A corpus analysis of vocabulary coverage and word frequency of Junior High School course books.

ABSTRACT

Herdian, Damasus Desta. (2017). A Corpus Analysis of Vocabulary Coverage and Word Frequency of Junior High School Course Books. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University

One of the important keys in learning English is through acquiring vocabulary from the course books. One of the ways to validate vocabulary coverage and word frequency in the course book is by comparing the vocabulary with corpus GSL (General Service List). The corpus words were selected to represent the most frequent words of English and were taken from a corpus of written English.

This research was aimed to discover the characteristics of the vocabulary coverage and word frequency in Junior High School course books, grade Eight. With two research questions, which are: (1) What is the vocabulary coverage of Junior High School course books in terms of types, tokens, and word families? (2) How frequent the words are being used in the course books?

The research method was corpus-based survey. The data were obtained from four junior high school course books, published by official/government and private publishers. Two Paul Nation’s concordance programs and a modified program (based on Bauman and Culligan’s wordlists) were used as instruments for data analysis. They were RANGE and FREQUENCY.

The findings showed that the four course books have average 30,463 tokens, and 3,063 types. The course books covered 72.55% tokens from total first 800 words (GSL800) vocabulary which should be mastered as Junior High School learners. The course books covered average 622 out of 800 word families or 77.78% of the total 800 headwords (GSL800) as required for the 2nd grade of Junior High School learners. It is considered not enough and need some improvements. The contents of the course books are accessible enough to students whose vocabulary knowledge is within the range. Unfortunately, they have inadequate number of word families and students will find difficulties in producing speaking and writing (active English) unless they use several supplementary English books or worksheets. The course books do not meet the criteria of incidental learning and text coverage either the learning opportunity to the students is not really high. The average deficit vocabulary is 177 out of 800 headwords. Almost 54% word families from the course books are repeated less than ten times. Thus, it gives small opportunities to students for deepening learning vocabulary.There are 20 functional words and 4 content words in the total 24 most frequent word types from all course books. The words the, to, a, and are four most frequent words appeared in all course books.

The course books have most of the types, tokens, and families listed in the GSL wordlist. However, authors need significant improvement in designing the material to give students a higher opportunity in learning vocabulary. High amount of tokens, types, and word families are also necessary but should be followed with suitable vocabulary needs and high frequency of essential words to help students become more effective and efficient in learning vocabulary.

ii

ABSTRAK

Herdian, Damasus Desta. (2017). A Corpus Analysis of Vocabulary Coverage and Word Frequency of Junior High School Course Books. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University

Salah satu kunci utama dalam belajar Bahasa Inggris adalah penguasaan kosakata lewat buku materi. Salah satu cara untuk validasi cakupan kosakata dan pengulangannya adalah dengan membandingkannya terhadap korpus GSL. Korpus ini mewakili kosakata bahasa Inggris yang paling sering muncul yang diambil dari banyak sumber berbahasa Inggris.

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menemukan karakteristik kosakata dan pengulangan kata di beberapa buku materi SMP kelas delapan. Ada dua permasalahan yang dipecahkan di penelitian ini: (1) Cakupan kosakata di buku pegangan SMP, menemukan jumlah token, type, dan word family (2) Bagaimana kosakata digunakan ulang, untuk menjelaskan bagaimana kata digunakan ulang.

Metode penelitian ini berbasis korpus. Korpus didapatkan dari empat buku materi untuk SMP yang diterbitkan oleh pemerintah maupun penerbit swasta. Dua buah program konkordansi dari Paul Nation dan program modifikasi (berdasar daftar kata dari Bauman dan Culligan) digunakan sebagai instrumen analisis data. Program itu bernaman RANGE dan FREQUENCY Hasil analisis data diinterpretasi untuk menemukan jawaban atas pertanyaan penelitian ini.

Hasil penemuan menunjukkan bahwa empat buku tersebut memiliki rata-rata 30.463 tokens, dan 5.063 types. Ini mencakup 72,55% tokens dari total kosakata GSL800 yang harus dikuasai siswa SMP. Buku mencakup 622 dari 800 word families atau 77,78% dari (GSL800) yang diharapkan siswa SMP mencapainya (daftar kata Bauman dan Culligan).Ini dikategorkan rendah dan perlu peningkatan. Buku mudah dipelajari oleh siswa yang memiliki pengetahuan kosakata sesuai levelnya. Sayangnya sedikitnya varian types dan word families membuat siswa sulit mempelajari bahasa Inggris secara aktif, kecuali ditambah buku penunjang atau buku soal. Buku materi juga tidak menunjang siswa untuk belajar mandiri diluar KBM. Kesempatan untuk mempelajari kosakata yang lebih sulittidak banyak diberikan. Rata-rata kosakata yang kurang adalah 177 dari 800 kata. Hampir sekitar 54% word families dari keseluruhan buku materi digunakan kurang dari 10 kali. Artinya, kecil kemungkinan bagi siswa untuk lebih mendalami kosakata dengan baik. Ada 20 functional words dan 4 content words dari total 24 kata yang paling sering muncul dari seluruh buku materi. Kata the, to, a, and adalah empat functional words yang paling sering muncul.

Dapat disimpulkan bahwa buku materi memiliki sebagian besar tokens, types, dan word families yang terdapat pada daftar kata bahasa Inggris yang sering muncul. Namun, buku tetap membutuhkan peningkatan yang signifikan dalam desain material untuk memberikan kepada siswa sebanyak mungkin kesempatan belajar kosakata. Besarnya tokens, types, dan word families itu perlu, namun harus diikuti oleh kebutuhan kosakata yang sesuai dan pengulangan kosakata untuk membantu siswa lebih efektif dan efisien dalam mempelajari kosakata.

A CORPUS ANALYSIS OF VOCABULARY COVERAGE

AND WORD FREQUENCY OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL

COURSE BOOKS

A THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Magister Humaniora (M.Hum.)

in English Language Studies

by

Damasus Desta Herdian Student Number : 136332010

THE GRADUATE PROGRAM IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA 2017

i

A CORPUS ANALYSIS OF VOCABULARY COVERAGE

AND WORD FREQUENCY OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL

COURSE BOOKS

A THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Magister Humaniora (M.Hum.)

in English Language Studies

by

Damasus Desta Herdian Student Number : 136332010

THE GRADUATE PROGRAM IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA 2017

ii

A CORPUS ANALYSIS OF VOCABULARY COVERAGE AND WORD FREQUENCY OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL COURSE

BOOKS

A THESIS

by

Damasus Desta Herdian Student Number: 136332010

Approved by,

Dr. J. Bismoko

iii

A THESIS

A CORPUS ANALYSIS OF VOCABULARY COVERAGE AND WORD FREQUENCY OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL COURSE

BOOKS

by:

Damasus Desta Herdian 136332010

Defended before the Thesis Committee and Declared Acceptable

THESIS COMMITTEE

Chairperson : F.X. Mukarto, Ph.D. ________________________

Secretary : Dr. E. Sunarto, M.Hum. ________________________

Members : 1. Dr. B.B. Dwijatmoko, M.A. ________________________

2. Dr. J. Bismoko ________________________

Yogyakarta, June 20, 2017 The Graduate Program Director Sanata Dharma University

iv

“Man shall not live by bread

alone, but by every word

that proceeds out of the

mouth of God.”

Matthew 4:4

This thesis is a symbol of my love, passion and dedication to

Jesus Christ, my best friend ever

My lovely parents and brother

My faithful future wife

My brethren in Christ

v

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY

This is to certify that all the ideas, phrases, and sentences, unless otherwise stated, are the ideas, phrases, and sentences of the thesis writer. The writer understands

the full consequences including degree cancellation if he took somebody else’s

ideas, phrases, or sentences without a proper reference.

Yogyakarta, June 20, 2017 The Writer

Damasus Desta Herdian 136332010

vi

ABSTRACT

Herdian, Damasus Desta. (2017). A Corpus Analysis of Vocabulary Coverage and Word Frequency of Junior High School Course Books. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University

One of the important keys in learning English is through acquiring vocabulary from the course books. One of the ways to validate vocabulary coverage and word frequency in the course book is by comparing the vocabulary with corpus GSL (General Service List). The corpus words were selected to represent the most frequent words of English and were taken from a corpus of written English.

