請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/51397
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 謝舒凱(Shu-Kai Hsieh) | |
dc.contributor.author | Yi-hsin Lin | en |
dc.contributor.author | 林怡馨 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-15T13:32:50Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2016-03-08 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2016-03-08 | |
dc.date.issued | 2016 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2016-02-02 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Reference
Achard, Michel & Niemeier, Susanne (eds.) (2004). Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Aitchison, J. (2012). Words in the mind: An introduction to the mental lexicon. John Wiley & Sons. ALC (2001). Standard vocabulary list (SVL) 12000. Retrieved 5/4/2006 from the World Wide Web http:// www.alc.co.jp/goi/PW_top_all.htm Anderson R. C., Freebody P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In Guthrie J. T. (Ed.),Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp. 77–117). Newark, DE:International Reading Association. Bauman, J., & Culligan, B. (1995). About the general service list. Available on: http://plaza3. mbn. or. jp/~ bauman/gsl. html [2001, July 21]. Biber, D. (1993). Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and linguistic computing, 8(4), 243-257. Bird, S., Klein, E., & Loper, E. (2009). Natural language processing with Python. O'Reilly Media, Inc.. Breland, H. M. (1996). Word frequency and word: A comparison of counts in four corpora. Psychological Science, 96-99. Breland, H. M. (1996). Word frequency and word: A comparison of counts in four corpora. Psychological Science, 96-99. Brezina, V., & Gablasova, D. (2013). Is there a core general vocabulary? Introducing the New General Service List. Applied Linguistics, amt018. Brown, J. C., Frishkoff, G. A., & Eskenazi, M. (2005, October). Automatic question generation for vocabulary assessment. In Proceedings of the conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 819-826). Association for Computational Linguistics. Browne, C. (2014). A New General Service List: The Better Mousetrap We’ve Been Looking for?. Vocabulary Learning and Instruction, 1. Browne, C. The New General Service List Version 1.01: Getting Better All the Time. Korea TESOL Journal, 11(1). Browne, C., Culligan, B., & Phillips, J. (2014). A New General Service List (1.01). Carroll, J. B., P. Davis, and B. Richman (1971) Word Frequency Book. New York: American Heritage Publishing Co., Inc. Chujo, K. (2004). Measuring vocabulary levels of English textbooks and tests using a BNC lemmatised high frequency word list. Language and Computers,51(1), 231-249. Chujo, K., & Oghigian, K. (2009). How many words do you need to know to understand TOEIC, TOEFL & EIKEN? An examination of text coverage and high frequency vocabulary. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 6(2), 121-148. Chung, S. F., Chao, F. A., & Hsieh, Y. C. (2009). VocabAnalyzer: A Referred Word List Analyzing Tool with Keyword, Concordancing and N-gram Functions. In PACLIC (pp. 638-645). Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL quarterly, 213-238. Csábi, S. (2004). A cognitive linguistic view of polysemy in English and its implications for teaching. Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching, 233-256. Dunn, O. J. 1964. Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics. 6: 241–252. DUPUY, H.P. (1974). The rationale, development and stan dardization of a basic word vocabulary test. Wash- ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. (DHEW Publication No. HRA 74-1334) Fellbaum, C (1998, ed.) WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Fellbaum, C. (1990). English verbs as a semantic net. International Journal of Lexicography, 3(4), 278-301. Fellbaum, C. (1998). WordNet. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Goddard, Cliff. (2001). Lexico-semantic universals: A critical overview. Linguistic Typology 5:1-65. Green, R., Dorr, B. J., & Resnik, P. (2004, July). Inducing frame semantic verb classes from WordNet and LDOCE. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics (p. 375). Association for Computational Linguistics. Gruber, T. R. Ontolingua: a Mechanism to Support Portable Ontologies. Report KSL 91-66. Stanford Hiebert, E. H. (2013). Core vocabulary and the challenge of complex text.Reading Research in the Age of the Common Core State Standards. Newark, DE: IRA.