邢唷>? ?欹€ 餜bjbj肳肳?狚狚鲲`K@)|,b^?.?? 3a5a5a5a5a5a5a$癲RgJYa6Ca..?6C6CYa^鎍2W2W2W6C 3a2W6C3a2W2WV焇@wc_' 蔐過 a黙0,b隵x済済c_c_済w_?c52W??K ???YaYa孲???,b6C6C6C6C済????????? : Assessing L2 Learners Lexical Richness and Syntactic Complexity: A Longitudinal Studyby Zhang HuitingUnder the Supervision of Bao Gui and Chen HaitaoSubmitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of ArtsEnglish DepartmentSchool of Foreign Languages Nanjing University of TechnologyJune, 2008 Declaration I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by another person or material which has to a substantial extent been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at any university or other institute of higher learning, except where due acknowledgment has been made in the text. Signature: _gawZ Name: Zhang Huiting Date: June 10th, 2008Table of ContentsAcknowledgements& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & .iAbstract (English)& & & & & & 厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖卛iAbstract (Chinese)厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖iv1. Introduction 厖厖厖厖厖?..厖厖厖厖厖厖.....................厖...11.1 Need for the study厖厖厖厖...厖厖厖?厖..........................................11.2 Research purpose厖厖厖厖...厖...厖?........................................................22. Literature Review 厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖...厖厖厖..厖厖 ..32.1 Lexical richness厖厖厖厖...厖厖厖厖厖厖..................................32.1.1 Lexical variance厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖? 2.1.2 Lexical sophistication厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖...厖厖52.2 Syntactic complexity ............................................................................................................6 2.2.1 T-unit complexity ratio厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖?. ..7 2.2.2 DC/C厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖... 82.3 Problems in the previous studies厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖...83. Methodology厖厖厖厖?..................厖厖?.................................................103.1 Research questions厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖?..10 3.2 Variables and operational definitions厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖...10 3.2.1 Lexical richness厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖..10 3.2.2 Syntactic complexity 厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖..113.3 Data collection厖?厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖?...12 3.4 Data analysis厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖........134. Results and Discussion厖 厖厖厖厖厖厖厖?.厖?厖? 厖.144.1 Results厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖?....144.1.1 Differences in lexical richness and syntactic complexity across three grades厖?44.1.2 Differences in the growth rates of lexical richness and syntactic complexity厖. at the two intervals厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖?64.1.3 Relationship between lexical richness and syntactic complexity across three厖. grades..厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖..?.厖?.174.2 Discussion厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖....174.2.1 Non-linear development of lexical richness and syntactic complexity厖厖?.184.2.2 Lexical richness in no relation to syntactic complexity厖厖厖厖厖?195. Conclusion厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖.?..21 5.1 Major findings of the study厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖?..21 5.2 Implications厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖?..21 5.2.1 Theoretical implications厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖...215.2.2 Pedagogical implications厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖.22References厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖厖?3 AcknowledgementsI would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to all the people who have ever helped me in this paper. My sincere and hearty thanks and appreciations go firstly to my supervisors, Mr. Bao Gui and Mr. Chen Haitao, whose encouragement and suggestions have given me so remarkable insights into linguistic studies. I am extremely grateful for their valuable academic instructions during my study. The work would not have been possible without their patient guidance, continuous encouragement and generous support. It has been a great privilege and joy to study under their guidance and supervision. Furthermore, it is my honor to benefit a lot from their personalities and diligence, which I will treasure in my whole life. Special thanks go to Lin Ling, a graduate student, who has imparted to me so much valuable knowledge and given me guidance, assistance and concern in every aspect of my study. I also appreciate her academic advice and emotional support for the preparation of my thesis. I would like to thank all the other teachers for their enlightenment, knowledge, encouragement and help throughout my study at Nanjing University of Technology.Finally, my gratitude is given to my dear friends and fellow students, who have accompanied me throughout the four years at the university. Abstract This paper reports a longitudinal study on the developmental patterns of lexical richness and syntactic complexity of the Chinese L2 learners based on their oral production in three years. It addresses the following three research questions:(1) Do the L2 learners increase their lexical richness and syntactic complexity across three years? (2) Are there any great differences in the growth rates of the L2 learners lexical richness and syntactic complexity at the first interval (from Year One to Year Two) and the second interval (from Year Two to Year Three)? (3) Is there any relationship between the L2 learners lexical richness and their syntactic complexity in each year?In this study, the subjects were 50 English majors enrolled in a key university in 2001. They were asked to perform an oral task by producing a three-minute monologue in the language lab. The spoken data were collected in three consecutive years. The developmental changes of lexical richness were measured in terms of two objective indexes - lexical variance and lexical sophistication while those of syntactic complexity were measured by (C+VP) /T (T杣nit complexity ratio) and DC/C (dependent clause ratio).Multivariate and correlation analyses as well as T-test reveal the following results. First, lexical richness and syntactic complexity progress in a non-linear way, as only the third year witnesses a significant growth of them. Second, the growth rates of lexical richness and syntactic complexity are different in L2 learners different developmental stages. Although no obvious difference exists between them in the first interval (Year One to Year Two), syntactic complexity grows faster than lexical variance but at the same rate as lexical sophistication in the second interval (Year Two to Year Three). Third, the L2 learners lexical richness is in no relation to their syntactic complexity in each year. They develop independent of each other. The present study enriches the research on the developmental patterns of lexical richness and syntactic complexity in oral production and sheds light on the teaching and testing of spoken English and L2 learners acquisition of L2 vocabulary and syntax. It is suggested that L2 teachers and learners should raise their awareness of the importance of lexical richness and syntactic complexity in language development. Most importantly, L2 learners should attach equal importance to both lexical richness and syntactic complexity, balancing the growth of the two and developing them simultaneously. Key words: lexical richness syntactic complexity lexical variance lexical sophistication T杣nit complexity ratio dependent clause ratio -N噀Xd亯,g噀鑕(W祣Txvz孨韹f[`N€ Nt^f[`N-N鉙韹鶴剉蛬Gl0N蘙'`孴錝誰YBg'`裇U\剉≧`!j_0;N亯轛T{錘 N N*N顣槝1. 孨韹f[`N€剉蛬Gl0N蘙'`孴錝誰YBg'`(W Nt^-N剉裇U\`縍俌UO2. 孨韹f[`N€剉蛬Gl0N蘙'`孴錝誰YBg'`剉瀀惁^(W$N*N6柕k,{N6柕k12t^,{孨6柕k23t^ /f&TX[(W>fW剟v頬_3. 孨韹f[`N€剉蛬Gl0N蘙'`孴錝誰YBg'`(WN Tt^-N剉sQ鹼俌UO,gxvz-N f[`N€韹檈恘嶯2001t^€eQ術蛻筽'Yf[剉50T駛韹NN,g褃u迯韣 Nt^(W韹姙[寶虘孾b剉鉙4Ypenc0penc{|媁:N3R煍剉靣}v0,gxvz ?u蛬Gl剉豐S'`0蛬Gl剉YBg'`孴TUSMOYBg'`詋噑0蜰^\錝詋噑R+R鉔h埻婫l0N蘙'`孴錝誰YBg'`eg"}f[`N€鉙韹韹婟€汻剉裇U\!j_0惽Y豐蠎筫頬R恎0鴙sQR恎孴T纇寶 梍鶴錘 N觺済1 孨韹f[`N€剉蛬Gl0N蘙'`孴錝誰YBg'`HT^椏~'`_裇U\ N0孨t^剉裇U\Nf>f FO(W Nt^鰁裇U\f>f2 (W孨韹f[`N€韹婟€汻裇U\剉N T6柕k 蛬Gl0N蘙'`孴錝誰YBg'`剉瀀惁^N=\鴙 T(W,{N6柕k12t^ 孨€剉瀀晣s g>fW剟v頬_ FO(W,{孨6柕k23t^ 錝誰YBg'`剉裇U\詋蛬Gl豐S'`瀀晞v惁^隷 FON蛬GlYBg'`剉瀀惁^ g>fW剟v頬_3 (WT*Nf[`N6柕k 孨韹f[`N€蛬Gl0N蘙'`N錝誰YBg'`v^*gh埌s鶴>fW剟v鴙sQ'` HT靣藌_裇U\媿縍0 ,gxvz0N蘙哊孨韹f[`N€蛬Gl0錝誰YBg'`裇U\!j_剉xvz  T鰁鵞孨韹鉙韹Yef[0Km諎蔛哊銐孨韹f[`N€鉙韹蛬Gl0錝誰`N梍剉yr筽wQ gN歔剉/T裇孴PtaIN0(W韹婟€汻剉裇U\菑 z-N 孨韹Ye^孴f[`N€擽S_鵞蛬Gl0N蘙'`孴錝誰YBg'`賬圢硩Y剉sQ鑜0dkY 孨韹f[`N€擽S_(WN T剉裇U\6柕k鵞蛬Gl0N蘙'`孴錝誰YBg'`賬圢 TI{ z剉蛻茐 O孨€齹Y梍0Rs^a堁SU\0sQ.曂蛬Gl0N蘙'` 錝誰YBg'` 蛬Gl豐S'` 蛬GlYBg'` TUSMOYBg'`詋噑 蜰^\錝詋噑 1. IntroductionLanguage development, which refers to characteristics of a learner s output that reveal some point or stage along a developmental continuum (Wolfe-Quintero, Inagaki & Kim, 1998), moves along three dimensions: fluency, accuracy and complexity. As opposed to the other two dimensions, linguistic complexity, consisting of lexical complexity (also called lexical richness) and syntactic complexity, is most relevant to change and the opportunities for development and growth in the interlanguage system and thus will be the research focus of the current study. 1.1 Need for the studyThough a great number of studies have been carried out to investigate lexical richness or syntactic complexity separately at home and abroad (Hunt, 1970; Crowhurst, 1980, 1983; Laufer, 1991, 1994, 1995, 1998; Bardovi-Harlig, 1992; Vermeer, 2000; Wu & Chen, 2000; Ortega, 2003; Liu, 2003; Yu, 2004; Wen, 2006a, b; Qin, 2007), studies on the developmental tendency of the lexical richness and syntactic complexity from a longitudinal perspective as well as the interaction between lexical richness and complexity (Morris & Crump, 1982) are scanty and far from conclusive. What抯 more, as Wen (2006a) claims, lexical characteristics and syntactic characteristics have been heavily explored in EFL writing (Engber, 1995; James, 2002; Laufer, 1991, 1998; Shaw & Liu, 1998; Li & Cai, 2001; Ni, 2000; Wen, 2003, 2004 ) while similar researches on the spoken data of EFL learners are much rarer (Vermeer, 2000; Wen, 2006a, b ). Accordingly, a longitudinal study on the changes in Chinese L2 learners vocabulary and syntax is necessary.This line of study should be undertaken in the Chinese context also because the corollary of it will have significant practical implications for L2 lexis and syntax instruction. It is known that Chinese L2 teachers lay more emphasis on grammatical accuracy than on complexity both in instructing and assessing writing, which leads to L2 learners more frequent use of simple vocabulary and syntactic structures, a detriment to their language development. At present, we still lack a clear picture of the developmental patterns of lexical richness and syntactic complexity for Chinese L2 learners, which will undoubtedly shed light on Chinese L2 teaching. 