This study investigated whether the framework of writing for English learners should be guided by the well-established reading-writing relation or by the receptive and productive nature of literacy skills. The writings of 209 advanced English learners in Korea were analyzed in relation to receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension while controlling for writing fluency. Two sets of structural equation models were fitted: (1) productive skills (productive vocabulary and writing fluency) mediating receptive skills (receptive vocabulary and reading) and (2) reading mediating receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge. The results supported the second model in which reading completely mediated the contribution of receptive and productive vocabulary to writing. Although there were no direct effects of receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge, both had significant indirect effects on writing through reading and writing fluency. These results show that reading has a strong direct effect on writing above and beyond vocabulary, and that vocabulary knowledge contributes to writing development through reading.

Este trabajo analiza los errores debidos a la interferencia coreana al escribir/traducir al español. Sostenemos que, cuando los alumnos ingresan una vez en la memoria una forma española α que corresponde preferentemente a una forma coreana A, tienden a equiparar esta correspondencia como ‘A = α’ y la aplican a los casos en los que dicha correspondencia no debería usarse. Para averiguar cuántos alumnos cometen este tipo de error, realizamos un experimento con 42 alumnos. En el experimento, dividimos las oraciones en dos grupos. Las oraciones que pueden producir un resultado apropiado se colocaron en el grupo A si usamos la correspondencia ‘A → α’, mientras que las que pueden producir un resultado inapropiado se ubicaron en el grupo B si lo hacemos. Nuestro análisis mostró que el error más común del grupo B es reutilizar la correspondencia utilizada en el grupo A. Por lo tanto, los estudiantes necesitan evitar una “ecuación excesiva” para reducir errores. Finalmente, para cada oración, sugerimos formas de reducir o evitar errores.

This study was conducted to investigate the effects of the sentence-writing task on English vocabulary learning of Korean high school students. The effectiveness of the sentence-writing task can be explained based on the Involvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001); yet, there has been no consistency in the results of the previous studies on this hypothesis. In the present study, the effects of the sentence-writing task on vocabulary learning were re-examined in comparison with the gap-filling task. In addition, considering that there have been no studies addressing the effects of autobiographical elaboration (relating the meaning of a certain word to one’s own experience) on memory, the effects of the autobiographical sentence-writing task were compared to those of the imaginary sentence-writing task. Forty high proficiency and 40 low proficiency learners were randomly assigned either of the sentence-writing or the gap-filling task. The results demonstrated that the sentence-writing task is more effective in vocabulary learning than the gap-filling task, regardless of the learners’ proficiency levels. However, no significant difference was found between the effects of the autobiographical sentence-writing task and the imaginary sentence-writing task. Based on the results, the pedagogical implications were discussed in the conclusion chapter.

The present study aims to investigate the direct and indirect contributions of Korean EFL college students’ L2 receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge to their L2 writing performances by using a structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis with a goal to explore the pathways of vocabulary knowledge to writing. Data from 178 students were collected through tests of receptive and productive vocabulary breadth and depth, a writing test and a reading test. In testing a hypothesized model on the roles of receptive and productive vocabulary in writing, the results of the SEM analysis reveal the direct role of productive vocabulary in writing. The indirect role of receptive vocabulary on writing was observed through the mediating role of productive vocabulary or reading ability due to the direct contribution of receptive vocabulary to both productive vocabulary and reading and that of productive vocabulary and reading to writing. Findings from the study shed light on the relations of L2 receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge with L2 writing abilities, suggesting potential benefits of both receptive and productive vocabulary learning for L2 writing.

The study investigated whether Korean EFL students' vocabulary used in reading-based writing differed according to writing topic and their reading and writing proficiency. College students enrolled in writing courses (n=95) were asked to write argumentative essays in response to two readings on judging people by appearance (JPA) and disclosing personal information of serious criminals (DPI). These students were divided into high and low proficiency writer groups and into high and low proficiency reader groups according to their writing and reading scores respectively. The students' vocabulary used in writing was then analyzed by VocabProfile, which provided four lexical frequency lists: the first 1000 frequent words (K1) including function words (FW) and content words (CW), the second 1000 frequent words (K2), academic word list (AWL), and off the list words (OLW). The results indicated that the topic JPA produced a higher proportion of K1 and content words, whereas DPI generated more K2 and off the list words. None of the vocabulary profiles, however, significantly differed according to the students’ reading proficiency. In contrast, proficient writers were found to use significantly more K1 and function words than their counterparts. With the topic effect further considered, for JPA, proficient writers used more K1 words and function words whereas less proficient writers used more K2 and off the list words. With regard to DPl, proficient writers were found to use more function words than low proficient writers. Findings are discussed in more detail, along with implications.