This research was aimed to discover the characteristics of the vocabulary coverage and word frequency in Junior High School course books, grade Eight. With two research questions, which are: (1) What is the vocabulary coverage of Junior High School course books in terms of types, tokens, and word families? (2) How frequent the words are being used in the course books?

The research method was corpus-based survey. The data were obtained from four junior high school course books, published by official/government and private publishers. Two Paul Nation’s concordance programs and a modified

program (based on Bauman and Culligan’s wordlists) were used as instruments for data analysis. They were RANGE and FREQUENCY.

The findings showed that the four course books have average 30,463 tokens, and 3,063 types. The course books covered 72.55% tokens from total first 800 words (GSL800) vocabulary which should be mastered as Junior High School learners. The course books covered average 622 out of 800 word families or 77.78% of the total 800 headwords (GSL800) as required for the 2nd grade of Junior High School learners. It is considered not enough and need some improvements. The contents of the course books are accessible enough to students whose vocabulary knowledge is within the range. Unfortunately, they have inadequate number of word families and students will find difficulties in producing speaking and writing (active English) unless they use several supplementary English books or worksheets. The course books do not meet the criteria of incidental learning and text coverage either the learning opportunity to the students is not really high. The average deficit vocabulary is 177 out of 800 headwords. Almost 54% word families from the course books are repeated less than ten times. Thus, it gives small opportunities to students for deepening learning vocabulary.There are 20 functional words and 4 content words in the total 24 most frequent word types from all course books. The words the, to, a, and are four most frequent words appeared in all course books.

The course books have most of the types, tokens, and families listed in the GSL wordlist. However, authors need significant improvement in designing the material to give students a higher opportunity in learning vocabulary. High amount of tokens, types, and word families are also necessary but should be followed with suitable vocabulary needs and high frequency of essential words to help students become more effective and efficient in learning vocabulary.

vii

ABSTRAK

Herdian, Damasus Desta. (2017). A Corpus Analysis of Vocabulary Coverage and Word Frequency of Junior High School Course Books. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University

Salah satu kunci utama dalam belajar Bahasa Inggris adalah penguasaan kosakata lewat buku materi. Salah satu cara untuk validasi cakupan kosakata dan pengulangannya adalah dengan membandingkannya terhadap korpus GSL. Korpus ini mewakili kosakata bahasa Inggris yang paling sering muncul yang diambil dari banyak sumber berbahasa Inggris.

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menemukan karakteristik kosakata dan pengulangan kata di beberapa buku materi SMP kelas delapan. Ada dua permasalahan yang dipecahkan di penelitian ini: (1) Cakupan kosakata di buku pegangan SMP, menemukan jumlah token, type, dan word family (2) Bagaimana kosakata digunakan ulang, untuk menjelaskan bagaimana kata digunakan ulang.

Metode penelitian ini berbasis korpus. Korpus didapatkan dari empat buku materi untuk SMP yang diterbitkan oleh pemerintah maupun penerbit swasta. Dua buah program konkordansi dari Paul Nation dan program modifikasi (berdasar daftar kata dari Bauman dan Culligan) digunakan sebagai instrumen analisis data. Program itu bernaman RANGE dan FREQUENCY Hasil analisis data diinterpretasi untuk menemukan jawaban atas pertanyaan penelitian ini.

Hasil penemuan menunjukkan bahwa empat buku tersebut memiliki rata-rata 30.463 tokens, dan 5.063 types. Ini mencakup 72,55% tokens dari total kosakata GSL800 yang harus dikuasai siswa SMP. Buku mencakup 622 dari 800 word families atau 77,78% dari (GSL800) yang diharapkan siswa SMP mencapainya (daftar kata Bauman dan Culligan).Ini dikategorkan rendah dan perlu peningkatan. Buku mudah dipelajari oleh siswa yang memiliki pengetahuan kosakata sesuai levelnya. Sayangnya sedikitnya varian types dan word families membuat siswa sulit mempelajari bahasa Inggris secara aktif, kecuali ditambah buku penunjang atau buku soal. Buku materi juga tidak menunjang siswa untuk belajar mandiri diluar KBM. Kesempatan untuk mempelajari kosakata yang lebih sulittidak banyak diberikan. Rata-rata kosakata yang kurang adalah 177 dari 800 kata. Hampir sekitar 54% word families dari keseluruhan buku materi digunakan kurang dari 10 kali. Artinya, kecil kemungkinan bagi siswa untuk lebih mendalami kosakata dengan baik. Ada 20 functional words dan 4 content words dari total 24 kata yang paling sering muncul dari seluruh buku materi. Kata the, to, a, and adalah empat functional words yang paling sering muncul.

Dapat disimpulkan bahwa buku materi memiliki sebagian besar tokens, types, dan word families yang terdapat pada daftar kata bahasa Inggris yang sering muncul. Namun, buku tetap membutuhkan peningkatan yang signifikan dalam desain material untuk memberikan kepada siswa sebanyak mungkin kesempatan belajar kosakata. Besarnya tokens, types, dan word families itu perlu, namun harus diikuti oleh kebutuhan kosakata yang sesuai dan pengulangan kosakata untuk membantu siswa lebih efektif dan efisien dalam mempelajari kosakata.

viii

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN

PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS

Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma:

Nama : Damasus Desta Herdian Nomor Mahasiswa : 136332010

Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:

A CORPUS ANALYSIS OF VOCABULARY COVERAGE AND WORD FREQUENCY OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL COURSE BOOKS

beserta perangkat yang diperlukan (bila ada). Dengan demikian saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma hak untuk menyimpan, mengalihkan dalam bentuk media lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan data, mendistribusikan secara terbatas, dan mempublikasikannya di internet atau media lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta ijin dari saya maupun memberikan royalti kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis.

Demikian pernyataan ini saya buat dengan sebenarnya. Dibuat di Yogyakarta

Pada tanggal: 20 Juni 2017 Yang menyatakan,

ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my greatest gratitude to the Almighty God through His son, Jesus Christ, for always guiding and blessing me. He always gives everything I need. I believe a bright future is prepared for me. Thanks to Holy Spirit, who always lead me and strengthen me day by day. I am more than a conqueror through the Lord that loved me.

First and foremost, I would like to thank my thesis advisor, Dr. J. Bismoko for his guiding, giving suggestions, caring and patience, and supporting me during the writing of this thesis. I would like to thank to my thesis reviewer, Dr. B.B. Dwijatmoko, M.A. and F.X. Mukarto, Ph. D. Thanks to Widya Kiswara, M.Hum and all lecturers in English Language Studies for never ending inspiration and support during my hard days in finishing the thesis.

Sincere love and gratitude is also expressed to my parents Bapak Ag. Sanijo S.Pd. and Ibu M. Rastini for their love, pray, kindness, patience, care, and support. Thanks to my elder brother and wife who always push me to the limit, to reveal my true potential. Special gratitude to my partner in love, Elisabeth Berlian Sugiharto for her patience, love, and caring through happiness and sadness, strengthen me every day by her kindness. I also owe much to my mentors, Kak Imelda Gunawan, Kak Budi Prasetya, Kak Budi Abdipatra and Yusak Agustinus. Thank to my brethren in Christ Atma Troopers Community, SNIPER, and all Youth Fire Community members in GKKD.

x

My appreciation goes to Martinus Rizki, Robby Pranajaya, Christian Silitonga, Kak Louren, Dwiki, Gabhy and Anika for their willingness to support me and pray for me. Last, I thank my friends in KBI ’13 : Anindita, Mbak Tuti, Mbak Nurul, Bundo Wulan, Mas Bay, Mas Ryan, Dian Putri, Mbak Sisca, Ce Vivi, Aik, Levyn, mbak Dian, Mbak Asti, Amy, Fara, and Mbak Kurni for the great friendship, support, motivation, and encouragement through amazing years I spent with all of them.