1.2 Research purposeThis study is undertaken with the aim of exploring the developmental patterns of L2 learners lexical richness and syntactic complexity. Specifically, the purpose of the present study is three-fold: firstly, to reveal the developmental patterns of L2 learners lexical richness and syntactic complexity across three years; secondly, to compare the growth rates of lexical richness and syntactic complexity in their oral output at the two intervals; thirdly, to examine the relationship between the L2 learners lexical richness and their syntactic complexity in three years respectively. 2. Literature reviewIn the field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research, language competence can be studied from different aspects. As for productivity, language competence can move along two dimensions: lexical complexity (also called lexical richness) and syntactic complexity. Additionally, according to Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998), complexity means that a wide variety or a wide range of both basic and sophisticated structures and words are available and can be accessed quickly. In Wolfe-Quintero抯 definition, the first half refers to syntactic complexity while the latter refers to lexical richness. This chapter consists of three parts. The first part focuses on lexical richness, the second part on syntactic complexity and the third part on problems in the previous studies. 2.1 Lexical richnessMany scholars (Linnarud, 1986; Nihanani, 1981; Hyltenstam, 1988; Engber, 1995) have done some researches on lexical richness. Laufer (1994) defined lexical richness as consisting of lexical variance, lexical density, lexical sophistication and lexical originality. Several types of ratio measures have been utilized in research on second language lexical development in writing. Lexical variance was measured by a type/token ratio (Laufer, 1991). Lexical density was calculated by dividing the number of types by the number of lexical tokens (Engber, 1995). Lexical sophistication was measured by the ratio of the advanced lexemes to the total number of words, as done in Engber (1995). Lexical originality was calculated by dividing the number of tokens unique to a writer by the total number of tokens (Linnarud, 1986).Among these measures, lexical variation measure and lexical sophistication measure are most frequently used. Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998) noted that lexical complexity was manifest in writing primarily in terms of the range (lexical variation) and size (lexical sophistication) of a second language writer抯 productive vocabulary. They concluded that measures of lexical variation and sophistication appeared to best relate to second language development. Although lexical variation and sophistication measures have not been systematically investigated in many studies or for many program levels, they did offer promise as indicators of language development. This thesis aims to review lexical variance and lexical sophistication as two indicators of lexical richness. 2.1.1 Lexical varianceIn Linnarud抯 (1986) study, lexical variance was defined as the total number of different lexical items or word types divided by the total number of lexical words in a text. The subjects fell into two groups: the L2 learner group - 17-year-old Swedish learners (L2 high school juniors), and the native speaker group at the same school level. They were asked to write a picture description essay in 40 minutes. Linnarud (1986) compared the compositions in lexical variance between the two groups. She found a clear difference in lexical variance between the L2 learners and the native speakers: the L2 learners lacked lexical variation. She also had each composition holistically scored in order to examine whether there was a significant relationship between lexical variance and L2 writing quality. As a result, no relationship was found between the holistic scores and this measure for both the L2 learner group and the native speaker group. In Nihanani抯 (1981) study, lexical variance was defined as the total number of different lexical items divided by the total number of lexical words in a text. Nihanani (1981) collected the take-home essays written by L2 university students. She counted each lexical variance score based on the given definition and had each essay holistically scored. The same result as Linnarud抯 (1986) was found: there was no significant relationship between the holistic scores and lexical variance.In Hyltenstam抯 (1988) study, the L2 learners were second year high school students. They were asked to write a summary and response to a 20-minute film without time limit. Unlike Nihanani (1981) and Linnarud (1986), Hyltenstam (1988) controlled for the text length when calculating a lexical variance score. However, Hyltenstam (1988) found a similar result: there was no relationship between lexical variance and L2 writing quality.In Engber (1995) and Linnarud (1986), lexical variance was defined in the same way. However, Engber (1995) found a different result. In her study, the L2 learners were students at an intermediate to high-intermediate levels of language proficiency. They were required to write on the same topic within 35 minutes. The topic was chosen from a pool of topics that had been proven to be suitable for eliciting responses at different levels. She used a holistic scoring scheme to measure the quality of each composition. The quality scores were then compared with the quantitative measures of lexical variance. Her calculation of a lexical variance score was unique: she divided every essay into 126-word segments, each segment was treated as a separate unit and an average lexical variance score for the essay was then calculated as the ratio of the sum of the different words per segment to the sum of the total number of lexical words per segment. She calculated the measure of lexical variance first with lexical errors included and then with errors eliminated, and found moderately high, statistically significant correlations between the writing quality and either of both measures. A comparison of the means for these two measures showed a higher correlation for lexical variation without error (r = 0.57) than for that with error (r = 0.45). Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998, p. 109) held that this measure captured the intuition that second language writers at a higher proficiency level will command a larger vocabulary size and will be able to use significantly more lexical word types than writers at a lower proficiency level.2.1.2 Lexical sophisticationA number of researchers (Laufer, 1991; Linnarud, 1986; Liu, 2003) used lexical sophistication to measure how many low frequency or advanced words were used in a text.Linnarud (1986) defined lexical sophistication as the number of sophisticated lexical words divided by the total number of lexical words in a text and sophisticated lexical words as those English words that were generally introduced at grade 9 and above in the Swedish educational system. He found that native language writers used significantly more sophisticated words than second language writers (0.25 versus 0.21), but found a low correlation between the ratio of sophisticated words and the holistic ratings of the compositions. The low correlation may be understandable, since the students were at a lower language proficiency level and had no command of a large active vocabulary. Laufer (1994) defined lexical sophistication as the ratio of the total number of sophisticated word types divided by the total number of word types. She analyzed four different measures of sophistication on pre- and post-compositions by two advanced university classes. In two of the analyses, she counted sophisticated words as words not on a 2000-word frequency list and words on a university-level word list, and found the measures significant for both groups. In the other two analyses, she counted sophisticated words as words not on any of her frequency lists, and found no significant effect. Liu Donghong (2003) used the Lexical Frequency Profile in calculating lexical sophistication scores. Unlike Linnarud (1986), she defined lexical sophistication as the number of sophisticated words divided by the total number of words tokens in a text. In her study, advanced words were defined as words in AWL and Off-list (beyond 2, 000). Her subjects were 57 second-year college students at a Chinese university. They were required to write on a given topic within 30 minutes. After the compositions were collected, holistic rating was used on a 15-point scale, according to the criteria of College English Test Band Four in China. Before obtaining advanced words by running VocabProfile (Nation & Heatley, 1994), software for word frequency statistics, she deleted misspelled words from advanced words, for the VocabProfile package counts misspelled words as off-list words. In addition, she counted different inflected forms of a sophisticated word as one word type and so repetitive counting of the same words (lexemes) was avoided. As a result, Liu Donghong (2003) found that lexical sophistication did not affect L2 writing quality. Liu Donghong抯 (2003) result seemed to be justifiable, too, since her students were second-year non-English majors, who could not freely use a lot of advanced words and so displayed little difference in using sophisticated words. Besides, Laufer (1991) defined lexical sophistication as the percentage of "advanced words" in the text. To conclude, lexical sophistication explains lexical richness in terms of the size of a learner抯 productive vocabulary (Wolfe-Quintero, et al., 1998, p. 101). The size is reflected by the use of advanced words (low frequent words) in a text in that, high frequency words, used by both low and high level learners, cannot show the 搒ize difference between them while low frequency words are not shared by learners of different proficiency levels equally, i.e., high level students tend to use more low frequency words than low level students.2.2 Syntactic complexityIn Ortega抯 (2003) study, syntactic complexity (also called syntactic maturity or linguistic complexity) referred to the range of forms that surfaced in language production and the degree of sophistication of such forms. This construct is important in second language research because of the assumption that language development entails, among other processes, the growth of an L2 learner抯 syntactic repertoire and her or his ability to use that repertoire appropriately in a variety of situations. Syntactic complexity measures are of two types: those that analyze the clauses, sentences, or T-units in terms of each other (e.g., clauses per sentence, dependent clauses per T unit, T units per sentence); and those that analyze the presence of specific grammatical structures in relation to clauses, T units, or sentences (e.g., passives per sentence, Kameen, 1979; complex nominals per T-unit, Cooper, 1976). In the past two decades, these various measures of syntactic complexity were used by many researchers (Cragg & Nation, 2006; Nippold, Hesketh, & Duthie, 2005; Nippold, Mansfield, & Billow, 2007; Ortega, 2003; Wolfe-Quintero et al, 1998). Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998) looked cumulatively at the strength of the T-unit, mean length of clause, clauses per T-unit, dependent clauses per clause and many other indices of syntactic complexity and concluded that clauses per T-unit (C/T) and dependent clauses per clause or per T-unit (DC/C or DC/T) were the most satisfactory measures, because they were associated linearly and consistently with their programs or proficiency levels. However, compared with dependent clauses per T-unit (DC/T), dependent clauses per clause (DC/C) was more frequently applied in previous experimental studies. Therefore, in this study, we adopt an advanced T-unit complexity ratio, the clauses plus verb phrases per T-unit measure ((C+VP)/T), which was derived from C/T, and dependent clauses per clause (DC/C) as two indices of syntactic complexity.2.2.1 T-unit complexity ratioHunt (1965) first developed the T-unit as a measure of children抯 syntactic maturity in writing, defining the T-unit as a minimal terminable unit consisting of a main (independent) clause plus whatever subordinate clauses and phrases that happen to be attached to and embedded within it. Following Hunt (1965, 1970), T-unit is used as the production unit in this study.The T-unit complexity ratio is to measure how grammatically complex the writing of a learner is, under the assumption that the more clauses per T-unit there are, the more complex the writing is (Wolfe-Quintero, 1998). However, the previous studies based on it found mixed results. Some of them found a significant relationship between proficiency and the T-unit complexity ratio while others did not.Hirano (1991) found a relationship between program level and clauses per T-unit, but not between CELT scores and clauses per T-unit. Cooper (1976) and Monroe (1975) found a relationship between school level and clauses per T-unit. Flahive and Snow (1980) found a relationship between holistic ratings and clauses per T-unit for the first, second, third, and sixth program levels, but not for the fourth or fifth levels. Bardovi-Harling and Bofman (1989) and Perkins (1980) did not find a relationship between clauses per T-unit and pass/fail ratings of advanced learners, nor did Ishikawa (1995) find a relationship between clauses per T-unit and pre- and post-tests with two groups of beginning learners. Casanave (1994) found an overall increase in clauses per T-unit after three semesters of journal writing, but did not test the differences statistically. Neither Kameen (1979) nor Sharma (1980) found a relationship between clauses per T-unit and low-intermediate versus advanced groups. Beers & Nagy (2007) examined the relationship of clauses per T-unit with rated quality for two genres of text produced by middle school students. A sample of 41 seventh and eighth grade students composed a narrative and persuasive essays. Texts were rated for quality and coded for clauses per T-unit. Clauses per T-unit was positively correlated with quality for narratives, but negatively correlated with quality for essays. Generally speaking, T-unit complexity ratio (C/T) is a comparatively reliable index of syntactic complexity among all of the developmental indices. However, it is found that it neglects verb phrases, another kind of grammatical structures reflecting syntactic complexity as well. As a consequence, an advanced T-unit complexity ratio (C+VP)/T is proposed and will be adopted in the present study to measure syntactic complexity. 2.2.2 DC/C The dependent clause ratio is a measure that examines the degree of embedding in a text, by counting the number of dependent clauses as a percentage of the total number of clauses (DC/C). It should be pointed out that few researchers defined clearly what they meant by dependent clauses in their studies except Kameen (1979), who implied in his discussion that they included adverbial, adjective, and nominal clauses. Among previous related studies, Hirano (1991)抯 study found that this measure significantly differentiated all three program levels based on CELT score ranges, but only weakly correlated with CELT scores themselves. Such a result was found for many measures, which means that the actual scores were not directly related to a measure such as this but that writers with the same proficiency range did have something in common on this and other measures. Her three groups ranged from average of .18 (low) to .25 (mid) to .33 (high) dependent clauses per T-unit. However, Kameen (1979) did not find a significant difference between two groups based on holistic ratings of their writing (.40 dependent clauses per clause for the good writers and 37 for the poor writers). Kameen (1979) suggests that good writers produce longer T-units as a result of using more words rather than more clauses, most likely because they reduce clauses to prepositional, infinitive and participle phrases.2.3 Problems in the previous studiesAlthough researches in lexical richness and syntactic complexity increase in number and come up with a lot of interesting results, there are still some problems in the previous studies. First of all, most of the extant studies on lexical richness and/or syntactic complexities are cross-sectional ones (Crowhurst, 1980, 1983; Bardovi-Harlig, 1992; Wu & Chen, 2000; Liu, 2003; Yu, 2004; Qi, 2007) and longitudinal ones are much rarer (Wen, 2006a, b). What抯 more, in recent years, researchers at home and abroad show an increasing interest in L2 learners writing performance (Engber, 1995; James, 2002; Laufer, 1991, 1998; Shaw & Liu 1998; Li & Cai, 2001; Ni, 2000), but only few of them (Altman, 1997; We, 2003, 2004) focus on the oral performance of L2 learners.Additionally, in Wolfe-Quintero (1998)抯 synthesis of literature review on all the previous studies of developmental indexes, it was concluded that C/T and DC/C are two discriminant indicators of syntactic complexity with high construct validity. However, both of the two mainly focus on the degree of subordinating and diametrically neglect verbal phrases, including participles, gerunds and infinitives, which could reflect complexity of syntactic constructions in oral or written data as well. Thus, a better developmental index, like(C+VP)/T may be preferable to analyze L2 learners syntactic complexity.Lastly, quite a few studies investigate the relationship among three dimensions of language development: fluency, accuracy and complexity or the relationship between any two of them (Yu, 2004; Qin, 2007), or compare the lexical richness and syntactic complexity of Chinese L2 learners with those of international L2 learners (Li, 2007) or with native speakers (Wen, 2006a; Zhang, 2007), and yet the dynamic and interactive research on the developmental patterns of lexical and syntactic complexity and the interaction between them from a longitudinal perspective is still non-existent, whether at home or abroad. To sum up, the previous empirical studies are rather fragmentary, making it hard to draw consistent general conclusions, which will justify the need for the present study. 3. Methodology3.1 Research questions The current study investigates the developmental patterns of L2 learners lexical richness and syntactic complexity along their three years learning, different growth rates of them and the relationship between them in the three years. The specific research questions are as follows:(1) Do the L2 learners increase their lexical richness and syntactic complexity in three years? (2) Are there any great differences in the growth rates of the L2 learners lexical richness and syntactic complexity at the first interval (from Year One to Year Two) and the second interval (from Year Two to Year Three)? (3) Is there any relationship between the L2 learners lexical richness and their syntactic complexity in each year?3.2 Variables and operational definitions3.2.1 Lexical richnessLexical richness is measured in terms of two most revealing indices: lexical variance (LV) and lexical sophistication (LS) in this study.Lexical variance (LV) is defined as the type/token ratio (TTR), i.e., the ratio in percentage between the different lexemes (types) in the test and the total number of words (tokens) (Laufer, 1991, 1994a, b). When this study counted types, the different inflectional forms of a word were regarded as one lexeme, for instance, 憆un, runs, running and ran were counted as the same lexeme 憆un? For this purpose, the online lemmatizer (http://nl2.ijs.si/analyze/cgi/testlem.cgi.) would be adopted to process all the transcribed spoken data. However, few words in the same form but with different meanings were lemmatized in a wrong way by the online lemmatizer, so they were corrected with the aid of manual checking. For example, the word 搈eans is likely to be the third person singular of the verb 搈ean? which means 搕o convey or denote some facts or opinions? or the noun which refers to 揳 method or way of doing something as well. These exceptional cases entail careful manual check. At last, the TTR values of each sample will be standardized on a 100-word basis (the minimal length of the transcribed monologue is 119 running words). This procedure was followed to level out the effect of text length on the type-token ration. The formula is LV =No. of typesNo. of tokensLexical sophistication (LS) is defined as the percentage of 揳dvanced words in the text. What is labeled 揳dvanced would depend on the level of the learners tested (Laufer, 1991). In our study, which examines the spoken data of L2 learners, advanced vocabulary was taken to be the Base wordlist 2 (998 word families, 3708 words), Base wordlist 3 (570 word families, 3107 words) and the words Not In Lists, excluding the incorrect ones, in Range designed by P. Nation & A. Coxhead (2002). What is noteworthy is that the transcribed texts were lemmatized by the online lemmatizer beforehand. Consequently, lexical sophistication (LS) was counted as the ratio of correct advanced lexemes to the word tokens in the text. The formula is LS =No. of advanced lexemes (types)No. of tokens3.2.2 Syntactic complexitySyntactic complexity is defined as great length and subordination of T-unit. Approaches to syntactic complexity in this study are of ratio type instead of frequency one, for it has been pointed out that frequency measures may be doubtful because of the lack of a fixed delimiter and quite a few related experimental