Volume 20, Number 2, October 2008

Volume 20, Number 2, October 2008
Advisory and Editorial Boards
Advisory Board
University of Hawai‘i, USA
Richard Day, Co-Editor Reading in a Foreign Language readfl@hawaii.edu

Thom Hudson, Co-Editor Reading in a Foreign Language readfl@hawaii.edu
Richard Schmidt, Director National Foreign Language Resource Center schmidt@hawaii.edu
Jean Toyama, Associate Dean College of Languages, Linguistics, and Literature toyama@hawaii.edu
Editorial Board
Charles Alderson University of Lancaster, UK c.alderson@lancaster.ac.uk
Neil J. Anderson Brigham Young University, USA neil_anderson@byu.edu
Cindy Brantmeier Washington University, USA cbrantme@wustl.edu
Andrew D. Cohen University of Minnesota, USA adcohen@umn.edu
Averil Coxhead Massey University, New Zealand A.Coxhead@massey.ac.nz
Julian Edge University of Manchester, UK julian.edge@manchester.ac.uk
William Grabe Northern Arizona University, USA william.Grabe@nau.edu
Yukie Horiba Kanda University of International Studies, Japan yukiehn@kanda.kuis.ac.jp
Batia Laufer University of Haifa, Israel batialau@research.haifa.ac.il
Sandra McKay San Francisco State University, USA smckay@sfsu.edu
Setsuko Mori Kinki University, Japan setsukomori@mac.com
Paul Nation Victoria University, NZ Paul.Nation@vuw.ac.nz
David Qian Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong egdavid@polyu.edu.hk
Françoise Salager-Meyer Universidad de Los Andes, Venezuela fmeyer@telcel.net.ve
Sandra Silberstein University of Washington, USA tq@u.washington.edu
Fredricka Stoller Northern Arizona University, USA Fredricka.Stoller@NAU.EDU
Cyril Weir University of Surrey Roehampton, UK cyril.weir@which.net
Eddie Williams University of Reading, UK CALS@reading.ac.uk
Editorial Staff
Editors: Richard Day and Thom Hudson, University of Hawai’i, readfl@hawaii.edu
Reviews Editor: Anne Burns, Macquarie University, anne.burns@mq.edu.au
Readings on L2 Reading Editor: Cindy Brantmeier, Washington University, cbrantme@wustl.edu
Assistant Editor: Zhijun (David) Wen, University of Hawai’i, readfl@hawaii.edu
Web Production Editor: Jun Nomura, University of Hawai’i, readfl@hawaii.edu
Copyright © RFL 2008

About Reading in a Foreign Language
The online journal Reading in a Foreign Language (RFL) is a scholarly international refereed
journal originally founded as a print journal in 1983 at the University of Aston, Birmingham,
England. The journal moved to the University of Hawai‘i in 2002 under the co-editorship of
Richard R. Day and Thom Hudson, and Reviews Editor Anne Burns, Macquarie University,
Australia. It is supported by the National Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC), the
University of Hawai‘i College of Languages, Linguistics and Literature, and the University of
Hawai‘i Department of Second Language Studies.
Reading in a Foreign Language has established itself as an excellent source for the latest
developments in the field, both theoretical and pedagogic, including improving standards for
foreign language reading.
This fully-refereed journal is published twice a year, in April and October. The editors seek
manuscripts concerning both the practice and theory of learning to read and the teaching of
reading in any foreign or second language. Reviews of scholarly books and teaching materials,
conference reports, and discussions are also solicited. The language of the journal is English, but
lexical citations of languages other than English are acceptable. Additionally, the journal
encourages research submissions about reading in languages other than English. From time to
time, special issues are published on themes of relevance to our readers. Please see our
submission guidelines for more information.
Although RFL is a free online journal, we would appreciate your support as a subscriber. This
will assist us in continuing to obtain institutional support for the journal, keeping it free of charge.
Please take a few minutes to visit our subscription page.

Information for Contributors
Reading in a Foreign Language (RFL) seeks submissions of previously unpublished manuscripts

on any topic related to the area of foreign or second language reading. Articles should be written
so that they are accessible to a broad audience of language educators, including those individuals
who may not be familiar with the particular subject matter addressed in the article. Manuscripts
are being solicited in these three major categories: articles, discussion forum, and reviews.
Submission guidelines, general publication policies, general guidelines for reporting on both
quantitative and qualitative research are provided below.
Articles
Discussion Forum
Reviews
Features
Submission Guidelines
General Publication Policies
Guidelines for Reporting on Research
Articles
Articles should report original research or present an original framework that links previous
research, educational theory, and teaching practices. Full-length articles should be no more than
8,500 words in length, excluding appendices. Additionally, each submission should include an
abstract of no more than 150 words, and a list of five to seven keywords for index and search
purposes. We encourage articles that take advantage of the electronic format by including
hypermedia links to multimedia material both within and outside the article. All article
manuscripts submitted to RFL go through a two-step review process.
Step 1: Internal review. The editors of the journal first review each manuscript to see if it meets
the basic requirements for articles published in the journal (i.e., that it reports on original
research or presents an original framework linking previous research, educational theory, and
teaching practices), and that it is of sufficient quality to merit external review. Note that RFL
follows the guidelines of the fifth edition of the Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association published by the American Psychological Association (APA) in 2001.
Manuscripts submitted to RFL must conform to APA format. Manuscripts that do not meet these
requirements are not sent out for further review. This internal review takes about 1–2 weeks.

Step 2: External review. Submissions that meet the requirements above are then sent out for
blind peer review from two to three experts in the field, either from the journal’s editorial board
or from a larger list of reviewers. This second review process takes 2–3 months. Following the
external review, the authors are sent copies of the external reviewers’ comments and are notified
as to the decision (accept as it is, accept pending changes, revise and resubmit, or reject).
Discussion Forum
Short articles, usually no more than 2,000 words, in the Discussion Forum generally discuss
material previously published in RFL and may also present replies by the authors to the issues
raised in those comments. The Discussion Forum contents are meant to be constructive and
professional exchanges about an area of foreign language reading. Discussions go through the
same review process as that for full length articles.
Reviews
The journal welcomes reviews of recent publications and resources focusing on a variety of
aspects of reading, including research, professional development, classroom approaches,
teaching texts, and computer mediated materials. Reviewers should give a clear and succinct
description and provide the reader with the means of evaluating the relevance of the material to
the targeted field of theory and practice. Reviews should normally include references to
published theory and relevant research, and reviews providing a critical/evaluative overview of
several publications that have made a distinct contribution to the field of reading research and
practice are particularly welcome. Reviews of individual books or reading instructional software
are generally 1,200–1,600 words in length. Reviews of multiple texts can be longer. Reviews
should include the name, institutional affiliation, e-mail address, URL (if applicable), and a short
biographical statement (maximum 50 words) of the reviewer(s). The following information
should be included in a table at the beginning of the review:
Author(s)
Title
Publication date
Publisher
Publisher City and Country
Number of pages
ISBN
Price
Contact Anne Burns if you are interested in having material reviewed or in serving as a reviewer.
Anne Burns
Department of Linguistics
Macquarie University
Sydney Australia
anne.burns@mq.edu.au

Features
RFL has two features, Readings on L2 Reading: Publications in Other Venues, which first
appeared in the October 2005 issue, and RFL Revisited: Past Articles Today, which started in the
October 2006 issue. Both features appear once a year in the October issue.
Readings on L2 Reading: Publications in Other Venues offers an archive of articles published in

other venues during the previous year and will serve as a valuable tool to readers of RFL.
Articles may treat any topic within the scope of RFL and second language reading. Articles are
organized by topic. This feature includes titles of the articles as well as brief summaries. Two
additional sections include a list of books, volumes, and dissertations that treat second language
reading. For more information, please contact the editor for this feature, Cindy Brantmeier, an
Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics and Spanish, Washington University in St. Louis.
RFL readers are requested to send to Dr. Brantmeier titles of appropriate articles. Please include
all relevant information such as author(s), journal, date of publication, and, if possible, a brief
summary. Please send to cbrantme@wustl.edu
RFL Revisited: Past Articles Today brings past RFL articles and reprises them in current issues.
In order to find articles that still attract attention, we look at the number of hits that previous
articles receive. When we have identified an article, we ask the original author to comment on
the article as well as to have others comment on it.
Submission Guidelines
Please list the names, institutions, e-mail addresses, and if applicable, World Wide Web
addresses (URLs), of all authors. Also include a brief biographical statement (maximum 50
words, in sentence format) for each author. (This information will be removed when the articles
are distributed for blind review.) All submissions may be submitted in the following formats: (a)
HTML files, (b) Microsoft Word documents, (c) RTF documents, (d) ASCII text. If a different
format is required in order to better handle foreign language fonts, please consult with the editors.
Submissions can be transmitted in either of the following ways:
1. By electronic mail: Send the main document and any accompanying files (images, etc.) to
readfl@hawaii.edu
2. By mail: Send the material on a disk to the following address:
RFL
NFLRC
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
1859 East-West Road, #106
Honolulu, HI 96822
USA
Please check the General Publication Policies below for additional guidelines.

General Publication Policies
The following policies apply to all articles, reviews, and commentaries:
1. All submissions must conform to the requirements of the Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association (5th edition). Authors are responsible for the accuracy of references
and citations, which must be in APA format. Manuscripts may be rejected if they do not meet
APA requirements.
2. Manuscripts that have already been published elsewhere or are being considered for
publication elsewhere are not eligible to be considered for publication in RFL. It is the
responsibility of the author to inform the editor of the existence of any similar work that is
already published or under consideration for publication elsewhere.
3. Authors of accepted manuscripts will assign to RFL the permanent right to electronically
distribute the article.
4. The editors of RFL reserve the right to make editorial changes in any manuscript accepted for
publication for the sake of style or clarity. Authors will be consulted only if the changes are
substantial.
5. Articles are copyrighted by their respective authors, but if published after electronic
appearance, RFL will be acknowledged as the initial locus of publication.
6. The views expressed in RFL do not necessarily represent the views of the National Foreign
Language Resource Center, the University of Hawai‘i College of Language, Linguistics, and
Literature, or the University of Hawai‘i Department of Second Language Studies.
7. RFL expects authors to adhere to ethical standards for research involving human subjects. All
manuscripts submitted for consideration must meet the human subjects review established by
your institution.
RFL Guidelines for Reporting on Research
Research should generally include the following sections:
An Abstract
Five to seven keywords for index and search purposes
An Introduction:
1. stating the research issue to be investigated

2. presenting the underlying theoretical framework discussing how the research fits with
previous research

3. presenting a description of the methodological tradition in which the study was conducted for
qualitative research
4. defining the variables
5. stating the research hypotheses
A Method section:
1. describing the participants or subjects and research site

2. presenting a detailed description of data collection and analysis procedures
3. describing the apparatus or materials used
4. explaining the procedures and summarizing the steps employed in the research
A Results section:
1. presenting graphs and tables that help to explain the results

2. for quantitative research, presenting descriptive and inferential statistics used to
analyze the data, including the following: (a) the reliability of the instruments used, (b)
the statistic used, (c) statistical significance and effect size indicators of the results
obtained, (d) how all statistical assumptions were met
3. for qualitative research, data should reflect prolonged engagement, persistent

observation, and triangulation, with “thick description”
A Discussion section:
1. presenting an evaluation and interpretation of the results

2. discussing alternative explanations when appropriate
3. causal inferences should be cautiously made, and not based solely on correlational
approaches
4. results of the study should not be overly interpreted or generalized
5. linking the results obtained in the study to original hypotheses
6. presenting the implications and any limitations of the study
A Conclusion:
1. including a summary and general implications of the study

2. proposing suggestions for further research
References in APA format
Appendices of instrument(s) used

Contact RFL
Reading in a Foreign Language

National Foreign Language Resource Center
1859 East-West Road #106
Honolulu, HI 96822
USA
readfl@hawaii.edu

Volume 20, Number 2, October 2008
Special Issue on Reading and Vocabulary

Edited by Rob Waring
Editorial Board, About RFL, and Information for Contributors
From the Editors

pp. i–ii
From the Guest Editor

Rob Waring
pp. iii–iv
Articles
Incidental vocabulary acquisition from reading, reading-while-listening, and listening to stories

Ronan Brown, Rob Waring, and Sangrawee Donkaewbua
pp. 136–163
The virtuous circle: Modeling individual differences in L2 reading and vocabulary development
Diana Pulido and David Z. Hambrick
pp. 164–190
Beyond raw frequency: Incidental vocabulary acquisition in extensive reading

Soo-Ok Kweon and Hae-Ri Kim
pp. 191–215
Evaluating L2 readers’ vocabulary strategies and dictionary use

Caleb Prichard
pp. 216–231
The effects of context on incidental vocabulary learning

Stuart Webb
pp. 232–245
Vocabulary assistance before and during reading

Stephen Alessi and Angelique Dwyer
pp. 246–263
Reviews
Inside Reading: The Academic Word List in Context

Cheryl Boyd Zimmerman (Series Ed.)
reviewed by Averil Coxhead, Margaret Gari, and Matella Urakowi
pp. 264–268
Academic Reading (5th ed.)

Kathleen T. McWhorter
reviewed by Kyae-Sung Park
pp. 269–272
Teaching Second Language Reading

Thom Hudson
reviewed by Sue Ollerhead
pp. 273–277
Feature
Readings on L2 reading: Publications in other venues 2007-2008

pp. 278–286
External Reviewers
Charles Browne, Tess Fitzpatrick, Marlise Horst, Angela Joe, Tadamitsu Kamimoto, John Paul Loucky,
Paul Meara, Scott Miles, Jim Milton, Jayakaran Mukundan, Hilary Nesi, Johnathon Newton, Joanne Park,
John Read, Jim Ronald, Rory Rosszell, Norbert Schmitt, Stuart Webb, Brent Wolter, Junko Yamashita
Copy Editors
Amy Goodman-Bide, Yue Guo, Nathan Johnson, Ann Johnstun, Myeong-hyeon Kim, Jake Kletzien,
Elizabeth Lavolette, Treela McKamey, Mar Galindo Merino, Samantha NG, Leslie Reynolds, Bal
Krishna Sharma, Bong-Gi Sohn, Sakol Suethanapornkul, Aya Takeda, Choongil Yoon, Jae Rim Yoon,
Soo Jung Youn, Ying Zhou

Reading in a Foreign Language October 2008, Volume 20, No. 2
ISSN 1539-0578 pp. i–ii
From the Editors
We are very pleased with this special issue of Reading in a Foreign Language that deals with
reading and vocabulary. We would like to extend our thanks and appreciation to Rob Waring for
editing this special issue. We are confident that this issue will be particularly useful to readers of
the journal.
We had originally planned for this issue to deal with a second important theme, Reading in
Languages Other Than English. For a variety of reasons, this theme will appear in Volume 21,
Number 1, April 2009; as previously announced, the theme is edited by Cindy Brantmeier and
Keiko Koda. In addition to articles on Reading in Languages Other Than English, there will also
be articles that focus on other topics.
We would like to have your feedback to the articles in this special issue; please feel free to
contact us with your reactions, comments, and suggestions.
Once again, we request that readers of Reading in a Foreign Language who have not yet
subscribed to become subscribers―at no cost. All subscribers have the option of being notified
through e-mail as soon as each new issue is released. We ask you to subscribe because it will
assist us in continuing to obtain institutional support for the journal, keeping it free of charge.
We keep all subscriber information confidential. So, please fill out the brief subscription form for
Reading in a Foreign Language.
I would also like to thank the National Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC), the
University of Hawai‘i College of Languages, Linguistics and Literature, and the University of
Hawai‘i Department of Second Language Studies for their continued support of Reading in a
Foreign Language.
In this issue
Articles
Ronan Brown, Rob Waring, and Sangrawee Donkaewbua present the results of their study on
incidental vocabulary acquisition from reading, reading-while-listening, and listening to stories.
Diana Pulido and David Z. Hambrick report on their study that models individual differences in
second language reading and vocabulary development via structural equation modeling.
Soo-Ok Kweon and Hae-Ri Kim examine incidental vocabulary acquisition in extensive reading
by looking at the relationship among amount of incidental vocabulary acquisition, proportion of
http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl
From the Editors ii
vocabulary retention, and effect of occurrence frequency and word classes.
Caleb Prichard evaluates the dictionary use of Japanese university students to determine how
selective they are when reading nonfiction English texts for general comprehension.
Stuart Webb presents his study that addresses the effects of context on incidental vocabulary
learning.
Stephen Alessi and Angelique Dwyer contrasts vocabulary assistance before and during reading.
Feature
The feature, “Readings on L2 Reading: Publications in Other Venues,” presents references

through 2007-2008.
Reviews
Averil Coxhead, Margaret Gari, and Matella Urakowi review Inside Reading: The Academic
Word List in Context, by Cheryl Boyd Zimmerman (Series Editor.).
Kyae-Sung Park reviews Academic Reading (5th ed.), edited by Kathleen T. McWhorter.
Sue Ollerhead reviews Teaching Second Language Reading, by Thom Hudson.
Reading in a Foreign Language 20(2)

ISSN 1539-0578 pp. iii–iv
From the Guest Editor

Rob Waring
Notre Dame Seishin University
Japan
It has been a great honor to be Guest Editor on this special issue of Reading in a Foreign
Language on reading and vocabulary. This special issue was conceived almost two years ago to
highlight the growing importance of studying the relationship between vocabulary and reading.
In that regards the special issue is a success.
The papers here provide new insights to this relationship in different ways. Soo-Ok Kweon and
Hae-Ri Kim studied the rate of incidental vocabulary acquisition from the reading of authentic
literary texts. Ronan Brown, Rob Waring, and Sangrawee Donkaewbua also reported on
incidental vocabulary acquisition, but by comparing reading, reading-while-listening, and only
listening. Stephen Alessi and Angelique Dyer investigated whether learners benefit more from
being assisted prior to reading or during reading. Stuart Webb looked at whether words are better
remembered in reading due to the frequency of repetition or the quality of the context. Caleb
Prichard evaluated L2 readers’ vocabulary strategies and dictionary use. Diana Pudilo and David
Hambrick investigated the relative contributions of experiential and ability factors to second
language passage comprehension and L2 vocabulary retention.
All these papers have contributed to our understanding of the relationship between vocabulary
and reading in different and varied ways. These papers also raise as many questions as they
answer, which we hope will lead to more research and more quality papers for Reading in a
Foreign Language.
In closing I would like to thank the almost three dozen external reviewers for their time and
knowledge which has contributed greatly to improving the quality of the papers. The reviews are
Charles Browne, Tess Fitzpatrick, Marlise Horst, Angela Joe, Tadamitsu Kamimoto, John Paul
Loucky, Paul Meara, Scott Miles, Jim Milton, Jayakaran Mukundan, Hilary Nesi, Johnathon
Newton, Joanne Park, John Read, Jim Ronald, Rory Rosszell, Norbert Schmitt, Stuart Webb,
Brent Wolter, and Junko Yamashita.
I would also like to thank the following copy editors:
Amy Goodman-Bide, Yue Guo, Nathan Johnson, Ann Johnstun, Myeong-hyeon Kim, Jake
Kletzien, Treela McKamey, Mar Galindo Merino, Samantha NG, Elizabeth Pfaff, Leslie
Reynolds, Bal Krishna Sharma, Bong-Gi Sohn, Sakol Suethanapornkul, Aya Takeda, Choongil
Yoon, Jae Rim Yoon, Soo Jung Youn, and Ying Zhou.
From the Guest Editor iv
But most of all I want to express my sincerest thanks to Assistant Editor, Zhijun (David) Wen,
for him keeping me up to date and on track.

ISSN 1539-0578 pp. 136–163
Incidental vocabulary acquisition from reading, reading-while-listening, and

listening to stories
Ronan Brown
Seinan Gakuin University
Japan
Rob Waring
Notre Dame Seishin University
Japan
Sangrawee Donkaewbua
Rajabhat Mahasarakham University
Thailand
Abstract
This study examined the rate at which English vocabulary was acquired from the 3 input
modes of reading, reading-while-listening, and listening to stories. It selected 3 sets of 28
words within 4 frequency bands and administered 2 test types immediately after the
reading and listening treatments, 1 week later and 3 months later. The results showed that
new words could be learned incidentally in all 3 modes, but that most words were not
learned. Items occurring more frequently in the text were more likely to be learned and
were more resistant to decay. The data demonstrated that, on average, when subjects were
tested by unprompted recall, the meaning of only 1 of the 28 items met in either of the
reading modes and the meaning of none of the items met in the listening-only mode,
would be retained after 3 months.
Keywords: incidental vocabulary acquisition, graded readers, recurrence rate, vocabulary decay,
extensive reading, reading-while-listening, extensive listening
Incidental learning is the process of learning something without the intention of doing so. It is
also learning one thing while intending to learn another (Richards & Schmidt, 2002). In terms of
language acquisition, incidental learning is said to be an effective way of learning vocabulary
from context (Day, Omura, & Hiramatsu, 1991; Jenkins, Stein, & Wysocki, 1984; Nagy, Herman,
& Anderson, 1985; Saragi, Nation, & Meister, 1978).
Among the early studies of vocabulary acquisition in first languages (e.g., Boettcher, 1980;
Carey, 1982; Clark, 1973; Dale, O’Rourke, & Bamman, 1971; Deighton, 1959; Eichholz &
Barbe, 1961; Gentner, 1975), the study by Nagy et al. (1985) is particularly significant. In the
Brown et al.: Incidental vocabulary acquisition from reading, reading-while-listening, and listening to stories 137
course of their research they developed a methodology for measuring small gains in vocabulary
knowledge. They detected that a single incidental encounter of a word would seldom lead to full
knowledge or understanding of a word’s meaning. Moreover, if learning the meaning of
vocabulary from context does occur, Carey (1978) suggested that it must be on the basis of
encounters perceived in an incidental way. Because of this, learning vocabulary is understood to
be a gradual process (Deighton, 1959). Nagy et al. (1985) declared that when this gradual
learning process is encouraged by the help of contact with a sufficient amount of written
language exposure, incidental vocabulary learning in the first language can be substantial.
Studies on incidental vocabulary acquisition in the foreign language typically involve subjects in
extensive reading. One goal of extensive reading is to read for pleasure, which will hopefully
translate into general language improvement and a boost in reading motivation (Krashen, 1994).
The general language-learning process from extensive reading is incidental, with few specific
learning demands from the teacher (Widdowson, 1979). Some researchers suggest that extensive
reading is mainly for the purpose of reinforcing partially known words so that they may move up
to known words, rather than focus on building new vocabulary (Nation & Wang, 1999; Waring
& Takaki, 2003). Nevertheless, this does not exclude the learning and the acquisition of new
vocabulary entirely.
Extensive Reading
There is a strong connection between incidental vocabulary learning and extensive reading,
perhaps because of the definition of extensive reading. According to Bright and McGregor
(1970), Day and Bamford (1998), Harmer (2003), Krashen (1993), Nation (2001), and Waring
(1997), extensive reading is a pleasurable reading situation where a teacher encourages students
to choose what they want to read for themselves from reading materials at a level they can
understand. Krashen’s (2003) comprehension hypothesis claimed that comprehensible input is a
necessary and sufficient condition for language development and extensive reading provides this
condition. Through the provision of engaging language-learner literature, extensive reading
programs aim to develop reading fluency, and reading skills in general, while at the same time
consolidate knowledge of previously met grammatical structures and vocabulary.
There has been a reasonable amount of research on incidental vocabulary learning from
extensive reading (e.g., Day et al., 1991; Dupuy & Krashen, 1993; Grabe & Stoller, 1997;
Hayashi, 1999; Mason & Krashen, 1997; Pigada & Schmitt, 2006; Pitts, White, & Krashen, 1989;
Waring & Takaki, 2003). Several studies of such extensive reading programs have cited gains in
overall language development (e.g., Cho & Krashen, 1994; Elley, 1991; Hafiz & Tudor, 1990).
Other studies have emphasized benefits such as increased motivation to learn the new language
and renewed confidence in reading (e.g., Brown, 2000; Hayashi, 1999; Mason & Krashen, 1997).
In addition, research has indicated that the productive skills of writing and speaking have
similarly been enhanced (Cho & Krashen, 1994; Janopoulos, 1986; Robb & Susser, 1989).
Horst, Cobb and Meara (1998) claimed that through extensive reading learners can “enrich their
knowledge of the words they already know, increase lexical access speeds, build network
linkages between words, and…a few words will be acquired” (p. 221). In their vocabulary study,

a multiple-choice, immediate posttest measure indicated that of 23 new words available for
learning in the graded reader The Mayor of Casterbridge, 5 words were learned, which is a gain
of 22%. In a similar study conducted by Waring and Takaki (2003), a multiple-choice,
immediate posttest measure indicated that of 25 new words available for learning in the graded
reader A Little Princess, 11 words were learned (as measured by success on these tests), a gain of
42%.
In a further study conducted by Horst (2005), a modified vocabulary knowledge scale,

immediate posttest measure indicated that of 35 new words available for learning in self-selected
graded reading materials, 18 words were learned: a gain of 51%. These gains are comparable to
those achieved in the A Clockwork Orange investigation conducted by Saragi et al. (1978). In
their study, subjects were able to correctly identify the meanings of 75% of the target words,
especially the frequently recurring ones, in an unannounced multiple-choice test given
immediately after the reading treatment. Since Saragi et al., approximately 10 other
investigations have been undertaken to determine how much vocabulary is learned from reading
in a foreign language. For a meta-analysis of these oft-cited, learning-from-context studies of
vocabulary growth, see Horst or Waring and Nation (2004).
The study of Waring and Takaki (2003) is particularly significant. Like Nagy et al. (1985), they
too developed a methodology for measuring small gains by having several test formats. Where
other studies had used only one measurement, this study used three different kinds of
measurements. The measurements were a simple yes or no sight-recognition test, a standard
multiple-choice test, and a translation test into the first language. Their results showed that
incidental vocabulary learning from reading occurred at several levels and the gain scores
depended on the test type, but not much new vocabulary was learned.
Reading-While-Listening
A form of extensive reading that has recently been receiving more attention from language
teachers and researchers is reading while simultaneously listening to an audio recording, or to the
teacher reading a narrative aloud. The benefits cited have included increases in overall language
proficiency, particularly listening comprehension, as well as the ability to acquire a greater sense
of the rhythm of the language, which in turn can help learners to read and listen in meaningful
sense groups rather than adopt a word-for-word strategy (Day & Bamford, 1998). Moreover,
used as a strategy for promoting extensive reading, reading-while-listening can also pay
dividends, provided that learners understand “it might take [time] for concentration to
develop…eventually the moment will come when students are actually reading ahead of the
teacher and at the end of the lesson students carry on reading and ask to take the books home”
(Smith, 1997, p. 34).
Studies investigating the effectiveness of reading-while-listening for comprehension have

claimed that because low-proficiency English as a foreign language (EFL) readers tend to break
sentences into small incoherent parts while they read (thereby spoiling the sentences’ integrity
and rendering them meaningless), the teacher reading aloud early on in a program helps retain
that integrity by presenting larger semantic units, which in turn leads to better comprehension.

Thus, by adopting a more holistic approach, learners may realize that a higher level of
comprehension is possible when engaged in reading while listening to larger chunks of texts
rather than attempting to understand single words or unintelligible bits of sentences (Amer, 1997;
Dhaif, 1990). In terms of vocabulary growth, the teacher reading aloud while the learners follow
the written text created the conditions necessary for the incidental vocabulary acquisition gains
of 22% in the Horst et al. (1998) study cited earlier. In this study, reading aloud focused the
subjects’ attention on the events in the story, and allowed the text itself and a few pictures to
function as support for learning new words.
Extensive Listening
Research undertaken to determine the benefits of extensive listening (i.e., listening to long, easy
texts for fluency and enjoyment) has largely been concerned with native-speaker populations,
particularly early readers in elementary school. Reading stories to children is almost universally
acknowledged as good pedagogy, and when it is done in an environment of shared reading or
recreational reading, it also produces considerable gains in reading and listening skills (Elley,
1989; Senechal & Cornell, 1993). A further benefit of listening to stories is the potential for
acquiring new vocabulary incidentally. In a set of studies conducted by Elley, it was found that
oral story reading constituted a considerable source of vocabulary acquisition, whether or not the
reading was accompanied by teacher explanation of word meanings. Subjects in one group
showed gains of 15% from one story, without teacher explanation; while subjects in a second
group, who did receive teacher explanations, showed gains of 40%. It was further found that
these incidental vocabulary gains were relatively permanent, and that a key predictor of the
successful acquisition of a word was its frequency of recurrence in the story.
Although the number of research studies on extensive listening in a foreign language is limited,
there is a certain amount of didactic literature on the benefits and procedures of reading stories to
students (e.g., Moody, 1974; Prowse, 2005). West (1953) argued that reading aloud to the class
was “valuable for practice in understanding correctly spoken English and the appreciation of
literature” (p. 21). In addition, Nation (2001) claimed that “there is a growing body of evidence
that shows…that learners can pick up new vocabulary as they are being read to” (p. 117).
From the foregoing, successful learning of new vocabulary has been shown to take place when
EFL learners are engaged in either an extensive-reading condition or extensive reading-while-
listening condition. However, we know little about the rate at which vocabulary is picked up in
these two modes. Would more vocabulary be learnt by reading only, or by reading while
listening to a text? Moreover, as native-speaking children have been shown to acquire new
vocabulary from listening to stories (Eller, Pappas, & Brown, 1988; Elley, 1985; Elley, 1988;
Elley & Mangubhai, 1981), it is also pertinent to determine the rate at which foreign-language
vocabulary is learnt while only listening to stories. This question is of vital importance as it can
help determine how much reading or listening (and what type) needs to be done in foreign
language learning. The investigation that follows, therefore, is primarily concerned with how
foreign-language vocabulary acquisition rates compare across these three distinct input modes.
The main questions under investigation in this paper are as follows:

1. Do the subjects learn more vocabulary from reading, reading while listening, or
listening to stories?
2. At what rate is this new vocabulary knowledge learned, and at what rate does it decay?
3. Are the subjects more likely to learn a word if they meet it more often?
4. Are there significant differences in acquisition rates depending on whether the test is a
multiple-choice test or a meaning-translation test?
5. Do the subjects prefer to read only, read while listening, or listen only to stories?
Method
In this study, 35 subjects in three experimental groups read and listened once to three stories in
graded-reader form, each of which was approximately 5,500 words long. The reading and
listening treatments took place during three regular 90-minute classes at intervals of 2 weeks.
The subjects were then assessed on their recognition and recall of the target vocabulary items
with varying frequency of recurrence rates that they had met in each story. Similar to the Waring
and Takaki (2003) study, it was decided that the vocabulary acquisition would be assessed at two
levels and over three test periods. Eighty-four target words (3 sets of 28) were selected from
three 400-headword-level graded readers. These words, which represented already known
common concepts to the subjects (e.g., letter, restaurant, family), were then changed into
substitute words. See Table 1 for an overview of the study.
Table 1. An overview of the study

Text Group A (n = 12) Group B (n = 14) Group C (n = 9
The Elephant Man Listen (Week 2) Read + listen (Week 4) Read (Week 6)
One-Way Ticket Read (Week 4) Listen (Week 6) Read + listen (Week 2)
The Witches of Pendle Read + listen (Week 6) Read (Week 2) Listen (Week 4)
Participants
Thirty-five Japanese students of English literature from a medium-sized private university in

Kyushu, Japan, completed all aspects of the study. The ages of the 32 females and 3 males
ranged from 18 to 21 years old. They had studied English for 7.5 years on average (including 6
years at junior and senior high school). The study began with 68 subjects, but 33 were omitted
due to absence or incomplete data. The 35 subjects that saw the study through to its conclusion
had been randomly assigned to three experimental groups. In Group A, there were 12 subjects
from a 1st-year reading skills class; in Group B, there were 14 subjects from another 1st-year
reading skills class; and in Group C, there were 9 subjects from a 3rd-year speaking skills class.
All the subjects had pre-intermediate- or intermediate-level competence in English. This was
determined by their classwork and homework assignments, as well as by two standardized tests:
a 90-item Vocabulary Levels Test (Nation, 2001) and the paper-based version of the Test of
English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL).