[Pre-publication version of the chapter is available at http://textproject. org/library/articles/core-vocabulary-and-the-challenge-ofcomplex-text/]. Hirsh, D., & Nation, P. (1992). What vocabulary size is needed to read unsimplified texts for pleasure?. Reading in a foreign language, 8, 689-689. Hirst, G. (2009). Ontology and the lexicon. In Handbook on ontologies (pp. 269-292). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Horst, M., Cobb, T., & Nicolae, I. (2005). Expanding academic vocabulary with an interactive on-line database. Language learning & technology, 9(2), 90-110. Hsu, C. C., & Hsieh, S. K. (2013). Back to the Basic: Exploring Base Concepts from the Wordnet Glosses. 中文計算語言學期刊, 18(2), 57-84. J, P. Nerriere & Hon, D. (2009). Globish the world over. International Globish Institute.globish Kibby, M. W. (1977). Note on relationship of word and word frequency. Psychological Reports.Psychological Reports, Vol 41(1), Aug 1977, 12-14. Kilgarriff, A. (2003). BNC word frequency list. BNC word frequency list. Kilgarriff,( 1995) https://www.kilgarriff.co.uk/bnc-readme.html Kruskal, W. H., & Wallis, W. A. (1952). Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. Journal of the American statistical Association, 47(260), 583-621. Lehmann, Christian. (2013) Lexicography. http://www.christianlehmann.eu/ling/ling_meth/ling_description/lexicography/basic_vocabulary.html Lilliefors, H. W. (1967). On the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality with mean and variance unknown. Journal of the American Statistical Association,62(318), 399-402. Lin, D. (1998, July). An information-theoretic definition of similarity. In ICML(Vol. 98, pp. 296-304). Lin, S. Y. H., & Hsieh, S. K. (2014). Latent Semantic Distance Between Chinese Basic Words and Advanced Words. In Chinese Lexical Semantics (pp. 270-277). Springer International Publishing. McCarthy, M. (1990). Vocabulary. Oxford University Press. McCarthy, M. (1999). What constitutes a basic vocabulary for spoken communication. Studies in English language and literature, 1, 233-249. Miller, G. A. (1995). WordNet: a lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM, 38(11), 39-41. Miller, George A. (1995). WordNet: A Lexical Database for English. Communications of the ACM Vol. 38, No. 11: 39-41. Morato, J., Marzal, M. A., Lloréns, J., & Moreiro, J. (2004). Wordnet applications. In Proceedings of the 2nd Global Wordnet Conference (Vol. 2004). Nagy, W. E., & Anderson, R. C. (1984). How many words are there in printed school English?. Reading research quarterly, 304-330. Nation, I. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening?.Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 59-82. Nation, P., & Waring, R. (1997). Vocabulary size, text coverage and word lists.Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy, 14, 6-19. Ogden, Charles K. 1930, Basic English. A general introduction with rules and grammar. London: Paul Treber (2nd impr. 1940). Pease, A., & Fellbaum, C. (2010). Formal ontology as interlingua: The SUMO and WordNet linking project and GlobalWordNet. To appear. Pedersen, T., Patwardhan, S., & Michelizzi, J. (2004, May). WordNet:: Similarity: measuring the relatedness of concepts. In Demonstration papers at hlt-naacl 2004 (pp. 38-41). Association for Computational Linguistics. Perkins, J. (2014). Python 3 Text Processing with NLTK 3 Cookbook. Packt Publishing Ltd. Princeton University (2010). About WordNet. WordNet. Princeton University. http://wordnet.princeton.edu Rodríguez, H., Climent, S., Vossen, P., Bloksma, L., Peters, W., Alonge, A. & Roventini, A. (1998). The top-down strategy for building eurowordnet: Vocabulary coverage, base concepts and top ontology. Computers and the Humanities, 32(2-3), 117-152. Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive psychology, 8(3), 382-439. Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Ernst Klett Sprachen. SMITH, M.K. (1941). Measurement of the size of general English vocabulary through the elementary grades and high school. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 24, 311-345. Swadesh, Morris. (1952). 'Lexicostatistic Dating of Prehistoric Ethnic Contacts.' Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 96, 452–463. Swadesh, Morris. (1971). The Origin and Diversification of Language. Ed. post mortem by Joel Sherzer. Chicago: Aldine. ISBN 0-202-01001-5. Contains final 100-word list on p. 283. Takeno, J., Saiki, T., Hashiuchi, S., Ohashi, N., & Lemmer, R. J. (2011). Comparing the Globish Word List with Those Commonly Used in Japan. Tamayo, J. M. (1987). Frequency of use as a measure of word in bilingual vocabulary test construction and translation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47(4), 893-902. Thornbury, S. (2006). How to teach vocabulary. Pearson Education India. Uschold, M., & Gruninger, M. (2004). Ontologies and semantics for seamless connectivity. ACM SIGMod Record, 33(4), 58-64. Verspoor, M., & Lowie, W. (2003). Making sense of polysemous words.Language Learning, 53(3), 547-586. Vossen(2003). Ontologies. The Oxford handbook of computational linguistics, 464-482. Vossen, P. (2002). Wordnet, eurowordnet and global wordnet. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, trans.). Waring, R. and Nation, I.S.P. (1997) Vocabulary size, text coverage, and word lists. In Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 6-19. West, M., & West, M. P. (Eds.). (1953). A general service list of English words: with semantic frequencies and a supplementary word-list for the writing of popular science and technology. Addison-Wesley Longman Limited. Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics: Primes and Universals: Primes and Universals. Oxford University Press, UK. Xue, G. and Nation, I.S.P. (1984) A university word list. Language Learning and Communication 3, 2: 215-229. 阮家慶(2015)。英語文法知識本體學習法(博士論文)。 取自http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/92741307771641681808 高永欽(2014)。高中英語教科書及大考閱讀測驗試題之字頻表及字彙涵蓋量語 料庫分析研究(碩士論文)。 取自http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/09503043681374424217 國家華語測驗推動工作委員會 (2013)。《華語八千詞表說明》,載國家華語測驗推動工作委員會網站http://www.sc-top.org.tw/download/8000_description.pdf。[Steering Committee for the Test Of Proficiency-Hanyu. 2012. 8000 words Introduction-Hanyu. Retrieved from http://www.sc-top.org.tw/download/8000_description.pdf] 陳怡勳(2014 a)。以知識本體為基礎建構國中成語教學語意查詢系統(碩士論文)。 取自http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/36685426597146358384 陳惠貞(2014 b)。臺灣高中英文教科書學術性字彙選用之分析研究(碩士論文)。 取自http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/87187839324341733612 黃孝慈(2010)。利用字彙與子句結構進行全民英檢閱讀文章難易度分類之研究(碩士論文)。 取自http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/05811263805331910299 黃美玲(2010)。高中職英文教科書之單字量及難易度分析(碩士論文)。 取自http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/88719788381186009466 鄭恆雄、張郇慧、程玉秀、顧英秀等 (2001)。 《大考中心高中英文參考詞彙表》編修研究計畫報告(第二期),大學入學考試中心,台北。 羅舒穎(2014)。以語料庫的方法探究高職英語教科書與統測字表及詞彙涵蓋量(碩士論文)。 取自http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/00552263649968259142 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/51397 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 本研究主要藉由探討國內與國外現存英文詞表,比較其中之異同,並且從概念化的角度探討基本詞彙的本質。本研究檢視基本詞彙在英文詞網語意網路中的分佈,試圖找出難度和分布之間的關聯。此外,為了將國內常用之英文詞表放入實際與研究上的應用,本研究比較國內外詞表對於全民英檢閱讀測驗五十五篇(初級、中級、中高級)的涵蓋率,並藉此檢視閱讀測驗文章中字彙的難度。
研究結果顯示,總共有1299個詞重複出現在每個詞表中,基本詞彙比進階詞彙有更多的詞義,其中基本動詞的平均詞義高達七個,多於名詞和形容詞(平均各有五個詞義)。至於語意距離方面,基本動詞在語意階層中的上層,顯示基本動詞的詞意較進階動詞廣泛。但名詞卻沒有顯著的模式,可能的原因為名詞若是過於抽象或具體實都容易造成難度提升。計算詞表涵蓋率的部分,所選之國內外詞表對於全民英檢閱度測驗的文章均有約90%的覆蓋率,統計結果也顯示各個詞表的覆蓋率沒有顯著差異。此外,初級的文章中還是出現詞表中偏向進階的單字。最後,研究結果也顯示文章難度越高,則平均的詞義數目越低。本篇研究架設了一個網路介面供使用者計算不同詞表之涵蓋率、字彙分佈以及平均詞義數目,並且根據詞義數目與語意距離,將大考七千單的動詞重新排序,提供一個從新的維度之下產生的動詞詞表。 本研究主要貢獻為加入詞義與語意距離的維度來計算字詞的基本性,學習者與教學者也可利用詞網得到更多基本詞彙之多義性與其語意關聯。本研究也希望能夠幫助教學者與學習者分析不同詞表與文章間的涵蓋率。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | This study aims to examine the existing English wordlists used in Taiwan and abroad, trying to make comparison between them and exploring the nature of basic words from a conceptual perspective. Basic words are mapped to WordNet semantic hierarchy to see their semantic distance from the root node, and the senses of basic words in the WordNet are also extracted. Furthermore, to put local English wordlists into application, this study examines the text coverage of GEPT wordlist, Vocabulary 7000, BNC lists and NGSL&NAWL on GEPT reading comprehension tests (55 articles), and attempts to examine the word distribution of given articles.