I consider that my thesis is far from being perfect. For any mistakes or error that may remain in this work, I sincerely do apologize. The responsibility is entirely my own.

xi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TITLE PAGE... i

APPROVAL PAGES.………... ii

DEFENSE APPROVAL PAGES………... iii

DEDICATION PAGE.……… iv

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY………...……… v

ABSTRACT.………. vi

ABSTRAK.………..…….. vii

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI.………... viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.……… ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS.……… xi LIST OF TABLES………... xiii LIST OF FIGURES………... xiv CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION A. Background of the Research……… 1

B. Problem Limitation……….. 6

C. Problem Formulation……… 8

D. Research Objectives………. 8

E. Research Benefits………... 9

CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW A. Theoretical Review……….. 12

1. The Nature of Word and Vocabulary Knowledge……….. 12

a. The Concept of Word and Vocabulary………... 12

b. Word Knowledge……… 14

c. Vocabulary Knowledge………... 15

1) Breadth and Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge………... 16

2) Receptive and Productive of Vocabulary Knowledge………... 19

2. Vocabulary Coverage……….. 22

a. Types and Tokens………... 22

b. Word Family………... 23

c. Vocabulary for Junior High School Learners………. 24

3. Word Frequency……….. 25

a. High Frequency Words……….. 27

b. Low Frequency Words……….. 31

c. Academic Words……… 34

d. Technical Words……… 34

4. Course books………... 34

xii

1) Course books as a Basis for Negotiation……… 35

2) Course books as a Flexible Framework……….. 36

3) Course books and Teacher Development……… 36

4) Course books as a Workable Compromise……….. 37

b. Course books related to Curriculum……… 37

c. Advantages and Disadvantages of Course books……… 39

1) Advantages……… 39

2) Disadvantages……… 40

d. The Importance of Evaluating Course books……….. 40

5. Corpus Analysis………... 41

B. Theoretical Framework………. 42

CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY A. Research Method………... 46

B. Research Design………... 48

C. Data Analysis………... 51

CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION A.Vocabulary Coverage of the Course books……… 53

1. Vocabulary Coverage of Official Course book 1………... 53

2. Vocabulary Coverage of Private Course book 1………... 61

3. Vocabulary Coverage of Official Course book 2………... 69

4. Vocabulary Coverage of Private Course book 2………... 78

5. Further Discussion………... 86

B.Word Frequency of the Course books………... 88

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS A. Conclusions………...…………...……… 96

B. Implications...…..………...…………...……...,, 98

REFERENCES………...……. 100

APPENDICES Appendix 1………...…………...………. 108

Appendix 2………...…………...……… 109

Appendix 3………...…………...……… 118

Appendix 4………...…………...………. 123

Appendix 5………...…………...………. 128

Appendix 6………...…………...………. 132

xiii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Data Analysis Process...…... 52

Table 4.1 Vocabulary Coverage of Official Course book 1......… 54

Table 4.2 RANGE’s Result of Each Chapter in Official Course book 1... 57

Table 4.3 Vocabulary Coverage and Learning Opportunity ... 59

Table 4.4 Vocabulary Coverage of Private Course book 1………...……... 61

Table 4.5 RANGE’s Result of Each Chapter in Private Course book 1...64

Table 4.6 Vocabulary Coverage and Learning Opportunity ……… 66

Table 4.7 Vocabulary Coverage of Official Course book 2... 69

Table 4.8 RANGE’s Result of Each Chapter in Official Course book 2 ... 73

Table 4.9 Vocabulary Coverage and Learning Opportunity ... 75

Table 4.10 Vocabulary Coverage of Private Course book 2... 78

Table 4.11 RANGE’s Result of Each Chapter in Private Course book 2... 81

Table 4.12 Vocabulary Coverage and Learning Opportunity ... 84

Table 4.13 Summary of Vocabulary Coverage from All Course books... 87

Table 4.14 Word Frequency of the Course books...…...88

Table 4.15 Top Words Frequency and its Classes...…... 91

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1 The Percentage of Tokens from Each Word List in Each Part of Official Course book 1......………...…...…... 60 Figure 4.2 The Percentage of Tokens from Each Word List in Each Part of Private Course book 1......………...…... 68 Figure 4.3 The Percentage of Tokens from Each Word List in Each Part of Official Course book 2......…………...….. 78 Figure 4.4 The Percentage of Tokens from Each Word List in Each Part of Private Course book 2......…………... 86

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

This chapter is aimed to justify the research project, relevance and feasibility of language teaching and learning in the role of vocabulary, and some previous research on vocabulary. In general, this chapter covers the background of the research, problem identification, problem limitation, problem formulation, research goals, and research benefits.

A. BACKGROUND OF THE RESEARCH

Today, teaching English using course books become the most common method throughout schools and courses in every part of the world. Hutchinson and Torres (1994: 315) say that a course book is “an almost universal element of ELT (English Language Teaching)”. Course books become the most powerful device for spreading new ideas in language teaching, besides conferences, journals, and workshops (Andrew Littlejohn as in Tomlinson, 1998:190). Byrd (2001) also states that a course book serves as a content and teaching/learning activities provider, which determines what happens in a classroom. Therefore, students are required to use English course book as a vital support for their learning activity.

One of the biggest components of English learning activity is vocabulary. It means that when learning English, students must know the vocabulary that will be used in speaking English. As course books become the powerful device in

learning English, vocabulary also become the most essential to the English learning and the foundation of all English skills.

There are some reasons why vocabulary is important. Wilkins (1972) stated that vocabulary knowledge is crucial to successful communication because vocabulary plays an important role in delivering meaning. It means, vocabulary is needed to make us able to understand the meaning of we are spoken or listen about. It’s the key of successful communication in using two different language. As Ruply, Logan and Nichols (1999) state, vocabulary is the glue that hold stories, ideas, and content together and it makes comprehension accessible. The second reason is students understand the importance of vocabulary and they are eager to learn new vocabulary items (Leki and Carson, 1994). The last one, vocabulary acquisition affects language skill’s development. According to Schonell, Meddleton, and Shaw (1956), a vocabulary of around 2,000 word family needs to be mastered to provide 95% coverage of informal conversations. In other words, vocabulary is the key element in second language (English) skills.

Due to some reasons of the importance of vocabulary in learning English skills, vocabulary expansion is essential for learners to gain proficiency in English. In second language learning and teaching, vocabulary knowledge is central to communicative competence and to the acquisition of a second language. Students learn vocabulary through course books; and the size of their vocabulary determines their language performance. Vocabulary is the most important element to build their English knowledge and has strong effect on their future language learning progress. Therefore, knowing vocabulary is considered necessary for language learners (Schmit and McCarthy, 1997).

Using English course book, students will be helped to learn more vocabulary. In other words, learning vocabulary can be from course book. Indirectly, English course book will influence students’ vocabulary level. Students might be helped by their teachers in selecting many texts to read in language learning tasks. Those texts can be news articles, short stories, blog entries, and materials specifically written for students. The appropriate level in selecting texts is essential for reading tasks to be effective due to students’ proficiency in English will go higher according to the increasing level of difficulty in vocabulary terms.

Some researchers have paid attention to vocabulary. According to Read (2004), studies on second language vocabulary reached a peak in the 1990s and 2000s. Different issues on vocabulary have been the focus of the studies such as vocabulary size, learning vocabulary and word repetition. A set of research reports was given by different researchers. Research on vocabulary coverage and vocabulary recycled also conducted by Mutiara (2014) and Kusumaningrum (2014). The difference between this research and both Mutiara’s and Kusumaningrum’s research is that Mutiara analyzed the vocabulary coverage and word recycling in a Junior High School course book curriculum 2013; Kusumaningrum analyzed the vocabulary coverage and word recycling in a Junior High School course book curriculum 2006; while this research analyzed the word frequency distribution throughout several course books provided for Junior High School in order to find out whether vocabulary coverage in the course books will significantly increase or not during the development of English learning through many curriculums changing and its instability in Indonesia.

One of the ways to validate vocabulary coverage and its recycling in the course book is by comparing the vocabulary with English corpus (GSL, BNC, AWL, etc). The corpus words were selected to represent the most frequent words of English and were taken from a corpus of written English. As the research justification, corpus become the most trustworthy reference in order to measure the suitability between vocabulary being learned and the level of learners.

Matsuoka and Hirsh (2010) also did research toward analysis of an ELT course book. Their Research findings suggested that it only provided minimal opportunities for students to develop vocabulary knowledge beyond frequency and academic words. It shows a need to supplement the course book with an extensive reading program and other programs with rich input to promote vocabulary development. Another research on vocabulary coverage by Hsu (2009) also finds that vocabulary levels of the course books he examined did not seem to be in line with the one claimed by the publishers. This finding, then, results in suggestion for teachers to raise their awareness of considering vocabulary level when choosing an English course book.

Considering some previous research in the field of vocabulary coverage, this research also discusses vocabulary coverage and how the words are recycled. In this research, the researcher will discuss vocabulary coverage in random four Junior High School course books used in Yogyakarta.

