英语专业本科生开题报告样本

毕业论文（设计）题目

An Empirical Study into Lexical Inference and Strategy Use into EFL Reading

EFL阅读中的词义推测及策略运用实证研究

选题类型

XXX

课题来源

XXX

学   院

语言学院

专    业

英语

指导教师

XXX

职    称

教授

姓    名

XXX

年    级

2006级

学    号

XXXXXXX

1. Introduction

1.1 Study Background

The present study is stimulated by both practical and theoretical considerations in the field of second /foreign language learning and teaching. The importance of EFL reading is commonly acknowledged by both teachers and learners in the process of learning and teaching, so the topic of lexical inference strategies is of practical interest to both teachers, who would like to employ pedagogical techniques which can reinforce and develop students’ achievements in EFL reading to better their effects of instruction, and learners themselves, who once master those strategies, are in a better position to infer unknown word meanings in the process of reading. Learners can sometimes deliberately apply those strategies to solve problems they encounter in reading in order to conquer the inherently difficult task of learning a foreign language. This indicates that lexical inference ability and inferring strategies are paramount in EFL reading. As to the relationships among gender, majors, foreign language proficiency, lexical inference ability and inferring strategies respectively, they are also of practical interest to both language teachers, who can utilize different methods to instruct students of different gender and majors according to their different foreign language proficiency so as to facilitate both their teaching effects and students’ understanding and researchers, who can investigate what factors ascribe to the differentiations and why, so as to make full use of advantages and avoid disadvantages to orient language teaching and learning in the long run. To understand lexical inference and strategies, we have to refer to the definitions of inference, lexical inference, LIA and LS first.

1.2 Definitions of Inference and Lexical Inference

Inference refers to the process, in language learning, of arriving at a hypothesis, idea, or judgment on the basis of other knowledge, ideas, or judgments, that is, the process of making inference or inferring (Richards & Platt and Platt, 2000:222). In language learning, inference has been discussed as a learning strategy used by learners, especially in reading, to work out grammatical and other kinds of rules (Carton, 1971). According to W. Grabe and F.L.Stoller (2005:260), inference refers to the process of drawing a logical conclusion based on explicit information in text and background knowledge. The mental activity/process involved when readers encounter unknown or unfamiliar words or phrases (hereafter for the sake of convenience we use unknown or unfamiliar words to refer to both unknown and unfamiliar words and phrases) and thereby assign meanings to them in the process of reading is termed “lexical inference or inferring (Barnett, 1990:79). Thus in this study we adopt the term lexical inference in the sense that readers are aware of encountering unknown or unfamiliar words or phrases, in the reading process, and make deliberate attempts to figure out their meanings and draw a logical conclusion based on the logical reasoning of the explicit information in a text and background knowledge. It is a deliberate and conscious process of deriving meanings from co-text in reading process.

1.3 Previous Studies and Their Deficiencies

Previous researches on word meanings in context has concentrated more on other foreign or second language reading strategies than on lexical inference strategies. Some theorists focus on receptive acquisition of vocabulary and recommend that students learn lexical inference techniques in order to enlarge their vocabularies (Bramski, D &Williams, 1984; Crow, 1986). For researchers investigating the categorizations of lexical inference strategies, results tend to be in two directions (1) towards a categorization of contextual clues students use or might use (Bramski, D &Williams 1984; Siebert, 1945, quoted from Barnett, 1990), and (2) towards an explanation of precisely how students discover meanings of unfamiliar words, that is the process of lexical inferring in test-taking. Studies on developing and investigating learners’ learning and reading strategies conducted by both language teachers and researchers are abundant in the last two decades (Oxford, 1990; O’ Malley&Chamot, 1990; 程晓堂,郑敏,2002; 文秋芳,1996; 肖建壮,1997), but only few of which focus their attention on lexical inference in reading. Available studies are those which view this issue from the perspective of reading strategies and concentrate on the process of lexical inferring (Bensoussan, M,& Laufer, 1984; Haynes,1984), aiming to explore how learners react when they encounter unknown or unfamiliar words in reading process. Researches into the categorization of lexical inference strategies are plentiful and abundant in the recent years (Adams,1982; Clarke and Nation,1980; 王瑛, 2006). Some attempt to validate the effectiveness of lexical inference strategy training at tertiary level (王萍,2004), hoping to justify the effectiveness of lexical inference strategies training; some home in on the factors affecting lexical inference and their constraints (Palmberg,1987; 任绍曾, 2003; 赵福利,2002 ). A few studies concerned with relational investigation, for instance, study into the impact of language proficiency on lexical inference ability (刘津开,1999), study into influence of depth of vocabulary knowledge on lexical inferential success (寻阳, 孙丽,2006).

1.4 Significance of This Study

Based on the previous studies, this study goes a step further and attempts to investigate the influence of gender, major and language proficiency in a narrow sense, i.e. at tertiary level, on the lexical strategy use and inferential success based on the previous categorization of various lexical inference strategies. Answers to these questions are of great importance to both the pedagogy and language research, which can shed light on and guide the teaching and learning and make the processes more fulfilling and easier. These answers can also help practitioners to find some respective methods to combine the two processes together and make them harmonious in the long run.

