SÖZCÜK DAĞARCIĞI BÜYÜKLÜĞÜ, SÖZCÜK ÇEŞİTLİLİĞİ, SÖZCÜK YOĞUNLUĞU VE İNGİLİZCE YAZMA PUANLARI: KESİTSEL BİR ÇALIŞMA

Yıl 2023, , 2586 - 2613, 25.12.2023

Musa Tömen , Gül Durmuşoğlu Köse

https://doi.org/10.30783/nevsosbilen.1376253

Öz

Kelime bilgisi, dil öğreniminde, özellikle de ikinci dil (L2) edinimi bağlamında çok önemli bir rol oynar. Bir kelimeyi anlamak, onun biçimini, anlamını ve kullanımını kavramayı içerir, bu da kelime bilgisini hem alıcı hem de üretici L2 becerileri için çok önemli hale getirir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türk İngilizce Öğretmenliği (ELT) öğrencileri tarafından yazılan tartışmacı kompozisyonlarda sözcük dağarcığı boyutunu, sözcük yoğunluğunu ve sözcük çeşitliliğini değerlendirmek ve bunların yazma puanlarıyla ilişkisini araştırmaktır. Anadolu Üniversitesi İngilizce Öğretmenliği Bölümü'ndeki 165 birinci sınıf ve 144 dördüncü sınıf öğrencisinin 309 denemesinden oluşan veriler, öğrencilerin üretken sözcük dağarcığı boyutunu tahmin etmek için LFP, sözcük çeşitliliği için vocd-D ve bir sözcük yoğunluğu formülü kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Sonuçlar, sadece sözcük çeşitliliğinin birinci sınıf öğrencilerinin kompozisyon puanları ile anlamlı bir korelasyona sahip olduğunu ve performanslarının %7,8'ini açıkladığını ortaya koymuştur. Ancak, dördüncü sınıf kompozisyonları söz konusu olduğunda, değişkenlerin anlamlı bir etkisi gözlenmemiştir. Ayrıca, değişkenler birinci sınıf kompozisyonlarındaki kelime bilgisi puanlarının %8,7'sini açıklarken, dördüncü sınıf kompozisyonlarındaki kelime bilgisi puanlarını anlamlı bir şekilde açıklamamıştır. Dolayısıyla bu çalışma, sözcüksel özelliklerin önemli olmakla birlikte, yazma puanlarının tek belirleyicisi olmadığını göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kelime dağarcığı boyutu, Sözcüksel çeşitlilik, Sözcük yoğunluğu, İkinci dilde yazma, Türk İngilizce öğretmenliği öğrencileri

VOCABULARY SIZE, LEXICAL DIVERSITY, LEXICAL DENSITY, AND EFL WRITING SCORES: A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY

Öz

Vocabulary plays a crucial role in language learning, especially in the context of second language (L2) acquisition. Understanding a word involves grasping its form, meaning, and usage, making vocabulary knowledge pivotal for both receptive and productive L2 skills. This study aims to assess vocabulary size, lexical density, and lexical diversity in argumentative essays written by Turkish English Language Teaching (ELT) students and explore their correlation with writing scores. The data, comprising 309 essays from 165 first-year and 144 fourth-year students at Anadolu University's ELT Department, were analyzed using the LFP to estimate students' productive vocabulary size, vocd-D for lexical diversity, and a lexical density formula. The results revealed that only lexical diversity had a significant correlation with first-year students' essay scores, explaining 7.8% of their performance. However, in the case of fourth-year essays, no significant effects of the variables were observed. Additionally, while the variables accounted for 8.7% of vocabulary scores in first-year essays, they did not significantly explain fourth-year essays' vocabulary scores. Therefore, this study suggests that while lexical features are important, they are not the sole determinants of writing scores.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Vocabulary size, Lexical diversity, Lexical density, L2 writing, Turkish ELT students

