基于认知语义的大学英语一词多义教学实证研究

基于认知语义的大学英语一词多义教学实证研究

来源:www.51fabiao.org作者:lgg发布时间:2018-03-15 19:32
本文是一篇英语硕士论文,英语论文的写作,主要用于参加国际学术研讨会,促进中外学术文化交流;在国际学术刊物上发表,在国际上共享科研成果,英语论文也是达到学术交流的目的。
本文是一篇英语硕士论文,英语论文的写作,主要用于参加国际学术研讨会,促进中外学术文化交流;在国际学术刊物上发表,在国际上共享科研成果,英语论文也是达到学术交流的目的;另外英语论文还包括英语相关专业人员必要地用英语撰写学术报告或毕业论文等等。(以上内容来自百度百科)今天为大家推荐一篇英语硕士论文,供大家参考。
 
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
 
1.1 Research Background
Polysemy refers to the linguistic phenomenon that a single word has more thanone systematically related senses (Mark Johnson, 1987: Xii). As an indispensable partin English vocabulary, polysemes are in ubiquitous use in daily language. Taylor(2002) supports that most words are polysemous and they have a set of different butrelated senses. In fact, Ravon and Leacock in 2000 pointed out that about 21,488words among 60,000 had more than one senses in the Webster’ Seventh Dictionary.The dominance of polysemes in English vocabulary clearly states the importance ofpolysemous words. Vocabulary, as the basis of a language, is identified for thestumbling block for language learners in their further pursuit of the target language(Coady & Huckin, 1997). Thus poor proficiency of polysemy will prevent studentsfrom further study of English for its dominant existence in English vocabulary.Apart from the daunting number of polysemous words, students find itintimidating and painful to grasp the varied meanings of one polysemous word,although they find less trouble learning the most familiar or the first meaning of aword. Rather, students tend to misunderstand polysemous meanings in specificcontexts though they have picked up their first meanings. So it has become the mainconcern of polysemes learning to improve the efficiency of acquiring multiple sensesof polysemic words. The mastery of polysemous senses involves two aspects:short-term and long-term recall of varied meanings.Compared to high school English students, college English learners havedeveloped more maturely in mentality and physicality in general. It is then believedthat they can gain a better understanding of cognitive teaching method. Amongcollege learners, non-English majors are challenged by exam pressure and short ofmultiple learning strategies, which poses invincible difficulties for their polysemeslearning. Therefore, it would be reasonable to apply cognitive semantic teaching tonon-English majors when discussing polysemous words.
.........
 
1.2 Research Significance
Although vigorous researches have been launched to explore polysemes from theperspective of cognitive semantics, the empirical evidences still remain insufficient toprobe into the impacts of cognitive semantic teaching on polysemes learning forstudents. Therefore, the study tried to further the researches of polysemes field inseveral aspects.The study have set out to search for the explicit evidences of effects on students’polysemes learning when they are armed with cognitive semantic teaching method.Asthe empirical practice of cognitive semantics, it has introduced the impact on delayedrecall of polysemous senses besides the previous findings of encouraging effects ofcognitive semantic teaching on immediate recall of polysemes.Researches have implied that apart from the potential positive influence ofcognitive semantic teaching method on recalling polysemous meanings, students mayawaken their interests under the guideline of cognitive semantics. So the study hasmade attempts to broaden the scope to analyze influences on students’ interests inEnglish learning, English vocabulary and polysemy learning if they are exposed tocognitive semantic teaching approach.Since the study was pedagogical use of cognitive semantic way of teaching forpolysemes, the findings may suggest a new light for future polysemes teaching andlearning. That is, both teachers and students could be inspired to a certain degree fortheir own purposes.
..........
 
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
 
2.1 Traditional Polysemy Teaching Approaches
Before the emergence of cognitive semantics, polysemy-teaching has followedthe traditions of other vocabulary-teaching approaches in the teaching practice. Thispart will review the some traditional vocabulary teaching as named by Andrea Tylerto infer the differences between traditional ones and cognitive semantics.Grammar Translation, extended from classical language teaching to modernlanguages teaching, is dominant in foreign language teaching for a whole century.Lacking a justified language or learning theory (Richards & Rodgers, 2003), thisapproach still has been in its wide use in some parts of the world today. Students areexpected to learn the grammatical rules and vocabulary of the target language usingbilingual word lists. A familiar experience related to this approach is doing lexicalitem translation from target language to their native language or otherwise. Theteaching of polysemes are in line with this grammar-translation approach as well asother types of vocabularies.
.........
 