From the explanation above, it is clearly seen that vocabulary takes an important role in studying English especially for students. It is because they cannot avoid English although they have graduated from Junior High School or even from university. Facing English all the time, students are familiar with

vocabulary. It means that they should always improve their size of vocabulary in order to follow their English need. If they could not improve their vocabulary size, they would not be able to follow their English lesson well.

Related to certain problem above, the researcher is going to look at several vocabularies of English Junior High School course books. This research is based on a corpus study. This study does not attempt to judge of course book quality, but to find the vocabulary coverage used in the course book, with the hope that future studies will improve on the methodology used. This research can also be used as a way to help in analyzing the overall quality of course books and help to create better English material for students.

Another area of study relating to vocabulary coverage is the issue of word frequency. It is often stated that learner should focus on learning the most common 2,000 or so words of a language since these account for 80% or so of most contexts. (Nation, 2002). Paul Nation also calculated that learner need 3,000 word families to feel even somewhat comfortable reading, and 5,000 to be comfortable in most situations. This is based on the assumption that we should be reading texts with 98% known words. It is considered as the standard of comfortable reading for students to be achieved in order to make them able to maximize their vocabulary learning.

Words can be difficult because of factors like frequency (Chen & Truscott, 2010). Therefore, discovering how far the frequency of certain words may occur in the course book becomes necessary to identify the factors that make words difficult. It is important because it will estimate the difficulty level of an individual word for effective learning of vocabulary acquisition.

B. PROBLEM LIMITATION

The researcher will limit the certain problem in order to be able to explain well. Actually it is impossible for the researcher to study all parts of vocabulary in the course books since the limitation of time, finances and ability of the researcher, the researcher only analyzes one level of Junior High School English course book in the second grade. As Kusumaningrum (2014) and Mutiara (2014) have already done with the first grade of Junior High School’s course books, the researcher did the research on the 2nd grade course books instead. The researcher also limits the scope of course books analysing which are distributed can be bought in Yogyakarta. It consists of four course books, which each two of them represent official course books and non-official course books (private publishers). Particularly, this research will deal with vocabulary coverage (types, tokens, word families) on certain provided course books. This limitation aims to obtain deeper investigation and discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of English course books in Yogyakarta.

Some limitations should also be considered in this research. First, the interpretation is done by the researcher and it may be subjective, although literature review is also used. Therefore, triangulation is used in form of expert check to minimize subjectivity. Second, the scope of this research is only vocabulary. It does not cover other scopes in course book evaluation such as learner’s roles, teacher’s roles, learning activities, pictures, and texts.

Masuhara (1998) stated that teachers who conduct the process of course book selection consider students, teachers and administrators’ needs and wants. In Indonesia, there are a lot of course books published and some of them have been

recommended to be used at school by the government based on the Ministry of National Decree, or can be called an official course book, and the others produced by private publishers. This research only focuses on random four course books to be analyzed. The course books are from both curriculum 2006 and 2013, therefore some of schools still use these course books. This research tries to elaborate the vocabulary items used in the course books to help teachers make decisions in using the course book to support students’ learning activity.

According to Nation in David Aline (2001), the words level for Junior High School is around 1000 words. Based on Kurikulum 1994, At the Junior High level, the objective is that by the end of the program, the students will have developed English language skills of reading, listening, speaking, and writing in thematic situations in accordance with their individual developmental levels and interests, using 1000 word-level and appropriate structures (Depdikbud, 1994b), and the objective at the Senior High level is that by the end of the program, the students will have developed English language skills of reading, listening, speaking, and writing in thematic situations in accordance with their individual developmental levels and interests, using 2500 word-level and appropriate structures (Depdikbud, 1994a).

As compared, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology in Japan (2011) introduced a new curriculum in which English activities became mandatory in Junior High grades, aiming to familiarize students with sounds or basic conversation in English, and cultivating their knowledge of other languages and cultures. At the junior high school, the curriculum emphasizes cultivating four skills of English and makes good use of these skills in

order to promote communication skills. For better communication skills, vocabulary teaching at this level has increased from 900 to 1,200. In high school, English classes are conducted in English, and vocabulary taught in this level increased from 1300 to 1800.

Although in recent curriculum, Indonesia government did not clearly mention the exact size of vocabulary that should be mastered by Junior High students, the words level for Junior High School is not far from 1000 words. Therefore, it is assumed that Junior High students in the first grade will acquire at least 500 words, 300 words in the second grade, and 200 words in the third grade.

C. PROBLEM FORMULATION

Based on the background, there are two problems addressed in this research. They are:

1. What is the vocabulary coverage of Junior High School course books? 2. How frequent the words are being used in the course books?

D. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

This research deals with vocabulary which is used in Junior High School course books. It aims to discover the vocabulary coverage and level of word frequency distribution in the Junior High School course books, as computed with vocabulary corpora. In particular, this research is intended to reach the subsequent objectives: (1) to find out the number of types, tokens, and word families in Junior High School course book and its implication and (2) to find out how frequent the words are being used in the course books and its implication.

Therefore, if we learn to find out the vocabulary coverage used in the course book, we hope that future studies will improve on the analyzing the overall quality of course books and help to create better English material for students. Also, discovering how far the frequency of certain words may occur in the course book becomes necessary to identify the factors that make words difficult and for better learning of vocabulary acquisition since frequency is also a predictor of L2 word difficulty in the case of ESL learning.

After seeing the vocabulary coverage, range, and frequency of Junior High School course books, teachers should have enough consideration to the content of certain English course books, especially the vocabulary. Beside, writers of the course books will get significant input from the discovery of this research in order to create better English course books for learner, especially in Yogyakarta. Last, future researchers also need to continue the research with greater numbers of course books, curricula, types of publishers, learner’s levels, and many more to produce better discoveries about vocabulary coverage and word frequency in the course books.

E. RESEARCH BENEFITS

This research would discover the vocabulary coverage and its level of word frequency distribution by corpus-based analysing in the English Junior High School course books in Yogyakarta. It clarifies the number of types, tokens, and words families in it as well as explains how the frequency words are distributed and the context. Scientifically, the result of the study may show the characteristics of vocabulary coverage, range, and frequency represented in the course books. It

is become an important and decisive factor in second language learning, particularly in learning English vocabulary for students in Yogyakarta.

This research is beneficial for English teachers because it will elaborate the importance of vocabulary in language learning. This research discovery will necessary for teachers to consider several aspects before they select a course book for students. This research will also emphasize how important it is for teachers to adjust the level of vocabulary with students’ background experience. This research is hoped to improve teachers’ awareness in selecting the best course book for their students based on students’ needs. It also gives a detailed picture of vocabulary which is used in a Junior High School course book, so it can be one of teachers’ considerations in choosing a course book which best meets their students need.

As for English course book’s writer, this research will give significant information about the characteristics of vocabulary coverage from several course books in Yogyakarta. It is aimed to give important input and evaluation for them in order to see how far whether course books have already met the demand of students’ needs based of their level in learning English or not. This research hoped that the results will help the writer to be more efficient and productive in giving vocabulary coverage to their designed course books and materials to meet the suitable students’ level of learning.

This research will discover the characteristics of vocabulary coverage, range, and frequency in course books published by both official and private publishers. It is used to discover a better option to the teachers to make decision in rejecting, adopting, adapting, or supplementing the course book with various

materials based on students’ needs. Hopefully, the course book’s quality and its vocabulary characteristics can still support the efficiency and effectivity of language learning.

12

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter aimed to discuss the theoretical truth of course book’s vocabulary coverage by corpora-based analysis. It consists of two major parts, namely theoretical review and theoretical framework. In the first part, the researcher would like to present and clarify the review of related theories which include the nature of word and vocabulary knowledge, vocabulary coverage, course books, word recycling and corpus. By the end of this chapter, the framework of the theories is presented to give theoretical answer for the research problems.

A.THEORETICAL REVIEW

This section is aimed to clarify concepts and concept relations. It covers the discussion about the nature of word and vocabulary knowledge, vocabulary coverage, word recycling, course books, and corpus.

1. The Nature of Word and Vocabulary Knowledge

In this part, the concept of word and vocabulary, word knowledge, vocabulary knowledge, vocabulary distribution, word recycling, word form, word meaning, and word use are clarified.

a. The Concept of Word and Vocabulary

Everyone should know the importance of knowing what a word is when we are discussing vocabulary. However, many of us might confuse what vocabulary is exactly and how word and vocabulary differ.

