PRODUCTIVE VOCABULARY KNOWLEDGE AND EVALUATION OF ESL WRITING IN CORPUS-BASED LANGUAGE LEARNING
PRODUCTIVE VOCABULARY KNOWLEDGE AND EVALUATION
OF ESL WRITING IN CORPUS-BASED LANGUAGE LEARNING
Daehyeon Nam
Submitted to the faculty of the University Graduate School in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
Doctor of Philosophy in the Department Literacy, Culture, and Language Education
Indiana University
June 2010
UMI Number: 3413659
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3413659
Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
Accepted by the Graduate Faculty, Indiana University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Doctoral Committee
_____________________________________
Larry Mikulecky, Ph.D., Chair Person
_____________________________________
Martha Nyikos, Ph.D.
_____________________________________
James Damico, Ph.D.
_____________________________________
John Paolillo, Ph.D.
February 17, 2010 ii © 2010
Daehyeon Nam
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I arrived in Bloomington, Indiana almost ten years ago as a linguistics graduate student. I knew very little about teaching and research in language education when I was accepted into the doctoral program in the Department of Literacy, Culture, and Language
Education. I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Larry Mikulecky, for his advice and support over the last five years; his door was always open and he has helped me become a teacher, a researcher, and a scientist. Dr. Mikulecky challenged
OF ESL WRITING IN CORPUS-BASED LANGUAGE LEARNING
Daehyeon Nam
Submitted to the faculty of the University Graduate School in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
Doctor of Philosophy in the Department Literacy, Culture, and Language Education
Indiana University
June 2010
UMI Number: 3413659
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3413659
Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
Accepted by the Graduate Faculty, Indiana University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Doctoral Committee
_____________________________________
Larry Mikulecky, Ph.D., Chair Person
_____________________________________
Martha Nyikos, Ph.D.
_____________________________________
James Damico, Ph.D.
_____________________________________
John Paolillo, Ph.D.
February 17, 2010 ii © 2010
Daehyeon Nam
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I arrived in Bloomington, Indiana almost ten years ago as a linguistics graduate student. I knew very little about teaching and research in language education when I was accepted into the doctoral program in the Department of Literacy, Culture, and Language
Education. I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Larry Mikulecky, for his advice and support over the last five years; his door was always open and he has helped me become a teacher, a researcher, and a scientist. Dr. Mikulecky challenged
References: Laufer, 2004; Carter, 1998; Nation, 1990, 2001, 2008; Coady & Huckin, 1997; Schmitt & McCarthy, 1997; Schmitt, 2000; Zimmerman, 2009) vocabulary knowledge, research has identified two types of knowledge: receptive knowledge and productive knowledge.1 Nation (2001) described the dual characteristics interest in vocabulary research (Laufer, 1998; Lee, 2003; Lee & Muncie, 2006; Melka, 1997; Mondria & Wiersma, 2004). grammar in the Age of Reasons (Schmitt, 2000) and the Grammar Translation method that labeled vocabulary as supplements of teaching grammar rule (Zimmerman, 1997a).