by Li Fuyin. / "December 2002." / Thesis (Ph.D.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 247-276). / Electronic reproduction. Hong Kong : Chinese University of Hong Kong, [2012] System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. Available via World Wide Web. / Electronic reproduction. Ann Arbor, MI : ProQuest Information and Learning Company, [200-] System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. Available via World Wide Web. / Mode of access: World Wide Web. / Abstracts in English and Chinese.

by Zhou Lan. / Some appendixes in Chinese. / Publication date from spine. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1994. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 122-130). / Acknow1edgements / Abstract / Chapter Chapter 1 --- Introduction / Chapter 1.1 --- The Problem --- p.1 / Chapter 1.2 --- The Scope of the Study --- p.3 / Chapter 1.3 --- The Significance of the Study --- p.6 / Chapter 1.4 --- Definition of Terms --- p.7 / Chapter Chapter 2 --- Literature Review --- p.9 / Chapter 2.1 --- Cummin's Interdependence Hypothesis --- p.10 / Chapter 2.1.1 --- The SUP and CUP Models of Bilingual Proficiency --- p.10 / Chapter 2.1.2 --- Evaluating Cummin's Interdependence Hypothesis --- p.15 / Chapter 2.1.3 --- Understanding Cummin's Interdepend- ence Hypothesis --- p.17 / Chapter 2.1.4 --- Alderson's View on Reading in a Foreign Language --- p.18 / Chapter 2.1.4.1 --- Alderson's hypotheses --- p.19 / Chapter 2.1.4.2 --- The Threshold Level(s) in L2 Reading Comprehension --- p.22 / Chapter 2.2 --- The Bialystok-Ryan Metacognitive Model (1985) --- p.24 / Chapter 2.2.1 --- Introduction --- p.24 / Chapter 2.2.2 --- The Dimension of Analyzed Linguistic Knowledge --- p.26 / Chapter 2.2.3 --- The Dimension of Cognitive Control --- p.29 / Chapter 2.2.4 --- "Analyzed Linguistic Knowledge, Cognitive Control and L2 Reading Comprehension" --- p.32 / Chapter 2.3 --- Working Memory and Reading Comprehension --- p.36 / Chapter 2.3.1 --- Working Memory and Reading in L2 --- p.39 / Chapter 2.4 --- Intelligence and Reading Comprehension --- p.41 / Chapter 2.4.1 --- The Concept of Intelligence --- p.41 / Chapter 2.4.2 --- The Relationship between Intelli- gence and Reading Comprehension --- p.44 / Chapter 2.5 --- Ryan & Ryan's Study (1993) and the Hypotheses of the Present Study --- p.45 / Chapter 2.5.1 --- Theoretical Constructs Employedin G & R's Study --- p.45 / Chapter 2.5.2 --- G & R's Study --- p.47 / Chapter 2.5.3 --- Areas Examined in G & R's Study --- p.47 / Chapter 2.5.4 --- The Focuses of the Present Study --- p.48 / Chapter 2.5.5 --- The Hypotheses --- p.53 / Chapter Chapter 3 --- Design of the Study --- p.54 / Chapter 3.1 --- Design Characteristics --- p.54 / Chapter 3.2 --- The Pilot Study --- p.58 / Chapter 3.2.1 --- The Pilot Subjects and Tests --- p.60 / Chapter 3.3 --- The Main Study --- p.63 / Chapter 3.3.1 --- The Subjects --- p.64 / Chapter 3.3.2 --- The Procedure --- p.64 / Chapter 3.3.3 --- Data Analysis --- p.67 / Chapter 3.4 --- Limitations --- p.69 / Chapter Chapter 4 --- Results --- p.71 / Chapter 4.1 --- Introduction --- p.71 / Chapter 4.2 --- Correlation Tables --- p.73 / Chapter 4.3 --- Analysis of Variance --- p.74 / Chapter 4.4 --- Correlation Tables --- p.75 / Chapter Chapter 5 --- Discussion and Implications --- p.91 / Chapter 5.1 --- The First Research Question and Hypothesis --- p.92 / Chapter 5.1.1 --- The Definition of the Threshold Level(s) in Reading in L2 (English) and the Relativity of the Level(s) --- p.95 / Chapter 5.2 --- The Second Research Question and Hypothesis --- p.97 / Chapter 5.2.1 --- Intelligence and L1 (Chinese) and L2 (English) Reading Comprehension --- p.98 / Chapter 5.2.2 --- L1 (Chinese) Working Memory and L1 Reading Comprehension --- p.103 / Chapter 5.2.3 --- "L1 (Chinese) Analyzed Linguistic Knowledge, L1 Cognitive Control and LI Reading Comprehension" --- p.105 / Chapter 5.3 --- The Third Research Question and Hypothesis --- p.107 / Chapter 5.3.1 --- L2 (English) Working Memory and L2 Reading Comprehension --- p.107 / Chapter 5.3.2 --- "L2 (English) Analyzed Linguistic Knowledge, L2 Cognitive Control and L2Reading Comprehension" --- p.108 / Chapter 5.4 --- The Fourth Research Question and Hypothesis --- p.111 / Chapter 5.4.1 --- Summary of the Four Research Questions and Hypotheses --- p.112 / Chapter 5.5 --- The Fifth Research Question --- p.114 / Chapter 5.6 --- The Sixth Research Question --- p.116 / Chapter 5.7 --- Summary and Suggestions --- p.119 / Chapter 5.7.1 --- Summary --- p.119 / Chapter 5.7.2 --- Suggestions for Future Research --- p.120 / REFERENCES --- p.122 / Appendices / Chapter A. --- English reading comprehension test --- p.131 / Chapter B. --- English working memory test --- p.151 / Chapter C. --- English cognitive control test --- p.146 / Chapter D. --- English analyzed linguistic knowledge test --- p.148 / Chapter E. --- Chinese reading comprehension test --- p.150 / Chapter F. --- Chinese working memory test --- p.151 / Chapter G. --- Chinese cognitive control test --- p.154 / Chapter H. --- Chinese analyzed linguistic test --- p.155 / Chapter I. --- Intelligence test --- p.156 / Chapter J. --- English proficiency test --- p.157