There are three definitions of a word according to Carter. The first definition is an arthographic definition (Carter, 1998: 4). The definition is based on its system of spelling. A word is defined as any sequence of letters including a limited number of other characteristics such as hyphen and apostrophe, bounded on other side by a space or punctuation mark. The second definition of a word which is stated by Carter is the minimum unit of language. According to Carter (1998: 5), a word is the minimum meaningful unit of language. Although this definition is more precise, it assumes an overt relation between individual words and the concept of meaning. The third definition according to Carter is related to its pronunciation. The definition is that a word will not have more than one stressed syllable (Carter, 1998: 6).

In the other side, Nunan (1999) stated that vocabulary is target language words presented in a list. It means that vocabulary consists of a number of words. Therefore, it is clear how word and vocabulary differ. One word can stand alone as a word, but vocabulary should consist of more than one word.

Knowing a word, according to Carter (1998: 5), is “knowing the different meanings carried by a single form”. Thus, he clarifies that it is more accurate to define a word as a minimum meaningful unit of language. In other words, words can be in different form, but it does not mean that they are counted as different words.

The concept of lexeme may help us in understanding the concept of word more clearly. Carter defines lexeme as the abstract unit underlying variants (e.g. runs, ran, running, runner) related to ‘word’. Thus, RUN is the lexeme of the word forms ‘runs’, ‘ran’, ‘running’, and ‘runner’. Lexeme is ‘the basic,

contrasting units of vocabulary in a language’. If we search for a meaning in dictionary, we are looking for lexeme rather than words. Then we would find the word-forms under the lexeme. The terms lexeme and word-forms are important theoretical concepts used when theoretical distinctions are needed. If not, we can just use the terms lexical items, vocabulary items, or items to refer to words.

The discussion above then leads to a concept of lexical words. It can also be called “full words” or “content words”. It includes nouns (chair, cup), adjectives (lazy, happy), verbs (buy, run), and adverbs (heavily, quickly), bringing high information content. Lexical words are syntactically structured by grammatical words. Grammatical words include pronouns (I, they), articles (a, the), auxiliary verbs (can, may), prepositions (in, at), and conjunctions (but, and). According to Carter, they are also called “functional word” or “empty words”. In the counting process of tokens, types, and word families in this research, content words and function words are considered the same, for example do as a content word and do as a functional word. However, they are discussed and treated as having a different category in the discussion part.

b. Word Knowledge

In order to get clearer insight of a word, it is necessary to know the aspects of word knowledge. Generally, the discussions of what is meant by knowing a word emphasize the knowledge of word forms, their meanings, and their linguistics features, and the ability to use words in different modalities and varied linguistic settings (Paribakht and Wesche, 1997: 310). Furthermore, word knowledge has also been described as consisting of some components. Richards (1976: 83) suggests some features of assumptions of word knowledge. He states

that knowing a word entails: (1) knowing the degree of probability of encountering that word in speech or print and the sort of words most likely to be found associated with the word. This assumption suggests that word knowledge covers the knowledge of the frequency of the word and its collocation, (2) knowing the limitations imposed on the use of the word according to variations of function and situation, (3) knowing a word means knowing the syntactic behaviour associated with the word. This shows that knowledge of word comprises the understanding of relationships between specific grammatical features and the word, (4) knowing a word entails knowledge of the underlying form of a word and the derivations that can be made from it. This feature implies that knowledge of words involves the knowledge of word inflections and the use of affixes, (5) knowing a word entails knowledge of the network of associations between that word and other words in the language. This indicates that lexical knowledge includes the understanding of the association between the word and other words, (6) knowing a word means knowing the semantic value of a word, and (7) knowing a word means knowing many of the different meanings associated with a word. This covers the understanding of various meaning based on the context in which the word is used. The seven aspects provide clear points that must be considered in learning vocabulary.

c. Vocabulary Knowledge

According to Jordan (1997), it is reasonable that vocabulary is related to all language learning and learners usually want to increase their store of vocabulary, regarding it as a measure of their language improvement. The learners tend to view vocabulary mastery as meaningful development in their learning. It indicates

that vocabulary knowledge is very important for them to evaluate their progress in learning second language.

Knowledge of vocabulary can be viewed from different perspectives. Among the various views, the notion of “breadth and depth of knowledge‟ and “receptive and productive knowledge‟ is a comprehensive discussion of vocabulary knowledge. In order to get clearer description of vocabulary knowledge, the following subsections present the discussion of various ideas given by different experts.

1) Breadth and Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge

A term “breadth of vocabulary knowledge‟ usually refers to the learners’ size of vocabulary. Vocabulary size refers to the number of words that a person knows (Read, 2000: 31). Learners‟ vocabulary size is most likely related to their ability in understanding both written and spoken texts. This implies that the greater vocabulary size the learners have, the more easily they understand the texts they read or listen. This also means that vocabulary knowledge mainly deals with the range of different words and proper understanding of the words. Nonetheless, it should not be supposed that if a learner has adequate vocabulary then all aspects in language learning become easy and it should not also be thought that significant vocabulary knowledge is always a prerequisite to language skill performance (Nation and Waring, 1997 in Schmitt and McCarthy, 1997: 6). To this extent, knowledge of words is operationalized as the ability to translate L2 vocabulary into L1, to define the word correctly, or to say the word differently and therefore, vocabulary knowledge is defined as precise

comprehension (Henriksen, 1999: 305). This stage of vocabulary knowledge falls into the “partial-precise knowledge‟ of vocabulary.

Various studies on vocabulary size, lexical growth, and the number of words gained overtime have been conducted by different researchers. The focus of such studies is mainly on measuring the number of vocabulary, such as; counting the number of words recognized by native speakers (D’Anna, Zechmeister and Hall, 1991; Goulden, Nation and Read, 1999), the amount of words required by native speakers (Hazenberg and Hulsjin, 1996; Laufer, 1992), the number of words gained from incidental exposure while reading (Huckin and Coady, 1999; Nagy, Herman and Anderson, 1985), and the amount of words learned by applying different exercises, techniques and strategies (Avila and Sadoski, 1996; Cohen and Aphek, 1980). Such research, however, does not lead to sufficient understanding of vocabulary acquisition and does not explain how individual words are acquired (Schmitt, 1998: 282). This condition underlies the emerge depth of knowledge perspective which likely clarifies the issue.

The result of a study conducted by Goulden, Nation, and Read (1990) show that educated English native speakers knows around 2,000 word families. The native speakers add 1,000 word families to their vocabulary per year. However, it is possible for learners of English as a second language (non-native speakers). According to Schmitt (2000), the first 2,000 most frequent types of English is referred as the level for the basic initial goal of second language learners. However, only the first 1,000 most frequent types needs to be recognized by elementary level students and 2,000 most frequent types needs to be recognized by intermediate level students (Criado and Sánchez, 2009).

Henriksen (1999) in his research stated that depth of knowledge, on the other hand, emphasizes more on the quality of the learners‟ vocabulary knowledge covering the full understanding or rich meaning representation of a word. The full understanding or rich meaning of a word can be gained by looking at its relations or associations with other words and its contexts. A depth knowledge continuum includes knowledge of the word’s syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations with other words (Laufer and Paribakht, 1998: 367). The focus of studies on depth of knowledge is different from that of breadth knowledge. It focuses on individual words rather than on the overall growth of vocabulary (Schmitt, 1998: 282). It means that the aspect of depth of knowledge stresses more on the learners’ knowledge of individual words including its referential meanings and its relations to other words. In other words, it most likely deals with the range of meanings carried by individual words. It also describes how well the learners understand the appropriate meaning of a word when it is used in different contexts. Understanding the context in which a word occurs in particularly needed by advanced learners. It is important for advance learners to acquire more senses of polysemous words and learn more about possible collocates, special uses, and so on (Bogaards, 2000: 495). This indicates that they most likely deal with depth of knowledge vocabulary. By taking into account the context in which a word occurs, the proper meaning can eventually be found and understood. For that reason, context constitutes an aspect that is apparently inseparable from depth of knowledge of vocabulary.

