英语论文网

ompetence has not received much attention intheoretical construction. Moreover, in main stream language testing research,vocabulary work is often neglected (Read, 1997).Since Meara initiated the effort to study L2 vocabulary acquisition in 1980s,there has been an increasing interest in the study of lexical acquisition. This can beproved by a large body of research (eg. Laufer, 1997; Meara, 1996a, 1996b; Nation,1999, 2001; Pribakht & Wesche, 1997; Read, 1993, 1995; Richard, 1976)Among the many areas under exploration, the topic of lexical knowledge hasreceived much attention in the pedagogical field. One reason is that L2 teachers needa knowledge framework based on which modern reliable vocabulary tests can bedesigned. One of the practical purposes of such tests is to estimate how muchvocabulary L2 learners know, or vocabulary size of L2 learners. This is considered bymany researchers as the ‘breadth’ of lexical knowledge. The counterpart concept of‘breadth’ is ‘depth’, addressing the question of how well you know a word. An earlyinfluential definition of these two terms was given by Anderson & Freebody (1981:92-93), who explicitly distinguished these two aspects of vocabulary knowledge.

Chapter Three Research Design........... 30-39
    3.1 Research questions........... 30
    3.2 Participants ...........30-31
    3.3 Instruments ...........31-36
    ....................................
        3.3.5 EnglishWrting Task........... 35-36
    3.4 Data collection........... 36
    3.5 Data analysis ...........36-39
Chapter Four Results and Discussion........... 39-50
    4.1 Descriptive statistics ...........39-40
    4.2 Addressing research questions ...........40-45
....................................
Chapter Five Conclusion...........50-53
    5.1 Major findings........... 50
    5.2 Pedagogical implications........... 50-52
5.3 Limitations and suggestions........... 52-53

Conclusion

The present study is exploratory in nature and objective factors could not beavoided. Some limitations also exist in its samples. For example, numbers ofparticipants are not large enough, and their language proficiency is relatively low,considering the fact that nearly a third of them failed the CET-4 test. Anotherimportant factor is about the writing samples we take. Some of the students producerelatively short passages, say, with around 100 words, which could not provide anobjective profile of his or her lexical ability. This limitation is caused by the format ofCET-4 writing task, which only asks the students to write 120 words.Despite these limitations, the present study provides a valuable set of data aboutwhat lexical factors might actually affect EFL writing quality. It is not only beneficialfor students who want to understand their writing problems and overcome them, butalso informative for teachers who want to teach vocabulary better.
In the future, more research can be conducted among more proficient EFLlearners, adopting more challenging and standard writing tasks, and with a variety oftopics. In this way, the role of lexical knowledge and its different dimensions in thequality of 本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。