The results find that there are 1299 words appearing in every wordlist selected. It is also discovered that basic words tend to have more senses in the English WordNet. The average sense number of basic verbs is up to seven, while basic nouns and adjectives have five senses on average. Furthermore, the distances between basic verbs and their root nodes are lower than those of advanced verbs, and this suggests that basic verbs tend to be more general in meaning. On the contrary, basic nouns do not share the same pattern as basic verbs do; the possible reason may be that when the meanings of nouns become either too general or too specific, they become more unfamiliar to learners. Finally, this study analyzes the coverage of different lists on GEPT reading comprehension tests, examining the word distribution. The coverage of all the lists reaches around 90%, and according to statistical analysis, all the four lists perform quite the same. It is also discovered that the average sense number of elementary level articles is higher than that of intermediate levels. When the difficulty of the articles increases, the average sense number then decreases. Finally, an online interface was built to help users analyze word distribution of different lists. A new verb list is also provided according to the sense numbers and semantic distances. The findings of the study suggest that sense numbers and semantic distance may be taken into consideration in defining word basicness. In addition, learners and teachers should be aware of the number of senses in acquiring basic words, and also the semantic relationship between them by the help of WordNet. Further research may explore deeper into the other semantic relations between basic words. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-15T13:32:50Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-105-R00142004-1.pdf: 2080158 bytes, checksum: 23bfb94537bd6d58d38a96e7580cc5c9 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | TABLE OF CONTENTS
致謝 ii 中文摘要 iii 英文摘要 iv CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Motivation and Research Questions 4 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 7 2.1 Basic words 7 2.1.1 Definition 7 2.1.2 English wordlists 9 2.1.3 Wordlists in Taiwan 10 2.1.4 The Criterion of choosing basic words 11 2.1.5 Comparison of existing wordlists 13 2.2 WordNet and Ontology 14 2.2.1 Introduction of WordNet and Ontology 15 2.2.2 Base concepts 16 2.2.3 Applications of WordNet and Ontology 20 2.3 The application of wordlists on language testing 20 2.4 Conclusion of the section 22 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 23 3.1 Wordlists used in this study 23 3.2 WordNet 25 3.3 GEPT Test 28 3.4 Procedures 29 3.4.1 Comparison and contrast between the wordlists 29 3.4.1.1 Pre-processing of the wordlists 29 3.4.1.2 Mapping and calculation 31 3.4.2 Extracting word senses and semantic distance from the NLTK WordNet Database 31 3.4.2.1 Word sense and semantic distance 32 3.4.2.2 Data analysis and statistics 36 3.4.3 Coverage of different lists and article sense numbers 36 3.4.3.1 Pre-processing of the text 37 3.4.3.2 Mapping and Calculation 40 3.5 Overall Procedures 41 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 42 4.1 Analyzing different wordlists 42 4.2 The sense number and semantic distance of words at different levels 45 4.2.1 Sense number of words at different levels 45 4.2.2 Discussion on the sense numbers of words at different levels 52 4.2.3 Semantic distances of words at different levels 53 4.2.4 Discussion on semantic distance of words at different levels 56 4.3Application of the existing wordlists 58 4.3.1 Coverage comparison and difficulty distribution 58 4.3.2 Senses number distribution of the articles 62 4.3.3 A new verb list 64 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION 66 5.1 Conclusion 66 5.2 Limitation and future work 69 Reference 71 Appendix 1. Words appear in all the selected wordlists 77 Appendix 2. Words in the Vocabulary 7000 but not in WordNet 80 Appendix 3. Text words not covered by the lists 81 Appendix 4. A new verb list 84 | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.title | 詞表告訴了我們什麼?—以詞義及難度分級檢驗現存英文詞表 | zh_TW |
dc.title | What do wordlists tell us? —Adding the dimensions of sense and difficulty levels into the existing English wordlists | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 104-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 張郇慧(Hsun-huei Chang),鍾曉芳(Siaw-Fong Chung) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 詞表,基本詞彙,英文詞網,覆蓋率,語意階層, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | wordlists,basic words,WordNet,coverage,semantic hierarchy, | en |
dc.relation.page | 94 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2016-02-02 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 文學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 語言學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 語言學研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-105-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.03 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。