关于词汇的复杂性使用与高中写作策略关系的研究

AnInvestigationontheRelationshipbetweenSophisticatedLexisandWritingStrategiesforSeniorHighSchoolStudents关于词汇的复杂性使用与高中写作策略关系的研究关于词汇的复杂性使用与高中写作策略关系的研究摘要：词汇复杂性是用于反映说话者或作者词汇使用的复杂程度。在英语写作当中，词汇复杂性包括：词汇丰富性，词汇多样性，词汇错误，词汇密度。本次研究从定量与定性的角度出发，以成都北大附属实验中学的四个班级学生为调查对象，分析其书面写作中词汇使用的复杂性。本次研究采用RANGE,VocabProfile为研究工具，收集的200份有效作文中随机抽取16份为分析对象。数据分析显示词汇复杂性与学生书面写作质量（分数）呈正相关。但是，影响书面写作质量的原因并不局限于词汇复杂性一个因素。关键词：词汇复杂性；英语写作；高中生AnInvestigationontheRelationshipbetweenSophisticatedLexisandWritingStrategiesforSeniorHighSchoolStudentsAbstract:Lexicalsophisticationisatermreflectingthesophisticateddegreeusedbyspeakersorauthors.InEnglishwriting,lexicalSophisticationincludeslexicalrichness,lexicaldiversity,lexicalerrorandlexicaldensity.Thispaperisbasedonquantitativeandqualitativeanalysis,analyzingtheuseofvocabularyinwritingbystudentsinfourclassesfromChengduAffiliatedExperimentalHighSchoolofPeckingUniversity.RANGE,VocabProfileareusedinanalyzing16compositions.Statisticrevealsthatthereisapositivecorrelationbetweenthequalityofcompositionsandlexicalsophistication.However,thequalityofwrittenwritingisnotlimitedtolexicalcomplexity.Keywords:lexicalsophistication;Englishwriting;seniorhighschoolstudentContentsTOC\o"1-3"\h\uIntroduction 4ChapterⅠLiteratureReview 51.1BackgroundofthePresentStudy 51.2PreviousStudyRelatedtotheThesis. 51.2.2DomesticStudyRelatedtotheThesis. 51.2.3ForeignerStudyRelatedtotheThesis 61.3SomeKeyConceptsRelatedtotheThesis 61.3.1LexicalSophistication 61.3.2LexicalRichness 71.3.3Lexicalerror 8ChapterⅡResearchDesign 92.1ResearchQuestion 92.2ResearchSubjects 92.3ResearchMethods 102.4ResearchTools 102.4.1QuantitativeAnalysisInstrument 102.4.1QualitativeAnalysisInstrument 122.5ResearchProcedures 12ChapterIIIAnalysisandDiscussion 143.1AnalysisoftheStatistics 143.2FindingsoftheResults 163.3ImplicationsoftheThesis 19Conclusion 20Bibliography 21Appendix 23AppendixA 23AppendixB 2416samples 24TheFirstGroup 24TheSecondGroup 24TheThirdGroup 25TheFourthgroup 26Acknowledgement 28IntroductionLexicalsophisticationisanimportantsymbolreflectingthelexicalrichness,lexicalrange,lexicaloriginalityandlexicalerrorofL2(secondlanguagelearner).Lexicalisaminimumpartconsistingacompleteandcomprehensivesentence.ThistheorycanbewellusedinrevealingtheL2’sabilityofEnglishspeakingandwriting.ThisarticleisbasedonthelexicalsophisticationtoexploretherelationshipofwritingstrategyandtheabilityofL2.ItcaninnovatetheresearchorientationonEnglishwritingstrategyandprovideanewinstructiononteaching.Inthispaper,therewillbequantitativeanalysisandqualitativeanalysistoexploretherelationshipbetweenlexicalsophisticationandqualityofEnglishwritingamonghighschoolstudents.Forquantitativeanalysis,16compositioncollectedfromseniorhighschoolwillbearesearchsampleinthispapertodevelopastatisticalanalysis.Thatistosay,thesesampleswillhaveaquantitativeanalysistoexploretherelationshipbetweenthequalityofcompositionsandlexicalsophistication.Someinstruments,suchasVocabProfileandRange,willbeusedtoanalyzethesestatistics.Authorwillhaveadeepexploringbetweentherelationshipbetweenvocabulariesusedincompositionsandscoresofthesewritings.Besides,qualitativeanalysiswillalsobecarriedouttoexploreotherfactorsinfluencingscoresofcompositions.Therefore,asimpleinterviewaboutwhetherthereexistsotherfactorsinfluencingscoresofcompositionswillbeheldbetweenauthorandEnglishteacherinseniorhighschoolteachers.Throughthisinterview,anyothercausesexertingeffectsonscoringwillhaveadeepdiscussionandanalysis.Whatisuniversallyacknowledgedisthat,accordingtothenewcurriculumstandard,seniorhighschoolstudentsaredemandedtomasteratleast3500necessaryEnglishwordsbeforetheytakethecollegeentranceexamination.However,incontemporarysociety,itisstilldifficultformanystudenttousethesewordsintotheirEnglishwritings.Thatistosay,althoughmanystudentscanrememberthesevocabulariesbeforeenteringcollege,mostofthemcannothaveagoodmasteryofadvancedvocabularies.Mostvocabularieswhichtheyusedintheircompositionsbelongstolow-levelvocabulary.Inresponsetothesituation,thisarticle,byexploringtherelationshipbetweenlexicalsophisticationandEnglishwritingstrategy,canwellhelpstudentstogetahigherscoreinEnglishwriting.ThisarticlewillprovideanewinstructionforEnglishteachersandimprovetheirabilitiestoteachseniorhighschoolstudentswritingcompositions.ChapterⅠ:LiteratureReview1.1BackgroundofthePresentStudyAsanimportantcomponentofEnglishlanguageproficiency,writingisasignificantpartofoutputreflectinglearner’sabilityinSLA(SecondLanguageAcquisition).Accordingly,compositionisregardedasabasicandnecessarypartofEnglishlearning.ForChineseprocessofteachingEnglish,itismuchmoredifficulttoacquireawritingskillthanotherpartsofEnglishlearning,suchaslisteningandspeaking.StudiesshowthatChineseEFLfailtowritehighqualityofEnglishwriting.OnereasonthatcontributestothissituationisthatChinesestudentsusuallyusesimplewordsinwritingwhichresultsthelowqualityoftheircomposition.AnequallyimportantreasonisthatChineselearnersareconfinedtotheirknownwordswhenwritingcompositions.Therefore,todevelopstudents’abilityofwritingbetter,itisnecessaryforteacherstoknowabouttheirleveloftheircomposition,whichincludesaccuracy,fluencyandcomplexity.Amongthem,complexityincludeslexicalsophisticationandsyntacticsophistication.Thispaperwillfocusonlexicalsophisticationtoexaminelearningeffect.Withthedeepenstudyonlexicalsophistication,manymeasurementtoolsaredeveloped,whichresultedintheincreasingaccuracyofresearch.Aseaofindicatorssuchasgrammaticalcomponents,syntaxcomponentsarecombinedtomakeacomprehensiveassessmentofL2’sability.ResearchersmainlyfocusontherelationshipbetweenL2’sabilityandthelexicalsophistication.Comparedtotheabroadstudies,researchersathomeshedlightontheapplicationofthelexicalsophistication,especiallyinEnglishwriting.However,therearestillsomeproblems.Firstly,theirfindinglargelyremainatthetheoreticallevelandlittlefocusonthepracticallevel.Secondly,theyignoretheothercomponentssuchascognitiveandmentalfactorsinfluencingtheirlexicalusage.Thirdly,theirfindingsarenotrepresentativeenoughtoapplytoarealteachingsituation.Intermsofthepresentbackgrounddiscussedabove,thisthesiswillexploretherelationshipbetweenthequalityofwritingandvocabularyusedincompositions.1.2PreviousStudyRelatedtotheThesis.1.2.2DomesticStudyRelatedtotheThesis.Intermsofthesituationthattheweaknessofwritingincollegestudents,Zhoumai(2002,OnTextCohesionandtheTeachingofWritingfromtheWritingRange-FindersforCETBand4andBand)investigatestherelationshiptextcohesionandEnglishwritingandprovidesabetterwaytowrite.LichangshengusesSWECCLandICLEtocomparetheintermediatecomplexity——lexicalsophisticationandsyntaxsophisticationbetweenChinesecollegestudentsandSwissuniversitystudents.ThefindingshowsthattheChinesestudentsarehigherthanSwissstudentsinfourindicatorsoflexicalsophistication,whilethesyntaxsophisticationisopposite.Wangshunyu(AnalyzingLexicalRichnessinCET-4RangeFinders)findsthetestscoresisnegativelyrelatedtotheerrorsheorshemadeintests.1.2.3ForeignerStudyRelatedtotheThesisVocabularySizeandUse:LexicalRichnessinL2WrittenwaswrittenbyLauferBandNationP.TheymaintainthatlexicalcomplicationcanbestudiedbyLO(LexicalOriginality),LD(LexicalDensity),LR(LEXICALRICHNESS)andLV(Lexicalvariation).Furthermore,theyprovideameasurementtoolLFP(LexicalFrequencyProfile)toshowthedifferentfrequencylevelinwriting.UreJ(1971,Lexicaldensity:acomputationaltechniqueandsomefindings.)createdtheterm“lexicaldensity”toshowtheratiooflexicalandfunctionalwordstothetotalnumberofthewords.Wolfe-Quintero,InagakiandKimholdthatintermsofsophisticationandrangeofL2,LRcanbemanifested.ThisisregardedasadirectandimportantelementtorevealtheL2’sabilityofwritingandspeaking.AccordingtoRead(2000,AssessingVocabulary),lexicalsophisticationincludesfourelements:lexicalvariation,lexicalrichness,lexicaldensityandnumberoferrorsinvocabularyuse.EngberCA(1995,therelationshipofproficiencytothequalityofESLcomposition)analyzesthelexicalfromtheerrorfreelexicalvariation,lexicalerrorandlexicaldensity.1.3SomeKeyConceptsRelatedtotheThesis1.3.1LexicalSophisticationThedefinitionof“lexicalcomplexity”hasbeenattractingamountsofscholars’attentionsince1980s.Asanessentialterminthisinvestigation,lexicalsophisticationhasbeenseenasprominentpredictoroflearners’languageproficiency.Nevertheless,thereisinconclusivedefinitionoflexicalsophistication.Itiswidelyacceptedthatsophisticationisafeatureusedtoreflectthemultidimensionalabilityoflearnerslanguageuse.FollowingRead,lexicalsophisticationcanbeconsideredasmultidimensionalfeatureoflanguageusethatconsistsoffourrelatedcomponents:lexicalvariation,lexicalrichness,lexicaldensityandnumbersoferrorsinvocabularyuse.Lexicalsophisticationmeasures“theproportionofrelativelyunusualoradvancedwordsinthelearner’stext”(Read,2000).AccordingtoLu(2012),lexicalrichnessexpressinL2useintermsofthesophisticationandrangeofanL2learner’sproductivevocabulary(Wolfe-Quintero,Inagaki,8cKim,1998).Sophisticationisalsoregardedas“theextenttowhichthelanguageproducedinperformingataskiselaboratedandvaried”(Ellis,2003),also,mayincludebothlexicalandsyntacticalfeatures.Inordertogetaclearinsightofintolexicalcomplexity,weneedtoclarifysomeunitsofmeasurementsrelatedtolexicalsophisticationinourstudy.Therearesometoolswhichcanmeasureandanalyzethecomplexity,suchasWeb-basedL2SyntacticComplexityAnalyzerandWeb-basedLexicalComplexityAnalyzer.Amongmeasurementsoflexicalsophistication,therearethreemainlymethods:theratioofsophisticatedwordtypesandtotalnumberswordsusedintext,theratioofsophisticatedwordtypesandwordtypes,theratiooflexicalwordsandwords.1.3.2LexicalRichnessLexicalrichnessisseenasthedegreeofavariedandlargevocabularyusedbyawriterandauthor.Forlexicalrichness,thereisnouniversaldefinitionofthistermexceptitsdifferentmeasurementtools.Measuringthedegreeoflexicalcomplexityisgenerallyconcernedwithnumbersofwordsusedinacomposition,whichincludesspokenandwrittenwords.EngberCA(1995)convincedthatlexicalrichnessisconsistedoflexicalvariationwitherror,lexicalvariationwithouterror,percentageoflexicalerrorandlexicaldensity.Lexicalvariationisusuallyassessedbymeansofaratiooftypeandtoken(TTR).However,TTRisacrudemethodtoanalyzelexicalrichnessandqualityofcompositions.Lexicaldensityiseasilycalculatedbydividingthetotalnumbersofwordsinthewritingbytotalnumberoflexicalwords.Theformulaoflexicaldensitycanbeexpressedas:Lexicaldensity=numbersofseparatewords/totalnumbersofwordsinthetext*100%AccordingtoRead,lexicalrichnessreferstotheratiooflowlexicalfrequencyandhighlexicalfrequency.LauferandNation(1995)consideredfourdimensionsoflexicalrichness,thatis,lexicalvariation,lexicaldensity,lexicalsophisticationandlexicaloriginality.Laufersummarizedthevariablesoflexicalvariation,lexicaldensity,lexicalsophisticationandlexicaloriginalityasimportantindicatorsreflectinglexicalrichness.Therefore,theyhavedesignedameasurementtooltoanalyzethedegreeoflexicalrichnesscalledLexicalFrequencyProfile(LFP),whichcopeswiththeproportionofhighfrequencygeneralserviceandwordsusedinlearnerswriting.LFPisatoolwithvalidityandreliabilitydevelopingintoagenerallexicalmeasurementtool:RANGE.OnthebasisofanalyzingEnglishcorpus,thetooldivideswordsinto14gradesbyfrequency.1.3.3LexicalErrorErrorhasdirectrelationwiththelearner’slanguagecompetence.Itresultsfromlackofknowledgeinthetargetlanguage.Languageerrorscannotbeself-corrected.Therearegenerallytwotypesoffactorsthatcauselanguageerrorsinforeignlanguagelearning,oneisinter-lingual,tracedtotheinfluenceofthemothertongue,theotherisintro-lingual,committedbylanguagelearnersregardlessoftheirL1.InSLA,thelearnersattempttotransferthefeaturesoftheirmothertonguetothesecondlanguage.Whenthestructuresofthetwolanguagesaresimilar,wecangetpositivetransfer;whenthetwolanguagesaredifferentinstructures,negativetransferorinterferenceoccursandresultsinerrors.Notallerrorsarecausedbytheinterferenceofthemothertongue.Therearecasesthatthelearnerknowssomerulesofthetargetlanguagebutappliestheminthewrongplace.Errorsofover-generalizationandhypercorrectionbelongtothistype.Intheprocessoflanguageproduction,foreignlanguagelearnerswillmakeerrorsinvocabularyuse.Forexample,learnersmayusewrongwordstoexpresstheintendedmeaning.Themeaningofthewordsiscorrectbuttheformiswrongorthestyleisinappropriateorthecollocationiswrong.Theproportionoflexicalerrorsinthetotalnumberofcompositionswasusedasoneofthecriteriaforevaluatingthequalityofcompositions.Thisisanotherwaytoprovideameasureoflexicalcomplexity.Thehigherthewritinglevel,thefewervocabularymistakeslearnersmakeinwriting.FollowingArnaud(1984;19),lexicalerrorscanbedividedintosixtypes:Minorspellingmistake:personnal,teatcher;Majorspellingmistake:scholl;Derivationmistakes:tocomparate,hesuccessed;Deceptivecognate:Theyshouldbepreventedthatitisdifficult;Interferencefromanotherlanguageononecurriculum:sparemoney;Confusionbetweentwolexeme:Theteacherlearnthemmath;ChapterⅡResearchDesign2.1ResearchQuestionBecausethepresentinvestigationistoexploretherelationshipbetweencompositionsofdifferentlevelsandlexicalsophisticationshowninthewritings,quantitativeandqualitativeanalysiswillbeemployedinthisstudy.Therefore,accordingtothepurposeoftheresearch,theindependentvariableinthisresearchcompositionswrittenbyjuniorhighschoolstudentsbasedonawritingtasks.Thedependentvariablesisthelexicalsophisticationwhichincludeslexicalvariation,lexicalerrors,lexicalrichnessincompositions.MostresearchersandEnglisheducatorsconvincethatwordsusedinhighergradecompositionismoresophisticatedthanlowergradecomposition.Thatistosay,higherlevelEnglishlearnerscouldemploymorecomplexwordsthanlowerlevelEnglishlearners.Inordertoverifythisassumption,thequestionsofthisresearchisasfollowed:ResearchQuestionOne:Howmanywordsdidthestudentsuseintheircompositionsasawhole?Whatisthewordfrequencydistribution?ResearchQuestionTwo:Whatistherelationshipbetweenlexicalsophisticationandscores?ResearchQuestionThree:Aretheredifferencesinthenumbersandnatureoferrorsbetweenhighandlowgroupcompositions?ResearchQuestionFour:Inadditiontotheelementoflexicalsophistication,whetherthereareotherfactorsaffectingthecompositionquality?2.2ResearchSubjectsTheresearchsubjectsinvolvedintheinvestigationisstudentsofgrade2whoarefromChengduaffiliatedexperimentalhighschoolofPeckingUniversity.Thispapercollected200compositionsfromrandomlyfourclassesand20writingmaterialsofsubjectswereselectedrandomlyfrom200compositions.Accordingtopersonalinformationfromthesesubjects,theyallhavelearnedEnglishatleastsevenyearsandtheiragedistributionwasbetween16and20,withtheaverageageis18-year-old.ThesesubjectsattendedEnglishclassesconductedregularlyinatraditionalway,thatistosay,whattheyreceiveeducationisatthesamelevelinalarge.Moreover,numbersofgendersreachatanequaldistribution,with10males’compositionsand10females’compositions.Thematerialsinvestigatedinthestudywerebasedonawritingtask:“SupposedthatyouareLIHUAfromseniorhighschoolingrade2,youlearnedfromtheInternetthataninternationalorganizationofseniorhighschoolstudentswillholdasummercampinSingapore.Pleasewriteanemailtoapplytoattend.Keypointsinclude:writingpurpose;personaladvantagesandyourparticipationintendedmeaning;3)hopetobeagreed;Notice:nolessthan100words,appropriatedetailscanbeaddedtomakethewritingcoherentandthediscoursecomplete.”2.3ResearchMethodsThisinvestigationisbasedonquantitativeandqualitativeanalysismethodstoexploretherelationshipbetweenlexicalsophisticationshowninthecompositionandqualityreflectedfromthesematerials.Firstly,thisresearchaimstoobjectivelymeasurelexicalsophisticationreflectedinEnglishwriting.Throughusingmathematicsandstatistics,thispaperwillgetarelativelyconclusioninthesematerials.Withthehelpofaspreadsheetsoftwareprogramorsomeadvancedcorpusinstruments,orastatisticalpackagelikeSPSSandRANGEtoanalyzerawdata.Tofacilitatethistypeofanalysis,datainthisinvestigationwillneedtobegatheredinastructuredformat.Also,qualitativeanalysisusedinthisresearchistypicallyunstructuredandexploratoryinnature.Underthismethod,theauthordoesnothaveaparticularinterestsindeterminingobjectivestatisticalconclusionorintestingahypothesis,butratherinobtaininginsightsaboutthedeeperrelationsbetweenlexicalsophisticationandqualityofcomposition,and,moreover,toexplorewhetherthereexistsanyotherfactorsinfluencingthescores.Inthisinvestigation,theauthormakeaninterviewwithteacherswhoscoringthesecompositionstoaskthestandards.Boththequantitativeandqualitativeresearchmethodhaveitsprosandcons,however,thisinvestigationfocusonthecombinationofquantitativeandqualitativeanalysismethods.Thereforeitcanbettertoavoidthedisadvantagesofboth.2.4ResearchTools2.4.1QuantitativeAnalysisInstrumentInthisinvestigation,anadvancedcorpusinstrument“LexicalComplexityAnalyzer(LCA)”,Vocabprofile(version8.3),MicrosoftOfficeExcel2007willbeusedtoanalyzestatisticsofcompositions.TheLCAisanonlinetoolon/software/lca/whichdevelopedbyProfessorLuXiaofeiatThePennsylvaniaStateUniversity.ItallowslanguageteachersandresearcherstoanalyzethelexicalcomplexityofwrittenEnglishlanguagesamples,using25differentmeasuresoflexicaldensity,variationandsophisticationproposedinthefirstandsecondlanguagedevelopmentliterature.ThesoftwarerunsonUNIX-like(LINUX,MACOS,orUNIX)systemsanditrequirestheinputtextstobepart-of-speech(POS)taggedandlemmatized.Thislikelycallsforfamiliarityofthecommand-lineinterfaceaswellassomeprogrammingskills(e.g:part-of-speechtaggingandlemmatization).Theweb-basedinterfacetoLCA,availableonthiswebsite,eliminatestheneedforthecommandlineinterfaceandstreamlinestheabove-mentionednaturallanguageprocessing(NLP)processes,andgeneratetheresultsinjustafewclicksaway.Therearetwomodelsonthissoftware,oneis“Web-basedLCA:singlemodel(/software/lca/single/)”,anotheris“Web-basedLCA:batchmodel(/software/lca/batch/)”.Thesinglemodeallowsresearcherstoanalyzeasingletext(orcomparetwotexts)forselectedlexicalcomplexitymeasures.Theresearcherscouldchoosetoseetheresultsofanyorallofthe25indices,andthesystemwillcreateagraphicalrepresentationtovisualizetheresults.Additionally,researchersmayenteranothertextinordertocomparetheirlexicalcomplexity.Eachtextshouldhaveaminimumof50wordsandamaximumof10,000words.Ifitexistsmultiplefilestobeanalyzed,researcherscanusetheBatchMode.ThebatchmodeallowsresearcherstoanalyzelexicalcomplexityofwrittenEnglishsamplesupto200filesatatime.TheresultswillbeaCSVfilethatcanbesubsequentlyimportedintospreadsheetsorstatisticalpackagesforfurtheranalysis.Notethatthebatchmoderequiresresearcherstoregisteranaccountbeforeusingit.Theregistrationisfreeandtakelessthanaminute.Byusingtheweb-basedsoftwaredescribedabove,youareacknowledgingthatresearchersagreetobelegallyboundandtoabidebytheLCATermsofService.Inthisinvestigation,theauthorwillchoosethesinglemodeltoanalyzethedata.Additionally,VocabProfilewillbeconductedtoquantitativeanalysis.ThisisafreesoftwaredesignedbyPaulNationandAverilCoxheadfromVictorialUniversityatWellington.Itisagoodsoftwareforresearcherstodealwiththevocabularydifficultyincompositionwhichcanhelpresearcherstoanalyzethelexicalsituationusedincompositionsinaswiftandconvenientway.Atpresenttime,thelatestsoftwareversion8.3canbeavailableinthebelowwebsite:https://www.lextutor.ca/vp/eng/.Astheinstructionofthesoftware,thisinstrumentcancopewithsomequestionsbelow:1:Thetotalnumbersofvocabularyinatext;2:Howmanyvocabulariesareneededtoreadatext;3:Howmanywordsarethelearnerfamiliarwithifthelearnerhas2000vocabularies;4:Howmanywordsinthetextthatlearnersmaynotknow;etc.Inthissoftware,TypeorpastetextandclickSUBMIT_window.VocabProfilewilltelltheresearchershowmanywordsthetextcontainsfromthefollowingfourfrequencylevels:(1)thelistofthemostfrequent1000wordfamilies,(2)thesecond1000,(3)theAcademicWordList,and(4)wordsthatdonotappearontheotherlists.2.4.1QualitativeAnalysisInstrumentInthestudy,afterfinishingtheanalysisofdata,authorwilluseinterviewsurveytoconductqualitativeanalysisexploringotherpossiblefactorsexceptlexicalsophisticationwhichinfluencescoresofcompositions,andaskingstandardsofscoringwithteacherswhoinvolvedintherelatedclasses.Theinterviewoutlinewasconstitutedbysixparts.Thesepartsarerespectivelyinterviewpurpose,interviewsubjects,interviewtime,interviewaddress,interviewcontentsandinterviewconclusions.Severalquestionswereadoptedoninterview,aimingatinvestigatingcurrentsituationofEnglishwriting.Asasupplementofquantitativestudy,theinterviewwerehelpfulinthediscussionofresultsinChapterThreeandInterviewoutlinewillbeshownintheappendix.2.5ResearchProceduresBeforequantitativeanalysis,authorwillmakeaninterviewwithEnglishteacherstoasksomequestionsaboutEnglishwriting.Firstofall,theauthorwillmakeaninterviewoutlineofwritingandmakeageneralknowaboutinterviewee.Then,makinganinterviewasthefollowingofinterviewoutline.Forquantitativeanalysis,afterqualitativeanalysisofinterview,researchprocedurewillbedividedintoabovesteps.Firstofall,inthepresentinvestigation,theauthorcollectedselectedrandomlyfourclassesofcompositionswhosefullscoreis25asresearchsubjects,andthentheauthorcollected200compositionssamplesintheseclasses.Amongthesecompositions,18writingwillberandomlyselectedasdataanalysissubjects.Thesesampleswillbedividedintothreelevelsasitsscores:1-8isinthefirstgroup;9-15isinthesecondgroup;16-20isinthethirdgroup;21-25isinthefourthgroup.Accordingly,theauthorwilluseLCAandVocabProfiletoanalyzethesefourgroups.ByfirstlyusingLCA,theauthorwillprocessallcompositionsintothissoftwaretoconductsomeindicesexploringlexicalsophisticationandothervariables.Firstly,openthewebsiteofLCA——/software/lca/andthenclick“Web-basedLexicalAnalyzer”.Thenclicking“Web-basedLCA:SingleModel”andcopyingacompositioninto“Step1:EnterText1”.In“Step2:Selectindices”,allindicesshouldbechosenandresultwillbeshownasatwotypes:visualizationandnumericresults.Then,theauthorwillprocessthesematerialsintoVocabProfileforanalyzing.Throughanalysisbythesetwoinstruments,theauthorwillgetaconclusionfromit.ChapterIIIAnalysisandDiscussion3.1AnalysisoftheStatisticsInthisinvestigation,16materialsselectedfrom200compositionswillbetransferredintowordandthenimportedintoLCAandVocabProfiletoanalyzelexicalsophistication.Therefore,withthehelpofVocabProfileandLCA,16materialswasdividedintofourlevelstoanalyze.Firstly,withtheanalysisofstatisticunderRANGEandVocabProfile,differentindicesshowninall16compositionscanbeobserved.Vocabularydistributionof16compositionscanbeshownintable3.1Table3.1ThenumberandfrequencydistributionofdifferentwordsusedincompositionsWORDLISTTOKENS/%TYPES/%FAMILIES0-10001001-2000Academic532/69.72%34/4.46%10/1.31%167/67.6%19/7.69%9/3.64%137169Off-listTotal187/24.51%763155/62.7%247162Astotwoimportantconceptsfromthistable,therearesomedefinitionsofthem.Fortoken,itreferstoanylexicalform.Wheninlexicalfrequencystatistics,awordiscountedasatoken,therefore,thereareasmanytokensastherearewordsinthetexts.Typereferstotokenwiththesameform.Inawordfrequencystatistics,alltokenswiththesameformcanbecountedasatype,sothenumberoftypeisthenumberofdifferentwordsinthetext.Inallwordlists,0-1000wordsbelongtowordlistⅠwhichisthemostusedindailystudy.1001-2000wordsbelongtowordlistⅡandAcademiciswordlistIII.Andtherebeingotherwordswhichbeyondthethreewordlistsareoff-listwords.Fromtable3.1,18compositionsproduced763words.TokensinwordlistⅠiscalculatedas532wordswhichisaccountedfor69.72%andtypeis167accountin