(A) corpus-based study of Chinese curriculum word list for high school learners in EFL context

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Well-known frequency word lists have long been used as a basis for course design for EFL learners at primary and senior school systems, for high frequency words give a better learning return for learners. Previous research on frequency word lists has been mainly concerned with testing learners’ vocabulary knowledge, and examining how much vocabulary is needed to read novels, watch a movie and read college textbooks for specific purposes. However, in addition to the well-known frequency word lists, there is another type of word list produced by EFL countries. Such word lists have official status and guide all the learning and teaching activities, but the origin of such word lists is not clear. Furthermore, these lists would benefit from description and evaluation. Thus, the current study explores this line of research. The study has three main purposes: (1) to investigate the vocabulary size level necessary to read high school textbooks; (2) to compare three high frequency word lists, namely, the General Service List (GSL), Academic Word List (AWL), and BNC/COCA3000 List, with the Curriculum Word List (CWL) produced by the Chinese Ministry of Education. This comparison examines which word list is most appropriate for Chinese high school learners. (3) to examine whether there are significant differences in Chinese high school learners’ vocabulary knowledge, including productive vocabulary size and depth of vocabulary knowledge, when their English proficiency level changes. To achieve research aims, the study uses a corpus-based analysis of two sets of authorized high school textbooks, the New Standard English textbooks (NSE) and the People’s Education Press textbooks (PEP). Additionally, there is a text-based analysis of high school students’ writing samples and Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS). The two textbook corpora are analyzed using Range software and WordSmith 6.0. The scores of writing samples are analyzed using Range and SPSS and scores of VKS tests are also analyzed using SPSS. The main results of the current study demonstrate the following: (1) Knowing the most frequent 2000 words is not enough to read high school textbooks. Furthermore a 3000-3500 word-family vocabulary is necessary to read high school textbooks if we accept that 95% lexical coverage indicates necessary reading comprehension; (2) the BNC/COCA3000 list provides a better coverage of high school textbooks than the GSL and AWL. In addition, the CWL, consisting of smaller word families, provides only 1% lower coverage than the BNC/COCA3000 list, but covers a wider range of textbooks. This suggests that the CWL gives a better return on learning than the BNC/COCA3000 List, for learners only need to learn 2637 instead of 3000 word families to have almost identical lexical coverage; (3) Learners with different proficiency groups do not perform differently at the high frequency 2000 words, but they show significant performance differences when making use of words at the AWL level. The findings of this study suggest three areas for improving vocabulary teaching: focusing on explicit instructions for high frequency words, lessening the vocabulary load of low frequency words in reading texts, and encouraging learners to make use of receptive words in writings.

Key words: Chinese Curriculum Word List; high school textbook corpus; lexical coverage; high school learners’ vocabulary knowledge

국문 초록 (Abstract)

단어의 사용빈도를 기반으로 한 어휘목록은 오랫동안 중학교 및 고등학교 EFL (English as a Foreign Language) 학습자를 위한 과목설계의 기초로 사용되어 있다. 사용 빈도수가 높은 단어의 학습은 학습자에게 더 좋은 학습 효과를 제공할 수 있다. 기존 선행 연구에서는 단어의 사용빈도를 기반으로 한 어휘 목록 검토 및 학습자의 어휘수준 테스트와 교과서 독해를 위해 필요한 어휘양에 대한 파악하고자 하였다. 그러나 EFL 국가의 어휘 목록은 빈도 기반 외 다른 기준들을 적용하는데 이런 어휘 목록들의 출처, 적용범위 및 평가에 대한 방향과 설명이 필요하다. 본 연구는 다음 같은 세가지 주요 목적을 가진다. 첫째, 중국에서 고등학교 교과서를 읽기 위해 필요한 어휘양을 조사한다. 둘째, 기존 연구에 사용되어 온 어휘목록(the BNC/COCA high frequency lists, General Service List, Academic Word List)과 중국 교육부에서 만든 Curriculum Word List (CWL)목록을 비교하여 어떤 어휘목록이 중국 고등학교 학습자에게 더 적절한가를 조사한다. 셋째, 중국 고등학교 학생들의 영어 수준에 따른 고어휘 지식을 조사한다. 위 연구 목표를 달성하기 위해 코퍼스를 바탕으로 한 두가지 분석방법을 사용하였다. 첫째, 중국에서 최근 새로이 개발된 고등학교 교과서 2세트, 즉 NSE (New Standard English textbooks) 신표준영어 교과서와 PEP (People’s Education Press textbooks) 인민교육출판사교과서에 대한 어휘 리스트를 분석한다. 둘째, 학생의 작문텍스트과 어휘지식표를(Vocabulary Knowledge Scale) 사용하여 학습자 생산어휘지식의 수준을 조사한다. Range 소프트웨어 및 WordSmith 6.0를 사용하여 두 교과서의 어휘 리스트를 분석하며 SPSS를 사용하여 학생들의 작문 텍스트 결과를 분석, 그리고 SPSS를 사용하여 VKS 테스트 결과를 분석한다. 본 연구의 결과는 다음과 같다. (1)중국 고등학생은 사용빈도2000수준의 단어를 습득해도 교과서를 이해하기 어렵다. 교과서 분석 결과, 3000–3500개 단어를 습득해야 95 %의 어휘 점유율로 교과서를 이해 가능한 것으로 나타났다. (2) General Service List (GSL) 어휘 그리고 Academic Word List (AWL) 보다 BNC/COCA3000 List가 중국 고등학교 교과서에 더 많이 포함되어 있는 것으로 나타났다. 이밖에 중국 CWL 표과BNC/COCA3000 List 고빈도 어휘표랑 비교 시, CWL은 상대적으로 적은 수의 어휘 수 (word family)를 포함하며 고등학교 교과의 점유율에 대한 BNC/COCA3000 고빈도 어휘표 보다 낮은 것으로 나타났다. (3) 영어 능력에 따른 어휘 수준은, 2000빈도 수준에서는 발견되지 않았으나 AWL 에서는 뚜렷이 나타났다.
키워드: 중국 과목표준 어휘 목록, 고등학교 교과서 어휘 점유율, 중국 고등 학생 어휘 지식