Several researchers (Paribakht and Wesche, 1993, 1997; Read, 1993; Schmitt, 1998; Wesche and Paribakht, 1996) developed tests to measure wider

and deeper aspects of lexical knowledge. Using such tests, they assess the aspects such as; basic understanding, full understanding, correct use, sensitivity to collocation and word association. Nevertheless, different test models should be accommodated in order to cover various features of knowledge being tested. Henriksen (1999: 306) argues the researchers must use the combination of tests formats tapping distinct aspects of knowledge to describe the learner’s lexical competence related to the aspects of quality or depth of vocabulary knowledge. In their research, Laufer and Paribakht (1998) classify word knowledge into three types, namely, passive, controlled active and free active knowledge. Passive vocabulary knowledge is defined as understanding its most frequent meaning. Controlled active knowledge is described as a cue recall of the word. And free active knowledge is referred to spontaneous use of a word in context. The three aspects show that what they investigate is fairly deeper than merely word recognition which is the concern of breadth of vocabulary knowledge.

2) Receptive and Productive of Vocabulary Knowledge

Knowledge of essentially needed to support language use. According to Fromkin, Blair, and Collins (2007), knowledge of a language makes it possible to understand and produce new sentences. It is the notion of receptive and productive use of language. It means the term receptive and productive knowledge of vocabulary become emergence in studying vocabulary.

Laufer and Paribakht (1998) made a clear definition about receptive and productive of vocabulary knowledge. They stated that receptive and productive of vocabulary knowledge mainly deals with how well the learner can access and use a word.

Melka (1997) in his research argues that knowing a word is closely related to the concept of word familiarity or degrees of knowledge. The concept labels productive knowledge as higher degrees of knowledge. It includes the knowing of various meanings of a polysemous word and the knowing of collocations or idioms. The knowledge of phonology, morphology, syntax, lexis and appropriateness is regarded as very high degrees of familiarity and therefore the production process needs a more complete set of information (Melka, 1997: 86-87). However, there are various stages of recognition and the boundary of word recognition is at the stage when the word is stored incompletely or when word production is still impossible (Melka, 1997: 88). Although in terms of lexicon it is almost impossible to find a clear and adequate definition of what is meant by reception and production, Gass and Selinker (2001) made a final remark that vocabulary knowledge can be best represented as a continuum with the initial stage being recognition and the final being production. Therefore, reception or recognition cannot be separated from production but it should be viewed as an interrelated process.

The two dichotomy can be overtly contradictory to the fact that empirically the term is commonly used to refer to the passive and active use of language since vocabulary as the centre of the language, always plays its role in both passive and active use of language. Laufer and Paribakht (1998) urge to distinguish between passive/receptive and active/productive vocabulary.

The passive use of language is mostly related to two skills, namely, listening and reading. This can be seen in that the aim of listening activity is to understand the spoken language and that of reading is to comprehend the written text. The

process of understanding occurs in mind. The language users most likely use their knowledge of vocabulary to comprehend the meaning of the spoken/written texts. Researchers agree that word comprehension does not automatically determine the accuracy of word use and that passive/receptive knowledge generally precedes active/productive knowledge (Laufer and Paribakht, 1998: 369). At passive/receptive level, therefore, the language users mostly do not produce any spoken/written language. That is why it is called the passive use of language.

In contrary, speaking and writing are the other two language skills that is inseparable from active use of language. In speaking, the speaker actively conveys messages to the listeners. In this case, spoken language is produced. In addition, writing activity aims at communicating the researcher’s ideas to the reader. Therefore, written language is produced as a mean of conveying the ideas. It seems clearer now that in listening/reading the listener/reader uses the language passively, whereas in speaking and writing the language is used actively.

Nation (1990) discussed comprehensively about the receptive and productive knowledge of vocabulary. He argues that the receptive dimension of vocabulary knowledge entails (1) being able to recognize it when it is heard or when it is seen, (2) having an expectation of what grammatical pattern the word will occur in, (3) having some expectation of the words which will collocate with it, (4) knowing its frequency and appropriateness, (5) being able to recall its meaning, (6) being able to make different associations with other related words (Nation, 1990: 31-33).

On the other hand, productive knowledge also covers some aspects of vocabulary knowledge which expand the receptive knowledge. Productive

knowledge of vocabulary involves; (a) knowing how to pronounce the word, (b) how to write and spell it, (c) how to use it in correct grammatical patterns along with the words usually collocate with, (d) how to avoid using low frequency word too often and use it in suitable situations, (e) how to use the word to stand for the meaning it represents, and (f) how to be able to think of suitable replacement of the word (if there are any).

2. Vocabulary Coverage

This research is about vocabulary coverage and its recycling, which deals with frequency. In the topic of coverage, types, tokens, and word families are the important terms. Thus, it is important to define what they are.

a. Types and Tokens

According to Nation and Meara (2002), a token or running word is main term if we are going to count how long a course book is. Nation and Meara (2002) also define token as all of the words that occur in the course book. For example, a sentence He was young the way an actual young person is young contains eleven tokens. Even though the word, for example young appears three times, it should still be counted every time it occurs again. The same words are counted as a new word each time it occurs.

In the other hand, if we are counting types, the same words are only counted once although it occurs more than once. Any occurrence of the same word is not counted as a new word, but “as another occurrence of the same type” (Nation, 1983: 10). As example before, the sentence He was young the way an actual young person is young contains eleven tokens but only has nine types since the

word young appears three times, but only counted as one type. After the first occurrence, the words young are not counted again.

Based on the definition above, the same words with different meaning are counted as one type. Due to the reason of counting, which is related to vocabulary learning, words like I’ll, I’m, and let’s are counted as having two types and two tokens. Words like student’s and family’s (possession) are also counted as having two types and two tokens. Numbers and proper nouns are also excluded. The analysis and interpretation is only limited to English words only in the material presentation of the book.

b. Word Family

Word family is crucial for systematic approach in vocabulary teaching and deciding the vocabulary load of texts which will be used (Bauer and Nation, 1993). To be able to count word family, lemma is needed to understand first. A lemma is a set of related words which have the stem form and inflected forms that come from the same part of speech (Nation and Meara, 2002). For example do, does, did, done, doing are under the same lemma because their stems are the same, and they are all verbs. Furthermore, affixes and suffixes whose the same stems are also included in word family. Words under the same word family do not have to be in the same part of speech.

Nation and Meara (2002) also argue that there are some groups of words which are usually used together such as single words. Some of them are not analyzed into parts, but learned and used as complete units. Such words are called multi-word units (MWUs). One criteria of MWU is that no word in the unit can be substituted by any other word. According to Schmitt (2000: 400), a single

meaning is given to an MWU, such as in phrasal verbs (give up), compounds (freeze-dry), and idioms (burn the midnight oil)’. However, in this research, MWU is counted as separate words.

c. Vocabulary for Junior High School Learners

As the target level of the course books being used in this research is the second grade of Junior High School students, we need to understand the requirement number of vocabulary form them. Based on the guidelines of SMP Curriculum of English, graduates of Junior High School are supported to master vocabulary in order to be able to communicate whether in spoken or written form. The graduated students of Junior High School are expected to master 1000 types /lemma after finishing their study.

Although in recent curriculum, Indonesia government did not clearly mention the exact size of vocabulary that should be mastered by Junior High students, according to Nation in David Aline (2001), the words level for Junior High School is around 1000 words. Based on 1994 curriculum, at the Junior High level, the objective is that by the end of the program, the students will have developed English language skills of reading, listening, speaking, and writing in thematic situations in accordance with their individual developmental levels and interests, using 1,000 word-level and appropriate structures (Depdikbud, 1994b), and the objective at the Senior High level is that by the end of the program, the students will have developed English language skills of reading, listening, speaking, and writing in thematic situations in accordance with their individual developmental levels and interests, using 2500 word-level and appropriate structures (Depdikbud, 1994a). Therefore, it is assumed that Junior High students

in the first grade will acquire at least 500 words, 300 words in the second grade, and 200 words in the third grade.

Since the researcher focused on the second grade of Junior High School as the course book’s user, the vocabulary requirement to be mastered for them are around 800 words. The researcher has already used sets of West’s General Service List (GSL) which covers first 1,000 words (GSL_1), second 1,000 words (GSL_2) and academic word lists (AWL) for advanced learners. Each of the words is a headword representing a word family. Bauman and Culligan (1995) had already made a version of GSL ranked in frequency order. The researcher used Bauman and Culligan’s list of frequency order in GSL_1 to figure out how far the course books will deal with suitable vocabulary for Junior High School learners.

