Lexical Profiles of Korean EFL Summary Writing From Online Spoken Texts
2
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study explores Korean university students’ vocabulary use in summary writing from three different spoken texts. One hundred and thirty eight summary writing samples from 46 first-year university students were analyzed using VocabProfile to see whether the three spoken texts lead to different lexical profiles according to source texts and English language proficiency levels (vocabulary and reading scores on TOEIC). VocabProfile is an online program that classifies words in texts into first (K1) and second thousand (K2) levels, academic words (AWL), and the remainder or off-list words (OLW) based on word frequency lists. The data analysis revealed that students’ lexical profiles in summary writing from three source texts were significantly different from each other with respect to all words except for AWL. Especially, the lexical distribution patterns in the summary writing samples were very similar to those in the three source texts. In terms of English proficiency levels in reading and vocabulary, no significant difference in lexical profiles was found according to students’ reading scores, while students’ vocabulary scores yielded significant differences in CW and OLW of the third source text, with no differences in the other two written summaries from the rest of the source texts. These findings suggest that, in comparison to reading and vocabulary proficiency, source text has a greater influence on Korean EFL learners’ vocabulary use in summary writing. Also, vocabulary scores are more predictive of Korean EFL learners’ vocabulary use in their summary writing than reading scores.
Abstract
This study explores Korean university students’ vocabulary use in summary writing from three different spoken texts. One hundred and thirty eight summary writing samples from 46 first-year university students were analyzed using VocabProfile to see whether the three spoken texts lead to different lexical profiles according to source texts and English language proficiency levels (vocabulary and reading scores on TOEIC). VocabProfile is an online program that classifies words in texts into first (K1) and second thousand (K2) levels, academic words (AWL), and the remainder or off-list words (OLW) based on word frequency lists. The data analysis revealed that students’ lexical profiles in summary writing from three source texts were significantly different from each other with respect to all words except for AWL. Especially, the lexical distribution patterns in the summary writing samples were very similar to those in the three source texts. In terms of English proficiency levels in reading and vocabulary, no significant difference in lexical profiles was found according to students’ reading scores, while students’ vocabulary scores yielded significant differences in CW and OLW of the third source text, with no differences in the other two written summaries from the rest of the source texts. These findings suggest that, in comparison to reading and vocabulary proficiency, source text has a greater influence on Korean EFL learners’ vocabulary use in summary writing. Also, vocabulary scores are more predictive of Korean EFL learners’ vocabulary use in their summary writing than reading scores.
참고문헌 (29)
- Baba, K., "Aspects of lexical proficiency in writing summaries in a foreign language", Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(3), pp.191~208 (2009)
- Chen, Y-S., "A genre-based approach to teaching EFL summary writing", ELT Journal, 66(2), pp.184~192 (2012)
- (2002)[URL]
- Cumming, A., "Differences in written discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks for next generation TOEFL", Assessing Writing, 10, pp.5~43 (2005)
- Dang, T. N. Y., "The lexical profile of academic spoken English", English for Specific Purposes, 33, pp.66~76 (2014)
- Engber, C. A., "The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL composition", Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, pp.139~155 (1995)
- Hyland, K., "Is there an 'academic vocabulary'?", TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), pp.235~253 (2007)
- Jacobs, H., "Testing ESL composition: A practical approach" (1981), Newbury House
- Jiuliang, L., "Examining genre effects on test takers’ summary writing performance", Assessing Writing, 22(1), pp.75~90 (2014)
- Keck, C., "The use of paraphrase in summary writing: A comparison of L1 and L2 writers", Journal of Second Language Writers, 15(4), pp.261~278 (2006)
- Keck, C., "Copying, paraphrasing, and academic writing development: A reexamination of L1 and L2 summarization practices", Journal of Second Language Writing, 25(1), pp.4~22 (2014)
- Laufer, B., "Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production", Applied Linguistics, 16(3), pp.307~322 (1995)
- Lee, Sunjung, "The impact of topic interest, L2 proficiency, and gender on EFL incidental vocabulary acquisition through reading", Language Teaching Research, 20(1), pp.1~18 (2016)
- Li, M., "The effects of vocabulary breadth and depth on English reading", Applied Linguistics, 36(5), pp.611~634 (2015)
- Li, Y. k., "Strategies of writing summaries for hard news texts: A text analysis approach", Discourse Studies, 16(1), pp.89~105 (2014)
- Plakans, L., "Comparing composing processes in writing-only and reading-to-write test tasks", Assessing Writing, 13(2), pp.111~129 (2008)
- Plakans, L., "Independent vs. integrated writing tasks: A comparison of task representation", TESOL Quarterly, 44(1), pp.185~194 (2010)
- Qian, D. D., "Assessing the roles of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension", Canadian Modern Language Review, 56(2), pp.282~308 (1999)
- Qian, D. D., "Investigating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and academic reading performance: An assessment perspective", Language Learning, 52(3), pp.513~536 (2002)
- Read, J., "Assessing vocabulary" (2000), Cambridge University Press
- Reid, J., "Second language writing:Research insights for the classroom", pp.191~210 (1990), Cambridge University Press
- Schoonen, R., "First language and second language writing: The role of linguistic knowledge, speed of processing, and metacognitive knowledge", Language Learning, 53(1), pp.165~202 (2003)
- Shi, L., "Textual borrowing in second language writing", Written Communication, 21(2), pp.171~200 (2004)
- Shi, L., "Rewriting and paraphrasing source texts in second language writing", Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(2), pp.134~148 (2012)
- Shin, Sun-Young, "What accounts for integrated reading-to-write task scores?", Language Testing, 32(2), pp.259~281 (2015)
- Weigle, S. C., "Integrating reading and writing in a competency test for non-native speakers of English", Assessing Writing, 9(1), pp.27~55 (2004)
- Yamada, K., "Comparison of two summary", text-integration writing tasks requiring different inferential processes, 2002, pp.33(2), 142~156
- Yang, W., "Different topics, different discourse:Relationships among writing topic, measures of syntactic complexity, and judgments of writing quality", Journal of Second Language Writing, 28(1), pp.53~67 (2015)
- Yu, G., "The shifting sands in the effects of source text summarizability on summary writing", Assessing Writing, 14(2), pp.116~137 (2009)