Chapter One Introduction
1.1 Background of the present study
For both native and no-native speakers, vocabulary acquisition plays an especially central role ofevery language acquisition. As Wilkins (1978: 111) said, “without grammar, little can be conveyed; withoutvocabulary, nothing can be conveyed.” The four traditional basic language skills of reading, writing,speaking and listening are based on the student’s knowledge (Barrow et al, 1999). A large vocabulary isalways a prerequisite to the performance of English skills.At abroad, researchers have been engaging in vocabulary acquisition since the 1970s. Since then, agreat deal of progress has achieved and many relative monographs as well as papers have been published.While in China, researchers have started to study the Chinese learner’s L2 vocabulary quantity since thevery beginning of 1980s. Now vocabulary’s research is developing toward all aspects of L2 vocabularyacquisition and it is tend to expand in the following years (Ma Guanghui，2007). However, in the case ofthe degree or depth of vocabulary knowledge, the empirical research about the acquisition of it both athome and abroad has only occurred in recent years (Schmitt& Meara 1997; Schmitt, 1998; Wu Xudong，Cheng Xiaoqing, 2000 ).That vocabulary knowledge is instrumental in writing has long been accepted in the area of SLA. Theproblem is that English writing is anything but satisfactory for Chinese learners. Studies have shown thatlack of vocabulary knowledge is regarded by learners as the biggest difficulty of writing(Liu Shangfu，1998).
………..
1.2 Significance of the present study
It is no denying that vocabulary is a significant component of language proficiency. It is regarded as“an essential building block of language” (Schmitt&Clapham, 2001:55). Thus, vocabulary knowledge is thebasis of any language skills such as speaking and writing. As for writing, vocabulary knowledge is themedium which the information is conveyed. In the writing process, if the learner's vocabulary is inadequate,it is difficult for them to complete a writing fluently and excellently. Therefore it is of great importance toenlarge and enrich learners’ vocabulary knowledge. Vocabulary is the tool of writing and good writing isalmost impossible without mastering vocabulary. For both native and non-native learners, vocabulary acquisition can make a large significance in theprocess of language acquisition. As a matter of fact, there are lots of learners who are good at grammareven early in their high school don’t have satisfactory language proficiency in general. Also learners,without a great amount of vocabulary knowledge, may not have a good performance in all kinds of tests forproficiency like TOEFL, GRE. All the previous mentioned issue indicated that vocabulary knowledge haveattracted researchers and scholars’ attention. A great number of studies have found the significance ofvocabulary knowledge.Vocabulary is the central component of every language and as for learners, it’s definitely necessary tomaster a certain large number of words and phrases to convey everything he wants and to communicatewith other people. Hence a learner should make every effort to enlarge and understand more vocabularyknowledge. Up to now, both vocabulary teaching and learning are still unsatisfactory.
………..
Chapter Two Literature Review
2.1 Vocabulary studies both at home and at abroad
Vocabulary has always been a theme of studies in language acquisition, especially in second or foreignlanguage acquisition. Although second language (L2) is definitely different from foreign language (FL)under the standard definition, here for the sake of convenience second language is equal to foreignlanguage. Learning new words is the primary steps to learn a second language and will be throughout thewhole process of second language acquisition.Vocabulary knowledge, considered by both L1 and L2 researchers to be of great significance inlanguage competence, has been shown to be closely related to success in reading as well as to generallanguage proficiency. Its importance is also claimed by Laufer and Paribakht(1998), who argue that anyresearch on vocabulary acquisition, testing and teaching needs a definition of it. However, there is no clearand unequivocal consensus on the nature of vocabulary knowledge. As two dimensions of vocabulary knowledge, breadth and depth of vocabulary should be paidadequate attention when exploring relationship between vocabulary knowledge and writing. It’s necessaryto give definitions of “breadth” and “depth” of vocabulary so as to establish a conceptual framework for thepresent research. In the present research, the breadth of vocabulary means its size or the amount of wordsfor which a learner has at least some minimum knowledge of meaning. And depth of vocabulary refers tohow well the learner masters one word or the learner’s level of knowledge about different aspects of agiven word. Words in the brain lie in the different levels.
………….
2.2 English writing studies both at home and at abroad
English writing, being an important part of the English teaching process, is an indispensable elementin English teaching. Among the four language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing), writing is avery essential language skill. Writing ability is a significant component of English language competence fora student. It is particularly important for the university students. English writing teaching occupies a vitalposition in English teaching. Therefore, the test of English writing, as one type of achievement tests, playsa substantial role in English language teaching and learning. How to improve students' writing ability is thetopic that many researchers discuss. In the field of applied linguistics, scholars are always interested in writing. In the late 20 century, anindependent field of disciplinary inquiry is established internationally by L2 writing based on its owndefined domain (Kroll 2003, Silva and Matsuda 2001). In the past two years, three review articlesdemonstrated convincingly that foreign language writing in the Chinese context has been developingrapidly in the past decades (Wang and Wang 2004, Wang and Sun 2005, Yao and Cheng 2005).
……………
Chapter Three Theoretical Framework of the Research ......... 14
3.1 Krashen’s Input Hypothesis .......... 14
3.2 Swain's Output Hypothesis .... 14
3.3 The dimensional approach ..... 15
3.4 The Process approach...... 19
Chapter Four Research Methodology ......... 20
4.1 Research design ....... 20
4.2 Data collection and analysis.......... 25
Chapter Five Results and Discussion.......... 29
5.1 Results........ 29
5.2 Discussion ......... 33
Chapter Five Results and Discussion
5.1 Results
The results of the three tests were reported and analyzed in the following tables, mainly including theresults of the tests descriptively and of the Pearson correlation and multiple regression. All the scores areshowed and explicated. The internal consistent reliability was computed by the Spearman-Brown prophecyformula based on the examinees’ performances in the two tests. The results were supplied in Table5.1, 5.2,which showed that the results obtained by applying the two tests to the study were reliable. Regarding thewriting of TEM4(2013), its high reliability must have already been accepted. Therefore, the descriptivedata of writing scores consisted of mean, standard derivation and obtained score range, without reliability. Table 5.1 offers the mean, standard derivation, reliability and obtained scores range on theVocabulary Size Test for the 42 subjects. According to the result, the mean score on the vocabulary SizeTest was 85.79, standard derivation9.95, reliability, .820 and the obtained scores ranged from 70 to 106.
…….
Conclusion
From the Table 5.1, the descriptive statistics were supplied, such as means, the standard deviation,reliability on vocabulary size, obtained score range and reliability on depth of vocabulary knowledge aswell as English writing. The internal consistent reliability for depth of vocabulary knowledge ,VocabularySize and English writing were respectively reliable.Pearson analysis results are shown in table 5.2. The coefficients can be obtained from different pairs oft variables of the breadth-depth of vocabulary knowledge, breadth-English writing as well as the depth ofvocabulary knowledge-English writing for 42 sophomore subjects were respectively .695, .763, .782，which are all higher than .50 (p＜.05). It provides the answer to the first question that there is highlypositive cross correlation among on breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge, and English writingscores of the 42 sophomore subjects.Table 5.5 and Table 5.6 showed the results of multiple regressions, which answered the secondquestions of this study. The specific figures from the multiple regressions showed the influences producedby vocabulary size and depth of vocabulary knowledge on the writing. The results revealed that bothvocabulary size and depth of vocabulary knowledge made significant contribution to the prediction ofEnglish writing for the sophomore subjects. Table 5.5 showed that depth of vocabulary knowledge added aunique .093of explained variance in English writing beyond the prediction already supplied by vocabularysize for 42 sophomore subjects.
…………
References (omitted)