studies could not lend their support to them. Therefore, based on the literature review, the modified T-unit complexity ratio ((C + VP) / T) and dependent clause ratio (DC/C) with high construct validity were used as measures of complexity in syntactic development. The formulas are shown as follows:CV/T = (C + VP) / TDC/C = DC/CNotes: T= T-units; C=clauses; VP= verbal phrases; DC=Dependent clauses. The terms in the formulas need explanation. T-unit is used as the basic unit of ratio analysis of syntactic complexity in the present study. T-units rather than C-units are used because the task performance is monologic and contains few elided utterances (See Foster, Tonkyn, & Wigglesworth, 2000, for a discussion of the relative merits of using T-units or C-units). Following Hunt (1970), a T-unit is seen as one main or independent clause plus whatever subordinate or dependent clauses are attached to or embedded with it. As for the number of T-unit, it can be thought of as nothing more than a representation of the independent clauses in each written or spoken sample, since each T-unit consists of one independent clause (Hunt, 1965).A clause is operationalized as a structure with an overt subject and a finite verb (Hunt, 1965) in this study. This definition of clause includes independent / main clauses, as well as three types of dependent/subordinate clauses: adverbial clauses, adjective/relative clauses, and nominal clauses. Following Bardovi-Harlig and Bofman (1989)抯 definition of Verb phrase (VP), it can be classified as three types: participle, gerund, and infinitive in this study while dependent clauses (DC) are defined as adverbial, adjectival, and nominal (Kameen, 1979). In counting these units, this study made a modification. As in the oral tests, there are some repeated fillers or false starts on account of hesitation, self-correction, etc., which may affect the measurement of syntactic complexity, the researcher excluded them from each oral sample when tagging the transcribed texts.3.3 Data collectionThe participants in this study were 50 English majors who were enrolled in a key university in 2001 and asked to complete an oral task by producing a three-minute monologue after three minutes preparation in a language lab. Their spoken English data was collected three times in December of the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, and then transcribed for further data analysis. The topics for their oral tasks were all argumentative, rather similar in nature and relative to their college life. The reasons for not repeating exactly the same topics over long periods of longitudinal study is that the potential for diminished interest (and even demotivation or boredom), as well as practice effects, among participants, would be a clear danger to the validity of the data (Ortega & Iberri-Shea, 2005). The collecting time, topics and the running words of oral data in each year are described in detail in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 Description of the oral dataCollecting TimeTopics for oral testsOverall tokens (running words) of oral dataYear 1(Num. 50)December, 2001Is it appropriate for a college student to rent an apartment and live outside the campus?13,681Year 2(Num. 50)December, 2002Make critical comments on the use of electronic dictionaries among college students.13,985Year 3(Num. 50)December, 2003Do you think it is appropriate for college students to get married? Give your opinions and reasons.14,0163.4 Data analysisAnalysis of the transcribed oral data consists of four stages: applying Wordsmith 4.0 to calculate the value of lexical variance in each essay and Range 32 to obtain that of advanced lexemes and the overall tokens for lexical sophistication in the same essay; tagging indexes concerning syntactic complexity including T-units, clauses, verb phrases and dependent clauses; computation of lexical sophistication and syntactic complexity measures according to the corresponding formulae; calculation of the growth rates of four developmental indices, i.e., dividing the value of each index in one year by that of the preceding year.After attaining all the lexical richness and syntactic complexity indices of the data sets, the researcher applied a multivariate analysis and T-test in SPSS 13.0 to compare the differences of L2 learners lexical and syntactic complexity in three years and of their growth rates in the two consecutive periods (Year1-Year 2; Year 2-Year 3). Then Pearson correlation analysis was made to find out whether there was a significant relationship between the L2 learners lexical richness and that of their syntactic complexity in the three years. 4. Results and Discussion4.1 ResultsThe present study attempted to answer three questions, as were raised in the methodology part: (1) Do the L2 learners increase their lexical richness and syntactic complexity across three years? (2) Are there any great differences in the growth rates of the L2 learners lexical richness and syntactic complexity at the first interval (from Year One to Year Two) and the second interval (from Year Two to Year Three)? (3) Is there any relationship between the L2 learners lexical richness and their syntactic complexity in each year? In order to achieve the purpose, this study collected the L2 learners oral data at three developmental years, counted different developmental indexes, which were processed by SPSS 13.0.4.1.1 Differences in lexical richness and syntactic complexity across three yearsThe first question was answered by presenting the descriptive statistics and making multiple comparisons. Descriptive statistics are shown in Table 4.1.As indicated in Table 4.1, the means of each variable in three years are approximate. Comparatively speaking, however, the mean of each variable at Year 3 is a little larger than that in the other two years.Table 4.1 Descriptive statisticsLVGradeMeanStd. DeviationN1.5335.04594502.5329.04390503.5712.0370850LS1.0481.01297502.0510.01298503.0599.0160550 CV/T12.0522.390035022.0144.320825032.6988.4813250DC/C1.3344.08688502.3282.08877503.4044.0952250Notes: LV stands for lexical variance, LS for lexical sophistication, CV/T for syntactic complexity measure by T-unit plus verbal phrase complexity ratio, and DC/C for syntactic complexity measured by dependent clause ratio.A GLM multivariate analysis was made to examine further whether there was a significant difference in the four developmental indexes in the case of the same L2 learners in different years. The results are displayed in Table 4.2.Table 4.2 A multiple comparison of different indexesLVYearYearMean differenceStd. ErrorSig.95% Confidence IntervalLower BoundUpper Bound123-3.7696-3.7696*.84957.84957.998.000-5.8705-5.87052.1553-1.6687213-.0544-3.8240*.84957.84957.998.000-2.1553-5.92492.0465-1.72313123.8240*3.8240*.84957.84957.000.000-2.1553-5.92492.0465-1.7231LS123-.2900-1.1715*.28145.28145.589.000-.9860-1.8675.4060-.4755213-.8816-.8816*.28145.28145.589.009-.4060-1.5776.9860-.18563121.1715*.8816*.28145.28145.009.009.4755.18561.86751.5776CV/T123.0378-.6466*.08056.08056.896.000-.1614-.8458-.4474-.4474213-.0378-.6844*.08056.08056.896.000-.2370-.8836.1614-.4852312.6466*.6844*.08056.08056.000.000.4474.4852.8458.8836DC/C123.0062-.0700*.01807.01807.943.001-.0385-.1147.0509-.0253213-.0062-.0762*.01807.01807.943.000-.0509-.1209.0385-.0315312.0762*.0762*.01807.01807.001.000.0253.0315.1147.1209Note: The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.As indicated in Table 4.2, there is no significant difference in all the four developmental indexes between Year 1 and Year 2 (p>.05) while all the four developmental indexes present a significant difference between Year 3 and either of the other two years (p<.05). In other words, the L2 learners did not increase their lexical richness and syntactic complexity linearly as they progressed from Year 1 through Year 2 to Year 3. Their lexical and syntactical development was in Year 3, an advanced L2 learning stage. 4.1.2 Differences in the growth rates of lexical richness and syntactic complexity at the two intervals The second question was answered by comparing the respective growth rates of lexical richness and grammatical complexity (represented by four indexes) at the first and second intervals. Table 4.3 displays the results, which are explained in reference to paired samples t-test statistics.Table 4.3 A comparison of growth rates of lexical richness and syntactic complexityNotes: LV stands for lexical variance, LS for lexical sophistication, CV/T for syntactic complexity measured by T-unit plus verbal phrase complexity ratio, and DC/C for syntactic complexity measured by dependent clause ratio.Although no statistically great difference exists in the growth rate among the four indexes (p >.05) at the first interval, there is tendency that the L2 learners lexical sophistication increases fastest and their lexical variance and CV/T show no sign of growth, with DC/C in between. The obvious growth occurs at the second interval, though the growth rate of the indexes presents a wide difference. Syntactic complexity represented by CV/T and DC/C grows much faster than lexical variance (p<.05). Moreover, as illustrated in the table 4.3, syntactic complexity tends to grow faster than lexical sophistication at the second interval, though no significant difference is found statistically between them (p>.05). Therefore, there is a greater increase in syntactic complexity than in lexical richness in the second period between Year Two and Year Three. If viewed in a global way, the growths of lexical richness and syntactic complexity exhibit the following features: firstly, though lexical variance exhibits discontinuity from the first period to the second period like other three developmental indices, it invariably progresses slowest. Contrastingly, lexical sophistication shows a steadily high growth rate. In addition, despite the fact that lexical sophistication tends to present the fastest growth in the first period, the two indices representing syntactic development outperforms it in the second period.4.1.3 Relationship between lexical richness and syntactic complexity across three grades The third question was answered by examining whether there was any relationship between the L2 learners lexical richness and their syntactic complexity in the three years or grades. Concretely, a correlation analysis was made to find out whether there was a significant relationship between the L2 learners lexical richness and their syntactic complexity in the three years. The statistical result is displayed in Table 4.4.Table 4.4 Correlations between lexical richness and syntactic complexityPearson CorrelationLV Sig. (2-tailed)Grade 1Grade 2Grade 3CV/TDC/CCV/TDC/CCV/TDC/C.068.640.012.936.147.307.074.609-.110.448-.014.921Pearson CorrelationLSSig. (2-tailed).156.279.125.385.070.631-.078.592-.122.398-.220.124As revealed in Table 4.4, there is no significant correlation between lexical richness (represented by lexical variance and lexical sophistication) and syntactic complexity (represented by CV/T and DC/C) (p>.05) in each grade. It is concluded that the L2 learners development of lexical richness is independent of their development of syntactic complexity.4.2 Discussion Section 4.1 reported the statistical results, which can be summarized in three aspects. To start with, the development of the L2 learners lexical richness and grammatical complexity is non-linear. Concretely speaking, there is no significant difference in lexical richness and grammatical complexity between the L2 learners first two years while there is greater development in lexical richness and grammatical complexity in the third year than in the first two years. Furthermore, the growth rates of lexical richness and grammatical complexity indexes are not the same at the L2 learners developmental stages. At the first interval, there is no obvious difference between the growth rate of lexical richness and that of syntactic complexity. At the second interval, however, syntactic complexity grows faster than lexical variance, but at the same rate as lexical sophistication. Finally, across the three years, the L2 learners lexical richness develops independent of their syntactic complexity, and vice versa. This section provides tentative explanations. 