.2 Cognitive Semantic Polysemy Teaching
The great lion of polysemes learning lies in the mastery of their variants. Fortraditional polysemes teaching ways are mostly ignorant of the semantic relatednessof various senses, cognitive semantics contends the semantic relations amongpolysemous meanings, which inspires a new perspective for polysemes teaching.The last twenty years witnessed the blossom of cognitive semantics. Abroadcognitive linguists have laid the theoretic foundations for cognitive semantics.Jackendoff is one of the pioneers to study the relations between meanings and theworld from cognitive perspective in 1983. He stresses the important interactionsbetween semantics of nature language and human cognition. Specifically, he pointsout that studying natural language semantics is to study cognition, which, in turn, thetheory of cognition can find its trace in grammatical structure of natural language.Langacker (1993) holds that meaning is conceptualization in cognitive semantics.Cognitive semantics is further extended in constructing theory, establishingempirical domains and formally modeling on computers by Scandinavian linguists inthe collected papers of Cognitive Semantics: Meaning and Cognition edited by JensAllwood, Peter Gardenfors in 1999. Talmy enriches cognitive semantic theorythrough his inclusive masterpiece Toward Cognitive Semantics in 2000 whichhighlights how the concepts are shaped by language through basic systems in theindividual Volume I and how concepts are structured according to typologies and byprocesses in his second Volume. To be more specific, meaning reflects how the humancognition conceptualizes the world rather than meaning is the sole referent of theoutside world. Therefore it depends on the cognitive models to explain meanings inlanguage. In short, meaning and cognition are inseparable from each other: meaning isthe vivid and concrete portrait of cognition, cognition is the source and device ofmeaning development.
...........
 
Chapter III Theoretic Framework............11
3.1 The Cognitive Understanding of Polysemy..............11
3.2 Basic Concepts of Cognitive Semantics........11
3.3 Polysemy Under the Framework of Cognitive Semantics...16
3.4 Cognitive SemanticApproach for Polysemy Teaching.......24
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.......24
4.1 Research Questions.......25
4.2 Subjects..............26
4.3 Materials............26
4.4 Instruments........27
4.6 Data Collection........30
4.7 DataAnalysis...........30
4.8 Sample Polysemy Teaching in Cognitive SemanticApproach............ 30
CHAPTER V RESULTSAND DISCUSSION..........38
5.1 Results.....40
5.2 Discussion..........46
 
CHAPTER V RESULTSAND DISCUSSIONS
 
Following the introduction of the primary methodology employed in theexperiments, this chapter is about to present the results gained from five vocabularytests and two questionnaires. The vocabulary tests addressed the first and secondquestion while two questionnaires offered the results of the third research questions.After that, the thesis embarks on discussions in terms of those research questionsbased on the obtained outcome.
 
5.1 Results
The resulting data grew out of five pairs of vocabulary tests and two groups ofquestionnaires finished by the two intact classes. The first part is about vocabularytests and the next part questionnaires.Five vocabulary tests were handed out in order to learn students’ retention oftarget polysemes in short and long term. Pretest used before the research meant tocheck whether the two groups were of the same proficiency level about polysemes.Post-test one and three was designed to draw comparative analysis of short-termretention of polysemes between two classes while post-test two and four wassupposed to display analysis of long-term retention of polysemes of two classes.Pretest was devised to understand the polysemes knowledge of two groupsbefore the experiment. To be exact, it was to learn whether the two classes weresuitable for the succeeding experiment or not. An independent samples test wasundertaken to examine the statistical difference between the two classes. Table 5-1 isthe detailed data outcome of pretest.Table 5-1 unfolds that the sig (two-tailed) .59 is much larger than .005. Also, thelower and upper value are -5.03 and 8.73 within which exists the value 0. The tworesults appear to indicate that the null hypothesis still holds water and there lies nodifference between EC and CC in pretest. What’s more, the mean scores of the twogroups are about the same with 50.90 and 49.06 respectively, which further suggeststhe similarity of two groups in the mastery of polysemes before the experiment in away. It thus seems safe to say that the two groups are not very distinct from each otherin polysemes learning before the experiment.
........
 
CONCLUSION
 
According to the data analysis, the chapter will conclude the thesis in severalaspects: to point out the key findings; to offer some implications for college Englishpolysemes teaching and learning; to propose suggestions for future research andstudies.For English learners, the main concern of learning polysemes is to grasp theirvaried meanings, so the chief objective for the study is to investigate the impact ofcognitive semantic teaching on students’ short-term memory of polysemous senses.Another primary objective is to inquire students’ long-term recall of multiple senses.And the third objective is to find out the influence of cognitive semantic teaching onstudents’ interest. To fulfill the purpose, the researcher has implemented a seven-weekexperiment among 65 non-English majors. From two questionnaires and fivevocabulary tests, we can procure major findings as follows:The two short-term memory tests confirmed that EC students yielded higheraverage scores than CC students did when cognitive semantic teaching was put intouse in the EC classes. It is in agreement with previous studies that cognitive semanticpolysemmes teaching fuels students’ memory of varied word sense in a short time.That is, cognitive semantic teaching is efficient to immediate retention of pylysemousvariants for college English learners.What’s more important, the two long-term tests discovered that long-term recallof polysemous senses also benefits from cognitive semantic teaching because ECstudents performed better in both two delayed tests as well. In a word, it is reasonableto argue that cognitive polysemes teaching is more effective for college students toretain multiple motivated senses in a long course.
..........
References (abbreviated)