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. 19, No. 3, pp.539-559
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print)
Print publication date 30 Sep 2019
Received 10 Aug 2019 Revised 10 Sep 2019 Accepted 19 Sep 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.19.3.201909.539

코메트릭스를 활용한 한국 대학생들의 영어 논설문과 설명문 요약문 비교 분석

전문기 ; 최윤희
교수, 영어영문학과, 건국대학교, 서울시 광진구 능동로 120, Tel: 02) 450-3356 mjeon1@konkuk.ac.kr
교수, 영어교육과, 총신대학교, 서울시 동작구 사당로 143, Tel: 02) 3479-0382 yhchoi@chongshin.ac.kr
A Coh-Metrix analysis of Korean EFL learners’ summary writings in the English argumentative and expository texts
Moongee Jeon ; Yoonhee Choe
Professor, Dept. of English, Konkuk University, 120 Neungdong-ro, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul 05029, Korea, Tel: 02) 450-3356 mjeon1@konkuk.ac.kr
Professor, Dept. of English Education, Chongshin University, 143 Sadang-ro, Dongjak-gu, Seoul 06988, Korea, Tel: 02) 3479-0382 yhchoi@chongshin.ac.kr

Abstract

This study aims to investigate to what extent Korean EFL learners’ summary writings of the English argumentative and expository texts are different in terms of lexical, semantic, syntactic, discourse features and readability levels. The participants were 26 Korean college students majoring in English language education in a university located in Seoul. Their summary writings of English argumentative and expository texts were collected and analyzed using a computational assessment tool, Coh-Metrix. Besides, the results of Coh-Metrix analysis were compared using ANOVA. The results indicate that the participants’ summary writings in the two different text types were statistically different in terms of their lexical, semantic, syntactic, discourse features and the readability levels. In particular, the participants used more words, longer sentences, more low-frequency and concrete words and adjectives in their argumentative summary. In contrast, the participants used more nouns and verbs in their expository summary. For syntactic and discourse features, more additional conjunctions, syntactic complexity and more co-referential cohesion were shown in their argumentative summary. This study provides some pedagogical implications for teaching Korean EFL learners’ summary writings of different English text types and raising text-specific linguistic features.

Keywords:

Coh-Metrix, English summary writing, argumentative text, expository text, linguistic feature, computational linguistics

Acknowledgments

이 논문은 2018년도 건국대학교 KU학술연구비 지원에 의한 논문임.

건국대학교 KU학술연구비는 교신저자와 무관함.