4.2.1 Non-linear development of lexical richness and syntactic complexity Although it was expected that the L2 learners increased their lexical richness and syntactic complexity as years progressed, it was found statistically that the learners did not show any sign of lexical richness or syntactic development from Year 1 to Year 2 but rather displayed their greater lexical richness and syntactic complexity at Year 3 alone. There might be several reasons for this.To start with, as the learners own a smaller vocabulary size in the first and second year, two elementary learning stages, than in the third year, an advanced learning stage, they could have rather limited word choices in the first two years, partly contributing to no difference in lexical variance between the first and second years but a great difference between the third and either of the first two years.Secondly, non-basic vocabulary is more difficult in the sense that it is only acquired in later stages of the language acquisition process (Larsen-Freeman, 2006). The use of non-basic items in spontaneous speech reveals a high proficiency. This is maybe a plausible account for no significant growth of L2 learners lexical sophistication in the first period (Year 1-Year 2) but in the second period (Year 2-Year 3).Thirdly, the learners produced more simple sentences in both the first and second years than the third year, contributing to no difference in syntactic complexity between the first and second years but a great difference between the third and either of the first two years.Finally, the non-linear developmental patterns of L2 learners lexical richness and syntactic complexity in this study was also proved in Wen (2006)抯 study, where the period between Year 2 and Year 3 saw the most noticeable progress. This could possibly be accounted for by 搕he prime period for learning hypothesis (Wen, 2006), which states that the period between Year 2 and Year 3 is an optimal stage for language development during four years undergraduate study. As the teaching methods and learning environment in the university are quite different from those in the high school, the students need to adapt to them during the first year at university. As a consequence, the obvious growth of lexical and syntactic complexity occurs in the later period. 4.2.2 Lexical richness in no relation to syntactic complexity With regard to the relationship between lexical richness and syntactic complexity, the present study yields a surprising yet enlightening result: they progress independent of each other in three years. This is consistent with Li (2007)抯 study focusing on the written data. This may indicate that Chinese L2 learners do not develop their lexical richness and syntactic complexity simultaneously or in balance, no matter in their written English or spoken English. However, Li (2007) also concluded that, compared with Swedish L2 learners, Chinese L2 learners exhibited comparable lexical richness but quite a large gap in syntactic complexity in writing, which indicates that more attention should be drawn to syntactic development. Different from that, the present study shows that in L2 learners spoken performance lexical sophistication enjoys a fastest growth in the first period while syntactic complexity measured by (C+VP)/T and DC/C outperforms it in the second interval. Therefore, L2 learners growth of lexical richness and syntactic complexity in the oral output reveals its unique features, which are quite distinct from those in their written production. Generally speaking, in spoken performance, L2 learners put more weight on lexical development in the first interval, in particular the expansion of advanced vocabulary while in the second interval they apparently turn more attention to the growth of syntactic complexity, thus indicating separate developmental trajectories of lexical richness and syntactic complexity in different periods. Concerning lexical development, lexical sophistication constantly displays a relatively fast and steady growth while lexical variance progresses slowest among four developmental indices, which corresponds to the fact that Chinese L2 learners usually attach much importance to acquisition of a large quantity of words, in particular those less frequent words while ignoring the diversity of lexical choices. Besides, the finding that lexical sophistication and lexical variation do not develop in tandem may also suggest that the growth of lexical sophistication does not necessarily mean varied word choices, especially in spoken English. It is a common phenomenon that L2 learners with abundant advanced vocabulary may only have a limited active word repertoire and thus could not diversify their use of L2 vocabulary. As for the development of syntactic complexity represented by (C+VP)/T and DC/C, something enlightening could be discerned in this study. Though the developmental curves of the two syntactic indices in table 4.3 do not show much wide differences, it could still be observed that DC/C grows at a faster pace than (C+VP)/T in the first period while (C+VP)/T surpasses it in the second interval. This indicates that the development of syntactic complexity is featured much by subordination in the first period while verbal phrases, including participles, gerunds and infinitives, present a faster and more noticeable growth in the second interval, for, though both (C+VP)/T and DC/C measure complexity through subordination, (C+VP)/T also draws upon great varieties of verbal phrases. 5Conclusion5.1 Major findings of the study The findings of the statistic analyses in Chapter Four can be summarized as follows:First, it is found that both lexical richness and syntactic complexity of L2 learners oral output show non-linear progression along their three years learning. Specifically speaking, only the third year witnesses a significant growth of their lexical richness and syntactic complexity. Second, lexical richness and syntactic complexity develop at a different pace in two periods. In the first interval between Year One and Year Two, there is no apparent difference between the growth rate of lexical richness and that of syntactic complexity. In the second interval between Year Two and Year Three, syntactic complexity grows at a faster rate than lexical variance, but at the same rate as lexical sophistication. Lastly, there is no significant correlation between lexical richness and syntactic complexity in each year. It is concluded that the L2 learners development of lexical richness is independent of their development of syntactic complexity. 5.2 ImplicationsTheoretical and pedagogical implications elicited from the findings of this study are discussed in the following two sections. 5.2.1 Theoretical implicationsThis study enriches the research on the development of L2 lexical richness and syntactic complexity in speaking from two perspectives. Firstly, few longitudinal studies in this area were carried out in the context of China, especially on oral output (Wen, 2006a). Consequently, this study proves to be meaningful by furthering our understanding of the dynamic patterns of lexical richness and syntactic complexity of Chinese L2 learners in their oral performance. Secondly, based on C/T, this study proposes a new developmental index for measuring syntactic complexity?C+VP)/T, which takes verbal phrases into account besides the degree of subordinating when measuring syntactic complexity, and is proved valid and reliable in the present study. It opens up a new way for assessing syntactic complexity for future research. 5.2.2 Pedagogical implicationsThe present study also provides insights into the acquisition of vocabulary and syntax for learners in China as well as the teaching and testing of oral English.One implication is related to the result that lexical richness and syntactic complexity neither develop simultaneously nor at the same rate. Such a result indicates that L2 learners should pay equal attention to both lexical and syntactic development and balance the growth of the two. In particular, at the beginning stage, L2 learners should also lay emphasis on the growth of their syntactic complexity besides that of their lexical richness.Another implication comes from the fact that lexical variance progresses at the slowest pace among four developmental indices (LV, LS, (C+VP)/T, DC/C) no matter in the first period or in the second period. The efficiency and precision of the students acquisition process may be improved by encouraging increased class and /or individual student awareness of lexical choices. Students should also learn to increase their stock of lexical choices and try to use more varied words in oral production.What is also worth mentioning is that L2 learners should attach much importance to the acquisition and application of verbal phrases in the development of syntactic complexity in addition to that of variegated subordinate clauses.The last implication is for teachers. This study indicates that better spoken performance is featured by greater diversity of lexical choices, more use of relatively sophisticated words and syntactic constructions. So, teachers are hereby advised to devote more attention to such aspects of vocabulary and syntax in L2 learners oral production through some activities, such as timely comments on students oral performance, giving them more opportunities to communicate with native speakers and introducing to them diversified syntactic constructions and vocabulary and the like. References Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Bofman, T. (1989). Attainment of syntactic and morphological accuracy by advanced language learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 17-34. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). A second look at T-unit analysis: Reconsidering the sentence. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 390-395. Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E. (2007). Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality: Which measures? Which genre? Reading and writing (online), pp. 1-16. Netherlands: Springer. Casanave, C. (1994). Language development in students' journals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 179-201.Cooper, T. C. (1976). Measuring written syntactic patterns of second language learners of German. The Journal of Educational Research, 69, 176-183.Cragg, L., & Nation, K. (2006). Exploring written narrative in children with poor reading comprehension. Educational Psychology, 26, 55?2.Crowhurst, M. (1980). Syntactic complexity and teachers quality ratings of narrations and arguments. Research in the Teaching of English, 14, 223?31.Crowhurst, M. (1983). Syntactic complexity and writing quality: A review. Canadian Journal of Education, 8, 1?6.Engber, C. A. (1995). The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of L2 compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4 (2), 139-155.Flahive, D. E., & Snow, B. G.. (1980). Measures of syntactic complexity in evaluating ESL compositions. In J. W. Oller & K. Perkins (Eds.), Research in language testing (pp.171-176). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken Language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21, 354-75.Gitsaki, C. (1999). Second language lexical acquisition: A study of the development of collocational knowledge. San Francisco-London-Bethesda: International Scholars Publications.Hirano, K. (1991). The effect of audience on the efficacy of objective measures of EFL proficiency in Japanese university students? Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan, 2, 21-30.Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical structures written and three grade levels. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Hunt, K. W. (1970). Syntactic maturity in school children and adults. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 35 (134), 1-67.Hyltenstam, K. (1988). Lexical characteristics of near-native second-language learners of Swedish. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 9, 67-84.Ishikawa, S. (1995). Objective measurement of low-proficiency EFL narrative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 51-70.James, M. (2002). Process writing and vocabulary development: Comparing lexical frequency profiles across drafts. System, 30, 225-235.Kameen, P. T. (1979). Syntactic skill and ESL writing quality. In C. Yorio, K. Perkins, & J. Schachter (Eds.), On TESOL 79: The learner in focus (pp. 343-364). Washington, D. C.: TESOL.Larsen朏reeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27 (4), 590-619.Laufer, B. (1991). The development of L2 lexis in the expression of the advanced learner. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 440-448.Laufer, B. (1994). The lexical profile of second language writing: Does it change over time? RELC Journal, 25, 21-33. Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16 (3), 307-322.Laufer, B. (1998). The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: same or different? Applied Linguistics, 19 (2), 255- 271.Li, C. S. [Ngu], 2007, -N齎'Yf[u/f&Tw梺壨婫lYBgNy橔W嶯SWECCLf[`N€韹檈揯剉xvz. _l蟼Y韹Yef[xvz (1): 26-300Li, J. Q., & Cai, J. T. [Ngof蒷 !呇懎N], 2001, -N齎f[u駛韹橯\O-N剉燪蛬飲(u皊a  y橔W嶯韹檈揯剉xvz. 銐>e決Y齎韹f[b杅[ (6): 58-620Linnarud, M. (1986). Lexis in composition: A performance analysis of Swedish L2 learner s written English. Malm: CWK Gleerup.Liu, D. H. [RNy哴, 2003, 蛬Gl蠎(W駛韹橯\O-N剉\O(u. 皊鉔Y韹 (2): 180-1970Morris, T. N., & Crump, D.W. (1982). Syntactic and vocabulary development in the written language of learning disabled and non-learning disabled students at four age levels. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5(2), 163-172.Nation, P., & Coxhead, A. (2002). Range. Retrieved May 8, 2008, from http://www.Vuw.ac.nz./lals /staff/paul.Nation Nation, P., & Heatley, A. (1994). VocabProfile: A program for analyzing vocabulary in texts. Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington.Ni, L. [WXYZ[mo熠确坵fwTBfw1 h(5丆JOJQJ\乛JaJ#h(5丆JOJQJ\乛JaJ o(#hQ+$5丆JOJQJ\乛JaJ o( h(5丆JOJQJ\乛JaJ, h(5丆JOJQJ\乛JaJ h9h(CJ,OJQJ^JaJ,h縑CJ,OJQJ^JaJ,o(h(CJ,OJQJ^JaJ,o( h(5丆J,OJQJ\乛JaJ,#h(B*CJ,OJQJ^JaJ,ph#h9B*CJ,OJQJ^JaJ,ph&h縑B*CJ,OJQJ^JaJ,o(phXYZ[^mno , M Y ^ j o ?dWD`?gd(dgd(gd( $dha$gd(dhgd(Y Z ] ^ j ,  Z t v "2468B碥仗霉饱睓媭r睓i盽U`i盝?hQQ5丆J aJ o(hZt5丆J aJ o(h濟>*CJaJo(h(>*CJaJh(CJaJo(h醲h(>*CJaJo(h醲>*CJaJo(h醲h醲>*CJaJo(h醲h(>*CJaJh(B*CJaJphh(CJaJh(B*CJ,phhZt5丆J,o(h?)5丆J,o(h(5丆J, h(5丆JOJQJ\乛JaJ #h(5丆JOJQJ\乛JaJ,o(   v 468:<>@BDFHJnp $dha$gdQQdhgdQQgd( ?WD`?gd(<?WD`?gd醲?dWD`?gd(BDHJnp~,?GHIJK[j0IJWY^蹶咧吻拦抢骨啦啦椙狼憢亱zsl媮媧sl梐hD5丆JPJo(hQQCJo(h豋+CJo(h臦€CJo(hQQB*CJph hQQCJ h豋+CJhQQ5丆JPJhQQ5丆Jo(hsl5丆Jo(hsl5丆Jh闓E5丆Jh臦€5丆JhQQ5丆JhQQCJ aJ hQQ5丆J aJ h?)5丆J aJ o(h臦€5丆J aJ o(h揯5丆J aJ o(&pKJ@:yY勷dhWDd`勷gd? hdhgdQQ刋dhWD`刋gdQQ匋勷dhUD?WDd]匋`勷gd}X勷dhWDd`勷gdQQdhgdQQ $dha$gdQQ^_xz€ #367:=>?@CDNOXw}黟玎鬣孜攘噶取殹寥哩敤×葝哩嚁崝ā寥寥羱取殹殹hhQQCJ h9CJh9CJo( h豋+CJh臦€CJo(h豋+CJo( h臦€CJhQQB*CJphh6hQQCJhQQCJo( hQQCJhQQ5丆Jo(h豋+5丆Jo(hQQ5丆Jh臦€5丆Jo(h臦€5丆JhD5丆Jo(1*459^qtuwxy| ?PSUXcdt腭廛著哮疋苤哮褴著哮衿蕉褴謼苤哮駩褴謯哮褴 hslCJh9CJo( h? CJh臦€5丆Jo(h豋+5丆Jo(h臦€5丆JhQQ5丆JhQQ5丆Jo(hQQ5丆JPJh臦€CJo( h豋+CJ h臦€CJh€mhQQCJ hQQCJhQQCJo(h豋+CJo(6-6:;=>@ALPQZ\]ilnqruvwyz|}戾戾啁箪箪屐暹箪箪逖酶茂腐福傃y錽 hCJhQQ5丆Jo(h臦€5丆JPJo(h,W5丆JPJo(h5丆JPJo(h豋+h豋+5丆JPJh臦€5丆JPJhD5丆JPJo(h豋+hQQ5丆JPJo(h豋+h豋+5丆JPJo( h臦€CJhQQCJo(h豋+CJo(h臦€CJo( h豋+CJ-A}]lX匋勫dhUD?WD ]匋`勫gd臦€匋dhUD?WD]匋`gdu匋劖剤dhUD?VDWD?]匋^劖`剤gd臦€dhWD`gdu匋dhUD?WD]匋`gdu匋勷dhUD?WDd]匋`勷gduhdhgd豋+勷dhWDd`勷gdQQdhgdQQ ENY[\]r   礞磉匚禄蔽ㄎ懳鷭砦勎蝿}匉w}wpwh|aCJo( hCJhCJo(hCJo( h? CJh揯h? CJo(h揯CJo( h揯CJhphQQCJh帔hQQCJo(h? CJo( huCJ hCJhphQQCJo(hQQCJo(hCJo(hslCJo(h臦€CJo( hslCJ h臦€CJ*5=?@AC6GMNPRSTet玑垴耒嵛郧缜嵛嵩晴痉哀哀灳曖吻幥晜{嵛菐莧嵛hQQCJo(h帔hQQ5丆Jo(huCJo(h?hQQCJh綿 5丆Jo(h臦€5丆Jo(h綿 5丆Jh臦€5丆JhQQ5丆Jo(h綿 CJo( h綿 CJh臦€CJo( h? CJ h臦€CJhphQQCJo(h? CJo(h}XCJo(0DT*+,-./01勦dhWD`勦gd? $a$gdu勑dhWD,`勑gdQQ勦dhWD`勦gdQQ匋勸dhUD?WDd]匋`勸gdudhgdQQ刋dhWD`刋gdQQ勷dhWDd`勷gdQQ&')*./01ABCD 赉葑裥平动枌勸寃宺jaZaZPh4h? CJ\h? CJo(hY Hh? CJhuhuo( huo(h? huB*o(phh醲B*phhuB*o(phhR05丆Jo(h綿 5丆Jo(hu5丆JhQQ5丆Jh臦€5丆JhQQ5丆Jo(hhQQCJo(h綿 CJo( h綿 CJ h臦€CJhQQCJo(h萔CJo(huCJo(h}XCJo(1BCD&4cdfoqrh"!!$h& 勦dh`勦gd? 刋dhWD`刋gd? gd? gd? dhgd? 劋dhWD`劋gd? 勦dhWD`勦gd? gdugdu(AB\jqrx #$@ARS%&GWY]`245KSilz{黜溘湓湓湓渌运运运运运运凿凿旁旁湓湓浣源耘耘预预詽旁嗽嗽嗽嗽 hVHh? h?h? CJ h?h? h哻4h? CJh飐h? o( h? CJhVHh? CJh? CJo(h.oh? CJhY Hh? CJh4h? CJ\h? CJ\乷(>cdefopqrhor .7Udgosy!" !!!Y"\"g"h"???揆孕司顾柜牤牤駹駹瘱駹駹駹駹駹駹h鋑Wh? CJo( h? CJh*h? CJh*h? CJo( h?)o(h? h? B*o(ph h? o(h? h飐h? CJo(h?h? CJo(hVHh? CJh? CJo(h[ CJo(;????#"#%#_#g#i#m#q#z##€#???????$$[$b$????h&i&s&??&'$'%'( ( (??>.@.檩邮永欢花泹}峸 hhjCJh?)h? 5丆JOJQJo(h?)h? CJOJQJo(h? 5丆J OJaJ o(huh? 5丆J aJ o( h?)o( huo(h?)huCJo(h?)h? CJh?)h? CJo(h?)h? 5丆Jo(h衟~h? CJo(h? CJo( h? CJ-h&i&?''''''''' ' ' ' ''''''''dhgdu 劉dhVD:WD?^ `劉gd?)勴dhWD妪^`勴鷊d? 勦dh`勦gd? ''''''''''''' '!'"'#'$'&' ( (x(?:)|) 勨dh`勨gd? $dha$gd? $dha$gdudhgdu|)?x,??.@.B.b.d.c1d1{1€5s勦dhWD`勦gd臦€ dh@&gd臦€勦dhWD`勦gd4$劋剝dhWD^劋`剝a$gd臦€劑剉dhVDWD1^劑`剉gd? 劙凱dhWDx劙`凱黦d? 剝剗dhWD孇^剝`剗黦d? 勦dhWD`勦gd? 勨dh`勨gd? @.B.b.d.a1b1c1d1{1?%2&2s2t2z2|2????????b4c4t4u4}4~4??????55€588'8:r:s:嘧蚊定谉暉嫙嫙嫙嫙嫙嫙嫙嫙嫙嫙嫙嫙嫙酌ㄗz h4h臦€B*CJKH\乸hhCkbh?CJo(hCkbhCJo(hCkbh臦€CJh4h臦€5丆JPJaJhF5丆JPJaJo(h4h臦€CJ aJ h4h4CJh4h臦€CJh臦€5丆J aJ o(h臦€5丆J PJaJ o(h臦€CJo(,€588'8s:t:u:v:w:x:y:z:廁忷桚楜?二銨鍯勦dhWD`勦gd劋dhWD`劋gd臦€$剝dhWD`剝a$gd臦€ dh@&gd臦€$劋剙dhWD^劋`剙a$gd臦€勦dhWD`勦gd臦€s:y:廁忷睑;O;V;a;€;?丙阐贷蝶邀摞沱潲棼辂犒臌稃瘥鼷?????<<< < < <<<<<<<<<#<$<(<)<-<.<3<4<7<8<=<><A<B<K<L<O<P<S<T<V<W<Y<Z<_<`<c<d<皲哓邑邑邑蓉瓤敦控控控控控控控控控控控控控控邑控控控控控控控控控控控控控h?;h臦€CJh0uh臦€CJh0uh臦€CJo( h臦€CJh臦€CJo( h臦€o(h臦€5丆J PJaJ o(h4h臦€5丆J PJaJ Hd<h<i<k<l<z<{<堻扅掽桙↑???瘘鼽== =傹凖孆旪朂桚楜??积??>>> >>?>@>B>I>Q>逮?)?0?1?9?Q?\?]?d?f?l?m????黟黟玑疳鹱鹱鹱疳疳疳疳鹦冉堡疳疳疳疳疳饸饸疳戰氠戰戰戰釕h乤h臦€CJhDh臦€CJo(h臦€5丆JPJaJo(h'Kh臦€5丆JKHh?l5丆JKHo(h臦€CJ aJ hCJo(h0uh臦€CJo( h臦€CJh?;h臦€CJh臦€CJo(h0uh臦€CJ9???????????$@A@B@T@U@\@t@燖睝袬覢酅銨鵃鶣.A/APAQAmArAsA孉廇BB4B;Bh臦€CJo(hh臦€CJh}*>h臦€CJ h臦€CJh臦€CJo(h乤h臦€CJ>鍯鏑鐲C癎業KK嶱玅琎蒕pR"U{W?]__`_y_na c@gAg_g襤 勦WD`勦gd臦€`gd臦€刪dhWD`刪gd臦€ dh@&gd臦€勦dhWD`勦gd臦€XDgDjD烡緿臘鏒鐳:EWE^E慐盓翬譋谽鳨eFgF丗嘑癋袴G>G疓癎矴霨OHPH桰業汭甀碔蒊覫鬒 J"J0J1JLJKKyK並侹凨烱燢↘籏蠯頚餕驥麷ILKLWLYL廘慙稬窵M McMeMvMzM諱豈霱鞰黟麝麽揍麝彡嶙彡狃彡彡彡狃彡嶙牮彡痍痍彡狃嶙彡嶙彡彡痍嵛奈奈奈奈奈奈奈奈奈奈hh臦€CJo(hh臦€CJhSw h臦€CJo(hSw h臦€CJ h臦€CJh臦€CJo(hQYh臦€CJM鞰N"NrNtN O OvOzO逴!P#P$P%P€P丳嶱㏄甈絇綪襊0Q1Q=QBQ婹猀玅琎睶砆篞籕萉蒕RRR RoRpRZS[S疭黜黜黜黜麈黜黜黜鬏祖祖纵孑孑祖徒啊健悋€囨囎噕h0/h臦€CJo(hFCJo(h0/h臦€CJ hDh臦€5丅*mH phsH hJ,h臦€5丅*CJphh臦€5丅*CJo(phhJ,h臦€5丅*CJo(phhCKh臦€CJo( h臦€CJh?;h臦€CJh臦€CJo(hh臦€CJo(hh臦€CJ.疭禨]TaT!URUzU桿歎騐骎{WW扺揥盬轜郬鳺XX擷梄躕轝Y!YqYsY慪揧闥骙5Z6ZyZzZZ[R[{[|[[玔痆蚚蟍\\\$\>\@\h\m\轡騖骪鮘]]=]>]?]M]蹯屐暹暹暹暹痔痔痔痔痔痔痔痔痔痔峙痔痔痔痔痔痔痔痔痔痔痔皱咛痔痔疾h臦€B*CJphh?mh臦€CJhCkbCJo(h攆?h臦€CJo(h攆?h臦€CJ h臦€CJh臦€CJo(h0/h臦€CJh0/h臦€CJo(BM]竇芣蝅衇覿賋7^U^^___`_c_d_n_o_x_y_俖僟刜哶擾豞鈅阓``齚 aamana碼蝍bbWbXb╞蚥蜩荑蜍蜩蛐脸３３栜柢柢囓鑷鑷z噝囪m鑝鑝鑝鑝hZrh臦€B*CJphhh臦€B*CJphhh臦€B*CJo(phh臦€5丆JPJaJo(h0h0h臦€5丆JPJaJo(h0h0h臦€5丆JPJaJhJh臦€B*CJo(phh?mh臦€mH o(sH h臦€B*CJo(phh臦€B*CJphhl!h臦€B*CJph*蚥蝏騜鮞 c c$c2cGcHcScWcXc`cec廲慶醕餭馽鱟鴆鵦dd`dfdgd刣卍恉胐觗賒赿踕錮雂ee ee)e榚甧痚眅[f翮葭菪菪列莸械械辛菪但翜嵉莸輱輤递嵉莸輱€輱€輱h?h臦€B*CJphh?h臦€B*CJo(phhSh臦€B*CJo(phh臦€B*o(phh臦€B*CJo(phhh臦€B*CJo(phhh臦€B*CJphh臦€B*CJphhZrh臦€B*CJphh ;B*CJo(ph/[flf~f昮阥雈餱骹鬴gggg&g>g?g@gAg^g_gdgzg焔猤磄纆騡=h>h巋沨漢焗竓耯胔蔴蜩坭惕探辫碧栩瑜殝鑢鑢鑢鑢鑢鑢鑢鑕rh+Vh臦€B*CJphhw h臦€B*CJphh臦€5丅*CJphh9B)h臦€5丅*CJphh?Dh臦€CJo(h躍h臦€B*CJphh臦€B*CJo(phh#h臦€B*CJo(phh6Dh臦€B*CJo(phh#h臦€B*CJphh臦€B*CJphh6Dh臦€B*CJph$蔴薶裩襤Vi]i搃謎躨LjMjSjZjbjcjwk~k?l@lAlBl漧瀕焞3m:m杕梞榤檓適鄊鎚鏼#nBnDnJnLnOnPnXn薾庵镏镏镏镏镏锾锰继继锰锰锰继继继继继畅硺唟h?0h臦€CJKH#h?0h臦€CJKHOJQJ^Jo( h?0h臦€CJKHOJQJ^Jh?0h臦€CJo(h?0h臦€CJh臦€CJo(h嶴Fh臦€CJh嶴Fh臦€CJo(h臦€B*CJo(phhw h臦€B*CJphh臦€B*CJph hw h臦€,襤cj駉焣爍玵Os%w&wKwxyKz瓅剝dhWD`剝gd臦€勦dhVDWD`勦gd臦€勦dh@&WD`勦gd臦€WDgd臦€ dh@&gd臦€勦dhWD`勦gd臦€勦dhWD`勦gd ; 勦WD`勦gd臦€薾蘮餹駈o o籵紀飋餺駉焣爍猶玵琿hr唕塺NsOsesfsos|s剆卻唖妔恠漵竤箂簊緎莝鎠't.t箬箬箬箬嶝寺徊檴€t€gt€t妧妕€妧妧妧妕€thh臦€B*CJphh臦€B*CJo(phh臦€B*CJphhDlh臦€B*CJo(ph h臦€o(hzh臦€CJo(h^Nh臦€5丆Jh臦€5丆Jo(h臦€5丆Jhh臦€CJh嶴Fh臦€B*CJphh嶴Fh臦€CJh ;CJo(h?0h臦€CJKHh?0h臦€CJKHo((.t5t?tKuLuXuYu榰檜歶泆KvMv%w&wJwKwawww€w箇膚蛍xxx{x|x寈峹玿瑇瓁瞲硏磝蹰蹰蹰蹰蹰蹰踮士诞ó诞诞晢鯁y鮵m^ymyhJxh臦€B*CJo(phh ;B*CJo(phhJxh臦€B*CJphhg4h臦€B*CJo(ph$h@h臦€5丅*CJPJaJph h臦€CJh臦€CJo(hg4h臦€CJo(h臦€5丆JPJaJhDh臦€5丆JPJaJo(h簊 h臦€B*CJo(phh臦€B*CJo(phh臦€B*CJph$磝竫簒絰緓縳脁莤葂蓌蛒褁襵讀豿輝陎齲xyyy yy!y:y=yRyUy_ypytyvywyxy}y巠攜晊泍測▂﹜痽皔秠穣衴觵謞讁貀鄖醳鮵 z zzzzzz皴靥伛靥伛靥乜靛靛靛体郸郸郸蹇濡喀喀濡苔蹇炭蹇炭濡苔体μΦ﹀μ﹀hg4h臦€B*CJo(phh臦€B*CJphhg4h臦€B*CJphh ;B*CJo(phhJxh臦€B*CJphh臦€B*CJo(phhJxh臦€B*CJo(phAzz&z*zJz檢漽@{C{D|J|s|~|瑋瓅f}h}r}t}墋妢藑賫鰙鱹~~~~(~)~1~=~@~`~a~e~z~{~爚羱鰚#,翦翦埕埕埕埕埕畚勐勐埕埕勐埕勐勐埕弭弭遨遨糅糅腐腐ǒhh臦€5丆J PJaJ o(hh臦€o(h臦€CJo(hCh臦€CJhCh臦€CJo(h ;B*CJo(phhg4h臦€B*CJphh臦€B*CJphhg4h臦€B*CJo(phh臦€B*CJo(ph7hH絺緜鑲墐aqv儓剎$IfWD2`剎gd*5 $Ifgd蹵v剙dhWD`剙gd臦€勦dhWD`勦gd臦€dhgd臦€$剝dhWD`剝a$gd臦€渶蟺謤賭Wegh瞾硜蓙襾鷣 .236:>?DGH}~瘋眰穫粋筱窒趴峡丢湂{渰渰渰渰渰渰渰渰渰渰渰渰渰渰渰渰渰h臦€B*CJKH\乷(ph#h ch臦€B*CJKH\乷(phh臦€B*CJKH\乸hh籿h臦€CJKH\h籿h臦€CJ h臦€CJhE"h臦€CJo(h臦€CJo(h臦€5丆JPJaJo(hV:h臦€5丆J PJaJ o(h臦€5丆J PJaJ o(0粋紓絺緜鑲靷韨UZ^}亙墐殐銉鎯 1?MO_joq靹饎:<mn鍏閰*﹪瑖鈬雵_p疰菟粮怜┋┋墍h驢nh臦€CJhh臦€CJh踷h臦€CJh?CJo(h臦€CJo( h臦€CJh郩h臦€CJh臦€5丆Jo(hh臦€5丆J#hh臦€5丅*CJKH\乸hh臦€CJ aJ o(hE"h臦€CJo(h臦€B*CJKH\乷(ph.pqsv垐増攬晥RX|}泬爥磯祲綁緣鍓鎵顗飰+KM}儕厞噴憡皧祳*+cdt~儖妺▼硧磱祴箣簨袐xy虒蛯貚軑黝漕漕鬓邹邹邹邹邹邹邹娃邹妻邹邹邹邹邹甲漕漕漕鳖漕摈м邹邹邹h臦€5丆Jo(hh臦€5丆Jh*5h臦€CJaJhh臦€CJo(h?CJo(h^;Dh臦€6丆Jh臦€CJo( h臦€CJh*5h臦€CJo(h*5h臦€CJh^;Dh臦€CJ>儓剤厛搱剎$IfWD2`剎gd*5 $Ifgd蹵vekd$$IfT杔4?? < t644 lapyt*5奣搱攬晥t儖w勷$IfWDd`勷gd*5 $$Ifa$gd*5dhgd臦€ekd$$IfT杔4?? < t644 lapyt*5奣硧€凥$IfWD^`凥gd*5 $Ifgd蹵vgkd($$IfT杔4擨??  t644 lapyt*5奣硧磱祴袐9MY獛悜緭wiw]iww 刪dh^刪gd臦€劋dhWD`劋gd臦€勦dhWD`勦gd臦€dhgd臦€ $dha$gd臦€gkd$$IfT杔4攌??   t644 lapyt*5奣 9=MQXY_`亷瀻煄爭獛諑謳紡綇搻枑鈶銘飸de紦緭繐鴵緮繑ae跅蹢晿枠煒牁泺阗惺忻惺霉市悌泺悭溿鴴堛併xh?5丆Jo(hCJo(hh臦€5丆Jh?Uh臦€CJo(h5wh臦€CJh臦€h?CJo(h$h臦€CJh?Uh臦€aJo(h臦€aJo( h臦€aJh0sh臦€aJh>h臦€CJo( h臦€CJh臦€B*KH\乤Jo(phh臦€CJo(/緭牁蕵藰虡軜驑 dh$Ifgd*5劋dh$IfWD`劋gd*5 $dha$gddhgd臦€勦dhWD`勦gd臦€ 瓨綐罉翗艠茦蓸蕵虡蹣軜駱驑 &'./皺睓%&-.