second language writing: The role of linguistics knowledge, speed of processing, and metacognitive knowledge. Language learning, 53(1), 165-202.
201.Scott, J. A.. & Nagy, W. E. (1997). Understanding the definitions of unfamiliar verbs. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(2), 184-200.
202.Segalowitz , N., & Hulstijin, J. (2005). Automaticity in bilingualism and second language learning. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. De Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistics approach (pp. 371-388). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
203.Segalowitz, N., Watson, V., & Segalowitz, S. (1995). Vocabulary skill: Single-case assessment of automaticity of word recognition in a timed lexical decision task. Second Language Research, 11(2), 121-136.
204.Seliger, H. W., & Shohamy, E. (1989). Second language Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
205.Shananhan, T. (1984). Nature of the reading-writing relation: An exploratory multivariate analysis. Journal of Education Psychology, 76(3), 466-477.
206.Shanahan, T. (1997). Reading-writing relationships, thematic units, inquiry learning…In pursuit of effective integrated literacy instruction. The reading teacher, 51(1), 12-19.
207.Sherrard (1986). Summary writing: A topographical study. Written Communication, 3(3), 324-343.
208.Snow, C. E. (1990). The development of definition skill. Journal of Child Language, 17, 697-710.
209.Stein, B. L., & Kirby, J. R. (1992). The effects of text absent and text present conditions on summarization and recall of text. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24(2), 217-232.
210.Takala, S. (1985). Estimating students’vocabulary sizes in foreign language teaching. In V. Kohonen, H, von Essen, & C. Klein-Braley (Eds). Practice and problems in language testing (pp.157-165). Tampere: AfinLA.
211.Taylor, K. K. (1984). The different summary skills of inexperienced and professional writers. Journal of Reading, 17, 591-199.
212.Taylor, K. K. (1986). Summary writing by young children. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(2), 193-208.
213.Thorndike, E. L., & Lorge, I. (1944). The teacher's word book of 30,000 words. Columbia University: Teachers College.
214.Uzawa, K. (1996). Second language learners’process of L1 writing, L2 writing, and translation from L1 into L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(3), 271-294.
215.Van Dijik, T. A. & Kintsch, W. (1978). Strategic difficulties in summarizing texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(4), 404-425.
216.Wallace, M.(1982).Teaching vocabulary.London:Heinemann
217.Waring, R.(1997). A comparison of the receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of some second language learners. Immaculata, 25, 261-274.
218.Waring, R. (1999). Tasks for assessing second language receptive and productive vocabulary. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wales, Swansea, UK.
219.Waring, R. (2000). Scales of vocabulary knowledge in second language vocabulary assessment. Appeared in Kiyo, the Occasional Papers of Notre Dame Seishin University. Retrieved August, 2005, from http://www. harenet.ne, jp/-waring/papers/scales.
220.Watson, R., & Olson, D. R. (1998). From meaning to definition: A literature bias or structure of word meaning. In R. Horowitz & J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp.229-353). San Diego: Academic Press.
221.Webb, S. (2005). Receptive and productive vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 33-52.
222.Wesche, M., & Paribakht, T. S. (1996). Assessing second language vocabularyknowledge: depth versus breadth. Canadian Modem Language Review, 53, 13-40．
223.Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1996). The effects of playing historian on learning inhistory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, S63-S72.
224.Xue, G. Y. & Nation, P. (1984). A university word list Language Learning andCommunication, 3, 215-229.
225.Zhang, Shu-e. (2003). Chinese English Majors’vocabulary knowledge andvocabulary strategies. Unpublished master’s thesis, Beijing University ofAeronautics and Astronautics, Beijing.
226.《高等学校外语专业教学指导委员会英语组》，2000，《高等学校英语专业英语教学大纲》，北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
227.邓昭春，2001，英语词汇量调查问题探讨，《外语教学与研究》，1，57-62。
228.桂诗春，1982，中国学生英语词汇量调查，《公共外语教学研究论文集》，上海：上海外语教育出版社。
229.桂诗春，1985，我国英语专业学生英语词汇量的调查和分析，《现代外语》，l，1-6。
230.桂诗春、杨惠中，2003，《中国学习者英语语料库》，上海：上海外语教育出版社。
231.黄建滨，1999，关于《大学英语教学大纲(修订本)》词汇表的说明，《外语界》，4，26-30。
232.雷蕾、韦瑶瑜，2007，中国非英语专业大学生写作障碍实证研究，《中国英语教学》，5，13-18。
233.刘东虹，2003，词汇量在英语写作中的作用，《现代外语》，2，181-187。
234.刘东虹，2004，写作策略与产出性词汇量对写作质量的影响，《现代外语》，3，302-310。
235.刘绍龙，2000，二语词汇深度习得及发展特征，《外语教学与研究》，6，436-46l。
236.李俊，2002，论词汇的深度和广度与阅读理解的关系，《外语教学》，2，21-24。
237.吕长竑，2004，词汇量与语言综合能力、词汇深度知识之关系，《外语教学与研究》，2，56-73。
238.马广惠、文秋芳，1999，大学生英语写作能力的影响因素研究，《外语教学与研究》，4，34-41。
239.莫青杨、孙蓝，(2004)，中国学生英语高频动词语义发展的考察，《解放军外国语学院学报》，l，65-69。
240.王初明、牛瑞英、郑小湘，2000，以写促学，《外语教学与研究》，3，207-212。
241.王立非、鲍贵，2003，应用语言学研究路径分析方法原理与应用评价，《现代外语》，4，404-409。
242.王立非文秋芳，2004，母语水平对二语写作的迁移：跨语言的理据与路径，《外语教学与研究》，3，205-212。
243.俞洪亮、周维杰，2004，《应用语言学研究方法与论文写作》，北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
244.温忠麟，2004，结构方程模型检验：拟合指数与卡方检验，《心理学报》，2，186-194。
245.吴红云、刘润清，2004，写作元认知结构模型研究，《现代外语》，4，370-377。
246.吴旭东、陈晓庆，2000，中国英语学生课堂环境下词汇能力的发展，《现代外语》,4，349—360。
247.席仲恩，1998，英语专业学生的词汇发展状况调查，《外语教学》，2，72—77。
248.杨小虎、丁仁仑，2004，大学生英语听力学习动机维度结构类型及听力行为关系，《现代外语》,3，311-318。
249.杨玉晨、闻兆荣，1995，中国学生英文写作的句子类型及分析，《现代外语》，1，39-42。
250.张淑静，2003，从反应词看词汇习得，《外语教学与研究》，4，275-281。
251.张淑静，2004，重组二语心理词汇，《四川外语学院学报》，3，66-75。
252.张文忠、吴旭东，2003，课堂环境下二语词汇能力发展的认知心理模式，《现代外语》，6，373-384。
253.张学宾、邱天河，2006，词汇知识和阅读理解关系的实证性研究，《外语教学》第1期38-42。
254.周大军．文渤燕，2000，理工科学生的词汇发展状况调查，《外语教学与研究》，5，356-361。