References

  • 곽혜영(Kwak, H.). 2018. 한국인 대학생 영어 학습자의 요약문에 나타난 패러프레이즈 사용에 관한 연구(A study on the paraphrasing usage of Korean university students in English summary writing). ⟪언어과학연구⟫(Journal of Linguistic Science) 85-1, 1-23.1 [https://doi.org/10.21296/jls.2018.06.85.1]
  • 김미혜·이성원(Kim, M. and S. Kim). 2018. EBS 자료와 CSAT 및 영어교과서 어휘 분석(Vocabulary analysis on EBS materials, CSAT, and English textbooks). ⟪예술인문사회융합멀티미디어논문지⟫(Asia-pacific Journal of Multimedia Services Convergent with Art, Humanities, and Sociology) 8-4, 417-427.
  • 김정덕(Kim, J. D.). 2019. 한국 대학생들의 요약하기 능력 부족에 관한 질적 연구(A qualitative study on Korean college students’ lack of summarizing ability). ⟪영어교과교육⟫(Journal of the Korea English Education Society) 18-1, 1-23. [https://doi.org/10.19068/jtel.2019.23.1.04]
  • 김제우·이동주(Kim, J. and D. J. Lee). 2017. 코퍼스기반 고등학교 어휘 사용 연구(A corpus-based study on the use of vocabulary in high school English I·II textbooks, college scholastic ability tests, and EBS materials). ⟪언어과학연구⟫(The Journal of Linguistic Science) 80, 51-74. [https://doi.org/10.21296/jls.2017.03.80.51]
  • 배식한(Bae, S. H.). 2019. 담론의 네 양식을 이용한 대학 글쓰기 교육- 묘사, 서사, 설명, 논증의 필요성과 활용 방안(Academic writing education using four modes of discourse: The need for description, narration, exposition, and argumentation and a way to use them). ⟪리터러시연구⟫(The Korean Journal of Literacy Research) 10-1, 239-268.
  • 성일호(Sung, I.). 2014. 이독성 공식과 Coh-Metrix를 활용한 우리나라 고등학교 영어교과서 이독성 분석(An analysis of Korean high school English textbooks through readability formulae and Coh-Metrix). ⟪영어영문학연구⟫(Studies in English Language & Literature) 40-4, 299-320. [https://doi.org/10.21559/aellk.2014.40.4.015]
  • 안수진(Ahn, S.). 2008. 한국인 대학생과 영어 원어민 대학생의 영어 설명문, 논설문의 코메트릭스 분석을 통한 비교(An analysis of Coh-Metrix on the differences in English expository and argumentative writing of Korean and native English university student). ⟪새한영어영문학⟫(New Korean Journal of English Language and Literature) 60-3, 177-205. [https://doi.org/10.25151/nkje.2018.60.3.009]
  • 전문기·임인재(Jeon, M-G and Lim, In– Jae). 2010. 고등학교 영어 교과서 읽기 자료의 코퍼스 언어학적 비교 분석(A corpus-based linguistic analysis of high school English textbooks). ⟪외국어 교육⟫(Foreign Languages Education) 17-1, 209-233.
  • 전문기(Jeon, M-G). 2011. Coh-Metrix를 이용한 중학교 1학년과 2학년 개정 영어교과서 읽기자료의 코퍼스 언어학적 연계성 분석(A corpus-based analysis of the continuity of the reading materials in middle school English 1 and 2 textbooks with Coh-Metrix). ⟪언어과학연구⟫(The Journal of Linguistic Science) 56, 201-218.
  • 최윤희(Choe, Y.). 2013. 국가영어능력평가시험 2급 쓰기 과업 유형이 한국 영어 학습자의 영어 쓰기 수행에 미치는 영향(The effects of writing task types in the National English Ability Test level 2 on Korean EFL learners’ English writing performance). ⟪영어학⟫(Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics) 13-1, 161-186. [https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.13.1.201303.161]
  • 황영민·이경남(Hwang, Y-M. and K-N, Lee). 2014. 고등학교 영어 교과서와 대학수학능력 영어시험의 어휘 비교. ⟪외국어교육⟫(Foreign Languages Education) 21-1, 191-214.
  • Bae, Jiyoung and Sujung Min 2017. A genre-based study of connectors in L2 students’ academic writing. Secondary English Education 10-1, 3-30.
  • Bailey, S. 2015. Academic Writing: A Hndbook for International Students. New York: Routledge. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315715346]
  • Choi, Y. H. 2012. Paraphrase practices for using sources in L2 academic writing. English Teaching 67-2, 51-79. [https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.67.2.201207.51]
  • Graesser, A. C., M. Jeon, Z. Cai and D. S. McNamara. 2008. Automatic analyses of language, discourse, and situation models. In J. Auracher and W. van Peer eds., New beginnings in literary studies, 72-88. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  • Graesser, A. C., M. Jeon, Y. Yan and Z. Cai. 2007. Discourse cohesion in text and tutorial dialogue. Information Design Journal 15-3, 199-213. [https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.15.3.02gra]
  • Graesser, A. C., D. S. McNamara, M. M. Louwerse and Z. Cai. 2004. Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 36-2, 193-202. [https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195564]
  • Hwang, E. 2012. Korean EFL College Learners’ Linguistic Features in Narrative and Argumentative Writings in terms of CAF. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Sookmyung Women’s University, Seoul.
  • Hwang, H. J. 2010. A comparison of summarizations of different text genres and their relationship to reading ability. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics 26-3, 69-99.
  • Kim, N. 2015. The use of paraphrase in L2 writing with two factors: L2 proficiency and source text genre. Modern English Education 16-3,71-97.
  • Kim, S-A. 2016. Characteristics of Korean high school students’ summary writing of English reading texts. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics 32-4, 89-118. [https://doi.org/10.17154/kjal.2016.12.32.4.89]
  • Kim, Y. 2013. Students’ learning processes and outcomes through text summary as a reading strategy. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 13-1, 17-49. [https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.13.1.201303.17]
  • Landauer, T. K., P. W. Foltz and D. Laham. 1998. Introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes 25, 259-284. [https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539809545028]
  • McGee, I. 2014. The pragmatics of paragraphing English argumentative text. Journal of Pragmatics 68, 40-72. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.002]
  • Min, S., J. K. Paek, and Y. Kang. 2019. Exploring the use of hedges and stance devices in relation to Korean EFL learners’ argumentative writing qualities. English Teaching 74-1, 3-23. [https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.2019.03.74.1.3]
  • Park, H. and H. Lee. 2018. The effects of task complexity on Korean adult EFL learners’ summary writing. Modern English Education 19-1, 62-75.
  • Park, S-K. 2013. Korean EFL learners’ use of cohesive devices in narrative and argumentative essays. Studies in English Education 18-2, 51–81.
  • Robinson, P. 2001. Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics 22-1, 27-57. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.27]
  • Yasuda, S. 2011. Genre-based tasks in foreign language writing: Developing writers’ genre awareness, linguistic knowledge, and writing competence. Journal of Second Language Writing 20, 111–133 [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.03.001]