To test for differences in proficiency between the groups, we administered a combined test of
four versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test (Schmitt, Schmitt, & Clapham, 2001) at the 2,000-
word level. Group A’s mean score was 64.83 (SD = 9.3), Group B’s mean was 63.14 (SD = 7.9),
and Group C’s mean was 63.56 (SD = 7.9). There was no significant difference between the
groups, F(2, 32) = 0.14, p = .87. The means of the subjects’ most recent TOEFL scores were as
follows: Group A, M = 454 (range: 407–483); Group B, M = 448 (range: 390–483); and Group C,
M = 460 (range: 420–510).
The subjects were initially told that they would take part in a vocabulary-learning strategies
program in which they would read and listen to some stories and that by using background
knowledge, context, and co-text, they were to try to infer the meanings of any unknown words.
They were also told that after reading and listening to a story, they would have to write some
brief comments on their impressions of the experience and on how they felt about the content of
the stories.
Materials and Design
The approach taken in this study was to use graded readers that were well within the subjects’
current reading-ability level (i.e., texts in which 96% to 99% of the running words were already
known). This would constitute ideal conditions for successfully inferring the meanings of
unknown words from context (Laufer & Sim, 1985). The test items were embedded within the
reading and listening texts. A 400-headword graded reader should not have presented any major
lexical problems for the pre-intermediate- and intermediate-level subjects. In this way, it could
be assumed that the surrounding co-text for the test items would be familiar, and therefore
investigating the rate of acquisition that took place based solely on the test items could proceed.
Three graded readers from the 400-headword, high-beginner level of the Oxford Bookworms
Library were selected: The Elephant Man (Vicary, 1989), a true and tragic story set in 19th
century England; One-Way Ticket (Bassett, 1991), a contemporary, human-interest collection of
adventures on European trains; and The Witches of Pendle (Akinyemi, 1994), a true and dark
story set in 17th century England. Prior to the study, all the copies of The Elephant Man, One-
Way Ticket, and The Witches of Pendle in their original graded-reader form held at the university
library were removed along with the original audio recordings. It was further determined that
none of the subjects had read or listened to these stories before, nor had they seen the movie
version of The Elephant Man.
Rationale for the use of substitute words. For the purposes of this study, adjustments were made
to the texts of each story. The spellings of the 28 test items in each of the three books (total 84)
were changed, replicating the design reported in Waring and Takaki (2003). Henceforth called
substitute words, these words refer to the change in spelling of an already known word
representing a common concept. For example, the words happy, book, and skin from The
Elephant Man are rendered mird, hoult, and labin respectively in their substitute forms in the
texts and tests. Words being symbols of meanings, a change in the symbol (its spelling),
provided it conforms to normal spelling and collocational conventions, has both construct and
face validity as it represents the matching of a new form for a given concept (i.e., learning a
word in the traditional sense). As Nation (2001) noted, “at the simplest level, the unknown word

may represent a familiar concept and so the new label for that familiar concept is being learned”
(p. 240). In a recent study on the effects of reading and writing on vocabulary knowledge, Webb
(2005) used a similar approach by replacing target words with nonsense words.
Controlling the word-frequency variable. Other than Horst et al. (1998), Saragi et al. (1978), and
Waring and Takaki (2003), few studies have investigated what types of words are learned in the
reading treatment. Moreover, a single gain figure is generally given for the total number of
words learned, irrespective of whether the words appeared frequently or not in the reading
material. The present study, however, controlled for the word-frequency variable, in the hope
that it would lead to greater accuracy in determining how many times a word needs to be met in
reading and listening for it to be acquired. Therefore, in addressing Research Question 3 (Are the
subjects more likely to learn a word if they meet it more often?), it was necessary to select words
of differing frequencies of recurrence. In addition, it was necessary to decide what types of
words should be selected. Nouns and adjectives were chosen because they are generally easier to
guess than adverbs (Higa, 1965; Laufer, 1997; Rodgers, 1969). Verbs were not selected because
they appear with their inflections and in various tenses, which can make it difficult to determine
whether the word is known and to ascertain how frequently the word type has occurred in the
text. Moreover, in order to get reasonably reliable data, it was necessary to test at least 25 words
that the subjects would have to infer from context.
After looking at the recurrences of words in several 400-headword-level graded readers, The
Elephant Man, One-Way Ticket and The Witches of Pendle were selected as the most appropriate
titles for this study because the distribution frequencies in these titles had a good spread of words
at different frequency bands. Each band had 7 test words. The frequency bands emerged from the
natural frequency occurring in these books. The 28 words—seven words from four frequency
bands—from each book were replaced with different spellings to ensure the words were
unknown (the substitute words). Seven words occurred between 15–20 times in a given book;
seven words appeared 10–13 times; seven words, 7–9 times; and seven words, 2–3 times. When
more than seven words were in a given frequency band, the words were chosen randomly. This
configuration of frequency groups and substitute words also ensured that a satisfactory coverage
rate of running words could be maintained, as indicated in Table 2.
Table 2. Lexical coverage of the running words by recurrences and types

Running Recurrences Coverage of Coverage by
Text Types
words of test items running words (%) types (%)
The Elephant Man 5,415 272 95.0% 574 95.1%
One-Way Ticket 5,522 272 95.0% 569 95.1%
The Witches of Pendle 5,765 264 95.4% 651 95.7%
The coverage rates in Table 2 refer to the percentage of the total running words assumed to be
known by the subjects. For example, for The Elephant Man, 5,143 (which is 5,415 subtracted by
272 total recurrences for the 28 test items) of the 5,415 words in the book makes 95% coverage.
When calculating the percentage of coverage by types, we calculated the total number of types
minus the 28 types used as substitute words (i.e., 574 - 28 = 546) and then divided it by the total
of types, which resulted in 95.1%.
In calculating the above coverage rates, as has been mentioned, it was assumed that because they

were meeting 400-headword-level texts, the pre-intermediate- and intermediate-level subjects

would know all the other words. Clearly, however, this would not be true for all subjects, and for
all words, especially considering the range of subjects’ proficiency.
It should also be noted that as the subjects read and listened to the stories, many of the high-
frequency substitute words would soon be recognized and learned as they got further and further
into the narrative, thus the coverage rate would steadily increase. See Appendix A for the list of
the substitute words and their English equivalents.
Instruments
In addressing Research Question 4 (Are there significant differences in acquisition rates

depending on whether the test is a multiple-choice test, or a meaning-translation test?), separate
tests were required in order to measure different types of word knowledge. Following Waring
and Takaki (2003), two tests were selected, namely, a multiple-choice (prompted recognition)
test and a meaning-by-translation (unprompted recognition) test to assess various levels of word
knowledge.
The two tests were extensively piloted with a group of 40 subjects of similar ability and
background who were not part of the main study. The aim of the piloting was to confirm that the
test words were pronounceable for Japanese subjects, that the tests contained enough words, and
that the stories were not too long and could be read or listened to in about 1 hour.
The multiple-choice test was a standard, prompted recognition four-choice test with the correct
meaning and three distracters. An I do not know option was added to allow subjects to indicate
when they did not know an item so as to reduce the effect of guessing. The subjects were asked
to circle the words they thought were nearest to the substitute words’ meanings. These choices
were the same part of speech. For example, the substitute word grift means leg. Leg is a concrete
noun, so the four choices were concrete nouns. Care was taken to ensure that the distracters came
from different semantic sets so as to allow small amounts of knowledge to be demonstrated
(Donkaewbua, 2008; Joe, 1994, 1998; Joe, Nation, & Newton, 1996). A sample extract from the
test appears in Appendix B.
The meaning-translation test presented the 28 substitute words in a list. The subjects were asked,
“What do these words mean? Write the meaning in Japanese.” Subjects were required to either
provide the exact meaning or give a plausible approximate answer, such as a near synonym. For
instance, the exact meaning of hoult in The Elephant Man is book (“hon” in Japanese). However,
if subjects wrote story (“monogatari” in Japanese), they would be given credit. Thus, half marks
were given for partial knowledge of the meanings of the substitute words. Moreover, to further
encourage a response, subjects were given two chances to provide an answer. A sample extract
from the test appears in Appendix B. Finally, in order to prevent the transfer of knowledge from
one test type to another, the meaning-translation test was given first and the multiple-choice test
given second.
Procedure
The subjects were told that the main purpose of this “vocabulary-learning strategies program”

(i.e., the study) was to determine whether they learn vocabulary better from reading, reading-
while-listening, or listening to stories. It was explained that they would read and listen to three
stories in which certain words had been changed. The rationale for, and examples of substitute
words were explained, but none of the actual test items were cited. They were told to enjoy
reading and listening to the stories and to do their best to guess the meanings of the substitute
words. Afterwards, they would have to answer some questions. Neither dictionary use nor note-
taking was allowed. Moreover, during the reading and listening sessions, no questions on the
content of the stories were permitted. On completion of the whole program (the study), the
researcher would individually inform the subjects which mode was best for them when acquiring
new vocabulary in English. The research schedule in detail is set out in Table 3.
Table 3. Research schedule in detail

Group Week 3 Month
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Delay
A PDVT S1 L Test S2 R Test S3 R + L Test S3–2 Tests
(n=12) Test S1–2 Test S2–2 Test Essay 1–3
S1–1 S2–1 S3–1 2–3
3–3
B PDVT S3 R Test S1 R + L Test S2 L Test Test S2–2 Tests
(n=14) Test S3–2 Test S1–2 S2–1 Essay 1–3
S3–1 S1–1 2–3
3–3
C PDVT S2 R + L Test S3 L Test S1 R Test S1–2
Tests
(n=9) Test S2–2 Test S3–2 Test Essay
1–3
S2–1 S3–1 S1–1 2–3
3–3
Note. PDVT = profile data vocabulary test; R = Reading-only mode; R + L = Reading-while-listening
mode; L = Listening-only mode.
S1 (Story 1): The Elephant Man; S1–1: Story 1, Posttest 1;
S2 (Story 2): One-Way Ticket; S2–2: Story 2, Posttest 2;
S3 (Story 3): The Witches of Pendle; S3–3: Story 3, Posttest 3.
The reading-only mode and the reading-while-listening mode. For the purposes of this study, the
full texts of The Elephant Man, One-Way Ticket, and The Witches of Pendle with their substitute
words were printed and put into book form. In the reading-only mode and the reading-while-
listening mode, the subjects were asked to read (and listen to) the stories as usual and enjoy them.
Short written introductions to the stories (150 words approximately) were given in each of the
three modes; however, these words were not counted in the figures for the main experiment.
These introductions were added to provide schematic background for each book.
Furthermore, to control for consistency of coverage rate, key words in each story that fell outside
the 400-headword range and that appeared in the books’ glossaries were written on the
chalkboard with their Japanese translations. Subjects could consult these lists (8 words per story)
if they needed to as they read or listened. A short, verbal preamble was given for each story to
orientate the subjects towards its topic, setting and background, but without mentioning anything
about the storyline or characters. Maps were used to help set the scene when necessary.

The listening-only mode. The full texts of the three stories were read aloud and recorded on
audiocassette by the second author. Care was taken to ensure that the narration was as clear and
as natural as possible. Piloting determined that a mean speech rate of 93 words per minute (wpm)
was appropriate for the subjects as they had never before listened to a long narrative on
audiocassette in English (e.g., Hirai, 1999). These recorded versions of the stories had a mean
duration time of 63 minutes. In the listening-only mode, the subjects’ supplementary-text support
was a short written introduction (150 words approximately) and a set of six or seven illustrations
(without captions) both from the original book. Subjects were asked to listen to the audiocassette
and to look at the pictures while listening to help them follow the narrative. There was a mid-
session interval of 3–4 minutes during which the subjects could stand up and stretch. Because of
the long duration time of the listening treatment, it was hoped that general fatigue or attention-
span limitations would not have a detrimental effect on word learning. Such long listening
sessions are not uncommon, however, especially in commercial testing and when listening to
university lectures. If we compare, for example, the current generation TOEFL, the Internet
Based Test (iBT), we find that it has a listening section that is between 60–90 minutes long and
contains up to six lectures and three conversations.
Data Collection
After reading or listening to the stories, as mentioned, the two tests were given in this order: (a)
meaning-translation test, and (b) multiple-choice test. These instruments formed the test set. The
test set was administered three times: Posttest 1, immediately after the story reading or listening
sessions; Posttest 2, 1 week later; and Posttest 3, 3 months later. The test items used in each
administration were the same, but the item order was rotated so as to control for a potential
learning effect from the tests. All of these test administrations were unannounced. The subjects
took the tests without seeing or hearing the story again, and they never met the substitute words
again.
In the listening-only mode, because the subjects had not read but had heard the substitute words
in a recording of the story, the test instrument for this mode necessitated the recording of the
prompts on audiocassette. It was considered important to test the subjects in the way that they
had learned so as to maintain reliability of data. Thus, at test time, the subjects listened to the
prompts and marked their responses on paper. The mean duration time of the listening test set
was 20 minutes. The reading-only and the reading-while-listening test sets were the same
instrument and took subjects approximately 10 minutes to do.
At the beginning of Posttest 1 (as shown in Table 3), the time taken to read or listen to the story
was written down by each subject. A questionnaire asked subjects to indicate on a six-point
attitude scale (5–0): (a) if they thought the story was easy or difficult to read or listen to; (b) if
they knew most or only a few the words; (c) if they understood most or only a little of the story;
and (d) if they thought the story was interesting or not. An open-ended question asked what they
thought of the story.
At the conclusion of the reading and listening (story) sessions, and on completion of Posttest 2 in
Week 7, the subjects were asked to write a brief essay describing how they felt about the
program (i.e., the study). In so doing, they were asked to consider these three points: (a) the story

they liked the most, and why; (b) the story that was easiest, and why; (c) the mode they preferred,
and why. The data collected from the subjects’ responses were examined in order to address
Research Question 5 (Do the subjects prefer to read only, read while listening, or listen only to
stories?).
Marking
On the multiple-choice test, correct answers were given one point each. On the meaning-
translation test, correct answers were given one point and a word with a similar meaning was
given a half point. For example, if the test word’s correct answer was book, one point was given,
but if the subject supplied story, because it is a near synonym, a half point was awarded. A total
of only 41 (0.46%) of all the possible responses were given a half point for the 35 subjects over
the three test administrations and thus did not significantly affect the overall results. Moreover,
99.1% of the subjects used only one blank to provide a translation. The first author and a native
Japanese speaker scored the test.
Results and Discussion
Research Question 1: Do the subjects learn more vocabulary from reading, reading while
listening, or listening to stories?
Table 4 summarizes the data for the three input modes and the two test types at the immediate
posttest (i.e., at Posttest 1). The data are presented graphically in Figure 1. Data for the delayed
tests are reported later. The data by test type are reported first. All standard deviations are in
parentheses. Across all texts, the mean scores for the multiple-choice (MC) test are: reading-only
mode 12.54 (5.03), reading-while-listening mode 13.31 (3.90), and listening-only mode 8.20
(2.82). The mean scores for the meaning-translation test are: reading-only mode 4.10 (4.02),
reading-while-listening mode 4.39 (3.29), and listening-only mode 0.56 (1.13).
Table 4. Mean scores for all texts for the two tests by the three input modes at Posttest 1
Reading-only Reading-while-listening Listening-only
Text
MC Translation MC Translation MC Translation
Elephant Man 18.67 8.11 12.67 4.06 7.83 0.00
n = 12 (3.61) (4.41) (4.15) (2.90) (1.52) (0.00)
One-Way 9.58 1.71 11.25 2.13 7.93 0.82
n = 14 (3.20) (2.18) (3.52) (1.87) (2.64) (1.49)
Witches 11.14 3.57 15.50 6.54 9.11 0.89
n=9 (3.66) (3.11) (3.06) (3.23) (4.23) (1.05)
All Texts 12.54 4.10 13.31 4.39 8.20 0.56
n = 35 (5.03) (4.02) (3.90) (3.29) (2.82) (1.13)
Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses. Max = 28.
The MC test results for the reading-while-listening mode across all texts indicate that an
impressive 48% (13.31) of the 28 words were learned (compare gains of 22% in the study by
Horst et al., 1998). MC gains made in the reading-only mode were similarly impressive standing
at 45% (12.54). Gains made in the listening-only mode, however, were less remarkable standing
at 29% (8.20).
Of the two tests, the meaning-translation test is probably the one that most closely indicates
whether a subject actually knew the meaning of the word while reading and listening. This is
because it shows that the subject is not only capable of recognizing the word but can also assign
a meaning to it without being prompted. In Table 4, the meaning-translation test results across all
texts show that 16% (4.39) of the 28 words were learned in the reading-while-listening mode.
This rate of acquisition is followed closely in the reading-only mode, which yielded gains of
15% (4.10) of the 28 target words. This reading-only rate matches that in the Waring and Takaki
(2003) study, in which the meaning-translation test scores showed that 18% of the 25 target
words were learned. In the present study, gains in the listening-only mode were minimal with
only 2% (0.56) of the 28 words learned.
Table 4 also displays the mean scores of the input modes by text and test type, and these scores
help indicate which modes were easier or harder for the subjects. We find that of the 28 new
words presented in this study, the most outstanding gains of all were those achieved when the
subjects read The Elephant Man (18.67 on the MC test and 8.11 on the translation test). These
were followed by the reading-while-listening gains for The Witches of Pendle (15.30 on the MC
test and 6.54 on the translation test). Conversely, it can be seen that on listening-only to The
Elephant Man, the subjects did not register any perceptible gains on the translation test. With
regard to One-Way Ticket, it can be seen that most of the test scores across the three input modes
were quite close, with the test scores for listening-only being marginally better than those
attained when listening-only to The Elephant Man. Interestingly, although the story was
generally reported not liked, the test scores for listening only to The Witches of Pendle yielded
the best overall results in this mode (9.11 on the MC test and 0.89 on the translation test).
Figure 1. Overall mean scores for the two tests by the three input modes at Posttest 1.
ANOVA administrations revealed significant differences between the MC tests and the meaning-
translation tests for the three modes (reading-only, reading-while-listening, and listening-only).
Significant differences in test scores emerged in the three modes for the MC test, F = 13.32, p
< .001, and the meaning-translation test, F = 16.38, p < .001.

To determine where the differences between the tests were, t tests were conducted for the two
tests by three input modes. The results are presented in Table 5. There was a significant
difference between the reading-only and listening-only modes, as well as for the reading-while-
listening and listening-only modes for both test types. This suggests that it is far more difficult to
pick up words from listening-only than from either the reading-only or reading-while-listening
modes. There was, however, no significant difference between reading-only and reading-while-
listening modes.
Table 5. T-test data for the two tests by three input modes at Posttest 1
Reading-only and Reading-while-listening Reading-only and
Test
listening-only and listening-only reading-while-listening
MC 6.93* 7.23* 0.86
Translation 5.66* 7.24* 0.41
Note. *p < .05.
Reading-only mode versus reading-while-listening mode. The scores the subjects attained in
these two modes were similar across the tests. The mean test scores for the three books varied
relatively little depending on the test type (even after 3 months). Given the almost equal expected
learning outcome from each of these modes, it would seem that the selection of preferred input
mode should rest with the learner.
Listening-only mode. It seems rather obvious that the listening-only mode should be the most
difficult to acquire new vocabulary from (especially given the length of the listening task). In this
study, the results of the meaning-translation test at the immediate posttest for the listening-only
mode showed that only 2% (0.56) of the 28 target words were learned (compared with 15% and
16% in the other two modes). Moreover, as we shall see in detail later, when asked which input
mode they preferred, 0% of the subjects chose listening-only.
The subjects, it seems, displayed a critical lack of familiarity with spoken English. As they
listened to the story, they had to pay constant attention to a stream of speech whose speed they
could not control. Because they were incapable of processing the phonological information as
fast as the stream of speech, they may have failed to recognize many of the spoken forms of
words that they already knew in their written forms.
A possible reason for this is that the subjects’ phonological knowledge of English varied from
the phonological system employed by native speakers. The Japanese language has a different
syllable structure to English and is often said to be mora-timed; therefore, Japanese learners may
expect to hear words pronounced in this manner and thus may have considerable problems
interpreting spoken English. McArthur (2003) claimed that Japanese learners have great
difficulty in speaking and listening to English because of this “tendency not only to pronounce
English in terms of Japanese syllable structure but also to adapt English words syllabically into
Japanese” (p. 21).
A second reason might have been a lack of skill in detecting word boundaries in connected
speech (i.e., skill in the lexical segmentation of the input signal). On reviewing the comments
made by the subjects regarding the listening-only mode, it became apparent that a major

challenge for them was negotiating the seamless nature of connected speech. Because of the way
one word runs into the next seamlessly “without any little silences between the spoken words
compared with the way there are white spaces between written words” (Pinker, 1994, p. 159),
subjects may have found it particularly difficult to tell where one word ended and the next began.
In terms of second-language listening, Field (2003) characterized the lexical segmentation of
streams of speech as “arguably the commonest perceptual cause of breakdown of understanding”
(p. 327).
A third reason might have been that the subjects were required to listen at a coverage rate (95%)
that was set for reading and not listening. The data suggest that the coverage rate was too low for
the listening-only mode, rendering the task of inferring the meanings of the 28 target words as
too great a challenge. Although no statistical data was provided, Nation (2001) claimed that “it is
likely that for extensive listening the ratio of unknown words to known words should be around
1 in 100” (p. 118).
Research Question 2: At what rate is this new vocabulary knowledge learned, and at what rate
does it decay?
The decay data for the three input modes at the three test times are shown in Table 6. Decay data
for each test are shown graphically in Figures 2 and 3. These data show relatively little decay
from their initial learning.
Table 6. Decay data by input mode over the three test periods
Immediate posttest One-week delay Three-month delay
Mode
MC Translation MC Translation MC Translation
Reading-only 12.54 4.10 12.46 2.34 11.37 0.97
(5.03) (4.02) (4.25) (2.39) (3.10) (1.47)
Reading-while-listening 13.31 4.39 12.37 1.83 12.14 1.14
(3.90) (3.29) (3.41) (1.94) (2.86) (1.32)
Listening-only 8.20 0.56 9.06 0.74 10.09 0.37
(2.82) (1.13) (2.65) (1.12) (2.72) (0.72)
Table 6 shows that there was relatively little decay over a 3-month period in the scores for the
reading-only, reading-while-listening, and listening-only modes for the two test types. The scores
remained about the same irrespective of the mode or the test, except for the meaning-translation
test scores, which dropped more considerably or stayed very low in all three modes. Thus, the
knowledge needed to complete a translation test seems to be far higher than simply selecting the
best answer on an MC test.
ANOVA administrations were carried out to determine if there were any significant differences
between the scores across the three data times for the two tests for each mode. Here are the
results: on the translation test, the reading-only mode, F = 11.11, p < .01, reading–while-
listening, F = 19.52, p < .01, and listening-only F = 0.88, p = .42; and on the MC test, the
reading-only mode, F = 0.76, p < .50, reading–while-listening, F = 0.84, p = .43, and listening-
only, F = 4.20, p < .05.

Figure 2. Decay data for the MC test over the three test periods.
Figure 3. Decay data for the translation test over the three test periods.
The ANOVA scores suggest that there were significant differences for many of the translation
tests, but not for the MC tests; so t tests were performed on the data to determine where the
differences were. Table 7 presents the data for the translation test, and Table 8 presents the data
for the MC test. The translation test scores tended to drop over time while the MC test scores did
not, for both the reading-only and reading-while-listening modes. However, in the listening
mode, the scores fluctuate, but given the small data set, the small number of subjects, and the
possibility of floor effects, we should not read too much into these data.
Table 7. The t-test scores for the three modes across the three data times for the translation test.
Immediate posttest Æ Immediate posttest Æ One-week delay Æ
Mode
One-week delay Three-month delay Three-month delay
Reading-only 3.67* 5.41* 5.24*
Reading-while-listening 5.83* 7.17* 2.70*
Listening-only .89 .94 1.8
Note. *p < .05.

This seems to suggest that the prompted-meaning recognition knowledge is better retained than
the unprompted knowledge. In other words, learners are much more likely to forget the meaning
of a word if they are not primed for its meaning. This suggests that teachers should ensure that
the learners meet words very often and that they be primed to remember words before reading a
passage again.
Table 8. The t-test scores for the three modes across the three data times for the MC test.
Immediate posttest Æ Immediate posttest Æ One-week delay Æ
Mode
One-week delay Three-month delay Three-month delay
Reading-only 0.17 1.87 2.01
Reading-while-listening 1.98 2.26 0.50
Listening-only 2.05* 3.69* 2.24*
Note. *p < .05.
It is noted that some of the mean scores in Table 6 appeared to increase over time without further
exposure. This is not an uncommon phenomenon and has been shown in other studies (e.g.,
Waring & Takaki, 2003). Often this is because the true means vary by the size of the standard
deviation and while it may appear that the mean scores went up, it is likely that no real increase
in knowledge was gained over time. Another possible explanation for this is found in a recent
study of the rate of learning collocation from graded reading (Waring, 2008). This study shows
that certain subjects retain knowledge of partially known words learnt in their reading and
associate that knowledge with other words in the lexicon as they continue to learn the language.
It seems that the subjects’ developing systemic knowledge of words over time has a facilitating
effect on the entire lexicon, and thus has a knock-on effect on all partially known words (even
substitute words), as has also been found in the present study.
Research Question 3: Are the subjects more likely to learn a word if they meet it more often?
The data for the effect on learning as influenced by a word’s frequency of recurrence are
presented in Table 9. These are the mean scores across the three books in each input mode. The
table is read as follows: On the MC test for the reading-only mode, of the seven words that were
met 15–20 times in each of the stories, 4.29 (2.0) of them were recognized; of the seven words
met 10–13 times, 2.86 (2.3) were recognized; of the seven words met 7–9 times, 3.14 (1.4) were
recognized; of the seven words met 2–3 times, 2.26 (1.2) were recognized; and so on.
Table 9. Data by word frequency of recurrence at Posttest 1

Reading-only Reading-while-listening Listening-only
Test
15–20 10–13 7–9 2–3 15–20 10–13 7–9 2–3 15–20 10–13 7–9 2–3
MC 4.29 2.86 3.14 2.26 4.43 4.03 3.23 1.63 2.06 2.54 2.23 1.37
(2.0) (2.3) (1.4) (1.2) (1.5) (2.1) (1.2) (0.8) (1.5) (1.6) (1.2) (1.0)
Translation 1.97 1.39 0.70 0.04 1.86 1.44 1.01 0.07 0.19 0.11 0.14 0.11
(1.9) (1.6) (1.0) (0.1) (1.5) (1.5) (1.2) (0.3) (0.5) (0.4) (0.4) (0.3)
By and large, the data show that the more frequently an item is met, the more chance it has of

being learned. The data also show that the scores tend to decrease depending on the test type,
with the meaning-translation test scores considerably lower than those on the MC test.
The frequency-of-recurrence data are valuable because they can indicate how frequently a word
should be met in order to learn it in the three modes. The data in Table 9 show that the words met
more frequently were more likely to be known at the immediate posttest in each mode. This
finding was consistent across the two test types with mean scores dropping as recurrence
frequency diminished.
ANOVA administrations were carried out to determine if there were any significant differences
between the scores across the four frequency bands for the two tests for each mode. Here are the
results: on the translation test for the reading-only mode, F = 24.14, p < .01, for reading–while-
listening, F = 20.80, p < .01, and for listening-only, F = 0.31, p = .82; and on the MC test for the
reading-only mode, F = 24.63, p < .01, for reading–while-listening, F = 52.02, p < .01, and for
listening-only, F = 4.67, p < .01.
Table 10. T-test scores for the translation test for each frequency band by input mode at Posttest 1
15–20 15–20 15–20 10–13 10–13 7–9
Mode
vs.10–13 vs. 7–9 vs. 2–3 vs. 7–9 vs. 2–3 vs. 2–3
Reading-only 2.57* 5.56* 6.24* 3.99* 5.17* 4.18*
Reading-while-listening 1.37 2.92* 7.18* 2.00* 5.32* 4.33*
Listening-only 1.22 .49 .82 .33 .00 0.33
Note. *p < .05.
Table 10 presents the t-test data for each input mode analyzed between each frequency band for
the translation test, and Table 11 presents the same data for the MC test in order to show where
the differences were.
Table 11. T-test scores for the MC test at each frequency band by input at Posttest 1
15–20 15–20 15–20 10–13 10–13 7–9
Mode
vs.10–13 vs. 7–9 vs. 2–3 vs. 7–9 vs. 2–3 vs. 2–3
Reading-only 3.50* 4.02* 6.42* 0.79 1.50 3.90*
Reading-while-listening 1.36 4.19* 9.49* 2.34* 6.34* 5.74*
Listening-only 1.79 .56 2.05* 1.01 3.43* 3.43*
Note. *p < .05.
As one would expect, the more frequently met words were better learnt than the less frequently
met words. Both tests showed significant decay between each frequency band. This did not
happen for the listening-only mode probably because of floor effects.
Table 9 also confirms differences in the acquisition rates by frequency of recurrence by input
mode. The MC tests for reading-only and reading-while-listening modes yielded the following
rates for the 7–9 frequency band: 45% (3.14/7) and 46% (3.23/7) respectively. However, the
meaning-translation test rates for the 7–9 band were far lower: 10% for reading-only and 14%
for reading-while-listening.
In the listening-only mode, according to the MC test results, even having met a word 10–13

times, there is a less than 36% (2.54/7) chance that the word can be recognized. Furthermore,
meaning-translation test results indicate that 10–13 meetings of a word will yield only a 1.5%
(0.11/7) chance that its meaning will be understood when encountered again. Moreover, only 3%
(0.19) of the 7 words met 15–20 times in the texts were acquired. The data suggest that the
acquisition of words through listening is considerably slower than from reading, and as such
more recurrences of words are needed for acquisition (as defined by a correct score on the
meaning-translation test) to take place.
Ultimately, this suggests that there is little or no chance a new word will be picked up from
listening unless the word is met considerably more than 20 times. Extrapolation of these data
shows that maybe 50 or even 100 meetings may not be enough to acquire a word’s meaning from
listening-only. As has recently been shown, even partial knowledge such as the ability to
recognise a word’s form is hard to pick up from listening alone (Donkaewbua, 2008). It also
suggests that far more listening than reading needs to be done for vocabulary learning through
extensive exposure. It should also be noted that in this study more uptake of vocabulary might
have been possible if the listening treatment had been in shorter, more manageable sessions.
The reading-only mode data in this study replicate the Waring and Takaki (2003) findings, which
showed that (a) unless words are met a sufficient number of times and (b) are met again soon
after reading, then the word knowledge gained will decay. Recent research indicates that a
sufficient number is likely to be much higher than 7–9 times for long term retention, and in fact
may be closer to 30–50 times or higher (Waring, 2008) for new words met through graded
reading.
Research Question 4: Are there significant differences in acquisition rates depending on whether
the test is a multiple-choice test or a meaning-translation test?
The aim here is to determine if there are significant differences between the test types, which in
turn can tell us if one type of test is more difficult than others, or to put it another way, do the
tests measure different levels of word knowledge? This has considerable implications for the
type of test used in this kind of research. There were significant differences between each test
within each input mode as shown by the data in Table 4 and Table 12 and the ANOVA scores.
For the reading-only mode there was a significant difference between the two test types, F =
57.17, p < .01, for the reading-while-listening mode, F = 68.14, p < .01, and for the listening-
only mode, F = 208.49, p < .01.
The t-test results (based on adjusted alpha) in Table 12 show that the scores differed significantly
depending on which test was taken. These data show that the test types employed by researchers
that aim to assess gains from incidental vocabulary acquisition matter greatly.
Table 12. T-test results between test types at Posttest 1

Mode MC test vs. translation test
Reading-only 20.4**
Reading-while-listening 23.1**
Listening-only 17.8**
Note. **p < .01.