2. Purpose of This Study and Research Questions

The goal of this study is to investigate the influence of Language Proficiency (LP), Gender (G), and Majors (M) on Lexical Inference Ability (LIA) and learners’ Lexical Inference Strategy Use (LISU), that is to say, whether learners of different majors and gender with different language proficiency perform differentially in test in terms of LISU and LIA? This study conducted is undertaken in an effort to (1) explore and investigate the differentiations of Lexical Inference Strategy Use (LISU) and Lexical Inference Ability (LIA) of learners with different Language Proficiency (LP), Gender (G) and Majors (M), on one hand, and (2) to increase our knowledge of the interrelationship among Lexical Inference Strategy Use (LISU), Strategy Score (SS), Inferring Score (IS) and Lexical Inference Ability (LIA) of language learners, on the other hand. Thus four research questions are asked:

②Do learners of different LP, Gender (G) and Majors (M) perform differentially in test in terms of LISU and SS?  If so, what are the differences, and how different?

③Do learners of different LP, Gender(G) and Majors (M) perform differentially in test in terms of LIA and IS?  If so, what are the differences, and how different?

④What are the correlations among LISU, IS, SS, and LIA of learners with different language proficiency, gender and majors? How can LISU predict IS, SS and LIA in reading?

Outline

Chapter I  Introduction

1.1 Study Background

1.1.1 Definitions of Inference, Lexical Inference, LIA, and LS

1.1.2 Theoretical Basis

1.1.3 Significance of Lexical Inference in Reading

1.1.4 Previous Studies and Their Deficiencies

1.1.5 Significance of This Study

1.2 Purpose of This Study and Research Questions

1.3 Outline of This Thesis

Chapter II  Categorization of Lexical Inference Strategies

2.1 Paraphrasing Devices

2.2 Logical Clues

2.3 Background Clues

2.4 Morphological Clues

2.5 Monitoring Devices

Chapter III  Methodology

3.1 Subjects

3.2 Instrument

3.3 Scoring Criteria

3.4 Pilot Study

3.4.1 Reliability Analysis

3.4.2 Factor Analysis

3.5 Data Collection

3.6 Data Analysis

3.6.1 Descriptive Analysis

3.6.2 Differentiation Analysis of LISU and SS

3.6.2.1 Differentiations of LISU and SS with Different G

3.6.2.2 Differentiations of LISU and SS with Different LP

3.6.2.3 Differentiations of LISU and SS with Different M

3.6.3 Differentiation Analysis of IS and LIA

3.6.3.1 Differentiations of IS and LIA with Different G

3.6.3.2 Differentiations of IS and LIA with Different LP

3.6.3.3 Differentiations of IS and LIA with Different M

3.6.4 Correlations among LISU, SS, IS, and LIA

Chapter IV  Results and Discussion

4.1 Accounts of Learners with Different LP

4.2 Accounts of Learners with Different Majors

4.3 Accounts of Learners with Different Gender

Chapter V  Conclusions and Implications

5.1 Summary of Major Findings

5.2 Implications for Language Teaching and Learning

5.3 Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Further Research

[1]Adams,S.J. Scripts and the recognition of vocabulary: Enhancing second language

reading skills. Modern Language Journal[J], 1982 (2):155-159.

[2]Bachman.L,F. Fundamantal Considerations in Language Testing[M]. Shanghai:

Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. 1999a.

[3]Bachman,Lyle F.,et al..Langauge Testing in Practice[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai

Foreign Language Education Press. 1999b.

[4]Barnett. More than Meet the Eye Foreign Language Reading : Theory and

Practice[M]. NewYork: Prentice Hall. 1990.

[5]Bensoussan,M.,&Laufer,B. Lexical guessing in context in EFL comprehension.

Journal of Research in Reading, 1984(7):15-32.

[6]Brown.G,. et al,. Language and Understanding[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign

Language Education Press. 1999.

[7]Carton,S.A. Inferencing:a process in using and learning language. In P. Pimsleur and

T. Quinn(eds) The Psychology of Second Language Learning[M]. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. 1971.

[8]Crow,J.T. Receptive vocabulary acquisition for reading comprehension. Modern

Language Journal[J]. 1986(70): 242-250.

[9]Henning.G.. A guide to Language Testing: Development, Evaluation and

Research[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2001.

[10]O’Malley,J&A.U.Chamot. Learning Strategies In Second Language

Acquisition[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1990.

[11]程晓堂、郑敏.英语学习策略[M]. 北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2002.

[12]韩宝成.外语教学科研中的统计方法[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社, 2000.

[13]刘津开.外语学习策略研究——猜词能力与外语水平[J].外语教学，1999(3):123-138.

[14]王萍.第二语言阅读中基于上下文的词汇猜测—大学生阅读策略训练的实证研究[D]。北京，首都师范大学，2004。

[15]寻阳、孙丽. L2读者词汇知识深度与词义推测策略的成功运用[J].外语界,2006(4):23-27.

指导教师意见

指导教师签名：           

                          年    月    日

开题小组意见

负责人及成员签名：    

                                                                           答辩时间：  年  月  日