Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: 二語詞彙知識與文本複雜度對閱讀理解的影響-以華語學習者為例
The Impacts of Vocabulary Knowledge and Text Complexity of the Second Language on Reading Comprehension-A Case Study of Chinese Learners
Authors: 蕭惠貞
Xiao, Hui-Zhen
Tang, Li-Chun
Keywords: 詞彙知識
Vocabulary knowledge
Morphological awareness
Semantic transparency
Reading comprehension
Issue Date: 2018
Abstract: 影響閱讀理解之因素包括讀者二語能力與文本本身等,閱讀時必然碰到詞彙,包括已知詞與生詞,故二語詞彙相關面向對閱讀理解有重要影響。詞彙知識分廣度知識和深度知識,皆會影響閱讀理解,如英語二語研究中,Staehr(2008)發現詞彙廣度知識和閱讀理解相關(r=0.83),李曉(2007)發現廣度與深度知識皆和閱讀理解相關(r=0.53,r=0.47);構詞覺知亦與閱讀理解有關,在英語一語研究中Carlisle(1995)發現構詞覺知是閱讀理解的最佳預測指標(R2=0.366)。華語和英語不同,華語構詞方式以複合為主,且華語詞彙的詞義透明度(semantic transparency)與詞彙學習和閱讀理解有關,然二語研究中對詞義透明度和閱讀理解關係之探討較少,故本文為探討華語學習者的詞彙知識與構詞覺知及文本中詞義透明度對閱讀理解的影響。 研究對象為34位中級以上之華語二語學習者,以雷達莉(2016)開發之工具檢測詞彙知識,以派生詞覺知與複合詞覺知作為構詞覺知之評量面向,以自編文本測量閱讀理解,以目標詞詞義透明度為控制文本複雜度的變項。 研究發現:(A)不同文本複雜度之三篇文本在閱讀理解、文意理解和詞義選擇上皆達顯著差異(F=7.967,p=0.001;F=4.629,p=0.012;F=7.400,p=0.001),文本複雜度最低之文本1與文本複雜度居中之文本3表現皆優於文本複雜度最高之文本2;(B)在各文本中,高程度組之閱讀理解皆顯著優於低程度組;(C)詞彙知識與不同複雜度之文本閱讀理解皆相關,例如整體閱讀理解分別和詞彙廣度知識與深度知識達高度正相關(r=0.871,p=0.000;r=0.790,p=0.000),廣度知識對整體閱讀理解有較大之解釋力(R2=75.9%),閱讀理解和構詞覺知則無顯著相關;(D)廣度知識分別與構詞覺知和複合詞覺知達顯著中度正相關(r=0.353,p=0.041;r=0.353,p=0.041),與派生詞覺知則無;廣度知識中12.5%變異量可被構詞覺知解釋,12.4%變異可被複合詞覺知解釋,深度知識與構詞覺知皆無顯著相關;(E)廣度知識和深度知識為顯著正相關(r=0.856 ,p=0.000),深度知識中73.2%變異量可被廣度知識解釋。
The factors that affect reading comprehension include reader’s language proficiency and the text itself. While reading, readers must deal with vocabulary (whether they have learnt it or not). Therefore, the dimensions related to second language vocabulary are very important to reading comprehension. Vocabulary knowledge includes breadth and depth of knowledge, and both play an influential role in reading comprehension. Among English-related researches, Staehr (2008) found that the effect of breadth of vocabulary knowledge was related to reading comprehension (r=0.83), and Xiao Lee (2007) found that both breadth and depth of knowledge were related to reading comprehension (r=0.53, r=0.47). Morphological awareness is also crucial to reading comprehension. For example, Carlisle (1995) found that morphological awareness was the best forecasting indicator for reading comprehension (R2=0.366). Instead, Chinese is different from English, for the main formation of Chinese words is compounding, and the semantic transparency of Chinese vocabulary is crucial to vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension. However, in the field of Chinese second language researches, there are quite few papers that examined the relationship between semantic transparency and reading comprehension. Therefore, this study aims to examine the impacts of vocabulary knowledge, morphological awareness and semantic transparency on reading comprehension of Chinese learners. Thirty-four CSL learners of intermediate level and above participated in this study. The adopted research method, developed by Mahastuti (2016), was mainly to examine vocabulary knowledge. Morphological awareness in this study included derivational awareness and compound awareness, and the reading materials were edited by the researcher. The test items of reading comprehension included the understanding of contents and target words, and semantic transparency of target words was the variable for controlling text complexity. The current findings revealed the following results. First, in terms of the three texts of different complexity, there were significant differences in reading comprehension, the understanding of contents, and target words (F=7.967, p=0.001; F=4.629, p=0.012; F=7.400, p=0.001). Both Text 1 (of the lowest complexity) and Text 3 (of the intermediate complexity) performed better than Text 2 (of the highest complexity). Second, in terms of reading comprehension, the high proficiency group performed better than low proficiency group on all of the three texts. Third, vocabulary knowledge was related to reading comprehension, no matter on which text. For example, reading comprehension was highly related to breadth and depth of knowledge, respectively (r=0.871, p=0.000; r=0.790, p=0.000), while breadth of knowledge was a more powerful indicator for reading comprehension (R2=75.9%). The correlation between reading comprehension and morphological awareness was not significant. Next, breadth of knowledge was moderately related to morphological awareness and compound awareness, respectively (r=0.353, p=0.041; r=0.353, p=0.041), while there was nonsignificant correlation between breadth of knowledge and derivational awareness. Regarding breadth of knowledge, 12.5% of variance could be explained by morphological awareness, and 12.4% of variance could be explained by compound awareness. There was nonsignificant correlation between breadth of knowledge and morphological awareness. Last, breadth of knowledge was significantly related to depth of knowledge, and 73.2% of variance in depth of knowledge could be explained by width of knowledge.
Other Identifiers: G060484013I
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.