Kaynakça

• Aitkuzhinova-Arslan, A., Gün, S., & Üstünel, E. (2016). Teaching vocabulary to Turkish young learners in semantically related and semantically unrelated sets by using digital storytelling. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(1), 42-54.
• Aliakbari, M., & Boghayeri, M. (2014). A needs analysis approach to ESP design in Iranian context. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 175-181.
• Avent, J.R, & Austermann, S (2003). Reciprocal scaffolding: a context for communication treatment in aphasia. Aphasiology, 17, 397-404
• Basoz, T., & Cubukcu, F. (2014). The effectiveness of computer assisted instruction on vocabulary achievement. Mevlana International Journal of Education, 4(1), 44-52.
• Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. (2009). Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality: Which measures? Which genre?. Reading and Writing, 22(2), 185–200.
• Begriche, F. (2014). The role of teaching vocabulary to enhance foreign language learners’ writing skill (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from http://dspace.univ- biskra.dz:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/4741
• Biber, D. 2006. University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Bogaards, P. (2000) Testing L2 Vocabulary Knowledge at a High Level: the case of the Euralex French Tests. Applied Linguistics, 21 (4), 490-516.
• Carrell, P.L., & Monroe, L.B. (1993). Learning styles and composition, The modern Language Journal, 77, 148-162.
• Choi, J. (2012). Self-Access English Learning Needs: Student and Teacher Perspectives. Listening, 42(49), 15.
• Coxhead, A. (2000). A New Academic Word List. TESOL QUARTERLY, 34 (2), 213- 238
• Cronbach, L. J. (1942). An analysis of techniques for diagnostic vocabulary testing. The journal of educational research, 36(3), 206-217.
• Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). Cohesion coherence, and expert evaluations of writing proficiency. In R. Catrambone, & S. Ohlsson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 984–989). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

• Çelik, S., & Toptaş, V. (2010). Vocabulary learning strategy use of Turkish EFL learners., Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 3, 62-71, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187704281001387X
• Dang, T. N. Y., & Webb, S. (2013). The lexical profile of academic spoken English. English for Specific Purposes. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2013.08.001
• deBoer, F. (2014). Evaluating the comparability of two measures of lexical diversity. System, 47, 139-145.
• Douglas, S. R. (2010). Non-native English speaking students at university: Lexical richness and academic success (Doctoral dissertation, University of Calgary).
• Ellis, R. (1994) The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Ellis, R. & He, X. (1999). The role of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285- 301.
• Engber, C.A. (1995) The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing 4, 2: 139-155.
• Fhonna, R. (2014). The correlation between mastering vocabulary and speaking ability (case study at SMA 10 Fajar Harapan Banda Aceh). Visipena, 5(1), 90-99.
• Folse, K. (2008). Myth 1: Teaching vocabulary is not the writing teacher’s job. In J. Reid (Ed.) Writing myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching (pp.1-17). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

• Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course.
• González, M. C. (2013). The intricate relationship between measures of vocabulary size and lexical diversity as evidenced in non-native and native speaker academic compositions (Doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida).
• Gregori-Signes, C., & Clavel-Arroitia, B. (2015). Analysing Lexical Density and Lexical Diversity in University Students⿿ Written Discourse. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 198, 546-556.
• Grela, Bernard G. (2002). Lexical verb diversity in children with Down syndrome. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 14, 251-263
• Hamouda, A. (2013). An investigation of listening comprehension problems encountered by Saudi students in the EL listening classroom. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 2(2), 113-155.
• Henriksen, B. (1999) Three dimensions of vocabulary development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21: 303-317
• Hu, M., & Nation, I. S. P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13(1), 403–430.
• Hunt, A., & Beglar, D. (2005). A framework for developing EFL reading vocabulary. Reading in a Foreign language, 17(1), 23.
• Hulstijn, J. and B. Laufer. 2001. Some empirical evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning 51: 539-558
• Jackson, M. E., (2004). Will electronic journals eliminate the need for ILL?, Interlending & Document Supply, 32(3), 192-193.
• Jarvis, S. (2002). Short texts, best-fitting curves and new measures of lexical diversity. Language Testing 19, 1: 57–84.
• Johansson, V. (2008). Lexical Diversity and Lexical Density in Speech and Writing: A Developmental Perspective. Working Papers, Lund University, Dept. of Linguistics and Phonetics. 53. pp. 61-79.
• Karakoç, D. (2016). The Impact Of Vocabulary Knowledge On Reading, Writing And Proficiency Scores Of B2.2 Level Turkish Students:
A study with Anadolu University English Prep-School Students, (Unpublished MA Thesis), Graduate School of Educational Sciences, Anadolu University, Eskişehir.
• Khotimah, S. (2014). The use of problem based learning to improve students’ speaking ability. ELT Forum: Journal of English Language Teaching, 3(1), 50-56.
• Koizumi, R. (2012). Relationships between text length and lexical diversity measures: can we use short texts of less than 100 tokens. Vocabulary Learning and Instruction, 1(1), 60-69.
• Kök, İ. & Canbay, O. (2011). An experimental study on the vocabulary level and vocabulary consolidation strategies, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15, p. 891-894.
• Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Addition evidence for theinput hypothesis. Modern Language Journals, Vol. 73, 440-464.
• Laufer , B. (1997) The Lexical Plight in Second Language Reading in J. Coady and T. Huckin (Eds) Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition and Pedagogy Cambridge CUP, 140-55
• Laufer, B. (1998). The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: same or different? Applied Linguistics 12: 255-271.
• Laufer, B. (2005). Lexical frequency profiles: From Monte Carlo to the real world: A response to Meara (2005). Applied Linguistics, 26(4), 582–588.
• Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22: 1-26.
• Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied linguistics, 16(3), 307–322.

• Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1999). A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability. Language testing, 16(1), 33–51.

• Lavallée, M., & McDonough, K. (2015). Comparing the Lexical Features of EAP Students' Essays by Prompt and Rating. TESL Canada Journal, 32(2), 30-44.
• Lee, S. H., & Muncie, J. (2006). From receptive to productive: Improving ESL learners' use of vocabulary in a postreading composition task. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 295–320.
• Lemmouh, Z. (2008). The relationship between grades and the lexical richness of student essays. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 7(3), 163-180.
• Lenko-Szymanska, A. (2002). How to trace the growth in learners‟ active vocabulary: A Corpus-based study, in B. Ketteman and G. Marko (eds.) Teaching and Learning by Doing Corpus Analysis. Amsterdam: Rodopi. pp. 217-230.
• Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach (Vol. 1, p. 993). Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
• Ling, G. U. I. (2015). Predictability of vocabulary size on learners’ EFL proficiency: Taking VST, CET4 and CET6 as instruments. Studies in Literature and Language, 10(3), 18-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/6679
• Malvern, D.D. and Richards, B.J. 1997: A new measure of lexical diversity. In Ryan, A. and Wray, A., editors, Evolving models of language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 58–71.

• Malvern, D., Richards, B. J., Chipere, N., & Durán, P. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development: Quantification and assessment: New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Malvern, D., & Richards, B. (2012). Measures of lexical richness. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics.
• Manchón, R. M. (2011). Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

• Mazgutova, D., & Kormos, J. (2015). Syntactic and lexical development in an intensive English for Academic Purposes programme. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 3-15.
• McCarthy, P. M. (2005). An assessment of the range and usefulness of lexical diversity measures and the potential of the measure of textual, lexical diversity (MTLD). Dissertation Abstracts International, 66, 12.
• McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S. (2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior research methods, 42(2), 381-392.
• Meara, P. (2002) The rediscovery of vocabulary. Second Language Research 18, 4: 393-407. [1.4
• Meara, P. (2005). Lexical frequency profiles: A Monte Carlo analysis. Applied Linguistics 26(1), 32-47.
• Meara, P. & Fitzpatrick, T. (2000). Lex30: an improved method of assessing productive vocabulary in an L2. System 28: 19–30.
• Meara, P., & Bell, H. (2001). P_Lex: A simple and effective way of describing the lexical characteristics of short L2 texts. Prospect, 16, 5-19.
• Mellor, A. (2011). Essay length, lexical diversity and automatic essay scoring. Memoirs of the Osaka Institute of Technology, 55(2), 1-14.
• Milton, J. (2007) `Lexical profiles, learning styles and the construct validity of lexical size tests', in Daller, H., Milton, J., and Treffers-Daller J. (eds.) Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,pp.47-58.
• Min, H. T. (2016). Effect of teacher modeling and feedback on EFL students’ peer review skills in peer review training. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 43-57.
• Mobarg, M. (1997) Acquiring, teaching and testing vocabulary. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 7, 2: 201-222. [1.3
• Mokhtar, A. A. (2010). Achieving Native-like English Lexical Knowledge: The Non- native Story. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 343-352
• Nation, P. (1990). Teaching and Learning Vocabulary: Boston: Heinle & Heinle

