中文摘要
學習任何一種外語都必須學習、記憶成千上百的單字。而直接的單字教學並不能將全部的單字介紹給語言學習者。一般相信習得單字的主要途徑是透過閱讀外語的資料。在這種情況下，讀者並不會刻意去記憶資料中的單字。這種習得單字的方式一般被稱作非刻意的單字學習(incidental vocabulary learning)。

本研究旨在檢驗由勞佛及修士坦(Laufer & Hulstijn)兩位學者所提出的投入量假說(Involvement Load Hypothesis)在非刻意單字學習上的成效。研究者設計了四種有不同專注程度(involvement load)的活動。就投入量(involvement load)來說，第四個活動(查字典、填空活動)最高，第三個活動(查字典)次高，第二個活動(中文注釋、填空活動)再次之，第一個活動(中文注釋)最低。因此，實驗假設一、二預測第四個活動(查字典、填空活動)的單字分數最高，第三個活動(查字典)的單字分數次之，第二個活動(中文注釋、填空活動)的單字分數再次之，第一個活動(查字典)的單字分數會最低。實驗假設三則預測，就記憶單字的成效而言，查字典會比看單字注釋來得有效。實驗假設四則預測，填空活動(the gap-filling)將會產生更多的專注量(involvement load)，且對記憶單字有所助益。

受試者並未被告知他們在活動中所接觸到的部份單字之後將會進行測驗，而當受試者一做完指定的活動之後，就立刻接受第一次單字測驗。在一個星期之後，受試者接受第二次單字測驗。

實驗結果顯示本研究的前兩個假設並未被實驗結果所支持。然而本實驗結果部分支持第三個實驗假設，因為研究結果顯示查字典比看單字注釋在單字記憶上有更顯著的成效,但是只限於在當受試者被要求多做填空活動(gap-filling)的情況下，而非在當受試者只查字典或只看單字注釋的時候。實驗結果也部分支持第四個實驗假設，因為實驗結果顯示當受試者既查字典、又做填空活動時，填空活動在單字記憶上有更顯著的成效。但當受試者閱讀單字注釋、又做填空活動時，填空活動在單字記憶上則沒有顯著的成效。

因此，如果外語學習者只看過單字一次，而沒有持續的接觸單字，那麼查字典、或是看單字注釋在單字記憶的成效上，都沒有什麼顯著的差異。此外，由於單字測驗的成績普遍很低，特別是第二次後測，因此不論學生做什麼類型的活動，只看過單字一次是絕對無法把單字給記起來的。

本研究的實驗結果為專注量假說(Involvement Load Hypothesis)提出負面的證明，因此，此假說的正當性(validity)受到了質疑。然而又因為本實驗受限許多變因干擾，如取樣方式、活動設計、完成活動的時間不同、受試者的英文程度、受試者的態度、不同的教師態度、受試者的猜測行為、及受試者是否有接受補習等等，所以這些變因有可能使本研究無法得到預期的結果。

最後，本研究為專注量假說(Involvement Load Hypothesis)提供了修正的方向。就建立理論性概念以解釋單字學習活動的成效這一方面而言，本實驗結果也為未來的研究提供了初步的建議，並且也為現有的理論性概念提供實驗證明。

ABSTRACT
Learning foreign or second languages requires the acquisition of many thousands of words. Direct vocabulary instruction cannot account for the large amount of words that highly advanced ESL/EFL learners acquire. It is believed that the major way of acquiring vocabulary is through processing L2 information, a situation in which learners have no intention to commit the words appearing in the information to memory. This type of vocabulary learning is referred to as incidental vocabulary learning.

Research on incidental vocabulary learning is of a large variety, and various factors conducive to effective incidental vocabulary learning have been found. Laufer and Hulstijn (2001) proposed Involvement Load Hypothesis (2001) to evaluate the factors, but there is only one empirical research on this hypothesis. Therefore, this study aimed to examine this hypothesis by investigating the effect of Involvement Load on English vocabulary acquisition in an incidental learning situation.