3. Word Frequency

In this research, word frequency refers to how many times a word occurs in a course book and in what context it occurs. In another word, we can call it as frequency. According to Nation (1983), most frequency count is based on a sample of text with at least one million words. Frequency itself has its own purpose. It provides a rational basis for learners vocabulary learning, like what is stated by Nation and Waring (1997). Frequency information provides a rational basis for making sure that learners get the best return for their vocabulary learning effort by ensuring that words studied will be met often (p. 17). Thus, it is very important to know the frequent words in a course book before teachers use a certain course book and ensure that the vocabulary learned is useful for the learners.

Other experts also note the role of frequency in vocabulary learning. According to Coady and Nation (1988), word frequency in a course book has some effects on some learners. Ten times in minimum is enough to have an effect on them. There is no exact number of frequencies which contributes to vocabulary acquisition, but the more the better in subsequent level (Nation and Wang, 1999). However, Pienemann and Johnston’s model, as stated in Gass and Mackey (2002), suggests that regardless the frequency of input one receives, the acquisition of communicative value will hardly depend on particular developmental order. Otherwise, it will be kept and made available when one is ready for processing and use (Gass, 1997). It means that high frequency input does not necessarily bring effects on one’s acquisition of the input.

Learners can also learn words from the context in which they occur. It provides clues for learners to guess the meaning of unfamiliar words. However, the result of learning words from context is not as great as it is expected. Although it tends to be low, if hundreds or perhaps thousands of unfamiliar words are met, it could result in learning a number of words. And frequent words should have effect on learners (Coady and Nation, 1988). Thus, presenting the same words frequently in some contexts will provide opportunities for learners to acquire vocabulary.

According to Thomas, Pfister, and Peterson (2004) words with high frequency usually includes functional/structural words like in, to, of, and for. High-frequency words tend not to contain conceptual validity for an individual word or for the text where the words occur. Words with medium frequency are those with lesser generality but frequently repeated (Herdan 1964 as in Thomas et

al 2004). In this medium-frequency group, some commonly used content words may be found. He also states that words with low frequency tend to contain higher informational value than words with higher frequency. The size of group of word types which occur only once is called ‘hapax legomena’. It indicates word learning and vocabulary richness of a text (Holmes, 1994).

Nation (2002: 6) identifies four criteria of word frequency and range, namely, high frequency words, academic words, technical words, and low frequency words.

a. High Frequency Words

The words in this stage are about 2,000 word families and include most of the 176 function words and content words. In this stage, the words can account for 80% to 95% of the running words in a text. However, it depends on what kind of text is being counted.

According to Nation (2006), teaching and learning vocabulary with high frequency can be divided into four strands, namely meaning focused input, meaning focus output, language focused learning, and fluency development. 1) Meaning-focused Input

Nation and Meara (2002) suggest that meaning focused input is included in incidental vocabulary learning through reading and listening. In order for this strategy to occur, non-native speakers should meet three conditions. First, only a small amount of unknown vocabulary is allowed in a text, around two per cent, or one unknown word in 50 (Hu and Nation, 2000). Second, the non-native speakers should receive large amount of input, at least one million tokens or more per year.

Third, there should be more deliberate attention to the unknown word to increase the learning.

In terms of the familiarity of a text, Nation (2006) suggests that teachers can make use of specially written or simplified material with appropriate language level, containing around 95% familiar words. Those texts can be used in reading and listening activities. In class, teachers‟ instruction and interaction with learners are also a good source of listening input. If teachers use high vocabulary words, then learners have enough opportunities for vocabulary learning.

If an extensive reading program is well-managed, well-designed, it can also provide opportunities to learn and develop vocabulary knowledge. A good extensive reading program, based on what Nation and Wang (1999) state, a) provides interesting materials in which learners know 98% of the running words, b) inspires learners to read at least one book every two weeks, c) encourages learners to read at least three books at the same level before reading those at higher level, d) encourages learners to learn the unknown words in the texts deliberately, and e) facilitates learners to talk and write about what they read with enough amount of time, not much.

2) Meaning-focused Output

Learning from meaning-focused output refers to learning through speaking and writing, from receptive skill to productive skill. According to Nation and Meara (2002), the use of vocabulary in productive skill can be increased by designing activities which encourage learners to use new vocabulary, providing opportunities for learners, such as speaking activities in groups, to negotiate the

C 48 120 42.11 QUESTIONS 49 120 42.42 WHO 50 120 42.73 BUTET 51 119 43.03 USE 52 119 43.33 CONVERSATION 53 118 43.64 HIS 54 118 43.94 TEXT 55 114 44.23 PRACTICE 56 108 44.50 WERE 57 107 44.78 LOOK 58 106 45.05 AFTER 59 105 45.31 MISS 60 105 45.58 PEOPLE 61 104 45.85 PAST 62 102 46.11 VERBS 63 102 46.37 NURUL 64 101 46.63 YES 65 99 46.88 TIME 66 96 47.12 SO 67 93 47.36 LIKE 68 92 47.60 ONE 69 92 47.83 STORY 70 92 48.07 ANSWER 71 91 48.30 RIGHT 72 91 48.53 COMPLETE 73 89 48.76 CAN 74 88 48.98 NO 75 87 49.20 SEE 76 86 49.42 THERE 77 86 49.64 THINK 78 86 49.86 LAST 79 85 50.08 WORDS 80 85 50.30 FIRST 81 84 50.51 SCHOOL 82 83 50.72 SOME 83 83 50.93 AN 84 82 51.14 AS 85 82 51.35 FROM 86 82 51.56 GO 87 81 51.77 HOW 88 81 51.98 M 89 81 52.18 TIGOR 90 81 52.39 WRITE 91 81 52.60 INA 92 79 52.80 SAY 93 79 53.00 UP 94 79 53.20 WORK 95 78 53.40 BUT 96 76 53.59 SENTENCES 97 76 53.79 THEM 98 76 53.98 WHERE 99 76 54.17 BE 100 75 54.37 E 101 74 54.56 LEARN 102 74 54.74 WHY 103 74 54.93 GOOD 104 73 55.12 IWAN 105 73 55.31 MAKE 106 71 55.49 DOES 107 70 55.67 PUT 108 69 55.84 THESE 109 69 56.02 PRESENT 110 68 56.19 DOROTHY 111 64 56.35 YESTERDAY 112 64 56.52 D 113 61 56.67 INTO 114 61 56.83 BOOK 115 60 56.98 KNOW 116 60 57.14 ALL 117 59 57.29 DON 118 59 57.44

WELL 119 59 57.59 SAID 120 58 57.73 HAPPY 121 56 57.88 PICTURES 122 56 58.02 HAD 123 55 58.16 HOME 124 54 58.30 IF 125 53 58.43 WILL 126 53 58.57 BY 127 52 58.70 FRIENDS 128 50 58.83 HIM 129 50 58.96 CORRECT 130 48 59.08 EVENTS 131 48 59.20 HELP 132 48 59.32 BECAUSE 133 47 59.44 DIDN 134 47 59.56 MANY 135 47 59.68 OUR 136 47 59.80 G 137 46 59.92 AGAIN 138 45 60.04 CLASS 139 45 60.15 MORNING 140 45 60.27 WENT 141 45 60.38 FIND 142 44 60.49 HAS 143 44 60.61 WEEK 144 44 60.72 TEACHER 145 43 60.83 GOING 146 42 60.94 PERSON 147 42 61.04 BELOW 148 41 61.15 EOS 149 41 61.25 OK 150 41 61.36

Official Course book 2

Word Type Rank Frequency Cumulative Percent THE 1 1284 5.84

TO 2 656 8.82 AND 3 557 11.36 IS 4 460 13.45 I 5 440 15.45 IN 6 415 17.34 A 7 406 19.19 YOU 8 388 20.95 OF 9 280 22.22 YOUR 10 226 23.25 IT 11 219 24.25 SHE 12 218 25.24 WE 13 213 26.21 MY 14 210 27.16 ARE 15 208 28.11 S 16 207 29.05 WITH 17 168 29.82 WHAT 18 160 30.54 DO 19 159 31.27 HAVE 20 157 31.98 HE 21 157 32.70 FOR 22 154 33.40 ME 23 151 34.08 ON 24 135 34.70 FIRST 25 132 35.30 THAT 26 128 35.88 CAN 27 125 36.45 THEY 28 117 36.98 HER 29 110 37.48 NOT 30 108 37.97 WILL 31 104 38.44 ONE 32 101 38.90

