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

Lexical Sophistication Features to Distinguish the English Proficiency Level Using a Discriminant Function Analysis

판별분석을 통해 살펴본 영어 능력 수준을 구별하는 어휘의 정교화 특성

  • Lee, Young-Ju (Dept. of English Language and Literature, Hanbat National University)
  • 이영주 (한밭대학교 영어영문학과)
  • Received : 2022.08.19
  • Accepted : 2022.09.09
  • Published : 2022.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study explored the lexical sophistication features to distinguish the group membership of English proficiency, using the automatic analysis program of lexical sophistication. A total of 600 essays written by 300 Korean college students were extracted from the ICNALE (International Corpus Network of Asian Learners of English) corpus and a discriminant function analysis was performed using SPSS program. Results showed that the lexical features to distinguish three groups of English proficiency are SUBTLEXUS frequency content words, age of acquisition content words, lexical decision mean reaction time function words, and hypernymy verbs. High-level Korean students used frequent content words from SUBTLEXUS corpus to a lesser degree and produced more sophisticated words that can be learned at a later age and take longer reaction time in lexical decision task, and more concrete verbs.

본 연구는 영어 능력 수준을 구별할 수 있는 어휘적 정교화 특징이 무엇인지를 자동화된 어휘 분석 프로그램인 TAALES를 활용하여 탐색하였다. 300명의 한국 대학생이 쓴 총 600개의 에세이가 ICNALE 코퍼스에서 추출되었고 SPSS 프로그램의 판별 분석이 수행되었다. 판별 분석 결과 한국 대학생을 상. 중. 하의 세 개의 영어 능력 수준으로 유의미하게 구분하는 어휘 특성은 SUBTLEXUS 코퍼스의 내용어 빈도, 내용어의 어휘 습득 연령, 기능어의 어휘 결정 반응 평균 시간, 상위어 동사로 나타났다. 영어 능력 수준이 높은 상 수준 학생은 SUBTLEXUS 코퍼스에 빈번하게 나오는 어휘는 많이 사용하지 않았고, 어휘 습득 연령이 높고 어휘 결정 과업에서 평균 반응시간이 길게 나타난 정교화된 어휘와 구체적인 동사를 많이 사용한 특징이 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Jung, Y., Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. Linguistic Features in MELAB Writing Task Performances. CaMLA Working Papers. 2015.
  6. Kim, Sojung, & Jeon, Moongee. An analysis study of English writing of elementary school 6th grade English language learners using Coh-Metrix. Modern English Education, 17(3), 263-287. 2016.
  7. Yang, Byug-Hwa. Understanding Multivariate Data Analysis. Seoul: Communication Books. 2006.
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Nation, P. Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 2013.