• Nation, P. (1995). The Word on Words: An Interview with Paul Nation. Interviewed by N. Schmitt. The Language Teacher 19 (4), 5-7
• Nation, I. S. P. (2000) Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Nation, P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes, 63(1), 59–82.
• Nation, I. S. P. (2007). The four strands. Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 1-12.
• Nation, I.S.P. & Webb, S. (2011). Researching and analyzing vocabulary. Boston: Heinle-Cengage.
• Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. B. (1993). Reading comprehension and second language development in a comprehension-based ESL program. TESL Canada journal, 11(1), 09-29.
• Pérez Manzanilla, I. S., & Díaz Cabrera, K. M. (2014). Factors that may have an impact on advanced EFL students' speaking ability (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from http://cdigital.uv.mx/handle/123456789/35250
• Putra, A. R. (2014). Using picture series to improve the writing skill on recount of 8th graders SMP Muhammadiyah 3 Depok in the 2013–2014 Academic Year (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://eprints.uny.ac.id/id/eprint/18475
• Read, J. (1993). The development of a new measure of L2 vocabulary knowledge. Language Testing, 10, 355-371.
• Read, J. (2004). Research in Teaching Vocabulary. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. pp. 146-161
• Richards, J. C. (1976). The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 77-89.
• Roche, T., & Harrington, M. (2013). Recognition vocabulary knowledge as a predictor of academic performance in an English as a foreign language setting. Language Testing in Asia, 3(1), 12.
• Rudy, M. (2013). EFL Writing strategies of the second year students of SMPIT Daarul ‘Ilmi Kemiling Bandar Lampung. Paper presented at International Conference on Education and Language (ICEL), Bandar Lampung University.
• Schmitt, N. (1997). „Vocabulary learning strategies.‟ In N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy, (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy 199-227. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP
• Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching Vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Schmitt, N., Ching, Ng, J. W & Garras, J. (2010). The Word Association Format: Validation Evidence. Language Testing, online. 1-22.
• Silverman, R. D., Proctor, C. P., Harring, J. R., Hartranft, A. M., Doyle, B., & Zelinke, S. B. (2015). Language skills and reading comprehension in English monolingual and Spanish–English bilingual children in grades 2–5. Reading and Writing, 28(9), 1381-1405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9575
• Skehan, P. (2009). Lexical performance by native and non-native speakers on language-learning tasks. In Vocabulary Studies in First and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 107-124). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
• Solak, E., & Altay, F. (2014). Prospective EFL teachers' perceptions of listening comprehension problems in Turkey. Journal of International Social Research, 7(30).
• Staples, S., & Reppen, R. (2016). Understanding first-year L2 writing: A lexico-grammatical analysis across L1s, genres, and language ratings. Journal of Second Language Writing, 32, p.17-35.
• Tahir, S. Z. (2015). Improving students’ speaking skill through voice chat at University of Iqra Buru. Journal of Modern Education Review, 5(3), 296-306. http://dx.doi.org/10.15341/jmer(2155-7993)/03.05.2015/009
• Topkaraoğlu, M., & Dilman, H. (2013). Effects of Studying Vocabulary Enhancement Activities on Students' general Language Proficiency Levels. Batı Anadolu Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 2013(8).
• Unaldi, I. (2011). A comparative investigation of lexical networks of Turkish learners of English as a foreign language: A corpus based study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey.
• Utku, R. (2014). Meta-analysis of
the Lexical Frequency Profile (Unpublished MA Thesis), The University of Queensland
School of Languages and Comparative Cultural Studies Brisbane, Australia
• Vandergrift, L., & Baker, S. (2015). Learner variables in second language listening comprehension: An exploratory path analysis. Language Learning, 65(2), 390- 416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lang.12105
• Wang, S. (2015). An empirical study on the role of vocabulary knowledge in EFL listening comprehension. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(5), 989- 995. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0505.14
• Wang, X. (2014). The relationship between lexical diversity and EFL writing proficiency. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 9.
• Waring, R. (2002). Basic principles and practice in vocabulary instruction. The Language Teacher. Retrieved in June, 2016, from http://jalt-publications.org/old_tlt/articles/2002/07/waring
• Webb, S. (2005). Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The effects of reading and writing on word knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27: 33-52.
• Webb, S. (2008). Receptive and productive vocabulary size. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Vol. 30. pp. 79-95
• Webb, S., & Nation, P. (2008). Evaluating the vocabulary load of written text. TESOLANZ Journal, 16, 1–10.
• Wesche, M. & Paribakht, T.S. (1996). Assessing second language vocabulary knowledge: Depth versus breadth. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53: 13- 40.
• Xue, G., & Nation, I. S. P. (1984). A university word list. Language Learning and Communication, Vol. 3, p. 215–299.
• Yang, Y. I. (2015). An investigation of Chinese junior high school teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards EFL writing. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 5(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.5861/ijrse.2015.1209
• Yüksel, İ (2012) Cross-sectional evaluation of general and academic lexical competence and performance. (Doctoral Dissertation). Anadolu University, Eskişehir, Turkey

• Zareva, A. (2005). Models of L2 learners‟ vocabulary knowledge assessment. System, 33 (4), 547–562.
• Zareva, A., Schwanenflugel, P., Nikolova, Y. (2005). Relationship between lexical competence and language proficiency: Variable sensitivity. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27 (4), 567-595.
• Zhang, J., McBride-Chang, C., Wong, A. M. Y., Tardif, T., Shu, H., & Zhang, Y. (2014). Longitudinal correlates of reading comprehension difficulties in Chinese children. Reading and Writing, 27(3), 481-501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9453-4