词分类系统述评

IF 0.4 Q4 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Razieh Gholaminejad
{"title":"词分类系统述评","authors":"Razieh Gholaminejad","doi":"10.19183/how.27.2.554","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this reflective paper, we review the currently-used word classification system proposed by linguist Paul Nation (2013, 2015) and the position of the academic vocabulary in this system. Different lexical layers in this system are explained as well as the underlying assumptions. Then, taking a critical position, we raise a number of criticisms against three different aspects of Nation’s classification. The first criticism involves the fact that the system has sacrificed function for form in developing the lexical layers. The second focuses on the problem of equating ‘academic words’ with Coxhead’s (2000) Academic Word List (AWL) and ‘high-frequency words’ with West’s (1953) General Service List (GSL). Finally, the system is criticized for the lack of an independent lexical layer for discipline-specific academic vocabulary by ignoring disciplinary variation at the level of academic words. The critical points raised in the paper can be useful for English for Academic Purposes (EAP) materials developers, teachers, test developers, and syllabus/curriculum designers.","PeriodicalId":43460,"journal":{"name":"How-A Colombian Journal for Teachers of English","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Critical Review of the Word Classification System\",\"authors\":\"Razieh Gholaminejad\",\"doi\":\"10.19183/how.27.2.554\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this reflective paper, we review the currently-used word classification system proposed by linguist Paul Nation (2013, 2015) and the position of the academic vocabulary in this system. Different lexical layers in this system are explained as well as the underlying assumptions. Then, taking a critical position, we raise a number of criticisms against three different aspects of Nation’s classification. The first criticism involves the fact that the system has sacrificed function for form in developing the lexical layers. The second focuses on the problem of equating ‘academic words’ with Coxhead’s (2000) Academic Word List (AWL) and ‘high-frequency words’ with West’s (1953) General Service List (GSL). Finally, the system is criticized for the lack of an independent lexical layer for discipline-specific academic vocabulary by ignoring disciplinary variation at the level of academic words. The critical points raised in the paper can be useful for English for Academic Purposes (EAP) materials developers, teachers, test developers, and syllabus/curriculum designers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43460,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"How-A Colombian Journal for Teachers of English\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"How-A Colombian Journal for Teachers of English\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.19183/how.27.2.554\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"How-A Colombian Journal for Teachers of English","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19183/how.27.2.554","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在这篇反思性的论文中,我们回顾了语言学家Paul Nation(2013, 2015)提出的目前使用的词汇分类系统,以及学术词汇在该系统中的位置。解释了该系统中的不同词汇层以及基本假设。然后,我们采取批判的立场,对国家分类的三个不同方面提出了一些批评。第一种批评涉及到这样一个事实,即该系统在发展词汇层时牺牲了功能而牺牲了形式。第二个重点是将“学术词”等同于考克斯黑德(2000)的“学术词表”(AWL),将“高频词”等同于韦斯特(1953)的“通用服务词表”(GSL)。最后,该系统忽视了学术词汇层面的学科差异,缺乏独立的学科学术词汇层。本文提出的要点对学术英语(EAP)教材开发者、教师、考试开发者和教学大纲/课程设计者都很有用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Critical Review of the Word Classification System
In this reflective paper, we review the currently-used word classification system proposed by linguist Paul Nation (2013, 2015) and the position of the academic vocabulary in this system. Different lexical layers in this system are explained as well as the underlying assumptions. Then, taking a critical position, we raise a number of criticisms against three different aspects of Nation’s classification. The first criticism involves the fact that the system has sacrificed function for form in developing the lexical layers. The second focuses on the problem of equating ‘academic words’ with Coxhead’s (2000) Academic Word List (AWL) and ‘high-frequency words’ with West’s (1953) General Service List (GSL). Finally, the system is criticized for the lack of an independent lexical layer for discipline-specific academic vocabulary by ignoring disciplinary variation at the level of academic words. The critical points raised in the paper can be useful for English for Academic Purposes (EAP) materials developers, teachers, test developers, and syllabus/curriculum designers.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
How-A Colombian Journal for Teachers of English
How-A Colombian Journal for Teachers of English EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信