Table 13 presents the t-test data for differences between each of the various input modes for each
test. While there was no significant difference between reading-only and reading-while-listening
modes for the two tests, four of the t tests showed significant differences. There were significant
differences between the listening-only and reading-only scores, and listening-only and reading-
while-listening scores on each test type.
Table 13. T-test results between the input modes at Posttest 1

Reading-only vs. Listening-only vs. Listening-only vs.
Test
reading-while-listening reading-only reading-while-listening
MC 0.86 5.70* 7.23*
Translation 0.41 5.67* 5.52*
Note. *p < .05.
In terms of test type, the MC test showed significant differences in the listening-only versus
reading-only modes, t = 5.70, and the listening-only versus reading-while-listening modes, t =
7.23, but not in the reading-only versus reading-while-listening modes, t = 0.86. Similarly, the
meaning-translation test showed significant differences in the listening-only versus reading-only
modes, t = 5.67, and in the listening-only versus reading-while-listening modes, t = 5.52, but not
in the reading-only versus reading-while-listening modes, t = 0.41.
In sum, the data show that the subjects picked up some words from their reading and listening
experiences in this study, but far fewer words were picked up in the listening-only mode
compared with the other two modes. The data for the reading-only mode replicate that of Waring
and Takaki (2003), which found that on the unprompted translation test few words were picked
up and retained, but if measured by an MC test, some words were known. This suggests that the
recognition of words from reading is acquired before a meaning can be produced on a translation
test.
Research Question 5: Do the subjects prefer to read only, read while listening, or listen only to
stories?
Table 14 presents the data from the questionnaire that was administered immediately after the
reading and listening sessions for each of the three stories. It is evident that the subjects were
most comfortable with the story met in the reading-while-listening mode. They were also quite
comfortable with the story met in the reading-only mode. However, the story they met in the
listening-only mode was clearly the least favored with almost all scores below the median of 2.5.
Table 14. Mean scores from the questionnaire

Was it easy to Did you know most Did you understand Was the story
Mode
read or listen to? of the words? the story? interesting?
Reading-only 2.86 2.97 3.17 3.40
Reading-while- 3.34 2.86 3.34 3.54
listening
Listening-only 1.91 2.34 2.06 2.60
Note. Max = 5.
Table 15 presents the data from the written comments extracted from the subjects’ brief essays.

These essays were written at the conclusion of the reading and listening sessions, and on
completion of Posttest 2 in Week 7. The Elephant Man was generally perceived to be both the
most interesting and the easiest book.
The essay data revealed that the great majority of subjects were inclined towards the reading-
while-listening mode (72%). In addition, while a sizeable minority was in favor of the reading-
only mode (28%), no subjects indicated unequivocally that they preferred the listening-only
mode. These data are supported by their actual performance in each mode. The all-texts scores
for the meaning-translation test at Posttest 1 (see Table 4) has the reading-while-listening mode
ranked first with 16% of the words learned, the reading-only mode ranked second with 15% of
the words learned, and listening-only lies in third place with 2% words learned. The data in
Table 14 also point to listening-only being the most difficult, the least pleasurable, and the most
difficult to understand. This would most likely have rendered the story also less interesting. The
reading-only and reading-while-listening mode ratings though fared considerably better with all
the scores above the median of 2.5.
Table 15. Data for the written comments in essays

The Elephant Man One-Way Ticket The Witches of Pendle
Q1. Which book did
26 (74%) 5 (14%) 4 (12%)
you like the most?
Q2. Which book was
21 (60%) 8 (23%) 6 (17%)
easiest?
Reading-while-
Reading-only Listening-only
listening
Q3. Which mode did
10 (28%) 25 (72%) 0 (0%)
you prefer?
Note. n = 35.
Although not a research question in this study, it is nevertheless interesting to look at the
subjects’ responses to Items 1 and 2 in their short essays (i.e., the story they liked the most) and
the story they thought the easiest (Table 15). It is clear that The Elephant Man was the most
favored story by far (74%), followed by One-Way Ticket (14%), and then by The Witches of
Pendle (12%). This pattern is repeated in the subjects’ responses to which book they thought the
easiest. By examining more closely the subjects’ written comments regarding their favorite book,
and which they considered the easiest, a broader picture begins to emerge of the type of material
that students may readily engage with at an intellectual or emotional level.
From the data, it emerged that there was a good degree of intellectual and emotional involvement
due to the stories being interesting, thought provoking, moving, funny or sad. It would seem that,
as Elley (1989) argued, “attention levels are greatest when students are aroused by… such
variables as novelty, humor, conflict, suspense, incongruity, vividness, and the like” (p. 185). All
three stories possessed these variables to a greater or lesser extent.
Finally, on reviewing the subjects’ reasons as to why they found a particular story the easiest,
75% reported that it was because the story was in their preferred mode, which, as we have seen,

was predominantly reading-while-listening, followed by reading-only, reflecting corresponding

success rates on the tests. It would seem, therefore, that such over-riding preferences for mode
would be worthy of teachers’ consideration when planning lessons.
General Discussion
The results of the meaning-translation test at the immediate posttest show that the subjects were
able to learn new words from context and that they learned most words in the reading-while-
listening mode (4.39 of 28 words), followed by the reading-only mode (4.10 of 28) and then the
listening-only mode (0.56 of 28). Moreover, the results from the meaning-translation and MC
tests indicated that relatively little decay occurred over 3 months. However, the meaning-
translation test scores dropped more considerably, albeit from a much lower starting point.
In terms of 3 months’ retention of unprompted meaning, on average the subjects learned one new
word from reading while listening to a graded reader, one new word from reading-only, and
effectively no words from listening-only. In terms of the acquisition of new (previously unknown
before exposure) vocabulary, this was quite a disappointing rate of return considering the effort
involved. More encouragingly, however, the data from the MC test indicated higher learning and
retention rates. This, in turn, suggests that some partial knowledge not accessed by the
insensitive meaning-translation test was found to be known via the more sensitive (i.e., their
knowledge was prompted) MC test.
The data also indicated that the more frequently a word is met, the more chance it has of being
learned. It also suggests that unless the words are met a sufficient number of times and are met
again soon after in subsequent reading or listening experiences, then the word knowledge gained
will decay. A sufficient number is likely to be considerably higher than seven to nine times for
long-term retention (Waring, 2008).
It was found that the type of instrument used to assess vocabulary gains in learning-from-context
research had a great bearing on the degree of success deemed to have occurred. In this study,
Table 4 shows that the lowest mean rate of uptake of new vocabulary as measured by the MC
test was 29% (8.20 of 28 words in the listening-only mode). This was almost double the highest
mean rate of uptake as measured by the meaning-translation test, which was found to be 16%
(4.39 words in the reading-while-listening mode). Therefore, as Waring and Takaki (2003)
pointed out, great care must be taken when selecting test types in studies of a similar design to
the one undertaken here.
In terms of preferred input mode, reading-while-listening was considered the most comfortable
by the majority of subjects; a sizeable minority favored reading-only, while no one explicitly
favored listening-only. The vocabulary gains shown in the data mirrored these preferences. It
would seem that for the majority of subjects in this study, reading while listening to a 400-
headword-level graded reader narrated at 93 wpm promoted good understanding. Informal
interviews with some of the subjects after the study revealed that a key reason for favoring the
reading-while-listening mode was that the necessity of having to segment or chunk the text of the
story as they read it was done for them by the narrator on the cassette. Consequently, it would

appear they had enough spare working-memory space to access the content more effectively, and
in turn make better deductions of the meanings of the target words. This coincides with what
Amer (1997) and Dhaif (1990) found in their studies.
However, as Goh (2002) pointed out, “in the case of advanced listeners, the bottom-up processes
[of word recognition] are largely automatized…they do not need to spend time on matching
sequences of sounds with written words in their mental lexicon” (p. 7). Accordingly, they would
tend to direct their attention to making higher-level inferences (i.e., engaging in the utilization of
already perceived or segmented information). In the present study, it was found that whereas the
majority of subjects were comfortable with the reading-while-listening mode, more proficient
subjects were not always inclined towards this mode.
Finally, while the familiar reading-only mode allowed subjects to keep to their own pace, and if
necessary to back track without interruption, the subjects encountered considerable obstacles
when trying to comprehend the story and substitute words they met in listening-only mode.
Clearly, the inaccurate perception of the pronunciation of words and phrases is potentially a
greater barrier in listening than in reading.
Implications for Teaching and Learning
This study has shown that relatively minimal growth and retention of new vocabulary occurs
when reading a single graded reader, and thus points to the need for repeated encounters with
words in a collection of graded texts at regular intervals. To ensure exposure to great amounts of
written text, graded readers should form part of an extensive reading program and learners
should endeavor to read approximately a book a week at coverage rates of 95% or more (Day &
Bamford, 1998; Nation & Wang, 1999).
Learning vocabulary from listening. The results of this study also confirm learners’ potential
difficulty with the listening-only mode. Although some of the contributing factors were outlined
earlier, further research will have to be done to determine whether poor performance on the
listening-only tests is a linguistic, testing, or language-processing problem. It is certainly clear,
however, that teachers of Japanese learners of English should not assume that learners can listen
at the same headword level at which they can read. This probably also applies to learners of
English from other language backgrounds whose L1 phonological systems are markedly
dissimilar to that of English.
Moreover, we could say, at least for these subjects, that because their reading level was
substantially higher than their listening level, it would be wise for them to practice extensive
listening at either (a) an easier graded-reader level than that at which they can read comfortably,
or (b) at a slower speed of narration. The data also suggest that teachers should create extensive-
listening tests to determine at what level students can listen comfortably rather than rely on tests
based on reading ability. Lastly, if learners want to improve their aural perception of streams of
speech, one bridge to proficiency in listening-only may be to do extended practice in the reading-
while-listening mode first. Alternatively, learners could read the book first, then read-while-
listening to it, and finally listen only. In this way, learners would be primed for the words when
they listen to them.

Inferring meaning from context. As was done with the 35 subjects in this study, foreign-language
learners should be provided with opportunities and guidance on how to capitalize on the
incidental learning of vocabulary from their extensive reading and listening. As Nation (2001)
pointed out, “inferring vocabulary meaning from context…is an essential strategy for developing
reading comprehension and promoting lexical acquisition” (p. 240). Thus, if learners do a lot of
reading and listening, there will be considerable cumulative enrichment of partially known words
as well as the establishment of certain new words in their lexicons. Inferring the meanings of
unknown words from context is therefore important both for coping with and learning unfamiliar
words.
Limitations of the Study
This study examined data from only 35 subjects. Thirty-three other subjects had taken part at an
earlier stage of the experiment, but for various reasons were not able to submit all the data. This
suggests that in order to collect more reliable data, it is important to ensure that there is a larger
cohort of subjects. A second limitation was that this study examined only Japanese learners.
Therefore, learners from other language backgrounds should be investigated as well. A
replication of this experiment would be welcomed. Thirdly, subjects were exposed to a mean of
only 5,567 words in each input mode. Therefore, to gather more data on the effectiveness of
learning vocabulary from reading and listening to stories in a foreign language, it would be better
to devise studies that include multiple or longer texts in each mode. Lastly, the study assumed
that the use of a 400-headword-level graded reader would provide no significant hindrance for
the necessary conditions for inferring new words from context. As this was not precisely
determined beforehand, it may have been a factor in the low learning and retention rates,
especially in the listening-only mode.
Conclusion
This study has shown that relatively few new words are learnt from reading a graded reader as
measured by a meaning-translation test. However, more vocabulary knowledge was acquired
from the reading if we take the MC test as a measure of vocabulary knowledge. These two tests
together suggest that the nature of vocabulary learning from extensive reading or listening is
more complex than can be determined from this study. Indeed, it suggests that a considerable
amount of vocabulary knowledge was gained from the exposure, but was not assessed. Such
knowledge might include the noticing of lexical phrases, collocational and colligational patterns,
new nuances of meanings, improved lexical access speed, and so on. It is probably here that the
true benefit of reading and listening extensively occurs.
Investigating how much collocation, lexical pattern knowledge and so forth is learnt from
extensive reading and listening is probably where the future lies with this type of research,
because numerous studies including this one have now determined how much learners can pick
up from word-focused experiments, as opposed to word knowledge at the supra-word level (i.e.,
collocation and lexical patterns). We feel it is now time for researchers to look beyond the word
level and research the more complex nature of vocabulary learning as measured by collocational

knowledge, lexical pattern knowledge and so forth.
References
Akinyemi, R. (1994). The witches of pendle. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Amer, A. (1997). The effect of the teacher’s reading aloud on the reading comprehension of EFL
students. ELT Journal, 51, 43–47.
Bassett. J. (1991). One-way ticket. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Boettcher, J. (1980). Fluent readers’ strategies for assigning meaning to unfamiliar words in
context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, USA.
Bright, J., & McGregor, G. (1970). Teaching English as a second language. London: Longman.
Brown, R. (2000). Extensive reading in action. Studies in English Language and Literature, 41,
79–123.
Carey, S. (1978). The child as word learner. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan, & G. Miller (Eds.),
Linguistic theory and psychological reality (pp. 264–293). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Carey, S. (1982). Semantic development: The state of the art. In E. Wanner & L. Gleitman (Eds.),
Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 345–389). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Cho, K., & Krashen, S. (1994). Acquisition of vocabulary from the Sweet Valley Kids series:
Adult ESL acquisition. Journal of Reading, 37, 662–667.
Clark, E. (1973). What’s in a word: On the child’s acquisition of semantics in his first language.
In T. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 65–110).
New York, NY: Academic Press.
Dale, E., O’Rourke, J., & Bamman, H. (1971). Techniques in teaching vocabulary. Palo Alto:
Field Educational Publications.
Day, R. R., & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive reading in the second language classroom.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Day, R. R., Omura, C., & Hiramatsu, M. (1991). Incidental EFL vocabulary learning and reading.
Reading in a Foreign Language, 7, 541–551.
Deighton, L. (1959). Vocabulary development in the classroom. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Dhaif, H. (1990). Reading aloud for comprehension: A neglected teaching aid. Reading in a
Foreign Language, 7, 457–464.
Donkaewbua, S. (2008). The effects of previous partial word knowledge on vocabulary learning
through listening. Manuscript in preparation. Victoria University of Wellington, New
Zealand.
Dupuy, B., & Krashen S. (1993). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in French as a foreign
language. Applied Language Learning, 4, 55–63.
Eichholz, G., & Barbe, R. (1961). An experiment in vocabulary development. Educational
Research Bulletin, 28, 1–7.
Eller, R., Pappas, C., & Brown, E. (1988). The lexical development of kindergartners: Learning
from written context. Journal of Reading Behavior, 20, 5–24.
Elley, W. (1985). What do children learn from being read to? Wellington, New Zealand: New
Zealand Council of Educational Research & Institute of Education.
Elley, W. (1988). New vocabulary: How do children learn new words? Wellington, New

Zealand: New Zealand Council of Educational Research & Institute of Education.

Elley, W. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading Research Quarterly,
24, 174–187.
Elley, W. (1991). Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effect of book-based programs.
Language Learning, 41, 375–411.
Elley, W., & Mangubhai, F. (1981). The long-term effects of a book flood on children’s
language growth. Directions, 7, 15–24.
Field, J. (2003). Promoting perception: Lexical segmentation in L2 listening. ELT Journal, 57,
325–334.
Gentner, D. (1975). Evidence for the psychological reality of semantic components: The verbs of
possession. In D. Norman & D. Rumelhart (Eds.), Explorations in cognition (pp. 211–
246). San Francisco, CA: WH Freeman and Co.
Goh, C. (2002). Teaching listening in the language classroom. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional
Language Centre.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. (1997). Reading and vocabulary development in a second language: A
case study. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A
rationale for pedagogy (pp. 98–122). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hafiz, F., & Tudor, I. (1990). Graded readers as an input medium in L2 learning. System, 18, 31–
42.
Harmer, J. (2003). The practice of English language teaching. Essex: Longman.
Hayashi, K. (1999). Reading strategies and extensive reading in EFL classes. RELC Journal, 30,
114–132.
Higa, M. (1965). The psycholinguistic concept of difficulty and the teaching of foreign language
vocabulary. Language Learning, 15, 167–179.
Hirai, A. (1999). The relationship between listening and reading rates of Japanese EFL learners.
The Modern Language Journal, 83, 367–384.
Horst, M. (2005). Learning L2 vocabulary through extensive reading: A measurement study. The
Canadian Modern Language Review, 61, 355–382.
Horst, M., Cobb, T., & Meara, P. (1998). Beyond A Clockwork Orange: Acquiring second
language vocabulary through reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 11, 207–223.
Janopoulos, M. (1986). The relationship of pleasure reading and second language writing
proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 763–768.
Jenkins, J. R., Stein, M. L., & Wysocki, K. (1984). Learning vocabulary through reading.
American Educational Research Journal, 21, 767–787.
Joe, A. (1994). The effects of text-based tasks on incidental vocabulary learning. Unpublished
MA thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
Joe, A. (1998). What effects do text-based tasks promoting generation have on incidental
vocabulary acquisition? Applied Linguistics, 19, 357–377.
Joe, A., Nation, P., & Newton, J. (1996). Sensitive vocabulary tests. Unpublished paper, Victoria
University of Wellington, New Zealand.
Krashen, S. (1993). The power of reading. Colorado: Eaglewood Libraries Unlimited.
Krashen, S. (1994). The pleasure hypothesis. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University round
table on languages and linguistics (pp. 299–322). Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press.
Krashen, S. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Laufer, B. (1997). What’s in a word that makes it hard or easy: Some intralexical factors that

affect the learning of words. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary:

Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 140–155). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Laufer, B., & Sim, D. (1985). An attempt to measure the threshold of competence for reading
comprehension. Foreign Language Annals, 18, 405–411.
Mason, B., & Krashen, S. (1997). Extensive reading in English as a foreign language. System, 25,
91–102.
McArthur, T. (2003). English as an Asian language. English Today, 19, 19–22.
Moody, H. (1974). Technique and art in reading aloud. ELT Journal, 28, 315–324.
Nagy, W., Herman, P., & Anderson, R. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading Research
Quarterly, 20, 233–253.
Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Nation, P., & Wang, M. (1999). Graded readers and vocabulary. Reading in a Foreign Language,
12, 355–380.
Pigada, M., & Schmitt, N. (2006). Vocabulary acquisition from extensive reading: A case study.
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. London: Penguin Books.
Pitts, M., White, H., & Krashen, S. (1989). Acquiring second language vocabulary through
reading: A replication of the Clockwork Orange study using second language acquirers.
Prowse, P. (2005). Success with extensive listening. Retrieved May 15, 2005, from
www.cambridge.org/elt/readers/prowse2.htm
Richards, J., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied
linguistics. Malaysia: Pearson Education.
Robb, T., & Susser, B. (1989). Extensive reading vs. skills building in an EFL context. Reading
in a Foreign Language, 5, 239–251.
Rodgers, T. (1969). On measuring vocabulary difficulty: An analysis of item variables in
learning Russian-English vocabulary pairs. IRAL, 7, 327–343.
Saragi, T., Nation, P., & Meister, G. F. (1978). Vocabulary learning and reading. System, 6, 72–
78.
Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., and Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour of
two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing, 18, 55–88.
Senechal, M., & Cornell, E. (1993) Vocabulary acquisition through shared reading experiences.
Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 361–374.
Smith, R. (1997). Transforming a non-reading culture. In G. Jacobs, C. Davis, & W. Renandya
(Eds.), Successful strategies for extensive reading (pp. 30–43). Singapore: SEAMEO
Regional Language Centre.
Vicary, T. (1989). The elephant man. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Waring, R. (1997). Graded and extensive reading: Questions and answers. The Language
Teacher, 21, 7–13.
Waring, R. (2008). Issues when researching the incidental learning of collocations from reading.
Manuscript in preparation. Notre Dame Seishin University, Japan
Waring, R., & Nation, P. (2004). Second language reading and incidental vocabulary learning.
Angles on the English-Speaking World, 4, 96–110.
Waring, R., & Takaki, M. (2003). At what rate do learners learn and retain new vocabulary from

reading a graded reader? Reading in a Foreign Language, 15, 130–163.

Webb, S. (2005). Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The effects of reading and
writing on word knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 33–52.
West, M. (1953). The technique of reading aloud to a class. ELT Journal, 8, 21–24.
Widdowson, H. (1979). Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Appendix A
The List of Test Items for the 3 Stories
The Elephant Man One-Way Ticket The Witches of Pendle

Group
Word Substitute Recurrences Word Substitute Recurrences Word Substitute Recurrences
Happy Mird 20 Guard Loncher 20 Floor Gaffle 15
Day/s Sall/s 17 Police Dant 20 Family Blunk 18
Book/s Hoult/s 19 Money Shunk 17 Big Rait 16
15–20
group All Lert 17 Woman/men Bandom/s 18 True/truth Wathe 20
Creature Dront 15 Tall/er Nagent/er 16 Judge Heaft 20
Shop/keeper Plirty/keeper 15 Long Boke 15 Afraid Clomb 15
Lady/ies Smole/s 15 Diamond Mong 15 Prison Wessant 15
Cab Tander 13 Slow/ly Mald/ly 12 Friend Fandle 13
Door/s Plitch 13 Story/ies Preat/s 12 Eye Florp 13
Bed Crost 12 Knife Flotter 11 Pedlar Pline 11
10–13
group Skin Labin 12 Restaurant Onder 11 Food Chorm 10
Theatre Weat 11 Newspaper Nivel 11 Warm Thift 10
Nurse Koon 11 Station Whiffle 11 Fire Gorgan 10
Body Bletch 10 Holiday Trank 10 Hair Gurt 10
Home Alart 9 Voice Blamp 9 Dark Poken 9
Letter Hine 9 Loud/ly Dage/ly 9 Picture Fent 8
Little Pusy 9 Quick/ly Roth/ly 8 Horse Brask 8
7–9
group Mouth Reak 7 Great Gline 9 Table Chutter 7
Leg Grift 6 Seat Shuft 8 Bad Lood 7
Bag Slape 7 Drink Mastime 6 Kind/ly Spollen/ly 6
Old Throst 7 Husband Mollet 7 Noise/y Drint/y 6
Hole Kisp 3 Expensive Dasp 3 Difficult Aspute 2
Famous Frime 2 Boat Elver 3 Summer Starp 3
Blind Creach 2 Corridor Scront 3 Ugly Lorky 3
2–3
group Cigarette Queffle 2 Top Pib 2 Hat Jerth 3
Trousers Spullers 2 Village Bawn 2 Bottle Keem 2
Heavy Sweth 2 Blood Chonter 2 Boy Platt 2
Nose Culb 2 Hot Teft 2 Chair Slone 2
Total 272 272 264
Running 5415 5522 5765
words
Coverage 95.0% 95.0% 95.4%

Appendix B
Samples of the test
Test 1. Meaning-translation Test
What do these words mean? Write the meaning in Japanese.

(以下の単語の意味は何だと思いますか？日本語で答えて下さい。もし考えが複数ある場合は、
自信のある順に書いて下さい。)
1) mird 1…………… 2……………

2) sall 1…………… 2……………
3) hoult 1…………… 2……………
Test 2. Multiple Choice Recognition Test
Circle the word with the nearest meaning.

