The Journal of the Convergence on Culture Technology (문화기술의 융합)

The International Promotion Agency of Culture Technology (국제문화기술진흥원)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Relationship between Lexical Sophistication Features and English Proficiency for Korean College Students using TAALES Program

TAALES 프로그램을 활용하여 한국 대학생이 작성한 에세이에 나타난 어휘의 정교화 특성 비교

  • Lee, Young-Ju (Dept. of English Language and Literature, Hanbat National University)
  • 이영주 (한밭대학교 영어영문학과)
  • Received : 2021.07.31
  • Accepted : 2021.08.09
  • Published : 2021.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study investigates the relationship between lexical sophistication features and English proficiency for Korean college students. Essays from the ICNALE(International Corpus Network of Asian Learners of English) corpus were analyzed, using TAALES program. In order to examine whether or not there are statistically significant differences in lexical sophistication features across three groups, MANOVA was conducted. Results showed that the lexical sophistication features were significantly affected by English proficiency level. Essays written by Korean students with different English proficiency levels can be differentiated in terms of various lexical sophistication features including content words frequency, content words familiarity, lexical decision mean reaction time function words, hypernymy verbs, word naming response time function words, age of acquisition content words.

본 연구는 자동화된 어휘 분석 프로그램인 TAALES를 활용하여 영어능력 수준과 어휘의 정교화 지표간의 관계를 살펴본다. 본 연구에서는 ICNALE 코퍼스에 포함된 한국인 대학생이 작성한 에세이 600개를 분석하였다. 본 연구에서는 영어 수준별로 어휘의 정교화 특성이 통계적으로 유의미하게 다르게 나타나는가를 살펴보기 위해 다변량 분산분석이 수행되었다. 다변량 분산분석 결과 어휘의 정교화 지표가 통계적으로 유의미한 것으로 나타났으며, 이는 상. 중. 하의 세 개의 집단에 따라 어휘의 정교화 지표의 평균벡터에 유의미한 차이가 있고 상. 중. 하의 세 집단은 어휘의 정교화 지표의 사용이 유의미하게 다르다는 것을 보여준다. 세 집단 간에 가장 큰 차이를 보인 어휘의 정교화 지표는 내용어의 빈도, 내용어의 친숙도, 기능어의 어휘 결정 반응 평균 시간, 상위어 동사, 기능어의 워드 네이밍 반응시간, 내용어의 어휘 습득 연령으로 나타났다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ellis, R. Modified oral input and the acquisition of word meanings. Applied Linguistics, 16, pp. 409-435. 1995. DOI : 10.1093/applin/16.4.409
  2. Brown. D. Teaching by Principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd edition). Pearson Longman. 2010.
  3. Jung, Y., Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. Linguistic features in MELAB writing task performances. CaMLA Working Papers. 2013.
  4. Engber, C. A. The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, pp. 139-155. 1995. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(95)90004-7
  5. Kim, M., Crossley, S. A., & Kyle, K. Lexical sophistication as a multidimensional phenomenon: Relation to second language lexical proficiency, development, and writing quality. The Modern Language Journal, 102(1), pp. 120-141. 2018. DOI : 10.1111/modl.12447
  6. Nation, P. Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 2013.
  7. Laufer, B., & Nation, P. Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16, pp. 307-322. 1995. DOI : 10.1093/applin/16.3.307
  8. Kim, Jeong-ryeol. Continuity problems of elementary and secondary English education: Sequence analysis of English textbooks. Language Research, 50(1), pp. 161-184. 2014.
  9. Song, Hae Sung. Exploring the connectedness of listening tasks according to grades in high school English textbooks. English Language & Literature Teaching, 19(4), pp. 279-305. 2013.
  10. Jeon, Moongee & Lim, Injae. A Corpus-based analysis of middle school English 1 textbooks with Coh-Metrix. English Language Teaching, 21(4), pp. 265-292. 2009. https://doi.org/10.17936/pkelt.2009.21.4.012
  11. Jeon, Moongee. An analysis of the continuity among middle school English textbooks with an automated language analysis program. Modern English Education, 16(1), pp. 195-218. 2015.
  12. Jeong, Mi-Kyung & Kim, Nam Gook. An analysis of the linguistic features on the corpus of Korean EFL learners and native English speakers with Coh-Metrix. Studies in Linguistics, 33, pp. 373-395. 2014.
  13. Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. Computational assessment of lexical differences in L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, pp. 119-135. 2009. DOI : 10.1016/j.jslw.2009.02.002
  14. Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. Predicting second language writing proficiency: The role of cohesion, readability, and lexical difficulty. Journal of Research in Reading, 35, pp. 115-135. 2012. DOI : 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01449.x|
  15. Guo, L., Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. Predicting human judgments of essay quality in both integrated and independent second language writing samples: A comparison study. Assessing Writing, 18, pp. 218-238. 2013. DOI : 10.1016/j.jslw.2013.05.002
  16. Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. Automatically assessing lexical sophistication: Indices, tools, findings, and applications. TESOL Quarterly, 49(4), pp. 757-786. 2015. DOI : 10.1002/tesq.194|
  17. Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. The relationship between lexical sophistication and independent and source-based writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 34, pp. 12-24. 2016. DOI : 10.1016/j.jslw.2016.10.003
  18. Yang, Byug-Hwa. Understanding Multivariate Data Analysis. Seoul: Communication Books. 2006.
  19. Coxhead, A. The academic word list 10 years on: Research and teaching implications, TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), pp. 355-362. 2011. DOI : 10.5054/tq.2011.254528