WAS 33 100 39.36 T 34 98 39.80 NOW 35 97 40.25 BUT 36 91 40.66 SENTENCES 37 88 41.06 SCHOOL 38 87 41.46 WHEN 39 85 41.84 GO 40 82 42.22 THIS 41 82 42.59 THEM 42 80 42.95 SPEAKERS 43 77 43.30 ABOUT 44 76 43.65 VERY 45 76 43.99 AFTER 46 75 44.33 ANY 47 73 44.67 THERE 48 72 44.99 WORK 49 72 45.32 IF 50 71 45.64 SAY 51 69 45.96 THAN 52 68 46.27 HAS 53 67 46.57 OR 54 66 46.87 AT 55 65 47.17 DONA 56 65 47.46 FROM 57 65 47.76 MAKE 58 65 48.06 MANY 59 65 48.35 OBSERVING 60 64 48.64 QUESTIONING 61 64 48.93 DID 62 63 49.22 GROUP 63 63 49.51 PICTURE 64 63 49.79 ENGLISH 65 61 50.07 OUR 66 61 50.35 PLAY 67 61 50.63 SOME 68 61 50.90 CORRECTLY 69 60 51.18 LINA 70 60 51.45 LIKE 71 59 51.72 CLEARLY 72 57 51.98 HIS 73 57 52.24 PLEASE 74 57 52.49 SO 75 57 52.75 ALSO 76 55 53.00 ASSOCIATING 77 55 53.25 EDO 78 55 53.50 MORE 79 52 53.74 WRITE 80 52 53.98 EACH 81 51 54.21 GET 82 51 54.44 INFORMATION 83 51 54.67 THINGS 84 51 54.91 FRIENDS 85 50 55.13 REPEAT 86 49 55.36 M 87 48 55.57 TEACHER 88 47 55.79 WERE 89 47 56.00 BE 90 46 56.21 DAYU 91 46 56.42 THEN 92 46 56.63 UDIN 93 46 56.84 NO 94 45 57.04 KNOW 95 44 57.24 OTHER 96 44 57.44 COLLECTING 97 43 57.64 GOOD 98 43 57.83 SAYS 99 42 58.03 BIG 100 41 58.21 PEOPLE 101 41 58.40 STUDENTS 102 41 58.59 USE 103 41 58.77

ACCORDING 104 40 58.95 HOW 105 40 59.14 TOGETHER 106 40 59.32 ACTIVITIES 107 39 59.50 AN 108 39 59.67 CHAPTER 109 38 59.85 COPY 110 38 60.02 EXAMPLE 111 38 60.19 READ 112 38 60.36 US 113 38 60.54 GOT 114 37 60.71 PICTURES 115 37 60.87 TWO 116 37 61.04 PROBLEMS 117 36 61.21 ROLES 118 36 61.37 BEEN 119 35 61.53 MRS 120 35 61.69 GIVE 121 34 61.84 HELP 122 34 62.00 SITI 123 34 62.15 YES 124 34 62.31 B 125 33 62.46 DONE 126 33 62.61 SURE 127 33 62.76 CLASS 128 32 62.90 BECAUSE 129 31 63.04 BENI 130 31 63.18 COMMUNICATING 131 31 63.32 FATHER 132 31 63.47 HERE 133 31 63.61 ASK 134 30 63.74 COMPLETE 135 30 63.88 INDONESIA 136 30 64.02 MORNING 137 30 64.15 STORY 138 30 64.29 TIME 139 30 64.43 ALL 140 29 64.56 BEAUTIFUL 141 29 64.69 DOING 142 29 64.82 NOTEBOOK 143 29 64.95 PAPER 144 29 65.09 STATEMENTS 145 29 65.22 THINK 146 29 65.35 BROTHER 147 28 65.48 DAY 148 28 65.60 EAT 149 28 65.73 HOME 150 28 65.86

Private Course book 2

Word Type Rank Frequency Cumulative Percent THE 1 2024 6.16

TO 2 969 9.11 YOU 3 790 11.52 A 4 754 13.81 I 5 663 15.83 AND 6 512 17.39 IS 7 473 18.83 IN 8 453 20.21 OF 9 432 21.52 ACTIVITY 10 342 22.56 IT 11 321 23.54 YOUR 12 300 24.45 ARE 13 275 25.29 DO 14 255 26.07 WE 15 252 26.83 S 16 246 27.58 WHAT 17 244 28.33

AT 18 224 29.01 T 19 218 29.67 FOR 20 199 30.28 ON 21 199 30.88 WAS 22 198 31.49 HE 23 188 32.06 CAN 24 183 32.61 WITH 25 182 33.17 HAVE 26 180 33.72 SHE 27 180 34.26 MY 28 154 34.73 THAT 29 154 35.20 ABOUT 30 149 35.66 THEY 31 142 36.09 OR 32 128 36.48 BE 33 126 36.86 BUT 34 115 37.21 VERY 35 115 37.56 DONI 36 110 37.90 WHEN 37 109 38.23 FOLLOWING 38 107 38.55 AN 39 104 38.87 ME 40 103 39.18 USE 41 102 39.49 WERE 42 101 39.80 M 43 96 40.09 SOME 44 96 40.39 WILL 45 95 40.68 THIS 46 94 40.96 WANT 47 94 41.25 WRITE 48 91 41.53 FROM 49 89 41.80 THERE 50 89 42.07 GO 51 87 42.33 AS 52 86 42.59 HER 53 86 42.86 LOOK 54 86 43.12 WORK 55 84 43.37 AM 56 83 43.63 KNOW 57 83 43.88 READ 58 82 44.13 NOT 59 81 44.37 THEM 60 78 44.61 ONE 61 74 44.84 GOOD 62 72 45.06 B 63 71 45.27 BECAUSE 64 71 45.49 LET 65 71 45.70 HIS 66 70 45.92 HOW 67 70 46.13 NO 68 70 46.34 LIKE 69 69 46.55 SENTENCES 70 66 46.75 SALMA 71 64 46.95 UP 72 64 47.14 DID 73 63 47.34 PARTY 74 63 47.53 NEED 75 62 47.72 PLEASE 76 62 47.91 SO 77 62 48.09 PAST 78 60 48.28 SHOULD 79 60 48.46 COME 80 59 48.64 LAST 81 59 48.82 FRIENDS 82 58 49.00 THEIR 83 58 49.17 QUESTIONS 84 57 49.35 GIVE 85 56 49.52 THINGS 86 56 49.69 WHY 87 56 49.86 YES 88 56 50.03

EXAMPLE 89 55 50.19 NOW 90 55 50.36 SAID 91 54 50.53 SCHOOL 92 54 50.69 PEOPLE 93 53 50.85 SOMETHING 94 53 51.01 ALL 95 52 51.17 TIME 96 52 51.33 LISTEN 97 51 51.49 MAKE 98 51 51.64 WHERE 99 51 51.80 DAY 100 50 51.95 DOES 101 50 52.10 THINK 102 50 52.25 USUALLY 103 50 52.40 GOING 104 49 52.55 OK 105 49 52.70 WORDS 106 49 52.85 PAIRS 107 48 53.00 PLAY 108 48 53.14 TELL 109 48 53.29 US 110 47 53.43 MORE 111 46 53.57 THEN 112 46 53.71 WHO 113 46 53.85 ASK 114 45 53.99 COMPLETE 115 45 54.13 OUR 116 45 54.26 PICTURES 117 45 54.40 ADJECTIVES 118 44 54.54 CLASS 119 44 54.67 FIRMAN 120 44 54.80 TWO 121 44 54.94 HERE 122 43 55.07 TENSE 123 43 55.20 WELL 124 43 55.33 HAS 125 42 55.46 LITTLE 126 42 55.59 LOT 127 42 55.71 MR 128 42 55.84 OUT 129 42 55.97 SHORT 130 42 56.10 FRIEND 131 41 56.22 PUT 132 41 56.35 FEW 133 40 56.47 HELP 134 40 56.59 HIM 135 40 56.71 LOVE 136 40 56.83 ALWAYS 137 39 56.95 DIALOGUE 138 39 57.07 MANY 139 39 57.19 MRS 140 39 57.31 TEACHER 141 39 57.43 DOING 142 38 57.54 IF 143 38 57.66 STUDENTS 144 38 57.77 BEAUTIFUL 145 37 57.89 BY 146 37 58.00 SOMEONE 147 37 58.11 AFTER 148 36 58.22 ANTS 149 36 58.33 ATTENTION 150 36 58.44