(１～２8 の単語の意味に近いと思う単語を 4 つの中からそれぞれ選んで下さい。分からない場
合は分からないを選んで下さい。)
1) mird ハッピーワクワクする寒い臭い分からない

2) sall 日誕生腕願い分からない
3) hoult 人本家鳥分からない
English translations of the correct choices and distracters in this sample test for The Elephant Man.
1) mird happy exciting cold smelly I don’t know

2) sall day birth arm wish I don’t know
3) hoult Person book house bird I don’t know
About the Authors
Ronan Brown, MA MEd, has taught English as a foreign language in Saudi Arabia, UAE, China,
and Japan. He is a professor of English at Seinan Gakuin University in Fukuoka, Japan. His
research interests include extensive reading, vocabulary acquisition, and the teaching of literature
in the language classroom. E-mail: ronan@seinan-gu.ac.jp
Dr. Rob Waring researches extensive reading and second language vocabulary acquisition. He
has presented and published widely on these topics. He is an associate professor at Notre Dame
Seishin University in Okayama, Japan. Professor Waring is a board member of the Extensive
Reading Foundation. E-mail: waring_robert@yahoo.com
Dr. Sangrawee Donkaewbua is currently a lecturer at Rajabhat Mahasarakham University,

Thailand. In 2008, she was awarded her PhD in Applied Linguistics from Victoria University of
Wellington, New Zealand. E-mail: sangraweed@yahoo.com

ISSN 1539-0578 pp. 164–190
The virtuous circle: Modeling individual differences in L2 reading and

vocabulary development
Diana Pulido and David Z. Hambrick
Michigan State University
United States
Abstract
The present study investigated the relative contributions of experiential and ability factors
to second language (L2) passage comprehension and L2 vocabulary retention.
Participants included a cross section of 99 adult learners of Spanish as a foreign language
enrolled in beginning through advanced level university Spanish courses. Participants
completed a standardized reading proficiency test (Adult Basic Learning Examination,
Spanish version) to verify a range in proficiency, a checklist and translation passage sight
vocabulary test, and a written recall in the native language of the 4 passages that were
read. Vocabulary retention was measured at 2 time intervals by a multiple-choice test of
receptive retention of meaning of targeted vocabulary. Data were analyzed using
structural equation modeling (SEM). Results revealed consistent support for the
following model: (a) Language processing experience positively influenced L2 passage
sight vocabulary; (b) L2 passage sight vocabulary positively influenced narrative passage
comprehension; and (c) L2 comprehension positively influenced L2 vocabulary growth.
Keywords: sight vocabulary, reading comprehension, incidental vocabulary learning, SEM,

language processing experience
What explains variance in second language (L2) reading comprehension ability and related
literacy skills? Vocabulary knowledge is one important component of literacy. Vocabulary can
develop as a byproduct of engaging in the component processes involved in reading, such as
lower-level linguistic and higher-level discourse processing and its integration with prior
knowledge. Such processing requires knowledge that is accrued through experience with the
target language, as well as experience with everyday situations or specific subject matter (e.g.,
Ellis, 1994; Hu & Nation, 2000; Koda, 1989; Krashen, 1989; Laufer, 1997; Nagy, 1997; Nation,
2001; Pulido, 2003, 2004a, 2007, in press-b, in press-a; Pulido, Hambrick, & Russell, 2007).
Nuttall (1982), and later Coady (1997), described the relationships among literacy skills,
engagement in reading, and language learning as being both a vicious circle and a virtuous circle.
On the one hand, it is a vicious circle because L2 readers who do not engage in frequent reading
also tend to be weak in the requisite skills and knowledge sources required for reading. Such
readers also lack sufficient experience with the target language. When weak readers do read, they
stumble over words that they do not know, read slowly, and experience difficulty in following
Pulido & Hambrick: The virtuous circle 165
the ideas contained within and across sentences. With such difficulty they become frustrated and
develop a distaste for reading. This results in infrequent reading and inhibits potential growth of
knowledge, such as linguistic knowledge. On the other hand, it is a virtuous circle in that with
more L2 processing experience, learners become more efficient in the skills required for reading.
They read more frequently and better, and are apt to experience more growth in knowledge from
engaging in literacy activities.
At present, there is a lack of L2 research using sophisticated modeling frameworks to delineate

the nature of the multi-componential cycle described above. The present study attempts to shed a
new light on the nature of the cycle by uncovering in specific reading activities the simultaneous
contributions of language processing experience and proficiency factors to L2 reading
comprehension and vocabulary retention. The aim is to provide a more comprehensive model of
L2 reading comprehension and vocabulary development through reading than what has been
previously obtained through “single-focus” studies (Koda, 2005, p. 183).
Reading Comprehension
Comprehension, a complex cognitive process, is central to acquiring a new linguistic system:

Input must be decoded in some comprehensible fashion for second language acquisition (SLA)
to occur. In the case of L2 reading comprehension, the reader uses previous knowledge to
construct and integrate meaning from text (e.g., Bernhardt, 1991; Carrell, Devine, & Eskey, 1988;
Grabe & Stoller, 2002; Koda, 2005, 2007; Nassaji, 2002; Swaffar, Arens, & Byrnes, 1991).
During reading there is simultaneous cognitive processing involving pattern recognition, letter
identification, lexical access, concept activation, syntactic analysis, propositional encoding,
sentence comprehension, intersentential integration, activation of prior knowledge, information
storage, and comprehension monitoring. According to connectionist models (e.g., Koda, 2005,
2007; Nassaji, 2002) the generic knowledge structures, or background knowledge, that are
accessed during reading are largely determined by the quality of the textbase that the learner
constructs. Textbase quality is affected by the individual’s text processing efficiency (i.e., ability
in lower-level processes, such as word recognition and syntactic parsing) and working memory.
Comprehension processes and SLA processes, although somewhat overlapping, are also distinct.
For example, comprehension involves constructing a mental representation from the
propositional content for the purpose of understanding the message. However, in order for a
linguistic system to be developed through comprehension activities, additional input processing
must occur. Such processing entails making form-meaning connections from the input, or
focusing attention on new forms and associating them with their functions or referents.
For vocabulary development through reading, readers must first notice that words are unfamiliar.
Then, if deemed relevant enough for further processing, they must infer meaning using context
cues and linguistic and extra-linguistic knowledge. The syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic
knowledge that becomes activated and held in working memory during reading is then utilized
on-line to constrain subsequent textual and lexical interpretations. This process is known as
lexical bootstrapping (for the first language [L1] see Clark, 1993, and Sternberg, 1987; for the L2
see De Bot, Paribakht, & Wesche, 1997). When word meanings are not known during reading,

adult L2 learners may use whatever information is available to interpret them to the extent that
their proficiency in the language enables them to use such information: all of the elements above
function in tandem in generating initial form-meaning connections for new words during reading
(see also Nagy, 1997; Nassaji, 2003; Paribakht & Wesche, 1999; Pulido, 2007, in press-b, in
press-a; Pulido et al., 2007).
At the same time, readers must also pay sufficient attention to the connection between the
meaning and the new word form. This involves some unspecified degree of elaborative rehearsal
and association with previous knowledge (Baddeley, 1998). If there are too many constraints on
the individual’s processing capacity (Just & Carpenter, 1992; McLaughlin, 1987), characteristic
of lower proficiency learners, or if unfamiliar words are not deemed important (Craik & Tulving,
1975), then these words may be processed more superficially and are less likely to be retrieved
from memory (e.g., Ellis, 1994, 2001; Gass, 1999; Hulstijn, 2001, 2003; Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001;
Robinson, 2003; Schmidt, 2001). That is, learners may be able to achieve general comprehension
without having to attend to the formal properties of new words.
In sum, additional processing must be completed for vocabulary to develop through reading.
Success in such processing presumably occurs as learners increasingly use the L2 and also as
they gain more knowledge of the L2 itself. The following section discusses these crucial factors
in more depth.
Language Processing Experience
Language learning requires exposure to language and engagement in input processing through
reading, writing, speaking, and listening. Frequency of exposure to language has been implicated
as the key catalyst driving the acquisition of simple and complex, and concrete and abstract
linguistic structures (e.g., Ellis, 2002, 2005). Foreign language exposure can be accomplished in
various ways, from formal coursework activities to study abroad experiences. Exposure outside
of the classroom can occur through various modes, including conversation, television or film
viewing, or via literacy activities (e.g., book, magazine, and newspaper reading). With regard to
forms of exposure to print,1 Stanovich (e.g., 1986, 2000) has described how this might contribute
to cognitive change, and, in particular, change in reading comprehension ability and vocabulary
knowledge. The linguistic structures encountered through reading are qualitatively and
quantitatively different from those encountered in common speech. Moderate-to low-frequency
words and more complex linguistic structures appear more frequently in reading materials
compared to everyday conversation (for the L1 see Biber, 1986, or Hayes, 1988; for the L2 see
McCarthy & Carter, 1997; Nation, 2001; Schmitt, 2000). Print exposure has also been implicated
in connectionist models of L1 reading, for example, Landauer and Dumais’ (1997) latent
semantic analysis. Their analysis demonstrated that vocabularies grow at very rapid rates through
exposure and despite the lack of direct instruction in vocabulary. This serves as an example of
the potential benefits of print exposure for L2 vocabulary learning, in addition to direct
instruction.
Numerous studies of English and Spanish L1 literacy conducted with children and adults have
demonstrated strong contributions of print exposure to reading ability, vocabulary and

orthographic knowledge, as well as other indices of verbal intelligence (e.g., Beech, 2002;
Cipielewski & Stanovich, 1992; Cunningham & Stanovich, 1991; Echols, Stanovich, West, &
Zehr, 1996; Gutierrez-Clellen & Kreiter, 2003; Lee, Krashen, & Tse, 1997; Rodrigo, McQuillan,
& Krashen, 1996; Stanovich & West, 1989; West, Stanovich, & Mitchell, 1993). Findings of a
strong reciprocal relationship between vocabulary knowledge and reading ability led Stanovich
(1986) to conclude that the amount of exposure to print outside of school was a key contributing
factor in causing achievement differences that were observed inside the classroom. He
subsequently concluded that “the differential reading skills thus acquired enable differential
bootstrapping of further vocabulary, knowledge, and cognitive structures outside of school”
(Stanovich, 2000, p. 151). In native language studies, other avenues of language exposure (e.g.,
television and film viewing or everyday conversation) have not contributed to literacy
development and content knowledge as robustly as print exposure. In fact, television viewing
accounted for no additional variance in general knowledge after controlling for intelligence,
verbal and non-verbal ability (e.g., Stanovich & Cunningham, 1993). In some studies it even
resulted in negative correlations with vocabulary knowledge in readers and non-readers, and
individuals high and low in print exposure (e.g., West et al., 1993).
Similar arguments for the benefits of language exposure and reading have also been applied to
the L2 context. For example, Ellis (1994, 2002) and Krashen (1989, 2004) have described the
phenomenon of the rich getting richer for L2 vocabulary acquisition through reading and the
effects of frequency of exposure on SLA.2 There are numerous correlational studies associating
greater gains on measures of L2 literacy (e.g., orthographic, phonological, vocabulary, and
grammar knowledge, and reading proficiency) with increased exposure to the foreign language,
especially through extensive reading activities (e.g., Constantino, Lee, Cho, & Krashen, 1997;
Elley, 1991; Elley & Mangubhai, 1983; Haynes & Carr, 1990; Kim & Krashen, 1997; Lee,
Krashen, & Gibbons, 1996; McQuillan, 2006; Pulido et al., 2007). In the case of foreign
language learning, additional exposure to language through speaking and listening should also be
beneficial to L2 literacy development, unlike in the case of the L1 studies.3 As L2 learners
advance in formal language study, they also engage in more speaking and listening activities
(e.g., through literature, culture, film, and conversation courses). Such exposure should increase
the frequency with which they encounter more varied vocabulary and complex language
structures. In turn, this should be beneficial in promoting automaticity in processing such
structures. Thus, it appears that the amount of exposure to language is a significant factor in
contributing to gains in literacy.
Passage Sight Vocabulary
Stanovich (1986) argued that the key mechanism allowing for capacity to be allocated to
comprehension during reading was efficient decoding and word recognition skills. L2 reading
research has also demonstrated the importance of word recognition efficiency and general
vocabulary knowledge in reading development (e.g., Koda, 1989, 2005, 2007; Laufer, 1992;
Laufer & Sim, 1985; Mecartty, 2000; Ulijn & Strother, 1990). For instance, Laufer (1997, p. 21)
suggested that for L2 readers the “threshold for reading comprehension is, to a large extent,
lexical”. Likewise, a general vocabulary knowledge threshold has also been reported for learning
vocabulary through reading (Haynes & Baker, 1993; Horst, Cobb, & Meara, 1998; Nassaji,

2004). Yet, crucial to reading and lexical input processing is knowledge of vocabulary
specifically associated with the passages, or passage sight vocabulary (Pulido, 2000, 2003,
2004b, 2007, in press-b).4 Passage sight vocabulary has been largely ignored in reading research
(see Bernhardt, 2004). The more knowledge that readers have of the vocabulary specific to a
given passage (i.e., the higher the text coverage), the more comprehensible the input becomes.
And, with sufficient passage sight vocabulary and efficient decoding and word recognition skills,
readers can then allocate attentional resources to engaging in other required text comprehension
processes such as parsing sentences, constructing and integrating ideas from context, using
information from long-term memory, and monitoring comprehension. That is, passage sight
vocabulary fuels comprehension processes and results in a greater likelihood of successful
lexical inferencing and further lexical growth. Without such knowledge and efficiency, readers
are apt to experience a short circuit—that is, a failure to understand the relationships among
ideas in the text, to monitor comprehension, and to infer and integrate new meaning. Ultimately,
this will result in fewer chances for vocabulary development (e.g., Grabe & Stoller, 2002; Koda,
2005, 2007; Laufer, 1997).
Several studies using think-aloud tasks have elicited the knowledge sources that L2 readers use
during reading. They observed that weaker learners experienced more difficulty in integrating
multiple textual cues and background knowledge than stronger learners, who appeared to know
more words in the context (e.g., Haynes, 1993; Haynes & Baker, 1993; Lee & Wolf, 1997; Parry,
1997; Rott, 2000). These results were determined by anecdotal observations, rather than
quantitative measurements of the vocabulary contained within the passages. There is scant
published empirical evidence illustrating the precise relationship between vocabulary knowledge
specific to a given text and lexical development associated with processing that text. Pulido
(2003, 2004b, 2007) investigated the role of passage sight vocabulary in vocabulary development
through reading. Passage sight vocabulary was measured by a combination self-report of
familiarity with non-target words in a passage and an L2-L1 translation test of the words in the
passage for which participants had reported prior familiarity. In Pulido’s (2003) study with a
cross-section of L2 learners of Spanish, the results revealed a significant role of passage sight
vocabulary on measures of lexical gain (L2-L1 translation production and L2-L1 translation
recognition) 2 and 28 days after reading. In a different cross-sectional study, Pulido (2007) found
significant effects of passage sight vocabulary on measures of lexical inferencing, difficulty in
lexical inferencing, and receptive retention of target word (TW) meanings. These results were
obtained even after a verification task to confirm or correct the guesses that had been made. In
addition, the learners of the group with greater levels of sight vocabulary also reported greater
ease in guessing the TWs from the more familiar story. These combined findings concerning
passage sight vocabulary underscore the importance of knowledge of vocabulary specific to
passages as one of many knowledge sources critical to successful reading comprehension and
lexical input processing.
The preceding review establishes that individual differences in vocabulary arise from a number
of factors, some of which include L2 language processing experience, L2 passage
comprehension, as well as preexisting L2 passage sight vocabulary. Therefore, the following
questions were addressed:
1. Does L2 language processing experience positively contribute to L2 passage sight

vocabulary knowledge?
2. Does L2 passage sight vocabulary knowledge positively contribute to comprehension of

L2 passages containing such vocabulary?
3. Does L2 reading comprehension positively contribute to L2 vocabulary growth through

reading?
We hypothesized the following relations among these factors: (a) L2 language processing
experience positively contributes to L2 passage sight vocabulary knowledge; (b) L2 passage
sight vocabulary knowledge positively contributes to comprehension of passages containing such
vocabulary; and (c) L2 reading comprehension positively contributes to L2 vocabulary growth
through reading.
Method
Participants
Ninety-nine adult English-speaking learners of Spanish served as participants. They were

recruited from three distinct university course levels: beginning (2nd-semester elementary
Spanish), n = 43; intermediate (5th-semester composition), n = 39; and advanced (8th-semester
literature), n = 17. Table 1 summarizes additional participant characteristics. The participants
represented a wide range of Spanish reading ability, as measured by the Spanish version of the
Adult Basic Learning Examination (ABLE); total scores ranged from 18 to 47 (M = 35.6, SD =
8.0, Max = 48). It can also be seen that the subjects had diverse Spanish language learning
backgrounds, both through formal instruction and through studying and living abroad.
Table 1. Background characteristics of participants

Total Beginning Intermediate Advanced
Variable (N = 99) (n = 43) (n = 39) (n = 17)
M SD M SD M SD M SD
ABLE score 35.6 8.0 28.0 5.2 40.1 4.1 43.1 2.2
Years of Spanish study 4.4 3.1 1.4 1.2 6.6 1.8 6.9 2.0
No. of Spanish courses 4.2 3.5 2.0 0.0 3.6 1.5 11.2 2.0
Age of starting Spanish study 15.3 6.1 19.3 5.8 12.2 4.2 12.4 5.0
Study abroad in L2 country (%) 22.2 – 2.3 – 12.8 – 94.0 –
Visit L2 country (%) 48.5 – 39.5 – 56.4 – 52.9 –
Note. ABLE = Adult Basic Language Examination reading proficiency test (Spanish version).
Materials
Reading passages. An incidental learning research paradigm was used. The term incidental
learning is used simply to refer to the specific research paradigm (e.g., Hulstijn, 2001, 2003)
where, in the orienting instructions, there was no mention of an upcoming vocabulary test. This
paradigm was chosen in order to approximate real world reading, where readers do not typically

read for the purpose of taking a vocabulary test afterward, but rather for comprehending the
passage as a whole.
The texts used for the present study were four contrived script-based narrative passages, two
depicting more familiar scenarios, and two depicting less familiar scenarios (for examples of the
passages, methodology to create them, and familiarity ratings see Pulido, 2003). By including
passages ranging in familiarity to learners based on their background knowledge we were able to
provide a more generalizable test of a model, as opposed to simply including either familiar or
unfamiliar passages. El viaje al supermercado (“The Trip to the Supermarket”) and La cita con
el médico (“The Doctor's Appointment”) were based on scenarios considered to be routine and
very familiar to the participants, based upon their experience. The two less familiar passages, La
publicación de un artículo (“Publishing an Article”) and Comprando una casa (“Buying a
House”) were based on scenarios that were regarded as less familiar to participants, based upon
their experience. All of the stories conformed to a temporally ordered set of activities pertinent to
the scenarios at hand. In addition, within each scenario there were particular roles and objects
associated with the actions involved in the story; that is, each familiar story was loosely centered
around a script purported to be stored in participants’ long-term memory (Graesser, Singer, &
Trabasso, 1994; Schank & Abelson, 1977). All stories were of similar sentence and text length
and were, in general, structurally comparable. Each of the four passages was submitted to a
semantic propositional analysis (e.g., Kintsch, 1998). A comparison of various text features of
each story is found in Table 2.
Table 2. Characteristics of passages

Grocery shopping Doctor’s office Publishing article Home buying
Length (words) 174 168 164 172
ASL 10.89 9.88 10.25 10.11
Que clauses 1 2 2 2
Object pronouns 3 9 6 3
Reflexive pronouns 1 8 1 4
Semantic Propositions 58 55 45 46
a
Familiarity rating 4.9 4.7 2.2 2.6
Note. ASL = average sentence length.
a
Familiarity with the activities in the situation and their order was rated on 5-point scale (1 = very
unfamiliar to 5 = very familiar).
Target words. The TWs were 32 nonsense words (6 nouns and 2 verbs per story) that represented
concepts frequently associated with the story scenarios (for a complete list see Pulido, 2003).
The nonsense words were invented words constructed according to orthographic and
morphological rules of Spanish. These were used to ensure that no learner had prior knowledge
of the TWs. Each TW appeared only once in each story, and there were no definitional context
clues provided for any of them.
Language processing experience. Language processing experience was measured through a

background questionnaire administered to all participants (see Appendix A). Four questions
tapped language processing experience outside of formal learning experience (i.e., the number or
type of Spanish courses taken). Participants were asked to estimate the amount of time (hours per
week) that they spent in reading, writing, speaking, and listening outside of their class time.
Similar questionnaires have been used in reading research (e.g., Dewey, 2004; Freed, Dewey,
Segalowitz, & Halter, 2004).
L2 reading proficiency. Efficiency in reading ability is crucial for lexical bootstrapping. To

ensure that there was a sufficient range of proficiency that was captured by our cross-sectional
sample we assessed L2 reading proficiency, in addition to obtaining information about course
level membership. The measure used was the Spanish version of the ABLE (Karlsen & Gardner,
1990) reading comprehension section. This is a timed test (i.e., 35 minutes) containing readings
of a functional (e.g., letters, signs, ads, etc.) and educational (e.g., expositions) nature. The 48-
item multiple-choice measure contains 24 items that test literal comprehension ability (i.e.,
ability to understand what is explicitly stated in the texts, that is a text-based dimension) and 24
items that test inferential comprehension ability (i.e., ability to make inferences and draw
conclusions from what is not explicitly stated, that is, a situation-model dimension).
L2 passage sight vocabulary. Previous knowledge and familiarity with non-target vocabulary
within each passage was tested via a self-report and translation (Spanish to English, L2-L1)
measure. The first subcomponent consisted of a yes or no checklist to determine self-reported
familiarity with the lexical items, while the second component was a translation (L2-L1) to
measure previous knowledge of the meanings of words reported as being familiar. Since it was
not feasible to test every single word type from each of the four passages, we counted the amount
of new word tokens for each story. From this figure we then estimated which words were likely
to be known by all learners. These words primarily included high frequency function words (e.g.,
el, la, en) and cognates (e.g., supermercado, clínica, publicación, visitar). After excluding these
items, the remaining percentage of non-target words selected from each story and randomly
included in a 125-item test was as follows: (a) grocery, 48%; (b) doctor, 45%; (c) publishing,
42%; and (d) home buying, 43%.
Text comprehension. After reading each story participants completed a free written recall in their
L1 (English). They were asked to write down as much information as possible without looking
back at the passage. Each passage was first divided into complex propositions reflecting its
semantic content (i.e., the predicate-argument schema), adapting methodologies from Kintsch
(1998) for native language reading, and Barry and Lazarte (1998) for L2 reading (see Appendix
B for a sample of the propositional breakdown). Propositional analyses such as these represent
the semantic content of the text (i.e., the textbase), rather than the surface form or rhetorical
organization of the passages. This methodology has received support in the psychological
literature due to the psychological reality and validity of propositions (e.g., Chen & Donin, 1997;
Kintsch, 1998; Underwood & Batt, 1996). In addition, a two-tiered hierarchy was adopted
whereby propositions containing a verb as a relational term were worth 2 points. Propositions
with an adverb or connective as the relational term were worth 1 point.5 Each proposition was
scored according to the following system: (a) maximum points awarded for mentioning the gist
of the proposition (e.g., predicate and all arguments), (b) half of all possible points awarded for
mentioning a fragment of the proposition (e.g., predicate and/or some of the arguments), and (c)
no points awarded if there was no mention whatsoever of the proposition. Level of text
comprehension was calculated by first tabulating the percentage of semantic propositions
correctly recalled by each participant on each passage, then tabulating the average across the four

stories.
Vocabulary retention. Target word vocabulary gains from reading the four passages were
measured at two distinct time intervals (e.g., 2 and 28 days after reading the passages). An L2-L1
translation recognition multiple-choice test was administered to measure receptive retention of
meaning. One test form contained all 32 nonsense TWs, with each of the verbs in their infinitival
forms, and the nouns in their original text forms. The order of presentation of the 32 TWs was
randomized. Two test formats were subsequently created by reversing the order of presentation
of the items. The multiple choice options were written to emphasize semantic, not syntactic,
differences. They included four possible English (L1) translations, and a fifth option, I don't
know. Among the four L1 translation options was the correct translation of the TW and three
distracters. Each distracter conformed to at least one of the following criteria: (a) contextually
proximate to the TW, (b) schematically appropriate, and (c) orthographically or phonologically
close to another known word in the L1 or L2 and plausible for the given context. There were no
options that were conceptually bizarre. Finally, where possible, the TW translations also
appeared as distracters for other test items in order to minimize the likelihood of participants
picking up associations between the TWs and their definitions from the test alone.
Procedure
There were four separate data-gathering phases. During Session 1 all participants completed tests
and questionnaires designed to measure the predictor constructs in the following order: (a)
background questionnaire, (b) L2 passage sight vocabulary test, (c) topic familiarity
questionnaire, and (d) ABLE reading proficiency test. Session 2 was conducted approximately
one week later, at which time all participants read all four stories. Each story was followed by a
written recall in the L1 (English). During Session 3, conducted two days after Session 2, all
participants completed the L2-L1 translation recognition measure to assess vocabulary retention.
At session 4, conducted 28 days after reading the passages, the same multiple-choice vocabulary
retention instrument was administered, as in Session 3. The order of presentation of the
narratives was counterbalanced across all participants, as was the assignment of test formats at
the different testing intervals. Before reading each passage all participants were instructed to read
for the purposes of answering comprehension questions about the stories. There was no mention
of the vocabulary learning focus of the study.
Results
We screened the data for univariate outliers on a variable-by-variable basis, where an outlier was
defined as a value more than 3.5 standard deviation units from the variable mean. There were
five such values, which we replaced with a less extreme value of 3.5 standard deviation units
from the variable mean.
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Descriptive statistics and correlations are displayed in Table 3 for the language experience, Table
4 for the passage sight vocabulary and passage comprehension variables, and Table 5 for the

vocabulary retention variables. Table 5 illustrates that the average rate of vocabulary learning
was rather low. However, there was observed variation in the scores, which ranged from 0 to 6
points (75%) out of a maximum of 8 points. This indicates that rates were rather high for some
learners. Internal consistency estimates were quite high (R2s > .50) for all of the variables,
indicating acceptable reliability. The correlations among the passage sight vocabulary variables
(average r = .94) and among the passage comprehension variables (average r = .77) were
uniformly high, indicating that the measures captured the same construct, as intended.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and correlations for language experience variables

M SD 1 2 3 4
1. Reading (hours/week) 2.9 3.4 (.66)
2. Writing (hours/week) 2.5 3.2 .78 (.64)
3. Speaking (hours/week) 2.1 4.1 .54 .58 (.49)
4. Listening (hours/week) 2.3 3.8 .58 .44 .69 (.50)
2
Note. Values along the diagonal are estimates of internal consistency reliability (R s). Correlations are
statistically significant at .21 for the .05 level and at .30 for the .01 level.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics and correlations for passage sight vocabulary and passage
comprehension variables
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Sight vocabulary
1. Publishing article 0.55 0.28 (.89)
2. Home buying 0.48 0.25 .94 (.96)
3. Grocery shopping 0.48 0.24 .90 .96 (.93)
4. Doctor’s office 0.51 0.28 .93 .96 .94 (.93)
Passage comprehension
5. Publishing article 0.31 0.17 .58 .58 .51 .55 (.67)
6. Home buying 0.43 0.19 .57 .62 .58 .57 .73 (.73)
7. Grocery shopping 0.46 0.22 .70 .71 .67 .70 .80 .81 (.78)
8. Doctor’s office 0.42 0.20 .72 .72 .67 .73 .69 .78 .78 (.67)
Note. Sight vocabulary variables reflect proportion correct; passage comprehension variables reflect
number of propositions recalled. All correlations are statistically significant (p < .01).
Table 5. Descriptive statistics and correlations for vocabulary retention variables

Vocabulary retention
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
variable
Time 1
1. Publishing Article 1.7 1.4 (.31)
2. Home Buying 2.4 1.7 .49 (.31)
3. Grocery Shopping 2.7 1.7 .36 .29 (.18)
4. Doctor’s Office 2.3 1.4 .38 .42 .34 (.25)
Time 2
5. Publishing Article 1.8 1.5 .43 .44 .22 .38 (.28)
6. Home Buying 2.5 1.6 .32 .62 .37 .45 .47 (.37)
7. Grocery Shopping 2.2 1.6 .34 .34 .49 .24 .26 .47 (.24)
8. Doctor’s Office 2.1 1.5 .37 .34 .30 .49 .41 .41 .32 (.24)
Note. Maximum retention score = 8. Values along the diagonal are internal consistency estimates (R2s).

Variables reflect proportion correct. All correlations are statistically significant (p < .01).
By contrast, although correlations among the language experience variables were all positive, the
reading and writing variables correlated more strongly with each other (r = .78) than with the
speaking and listening variables, and vice-versa for the speaking and listening variables (r = .69),
suggesting the existence of distinct language experience factors. (We test for this possibility in
the next section). Finally, internal consistency estimates were somewhat low (.18 ≤ R2s ≤ .37) for
the vocabulary retention variables, but correlations of the measures across testing occasions (i.e.,
test-retest correlations) were at least moderate in magnitude (.43 ≤ rs ≤ .62). Thus, overall, there
was evidence that all of the variables had adequate reliability.
Structural Equation Modeling
Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a statistical approach that comprises two core
techniques—factor analysis and path analysis—and affords two major advantages over other
approaches that we could have used to analyze the data (e.g., multiple regression). First, SEM
permits use of latent variables. Along with random error, it must be assumed that virtually any
psychological variable, no matter how carefully measured, will reflect two types of influence:
those that originate from the construct of interest and those that are specific to some task. Latent
variables reflect only the variance common to a number of measures of some construct; task-
specific influences are statistically canceled out. Second, SEM permits the researcher to model
relations, both causal and non-causal, among multiple variables simultaneously.
Throughout this section, we report a number of statistics to characterize model fits. The χ2 test
indicates whether there was a significant difference between the reproduced and observed
covariance matrices. Thus, non-significant χ2s reflect a fit of the model to the data. However,
even slight differences between reproduced and observed covariance matrices can result in
significant χ2s, and additional fit statistics are typically reported. The comparative fit index (CFI)
and non-normed fit index (NNFI) reflect improvement in the fit of a model over a baseline model
in which covariances among observed variables are assumed to be zero. The root mean squared
error of approximation (RMSEA) reflects the average difference between the observed and
reproduced covariances. CFI and NNFI values of greater than .90, and RMSEA values less
than .08, indicate acceptable fit (Kline, 2005). The sample size (N = 99) in this study was
somewhat, though not extremely, small for SEM, and therefore we report standard errors for all
parameter estimates from the models in the Appendix C.
As an additional step to prepare the data for the structural equation modeling, we inspected
skewness and kurtosis values to see whether the variables were approximately normally
distributed; values were near zero for all variables, except the estimates of language experience,
which tended to be positively skewed (> 2). To address this, we added a constant to each value to
remove zeros, and then we performed a log transformation on each variable; the distributions
were approximately normal (skewness values < 1.5, kurtosis values < 1), and thus we use the
transformed variables in all subsequent analyses.
Confirmatory Factor Analyses
We analyzed the data in two steps. With separate analyses for the predictor variables and
criterion variables, the first step was to perform confirmatory factor analyses to see whether the
constructs of interest were adequately measured. Initially, we specified a model with three
factors: language experience, passage sight vocabulary, and passage comprehension. Model fit
was not particularly impressive: χ2(51) = 146.59 (p < .01), CFI = .93, NFI = .89, RMSEA = .14.
Consistent with the pattern of correlations noted above, modification indices suggested that this
was because language experience comprised distinct factors, which seem to reflect conversation
experience (i.e., speaking and listening) and print experience (i.e., reading and writing). We
added these two factors to the model. Model fit was just at the level considered acceptable, χ2(48)
= 97.05 (p < .01), CFI = .96, NFI = .93, RMSEA = .10, and critically, the improvement in fit
over the three-factor model was highly significant: Δχ2(3) = 49.54 (p < .01). As shown in Figure
1, each variable had a strong positive loading on a factor, and the factors were moderately
intercorrelated.
.73 .86
e Reading Print
.85 Experience
.72
e Writing
.53
.97 .98
e Speaking
Conversation
.66 Experience
.44
e Listening .34
.90 .49
e Publishing
.95
.28
.98 .99
e Home
Passage Sight
.97 Vocabulary
.93 .37
e Grocery .97
.94
e Doctor
.76
.70
e Publishing
.83
.77 .87
e Home
Passage
.93 Comprehension
.87
e Grocery .86
.74
e Doctor
Figure 1. Measurement model for predictor variables. Values adjacent to single-headed arrows are
standardized regression coefficients; values adjacent to double-headed arrows are correlation
coefficients. e = error; values reflect proportion of variance accounted for in observed variables.

For vocabulary retention, we tested a two-factor model (Time 1 and Time 2). We allowed the
error terms for each passage to correlate across time. This allowed us to estimate the stability of
vocabulary from Time 1 to Time 2, while controlling for passage-specific factors (e.g., greater
interest in one passage than the others). Model fit was excellent, χ2(15) = 15.68 (ns), CFI = 1.00,
NFI = .94, RMSEA = .02. As shown in Figure 2, the Time 1 x Time 2 correlation was very high,
r = .89. However, constraining this correlation to unity (1.0) significantly decreased model fit,
Δχ2(1) = 4.24, p < .05, and thus we were justified in treating the factors as distinct.
.41
.13 e Publishing
.64
.49 .70
.33 e Home
Vocabulary
.50 Retention - 1
.25
.33 e Grocery .62
e
.39 Doctor
.24
.89
.40 Publishing
e
.63
.54 .74
e Home
Vocabulary
.54 Retention - 2
.29
e Grocery .59
.35
e Doctor
Figure 2. Measurement model for vocabulary retention variables. Values adjacent to single-headed
arrows are standardized regression coefficients; values adjacent to double-headed arrows are
correlation coefficients. e = error; values reflect proportion of variance accounted for in observed
variables.
Structural Model
The second step was to test for relations among the latent variables in a structural model. The
model is displayed in Figure 3. Conversation experience positively contributed to passage sight
vocabulary (.47), whereas the contribution of print experience, though positive, was near zero
(.07). In turn, passage sight vocabulary strongly contributed to passage comprehension (.77),
accounting for nearly 58% of the variance. The direct contributions of both conversation
experience (.04) and print experience (-.05) on passage comprehension were near zero, and thus
their contributions were almost entirely mediated through sight vocabulary. Finally, passage
comprehension positively contributed to vocabulary retention-1 (.56), and even more strongly to
vocabulary retention-2 (.88). Collectively, the predictor variables accounted for 51% of the
variance in vocabulary retention-1 and 80% of the variance in vocabulary retention-2. Overall
model fit was acceptable, χ2(193) = 307.88 (p < .01), CFI = .94, NFI = .86, RMSEA = .08.

