英语专业学生作文词汇多样性和句法复杂性研究文献综述

 2021-12-30 20:46:50

全文总字数：10355字

文献综述

English Majors Lexical Variety and Sophistication in Writing 英语专业学生作文词汇多样性和复杂度研究1. Introduction1.1Background of the researchEnglish vocabulary output ability is an important indicator of English ability and a prerequisite for conveying accurate information. For a long time in the past, due to the influence of Chomskys universal grammar, grammar acquisition has become the focus of linguists attention, while the study of vocabulary acquisition has been neglected. It was not until the 1980s that vocabulary acquisition began to arouse people's attention. Nowadays, with the popularization of computers and the continuous development and update of related data statistics software, the research on English vocabulary output ability tends to adopt quantitative empirical research, revealing and analyzing the vocabulary output ability behind the research object through objective data. At the beginning of this century, researchers used the concept of "lexical richness" to define the breadth of output vocabulary knowledge of English learners ( eg: Arnaud, 1984; Engber, 1995; Laufer Read, 2000 ). Read (2000) believes that vocabulary richness should include four aspects: vocabulary diversity (class symbol/character ratio), vocabulary complexity (exceeding the percentage of the vocabulary in the first 2000 vocabulary), vocabulary density (substantial words in the total words Percentage of the number) and a small number of vocabulary errors. Compared with other researchers' definitions of vocabulary richness, Read's classification of vocabulary richness is considered to be more systematic and comprehensive, so it is more widely used. Among them, the vocabulary diversity and complexity in the category of vocabulary richness are generally accepted and recognized by scholars at home and abroad.1.2Purposes of the researchThe purpose of this research is threefold. First, the most simple and direct, explore what is the effect of English writing teaching on EFLs lexical variety output and lexical sophistication output. Secondly, explore the dynamic relationship between EFLs lexical variety and sophistication at different stages of English writing learning. The last served as the teaching and learning arrangement, which has far-reaching significant and meaningful.1.3 Organization of the researchThis thesis could be divided into five parts. The first chapter served as the general introduction, in which research background, research purposes and the organization of the research were stated. Chapter two was an overview of the literature, including the definitions of productive vocabulary knowledge, relevant theory and empirical studies on lexical variety and sophistication as a measure of productive vocabulary knowledge. In chapter three, methodology was adopted in this research, including research questions, participants, measurements of lexical variety and lexical sophistication, data collection and data analysis. Chapter four reported the key findings based on the analysis of the research data and a detailed discussion of the major findings. This thesis ended with the summary of the major findings, the theoretical and implications, and limitations and suggestions for the future research in Chapter Five.2.Literature ReviewVocabulary has always been the cornerstone of English writing. To a certain extent, the writing level of English learners can be regarded as a standard for evaluating their second language output ability, which can reflect the overall language level of the learners. Therefore, the vocabulary output ability in English composition can be used as an important indicator to evaluate the writing level of English learners. In this paper literature is reviewed in three parts, first on the theoretical and empirical research achievements on productive vocabulary knowledge, second on lexical variety and sophistication as a measure of productive vocabulary knowledgeand third on empirical studies on lexical variety and sophistication in this paper.2.1 Theoretical and empirical foundation2.1.1 Productive vocabularyNation (1990) divides vocabulary into receptive vocabulary and productive vocabulary. Nation believes that receptive vocabulary refers to vocabulary that learners can recognize and understand in reading or listening, while productive vocabulary refers to vocabulary that can be used correctly in oral expression or writing. Oxford (1990) believes that receptive vocabulary refers to words that learners can recognize and understand but cannot use. At the same time, productive vocabulary refers to words that learners can use with confidence. Vocabulary refers to the total amount of all vocabulary known by the learner (Anderson Freebody, 1981). Productive vocabulary refers to the total amount of all vocabulary that learners can produce in oral expression or writing, also known as "word knowledge width". Research has shown that the productive vocabulary not only has a direct impact on the learner's reading ability, but also has a close relationship with the quality of the learner's composition (Astika, 1993). Lexical richness is an important way to measure L2 learners productive vocabulary knowledge. As to the evaluation of lexical