倸珰瑲練蕷蜌>L仜厸疀矝禌罌蕸褯Lk牆繚蕽v黜骓麈麈谝室室室室室拭幻幻幻幻幻幻凡幻鳕h臦€CJo( h臦€CJhh臦€5丆J h臦€o(h臦€h磜\h臦€o( h磜\h臦€h磜\h臦€;h*5h臦€;hSMh臦€5丆Jo(h臦€5丆JhSMh臦€5丆Jh臦€5丆Jo(=&0?櫃J>>>> dh$Ifgd*5kdX$$If杔謀@ t"€€€€p t?t"44 lalp?yt*5櫃牂矙8,, dh$Ifgd*5kd<$$If杔謀@ t"€€€€p t?t"44 lalp?yt*5劋dh$IfWD`劋gd*5矙翙,kd $$If杔謀@ t"€€€€p t?t"44 lalp?yt*5劋dh$IfWD`劋gd*5 dh$Ifgd*5%/0?獨劋dh$IfWD`劋gd*5 dh$Ifgd*5獨珰瑲練4J<4&勦dhWD`勦gd臦€dhgd臦€勨dhWD`勨gd臦€kd$$If杔謀@ t"€€€€p t?t"44 lalp?yt*5vw~厼啚獮珵瑸蔀螢鰹鶠?ALPRSXY\]ijtu仧厽嘌醚醚醚醚醚堡櫎巭q~騟T h廬uh臦€B*CJKH\乸hh廬uh臦€5丆Jo(h匌5丆J PJaJ o(hh臦€5丆J PJaJ o(h臦€5丆JPJo(h?g5丆J PJaJ h臦€5丆J PJaJ o(#h? h臦€B*CJKH\乷(phh臦€B*CJKH\乸hh臦€B*CJKH\乷(ph#hh臦€B*CJKH\乷(ph h臦€CJh臦€CJo(4STUVWXYZtu仧STΒ?勦dhWD`勦gd臦€lY 勦dh7$8$H$WD`勦gd臦€Y dh7$8$H$gd臦€dhgd臦€$剝dhWD`剝a$gd臦€剝dhWD`剝gd臦€勦dhWD`勦gd臦€厽崯鐭隉=AGH偁帬彔疇譅跔蹱逘鉅鏍鐮隊  XY挕枴荨蕖STqz參牏あΒO磙修修巨修修修修修修修修修修修修修修修瑯嚇噚樲h臦€5丅*CJKH\乸h h臦€5丅*CJKH\乷(ph&hg!h臦€5丅*CJKH\乷(ph#hgh臦€B*CJKH\乷(ph#hY=h臦€B*CJKH\乷(phh臦€B*CJKH\乸hh臦€B*CJKH\乷(ph#h廬uh臦€B*CJKH\乷(ph.OPTX[]^cuw~偅敚暎＃ぃ樱祝鳎 &'0147S疳疳俞俞俞俞怜岑嵊嵊嵊屺枀枀枀枀sbs h*5h臦€B*KH\乤Jph#h*5h臦€B*KH\乤Jo(ph h臦€5丅*CJKH\乷(ph#h廬uh臦€5丅*CJKH\乸hh?laJo(#h?h臦€B*CJKH\乷(ph#h紌h臦€B*CJKH\乷(phh臦€B*CJKH\乸hh臦€B*CJKH\乷(phhB*CJKH\乷(ph#12347=BQS$Y 劋dh$7$8$H$IfWD`劋a$gd*5Y 劋dh$7$8$H$IfWD`劋gd*5$Y dh7$8$H$a$gd劋dhWD`劋gd?ll ST-kd$$If杔4敡謗 l `Gpo t?644 lalp?yt*5STWdghkx{}尋彜悿敜枻￥Δà筏氦激兢摔韦悉证驻伽绀椁辘毪欷瞍*-./1>ACERUV]湧碥蛙碥蛙碥蛙砘芡茼芡茼芡茼豁芡芑砘芡茼芡茼卉蛙砘芡茼芡茼獦#hh臦€B*KH\乤Jo(ph hh臦€B*KH\乤Jph#h*5h臦€B*KH\乤Jo(phh*5h臦€B*KHaJph h*5h臦€B*KH\乤Jph#h*5h臦€5丅*KH\乤Jph:TUW]dg$劋dh$7$8$H$IfWD`劋a$gd*5$Y 劋dh$7$8$H$IfWD`劋a$gd*5gh-kd$$If杔4攳謗 l €G€po t?644 lalp?yt*5hikqx{$劋dh$7$8$H$IfWD`劋a$gd*5$Y 劋dh$7$8$H$IfWD`劋a$gd*5{|-kdN$$If杔4攱謗 l €G€po t?644 lalp?yt*5|}叅尋彜$劋dh$7$8$H$IfWD`劋a$gd*5$Y 劋dh$7$8$H$IfWD`劋a$gd*5$Y 劍dh$7$8$H$IfWD`劍a$gd*5彜悿-kdo $$If杔4攦謗 l €G€po t?644 lalp?yt*5悿懁敜枻湦￥Δ$劋dh$7$8$H$IfWD`劋a$gd*5Y 劋dh$7$8$H$IfWD`劋gd*5$Y 劋dh$7$8$H$IfWD`劋a$gd*5ΔГ-kd $$If杔4擨謗 l `€G€po t?644 lalp?yt*5Гà挨筏氦$劋dh$7$8$H$IfWD`劋a$gd*5$Y 劋dh$7$8$H$IfWD`劋a$gd*5$Y 劍dh$7$8$H$IfWD`劍a$gd*5氦护-kd $$If杔4攈謗 l €G€po t?644 lalp?yt*5护激兢膜摔韦$劋dh$7$8$H$IfWD`劋a$gd*5$Y 劋dh$7$8$H$IfWD`劋a$gd*5$Y 劍dh$7$8$H$IfWD`劍a$gd*5韦悉-kd $$If杔4攈謗 l €G€po t?644 lalp?yt*5悉窑驻伽啶绀辘$劋dh$7$8$H$IfWD`劋a$gd*5Y 劋dh$7$8$H$IfWD`劋gd*5$Y 劋dh$7$8$H$IfWD`劋a$gd*5辘毪-kd$$If杔4擳謗 l `€G€po t?644 lalp?yt*5毪欷瞍酩$劋dh$7$8$H$IfWD`劋a$gd*5$Y 劋dh$7$8$H$IfWD`劋a$gd*5-kdL$$If杔4攈謗 l €G€po t?644 lalp?yt*5 $劋dh$7$8$H$IfWD`劋a$gd*5$Y 劋dh$7$8$H$IfWD`劋a$gd*5-kdm$$If杔4攈謗 l €G€po t?644 lalp?yt*5#*-$劋dh$7$8$H$IfWD`劋a$gd*5Y 劋dh$7$8$H$IfWD`劋gd*5$Y 劋dh$7$8$H$IfWD`劋a$gd*5-.-kd$$If杔4擳謗 l `€G€po t?644 lalp?yt*5./17>A$劋dh$7$8$H$IfWD`劋a$gd*5$Y 劋dh$7$8$H$IfWD`劋a$gd*5AB-kd$$If杔4攈謗 l €G€po t?644 lalp?yt*5BCEKRU$劋dh$7$8$H$IfWD`劋a$gd*5$Y 劋dh$7$8$H$IfWD`劋a$gd*5$Y 劍dh$7$8$H$IfWD`劍a$gd*5UV78-%%dhgd臦€kd$$If杔4攈謗 l €G€po t?644 lalp?yt*5湧牓钮铳酯5678:幡悝瞀颚靓鳓*+>RSVZ[疝疝疝疝疝鹱珊珊珊珊珬啑u梜\Sh*5h臦€aJh*5h臦€B*KHaJphh*5h臦€aJo( h臦€5丅*CJKH\乷(ph hLc5丅*CJKH\乷(ph&h\h臦€5丅*CJKH\乷(phhB*CJKH\乷(phh臦€B*CJKH\乷(phh臦€B*CJKH\乸hh?laJo(#hh臦€B*KH\乤Jo(phh臦€B*KH\乤Jo(ph8SV[`p{€槯櫑毀洤湩潷Ffd$Ifgd*5$d$Ifa$gd*5$劋d$IfWD`劋a$gd*5劋d$IfWD`劋gd*5$勨dhWD`勨a$gd勦dhWD`勦gd[\_`p€棫櫑毀ェΗ锭阀抚恭姬咖围效 VW[\^エΘ舁 >?CDF嚛埄姪帺挬摡暕丞堠荸擤!"&')ghjnr镟奏奏淄淄淄淄淄淄囡嗪妥袜和淄嗪妥妥妥袜缀妥袜和ㄍ淄淄淄嗪妥袜和ㄍ#h*5h臦€B*KH\乤Jo(ph%h*5h臦€B*KHOJQJaJphh*5h臦€aJo(h*5h臦€aJh*5h臦€B*KHaJph h*5h臦€B*KHaJo(phB潷灖煣阀抚恭户涧咖千效拽蕨悃瑙皈d$7$8$H$Ifgd*5劋d$7$8$H$IfWD`劋gd*5劋d$IfWD`劋gd*5Ff$劋d$IfWD`劋a$gd*5 &-27?GNVWXZ\Ff]"d$7$8$H$Ifgd*5劋d$IfWD`劋gd*5Ff劋d$7$8$H$IfWD`劋gd*5\^fnu|仺啫帹枿潹エΘ┄定卡屁通FfC&d$7$8$H$Ifgd*5劋d$7$8$H$IfWD`劋gd*5劋d$IfWD`劋gd*5通舀专蕤妯歙蟥舁酲鳕 ")1劋d$IfWD`劋gd*5 d$Ifgd*5劋d$IfWD`劋gd*5Ff*劋d$7$8$H$IfWD`劋gd*517>?@BDFNU\chmsy€嚛埄Ff?d$7$8$H$Ifgd*5劋d$7$8$H$IfWD`劋gd*5劋d$IfWD`劋gd*5Ff?劋d$IfWD`劋gd*5埄墿姪彥懇摡暕洨）暴订哗漏嫂些砖丞侃郓荸Ff?d$7$8$H$Ifgd*5劋d$7$8$H$IfWD`劋gd*5劋d$IfWD`劋gd*5荸擤姗瞟酴!"#%')07>EFf)9d$7$8$H$Ifgd*5劋d$7$8$H$IfWD`劋gd*5劋d$IfWD`劋gd*5EJOU[aghijoqsu{儶姫應柂洩ⅹd$7$8$H$Ifgd*5劋d$IfWD`劋gd*5Ff撄劋d$7$8$H$IfWD`劋gd*5rsu藩华吉惊FGM伀偒儷埆绔瞰铽螳[_ps~偓潿牞"(,ae壄黜黜黜匏眵磙丝传煃~p~p~p~p~p~p~p~p~p~p~p~h臦€B*CJKH\乸hh臦€B*CJKH\乷(ph#h+&!h臦€B*CJKH\乷(phh?Uh臦€KHaJo(h臦€KHaJo(h╨Zh臦€KHaJh╨Zh臦€KHaJo(%h*5h臦€B*KHOJQJaJphh*5h臦€B*KHaJphh*5h臦€aJo(h*5h臦€aJ)ⅹ┆丢藩釜邯吉惊弄酮元郦嗒濯飒螵Ff=Dd$7$8$H$Ifgd*5劋d$IfWD`劋gd*5Ff旲劋d$7$8$H$IfWD`劋gd*5$).4:@FG偒儷凨劋dhVD?WD^凨`劋gd臦€Ff驡d$7$8$H$Ifgd*5劋d$7$8$H$IfWD`劋gd*5劋d$IfWD`劋gd*5儷壄姯瀛舡stwyz{|}$勦dh$IfWD`勦a$gd蹵v($勦dh$劑& #$/劥IfUD WD]勦a$gd蹵v $dha$gd勦dhWD`勦gd臦€Y dh7$8$H$gd臦€凨勦dhVD?WD^凨`勦gd臦€壄姯毉洯┉涵沫拳循莪攮洵瀛舡ó虍G^h镗售售售港售售﹫vgWvWhh臦€5丅*CJ\乸hh臦€5丅*CJ\乷(ph"hh臦€5丅*CJ\乷(phhB*CJKH\乷(ph#hh臦€B*CJKH\乷(phh臦€B*CJKH\乷(ph#hg!h臦€5丅*CJKH\乸h h臦€5丅*CJKH\乷(ph&hg!h臦€5丅*CJKH\乷(ph h5丅*CJKH\乷(phhrstvwx}~€伅叝啹嚡埊壇姱嫰嵂幆彲懐摨敮柉棷毌’阊楞便ゃ便屻眤銁h銁銁銁銁銁W hh臦€B*KH\乤Jph#hY#h臦€B*CJKH\乷(ph#hh臦€B*CJKH\乷(ph.jh臦€B*CJKHU\乵HnHphuhh臦€B*CJphhh臦€B*CJo(ph hh臦€B*CJKH\乸h"h繬h臦€5丅*CJ\乷(ph7jhh臦€B*CJKHU\乵HnHo(phu}啹嚡壇姱尟嵂彲挴摨{ZZZZZZZ $凨勦dhUD VD?WD]凨`勦a$gd臦€nkd#J$$If杔敋?E6 敥敶?6敶4 layt蹵v$勦dh$IfWD`勦a$gd蹵v 摨暞柉槸櫙毌|}hV勦dhWD`勦gd臦€Y X 匋劋dh7$8$H$UD?WD]匋`劋gd臦€Y X 匋凥dh7$8$H$UD?VD]匋^凥gd臦€$Y 刧勦dh7$8$H$UD?WD]刧`勦a$gd臦€$勦dhUD WD]勦a$gd臦€ $凨勦dhUD VD?WD]凨`勦a$gd臦€’喁浏虔蟑 4:>dz{}壈柊栋及装匕獍浒锇靼 him嫳彵湵副瘫俦弑肀槻澆炔滩洳娌磙磙硇男揄揄揄薏〔〔剴劜〔r挷挷劇病矑剴剴#h|Jh臦€B*CJKH\乷(phh臦€B*CJKH\乸hh臦€B*CJKH\乷(ph hh臦€B*CJKH\乸h#hh臦€B*CJKH\乷(phh虯h臦€KH\乤Jh虯h臦€KH\乤Jo(h臦€B*KH\乤Jo(ph#hh臦€B*KH\乤Jo(ph,娌&34;JK`g幊懗炒,/We档沟 19Aefghi{~隙卸疴疴鹬吐吐吐痛峦峦峦峦聽寋寋寋尃m怵怵怵怵h歘#h臦€CJKH\乷( h臦€5丅*CJKH\乷(ph&h/Yqh臦€5丅*CJKH\乷(ph&h>^.h臦€5丅*KH\乤Jo(phhh臦€CJKH\乷(h臦€CJKH\乷(h臦€CJKH\h?Bh臦€CJKH\h臦€B*CJKH\乸hh臦€B*CJKH\乷(ph*h]^_sx埜qdh$IfUD ]d*5劋dh$IfUD WD]劋gd*5凬勨dhUD VD?WD]凬`勨gd臦€勦dhWD`勦gd臦€dhUD ]d臦€凨勦dhUD VD?WD]凨`勦gd臦€ -8_d尫彿浄湻头戏诜薹*\]rsux嚫埜徃惛椄樃疴疴疴疴疴疴鹩掳聻m廫mJmJ"h*5h臦€5丅*KH\乷(ph h*5h臦€B*KHaJo(ph#h*5h臦€B*KH\乤Jo(phh*5h臦€5丅*KH\乸hh*5h臦€B*KHaJph#hhh臦€5丅*CJKH\乸h#h?h臦€5丅*CJKH\乸h h臦€5丅*CJKH\乷(phh臦€5丅*CJKH\乸hh臦€B*CJKH\乸hh臦€B*CJKH\乷(ph埜惛樃牳$劋dh$1$IfWD`劋a$gd*5$劋dh$IfUD WD]劋a$gd*5樃煾⒏案备焊桓栏赂谈透迅腋赘馗-.89CDstu劰IKmp|}芎碹碹碹碹僳嘶僳僳瑳爽鬯鬯鬯蹖{宮宮宮h臦€B*CJKH\乸h h&h臦€B*CJKH\乸hh臦€B*CJKH\乷(ph h*5h臦€B*KHaJo(phh*5h臦€B*KHaJphh*5h臦€5丅*KH\乸hh*5h臦€B*KH\乷(ph"h*5h臦€5丅*KH\乷(ph#h*5h臦€B*KH\乤Jo(ph$牳「⒏D(劍dh$IfUD WD]劍gd*5kd縅$$IfT杔4謀?Q(#`( pg t??44 lap?yt*5奣⒏Ц备陡桓栏粮赂歉雀透腋痈馗莞薷愀韪楦罡舾醺劍dh$IfUD WD]劍gd*5Ff鱈劋dh$IfUD WD]劋gd*5醺.349>?DIJOUV[abgdh$IfUD ]d*5FfDP劋dh$IfUD WD]劋gd*5gmnstu酆芎旌cv匋dhUD?]匋gd臦€剻勦dhVDUWD^剻勦gd臦€dhUD ]d臦€勦dhWD`勦gd臦€",刧剻勦dh7$8$H$UD?VDUWD]刧^剻勦gd臦€Ff塖劋dh$IfUD WD]劋gd*5 芎牒旌uv尰椈被不旎砘01<@gh}埣〖ゼ患良屑蛹;<jo褰斫{懢捑ぞ缇杈8@Iac|燠沂沂沂揖沂沂沂揖沂沂沂沂沂沂沂沂沂沂沂沂野皨h醤h臦€CJKHo(h渓€h臦€5丆JKHo(h臦€5丆JKHo(hwX h臦€5丆JKHo(h猀h臦€CJKHo(h臦€CJKHh臦€CJKHo( h臦€5丅*CJKH\乷(ph&h鞳~h臦€5丅*CJKH\乷(ph2|€伩効┛部晨慰涌芸UY_c独豪睦爬炖砝 )*,7髁6:伮吢嚶$&26>^`{槟砟48:;<UX埱屒ㄇ',56蹰蹰嚅嘭猷剜剜剜剜剜剜剜剜赝剜剜剜剜剜剜剜剜剜剜剜剜路剜剜剜剜禺h騂mCJKHo(hh臦€CJKHhUrh臦€CJKHhyh臦€CJKHh臦€CJKHh臦€CJKHo(h醤h臦€CJKHo(h醤h臦€CJKH@c砝埪);57v 懳叛蒲ㄕ日收$剝dhWD`剝a$gd臦€勦dhWD`勦gd臦€凬勦dhUD VD?WD]凬`勦gd臦€匋dhUD?]匋gd臦€匋勦dhUD?WD]匋`勦gd臦€6>E`tvwvz喩嵣lmtvw{扑人AI毺炋t|磐屯z{聪断 5<jlㄑ┭寡醚脱蜒乓埔EM栍椨擞陀傇斣栐炘对冈愓斦φ蹒蹒踯运运运运运运运运运运运运运运运运运运运运运岳运运运运运运运运繁 h臦€CJh笶Nh臦€CJh笶Nh臦€CJKHh臦€CJKHo(h臦€CJKHh騣`h臦€CJKHh渓€h臦€5丆JKHo(h臦€5丆JKHo(D日收姓 0113棺蛔缱镒嬝斬16囐壻徺撡斮曎官嘿+|}┶筱僖擅济济济济济济疅疅疅脽疅疅嵁觅覄脛}vmhAU5丆Jo(hCJo(h騂mCJo(h(%h臦€CJ#h痜h臦€B*CJKH\乷(phh臦€B*CJKH\乷(phh臦€B*CJKH\乸hh臦€CJo( h臦€CJh6G`h臦€CJh臦€5丆Jh錜h臦€5丆Jh~h臦€5丆J PJaJ o(h臦€5丆J PJaJ o()收[|)+粟S澻'赊囙za﹀у插$剝dhWD`剝a$gd臦€勦dhWD`勦gd勦dhWD`勦gd臦€dhgd臦€粟钰AC " '!(@CZ]UVh滇夺hｂも翕鲡)*PW勪庝濅ㄤ殇赇]`ュ﹀у卞插村蹯孢孢孢尕县蹑哝哝哝哝哝奇奇奇哝哝哝哝哝哝哝哝哝浆湰hovh臢uCJaJo(hovh臦€5丆J PJ\乤J !hovh臦€5丆J PJ\乤J o(hovh,WCJh穥hh臦€CJh萔5丆Jo(h臦€5丆Jh臦€CJo( h臦€CJh(%h臦€CJh(%h臦€5丆J5插靛d苕犵ヨ1砷;嘘㈦)蒽㈨%割\唢f!蓠a垓f凣 dhVDWD8^凣` d臦€剟 dh7$8$H$VDWD8^剟` d臦€gd臢u村靛0VXZ芥替捂墟苕怄沔镦`lm|熺犵徵腌扃^_s栬樿氳ｈヨ$&(01栭楅钼遭遭遭遭肆硕獪鈶呍厀厬厬鈶鈶厬厬鈶鈪憛戔懺hovh鴓6丆JaJo(hovh臦€6丆JaJhovh臦€CJaJhovh鴓6丆JKHo(hovh臦€6丆JKHhovh臦€CJKHhovh臦€CJo(hovh臦€CJhovh臦€6丆JaJo(hovh臦€CJaJo(!hovh騂m5丆J PJ\乤J o(.楅洪奸鹃珠亻&'023:;EF涥娟狸抨揸哧彡怅黻铌FG\xyz勲呺嗠囯氹犽‰穗碗!()=ac楈橃欖缝胳箬箬荑笪箬箬妈荑箬箬妈妈妈妈妈蟠ㄨ温杪杪柢杪箬舐杪梵汅杪杪hovhy;6丆JaJo(hovh5'CJaJo(hovh5'6丆JaJo(hovh臦€CJaJo(hovh臦€6丆JaJo(hovhy;CJaJo(hovh臦€CJaJhovh臦€6丆JaJ<胳蒽_`bhi栱楉欗㈨俄腠k︻邦差奉PRSTэ憋绎诊诛'(/09:PQWX[]震摒唣黟!'@蹰蹰坶坶坶跸跸跸勖轷硝祥蹰跸跸醴醴醴蹰硝祥跸巯蹰濋濋掯hovhxCJaJhovhYCJaJo(hovhY6丆JaJo(hovh鴓CJaJo(hovhy;CJaJo(hovh臦€6丆JaJhovh臦€6丆JaJo(hovh臦€CJaJo(hovh臦€CJaJ8@AMNYZfgvw€囻堮採曬栺Ⅰｑ否蜀恬务旭疡荫玉荞蓠赳躐%&./7RSV`a掘黍舔悟弪栩@TUW箬箬箬箬箬箬箬嘧嘧嗨嗫笨报酀嘧嘧嘧嘧嘧嗨嗫酀嗨嗫啜嘧鄳嗫h萫:h臦€6丆JaJh?h臦€CJaJh臦€CJaJo(h5<h臦€6丆JaJo(h5<h臦€6丆JaJhNh臦€6丆JaJh5'CJaJo(h臦€CJaJhovh臦€CJaJhovh5'CJaJo(8WXYZ[de芋骟梵铙 "JVhl|€傯掫旚桇荇漪:<NPz岝庻迈孽"J蹒坨疑恋鳞连牞暚爼牞牞牞爼瑣瑣瑣厃nynynynyhPCt6丆JaJo(h揮dhPCt6丆JaJhPCtCJaJh"1CJaJh鹠h"1CJaJh鹠h"1CJaJo(h"1CJaJo(h揮dh臦€6丆JaJh臦€CJaJh5<CJaJo(h臦€CJaJo(h5<h臦€6丆JaJh5<h臦€6丆JaJo(h5<6丆JaJo(+f桇PN丽<缠K` $ 剟 dh7$8$H$VDWD8^剟` d郒*剟 dh7$8$H$VDWD8^剟` dPCt剟 dh7$8$H$VDWD8^剟` d"1剟 dh7$8$H$VDWD8^剟` d臦€JNrz荐决丽&(<>bdrt婘岟滣烑恩各诀厉绪吟怊澉!+;<FIQR^_ce鲰屙屙遘榆榆榆榆榆榆榆榆榆榆榆榆榆殴跑宝殾殾悇zh鮝h鮝CJo(h鮝h鮝6丆Jo(h鮝hPCt6丆Jh鮝hPCtCJaJo(h鮝hPCtCJaJh臦€CJaJh萫:h臦€6丆JaJh萫:h臦€6丆JaJo(h-fKCJaJo(h臦€CJaJo(h"1CJaJh"1CJaJo(hPCtCJaJo(/eosyz€凐傍兵缠绝励IJK ^`pn黜黜黜漤赝镣镣党胆禍土幜幜蛢z僴`nh萫:h臦€6丆JaJo(h萫:h臦€6丆JaJh臦€CJaJo(hOh臦€CJaJh鮝h臦€6丆JaJo(h鮝h-fKCJaJo(h鮝h"1CJaJUh鮝h"1CJaJo(h鮝h臦€CJaJo(h鮝h臦€CJaJh鮝h郒*CJaJo(h鴓h鴓CJh鮝h郒*CJo(h鮝h郒*CJ"*P歕], 2000, 駛韹NN孨t^f[u橯\O蛬Gl剉xvz. 齎YY韹Yef[ (2): 38-410Nihanani, N. K. (1981). The quest for the L2 index of development. RELC Journal, 12, 50-56.Nippold, M. A., Hesketh, L. J., & Duthie, J. K. (2005). Conversational versus expository discourse: A study of syntactic development in children, adolescents, and adults. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 1048 1064.Nippold, M. A., Mansfield, T. C., & Billow, J. L. (2007). Peer conflict explanations in children, adolescents, and adults: Examining the development of complex syntax. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 16, 179 188.Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24 (4), 492-518.Ortega, L., & Iberri-Shea, G. (2005).Longitudinal research in second language acquisition: Recent trends and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 26-45.Perkins, K. (1980). Using objective methods of attained writing proficiency to discriminate among holistic evaluation. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 61-69.Qin, X. Q. [鎦Sftf], 2007, -N齎'Yf[u駛韹橯\O齹汻裇U\膲媉Nyr筽xvz. S琋: -N齎>yO褃f[鶴Hr>y0 Sharma, A. (1980). Syntactic maturity: Assessing writing proficiency in a second language. In R. Silverstein (Ed.), Occasional papers in linguistics, 6, (pp. 318-325). Carbondale: Southern Illionois University. Shaw, P., & Liu, E. (1998). What develops in the development of second-language writing? Applied Linguistics, 19, 225-254.Vermeer, A. (2000). Coming to grips with lexical richness in spontaneous speech data. Language Testing, 17 (1), 65-83.Wen, Q. F. [噀藋硞], 2006, 駛韹NNf[u鉙韹蛬Gl豐S剉媿縍Nyr筽. Y韹Yef[Nxvz(3): 189-1950Wen, Q. F. [噀藋硞], 2006, 駛韹NNf[u鉙韹蛬Gl蹚ek!j_xvz. Y韹5uSYef[ (4): 3-80Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Hae-Young, K. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity. Manoa: University of Hawai i. Wu, X.D., & Chen, X.Q. [4T韊N H朣f哵], 2000, -N齎駛韹f[uX痵僗 N蛬Gl齹汻剉裇U\. 皊鉔Y韹 (4): 349-3600Yu, H. [轔NS], 2004, -N齎f[u駛韹橯\O-N剉錝誰袕(u 鶺嶯韹檈揯剉R恎. Ux隭xvzu簨噀, ^NY韹Y8?Yf[0 Zhang, P. [ _刔, 2007, N T孨韹f[`N€蛬GlYBg剉韹檈揯鵞詋xvz. -N齎Y韹 (3): 54-590  PAGE 1 PAGE 22 PAGE iiiWS琋錧N'Yf[,g褃u誯N緥簨噀  PAGE 21Chapter 1 IntroductionChapter 1 IntroductionChapter 3 MethodologyWS琋錧N'Yf[,g褃u誯N緥簨噀 Chapter 2 Literature reviewWS琋錧N'Yf[,g褃u誯N緥簨噀 Chapter 3 MethodologyChapter 4 Results and discussionWS琋錧N'Yf[,g褃u誯N緥簨噀 Chapter 5 ConclusionReferences PAGE 23LS3CV/TDC/CLV Year21.401.301.20Mean1.101.00Bhj  02VXtv  46Z^fj hlprn箬哞优予箬呓步步┙┙┙┙┙┙┙┙哂襟涹呓呓步步┙咏筮綈訍h?h臦€CJaJh-fKh臦€6丆JaJo(h-fKCJaJo(h?h臦€CJaJh臦€CJaJh萫:h臦€6丆JaJo(h萫:h臦€6丆JaJh臦€CJaJo(hOh臦€CJaJh-fKh臦€6丆JaJ8     " $ 8 < D F    " $ 6 8 L V X n p    箬哞咧手恐手手手砍ǔǔ叱殢殑氝{遻硂fh?rCJaJo(h?h?rCJaJo(hYCJaJo(hY6丆JaJo(h鴓6丆JaJo(hpIh臦€6丆JaJo(h?h臦€CJaJh?h臦€CJaJo(hiHh"1CJaJhiHh"1CJaJo(h"1CJaJo(h臦€CJaJo(h?h臦€CJaJh-fKh臦€6丆JaJ$$    2"dhgd桯剟 dh7$8$H$VDWD8^剟` d`+剟 dh7$8$H$VDWD8^剟` d"1剟 dh7$8$H$VDWD8^剟` d臦€剟 dh7$8$H$VDWD8^剟` dY            8 D | ~               n 镤垆仪家浯鄞浯郇毃庅傐鋠踜_k_ShIh臦€CJaJo(h?h臦€CJaJo(h?h臦€CJaJh凟7h臦€CJaJo(h-fKh臦€6丆JaJhy h臦€CJaJo(h4h臦€6丆JaJo(h4h臦€6丆JaJh臦€CJaJh凟7h-fKCJaJh-fKh-fKCJaJh-fKCJaJo(h臦€CJaJo(h凟7h臦€CJaJ h^4 hYB*CJaJo(phn          .02V^(*:<XZ28:@F蜷坶厦翰翰翰翰翰邯—晩晩晩晩晩晩暘邯乽乽hwh臦€CJaJo(h`+CJaJo(h-fK6丆JaJo(h|h臦€6丆JaJhCJaJo(h臦€CJaJh"1CJaJh"1CJaJo(h?h臦€CJaJo(hIh臦€CJaJo(h-fKh臦€6丆JaJo(h臦€CJaJo(hZy^h臦€6丆JaJo()FRvz "8<BJNvz蹰嚅嘧圊组巫纹巫巫巫凄奏凄奏奏锥拵拵拵拵墔墔{jh臦€0JUh臦€ h臦€o(h/jh/Uh`+h臦€CJPJ\乷(h`+B*CJaJo(phh`+B*CJKHaJo(phh臦€CJaJhh2CJaJo(h臦€CJaJo(h`+CJaJo(hwh臦€CJaJo(hwh臦€CJaJ/68PR€gd蹵v$&dPa$gd渱agde8,$a$gd$a$$a$gd蹵v 468:FHLNPR€屦彳匚任轿肛疂畼攺垊ztz絲o刢豝Zh} h}o(hhCJaJo( h,Wo( h,W0Jjh,W0JUh祑 he8,h闓E he8,o(h蹵v h}Xo(hF0JmHnHu hI2C0JjhI2C0JU ho(h0JmHnHu h0Jjh0JUhcW h醲o(h臦€h臦€0JmHnHujh臦€0JU h臦€0J#2>@Bdfhx*,BDFRTXZ\^`dfhjlnr箢赕狩蒹铌尕宇嬗骥篦笪婺灸衬獩旙岓z髊h臦€CJaJo(#h臦€B*CJOJPJ^JaJphhPeh臦€o( h蠬h臦€h蠬h臦€B*CJaJphh/ h,Wo(h0JmHnHu h,W0Jjh,W0JU h o( h5Po( h?go(h渱a h渱ao(hcWh扱 h扱o(h臦€ h臦€o(h祑 )>@Bfh*,BD\^`fhjlpgd臦€$a$&dPgd?ggd蹵vgd扱pr|gd蹵v$a$gd臦€gd臦€箫噘锾婪铳飸z飠s飠l颷凤T飠K飠hh臦€aJh臦€aJo( hsh臦€B*PJ\乤Jph h@< (h槝$a$5丆J OJQJ\乛J< @< slu$9r G$a$CJaJ)@ sluxN@"N slu w'$9r &dG$Pa$CJaJDR@2D 臦€ck噀噀,g)蹚 2劋dh`劋 B*phfCf 臦€Q*B*ph扏s 臦€xQ艝媁_:V?j呏喼囍  $1$a$吺;B*`Jphx?x `+Documentation7$凕???$UDVDWD橚]凕^?`?齛$ CJKHaJPK!倞[Content_Types].xml瑧薺?E鲄卸豶?ヘ微Iw},浔-j弰4 蛇w旄P-t#b螜{U畯銧擉T閁^h卍}悒)蛔*1P? 揯鬃W孱0)櫐T闉9<搇?ぼ$yi}佸;纞@囨?顚跄H滖男u? D谞z內/0娗盃瘥 $€ X3aZ⒁锣,癉0j~?叨蝏沩~i>赝3縗`??[G殁\??跼k.搒粣..椃碼婵?PK!ブх6 _rels/.rels剰蟡? 囷吔冄}Q颐%v/C/?h"脎O 劋秣?孂釘 毆免C?薶醰=偵叅?[xp啠{鄣_糚眩秣羌3緓镹男>掤搁U蟇L0斈屵呖z迃rx鳔脅稔h9T?奣/魁煜?鍃Y?雒'蟸?S琦棌~蜩鶅O_|w?馉镉圚t燒乤?d NG1-Rl苼?諶J鴚T锠疢1Kｃ柩"o he浪撣幝絇L-憒%绗臙甴Y7?qP.\L姼=岟薲穛炷?I爋fi墸?帽墘BRb?J款P_p蒅 茛▍i㎏鷗郿訉h汧梚櫷o?;7Q嫵2染媱珼?a/銐翾漱嶺厌W 藬霱卂膗H剄)薶 胺?:Vi豾?r態裶汐橌"r嫃?帓2l徠a麃C奲此U|嚮!8^顩?帼軤仯?A魶壭眲V韙鄨讕厏ls囔?4犁_=,涩返o聻TV 跥陲"苎鎎H唼灮???熯x薜躻-戏蹺鮸褾;氕衯踯`嘼3"G 'e\昮H柊O 话ㄩ恬愪'?劘i_wp伬 ??靺8魂i&丩Y%\铝?楎謝視=瞩伭壵阱綔 r6f 提3储淭厥厰)橗:陋ZK誏玸ゅ&C 鏜兣軟0€ [浪玴@注醏j扣? 媺耏咹唜Hi荤cT5A蕆跑@顢腍驇馴AZC硙i' RQ\m伕,zo?僩Q襲{Y\,Nψ?铸溷ら嵿L _?跆嘫7C6韽-fS宄h62密"5咍麥罭H凾[X?5太4X?Y龡豚殖2纅鷎h辈绅痠~tCKF#猥b +趙?m鑵4`眹!?U翞!昿5a:倊€{4韒笫m蝘o 萎c杽8m泛D矹秔S枪姗豓1铘?#S奿?3E?pS?疳W`る甸q]( ┻08樲w别 n撏A鲺[s枃)k8皓= Aa?R d趻删c楿咏瞬d)#換ueb恾满捷C!ず?i0福>4魫S?鋥z虮 F箎 4?sKvUKo瘸椒h垀1砵YU€奥V蠬塔5U8錠k;譁潘鮈9堚寂皹D 荀 ?*|FL迪鳡?A3兇伂>g类dm2iV值殍そ杕謌<殒r?[kv抶熞蠃p鎶sj?潩z伛礭[鑚堨叆Qv??縤u鈨?高?%M2羙J描?u舘%覎PK!褠煻'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels剰M ?匃倃oo雍?輬协勪56?$Q祉?.嘺緳i粭澤c2?h:闀q毩m胳嶡RN壻;d癭値o7g慘(M&$R(.1榬'J摐袏T鶂?V?＆A然蠬鱱}狇|?絙{朠?除8塯/]As賲(⑵锑#洩L蔥汉倪PK-!倞[Content_Types].xmlPK-!ブх6 +_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!mQtheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-!褠煻' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK]  !$*06<>DJⅠ !$*06<>DJM \s e)?;5q瑦)[Ⅰ0<0??1L1??2<2x2? +9999LLYYYq00000FFFFFFRRR___bB^?@.s:d<?XD鞰疭M]蚥[f蔴薾.t磝z粋pv厽OS湧[r壄h’娌樃芎|6村楅胳@WJe n F}   p1h&'|)€5鍯襤儓搱硧緭櫃矙獨4STgh{|彜悿ΔГ氦护韦悉辘毪-.ABU8潷\通1埄荸Eⅹ儷}摨埜牳⒏醺gc收插f$ p~€ %(+26LSVRY\b!晙!晙!晙!晙!晙餈  @€€€鸺 餤?  饐  稂€"?饘  養€ "? 餚B  3 !/"?饊  ?€"? 饊  ?€"?饊  ?€"?餚B  3 !/"?餚B  @ 3 !/"?餚B  @ 3 !/"?餚B  @ 3 !/"?餚B  @ 3 !/"?饊  ?€"?饊  ?€ "? 饊  ?€ "? 饊  ?€"?饊  ?€"?餚B @ 3 !/"?鹬   饐BCDE F>X!/?@€C"?鹬   饐BC DE F.窰!/? ;@€C"?痤  3 饦BCSDE F!/?S@€S"`? 鹬   饐BC[DE F|(}!/?[>@€C"? 饊 @ ?€"? 饊 @ ?€ "? 饊  ?€"?饊  ?€"?餚B € 3 !/"?餚B € 3 !/"?養 S  ?餒??  粻紶綘緺繝罓翣聽脿臓菭葼薁袪覡訝誀諣譅谞跔轄酄鉅銧鏍闋Ⅰ<t tf :tfQ:t)@*t @t  @ t v@wt :@;tKtQtt?xt7H{ t?etj  tDDtDE|th  *tt  t6t.tFtDt(#0*Xt0t*t OLE_LINK2 OLE_LINK1ｑｑ@?3遒?3逆?3?3?3|髦?3蚶?3滘?3罄?3滙?3衾?3滛?3趵?3滜?3隼?3滝?3骼?3滣?3?3\?3滧?3茗?3\?3荠?3\?3滫?3茭?3\?3茺?3?3滭?3茳?3?3\?3滮?3荦?3?3滯?3?3\?3??3??3?3\?3?3?3\?3,,?34柯?3t柯?3艨?34缆?3t缆?3衾?3t谅?3戳?3袅?34侣?3t侣?3绰?3袈?34寐?3t寐?3疵?3裘,,4449 4 q ?%Z&:5;5BAKAK擷骲Wj;t﹖﹖顃顃膟膟}嚂嚂皷皷w轂n魻魻a譬譬k姽嵛嵛YY//jjｑ     !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?3>>9:> 9 v $"%_&@5@5CFKFK橷鴅\j@t玹玹餿餿苰苰}瑩墪墪矕矕|鉃s鰻鰻f醛醛p徆$嫖嫖[[88llｑ  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?;=*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€chsdate€9?*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€place€=>*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags €PlaceType€=@*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags €PlaceName€8"*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€City€B)*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€country-region€</*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€chmetcnv€ 樸€0€1€12€1899€2006€30€4.2€4.3€a€Day€False€HasSpace €IsLunarDate €IsROCDate€Month€Negative €NumberType €SourceValue€TCSC€True€UnitName€Year@?>= = = = = = = = =  = = = = = /  /  /  =  =  =  )?=  =  /  =  ?""?"?= = ?"?"/  "?=  /  ?"=  ?"= =  )?/  )?"?"?"?el-0`g:=>AOUSW!",1MSg./01S`I N Y ^ c j d"q"h#q##?????????????U&X&///'///9/A/G/~/??? 1&1??&2.2U5_5??99??v:€:睑?烕?阐蝴名望)<3<狘?颤狐?=5C;CCCKC肅薈uF{F襀贖:IBIsKK奒慘麷L鞮鮈FMPM1N7N#T)T9TAT臫蔜跿釺銽隩颰鮐齌U漒Z]i]n]t]x^€^_ _6d?BKNWgioxy濐狀?BOacgtu~€夛狅╋达嘛娘惋犸泔顼蝻箫鲲/@栶ю丘仞$UVｑ[]uw    9 >Abeaeil  橶沚漛搗晇{|8;rs~/90/R3z咆`勝欃氋橘1ぺ钰>AB娵嬠氽(Z[{ ?屴睫"m眠倪2C相鬣忈 C夆.N冲族劐`忔版辨锋&铉2iX{蓦 '(,e嗧)?hz差-bv★鲲UVｑ3333333333333333s3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333Yo2gQS???/磞鑩穦謡鴟#}髩鰤Er拪鞀i拫謰瓙葠c〇殰郓Z仾泉埞姽匙圩4d2広ぺ巨 '昼铉8K囔 図涰鲲Oeg}旔硼陴镳耩&:<FUVX\]_hjlnuwxz~€勸嗰婑岏愸旕橊汃烋ｑ????VCXC髩鯄紣綈abyyzz墬姉}~啒啒嚇嚇敇敇晿晿灅灅煒煒祆 鲲鲲黠!/@Ognopq}嗮囸堭夝旔栶梆别拆仇金攫筐酿硼起丘$&-./0:<HUVVYYZZ[[\\^^__iijjmmnnvvwwyyzz€€咇咇嗰嗰嬹嬹岏岏戱戱採採擇擇旕旕欛欛汃汃燅燅狇ｑ鸖碼袔橶~脆?眡杫f則?t^則`?齩(€ 勳刓^勳`刓h圚) 剱刓^剱`刓h圚.€ ?刓4^?`刓h圚.€ 勜 刓 ^勜 `刓h圚) 剕 刓| ^剕 `刓h圚.€  刓 ^ `刓h圚.€ 勀刓^勀`刓h圚) 刪刓h^刪`刓h圚.刪剺h^刪`剺(.€ 凥刓H^凥`刓h圚) 勳刓^勳`刓h圚.€ 剱刓^剱`刓h圚.€ ?刓4^?`刓h圚) 勜 刓 ^勜 `刓h圚.€ 剕 刓| ^剕 `刓h圚.€  刓 ^ `刓h圚) 勀刓^勀`刓h圚. 剺 ^ `剺(.€ 勳刓^勳`刓h圚) 剱刓^剱`刓h圚.€ ?刓4^?`刓h圚.€ 勜 刓 ^勜 `刓h圚) 剕 刓| ^剕 `刓h圚.€  刓 ^ `刓h圚.€ 勀刓^勀`刓h圚) 刪刓h^刪`刓h圚.鸖眡橶乩X        €766        T螶        窸dc?P=[ ^4 ? ? 祑 ,WLcAU"1/|a抸綿 -G!Q+$(?) *郒*豋+e8,R0h24 ;y;I2C闓EHDbK-fKQU}X誏Z渱aCkbf.e?gR jhj?lsl騂m?r".sPCt臢u蹵v桯鮝臦€貄QQ5P渢萔Fov5<^*5Ztx}揯uY濟`+巊xcW9 5'8N# 扱?匌8\鴓続DKD縑嶺醲鲲@€萅--SS!SSSSS︾Ⅰ@ @(`@@@Unknown G*郃x Times New Roman5€Symbol3. *郈x Arial;= €鷟?褳SOSimHei;?媅SOSimSun] AdvPTimesBTimes New RomanO$F$Times New Romane €SansSerifMapInfo CartographicA犽 BCambria Math!qhf,!?! *?&"z?&"z!-!),.:;?]}    & 6"0000 0 000000  =@\]^?([{  0 0 00000;[??個2|| 3僸HP??(2!xx _郹wZAdministrator   ?鄥燆鵒h珣+'迟0餉x€   (张惠婷NormalAdministrator12Microsoft Office Word@| @蘿淫 @唏& "?&G繞 Rt? P &" WMFCJm ?lah Rt EMF?F iO   ah% €% €Rp?媅SO  x  濹K[x p 嗤 \ TQK[x p  qvU]p x  @q"騰U]€€/笍X;?媅SOSimunm禟[:H斪 ,Sぬ ?N](嗵 嗵 鄘L]( @q"dv% % % Rp?@Times New Roman   x  濹K[x p  嗤 \ TQK[x p  qvU]p x  <)騰U]€€€/笍XG*郃x Times ew Roman窵ぬ ?N](嗵 嗵 鄘L]( <)dv% % %  % % %  TT u5 UU嘆v@嘆 LahP K!ah" RpI媅SO  x  濹K[x p 嗤 \ TQK[x p  qvU]p x  @q"騰U]€€/笍X;?媅SOSimunm禟[:H斪楧ぬ ?N](嗵 嗵 鄘L]( @q"dv% % % RpI@Times New Roman   x  濹K[x p  嗤 \ TQK[x p  qvU]p x   7騰U]€€€/笍XG*郃x Times ew Roman腢ぬ ?N](嗵 嗵 鄘L](  7dv% % %  % % % TT S5 !UU嘆v@嘆 LahP K% % % % % % % % %  % % % T$ ]UU嘆v@嘆6LahxAssessing L2 Learners GGRGG3f\.z].zQ\QfQRG/% % % TT$ Q ]UU嘆v@嘆$ 6LahP .% % % TR ]UU嘆v@嘆R 6LahxLexical Richness and {Q\3Q\3.3QffQGG.\ff.RpI媅SO  x  濹K[x p 嗤 \ TQK[x p  qvU]p x  @q"騰U]€€/笍X;?媅SOSimunm禟[:H斪hhぬ ?N](嗵 嗵 鄘L]( @q"dv% % % RpI@Times New Roman   x  濹K[x p  嗤 \ TQK[x p  qvU]p x  騰U]€€€/笍XG*郃x Times ew Roman癤ぬ ?N](嗵 嗵 鄘L]( dv% % %  % % % TH,UU嘆v@嘆,r*LahSyntactic Complexity: A Longitudinal Studyf\f=\Q=3Q.\f3Q\3=\=$z.z\f\3=ff3f\2.]=ff\% % % TTUU嘆v@嘆rLahP K % % % TTOUU嘆v@嘆OLahP K % % % TTODUU嘆v@嘆OLahP K % % % TTO€N UU嘆v@嘆O' LahP KRp?媅SO  x  濹K[x p 嗤 \ TQK[x p  qvU]p x  @q"騰U]€€/笍X;?媅SOSimunm禟[:H斪??ぬ ?N](嗵 嗵 鄘L]( @q"dv% % % Rp?@Times New Roman   x  濹K[x p  嗤 \ TQK[x p  qvU]p x  <騰U]€€€/笍XG*郃x Times ew RomantDぬ ?N](嗵 嗵 鄘L]( <dv% % % % % % % % %  % % % TX % = UU嘆v@嘆 " LahPby;:% % % TT& p = UU嘆v@嘆& " LahP K % % % TTx  UU嘆v@嘆x LahP :% % % T ]  UU嘆v@嘆 LahhZhang HuitingG;4:;T; !::% % % TT^  UU嘆v@嘆^ LahP lK % % % TTOM  UU嘆v@嘆O LahP K % % % TTO  UU嘆v@嘆O~ LahP K % % % T 5 s bUU嘆v@嘆5G LahUnder the Supervision of Bao GuiT;;4' ;4A:;4&:!-!:;;'M4;T:!% % % TTt bUU嘆v@嘆t GLahP % % % T bUU嘆v@嘆 GLahland Chen Haitao3;;M;3;T4 !4:% % % TT bUU嘆v@嘆GLahP K % % % TTO+UU嘆v@嘆OLahP K % % % TTOrUU嘆v@嘆OLahP K % % % T@\;UU嘆v@嘆\SLahSubmitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of lA;;Y!! 4;!;@4' !3!A; ' !!Y4;!:' ;4N3;:!'4Y4; .';'!:4T4;'44;'N43;3!:';' % % % Td O UU嘆v@嘆 lLahTArtsT'!-% %&WMFC? % TTP  UU嘆v@嘆P lLahP K % % % TTOPUU嘆v@嘆O5LahP K % % % TTOUU嘆v@嘆OLahP K % % % Td`UU嘆v@嘆LahTEnglG;:!% % % T` UU嘆v@嘆Lahhish Department .;T3;4&!Y4; % % % TT ` UU嘆v@嘆 LahP K % % % T:) UU嘆v@嘆:LahSchool of Foreign Languages A4:;:!:'A;'3 ;;G3;:;3;3.:% % % TT ) UU嘆v@嘆 LahP K % % % T  uUU嘆v@嘆Z LahNanjing University of TechnologyT4; !:;T: ;4&. !9;'?44:;: ;;9% % % TT UuUU嘆v@嘆 ZLahP K % % % T! >UU嘆v@嘆# LahdJune, 2008 .:;4::;;9% % % TT" l >UU嘆v@嘆" #LahP K % €% €6h6ah6a66g6`g6`66f6_f6_66e6^e6^66d6]d6]66c6\c6\66b6[b6[66a6Za6Z66`6Y`6Y6 6 _6X_6X 6  6 ^6W^6W 6  6 ]6V]6V 6  6 \6U\6U 6 6[6T[6T66Z6SZ6S66Y6RY6R66X6QX6Q66W6PW6P66V6OV6O6  JS."System鄷?嬈蜖?葇 qqpctrayQQPC--?宋体---?@Times New Roman------ 2 0SH ,HS'?宋体---?@Times New Roman------2 [0SH ------------,2 ^SHAssessing L2 Learners     ---2 7SH ---+2 =SHLexical Richness and     ?宋体---?@Times New Roman------J2 a*SHSyntactic Complexity: A Longitudinal Study            ---2 SH ---2 GSH ---2 GSH ---2 GSH ?宋体---?@Times New Roman------------2 7)SHby---2 77SH ---2 OSH ---2 O SHZhang Huiting ---2 O]SH ---2 gGSH ---2 GSH ---;2  SHUnder the Supervision of Bao Gui   ---2 _SH ---"2 cSHand Chen Haitao  ---2 SH ---2 GSH ---2 GSH ---2 HSSHSubmitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of       ---2 $SHArts ---2 <SH ---2 GSH ---2 (GSH ---2 @SHEngl --- 2 @SHish Department  ---2 @hSH ---52 XSHSchool of Foreign Languages  ---2 XSH ---;2 p SHNanjing University of Technology  ---2 pSH ---2  SHJune, 2008 ---2 VSH --HHSSHHRRHHRRHHRRHHRRHHRRHHRRHHRRGGRRGGRRGGQQGGQQGGQQGGQQGGQQGGQQFFQQFFQQFFPP?胀諟.摋+,0 X`lt| z|   !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~€    ? !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCD?FGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwx?z{|}~€?????????Root Entry F' €Data 奤1TableE磄WordDocument?SummaryInformation(y BDocumentSummaryInformation8CompObju??  F#Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 文档 MSWordDocWord.Document.8?瞦