-.07
D .26
Passage Sight -.08

.07 Vocabulary
Print Experience .24

D .55 D .80
.18
.47
.56 Vocabulary .88 Vocabulary
.77 Retention-1 Retention-2
.04
-.21
Conversation
Experience
.56
-.05 Passage
Comprehension
.12
D .57
-.01
Figure 3. Structural equation model predicting vocabulary retention. Values adjacent to single-headed arrows are standardized regression
coefficients; values adjacent to double-headed arrows are correlation coefficients. D = disturbance; values reflect proportion of variance accounted
for in latent variables. Solid paths are statistically significant (p < .05).
These results provide support for the role of language experience in vocabulary acquisition
through reading—and especially speaking and listening—and suggest that input processing and
comprehension do indeed contribute to vocabulary acquisition.
Discussion
The aim of the study was to investigate the vicious and virtuous circle that has been observed in
L2 reading. Toward this end, we tested for relationships among literacy skills, engagement in
reading, and subsequent language learning. This was accomplished, first, by observing
performance from a cross-section of L2 learners on a range of tests and questionnaires that
observed these constructs, and, second, through the use of multivariate statistical modeling. The
factors deemed relevant to modeling the vicious and virtuous circle included L2 processing
experience and L2 passage sight vocabulary.
Empirical Evaluation of the Vicious and Virtuous Circle
The results expand upon previous single-focus research with respect to the roles of the different
variables in L2 reading comprehension and vocabulary acquisition through reading. Overall, the
findings provide some evidence for the cycle depicted in the introduction part and also lend
support for connectionist models of L2 reading (e.g., Grabe & Stoller, 2002; Koda, 2005, 2007;
Nassaji, 2002). Connectionist models of reading emphasize that language processing experience
and efficiency in lower-level linguistic processing are the driving forces behind successful
performance on reading and related literacy tasks. Current SLA theories (e.g., Ellis, 2002, 2005)
also argue that L2 knowledge and skills develop through language processing frequency and
exposure. In the present study, the readers of the group who most frequently engaged in L2
language use in the different modalities also demonstrated correspondingly high levels of
vocabulary knowledge related to the reading passages. Efficiency in linguistic processing
presumably allowed these learners to engage in the higher level processes that were necessary for
successful passage comprehension, which included literal and inferential comprehension abilities.
In turn, this positively influenced the lexical bootstrapping processes required for vocabulary to
be learned from context.
Language processing experience. From the standpoint of the predictor variables, the results first
revealed that language processing experience, measured by self-reports of engagement in literacy
and conversation activities, contributed to a more proximal cause of narrative comprehension
and vocabulary development through reading (i.e., L2 passage sight vocabulary). Results
revealed a moderate contribution of self-reported engagement in speaking and listening activities
to the L2 literacy skills. This finding contrasts with L1 reading studies described above (e.g.,
Stanovich, 2000). The participants of the present study were foreign language learners who
resided in a Midwestern city with few opportunities for day-to-day L2 use. It is assumed that at
the time of data collection their exposure to the L2 occurred primarily through their Spanish
classroom-based activities and course assignments. This type of speaking and listening exposure
likely contrasts with that reported for the child participants in the L1 reading research reported
above. In those studies engagement in speaking and listening activities outside of the classroom
(e.g., through play, television, everyday conversation) did not explain any additional variance in

literacy development (and sometimes correlated negatively with literacy outcomes). In addition,
the majority of the students in the present study had participated in study and living abroad
experiences in a Spanish-speaking country at some point in their language learning experience.
Such experiences should also indirectly exert a positive influence on subsequent language use
and language learning outcomes, especially the learning of the type of language that corresponds
to everyday scenarios.
These results provide new evidence of the role of L2 processing experience in L2 reading and
vocabulary learning, outside of measures of print exposure. Previous studies have failed to obtain
significant contributions from self-report questionnaires on language use habits (e.g., Dewey,
2004; McQuillan, 2006). However, the present study differed from previous research in several
ways. First, compared to Dewey’s study, we tested a larger participant pool representing a cross-
section. We also used a broader and different type of measure of L2 reading proficiency to
establish a range of proficiency. In addition, our participant pool was learning Spanish as a
foreign language, compared to McQuillan's bilingual language minority ESL high-school
students. The present results also suggest that a simple questionnaire eliciting language use
habits can predict, to some extent, literacy skills related to comprehension and vocabulary
learning outcomes. The discussion below concerns the significance of more proximal causes of
reading comprehension and vocabulary learning through comprehension.
Passage sight vocabulary and comprehension. The results also revealed significant contributions
of processing skills associated with reading to specific L2 reading comprehension activities and
vocabulary acquisition via reading. It has been repeatedly argued and illustrated in L1 and L2
studies that engagement in reading activities, and also extensive reading programs, contributes to
the development of general vocabulary knowledge (e.g., Krashen, 1989, 2004; Nagy, 1997;
Stanovich, 1986, 2000), and vice versa. The present study expands upon this research and
illustrates that as passage sight vocabulary knowledge improves, so too does subsequent
cognitive processing performance that requires such sight vocabulary, namely, passage
comprehension and lexical bootstrapping of new vocabulary.
As expected and predicted by connectionist models of L2 reading and language learning, L2

passage sight vocabulary positively contributed to narrative comprehension and vocabulary
learning through comprehension. This finding provides new evidence of the role of vocabulary
specifically related to the passages in predicting reading comprehension outcomes, following
Bernhardt's (2004, 2005) suggestion to account for such knowledge and variation in L2 literacy
development. Although we recognize that there is variance yet unexplained by the model, our
results underscore the importance of word recognition skills and efficiency in linguistic and
lower-level knowledge in enabling the use of higher-level processing skills, such as
comprehension monitoring, inferencing, lexical bootstrapping, and storage of new linguistic
information (e.g., Coady, 1997; Grabe & Stoller, 2002; Koda, 2005, 2007; Laufer, 1997). The
passage sight vocabulary measure required learners to quickly indicate their familiarity with
words contained within the passages, and then to provide a translation or definition of those
words. Interestingly, although many learners (especially at the lower levels) indicated familiarity
with words on the list, they often incorrectly translated or defined those words. This
demonstrated inefficiency in word recognition skills, which was hypothesized to be relevant to
subsequent reading performance.

As a complex cognitive skill, reading entails the simultaneous use of various knowledge sources
and abilities, as described in the introduction part. The strong readers of the study could
efficiently carry out the requisite lower-level processes, which presumably freed up attentional
resources to enable the construction and integration of ideas from context, and the access to and
use of background knowledge. These readers experienced greater success in inferencing and
lexical gains through reading. In contrast, for the weak readers of the study both local
comprehension and global comprehension were hampered. They were more apt to experience
difficulty, or failure, in the construction and integration of ideas from context. Such difficulties
were, in turn, connected with fewer vocabulary learning outcomes through reading.
Conclusions and Future Directions
The results reported above reveal that L2 processing experience and passage sight vocabulary
contribute to and account for a moderate amount of variance in L2 narrative reading
comprehension and vocabulary development through comprehension. These results help to
illustrate both the virtuous circle and the vicious circle of L2 reading and vocabulary learning
through reading. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first such attempt to model adult L2
reading and lexical input processing through reading via structural equation modeling. At the
same time, given that our predictor variables were measured at a single point in time, we caution
that the results presented here are merely consistent with the particular account that we have
described. An important goal for future studies is to use longitudinal approaches, along with
statistical techniques like latent growth-curve modeling, to test causal models more directly.
Specific issues that could be addressed in such studies include whether or not the results can be
replicated with different genre of text (e.g., expository texts), and different measures of print and
language exposure. In addition, it would be advantageous to include additional factors relevant to
L2 reading and vocabulary learning through reading, such as working memory, L1 literacy, and
other sources of linguistic knowledge (e.g., syntactic knowledge).
Pedagogical Implications
On a final note, these results help to strengthen arguments for promoting extensive L2 reading
and language use activities for L2 literacy development (both in and outside of classroom), in
addition to direct teaching. It might be helpful to assign the following activities (which promote
comprehension and context building, and focus on lower and higher level processing):
previewing titles, headings, and illustrations for ideas in the text; scanning for specific
information; reading the passage one section at a time and completing comprehension questions;
selecting key words and local and global context cues; and identifying main ideas.
Teachers should also bear in mind that weaker readers may not learn as many new words, nor
learn them as quickly, as stronger readers. Since lexical learning through reading does occur, but
is a time-consuming endeavor, teachers should also continue to engage in direct teaching that
draws learners’ attention to new vocabulary and encourages additional processing, especially at
lower levels of proficiency. Some possibilities include guessing and subsequently verifying
meanings of new words through gloss consultation, dictionary and computer-assisted-language-
learning (CALL) hyperlink consultation, or cooperative learning tasks. Finally, given the

findings, instructors should bear in mind the following practices to promote L2 reading and
vocabulary development: match texts to learners based upon their vocabulary knowledge;
dedicate time and resources to promoting frequency-based vocabulary and reading instruction
through computer-aided resources; incorporate graded readers; and use texts or create materials
with textual glosses, with particular emphasis on key words in the readings (e.g., Cobb, in press;
Huang & Liou, 2007; Nation, 2001).
Notes
1. Print exposure is the amount of time a person spends being visually aware of the written word,
for example through reading newspapers, magazines, books, journals, scientific papers, and web
materials. It has been typically measured via the Author Recognition Test (ART), Magazine and
Newspaper Recognition Test (MRT), and Title Recognition Test (TRT). Alternative measures
include diaries, self-report, retrospective questionnaires, quantity of foreign language courses
taken, years of study of a foreign language, and study abroad experiences. See Dewey (2004) and
Freed et al. (2004) for additional examples.
2. Admittedly, many of these studies deal with cognate languages or are connected with
investigating the benefits of extensive reading programs (e.g., Krashen, 1989).
3. Relying on extensive reading and listening for vocabulary development is not as efficient as
direct teaching because the learning rates are considerably lower (e.g., Nation, 2001).
4. Passage sight vocabulary knowledge can be contrasted with general vocabulary knowledge.
Whereas the former refers to knowledge of words in a specific text and has been measured by
L2-L1 translation and self-reported recognition tests (e.g., Pulido, 2000, 2003, 2004b, 2007), the
latter refers to knowledge of vocabulary in general, and may or may not include words from a
specific text that learners have been assigned to read.
5. Examples of connectives (CON) include (a) causal (because, so, etc.), (b) condition (if-then),
(c) purpose (to, in order to), (d) concession (but, etc.), (e) conjunction (and, also, etc.), and (f)
temporal (first, then, etc.). See Kintsch (1998, p. 60) for more examples.
References
Baddeley, A. (1998). Human memory: Theory and practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Barry, S., & Lazarte, A. (1998). Evidence for mental models: How do prior knowledge, syntactic
compexity, and reading topic affect inference generation in a recall task for nonnative
readers of Spanish? The Modern Language Journal, 82, 176–193.
Beech, J. (2002). Individual differences in mature readings in reading, spelling, and grapheme-
phoneme conversion. Current Psychology, 21, 121–132.
Bernhardt, E. B. (1991). Reading development in a second language: Theoretical, empirical, and
classroom perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Bernhardt, E. B. (2004). From the guest editor. Reading in a Foreign Language, 16, i–ii.
Bernhardt, E. B. (2005). Progress and procrastination in second language reading. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 133–150.
Biber, D. (1986). Spoken and written textual dimensions in English: Resolving the contradictory
findings. Language, 62, 384–414.
Carrell, P., Devine, J., & Eskey, D. (1988). Interactive approaches to second language reading.
Chen, Q., & Donin, J. (1997). Discourse processing of first and second language biology texts:
Effects of language proficiency and domain-specific knowledge. The Modern Language
Journal, 81, 209–227.
Cipielewski, J., & Stanovich, K. (1992). Predicting growth in reading ability from children’s
exposure to print. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 54, 74–89.
Clark, E. (1993). The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Coady, J. (1997). L2 vocabulary acquisition through extensive reading. In J. Coady & T. Huckin
(Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp. 225–237).
Cobb, T. (in press). Necessary or nice? The role of computers in L2 reading. In Z. Han & N.
Anderson (Eds.), L2 reading research and instruction: Crossing the boundaries. Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Constantino, R., Lee, S., Cho, K., & Krashen, S. (1997). Free voluntary reading as a predictor of
TOEFL scores. Applied Language Learning, 8, 111–118.
Craik, F., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic
memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268–294.
Cunningham, A., & Stanovich, K. (1991). Tracking the unique effects of print exposure in
children: Associations with vocabulary, general knowledge, and spelling. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 83, 264–274.
De Bot, K., Paribakht, T., & Wesche, M. (1997). Toward a lexical processing model for the
study of second language vocabulary acquisition. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 19, 309–329.
Dewey, D. (2004). A comparison of reading development by learners of Japanese in intensive
domestic immersion and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
26, 303–327.
Echols, L., Stanovich, K., West, R., & Zehr, K. (1996). Using children’s literacy activities to
predict growth in verbal and cognitive skills: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of
Elley, W. (1991). Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effect of book-based programs.
Elley, W., & Mangubhai, F. (1983). The impact of reading on second language learning. Reading
Research Quarterly, 19, 53–67.
Ellis, N. C. (1994). Vocabulary acquisition: The implicit ins and outs of explicit cognitive
mediation. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 211–282).
London: Academic Press.
Ellis, N. C. (2001). Memory for language. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language
instruction (pp. 33–68). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for
theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 24, 143–188.

Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language
knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352.
Freed, N., Dewey, D., Segalowitz, N., & Halter, R. (2004). The language contact profile. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 349–356.
Gass, S. (1999). Incidental vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21,
319–333.
Grabe. W., & Stoller, F. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. Essex, England: Longman.
Graesser, A., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text
comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395.
Gutierrez-Clellen, V., & Kreiter, J. (2003). Understanding child bilingual acquisition using
parent and teacher reports. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 267–288.
Hayes, D. (1988). Speaking and writing: Distinct patterns of word choice. Journal of Memory
and Language, 27, 572–585.
Haynes, M. (1993). Patterns and perils of guessing in second language reading. In T. Huckin, M.
Haynes, & J. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 46–
64). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Haynes, M., & Baker, I. (1993). American and Chinese readers learning from lexical
familiarizations in English text. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady (Eds.), Second
language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 130–150). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Haynes, M., & Carr, T. (1990). Writing system background and second language reading: A
component skills analysis of English reading by native-speaking readers of Chinese. In. T.
Carr & B. Levy (Eds.), Reading and its development: Component skills approaches (pp.
375–421). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hu, M., & Nation, I. S. P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension.
Huang, H. T., & Liou, H. C. (2007). Vocabulary learning in an automated graded reading
program. Language Learning & Technology, 11, 64–82.
Hulstijn, J. (2001). Intentional and incidental second language vocabulary learning: A reappraisal
of elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second
language instruction (pp. 258–286). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hulstijn, J. (2003). Incidental and intentional learning. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.),
Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 349–381). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Just, M., & Carpenter, P. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in
working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.
Karlsen, B., & Gardner, F. (1990). Adult basic learning examination. San Antonio, TX: The
Psychological Corporation.
Kim, H., & Krashen, S. (1997). Why don't language acquirers take advantage of the power of
reading? TESOL Journal, 6, 26-29.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, England:
Kline, R. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford
Press.
Koda, K. (1989). The effects of transferred vocabulary knowledge on the development of L2

reading proficiency. Foreign Language Annals, 22, 529–540.

Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach.
Koda, K. (2007). Reading and language learning: Crosslinguistic constraints on second language
reading development. Language Learning, 57(Suppl. 1), 1–44.
Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the
input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 440–464.
Krashen, S. (2004). The power of reading (2nd ed.). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Landauer, T., & Dumais, S. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis
theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review,
104, 211–240.
Laufer, B. (1992). How much lexis is necessary for reading comprehension? In P. Arnaud & H.
Bejoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 126–132). London: Macmillan.
Laufer, B. (1997). The lexical plight in second language reading; Words you don't know, words
you think you know, and words you can't guess. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second
language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp. 20–33). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The
construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22, 1–26.
Laufer, B., & Sim, D. (1985). Measuring and explaining the threshold needed for English for
Academic Purposes Tests. Foreign Language Annals, 18, 405–413.
Lee, J. F., & Wolf , D. (1997). A quantitative and qualitative analysis of the word-meaning
inferencing strategies of L1 and L2 readers. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 1, 24–64.
Lee, Y., Krashen, S., & Gibbons, B. (1996). The effect of reading on the acquisition of English
relative clauses. ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics, 113–114, 263–273.
Lee, S., Krashen, S., & Tse, L. (1997). The Pulido recognition test and vocabulary knowledge: A
replication. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 1428–1430.
McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (1997). Written and spoken vocabulary. In N. Schmitt & M.
McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 20–39).
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. London: Arnold.
McQuillan, J. (2006). The effects of print access and print exposure on English vocabulary
acquisition of language minority students. The Reading Matrix, 6, 41–51.
Mecartty, F. (2000). Lexical and grammatical knowledge in reading and listening comprehension
by foreign language learners of Spanish. Applied Language Learning, 11, 323–348.
Nagy, W. (1997). On the role of context in first-and second-language vocabulary learning. In N.
Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp.
64–83). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Nassaji, H. (2002). Schema theory and knowledge-based processes in second language reading
comprehension: A need for alternative perspectives. Language Learning, 52, 439–481.
Nassaji, H. (2003). L2 vocabulary learning from context: Strategies, knowledge sources, and
their relationship with success in L2 lexical inferencing. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 645–670.
Nassaji, H. (2004). The relationship between depth of vocabulary knowledge and L2 learners’
lexical inferencing strategy use and success. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61,
107–134.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, England:


Nuttall, C. (1982). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. London: Heinemann.
Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1999). Reading and “incidental” L2 vocabulary acquisition. An
introspective study of lexical inferencing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21,
195–224.
Parry, K. (1997). Vocabulary and comprehension: Two portraits. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.),
Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp. 55–68).
Pulido, D. (2000). The impact of topic familiarity, L2 reading proficiency, and L2 passage sight
vocabulary on incidental vocabulary gain through reading for adult learners of Spanish
as a foreign language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.
Pulido, D. (2003). Modeling the role of L2 proficiency and topic familiarity in L2 incidental
vocabulary acquisition through reading. Language Learning, 53, 233–284.
Pulido, D. (2004a). The relationship between text comprehension and second language incidental
vocabulary acquisition: A matter of topic familiarity? Language Learning, 54, 469–523.
Pulido, D. (2004b). The effect of cultural familiarity on incidental vocabulary acquisition
through reading. The Reading Matrix, 4, 20–53.
Pulido, D. (2007). The effects of topic familiarity and passage sight vocabulary on L2 lexical
inferencing and retention through reading. Applied Linguistics, 28, 66–86.
Pulido, D. (in press-a). How “involved” are American L2 learners of Spanish in lexical input
processing tasks during reading? Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
Pulido, D. (in press-b). Vocabulary processing and acquisition through reading: Evidence for the
rich getting richer. In Z. Han & N. Anderson (Eds.), L2 reading research and instruction:
Crossing the boundaries. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Pulido, D., Hambrick, D. Z., & Russell, M. (2007, April). Individual differences in L2 (Spanish)
Lexical input processing in incidental and intentional learning conditions. Paper
presented at the meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Costa
Mesa, CA.
Robinson, P. (2003). Attention and memory. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of
second language acquisition (pp. 631–678). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Rodrigo, V., McQuillan, J., & Krashen, S. (1996). Free voluntary reading and vocabulary
knowledge in native speakers of Spanish. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83, 648–650.
Rott, S. (2000). Relationships between the process of reading, word inferencing, and incidental
word acquisition. In J. F. Lee & A. Valdman (Eds.), Form and meaning: Multiple
perspectives (pp. 255–282). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Schank, R., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction
(pp. 3–32). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences
in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–400.
Stanovich, K. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new
frontiers. New York, NY: Guilford.

Stanovich, K., & Cunningham, A. (1993). Where does knowledge come from? Specific
associations between print exposure and information acquisition. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 85, 211–229.
Stanovich, K., & West, R. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading
Sternberg, R. (1987). Most vocabulary is learned from context. In M. McKeown & M. Curtis
(Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 89–105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Swaffar, J., Arens, K., & Byrnes, H. (1991). Reading for meaning: An integrated approach to
language learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ulijn, J., & Strother, J. (1990). The effect of syntactic simplification on reading EST texts as L1
and L2. Journal of Research in Reading, 13, 38–54.
Underwood, G., & Batt, V. (1996). Reading and understanding. Oxford: Blackwell.
West, R., Stanovich, K., & Mitchell, H. (1993). Reading in the real world and its correlates.
Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 34–50.
Appendix A
Background Questionnaire
Please print your responses to the questions below.

1. Name: ____________________________________
2. Telephone contact / e-mail contact ________________________________
3. Year in school: Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Other Graduate
4. Spanish Course(s) presently taking: ___________________________________________
5. Check off ALL of the Spanish courses taken at the X University, and please list other Spanish courses
taken here or elsewhere:
SPN 101 ___ SPN 122 ____ SPN 210 _____ SPN 255 _____ ______(others)
SPA 102 ___ SPN 123 ____ SPN 212 _____ SPN 227 _____ ______(others)
SPN 103 ___ SPN 124 ____ SPN 214 _____ ______(others) ______(others)
SPN 104 ___ SPN 200 ____ SPN 216 _____ ______(others) ______(others)
6. How many years have you studied Spanish? (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ____(other)
7. Age at which you first began to learn Spanish: _________
8. Where did you first learn Spanish? _______________________________________
9. Have you studied or do you study presently any of the following languages?
FRENCH- YES NO For how long? (mos. /yrs.)_________________
ITALIAN- YES NO For how long? (mos. /yrs.)________________
GERMAN- YES NO For how long? (mos. /yrs.)________________
OTHER YES NO For how long? (mos. /yrs.)________________
(Please specify:___________________________________________________)
10. How many languages do you speak? _____ Which languages? ________________________
11. Is English your native language? YES NO
12. Do you speak English at home? YES NO
If NO, what language do you speak at home? _____________________________
If you speak other languages at home WHAT are they?______________________
13. Have you EVER STUDIED ABROAD? YES NO
If YES, WHERE? ___________________ LENGTH OF TIME_______________
14. Have you EVER spent time in a Spanish speaking country? YES NO

If YES, WHERE? ___________________ Length of stay_______________

AGE when traveled_____________ Reason for travel___________________
15. Outside of class do you...
read Spanish YES / NO For what purpose?__________________________________
How much per week?_______________
write Spanish YES / NO For what purpose?__________________________________
speak Spanish YES / NO For what purpose?__________________________________
How much per week?_______________ listen to
Spanish YES / NO For what purpose?__________________________________
THANK YOU
ALL INFORMATION WILL REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix B
Sample Propositional Analysis of a More Familiar Passage—Translated English Version
The Trip to the Supermarket

P1 (2): realize [Sue, empty [refrigerator]]
P2 (1): today [P1]
P3 (2): get [Sue, Sue [purse]]
P4 (2): drive [Sue, to-supermarket]
P5 (1): CON (and) [P3, P4]
P6 (1): CON (so) [P2, P5]
P7 (2): park [Sue, car]
P8 (2): enter [Sue, supermarket]
P9 (1): CON (and) [P7, P8]
P10 (2): get [Sue, GROCERY CART]
P11 (1): CON (first) [P10]
P12 (2): take out [Sue, list, from-Sue [purse]]
P13 (1): CON (and) [P10, P12]
P14 (2): begin [Sue, walk [Sue, through-AISLES]]
P15 (2): go [Sue, to-canned [food [section]]]
P16 (1): CON (first) [P15]
P17 (2): want [Sue, buy [Sue, soup]]
P18 (1): CON (because) [P16, P17]
P19 (2): is [so [many [brands]]]
P20 (2): decide [Sue, COMPARE [Sue, prices]]
P21 (1): CON (that) [P19, P20]
P22 (2): continue [Sue, toward-fruit, vegetable [stands]]
P23 (2): buy [Sue, grapes]
P24 (1): CON (in order to) [P22, P23]
P25 (1): CON (then) [P18, P24]
P26 (2): choose [Sue, bunch]
P27 (1): there-at fruit-vegetable stand [P26]
P28 (2): go [Sue, to-bakery]
P29 (2): buy [Sue, bread]


P31 (1): CON (afterward) [P24, P30]
P32 (2): greet [Sue, shopkeeper]
P33 (2): request [Sue, shopkeeper, loaf]
P34 (1): CON (and) [P32, P33]
P35 (2): continue [Sue, through-supermarket]
P36 (2): determine [Sue, missing [anything]]
P38 (1): CON (then) [P30, P37]
P39 (2): have [Sue, everything]
P40 (2): walk [Sue, toward-CHECKOUT]
P41 (1): CON (so) [P39, P40]
P42 (2): many, waiting in line [people]
P43 (2): begin [Sue, read [Sue, TABLOIDS]]
P44 (1): CON (so) [P42, P43]
P45 (2): arrive [Sue [turn]]
P46 (1): CON (finally) [P45]
P47 (2): place [Sue, groceries, on-CHECKOUT COUNTER]
P48 (2): begin [salesclerk, RING UP [salesclerk, prices]]
P49 (1): CON (and) [P47, P48]
P50 (1): CON (so) [P46, P59]
P51 (2): take out [Sue, credit card]
P52 (2): pay [Sue, Sue [bill]]
P53 (1): CON (and) [P51, P52]
P54 (1): CON (afterward) [P50, P53]
P55 (2): get [Sue, BAGS]
P56 (2): leave [Sue, supermarket]
P57 (1): CON (and) [P55, P56]
P58 (1): CON (finally) [P54, P57]
Note. P = Proposition. CON = sentence connective (e.g., causal, condition, purpose, concession,
conjunction, and temporal). (1) = proposition worth 1 point. (2) = proposition worth 2 points.
Italicized words represent argument overlap not explicitly stated in the text. Capitalized words
represent the TW L1 translation equivalent.
Appendix C
Parameter Estimates With Standard Errors for Measurement and Structural Models
Measurement Model: Predictor Variables β B SE
Reading hrs/wk†  Print Experience 0.86 1.00 −

Writing hrs/wk  Print Experience 0.85 0.90** 0.18
Speaking hrs/wk†  Conversation Experience 0.98 1.00 −

Listening hrs/wk  Conversation Experience 0.66 0.72** 0.15
Publishing  Passage Sight Vocabulary 0.95 1.14** 0.05

Home  Passage Sight Vocabulary 0.99 1.03** 0.03
Grocery†  Passage Sight Vocabulary 0.97 1.00 −
Doctor  Passage Sight Vocabulary 0.97 1.17** 0.04

Publishing  Passage Comprehension 0.83 0.68** 0.06

Home  Passage Comprehension 0.87 0.78** 0.06
Grocery†  Passage Comprehension 0.93 1.00 −
Doctor  Passage Comprehension 0.86 1.17** 0.07
Measurement Model: Vocabulary Retention Variables β B SE
Publishing-1  Vocabulary Retention-1 0.64 0.86** 0.20

Home-1  Vocabulary Retention-1 0.70 1.22** 0.28
Grocery-1†  Vocabulary Retention-1 0.50 1.00 −
Doctor-1  Vocabulary Retention-1 0.62 0.87** 0.20
Publishing-2  Vocabulary Retention-2 0.63 0.99** 0.23

Home-2  Vocabulary Retention-2 0.74 1.37** 0.27
Grocery-2†  Vocabulary Retention-2 0.54 1.00 −
Doctor-2  Vocabulary Retention-2 0.59 0.88** 0.22
Structural Model β B SE
Print Experience  Passage Sight Vocabulary 0.07 0.06 0.12

Print Experience  Passage Comprehension 0.04 0.03 0.08
Print Experience  Vocabulary Retention-1 0.18 0.60 0.50
Print Experience  Vocabulary Retention-2 - 0.07- 0.22 0.45
Conversation Experience  Passage Sight Vocabulary 0.47 0.33** 0.11

Conversation Experience  Passage Comprehension - 0.05- 0.03 0.08
Conversation Experience  Vocabulary Retention-1 - 0.21- 0.61 0.51
Conversation Experience  Vocabulary Retention-2 - 0.01- 0.03 0.40
Passage Sight Vocabulary  Passage Comprehension 0.77 0.68** 0.08

Passage Sight Vocabulary  Vocabulary Retention-1 0.24 0.97 0.75
Passage Sight Vocabulary  Vocabulary Retention-2 - 0.08- 0.32 0.60
Passage Comprehension  Vocabulary Retention-1 0.56 2.61** 0.84

Passage Comprehension  Vocabulary Retention-2 0.12 0.51 0.64
Vocabulary Retention-1  Vocabulary Retention-2 0.88 0.83** 0.23

__________________________________________________________________________________
Note. † = variable used to scale latent factor. β = standardized; B = unstandardized; SE = standard error.
About the Authors
Diana Pulido is an assistant professor in the PhD in Second Language Studies program and
MATESOL program in the Department of Linguistics and Germanic, Slavic, Asian, and African
Languages at Michigan State University. Her main research interests include individual
differences in second language reading, multi-componential models of reading, and lexical input
processing and acquisition. She has published in Language Learning, Applied Linguistics, and

The Reading Matrix. Correspondence concerning this article should be directed to

pulidod@msu.edu, A-744 Wells Hall, East Lansing, MI, 48824.
David Z. Hambrick is an associate professor in Cognitive Psychology in the Psychology

Department at Michigan State University. His research interests include individual differences in
working memory, aptitude, multi-tasking, executive functioning, and knowledge acquisition. He
has published in the Journal of Memory and Language, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, Journal
of Experimental Psychology, Neuropsychology, and Memory & Cognition. E-mail:
hambric3@msu.edu

ISSN 1539-0578 pp. 191–215
Beyond raw frequency: Incidental vocabulary acquisition in extensive reading