목차 (Table of Contents)

• CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
• 1.1 Vocabulary learning and teaching in EFL context 2
• 1.1.1 The role of vocabulary in EFL learning and teaching 2
• 1.1.2 The Chinese context 3
• 1.2 Research background on the uses of frequency-based word lists 5
• 1.2.1 The use of frequency word lists for EFL syllabus design 6
• 1.2.2 The use of frequency word lists for lexical threshold 7
• 1.2.3 The use of frequency word lists for testing vocabulary knowledge 9
• 1.3 Research gaps 10
• 1.4 Research questions 12
• 1.5 Research significance 14
• 1.6 Outline of the research 15
• CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 16
• 2.1 Word lists used for EFL course design 16
• 2.2 Word lists used for lexical threshold 19
• 2.2.1 Studies on the lexical threshold and reading 19
• 2.2.2 Studies on vocabulary size level and reading 22
• 2.3 Word lists used for testing vocabulary knowledge 26
• 2.3.1 Test of productive vocabulary size in writing 27
• 2.3.2 Test of depth of vocabulary knowledge 31
• 2.4 Well-known word lists 34
• 2.4.1 2000-word level word lists 35
• 2.4.2 Word lists beyond 2000-word level 37
• CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 40
• 3.1 Methodological issues 40
• 3.2 Participants and setting 41
• 3.2.1 Setting 41
• 3.2.2 The goal of high school English teaching 42
• 3.2.3 Participants 43
• 3.3 High school English textbook corpus 44
• 3.3.1 New Standard English textbook corpus 44
• 3.3.2 People’s Education Press textbook corpus 45
• 3.3.3 The differences between NSE and PEP corpus 45
• 3.4 Chinese Curriculum Word List for high school learners 47
• 3.5 Instruments 49
• 3.5.1 Instruments for analyzing high school textbook corpora 49
• 3.5.2 Instruments for testing learners’ vocabulary knowledge 57
• 3.5.3 Instruments for testing learners’ English proficiency levels 60
• 3.5.4 Summary of the instruments 61
• 3.6 Procedure 61
• 3.7 Test scoring 62
• 3.8 Summary 63
• CHAPTER 4 RESULTS 65
• 4.1 Results for the research question 1 65
• 4.1.1 Coverage of high school textbook corpus by the GSL and AWL 66
• 4.1.2 Inclusion of word families of the GSL and AWL in textbook corpus 69
• 4.1.3 Occurrence times of words in GSL and AWL in textbook corpus 70
• 4.2 Results for the research question 2 72
• 4.2.1 The description of the Curriculum Word List in terms of frequency 73
• 4.2.2 Coverage of textbook corpus by the Curriculum Word List 75
• 4.2.3 The non-occurred curriculum words in textbook corpus 76
• 4.2.4 Curriculum words with one-time occurrence in textbook corpus 78
• 4.3 Results for the research question 3 79
• 4.3.1 Coverage of the overall textbook corpus by the BNC/COCA lists 81
• 4.3.2 Coverage of sub-corpora of textbook corpus by the BNC/COCA lists 84
• 4.3.3 Inclusion of word families of the BNC/COCA lists 85
• 4.4 Results for the research question 4 86
• 4.4.1 The difference in lexical coverage provided by four word lists 87
• 4.4.2 The difference in the inclusion of word families in four word lists 88
• 4.5 Results for the research question 5 90
• 4.5.1 Learners’ productive vocabulary size 91
• 4.5.2 Depth of learners’ vocabulary knowledge 95
• CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 97
• 5.1 Discussion 97
• 5.1.1 Discussions for the research question 1 97
• 5.1.2 Discussions for the research question 2 101
• 5.1.3 Discussions for the research question 3 104
• 5.1.4 Discussions for the research question 4 107
• 5.1.5 Discussions for the research question 5 110
• 5.2 Summary of the main findings 116
• 5.3 Implications for vocabulary teaching 118
• 5.4 Limitations and suggestions for future research 123
• REFERENCES 125
• ABSTRACT 139
• 국문초록 142
• APPENDICES 144