Four tasks differing in their involvement load were designed and conducted. In terms of the involvement load, Task 4 was designed to induce the highest load, Task 3 the second highest, Task 2 the third highest, and Task 1 the lowest. The participants were given an unexpected vocabulary retention test upon completing the tasks, and were given another unexpected delayed posttest one week later. It was hypothesized that the vocabulary retention scores would be highest in Task 4, second highest in Task 3, third highest in Task 2, and lowest in Task 1. It was also hypothesized that consulting dictionary would have a better impact than reading glosses on vocabulary retention. Lastly, it was hypothesized that the text-based activity gap-filling would be beneficial to vocabulary learning.

The results of analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the results of the multiple-range Duncan test showed that on the immediate posttest in the first experiment Task 2 and Task 4 were the most effective tasks, Task 3 was the second best, and Task 1 was the least effective one. On the delayed posttest, Task 4 and Task 1 became the best tasks, Task 1 and Task 3 were the second best tasks, and Task 3 and Task 2 were the least effective tasks.

On the immediate posttest of the second experiment, Task 4 and Task 1 were the best tasks, Task 1 and Task 3 were the second best tasks, and Task 2 was the least task. In the delayed posttest, Task 1 was the best task, whereas the remaining three tasks—Task 4, 3, and 2—were the second best ones. In sum, the first two hypotheses in this study were not supported. However, the third and fourth hypotheses were partially supported.

The partial support for the third and the fourth hypotheses suggests that if there is only one exposure to words, there is no significant difference between consulting the dictionary and reading L1 glosses. Moreover, looking up words in the dictionary and also doing one extra text-based vocabulary activity are likely to result in better retention than reading L1 glosses and doing the same text-based vocabulary activity.

The negative results of the research hypotheses raise questions about the validity of the Involvement Load Hypothesis. However, this study was restricted by several confounding variables, such as the design of the novel task (Task 4), time on each task, participants’ English level, the teacher factor, participants’ guessing behaviors, and participants’ exposure to L2. These confounding variables might have prevented the study from getting valid results. Future research should take them into account, and try to reduce their effects to a minimum.

This study provides directions for modification of the Involvement Load Hypothesis. For future research on establishing theoretical constructs explaining the effectiveness of vocabulary-learning tasks, this study has provided preliminary suggestions and offered another empirical testing for the present theoretical construct.