Soo-Ok Kweon
Pohang University of Science and Technology
Korea
Hae-Ri Kim
Seoul National University of Education
Korea
Abstract
Second language vocabulary can be learned incidentally while the learner is engaged in
extensive reading or reading for meaning, inferring the meaning of unknown words
(Huckin & Coady, 1999; Hulstijn, 1992; Krashen, 1993; Pigada & Schmitt, 2006). 12
Korean learners of English read authentic literary texts and were tested on their
knowledge of vocabulary before reading (pretest), immediately after reading (Posttest 1),
and 1 month after Posttest 1 (Posttest 2). The results showed a significant word gain
between the pretest and Posttest 1 and that most gained words were retained at Posttest 2.
Of the 3 different word classes that were used, nouns were a little easier to retain than
verbs and adjectives. More frequent words were more easily learned than less frequent
words across all 3 word classes. However, words of lower frequency were better learned
than words of higher frequency when the meanings of the lower frequency words were
crucial for meaning comprehension.
Keywords: Extensive reading, L2 reading, incidental vocabulary acquisition, literature-based

approach
The past two decades have seen a considerable amount of interest in the cognitive processing of
vocabulary acquisition (Arnaud & Bejoint, 1992; Coady & Huckin, 1997; Haastrup, 1991; Hatch
& Brown, 1995; Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Meara, 1992). Many scholars have agreed that much
second language (L2) vocabulary is learned incidentally while learners are engaged in extensive
reading (ER) or reading for meaning and in inferring the meanings of unknown words (Huckin &
Coady, 1999; Krashen, 1993; Paribakht & Wesche, 1997). In this case, vocabulary learning can
be called incidental learning because it is a byproduct rather than the explicit purpose of reading
(see Day, Omura, & Hiramatsu, 1991; Dupuy & Krashen, 1993; Hulstijn, 1992; Pigada &
Schmitt, 2006; Pitts, White, & Krashen, 1989; Saragi, Nation, & Meister, 1978; Waring &
Takaki, 2003).
The goal of the present study was to see how and which unknown words can be incidentally
learned and retained while Korean learners of English read substantial amounts of authentic text
Kweon & Kim: Beyond raw frequency 192
over a long period of time. More specifically, this study investigated the effect of frequency, but
beyond the frequency, examined other factors such as word class. The paper is organized as
follows: We introduce the previous studies of incidental vocabulary acquisition through reading
in the L2 learning literature, followed by a description of the components of the present study.
After reporting the design and results of the experimental study in the method section, we discuss
how incidental vocabulary learning occurs, how successfully it is retained, and what the
relationship between word frequency and learning might be. We conclude by calling for more
efficient development and implementation of ER to enhance vocabulary learning in an L2.
Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition Through ER
Vocabulary acquisition occurs chiefly through spoken input in child first language (L1) learning.
Lexical acquisition has usually been assumed to develop naturally, as children grow older, with
no explicit instruction needed. However, the situation differs in an L2 environment. Here,
vocabulary acquisition often occurs more through written text (Grabe, 2004). Of course, explicit
instruction in word meanings can facilitate vocabulary acquisition by drawing attention to form
and meaning mappings. However, incidental vocabulary learning has some advantages over
direct instruction. For one, reading and word learning occur at the same time. For another, a
richer sense of a word is learned through contextualized input. Furthermore, the incidental
acquirer not only acquires word meanings but also increases his or her chances to get a feel for
collocations and colligations that are not easily learned by learners of English as a foreign
language (Bahns & Eldaw, 1993); therefore, learning can be facilitated by repeated exposure to
words that go together (cf. Lewis, 1993; Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992, for the importance of
learning lexical phrases).
Research into L2 vocabulary learning has determined that such incidental vocabulary learning is
possible while the learner is engaged in ER (Huckin & Coady, 1999; Krashen, 1993; Wodinsky
& Nation, 1988). Based on this research, the incidental vocabulary learning hypothesis (Nagy,
Herman, & Anderson, 1985) claims that teachers should promote ER because it can lead to
“greater vocabulary growth than any program of explicit instruction alone ever could” (Coady,
1997, p. 225).
In addition to the vocabulary-expanding effects of reading extensively in an L2, many published

L2 studies of ER also reveal general benefits for aspects of language development (see Bell,
2001; Hafiz & Tudor, 1989; Lai, 1993; Mason & Krashen, 1997; Robb & Susser, 1989, for
change in reading comprehension ability; Hafiz & Tudor, 1990; Tsang, 1996, for essay writing;
Lituanas, Jacobs, & Renandya, 1999; Mason & Krashen, 1997, for oral reading).
Unfortunately, the evidence of actual incidental word learning through ER does not
unambiguously appear in previous research (Day et al., 1991; Hulstijn, 1992; Pigada & Schmitt,
2006; Waring & Takaki, 2003). This lack of a clear result is not for want of trying. Studies of
vocabulary acquisition in L2 reading range from implementations across a whole school district
(e.g., Elley, 1991; Lightbown, 1992) to case studies of individual learners (Cho & Krashen, 1994;
Parry, 1991; Pigada & Schimitt, 2006). Overall, regardless of the scales of the studies, many
studies on vocabulary learning through ER show that very few words are learned after reading in

relation to the reading time or text length. For example, Pitts et al. (1989) had ESL students read
A Clockwork Orange for an hour and tested the subjects after 10 minutes on 28 items of Anthony
Burgess’ Russianate “nadsat” vocabulary, which was not invented but nevertheless unfamiliar to
the subjects. A control group, which did not read the text, was also tested on the same items. A
statistically significant but quite small increase in vocabulary was observed in the experimental
group compared to the control group. Another example is that in Horst, Cobb, and Meara’s (1998)
study, the teacher read aloud the entire 21,232 words of the simplified Mayor of Casterbridge in
class while the students followed along in their books. The students then took a 45-item multiple-
choice test and a 13-item word-association test; the posttest results showed mean gains of 4.62
words on the multiple-choice test and 1.28 words on the word-association test. Similarly, Shin
(2006) investigated whether vocabulary was incidentally acquired through reading selected units
from textbooks (168 pages with 43,465 words) for an ELT writing course by 34 Korean college
students and found that a small number of new words (3.6 out of 40 unknown words) were
learned, with a significant relationship between the number of occurrences of the words and the
relative learning gain.
In examining vocabulary learning and retention by 15 Japanese college students who read one
graded reader, Waring and Takaki (2003) changed the forms of the 25 words that were used in
the text to make them into non-words to control for previous knowledge of the words (e.g.,
changing house into windle). They found that “words can be learned incidentally but that most of
the words were not learned” (p. 130). Three months later, only one of the incidentally learned
items was remembered, and none of the items that appeared fewer than eight times were
remembered. Waring and Takaki’s (2003) use of non-words in the test should be considered in
terms of the retention rate 3 months later. Such non-words might easily be imagined to be more
difficult to remember than real words.
Pigada and Schmitt (2006) used 70 nouns and 63 verbs in their study in investigating incidental
vocabulary acquisition with a participant, G, a native Greek speaker, by using four graded
readers in French. Because the texts were short, Pigada and Schmitt included only “the most
common parts of speech found in natural text” (Webb, 2005, p. 36, cited in Pigada & Schmitt,
2006, p. 9), in the hope that further research would include other word classes. They organized
the two word classes into six different frequency groups according to the number of encounters
and tested three types of word knowledge (meaning, spelling, and grammatical behavior). They
found that substantial word learning occurred during the ER, although the improvement was not
uniform across the three types of word knowledge. Spelling was enhanced in all noun frequency
groups and in all but two verb groups. For meaning, low-frequency nouns and verbs showed
limited learning, and verbs were more limited than nouns. Grammatical behavior knowledge was
improved in all frequency groups of nouns, while the percentage of grammatical mastery of
verbs was much lower than that of nouns.
A comparison of nouns and verbs has been the focus of attention in the current literature of
cognitive and linguistic development, literacy, and academic achievement in school-age children
(Snow, Cancini, Gonzales, & Shriberg, 1989; Watson, 1985; Wechsler, 1991, cited in Marinellie
& Johnson, 2004). According to Markman (1989), while nouns occur in structured categories
with hierarchical internal organizations (e.g., apple–fruit) that may result in simpler, more
predictable semantic relations, verbs and adjectives have less structured and less predictable

lexical relations. Verbs may be represented by nonhierarchical relations, such as change,

causality, and manner (Miller, 1991). Marinellie and Johnson (2004) observed that nouns and
verbs are significantly different in terms of their definitional styles in upper-elementary school
children. The rate of definitional forms for nouns was significantly higher than for verbs (p. 230).
They suggested that this might be due to an internal lexical organization for verbs that is less
structured and less predictable than that for nouns. In child language development, verbs are
suggested to be more difficult to learn than nouns and to be acquired at a slower rate (Benedict,
1979; Gentner, 1978, 1982; Greenfield & Smith, 1976).
Linguistically, the position that nouns and verbs have different conceptual bases has been widely
accepted. Gentner (1982) proposed that the concepts referred to by nouns are more accessible
than those referred to by verbs because they are conceptually more basic than the concepts
referred to by verbs or prepositions. Gentner further posited that “linguistic distinction between
nouns and verbs is based on a preexisting perceptual-conceptual distinction between concrete
concepts such as persons or things and predicative concepts of activity, change-of-state, or causal
relations” (p. 301).
According to Huttenlocher and Lui (1979), nouns and verbs have different semantic
organizations:
Concrete nouns fall into closely related and hierarchically organized domains, while verbs
form a more matrix-like organization. Two reasons have been proposed for these
differences in organization. First, the object categories encoded in concrete nouns are
independent entities in the mental lexicon, organized chiefly in relation to each other,
whereas verbs encode dependent categories with directed connections to their noun
arguments. Second, verbs have many elements of meaning which cut across semantic field,
e.g., manner, intention. (p. 141)
The kinds of things denoted by nouns are different from the kinds of things denoted by verbs.
Nouns postulate something definite such as a substance or individual; however, verbs cannot be
indicated separately from substances. Verbs can be real only if something definite is implied in
such a predicate because we never use verbs without implying their argument structures. For
example, eat has two argument structures, corresponding to John ate and John ate the apple (cf.
Pinker, 1989).
Failure of Acquisition vs. Failure of Research Methodology
Of course, the generally poor results of incidental vocabulary acquisition research may be due to
faults of the experimental methodology. These faults might include the amount of reading text,
the number of test items, the kinds of text used (e.g., simplified vs. authentic), and how many
words participants already know before the reading. In most studies, the measurement
instruments have been multiple-choice tests, and these have limitations in measuring readers’
exact knowledge of words because they allow guessing from contextual information. Other
methodologies such as self-report checklist measures, meaning-translation tests, or word-form
recognition tests can be used to overcome the shortcomings of multiple-choice tests and to

measure more precisely learners’ vocabulary knowledge.
The amount and the kind of reading may also affect incidental vocabulary learning and explain
the paucity of experimental results. Participants in most of the experimental studies read one or
two graded readers or a short reading passage to see the effect of reading on incidental
vocabulary learning. Huckin (1983), Rigg (1991), and Widdowson (1979) have variously
objected that simplified texts have many problems, offering insufficient exposure to unknown
words, tedious rewriting, highly manipulated syntax, and distortions of pragmatic use. In this
respect, using authentic texts of substantial length that may contain enough repetitions of words
may provide more relevant results.
When using authentic materials in the instruction of English as a foreign language, the selection
of texts is significant given that students are the most motivated and open to language input when
their emotions, feelings, and attitudes are most engaged (Tomlinson, 1986). Students will get few
benefits if a text is extremely difficult on either a linguistic or cultural level (Mckay, 1982;
Vincent & Carter, 1986). Using simplified texts or graded readers is one common method of
solving the problem, but a serious disadvantage is that simplification tends to produce a
homogenized product in which the information becomes diluted (Honeyfield, 1977). As an
alternative to using simplified versions, Mckay (1982) suggested literature written for young
adults. One of the characteristics of these books indicated by Donelson and Nilsen (2005) is that
they are stylistically less complicated, which is a significant factor in language learning.
Returning to the problem of lower rates of incidental vocabulary acquisition, we are interested in
whether different word classes are a factor affecting incidental word learning; for example,
whether nouns are easier to learn than verbs or vice versa. As stated above, many studies have
looked at the differences between nouns and verbs in definitional style and developmental order
in child language acquisition. Unfortunately, however, significant empirical studies have not
reported on this issue in second or foreign language learning (cf. Pigada & Schmitt, 2006). It is
important to understand how L1 acquisition and L2 learning differ, if at all (cf. Bley-Vroman,
1990), and how different word classes are learned by foreign language learners, especially
incidentally, not through instruction.
In the attempt to extend the scope of investigation in this study, we included adjectives, a group
that has not been included in previous research (e.g., Marinellie & Johnson, 2004, for L1
acquisition; Pigada & Schmitt, 2006, for L2 learning), in addition to the most common word
classes, nouns and verbs. We hypothesized that the three word classes would produce different
behaviors in the self-report checklist measures of word knowledge in the present study due to the
conceptual differences and the different organizations of the internal lexicon on definitions of
nouns, verbs, and adjectives.
Taken as a whole, the L2 reading studies reviewed indicate that relatively short texts and small
numbers of test items result in a relatively modest increase in vocabulary learning. Such small
gains may be attributed to the limited opportunity to read and encounter new words.
We generated four research questions to examine the amount of incidental vocabulary

acquisition, proportion of vocabulary retention, and the effect of occurrence frequency and word

classes:
1. How much vocabulary is incidentally acquired from ER of three authentic teen novels
(over 100,000 words)?
2. What proportion of the incidentally learned words are retained 1 month later?
3. What is the relationship between the frequency of occurrence and the learning rates of
words?
4. How do the learning rates of words vary according to different word classes (i.e., noun,
verb, and adjective)?
Method
We selected authentic, unsimplified texts and explored the effect of these texts containing a large
number of words on adult Korean learners of English as a foreign language.
Materials
From a pedagogical point of view, the main goal of ER is not vocabulary acquisition per se but
rather to develop reading fluency through rapid access to known L2 words by encountering them
repeatedly (Day & Bamford, 1998). For this purpose, reading passages excerpted from textbooks
or graded readers, which are simplified fiction or non-fiction texts graded at varying levels of
English vocabulary and structure, have been used in L2 classrooms because of their easy access.
However, participants in the present study read authentic written texts (chapter books1) that were
uncontrolled for vocabulary and grammatical complexity. The biggest difference between graded
readers and chapter books is that the former target English language learners, whereas the latter
are written for native speaker readers, mainly adolescents in English-speaking countries.
The students in this study read three chapter books over the course of 5 weeks. Holes deals with
the interlocking friendships and individual destinies of a group of teenage delinquents. It is 256
pages long. Hatchet is a Robinson Crusoe story about a boy, containing 189 pages. The Giver is
a work of dystopic science fiction, containing 193 pages. In all, these three books contained
134,013 words and 638 pages. Details of the three chapter books are given in Table 1.
Table 1. Chapter books used

Title Author Word count Target grade (NS)a Theme
Holes Sachar (1998) 46,213 4–6 Friendship, destiny
Hatchet Paulson (1987) 44,168 4–8 Adventure, self-realization
The Giver Lowry (1993) 43,632 6–8 Science Fiction, dystopia
Total 134,013
a
The target grades are based on an online teachers’ resource manual website (www.edhelper.com) that
provides paid teaching materials for various chapter books for students in secondary schools in the US.

Accordingly, the reading time required of the students was considerably long. Participants in this
study read on average 4–6 hours per day for 5 weeks, whereas the reading times were about 1
hour in many other studies. Students had to read each text carefully to understand the meaning of
the story because they were required to take a detailed comprehension quiz at the beginning of
the following class.
Participants
The participants were 12 students (11 male and 1 female) who were taking the intermediate
English reading course during the 2006 winter session at Pohang University of Science and
Technology in Korea. All of the participants were majoring in science or engineering. Their
average age was 21.5 years. Seven of the students provided TOEFL scores (average score = 607)
from the ITP (paper and pencil) test, which is administered at the university as a requirement for
graduation; the minimum score for graduation is 550. Eight of the students were not taking any
other English courses during the winter session, and 3 were taking either conversation or speech
courses in addition to the reading class. None had ever lived in an English-speaking country.
Test Design
All of the pages in each book were computerized and loaded into a software program (Monoconc
Pro) that quantified the word frequencies in the corpus of the texts. Of the 134,013 words, the
most frequent content words were selected. We then eliminated many common words (e.g., man,
water, have, do) that occurred hundreds of times. To determine whether words with higher
frequencies were more likely to be learned and retained, several hundred words that were
relevant for the current study were selected. Of these, 367 words were selected for the test. These
words were sorted into three word classes within three bands of frequency (20 or more, 7–19,
and 1–6 occurrences).
Table 2. Eighteen most frequent content words in corpus of 134,013 words from books used
Frequency Frequency
Frequency Word Frequency Word
order order
1 136 warden 10 46 spear
2 134 dig 10 46 squid
3 110 shovel 12 43 release
4 93 community 13 42 stare
5 87 shelter 14 40 magnet
6 65 nod 15 37 release
7 58 hatchet 16 33 assignment
8 53 thumb 17 32 shore
9 52 canteen 17 32 sled
The 18 most frequent words, which occurred more than 30 times each, are shown in Table 2.
Because these words are context-dependent and low in frequency in the English language as a
whole, students had not had many opportunities to encounter these words before reading the
stories.
We selected verbs, nouns, and adjectives based on their frequencies, which ranged from 1 to ≥

50 occurrences. Of the 367 words used in the test, 147 were nouns, 153 were verbs, and 67 were
adjectives. The words in each word class were divided into three bands of frequency: I (≥ 20
occurrences), II (7–19 occurrences), and III (1–6 occurrences). Most of the selected words
occurred from 1 to 6 times, and relatively few verbs and nouns (around 10 verbs, 20 nouns, and 1
adjective) occurred more than 20 times. Words that occurred at frequencies in between (i.e., 7–
19 occurrences) were grouped together. The number of words in each band is summarized in
Table 3.
Table 3. Number of words in three word classes for each frequency band
Band Frequency Noun Verb Adjective Total
I ≥ 20 14 7 1a 22
II 7−19 39 32 8 79
III 1−6 94 114 58 266
Total 147 153 67 367
a
Only one adjective appeared in Band I, and this was already known to the learners based on the
pretest; thus, the results for the adjective in Band I are omitted in the analysis and not reported in
the results in Table 7 below.
We assumed that if a learner encountered canteen in one place and canteens in another place, the
representative lexeme is canteen, and he or she encountered the word twice. In counting verbs,
the inflected forms of a regular verb (e.g., stared, staring) were counted as occurrences of the
base verb (e.g., stare). However, for irregular verbs, the base form and past form (e.g., slide and
slid) were counted as separate items.
Table 4. Sample items from self-report checklist of word knowledge

Item Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
1. abate Yes NS No
2. abrupt Yes NS No
3. absorb Yes NS No
4. acknowledge Yes NS No
5. acquire Yes NS No
6. adequate Yes NS No
7. affectionate Yes NS No
8. afflict Yes NS No
9. agony Yes NS No
10. alert Yes NS No
The 367 words were alphabetized after the technique in Horst and Meara (1999) and Horst (2000,
2005). The alphabetical list was presented to the students, who were asked to choose one of the
three options: Yes, if they thought they knew the meaning of the given word; NS, if they were not
sure; and No, if they did not think that they knew the meaning of the word. We assumed that the
NS option would reveal learners’ partial knowledge of the word and also allow an honest
response, neither overestimating nor underestimating their word knowledge forcing them to
choose between Yes or No. A portion of the test material is shown in Table 4.

Data Analysis
The nominal data were quantified for statistical analysis. A word with Yes circled was assigned 2
points; NS, 1 point; and No, 0 points. The maximum possible scores were therefore 2 times the
number of words, resulting in 294 for nouns, 306 for verbs, and 67 for adjectives. The analysis of
the nominal data before quantification is reported in the Appendix to show the way the data were
collected. This shows the same results as the quantified analysis.
Procedure
Pretest. On the first day of the class, the students completed the self-report test on word
knowledge for the 367 words. They were told that the test would not affect their course grades.
The students took the test after they completed their language background information questions.
The test took about 15 minutes to administer.
Treatment (ER). Because we were interested in how ER facilitates incidental vocabulary

acquisition in adult L2 learners, the students were encouraged to read extensively without
focusing on learning vocabulary while reading. They were told to skip unknown words if doing
so did not interfere with their understanding of the story. To confirm that the students had
completed the reading assignments before the next class, a content comprehension quiz for the
assigned chapters was given at the beginning of each class.
The class met for 100 minutes every day from Monday to Friday for 5 weeks. Each day, the
students were assigned three or four chapters of a chapter book to read at home2. Every class
began with a comprehension quiz of 15 questions. Then the students were divided into four
groups of three or four students, and a leader was chosen. Each group discussed a separate topic
prepared by the instructor. After the group discussion, the four group leaders gathered on a stage
and reported what they had discussed about their topics. Finally, during the last 20 minutes of
each class, the students wrote an in-class response journal on a topic selected by the instructor
from the chapters used in the class on that day.3 These journals were submitted at the end of each
class. The schedule of instruction for each class is shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Class schedule for ER using chapter books

Duration Activity Percentage of
(minutes) course evaluationa
10 Class management
10 Comprehension quiz 20
20 Clarification questions 10
Report of interesting or best part
20 Small-group discussion (topics provided) 10
20 On-stage discussion by small-group leaders 20
20 Response-journal writing 20
a
The percentages do not include the components for attendance (10%) or completing the assigned
reading (10%).
Note that none of the class activities encouraged any focus on vocabulary during the in-class
treatment session by, for example, drawing attention to particular meanings of words or phrases

or completing vocabulary quizzes. Contrary to Horst (2005), who included “adding entries to
vocabulary notebook” (p. 367) with other activities like discussing books in pairs in her study
with graded readers, the present study was designed to avoid any manipulated attention to
vocabulary during the ER treatment session to keep intact the purpose of the study (incidental
vocabulary acquisition through ER).
Posttests 1 and 2. Posttest 1, the immediate posttest, was given on the last day of instruction.
Posttest 2, the delayed posttest, was given 4 weeks after Posttest 1. For both Posttests 1 and 2,
the same procedure was followed as in the pretest except for the linguistic background questions.
Results
Results Based on Word Class
The maximum possible scores were 294 for the nouns, 306 for the verbs, and 134 for the
adjectives. The mean self-reported scores on the pretest were 128.75 (43.8%) for the nouns,
148.66 (48.6%) for the verbs, and 70.58 (52.7%) for the adjectives (see Table 6). These scores
across the three word classes suggest that the participants either knew or thought they might
know the meanings of a substantial proportion of the test words before the pretest.
Table 6. Mean and percent word knowledge of nouns, verbs, and adjectives summed over all
frequency bands
Pretest Posttest 1 Posttest 2 F
Nouns
M 128.75 (40.23) 214.91 (33.17) 207.75 (40.09) 309.65**
% 43.2 72.1 69.7
Verbs
M 148.66 (45.76) 201.66 (40.488) 209.16 (42.21) 275.05**
% 48.6 65.9 68.4
Adjectives
M 70.58 (18.11) 94.83 (16.95) 94.41 (21.63) 290.34**
% 53.0 71.0 70.0
Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses. n = 12 for all tests. % = mean score converted to
percent of maximum.
**p < .001.
The mean self-reported scores of vocabulary knowledge significantly increased between the
pretest and Posttest 1 in all three word classes, and these gains were largely retained 1 month
later (Posttest 2). For the analysis, the students’ scores were converted to percentages of the
maximum possible score in each word class. This approach eliminated the effects of the differing
numbers of words in the three word classes. A repeated-measures one-way ANOVA revealed
that the differences in the percentages between the tests were statistically significant for the
nouns, F(1,11) = 309.65, p < .001; for verbs, F(1,11) = 275.05, p < .001; and for adjectives,
F(1,11) = 290.34, p < .001. Post hoc multiple comparisons using LSD multiple-range tests were
run to locate differences, and these revealed that the mean difference between the pretest and
Posttest 1 was significant, but the mean difference between Posttests 1 and 2 was not for the

nouns, MSE = 3,927.78, p > .05; verbs, MSE = 4,552.33, p > .05; or adjectives, MSE = 930.11, p
> .05. The mean test scores ranked the pretest < Posttest 1 = Posttest 2 for all word classes. This
result suggests that incidental word learning occurred and that knowledge of words was retained
without significant attrition 1 month later.
The mean scores for each word class on each test were separately converted to percentages of the
maximum possible scores (Figure 1). For the comprehension of the word classes, the results
differed among the tests. On the pretest, vocabulary understanding differed significantly among
the word classes, F(2,22) = 16.1, p < .0001. The comprehension scores of the three word classes
were all significantly different from each other (LSD, p < .05) on the pretest. The percentage of
understanding ranked adjective > verb > noun.
Figure 1. Self-reported understanding of words in three word classes (% of maximum) in

three sequential tests.
On Posttest 1, the understanding of the word classes was ranked noun > adjective > verb, and all
differences were significant (LSD, p < .05). Note that compared to the results of the pretest, the
nouns moved from the last to first position, while the ranks of the verbs and adjectives did not
change. This result indicates strongly that the students acquired nouns preferentially over the
other word classes. On Posttest 2, student understanding did not differ among the word classes
(LSD, p > .05).
These results are congruent with the literature on child L1 lexical development, in which nouns
are acquired more quickly than verbs (Gentner, 1982) and are easier to define than verbs
(Marinellie & Johnson, 2004). The L2 learners in this study also performed better for nouns than
verbs, which implies, in this respect, that the lexical development processes are similar in L1 and
L2 vocabulary acquisition.

Results Based on Frequency in Each Word Class
In general, the mean differences between the pretest and Posttest 1 were statistically significant,
but those between Posttests 1 and 2 were not, which means that incidental vocabulary learning
occurred after reading and was retained for at least 1 month. The students’ self-reported pretest
knowledge increased with word frequency. Overall, learning and retention rates were higher for
more frequent words than for less frequent words in all three word classes. This supports the
intuitively obvious assumption that the more frequently one encounters a content word, the more
easily that word may be acquired.
The mean word knowledge of all three word classes according to the three tests in all frequency
bands is presented in Figure 1. The results of a one-way ANOVA with repeated measures show
that the mean differences between the tests were statistically significant, and post hoc multiple
comparisons using an LSD multiple-range test revealed that the mean difference between the
pretest and Posttest 1 was significant, but the mean difference between Posttests 1 and 2 was not
throughout the frequency bands and word classes (pretest < Posttest 1 = Posttest 2). These results
suggest that incidental vocabulary learning occurred after reading and that the words learned
were retained regardless of the word classes.4
However, one case was an exception for this acquisition pattern (see Table 7). The mean
differences between the tests were statistically significant for nouns in Band II, F(1,11) = 418.32,
p < .001. A post hoc LSD test revealed that the mean difference between the pretest and Posttest
1 was significant and that the mean difference between Posttests 1 and 2 was also significant:
pretest < Posttest 2 < Posttest 1 (MSE = 246.57, p < .05). Better performance on Posttest 1 than
on Posttest 2 indicates that words learned immediately after reading attrited in 1 month.
Table 7. Mean self-reported understanding of words in three classes in each band and ANOVA results
Word
Band Pretest Posttest 1 Posttest F
class
I 13.33 (4.39) 25.92 (1.44) 23.83 (3.38) 776.01**
II 38.25 (11.24) 63.08 (7.57) 59.25 (10.29) 418.32**
Noun III 77.17 (25.87) 125.92 (25.47) 124.67 (28.19) 220.63**
I 9.17 (2.72) 12.42 (1.08) 12.00 (4.53) 264.47**

II 31.92 (13.87) 46.67 (8.35) 47.00 (12.76) 190.86**
Verb III 107.58 (31.07) 142.58 (32.49) 150.17 (29.79) 275.28**
II 11.83 (1.69) 13.83 (1.74) 13.92 (1.73) 1,169.04**
Adjective III 56.83 (16.77) 79.00 (16.10) 78.67 (20.15) 223.58**
Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses.
**p < .001.
The mean self-reported understanding of nouns (% of maximum possible understanding score) is

shown in Figure 2. We see a strong frequency effect in word growth in the figure: Nouns in the
highest frequency band (I) were less known on the pretest than the nouns in the lower frequency
band (II); however, at the times of Posttests 1 and 2, the higher-frequency nouns show a higher
learning rate than the lower-frequency nouns in contrast to the pretest.

Figure 2. Self-reported understanding of nouns in each frequency band.
The mean self-reported understanding of verbs (% of maximum possible understanding score) is

summarized in Figure 3, and it shows that the more frequent words were already known to a
greater degree and consequently, learned and retained more than the less frequent words. Those
verbs with higher frequency seem to be easier to learn incidentally and retain than do the less
frequent ones.
Figure 3. Self-reported understanding of verbs in each frequency band.
The mean percentages of the adjectives learned in Bands II and III according to the three tests is
summarized in Figure 4. Only one adjective was in Band I, and this was already known to the
learners on the pretest; so the results for the adjective in Band I are not reported here. The
participants reported higher levels of knowledge for the more frequent adjectives on all of the
tests.
The results for all of the word classes demonstrate that the understanding of the words increased

after reading the texts. They also demonstrate that the more frequent words were better
understood and were retained at a higher level than were the less frequent ones. This observation
proves that text frequency plays a major role in the acquisition of vocabulary. However, the
significant attrition of nouns in Band II on Posttest 2 implies that the frequency may not have
been sufficient to ensure long-lasting acquisition of some of the words. We will return to this
issue in the discussion.
Figure 4. Self-reported understanding of adjectives in each frequency band.
Posttest Verification of Vocabulary Acquisition
At the time of Posttest 2, we were interested in seeing how many and what words had been
unknown to every participant and how many of them were eventually acquired or remembered
through reading. As a check on actual gains of unknown words after reading, participants were
asked to complete a second measure, using words selected from the list of words that had been
marked No (“I don’t know this word”) on the pretest. The format of this measure was based on
Wesche and Paribakht’s (1996) vocabulary knowledge scale (VKS), used in Horst (2005). On
the pretest, 32 words were marked No by every participant, and the understanding of these words
was assessed again on Posttest 2. The possible scores on the adapted VKS ranged from 1 to 4, as
shown in Figure 5.
Lullaby
Score:
1 I don’t know what this word means.
2 I have seen this word before, and I think it means_________________
3 I know this word. It means______________________________________
(Give the meaning in English or Korean)
4 I can use this word in a sentence. (Write a sentence)
_______________________________________________________________
(If you choose 4, please also complete 3.)
Figure 5. Sample of word knowledge rating scale.