Ho Ki. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2001. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 141-145). / Abstracts in English and Chinese. / Chapter Chapter 1 --- Introduction --- p.1 / Chapter Chapter 2 --- Background of the research --- p.4 / Chapter 2.1 --- Some principles of syntax --- p.4 / Chapter 2.2 --- The anatomy of the ergative construction in English --- p.6 / Chapter 2.2.1 --- Properties of the ergative construction --- p.8 / Chapter 2.3 --- The anatomy of the passive construction in English --- p.10 / Chapter 2.3.1 --- Properties of the passive construction --- p.11 / Chapter 2.4 --- Problems in learning the ergative construction --- p.12 / Chapter 2.5 --- Different approaches to the learning of English ergative construction --- p.16 / Chapter 2.5.1 --- Differences in L1 and L2 acquisition --- p.16 / Chapter 2.5.2 --- The Subset Principle and the learning of ergative construction --- p.19 / Chapter 2.5.3 --- The role of negative evidence in L2 acquisition --- p.20 / Chapter 2.6 --- Some theoretical issues in SLA --- p.22 / Chapter 2.6.1 --- Different kinds of knowledge in SLA --- p.23 / Chapter 2.6.2 --- """Focus on form"" VS ""Focus on forms"" type of instruction in SLA" --- p.25 / Chapter 2.6.3 --- The role of awareness in SLA --- p.26 / Chapter 2.6.4 --- The role of input in SLA --- p.27 / Chapter 2.6.5 --- The role of output in SLA --- p.32 / Chapter 2.7 --- Issues under investigation --- p.34 / Chapter Chapter 3 --- Methodology --- p.37 / Chapter 3.1 --- Subjects --- p.38 / Chapter 3.2 --- Experimental Design --- p.38 / Chapter 3.3 --- Research instruments --- p.44 / Chapter 3.3.1 --- Formal grammar teaching materials --- p.45 / Chapter 3.3.2 --- The interpretation task --- p.46 / Chapter 3.3.3 --- The production task --- p.49 / Chapter 3.3.4 --- The grammaticality judgement task --- p.50 / Chapter 3.3.4.1 --- The grammaticality judgement task in the pretest --- p.51 / Chapter 3.3.4.2 --- The grammaticality judgement task in the posttests --- p.54 / Chapter 3.3.5 --- Free production task --- p.56 / Chapter 3.4 --- Scoring Method --- p.57 / Chapter 3.4.1 --- The grammaticality judgement task --- p.57 / Chapter 3.4.2 --- The interpretation task and production task --- p.59 / Chapter 3.4.3 --- The free production task --- p.59 / Chapter 3.5 --- Statistical procedures --- p.60 / Chapter 3.6 --- Presentation of results --- p.62 / Chapter Chapter 4 --- Results: Key findings --- p.64 / Chapter 4.1 --- Overall results --- p.66 / Chapter 4.2 --- Results by subtype of ergative --- p.69 / Chapter 4.3 --- Detailed results of grammaticality judgement task --- p.73 / Chapter 4.3.1 --- Detailed results of the interpretation task groups (with grammar lesson) --- p.74 / Chapter 4.3.2 --- Detailed results of the interpretation task group (with grammar lesson) compared with the mere interpretation task group --- p.79 / Chapter 4.3.3 --- Detailed results of the production task groups --- p.81 / Chapter 4.3.4 --- Detailed results of the interpretation task group compared with the production task group --- p.84 / Chapter 4.4 --- Analysis of key findings of the grammaticality judgement tests --- p.86 / Chapter 4.4.1 --- Differences between the treatment