REFERENCES
Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: Freeman.
Baddeley, A. D. (1978). The trouble with levels: A reexamination of Craik and Lockhart’s framework for memory research. Psychological Review, 85, 139-152.
Baddeley, A. (1997). Human memory: Theory and practice. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Berry, D. C. (1994). Implicit and explicit learning of complex tasks. In N. Ellis, (Ed), Implicit and explicit learning of language (pp. 147-164). London: Academic Press.
Bromberg, M. & Gordon, M. (1993). 1100 Words you need to know (p. 59). New York: Barron’s Educational Series.
Chen, H. J. (2002). Effects of L1 and L2 glosses on reading comprehension and vocabulary retention. The proceedings of the nineteenth international conference on English teaching & learning.
Cho, K. & Krashen, S. (1994). Acquisition of vocabulary from the Sweet Valley Kids Series: adult ESL acquisition. Journal of Reading, 37, 662-667.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language, its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.
Craik, F. I. M. & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.
Craik, F. I. M. & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268-294.
Elley, W. B. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 174-187.
Ellis, N. (1994). Implicit and explicit language learning—An overview. In N. C. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 1-31). London: Academic Press.
Ellis, R. (1994). Modified oral input and the acquisition of word meanings. Applied Linguistics, 16, 409-441.
Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension and the acquisition of word meanings. Language Learning, 44, 449-491.
Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285-301.
Eysenck, M. W. (1982). Incidental learning and orienting tasks. In C. R. Puff (Ed), Handbook of research methods in human memory and cognition (pp. 197-228). New York: Academic Press.
Fukkink, R. G., Blok, H, & de Glopper, K. (2001). Driving word meaning from written context: A multicomponential skill. Language Learning, 51, 477-496.
Herman, P., Anderson, R., Pearson, P., & Nagy, W. (1987). Incidental acquisition of word meaning from expositions with varied text features. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 263-284.
Hsieh, L. (2000). The effects of translation on English vocabulary and reading learning. Proceedings of The Ninth International Symposium on English Teaching, 339-347. Taiwan: Crane Publishing Co.
Hulstijn, J. H. (1992). Retention of inferred and given word meanings: Experiments in incidental vocabulary learning. In P. Arnaud & H. Bejoint (Eds), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 113-125). London: Macmillan.
Hulstijn, J. H. (1997). Mnemonic methods in foreign language vocabulary learning. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp. 203-224). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). Intentional and incidental second language vocabulary learning: a reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity. In P. Robinson (Ed), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 258-286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hulstijn, J. H., Hollander, M., & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and reoccurrence of unknown words. Modern Language Journal, 80, 327-339.
Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 539-558.
Hulstijn, J. H. & Trompetter, P. (1998). Incidental learning of second language vocabulary in computer-assisted reading and writing tasks. In D. Albrechtsen, B. Henriksen, I. M. Mees, & E. Poulsen (Eds.), Perspectives on foreign and second language pedagogy (pp. 191-200). Odense, Denmark: Odense University Press.
Jacobs, G. M., Dufon, P. & Fong H. C. (1994). L1 and L2 vocabulary glosses in L2 reading passages: Their effectiveness for increasing comprehension and vocabulary knowledge. Journal of Research in Reading, 17, 19-28.
Joe, A. (1995). Text-based tasks and incidental vocabulary learning. Second Language Research, 11, 149-158.
Joe, A. (1998). What effects do text-based tasks promoting generation have on incidental vocabulary acquisition? Applied Linguistics, 19, 357-377.
Knight, S. (1994). Dictionary use while reading: The effects on comprehension and vocabulary acquisition for students of different verbal abilities. Modern Language Journal, 78, 285-299.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
Laufer, B., Hollander, M., & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and reoccurrence of unknown words. Modern Language Journal, 80, 327-339.
Laufer, B. (2001). Reading, word-focused activities and incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Prospect, 16, 44-54.
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22, 1-26.
Loschky, L. (1994). Comprehensible input and second language acquisition: What is the relationship? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 303-323.
Luppesku, S., & Day, R. R. (1993). Reading, dictionary, and vocabulary learning. Language Learning, 43, 263-287.
McLaughlin, B. (1965). Intentional and incidental learning in human subjects: The role of instructions to learn and motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 359-376.
Nation, P. & Coady, J. (1988). Vocabulary and reading. In R. Carter & M. McCarthy (Eds), Vocabulary and language teaching (pp. 97-110). London: Longman.
Nation, P., & Wang, M. K. (1999). Graded readers and vocabulary. Reading in a Foreign Language, 12, 355-379.
Nagy, W., Herman, P., & Anderson, R. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 233-253.
Nelson, T. O. (1977). Repetition and depth of processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 151-171.
Newton, J. (1995). Task-based interaction and incidental vocabulary learning: A case study. Second Language Research, 11, 159-177.
Paribakht, T. S. & Wesche, M. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary acquisition. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition (pp. 175-200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Prince, P. (1996). Second language vocabulary learning: The role of context versus translation as a function of proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 478-493.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
Schmidt, R. W. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed), Cognition and second language instruction, 3-32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Singleton, D. (1999). Exploring the second language metal lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching (pp. 327-348). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input and second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhover (Eds.), Principles and practice in the study of language (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swanborn, M.S.L. & Glopper, K. D. (2002). Impact of reading purpose on incidental
learning from context. Language Learning, 52, 95-117.
Van Daalen-Kapteijns, M., Elshout-Mohr, M. & de Glopper, K. (2001). Deriving the meaning of unknown words from multiple contexts. Language Learning, 51, 145-181.
Watanabe, Y. (1997). Input, intake, and retention: Effects of increased processing on incidental learning of foreign language vocabulary. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 287-307.
Wesche, M. B. & Paribakht, T. S. (2000). Reading-based exercises in second language vocabulary learning: an introspective study. Modern Language Journal, 84, 196-213.
Williams, J. N. (1999). Memory, attention, and inductive learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 1-48.
Winter, B. & Reber, A. S. (1994). Implicit learning and the acquisition of natural languages. In N. C. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 115-145). London: Academic Press.