In the VKS measure, if a mean is 4 for a particular word, that means that all the participants
knew the meaning of the word and could use it in a sentence. Responses such as “a kind of
animal” for porcupine or “a man” for sheriff were considered evidence for partial knowledge; to
account for this, 0.5 points were deducted from the full score. Of the 32 words that no students
understood on the pretest, the 17 in Table 8 were selected for discussion in terms of the
relationship between their frequencies and scores on the adapted VKS.
Words that were unknown to all participants before the test were learned to varying degrees
according to the scores on Posttest 2, as indicated in Table 8. In general, words with higher text
frequencies showed more gain on the adapted VKS than words with lower frequencies. However,
this tendency is not straightforward, and word class clearly has a mediating effect. For example,
the noun annex, which occurred 13 times, has a mean adapted VKS of only 1.58, but the verb
groan in the same occurrence band has a mean of 2.45. We will return to this issue in the next
section.
Table 8. Frequency and VKS scores of selected words

Word class Word Frequency Adapted VKS score
Noun
canteen 52 3.40
anorak 13 1.91
annex 13 1.58
porcupine 6 2.82
blister 4 1.58
loot 4 1.50
bushplane 3 2.60
twig 3 2.20
bonfire 3 1.90
Verb
groan 14 2.45
spat 11 2.40
flicker 4 1.45
evict 1 1.91
spurt 1 1.00
Adjective
meticulous 4 1.42
lukewarm 1 1.50
anesthetic 1 1.42
Discussion
Our first research question asked how much vocabulary can be incidentally acquired from
reading three authentic novels. The results of the tests show significant differences in student
understanding between the pretest and Posttest 1 but no significant differences between Posttests
1 and 2. Therefore, we can safely conclude that vocabulary was incidentally acquired through ER
and that most words acquired were retained without much attrition. The nouns in Band II were
an exception to this observation. The pure word gain rate was as high as 40%, with the

possibility of learners’ overestimation of their knowledge due to the self-evaluation.

Nevertheless, this gain is quite high compared to other studies, although the direct comparison of
pure word gain cannot be made between the present paper and other studies mentioned due to the
absence of comparable data. We claim that ER has a strong influence on incidental vocabulary
acquisition by Korean learners of English.
Nouns were significantly lost in Band II between Posttests 1 and 2. This selective attrition may
be explained by the circumstance that the nouns in Band II are not words that occur frequently in
the input available to Korean learners of English in general. For example, out of the 39 words in
this band, 9 were marked as unknown by every participant on the pretest (e.g., anorak, annex,
sheriff, chastisement). The remaining words were probably unfamiliar to the learners due to gaps
in cultural knowledge (e.g., raspberry, rattlesnake, rudder, tunic). This suggests that incidental
vocabulary learning can be affected not only by input frequency (note the successful retention of
nouns in the less frequent band), but also by the degree of familiarity with words used in the
texts, which convey messages that may be unfamiliar to foreign language learners (e.g.,
hammock, bushplane).
While Pitts et al. (1989) reported that over 50% of their participants failed to finish, the
participants in the present study finished their reading. This was mainly because the students
were engaged by interesting storylines and partly because a series of comprehension quizzes was
administered to assist the students’ completion of the assigned reading. This might have
motivated steady reading with attention. Finally, word gain and retention rates can be influenced
by the kinds of words that are tested: Non-words and real words may be processed differently in
learners’ working memories.
The second research question asked what proportion of incidentally learned words was retained 1
month later. As shown in Figures 2–4, significant word gain occurred between the pretest and
Posttest 1 and persisted until Posttest 2. The general retention percentages on Posttest 2 are
higher than the percentages of prereading word knowledge for the nouns (69.7 vs. 43.2%), verbs
(68.4 vs. 48.6%) and adjectives (70.0 vs. 53.0%). Again, these results suggest that nouns are
easier to learn than verbs and adjectives (cf. Benedict, 1979; Gentner, 1978, 1982; Greenfield &
Smith, 1976, for child language development). This study is in line with the accounts in the
literature: A higher percentage of the nouns was retained than of the verbs.
The percentages of retention on Posttest 2 are greater than the percentages of prereading
knowledge across the three word classes. For example, for words in Band I, the retention
percentage is 85.1% for nouns and 85.7% for verbs, which indicates a very high percentage of
retention and a significant increase from the prereading knowledge percentages in each word
class (see Figures 2–4 for Bands II & III). Therefore, we can safely say that the retention rate of
the words gained incidentally through ER was quite high 1 month later. Interestingly, the
exceptionally high retention percentage of adjectives seems to be attributable to the quite high
prereading knowledge. Of course, concluding that vocabulary was successfully retained through
ER would be hasty because the interval between Posttests 1 and 2 is crucial to determine whether
the reading program was really successful. However, note that the participants in the study
reported that they had not studied English between Posttests 1 and 2. Future studies should be
conducted to further investigate this issue.

The relatively high retention rate (not only word-gain rate) in this study contrasts with other
research that showed a quite low retention rate (Day et al., 1991; Dupuy & Krashen, 1993;
Hulstijn, 1992; Pitts et al., 1989; Saragi et al., 1978; Waring & Takaki, 2003). One factor that
may have contributed to this difference is the difference in the amount of reading. The greater
the amount, the more exposure to the input and more repetition may take effect. Horst (2005)
reported that her L2 participants read 10.2 graded readers over 5 weeks and learned 7 new words
out of 50 test items; she claimed that the amount of reading has a prominent effect on word
learning. In contrast, the participants in the present study read around 130,000 words in about
640 pages.
The third research question asked whether the frequency of words is related to their learning
rates. Unsurprisingly, the words in Band III (the lowest frequency group) show the lowest
prereading knowledge compared to the words in the other bands (41% for the nouns, 47.2% for
the verbs, and 49% for the adjectives). Correspondingly, students’ prereading understanding of
the words in Band II was lower than that of the words in Band I for the verbs (49.9 vs. 65.5%),
but not for the nouns (53.1 vs. 47.6%). Nevertheless, the retention percentages of the words on
Posttest 2 illustrate that high-frequency words are remembered more readily than low-frequency
words regardless of the word classes: The order of the retention rates is Band III < Band II <
Band I.
Overall, the trends in percentage change of prereading knowledge, word gain, and retention are
parallel, as illustrated in Figures 2–4. For all three word classes, the words occurring in higher
frequency bands were learned better than those in lower frequency bands. This is the case
throughout all three word classes, and we can say that more frequent words were more likely to
be learned and were more resistant to attrition. Understanding and retention rates increased
significantly even for the words with the lowest frequency, although low-frequency words were
retained less than higher frequency words.
Note that the frequencies in this study are the text frequency and may not reflect the frequency in
the language at large. Horst et al. (1998) did not find that high-frequency words in general
language were learned more easily, although they found a significant text frequency factor. They
argued that this was due to the lack of sufficient exposure to general English input for a
repetition effect to facilitate learning. Similarly, in the present study, one of the highest
frequency words was canteen, which occurred 52 times in the text and was successfully acquired
in the end, but this word is not frequent in language use and was known to no participant before
reading. This observation suggests that the frequency of words in a text may be more important
in vocabulary acquisition than the general frequency of words in a language in terms of
accumulated exposure and readiness to be picked up. The raw frequency of words in language is
insufficient to explain the rate at which learners acquire them.
As shown in Table 8, the adapted VKS scores were higher for some words with lower text
frequencies than for some of those with higher text frequencies, although they were all entirely
unknown at the prereading stage. This observation requires explanation. More often than not, the
text frequency is not directly reflected in the adapted VKS score. This observation may be
attributable to the different “conceptual” recognitions of the words, which depend on the

different degrees to which the words were meaningful in the context for comprehension of the
storyline. It does not seem feasible to define a number of exposures that is sufficient for
successful acquisition, such as at least 10 exposures (Saragi et al., 1978) or 5–16 exposures
(Nation, 1990). As Henriksen (1999, p. 314) pointed out, word acquisition seems to be able to
range “over continua of lexical knowledge” from partial recognition knowledge to productive
use ability, depending on how many and what kinds of exposures are needed for successful
acquisition. The observation that some words that do not appear frequently, but are nevertheless
acquired and retained, apparently because they are salient and significant to a story, is highly
interesting. We suggest that the rate of incidental vocabulary learning is not simply related to the
raw frequency of specific words in the language. We further propose that learning is a
consequence of noticing and the conscious learning of words that are important in the narrative
(Schmidt, 2001).
To answer the last research question, we demonstrated that the students learned words in
different word classes at different rates. On Posttest 1, the students’ self-reported understanding
of the word classes was ranked noun > adjective > verb; this result is in contrast with the results
of the pretest, in which the students’ understanding of the nouns was the lowest. This change
suggests that the nouns were easier to learn than the verbs or adjectives. Interestingly enough, on
Posttest 2, the students’ understanding did not differ among the word classes. Actually, the noun
class was the only one that attrited in the interval between the posttests. Two questions arise: (a)
Why were the nouns easier to learn incidentally through ER than the other word classes? (b)
Why did the understanding of the nouns attrite, unlike the other word classes, 1 month after they
were learned?
If we can assume that foreign language learning is not fundamentally different from child
language development (cf. Slabakova, 2006; White, 2003), we can provide a plausible
explanation for the preferential learning of nouns over other word classes in foreign language
learning by adopting the accounts of child language development that indicate that nouns are
learned before verbs. For the learners in this study, nouns might have been easier to understand
because they are conceptually more basic than verbs or adjectives. This interpretation suggests
that nouns are relatively simple entities in the mental lexicon, whereas verbs encode dependent
word classes with directed connections to their noun arguments. The mapping between form and
meaning for verbs would be more difficult because the argument structure information of verbs,
such as how many and what kinds of arguments (e.g., theme, goal, or location), should be met in
the learning process of verbs, while this process is not necessary when learning nouns. However,
we can also assume that because nouns are easier to learn than verbs or adjectives and incur less
cognitive cost of storage in the mental lexicon, they can be also more easily forgotten simply
because of that low cost. We postulate that ease of acquisition is associated with ease of loss.
Finally, the limitations of the present study should be mentioned. First, on the pretest, the
participants indicated that they understood 50% or more of the words throughout the three
frequency bands (see Figures 2–4). This means that the participants did not have many
opportunities to meet unfamiliar words in the ER materials. Learners who have smaller English
vocabularies than these participants are needed to observe whether different word gain and
retention rates would be observed among those students also. Second, the experimental
methodology used in this study, the self-report checklist technique, is one of various

methodologies to measure learner word knowledge. If a different methodology, such as multiple-

choice questions or translation test, had been used in this study, the number of words
remembered on the delayed posttest might have been different because different experimental
techniques can produce different measurement results (Gu & Johnson, 1996). Lastly, to
determine the retention time of words incidentally learned through ER, a further study is
necessary in which the delayed posttest is conducted after a longer period than in the present
study.
Acknowledgments
We deeply appreciate the helpful comments and suggestions of the two anonymous reviewers of
Reading in a Foreign Language, which helped us to fill the gaps of the previous version of the
paper. We want to thank the students who participated in the study and enjoyed reading novels.
All of the remaining errors are, of course, our own.
Notes
1. Chapter books are so named because the episodes in most of the books are divided into
chapters with or without their own titles.
2. An anonymous reviewer pointed out that “the researcher was not able to observe the extent to
which the students might have looked up words in a dictionary or engaged in vocabulary
learning activities while they were reading.” The students were strongly encouraged to read for
meaning and pleasure, not for learning words. This was verified in students’ oral reports that
they had not paid much attention to the meanings of the individual words that they did not know
for sure. They tried to guess the meanings in context and did not want to stop reading to look up
words in a dictionary, especially when they were deeply engaged in the story.
3. For more information about the class procedure, refer to Kweon’s (2008) article, which
describes in pedagogical terms how the ER program can be implemented in L2 classrooms.
4. As an anonymous reviewer correctly suggested, the results of the present study should be
interpreted with caution, considering that the tests measured word knowledge on the basis of a
self-report measure. The self-report measurement lacks evidence that the words rated Yes and NS
were indeed known or unsurely known to the students. However, the results of the adapted VKS
study conducted at the time of the delayed posttest in fact prove that the self-report measure was
a reliable method of measuring the learners’ knowledge: words that had been checked No by all
the participants on the pretest were found to be learned after reading even for the words with low
frequencies.

References
References marked with an asterisk indicate the chapter books referred to in this study.
Arnaud, P., & Bejoint, H. (Eds.). (1992). Vocabulary and applied linguistics. London:
MacMillan.
Bahns, J., & Eldaw, M. (1993). Should we teach EFL students collocations? System, 21, 101–114.
Bell, T. (2001). Extensive reading: Speed and comprehension. The Reading Matrix, 1(1).
Retrieved May 30, 2003, from http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/bell/ index.html.
Benedict, H. (1979). Early lexical development: Comprehension and production. Journal of
Child Language, 6, 183–200.
Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis,
20 (1–2), 3–49.
Cho, K. S., & Krashen, S. D. (1994). Acquisition of vocabulary from the Sweet Valley Kids
series: Adult ESL acquisition. Journal of Reading, 37, 662–667.
Coady, J. (1997). L2 vocabulary acquisition through extensive reading. In J. Coady & T. Huckin
(Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp. 174–200).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coady, J., & Huckin, T. (Eds.). (1997). Factors in the incidental acquisition of second language
vocabulary from oral input: A review essay. Applied Language Learning, 5, 1–32.
Day, R. R., & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive reading in the second language classroom.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Day, R., Omura, C., & Hiramatsu, M. (1991). Incidental EFL vocabulary learning and reading.
Donelson, K. L., & Nilsen, A. P. (2005). Literature for today's young adults (7th ed.). Boston:
Pearson Education.
Dupuy, B., & Krashen, S. D. (1993). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in French as a foreign
language. Applied Language Learning, 4(1), 55–63.
Elley, W. B. (1991). Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effect of book-based programs.
Gentner, D. (1978). On relational meaning: The acquisition of verb meaning. Child Development,
49, 988–998.
Gentner, D. (1982). Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity vs. natural
partitioning. In S. A. Kuczaj (Ed.), Language development: Language, culture and
cognition (pp. 301–335). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grabe, W. (2004). Research on teaching reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 44–
69.
Greenfield, P. M., & Smith, J. H. (1976). The structure of communication in early language
development. New York: Academic Press.
Gu, Y., & Johnson, R. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and language learning outcomes.
Haastrup, K. (1991). Lexical inferencing procedures or talking about words. Tübingen, Germany:
Gunter Naar.
Hafiz, F., & Tudor, I. (1989). Extensive reading and the development of language skills. ELT
Journal, 43, 4–13.

Hafiz, F., & Tudor, I. (1990). Graded readers as an input medium in L2 learning. System, 18, 31–
42.
Hatch, E., & Brown, C. (1995). Vocabulary, semantics, and language education. New York:
Henriksen, B. (1999). Three dimensions of vocabulary development. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 21, 303–318.
Honeyfield, J. (1977). Simplification. TESOL Quarterly, 11, 431–440.
Horst, M. (2000). Text encounters of the frequent kind: Learning L2 vocabulary through reading.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Wales, Swansea, UK.
Horst, M. (2005). Learning L2 vocabulary through extensive reading: A measurement study. The
Canadian Journal of Language Review, 61(3), 355–382.
Horst, M., Cobb, T., & Meara, P. (1998). Beyond a Clockwork Orange: Acquiring second
Horst, M., & Meara, P. (1999). Test of a model of predicting second language lexical growth
through reading. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 56, 308–328.
Huckin, T. (1983). A cognitive approach to readability. In P. V. Anderson, R. J. Brokmann, & C.
R. Miller (Eds.), New essays in technical and scientific communication: Research, theory,
practice (p. 91). Fermingdale, NY: Baywood.
Huckin, T., & Coady, J. (1999). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 181–193.
Hulstijn, J. H. (1992). Retention of inferred and given word meanings: Experiments in incidental
vocabulary learning. In P. J. L. Arnaud & H. Bejoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied
linguistics. London: MacMillan.
Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load
hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 539–558.
Huttenlocher, J., & Lui, F. (1979). The semantic organization of some simple nouns and verbs.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 141–162.
Krashen, S. D. (1993). The Power of Reading: Insights from the Research. Englewood, CO:
Libraries Unlimited.
Kweon, S.-O. (2008). Implementing extensive reading program at a university immersion
classroom. Manuscript in preparation. Pohang University of Science and Technology,
Korea.
Lai, F. K. (1993). The effect of a summer reading course on reading and writing skills. System,
21, 87–100.
Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach. Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications.
Lightbown, P. M. (1992). Can they do it themselves? A comprehension-based ESL course for
young children. In R. Courchene, J. St. John, C. Therein, & J. Glidden (Eds.),
Comprehension-based second language teaching: Current trends (pp. 353–370). Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada: University of Ottawa Press.
Lituanas, P. M., Jacobs, G. M., & Renandya, W. A. (1999). A study of extensive reading with
remedial reading students. In Y. M. Cheah & S. M. Ng (Eds.), Language instructional
issues in Asian classrooms (pp. 89–104). Newark, DE: International Development in Asia
Committee, International Reading Association.
*Lowry, L. (1993). The Giver. New York: Dell Laurel-Leaf.
Markman, E. (1989). Categorization and naming in children: Problems of induction. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.

Marinellie, S. A., & Johnson, C. (2004). Nouns and verbs: A comparison of definitional style.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33, 217–235.
Mason, B., & Krashen, S. D. (1997). Extensive reading in English as a foreign language. System,
25, 91–102.
McKay, S. (1982). Literature in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 529–536.
Meara, P. (1992). Vocabulary in a second language. Reading in a Foreign Language, 9, 761–831.
Miller, G. (1991). The science of words. New York: W. H. Freeman & Company.
Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading
Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York: Heinle and Heinle.
Nattinger, J., & DeCarrico, J. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for
meaning in second language vocabulary acquisition. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.),
Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp. 174–200).
Parry, K. (1991). Building a vocabulary through academic reading. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 629–
653.
*Paulson, G. (1987). Hatchet. New York: Aladdin Paperbacks.
Pigada, M., & Schmitt, N. (2006). Vocabulary acquisition from extensive reading: A case study.
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press.
Pitts, M., White, H., & Krashen, S. (1989). Acquiring second language vocabulary through
reading: A replication of A Clockwork Orange study using second language acquirers.
Rigg, P. (1991). Whole language in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 520–540.
Robb, T. N., & Susser, B. (1989). Extensive reading vs. skills building in an EFL context.
*Sachar, L. (1998). Holes. New York: Yearling.
Saragi, T., Nation, I. S. P., & Meister, G. (1978). Vocabulary learning and reading. System, 6,
72–80.
Shin, S. K. (2006). Kanguy kyojay ilki-lul thonghan wuyencek ehwihaksup-ey kwanhan yenkwu
[Incidental vocabulary learning from reading course materials]. Foreign Languages
Education, 13, 321–337.
Slabakova, R. (2006). Is there a critical period for semantics? Second Language Research, 22,
302–338.
Snow, C. E., Cancini, H., Gonzales, P., & Shriberg, E. (1989). Giving formal definitions: An oral
language correlate of school literacy. In D. Bloome (Ed.), Literacy in classrooms (pp.
233–249). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Tomlinson, B. (1986). Openings. London: Lingual House.
Tsang, W. K. (1996). Comparing the effects of reading and writing on writing performance.
Applied Linguistics, 17, 210–233.

Vincent, M., & Carter, R. A. (1986). Simple text and reading text. In C. Brumfit & R. Carter
(Eds.), Literature and language teaching (pp. 208–222). Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Watson, R. (1985). Towards a theory of definition. Journal of Child Language, 12, 181–197.
Webb, S. (2005). The effects of reading and writing on word knowledge. Studies in Second
Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler intelligence scale for children (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX:
Psychological Corp.
Wesche, M., & Paribakht, T. S. (1996). Assessing vocabulary knowledge: Depth versus breadth.
The Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 13–39.
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge, England:
Widdowson, H. G. (1979). Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Wodinsky, M., & Nation, I. S. P. (1988). Learning from graded readers. Reading in a Foreign
Language, 5, 155–161.
Appendix
Nominal Data Collection
1. Numbers of Yes, NS, and No responses by all participants on the three tests
Pretest Posttest 1 Posttest 2
Yes NS No Total Yes NS No Total Yes NS No Total

Noun 629 287 848 1,764 1,156 267 341 1,764 1,138 217 409 1,764
Verb 720 344 772 1,836 1,049 322 465 1,836 1,139 209 488 1,836
Adjective 345 158 301 804 493 152 195 804 513 107 185 804
The total of 1,764 indicates 147 nouns × 12 students. The total of 1,836 indicates 153 verbs × 12 students.
The total number of 804 indicates 67 adjectives × 12 students. For information on the total number of
words in the classes, refer to Table 3.

2. Number of Yes responses in three word classes on the three tests
The figure shows that the number of Yes responses in three word classes across the three tests increased
significantly. Nouns increased on Posttest 1 by about 85%; verbs, 46%; and adjectives, 43%, which
suggests that the learners acquired word knowledge on Posttest 1. This supports the hypothesis that nouns
are easier to learn than verbs. Interestingly, however, the students’ word knowledge had increased at the
time of Posttest 2 compared to Posttest 1. Based on the enormous increase of Yes answers on Posttest1,
vocabulary was possibly acquired through extensive reading.
3. Number of NS response in the three word classes on the three tests
The numbers of NS responses in the three word classes across the three tests are shown in the figure.
Between the pretest and Posttest 1 is not a big change; however, on Posttest 2, the NS responses decreased.
The consistent NS response between the pretest and Posttest 1 suggests that if change occurred between
these two tests, it was between the Yes and No responses, and in fact, as the Yes responses increased, the
No responses decreased proportionally (see the figure below).

4. Number of No responses in the three word classes on the three tests
About the Authors
Soo-Ok Kweon teaches at Pohang University of Science and Technology in Korea. She received
her PhD in linguistics from the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa. Her primary research interests
include SLA theory and practice, psycholinguistics, and corpus linguistics. She is currently
working on L2 reading research using literature with Korean university students. E-mail:
soook@postech.ac.kr
Hae-Ri Kim teaches at Seoul National University of Education in Korea. She received her EdD
from Arizona State University. Her research interests include language teaching methodology,
curriculum and materials development, and literacy. She is working with teachers to develop and
implement a literature-based program in EFL elementary schools across Korea.

ISSN 1539-0578 pp. 216–231
Evaluating L2 readers’ vocabulary strategies and dictionary use

Caleb Prichard
Ferris Women’s University
Japan
Abstract
A review of the relevant literature concerning second language dictionary use while
reading suggests that selective dictionary use may lead to improved comprehension and
efficient vocabulary development. This study aims to examine the dictionary use of
Japanese university students to determine just how selective they are when reading
nonfiction English texts for general comprehension. The findings suggest that high-
intermediate and advanced learners are often selective when considering whether to look
up a word. However, a third of the participants in this study were judged to have used the
dictionary excessively. In addition, a quarter of the words looked up in the study were
neither essential to the articles’ main points nor frequent or useful words, according to
corpus research. It is concluded that some learners might benefit from training in
selective dictionary use.
Keywords: vocabulary strategies, dictionary use, reading online
Vocabulary knowledge is the most important component of second language (L2) reading
comprehension, even more so than background knowledge and syntax (Laufer, 1997). When
learners come upon an unknown word that they cannot infer from context, they can either ignore
the word or consult a dictionary. While it is often stated that learners tend to depend on
dictionary use excessively, research shows that learners’ strategy use varies depending on a
number of variables (Gu & Johnson, 1996; Hulstijin, 1993; Zhang, 2001). Second language
instructors often have different assumptions as to the effectiveness of using a dictionary while
reading. Instructors following traditional grammar-translation methods have tended to focus on
decoding text and have encouraged the extensive use of dictionaries. However, current
communicative practices in the field focus on strategic reading and inferring the meaning of
unknown words from context (Grabe & Stoller, 2004; Knight, 1994; Laufer, 1997), and many
teachers discourage the use of dictionaries altogether in the reading classroom (Bensoussan, Sim,
& Weiss, 1984).
Teachers’ views on dictionary use do not always seem to be based on empirical evidence
(Luppescu & Day, 1993), though in the past two decades researchers have paid more attention to
examining the efficacy of dictionary use. A number of studies have focused on the postreading
vocabulary and comprehension scores of learners with and without the use of dictionaries
(Bogaards, 1998; Knight, 1994; Luppescu & Day, 1993; Summers, 1988). Though studies have
Prichard: Evaluating L2 readers’ vocabulary strategies and dictionary use 217
shown contrasting results, most have demonstrated that dictionary use can enable comprehension.
Therefore, rather than focusing solely on whether or not dictionaries should be used, there is a
need to examine when and how often learners might optimally use dictionaries.
This study is motivated by the need to further understanding of how dictionaries can be used to
increase comprehension and enable vocabulary acquisition. Specifically, it will be considered
under what circumstances unknown lexical items should be looked up, as opposed to using other
strategies such as ignoring words or trying to infer meaning from context. The relevant literature
concerning reading strategies, incidental vocabulary acquisition, and dictionary use will be
analyzed in order to define and describe selective dictionary use. Second, using this foundation,
this paper will then describe a small-scale study on the dictionary use of Japanese learners of
English in order to determine just how selective they are in using their dictionary when reading
nonfiction texts for general comprehension. The study could hopefully spark more interest in the
area and could also help educators determine whether learners might benefit from more explicit
instruction on vocabulary strategies and dictionary use.
Studies of Dictionary Use
Language educators sometimes claim that using a dictionary while reading can lead to inefficient
learning (Bensoussan et al., 1984; Knight, 1994), and research indicates that this may often be
the case. Compared to control groups who were not allowed to use dictionaries, L2 learners
using dictionaries took twice as long to complete the reading task in Luppescu and Day’s (1993)
study and half as long in Knight’s study. More proficient learners showed little or no gain when
using dictionaries in the studies by Bensoussan et al. and Knight, indicating that the extra time
used to look up words was used inefficiently. Indeed, using a dictionary does not always improve
comprehension (Bensoussan et al., 1984; Koyama & Takeuchi, 2004). One concern is that the
time it takes to look up words interferes with readers’ short-term memory and prevents them
from focusing on the text as a whole (Bensoussan et al., 1984; Knight, 1994). In addition,
learners with access to dictionaries sometimes locate the wrong dictionary entry, leading to
miscomprehension (Bogaards, 1998; Luppescu & Day, 1993; Tang, 1997).
However, Bogaards (1998) found that learners were significantly more likely to identify the
correct definition in the dictionary than they were to accurately guess the meaning of unknown
words from context. In fact, many studies have shown that L2 dictionary use improves reading
comprehension and could lead to lexical development. In a series of three studies (Summers,
1988), L2 English learners using a dictionary scored significantly better on both postreading
comprehension and vocabulary tests. In a study of nearly 300 Japanese learners of English, the
experimental group with access to bilingual dictionaries while reading scored significantly better
than the control group on a vocabulary posttest (Luppescu & Day, 1993). In another study
involving 112 learners of Spanish (Knight, 1994), learners who had access to a dictionary scored
higher on postreading comprehension and vocabulary tests, though the difference in the
comprehension scores of more proficient learners was not significant, as mentioned above.
Utilizing new technologies such as handheld electronic dictionaries, online dictionaries, and
marginal glosses may affect the efficacy of dictionary use. Referring to an unknown word

through an electronic link, for example, takes much less time and distracts the reader from the
text to a lesser degree. In a study by De Ridder (2002), there was no correlation between the time
needed to complete the reading task and the number of words looked up through marginal
(electronic) glosses. In another study (Koyama & Takeuchi, 2004), users of electronic
dictionaries looked up more words in less time than users of printed dictionaries. However, the
greater number of lookups did not lead to increased comprehension in either study.
Text Coverage and the Use of Dictionaries
Corpora and research on text coverage may provide some clues as to why some less proficient
learners benefited more from dictionary use in the above studies. Nation (1990, 2001), Laufer
(1997), and others have shown that L2 readers may have difficulty comprehending reading
passages if they understand less than 95% of the running words in the text, or approximately
3,000 word families. Extensive dictionary use may not enable learners with a very low
vocabulary to reach the threshold. Strategic reading requires significant cognitive resources
(Laufer, 1997), and using a dictionary often may use too much of this capacity. Many researchers
in the field (e.g., Laufer, 1997; Nation & Warring, 1997) recommend having low-level students
read graded readers or build their sight vocabulary rather than having them tackle authentic texts.
However, whether or not dictionary use can enable intermediate or preadvanced learners to reach
the threshold has largely been ignored in the research on text coverage. Moreover, 95% is not an
absolute tipping point between noncomprehension and comprehension, as it often seems to be
considered in the field. In Hu and Nation (2000), for example, readers with coverage as low as
80–90% showed some comprehension of text, and it is suggested that access to a glossary would
have increased comprehension even more. Indeed, the dictionary use studies mentioned above
support the idea that looking up words can increase learners’ coverage of the text and enable
comprehension. There was a significant correlation between the number of words looked up and
the comprehension scores of less proficient learners in Knight (1994), suggesting that dictionary
use helped these learners reach the comprehension threshold. On the other hand, considering that
there was no significant difference in the comprehension scores of control and experimental
groups of high-proficiency learners in Knight’s study and in Bensoussan et al. (1984), it is
possible that these learners already knew enough words in the passages to enable comprehension.
Coverage is not only important for comprehension but also for lexical development. Hirsh and
Nation (1992) hypothesized that learners may need to comprehend up to 98% of the running
words in a passage in order for incidental vocabulary learning to take place when reading for
pleasure, though empirical support is needed to support this claim. If a text is too difficult,
context clues that are necessary to infer a word’s meaning from context are not accessible
(Laufer, 1997; Robinson, 2003). Recent research shows a significant correlation between
comprehension and the gain and retention of new lexical items (Pulido, 2007). Therefore, it
could be hypothesized that if a dictionary can be used to increase comprehension, dictionary use
may also lead to incidental learning of other unknown words. It is possible, however, that the
process of looking up a word in the dictionary may require too much of the cognitive resources
necessary for learners to infer the meaning of words from context.