groups (the interpretation task group) and the other groups (the no task group and the control group) --- p.86 / Chapter 4.4.2 --- Differences between the interpretation task group and the mere interpretation task group in the posttest --- p.88 / Chapter 4.4.3 --- Differences between the interpretation task group and the production task group in the second posttest --- p.89 / Chapter 4.5 --- Free production task results --- p.89 / Chapter 4.5.1 --- The free production task results of the interpretation task groups and the production task group --- p.90 / Chapter 4.5.2 --- The free production task results of the interpretation task group (with grammar instruction) compared with the production task group --- p.92 / Chapter 4.6 --- Summary --- p.92 / Chapter Chapter 5 --- Results: Further observations --- p.95 / Chapter 5.1 --- The discrepancy in students' response towards the verbs which belong to the same verb category --- p.95 / Chapter 5.1.1 --- Paired ergatives (Judgement data) --- p.96 / Chapter 5.1.2 --- Paired ergatives (Error analysis) --- p.97 / Chapter 5.1.3 --- Unpaired ergatives (Judgement data) --- p.98 / Chapter 5.1.4 --- Unpaired ergatives (Error analysis) --- p.100 / Chapter 5.2 --- Failure of the students in learning the unpaired ergatives --- p.102 / Chapter 5.2.1 --- Judgement data for unpaired ergatives --- p.102 / Chapter 5.2.2 --- Error analysis for unpaired ergatives --- p.104 / Chapter 5.3 --- The treatment effects in School A and School B --- p.107 / Chapter 5.4 --- Results of the interpretation task and the production task --- p.111 / Chapter 5.5 --- Summary --- p.113 / Chapter Chapter 6 --- Discussion --- p.115 / Chapter 6.1 --- The effect of the interpretation task (with grammar instruction) vs. the interpretation task (without grammar instruction) --- p.117 / Chapter 6.2 --- The effect of the production task --- p.119 / Chapter 6.3 --- The effect of interpretation task vs. the production task --- p.121 / Chapter 6.3.1 --- Students' performance in the grammaticality judgement task in the pretest-posttest comparisons --- p.121 / Chapter 6.3.2 --- Students' performance in the free production task in the posttest --- p.126 / Chapter 6.3.3 --- The role of the interpretation task in L2 acquisition --- p.128 / Chapter 6.4 --- Further observations --- p.131 / Chapter 6.4.1 --- Inconsistency of grammaticality judgement within a verb category --- p.131 / Chapter 6.4.2 --- The discrepancy in the performance of students in School A and School B --- p.132 / Chapter 6.4.3 --- The degree of difficulty of interpretation task VS. production task --- p.135 / Chapter 6.5 --- Limitations of the present study --- p.137 / Chapter 6.6 --- Summary of findings --- p.138 / Chapter 6.7 --- Conclusion --- p.139 / References --- p.141 / Appendix I Results tables for Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 --- p.1 / Appendix II The interpretation task --- p.12 / Appendix III The production task --- p.19 / Appendix IV Teaching material --- p.25 / Appendix V The grammaticality judgement task --- p.29 / Appendix VI The free production task --- p.32 / Appendix VII Results tables --- p.35 / Appendix VIII Mean scores of students in the grammaticality judgement tasks --- p.55

