Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 21, No. 0, pp.969-980
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2021
Received 07 Sep 2021 Revised 25 Sep 2021 Accepted 28 Sep 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.21..202109.969

한국 성인 영어 학습자의 영작 장르별 어휘 빈도 프로파일과 어휘 사이즈

강동호
서울과학기술대학교
Lexical frequency profile & vocabulary size in Korean adult EFL learners’ writing genre
Dongho Kang
Professor, Dept. of English Language and Literature, Seoul Nat’l University of Science and Technology, Tel: (02) 970-6250 dh14kang@seoultech.ac.kr


© 2021 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The present study aims to investigate how different Korean adult EFL learners’ productive vocabulary uses are among the writings of different genre. For the data analysis, AntWordProfiler was used to find Lexical Frequency Profile (GSL 1,000, GSL 2,000, AWL and others) and vocabulary size using British National Corpus (BNC)/Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) in the un-timed writing samples of definition, process, descriptive, and opinion genre. The findings showed that there were differences in LFP and vocabulary size per writing genre, especially, in GSL 2,000 word level. For example, GSL 2,000 words in descriptive writings were used more significantly than process and opinion ones, and those in definition writings more than opinion ones. In the vocabulary size of BNC/COCA per genre, 4,000, 5,000, 6,000, and 7,000 word levels were used in opinion, descriptive, process, and definition writing genres respectively in terms of about 98% of the word token used in writings. Pedagogical implications are discussed at the end.

Keywords:

lexical frequency profile, BNC/COCA, writing genre, AntWordProfiler, definition writing, process writing, descriptive writing, opinion writing

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Research Program funded by the SeoulTech (Seoul National University of Science and Technology).

References

  • 윤현숙(Yoon, H.). 2010. 한국 학생들의 영어 작문에 나타난 생산적 어휘에 관한 분석(An analysis of productive vocabulary in Korean learners’ L2 writing). ≪영어학≫(Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics) 10(1), 85-104.
  • Anthony, L. 2015. [Computer Program]. http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antwordprofiler/
  • Beglar, D. and A. Hunt. 1999. Revising and validating the 2000 word level and university word level vocabulary tests. Language Testing 16(2), 131-162. [https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229901600202]
  • Coxhead, A. 2000. A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly 34(2), 213-238. [https://doi.org/10.2307/3587951]
  • Csomay, E. and A. Prades. 2018. Academic vocabulary in ESL student papers: A corpus-based study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 33, 100-118. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.02.003]
  • Goodfellow, R., Lamy, M. and G. Jones. 2002. Assessing learners’ writing using lexical frequency. ReCALL 14(1), 133-145. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344002001118]
  • Higginbotham, G. and J. Reid. 2019. The lexical sophistication of second language learners’ academic essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 37, 127-140. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.12.002]
  • Hu, M. and P. Nation. 2000. Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language 13(1), 403-430.
  • Ibrahim, E. Muhamad, J. and Z. Esa. 2019. A comparison of lexical richness in L2 written productions. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning 14(20), 174-181. [https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i20.11467]
  • Kim, S-Y. and Y. Ryoo. 2011. Korean EFL learners’ vocabulary use in reading-based writing according to topic and learner proficiency. English Teaching 66(1), 91-109. [https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.66.1.201103.91]
  • Laufer. B. 1989. What percentage of text-lexis is essential for comprehension? In C. Lauren, and M. Nordman eds., Special Language: From Humans Thinking to Thinking Machines, 316-323. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
  • Laufer, B. and P. Nation. 1995. Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics 16(3), 307-22. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.307]
  • Laufer, B. and G. Ravenhorst-Kalovski. 2010. Lexical threshold revisited: Lexical text coverage, learners’ vocabulary size and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language 22(1), 15-30.
  • Muncie. J. 2002. Process writing and vocabulary development: Comparing lexical frequency profiles across drafts. System 30(2), 225-235. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00006-4]
  • Nation. P. 2001. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. New York: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524759]
  • Nation. P. 2006. How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian Modern Language Review 63(1), 59-82. [https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.1.59]
  • Nation, P. and A. Heatley. 2002. RANGE: A Program for the Analysis of Vocabulary in Texts. http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/about/staff/paulnation
  • Ryoo. Y. 2018. Comparing lexical diversity and lexical sophistication in Korean EFL writing: Topic and text length. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning 21(3), 63-87.
  • Schmitt, N. Jiang, X. and W. Grabe. 2011. The percentage of words known in a text and reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal 95(1), 26-43. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01146.x]
  • Webb, S. and P. Nation. 2017. How Vocabulary Is Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • West. M. 1953. A General Service List of English Words. London: Longman, Green & Co.