richness, Laufer (1991) regards the variables of lexical variation, lexical sophistication and lexical originally as the important indicators. Engber (1995) considers that lexical richness includes lexical variation with error, lexical variation without error, percentage of lexical error and lexical density. Laufer and Nation (1995) summarize four dimensions of lexical richness, respectively, lexical variation, lexical density, lexical sophistication and lexical originality.2.1.2 The lexical varietyMany second language researchers believe that high-level writers use less vocabulary repeatedly. Read (2000) believes that because high-level writers have a large vocabulary, they can use synonyms or other related words to avoid repetition. Vocabulary diversity refers to the type-token ratio of vocabulary in an article, and it is an important indicator to measure learners' vocabulary richness. Jarvis (2002: 81) found that Uber index is a more effective guessing method among the various measurement methods of measuring vocabulary diversity through many comparative studies. He not only confirmed this finding in his later research, but also proposed a method for measuring such lexical variety, and this method is more suitable for research with relatively small corpus. 2.1.3 The lexical sophisticationA large variety of lexical richness measures have been proposed in the language acquisition literature. Among several aspects of lexical richness, lexical sophistication, also known as lexical rareness, measures the proportion of relatively unusual or advanced words in the learns text (Read, 2000). The lexical sophistication is determined by the proportion of low-frequency words and high-frequency words in the article. The more low-frequency words used by the learner, the higher the vocabulary complexity of the article, and the higher the quality of the article. The most well-known measure of this sort is Laufer and Nations (1999) Lexical Frequency Profile (LFP), which looks at the proportion of words in several levels of word frequency list. In this thesis, the measurement of lexical sophistication is based on the word frequency scale in the RANGE software researched and developed by Laufer and Nation. The word frequency scale contains three vocabularies, which are 1,000 commonly used words, 1,000 sub-common words, academic and other 1,000 words. Commonly used words are high-frequency words, while academic and other words are low-frequency words.The main purpose of the study was to answer the following questions:1. What is the effect of English writing teaching method on EFLs lexical variety output?2. What is the effect of English writing teaching method on EFLs lexical sophistication output?3. Is there any dynamic relationship between EFLs lexical variety and sophistication at different stages of English writing learning?ReferencesAbbasian,G.R.,Parizad,S.M.(2011).Validationoflexicalfrequencyprofilesas ameasureoflexicalrichnessinwrittendiscourse.Journaloftechnology education,5(3),221-227.Anderson, Freebody. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. New York: International reading association.Astika, G.G. (1993). Analytic assessment of foreign students writing. RELC journal, (24), 61-72Engber, C. A. (1995). The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of second language writing 4(2), 139-155.Fellner,T.,Apple,M.(2006).Developingwritingfluencyandlexicalcomplexity withblogs.Thejaltcalljournal, 2(1),15-26.Ferris, D. R. (1994). Lexical and syntactic features of EFL writing by students at different level of L2 proficiency. TESOL quarterly, 28(2), 414-420.Gregg,N.,Coleman,C.,Davis,M.,Chalk,J.C.(2007). Timedessaywriting implicationsforhigh-stakestests.Journaloflearningdisabilities,40(4), 306-318.Laufer, B. (1991) The development of L2 lexis in the expression of the advanced learner. Modern language journal, 75(4), 440-448.Laufer,B.,Nation,P.(1995).Vocabularysizeanduse:lexicalrichnessinL2written production.Appliedlinguistics,16(3),307-322.Nation, I.S.P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Massachusetts: Victoria University, English language institute, 5.Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language and learning strategies: what every teacher should know. Newbury house publishers.Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge university press, 200-205Shah, S. K., Gill, A. A., Mahmood, R., Bilal, M. (2013). Lexical richness, a reliable measure of intermediate L2 learners' current status of acquisition of English language. Journal of education and practice, 4 (6), 42-47.Yu, G. (2010). Lexical diversity in writing and speaking task performances. Applied linguistics, 31, 236-259.Zareva, A. (2005). Models of Lexical knowledge assessment of second language learners of English at higher levels of language proficiency. System, 33, 547-562.鲍贵（2010），不同课程水平英语学习者词汇复杂性研究，《解放军外国语学院学报》（4）：55-60。

鲍贵（2011），英语学习者词汇复杂度的最新测量及验证，《山东外语教学》，（6）：44-52。

卜婷婷（2011）， 词汇丰富性与限时写作质量的关系研究，硕士学位论文。

南京：南京师范大学。

邓建群（2009），词汇丰富性与英语写作质量相关性，《河北理工大学学报》，（5）：113-116。

郭雨明（2015），中国英语专业学生词汇复杂度与说明文写作质量之间的关系探究，硕士学位论文。

广东：广东外语外贸大学。

陆芸、鲍贵、崔北亮（2013），英语学习者词汇复杂度三种测量方法对比研究，《解放军外国语学院学报》（5）：4448

剩余内容已隐藏，您需要先支付 10元 才能查看该篇文章全部内容！立即支付

以上是毕业论文文献综述，课题毕业论文、任务书、外文翻译、程序设计、图纸设计等资料可联系客服协助查找。

您可能感兴趣的文章