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

published_or_final_version / Education / Doctoral / Doctor of Philosophy

The primary purpose of this study is to explore the lexical inferencing of Chinese learners of English as foreign language in terms of the intent, the clue use, the procedure, the processing type, the adaptability, and the success of lexical inferencing as well as the subsequent lexical knowledge acquisition. All together 781 Chinese EFL learners at four stages of English learning (senior secondary year-2, tertiary beginning, tertiary middle, and tertiary final) participated in this study. 726 respondents answered a questionnaire of lexical strategies to unknown words in reading and clue use in lexical inferencing. 55 participants thought aloud the process of inferring the meaning of 12 target words while reading an article, and reported their knowledge of target words in a surprise test one week after the think-aloud activity. Data collected from the questionnaire were analyzed quantitatively to rank various lexical strategies and types of clue use. The think-aloud protocols of lexical inferencing were analyzed qualitatively to identify the type and amount of clue use, the event sequence of lexical inferencing, the processing type & adaptability, and the outcome of lexical inferencing. Their subsequent knowledge of target words was coded and analyzed. All these items of lexical inferencing also were processed quantitatively to explore the overall view of Chinese EFL learners‘ lexical inferencing, and the similarities & differences of learners at different stages. The findings reveal that Chinese EFL learners frequently used a number of lexical strategies, and lexical inferencing was the most frequently used. They used various types of clues, especially sentence meaning, morphology, and discourse meaning in their lexical inferencing. Some features of clue use, such as abundant imagined morphological clue and L1 grammar clue, revealed the impact of the Chinese language. There were also some variations in the clue use of learners at different stages. The results of this study show that major lexical inferencing procedure was ‘Guess > Accept’ at senior secondary stage and ‘Guess > Evaluate > Accept’ at three tertiary stages. There was an obvious upward shift of processing type from the ‘pure top processing’ of senior secondary to more advanced processing of tertiary stages. The overall adaptability of Chinese EFL learners‘ lexical inferencing was not high. There was an increasing tendency of high adaptability from the stage of senior secondary to tertiary final. The findings show that one fourth of lexical inferencing outcomes were ?Correct‘, while one third were ?Partially Correct‘. There was an increase tendency of ‘Correct‘ or ?Partially correct’ inferences and vocabulary knowledge acquisition from senior secondary stage to tertiary final stage. Measurable vocabulary knowledge was acquired in lexical inferencing. Further explorations reveal that Chinese EFL learners‘ procedural & declarative knowledge might potentially explain the performances of their lexical inferencing. This study culminates with some pedagogical implications for vocabulary learning and reading, and some suggestions for further research on lexical inferencing. / published_or_final_version / Education / Doctoral / Doctor of Philosophy

The number of people learning English as a second or foreign language has increased dramatically over the last two decades. Many of these second language learners are university students who must attain very sophisticated academic skills. To a great extent, their academic success hinges on their ability to read a second language. This multiplecase study investigated first language (LI) and second language (L2) reading strategies in academic settings. The study drew on Bernhardt's (2000) socio-cognitive model of second language reading. Five Chinese students in a graduate program in Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) volunteered to participate in the study. A combination of data collection techniques was employed including think-alouds, interviews, learning logs, classroom observations, course materials, and the participants' reading samples. The results showed that there were similarities and differences between LI and L2 reading strategies. Although evidence was found supporting the view of cognitive universals and socio-cultural constraints, individual differences at the cognitive level and similarities across cultures were also identified. The findings of this study indicate that the comparison between LI and L2 academic reading should take into consideration the similarities and differences at both cognitive and cultural levels. Implications are discussed in relation to the construction of an L2 transfer model as well as the delivery of L2 reading instruction.

Adaptation to Canadian graduate studies from a Chinese background is both culturally and linguistically challenging. This study reported how the traditional and contemporary methods of instruction used in teaching English as a second language in some Chinese universities prepared students adequately to study at a Canadian university in order to see what initial difficulties and coping strategies that students had. Twenty-four Chinese graduate students and six Canadian professors in the five engineering departments at the University of Calgary were randomly and proportionately selected for the study. In the first stage twenty students who had been in Canada for some time were interviewed using an interview guide about (1) their language preparation in China; (2) their initial language difficulties in their study; and (3) their compensatory strategies used to overcome the difficulties in listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Six Canadian professors were then interviewed about Chinese students' actual English abilities in the four aspects of the language arts. Both sets of the interview data were subject to content analysis to perceive the emerging themes in the students' and professors' opinions. In the second stage, case studies of four newly-arrived Chinese students in engineering were done over a four month period to record monthly their adaptation process to academic language tasks in listening, speaking, reading, and writing through interviews and classroom observations. Meanwhile, students kept a weekly journal based on the findings of the first stage of the data analysis. The results indicated that prior preparation in reading skills was good, listening was mediocre, and speaking and writing were poor due to the massively used traditional methods of instruction which focused on grammar, exercises on sentence patterns, and reading in general English. Students had difficulty in understanding conversations among native speakers and professors with a strong accent, in making contribution to classroom discussion and in-depth conversations, and in expressing succinctly and linearly their research ideas and opinions in writing. They coped very well by excessive reading, strenuous preparation procedures, help from experts in English in their disciplines, and conscientious effort to improve their listening, speaking, and writing. The findings support the position that teaching English in the content area and study skills using simulations better prepare students for their communicative functional competency in their real educational life in Canada. / Graduate