Nevertheless, the dictionary use studies mentioned above indicate that looking up words can lead
to the retention of words looked up. Noticing language is the first step to acquisition (Schmidt,
2001), and looking a word up in the dictionary and identifying the correct definition calls more
attention to the word, which increases the chances the word will be retained (Peters, 2007; Pulido,
2007; Robinson, 2003). However, looking up nearly all unknown words without careful attention
would be unlikely to lead to retention. In the studies mentioned above on the learners’ overuse of
electronic glosses, it is hypothesized that looking up too many words without careful
consideration led to shallow processing and short-term retention (De Ridder, 2002; Roby, 1999).
L2 Learners’ Dictionary Use
There are a number of factors that influence learners’ dictionary use. Research has shown that
most learners do not look up words at random. Hulstijin (1993) found that advanced learners
were somewhat less likely to consult a dictionary if the meaning of the unknown word was easily
inferred. Moreover, studies have shown that learners tend to look up relevant words, defined in
these studies as words that were needed to answer comprehension questions (Hulstijin, 1993;
Laufer & Levitzky-Aviad, 2003; Peters, 2007). As will be discussed in the next section, research
shows that more proficient learners use a variety of vocabulary strategies, rather than depending
exclusively on dictionaries (Gu & Johnson, 1996; Hulstijin, 1993; Zhang, 2001).
Several other variables influence learners’ reading and vocabulary strategies. Task is one of the
most influential variables. In a translation task, for example, readers need to understand each
word (Bogaards, 1998), while learners reading for general comprehension can often ignore
unknown words and use their dictionary more strategically. When reading for pleasure or to
build fluency, readers should not be expected to refer to a dictionary often, if at all (Hu & Nation,
2000). The type of dictionary used is another key variable. As suggested above, learners look up
words more frequently when utilizing electronic or web-based dictionaries, rather than printed
dictionaries (De Ridder, 2002; Koyama & Takeuchi, 2004; Roby, 1999). Other variables may
include the time learners have to read, the type of word and text, learner motivation, and learning
style (Hulstijin, 1993; Oxford, 2001).
Selective Dictionary Use
The research studies described above suggest that there are some advantages, some
disadvantages, and a number of variables concerning the use of dictionaries for L2 readers.
Looking up words may help learners build their receptive vocabulary and can also enable
comprehension. On the other hand, it takes readers longer to read when using a dictionary, and
more proficient learners benefit less, if at all, from dictionary use. Looking up words may be
quicker and easier when using online or electronic dictionaries, but it can become so effortless
that it may decrease vocabulary retention. Based on the studies mentioned above, it is concluded
here that dictionaries should be used for learners when reading a text above their level to reach
the comprehension threshold (roughly 95% coverage). Learners reading texts near or at their
level should use dictionaries very rarely, if at all. Using a dictionary more than necessary could
lead to an inefficient use of study time and less retention of words looked up.

However, it still needs to be considered which lexical items should be looked up and which
words can be ignored (Hulstijin, 1993). When teaching academic reading, Grabe and Stoller
(2004) suggest that instructors focus students’ attention on words that are frequent and useful to
acquire and words that are related to the main points of a reading passage. When coming upon an
unknown word whose meaning cannot be readily inferred from context, perhaps instructors
could adopt the same approach when helping learners to decide whether to consult a dictionary.
First, in terms of reading comprehension, some words are clearly more important to understand
than others. An unknown word in the headline or the first few sentences of a news report, for
example, is obviously much more important than a word at the end of the article, which is often
limited to details. In terms of vocabulary acquisition, corpus research has highlighted how
infrequent most words in English are. While the most common 3,000 word families cover 90–
95% of running words used in an average text (Laufer, 1989; Nation, 1990, 2001), hundreds of
thousands of less frequent words make up a tiny fraction of words used (Leech, Rayson, &
Wilson, 2001). If dictionary use assists a learner in acquiring an infrequent word, it is unlikely
that the learner will ever encounter the word again. On the other hand, improving learners’
knowledge of high-frequency vocabulary has been shown to lead to increased reading
proficiency (Coady, Magoto, Hubbard, Graney, & Mokhtari, 1993).
Research into the learning strategies of the most proficient learners supports the idea of selective
dictionary use in that these learners tend to use a variety of vocabulary strategies while reading
(Gu & Johnson, 1996; Hulstijin, 1993; Moir, 1996, as cited in Nation, 2001; Zhang, 2001). In Gu
and Johnson, both contextual guessing and skillful use of dictionaries correlated highly with
proficiency scores and vocabulary size. Moreover, selective attention was one of two
metacognitive strategies that correlated significantly with proficiency. Identifiers of this strategy
included that learners could sense when a word can be guessed from context, they knew when a
word was essential to the passage, and they knew which words were important to learn. Though
correlation does not prove causation, it is possible that the learners’ selective dictionary use may
have increased their proficiency significantly compared to their peers. Hulstijin’s (1993) research
supports this idea since learners with high inferencing ability scores had significantly higher
vocabulary scores, but the reverse was not true. Indeed, a growing body of research shows a high
correlation between proficiency and cognitive and metacognitive strategy use in all language
skills, and strategy training has led to greater reading proficiency in a number of studies (Carrell,
1985; Carrell, Pharis, & Liberto, 1989; Oxford, 2001).
Although the issue needs to be examined more extensively, there is considerable evidence that
selective dictionary use can lead to improved reading comprehension, vocabulary development,
and an efficient use of study time. Based on the literature, selective dictionary use is defined here
as looking up words that cannot be readily guessed from context and that are either useful to
learn or relevant to the main points of the passage or the task at hand. In addition, selective
dictionary use would mean looking up enough words to enable comprehension, but using other
strategies as often as possible. Research suggests that this would mean looking up enough words
to enable roughly 95–98% coverage of the text. Because of the possible benefits, selective
dictionary use could be promoted as a viable strategy to L2 learners.
Other studies have not explicitly defined or measured selective dictionary use. Gu and Johnson’s

(1996) study does identify several key reading strategies, but it examines only learners’ self-
reported behaviors. Research showing that learners tended to look up relevant words (Hulstijin,
1993; Laufer & Levitzky-Aviad, 2003; Peters, 2007) also did not measure learners’ behavior
when reading in non-test-like, real-world settings (Bogaards, 1998). Relevant words in these
studies were defined as words that were needed to answer comprehension questions, and many
of these words were likely to have been looked up not while reading the passages initially but
when answering postreading questions.
Can language learners actually determine which words are important to the main point and which
words are frequent and useful? This study examines the dictionary use of Japanese university
students of English to measure just how selective they are when reading nonfiction texts for
general comprehension.
Method
Thirty-four female university students in Japan read and summarized three texts of various
genres. The participants had access to an online bilingual dictionary while reading, and the words
looked up were measured and analyzed for their frequency and their relevance to the passages’
main points.
Participants
The participants included 17 first-year and 17 second-year students in the highest level of the
university’s intensive English program. The program’s reading curriculum focused on
understanding the main points of articles and guessing vocabulary from context, but not
dictionary use. The participants’ scores on the paper-based Test of English as a Foreign
Language (TOEFL) ranged from 457 to 600, with a mean of 503 (median = 497, SD = 32).
Materials
The study involved three authentic reading passages. The first reading was a short news item
(382 words), the second was a section from a book (420 words), and the third was a longer
feature news story (1,120 words). The short news story reports about a factory worker who had
slipped into a vat of chocolate. The book passage describes the rationale of the UN Millennium
Goal to increase women’s participation in politics. The feature news story discusses Japan’s
somewhat contradictory attitude on the environment and global warming. The three specific texts
were chosen since they were perceived to be the kind of passages the learners might read for
pleasure or in their academic studies.
The three texts were also selected because they each have significantly different organization,
and text type may influence dictionary use (Bogaards, 1998). As is typical of daily news stories,
most of the main points of the first text could be found in the headline and first few paragraphs.
The book passage followed the organization of a five-paragraph essay, with a clear thesis and
topic sentences containing the main idea and the main points of the passage, respectively. Finally,
the feature news story was typical of such stories in that it began with an example to hook the

reader. The opening example was then woven throughout the rest of the passage, which included
the main points, details, and examples mixed in a seemingly unclear way. It was hypothesized
that the participants would have more difficulty identifying key words to look up in this passage.
Procedure
To estimate the participants’ receptive knowledge of the words in the target readings, 1 week
before the pretest the students were given a list of the words and they marked whether they knew
the word’s meaning or not. Because of the great number of words tested in this study, testing for
deeper levels of lexical knowledge was not feasible. On the day of the test, participants opened a
Microsoft Word document containing the three passages. The participants were then told that
they could check the definition of words while reading the passages, since the words were linked
to an internet-based bilingual English-Japanese dictionary (www.alc.co.jp). When the
participants clicked on a word, an internet browser window opened containing the word’s
translation in Japanese and an example sentence in English. Since visible hyperlinks may
increase the frequency of lookups (De Ridder, 2002), the linked words were not highlighted in
any way.
The participants had 1 hour and 15 minutes to read the passages and to write a summary and
reaction of a few sentences for each. This task was chosen, rather than answering comprehension
questions (Hulstijin, 1993; Laufer & Levitzky-Aviad, 2003; Peters, 2007) or completing a
translation task (Bogaards, 1998), because this study aims to more validly reflect an authentic
reading task where the reader aims to understand the main points of the passage and then forms
some opinion or reaction to it. However, since learners’ ability to summarize and write a reaction
does not always correlate with their understanding of the text, the learners’ comprehension of the
passages could not be validly scored and was considered outside the scope of this study. When
the participants were finished with the task, they printed out the document and gave it to the
researcher. Since each word clicked on was automatically underscored by the Microsoft Word
program as a followed link, the hard copy revealed which words were consulted in the online
dictionary by each participant.
Analysis
To determine if the participants were using the stated descriptors of selective dictionary use,
research questions were formed and analyzed in the following ways:
1. Did the participants look up enough words to enable comprehension but use other vocabulary
strategies when possible?
The number of the words looked up by each participant in the study was added to the total
number of words marked as known in the pretest. Considering the number of times each word
appeared in the passages, it was then estimated if the participants knew or looked up 95–98% of
the passages’ running words. The exact percentages representing coverage are considered
estimates since the participants may have sometimes looked up words marked as known in the
pretest and since there is no guarantee the participants actually identified the correct dictionary
definition.

2. Did the participants tend to look up useful, high-frequency words rather than infrequent,
technical words?
The frequency and usefulness of each word was analyzed based on whether it was in the 2,000
level, the Academic Word List (AWL; Coxhead, 2000), or off these lists (off-list words) based
on corpus data (Cobb, 1999; Heatley & Nation, 1994). Considering the vocabulary level and the
academic aspirations of the participants, the 2,000-level and AWL words were considered the
most useful to acquire. Therefore, the number of words looked up in the 2,000 word list or the
AWL were compared to the number of off-list words looked up.
In order to account for the participants’ vocabulary level, frequencies were calculated by
comparing the number of words looked up by each student to the number of words marked as
unknown in the pretest in each category. The variable was then analyzed using a paired, two-
tailed t test to determine if the participants looked up useful and high-frequency words
significantly more often than off-list words.
3. Did the participants tend to look up words that are relevant to the main points of the passages,
rather than the supporting details?
The number of words looked up in the passages’ main points was compared with the number of
words looked up in the passages’ supporting details and examples. Each word’s relevance was
determined based on whether or not the word appeared in clauses rated by the researcher as
being one of the main points of the passages. Again, the participants’ pretest survey was
considered, and t tests were used to determine whether the participants looked up unknown
words in the passages’ main points significantly more often than unknown words in the
supporting details.
4. Did the participants more often look up words that are either useful words or words relevant
to the main points of the passages rather than uncommon words in the supporting details of the
passages?
The number of words looked up that were either in the top 2,000 and AWL word lists or in the
passages’ main points was compared to the number of off-list words looked up in the passages’
details and examples. Once again, the participants’ pretest vocabulary surveys were then
considered, and t tests were used to measure significance.
Results
The Number of Words Looked Up
The pretest vocabulary survey revealed that the participants did not know the meaning of an
average of 67.5 of the words, which represents 4% of the total number of running words that
appeared in the passages (SD = 0.01). Most of the participants previously knew the meaning of
95–98% of the running words, while just five students knew less than 95% (all of the five were

within 93–94.9%). Therefore, previous research suggests that most participants would need to
look up few, if any, words to reach the 95%–98% mark, which is one of the descriptors of
selective dictionary use used in this study.
The participants varied wildly in terms of how many times they utilized the dictionary link (see
Figure 1). While 2 participants looked up no words at all, 3 other participants looked up 78, 66,
and 62 words. The mean number of words looked up was 29.76 (SD = 20.5, median = 25), which
was 1.5% of the total number of running words. There was a weak positive correlation (r = .36),
represented by the solid line in Figure 1, between the number of words marked as unknown in
the pretest and the number of words looked up. In other words, many participants with a lower
vocabulary used the dictionary to increase their coverage, while many of the participants with a
higher vocabulary utilized the dictionary link less often. However, there were a few outliers
whose dictionary use did not correlate with their vocabulary level.
Figure 1. Number of unknown words and words looked up.
Considering the number of previously known words and the number of words looked up by each
participant, it is estimated that most participants (21) reached or stayed in the 95–98% range,
which is indicated by the two dotted lines in Figure 1. In other words, most participants seemed
to use the dictionary link enough times to comprehend the texts (the comprehension threshold
discussed in previous research studies), but they used other strategies, such as ignoring unknown
words or inferring their meaning, at other times. On average, the participants knew or looked up
97.4% of the words (SD = 0.02). However, while 1 participant remained slightly under 95%, 12
of the 34 participants exceeded the 98% range (though one learner previously knew this many
words and looked up only three words during the test). It could therefore be concluded that
roughly 1 in 3 participants relied on the dictionary perhaps to an excessive degree, instead of
using other vocabulary strategies, which research suggests should have been possible.
The Frequency and Usefulness of the Words
Over half of the words (53%) the participants looked up in the study were relatively infrequent
off-list words (see Table 1). However, considering that they already knew most of the words in

the high-frequency bands, the participants were actually much more likely to look up unknown
high-frequency words. They looked up an average of 13.63 words in the 2,000-word list or AWL,
which is 72% of the number of reported unknown words in these frequency bands (SD = 0.69).
On the other hand, they looked up a mean of 15.74 off-list words, which is 34% of the total
number of reported unknown off-list words (SD = 0.23). The difference between these
frequencies is statistically significant (p < .01).
Table 1. Frequent, useful words versus infrequent words

Frequent, useful word Infrequent word
Dictionary use 47% 53%
Unknown word looked up 72% 34%
The Context of the Words
As shown in Table 2, the majority of the words (57%) the participants looked up in the study
were in clauses rated by the researcher as one of the main points of the passages. By passage,
54% (news report), 64% (textbook passage), and 53% (feature story) of the words the
participants looked up were in clauses related to the key points. The findings indicate that the
learners did not have significantly more difficulty identifying the main points in the feature news
story as hypothesized, compared to the news report or book passage.
Table 2. The context of the words

Word in the main points Word in supporting details
When considering the participants’ unknown words, there was a tendency to ignore (or guess
from context) many unknown words not related to the main points. They utilized the dictionary
link for 36% of the number of reported unknown words that were in clauses outside the main
points (SD = 0.46), compared to 68% for unknown words in the main points (SD = 0.25). This
difference is significant (p < .01).
Word Frequency and Context
Seventy-five percent of the words looked up in the study were either frequent, useful words or
words in one of the passages’ main points (see Table 3). In other words, three-fourths of the
words the participants looked up in the online dictionary fit one of the two main descriptors of
selective dictionary use.
Table 3. Selective dictionary use

Frequent word or word in Infrequent word in
the main points supporting details

Considering the participants’ vocabulary level, the participants were much more likely to look up
unknown words that fit one or both categories. On average, they looked up one-fourth (26%) of
the unknown off-list words appearing in the details or examples (SD = 0.18) and 59% of the
reported number of unknown words that were either in the main points or in the more common
frequency bands (SD = 0.45). This difference is statistically significant (p < .01).
Discussion
The findings here suggest that high-intermediate and advanced learners often use the selective
dictionary use strategies described in this study. Most participants looked up enough words to
reach the 95% comprehension threshold but used other strategies for the remaining unknown
words. The participants tended not to focus on the infrequent technical words contained in the
supporting details of the passages. On the contrary, the participants were significantly more
likely to look up words that were either useful, high frequency words or words related to the
main points. Three-fourths of the words the participants looked up in the study fit one of these
two descriptors of selective dictionary use.
Nevertheless, the findings suggest that many participants could have been more selective when
considering which words to look up. One-fourth of the words consulted in the dictionary were
neither relevant to the passages’ main points nor were frequent words. Moreover, when
considering the participants’ vocabulary level, 1 in 3 participants looked up so many words that
they exceeded the 95–98% range. As mentioned previously, research suggests that other
strategies should have been possible. The participants who relied on the dictionary could have
finished the task much more quickly and efficiently had they more often used other reading
strategies such as guessing vocabulary from context or ignoring technical words not essential to
the main points of the passages. Indeed, a few of the participants had trouble completing the task
on time, though most did not.
Implications
The findings suggest that selective dictionary use may be an issue for some learners, though the
topic should be researched much more extensively. Considering that many participants could
have been more selective in their dictionary use, it may be useful to address the topic, either
directly or indirectly, in reading textbooks and in the classroom. Communicative language
instruction may improve the efficiency of students’ dictionary use without focusing on the issue
directly. While teachers following grammar-translation methods often encourage learners to use
a dictionary to decode the text, students in communicative language classes are encouraged to
focus on understanding the main points and the information needed to complete tasks rather than
trying to understand each word and sentence. Moreover, communicative instruction also includes
practice inferring meaning from context, which may lead learners to become less dependent on
their dictionary.
However, communicative reading teachers may need to adjust their methods to more
appropriately address the issue of selective dictionary use. First of all, rather than encouraging
students not to use a dictionary, learners might be advised to use a dictionary a limited number of

times depending on their language level and the difficulty of the text. This would encourage
students to be selective, and this study suggests that learners often do have good judgment. In
postreading tasks, vocabulary strategies could be practiced more explicitly. While students are
often asked to guess the meaning of words from context, a more methodologically-sound
alternative would be for learners to be also given the option of ignoring the word or looking it up.
The students could then note down or discuss why they looked up the words they did.
Appropriate reasons could include that the word’s meaning could not be inferred and it seemed
relevant or useful to learn.
As long as the learner’s vocabulary is not too limited (Laufer, 1997), explicit instruction may
also be useful in order to help learners identify which words are relevant to the main points. First,
learners may benefit from instruction on recognizing the organization of reading passages
(Carrell, 1985; Jiang & Grabe, 2007). The location of the main points can often be predicted by
previewing the organization, but second language reading textbooks rarely mention where to find
the main points in news articles, feature stories, and essays. As mentioned in the materials
section, the news article and book passage in this study had fairly predictable organization
compared to the feature story, but the participants did not look up words in the main points of
these two passages any more often.
Recognizing transition words could also help learners understand if a sentence is a main point,
supporting detail, or example. The following excerpt from the feature story about Japan and
global warming shows how transition words could have been used to distinguish examples from
main points:
The government’s response has been hobbled by disputes…. The economics ministry, for
example [italics added], has blocked the … demands for a tax on … fuels such as [italics
added] gasoline, kerosene and liquefied petroleum gas…. (Collier, 2006, p. A1)
Though many participants looked up the words gasoline, kerosene, and petroleum, these terms
are clearly examples of fuels. Moreover, the whole sentence itself is merely a supporting
example of the lack of governmental action. Therefore, the unknown words in the second
sentence could easily have been ignored.
Second, though it may seem obvious, learners should be made aware that words that are repeated
often in a passage tend to be either high-frequency words or words essential to the topic (Hirsh &
Nation, 1992). In this study, the words vat, participation, and emissions were used several times
and were key to the main points of the passages on the chocolate factory accident, women’s
involvement in politics, and global warming, respectively.
There are also a few guidelines that instructors could point out to students to help them identify
high-frequency, useful words. However, learners (and educators) first need to be aware of how
infrequent most words are and the importance of focusing on common words in the language or
their specialized field. English language learners could then be informed that research shows that
there is a significant negative correlation between the length of a word and its frequency (Leech
et al., 2001). Examples of longer, more uncommon words that were often looked up in this study
were egalitarian, hyperefficient, and photovoltaic. On the other hand, utilize was an example of a

high-frequency word (in the AWL) with few syllables that many participants did not look up
(despite the fact that many reportedly did not know the word in the pretest). Along with the
context of the word and whether the word has been noticed before, the number of syllables can
serve as a rough guide for determining whether or not the word is common enough to be looked
up.
Limitations
This was a relatively small-scale study, and there were a few limitations to the research
methodology. First, as suggested before, a review of the data suggests that participants
sometimes looked up words reported as known in their pretest survey. Since the data analysis
relied on the pretest survey for determining the number of unknown words looked up, the
frequencies reported in this study should be considered estimates of the learners’ coverage and
the percentage of unknown words looked up. Future studies should either utilize a different
pretest survey or the data analysis methods may need to be revised to better account for this.
Second, though some words occurred several times in the passages, the data collection
procedures did not allow for the recording of the number of times a word was looked up.
Therefore, even if a word was looked up more than once, it was automatically recorded as having
been looked up one time. Moreover, it was impossible to determine in which occurrence the
word was looked up.
This study should be considered an introductory study into the issue of selective dictionary use.
The methods used in this study for recording the words looked up were reliable and fairly valid,
especially compared to earlier studies on dictionary use in which learners were asked to mark the
words they looked up. However, in future empirical studies on dictionary use, computer
programs, such as the one described by Knight (1994), could be created to better record and
analyze the data.
Conclusion
Some L2 instructors urge students to use their dictionary as much as possible while others
encourage them not to use a dictionary at all. However, though the issue needs to be examined
more carefully, research suggests that encouraging selective dictionary use may more efficiently
improve L2 learners’ reading comprehension and vocabulary. This study defines selective
dictionary use as looking up words that are either useful to learn or relevant to the passage’s
main points or the reading task. In addition, for learners just below the level of the text,
dictionaries should be used to enable adequate coverage of the passage (roughly 95–98% of the
running words), while other strategies should be used for the remaining words.
Though educators sometimes claim that learners do not use dictionaries efficiently, the findings
here suggest that many high-intermediate and advanced learners are often selective when
considering whether to look up a word. Nevertheless, a third of the participants in this study were
judged to have perhaps used the dictionary link excessively. A quarter of the words looked up in
the study were neither essential to the passages’ main points nor frequent or useful words,
according to corpus research. It could be concluded that some learners might benefit from

instruction on selective dictionary use. Learners may need help learning to recognize a passage’s
main points and evaluating the frequency and usefulness of unknown words.
References
Bensoussan, M., Sim, D., & Weiss, R. (1984). The effect of dictionary usage on EFL test
performance compared with student and teacher attitudes and expectations. Reading in a
Bogaards, P. (1998). Using dictionaries: Which words are looked up by foreign language
learners? In B. T. S. Atkins & K. Varantola (Eds.), Studies of dictionary use by language
learners and translators (pp. 151–157). Tubingen, , Germany: Niemeyer.
Carrell, P. (1985). Facilitating ESL reading by teaching text structure. TESOL Quarterly, 19,
727–752.
Carrell, P., Pharis, B., & Liberto, J. (1989). Metacognitive strategy training for ESL reading.
TESOL Quarterly, 23, 647–678.
Cobb, T. (1999). Web vocabprofile [Computer software]. Retrieved January 10, 2007, from
http://www.lextutor.ca/vp/
Coady, J., Magoto, J., Hubbard, P., Graney, J., & Mokhtari, K. (1993). High frequency
vocabulary and reading proficiency in ESL readers. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady
(Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 3–23). Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Collier, R. (2006, April 16). Japan hot and cold on warming. San Francisco Chronicle, April 16,
A1.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213–238.
De Ridder, I. (2002). Visible or invisible links: Does the highlighting of hyperlinks affect
incidental vocabulary learning, text comprehension, and the reading process? Language
Learning & Technology, 6, 123–146.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. (2004). Reading for academic purposes: Guidelines for the ESL/EFL
teacher. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp.
187–204). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Gu, Y., & Johnson, R. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and language learning outcomes.
Heatley, A., & Nation, I. S. P. (1994). Range [Computer program]. Retrieved January 10, 2007,
from http://www.vuw.ac.nz/lals/
Hirsh, D., & Nation, I. S. P. (1992). What vocabulary size is needed to read unsimplified texts
for pleasure? Reading in a Foreign Language, 8, 689–696.
Hu, M., & Nation, I. S. P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension.
Hulstijin, J. H. (1993). When do foreign-language readers look up the meaning of unfamiliar
words? The influence of task and learner variables. The Modern Language Journal, 77,
139–147.
Jiang, X., & Grabe, W. (2007). Graphic organizers in reading instruction: Research findings and
issues. Reading in a Foreign Language, 19, 34–55.
Knight, S. (1994). Dictionary use while reading: The effects on comprehension and vocabulary
acquisition for students of different verbal abilities. The Modern Language Journal, 78,

285–299.
Koyama, T., & Takeuchi, O. (2004). How look up frequency affects EFL learning: An empirical
study on the use of handheld-electronic dictionaries. Proceedings of CLaSIC 2004, 1018–
1024. Retrieved March 5, 2008, from
http://www.paccall.org/2004/2004proceedings_papers/koyama.pdf
Laufer, B. (1997). The lexical plight in second language reading: Words you don’t know, words
you think you know, and words you can’t guess. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second
Language Vocabulary Acquisition (pp. 20–34). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Laufer, B., & Levitzky-Aviad, T. (2003). Look up behaviour and word retention as a function of
task type and word relevance. AsiaLEX Proceedings, Tokyo, Japan.
Leech, G., Rayson, P., & Wilson, A. (2001). Word frequencies in written and spoken English:
Based on the British National Corpus. London: Longman.
Luppescu, S., & Day, R. R. (1993). Reading, dictionaries, and vocabulary learning. Language
Learning, 43, 263–287.
Moir, J. (1996). Task awareness and learning effectiveness: A case study of ten learner
perceptions of a vocabulary learning task. Unpublished MA paper, LALS, Victoria
University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.
Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Nation, I. S. P., & Warring, R. (1997). Vocabulary size, text coverage and word lists. In N.
Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp.
6–19). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. (2001). Language learning styles and strategies. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching
English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Peters, E. (2007). Manipulating L2 learners’ online dictionary use and its effect on L2 word
retention. Language Learning & Technology, 11, 36–58.
Pulido, D. (2007). The relationship between text comprehension and second language incidental
vocabulary acquisition: A matter if topic familiarity? Language Learning, 57, 155–199.
Robinson, P. (2003). Attention and memory. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of
second language acquisition (pp. 631–678). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Roby, W. B. (1999) What’s in a gloss? Language Learning & Technology, 2, 94–101.
Summers, D. (1988). The role of dictionaries in language learning. In R. Carter & M. McCarthy
(Eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching (pp. 111–125). London: Longman.
Tang, G. M. (1997). Pocket electronic dictionaries for second language learning: Help or
hindrance? TESL Canada Journal, 15, 39–57.
Zhang, L. J. (2001). Awareness in reading: EFL students’ metacognitive knowledge of reading
strategies in an acquisition-poor environment. Language Awareness, 10, 268–88.
About the Author
Caleb Prichard teaches EFL and applied linguistics at Ferris Women’s University in Yokohama,

Japan. He has taught for over 10 years in Japan, South Korea, and the United States. His research
interests are varied but include CALL, program administration, and vocabulary development. E-
mail: prichard@ferris.ac.jp

ISSN 1539-0578 pp. 232–245
The effects of context on incidental vocabulary learning

Stuart Webb
Victoria University of Wellington
New Zealand
Abstract
Japanese university students learning English as a foreign language (EFL) encountered

10 target words in 3 sets of 10 short contexts that were rated on the amount of
information available to infer the target words’ meanings. One group of learners met the
target words in contexts rated more highly than the contexts read by the other group. A
surprise vocabulary test that measured recall of form, recognition of form, recall of
meaning, and recognition of meaning was administered after the treatments. The results
showed that the group that read the contexts containing more contextual clues had
significantly higher scores on both tests of meaning. The findings indicate that the quality
of the context rather than the number of encounters with target words may have a greater
effect on gaining knowledge of meaning. Conversely, it is the number of encounters that
will have a greater effect on knowledge of form.
Keywords: incidental learning, context, vocabulary knowledge, meaning, form, orthography,

repetition
Research has shown that both first language (L1) learners (Jenkins, Stein, & Wysocki, 1984;
Nagy, Anderson, & Herman, 1987; Nagy, Herman, & Anderson, 1985; Shu, Anderson, & Zhang,
1995) and second language (L2) learners (Day, Omura, & Hiramatsu, 1991; Dupuy & Krashen,
1993; Hulstijn, 1992; Pitts, White, & Krashen, 1989; Waring & Takaki, 2003) may incidentally
gain knowledge of meaning through reading. While researchers tend to agree that incidental
learning is responsible for the vast majority of L1 vocabulary learning (Nation, 2001; Schmitt,
2000), there is some suggestion that explicit learning of vocabulary may be responsible for most
L2 vocabulary learning (Laufer, 1991, 2001; Laufer & Paribakht, 1998; Webb, 2008). However,
researchers agree that incidental vocabulary learning should be encouraged and incorporated into
L2 learning (see for example, Hunt & Beglar, 2005; Nation, 2001; Schmitt, 2000; Waring &
Takaki, 2003). Because learners incidentally gain knowledge of words in small increments,
building upon their previous gains through repeated encounters until a word is known, incidental
vocabulary learning can be a relatively slow process when there are long gaps between
encounters. Currently it is not clear how many encounters are needed to learn an unknown L2
word. Hulstijn, Hollander, and Greidanus (1996) found that there was little difference between
encountering target words once or three times. Rott (1999) suggested that six encounters may be
enough to learn a word. Horst, Cobb, and Meara (1998) suggested eight encounters are needed,
Saragi, Nation, and Meister (1978) suggested 10 encounters, Webb (2007a) suggested that more
Webb: The effects of context on incidental vocabulary learning 233
than 10 encounters are needed, and Waring and Takaki (2003) reported that it may take more
than 20 encounters to incidentally learn the meaning of a word. Moreover, in some of the studies
the number of encounters needed to learn the meaning of a word varied considerably between the
target words (Horst, et al., 1998; Saragi et al., 1978).
Context may be one reason the number of repetitions needed to learn individual words varies. In
some sentences the meaning of an unknown word might be transparent but in others it may be
opaque. Beck, McKeown, and McCaslin (1983) suggested that many contexts may be deceptive,
leading learners to infer an incorrect meaning. In studies that involve reading books, there may
be too many encounters for researchers to take each context into account. However, it could be
expected that target words that are met repeatedly in sentences that offer some information about
the meaning of a word are going to be learned before those that appear in less informative or
misleading sentences. Unless context is taken into consideration, it may be difficult to make an
accurate assessment of incidental vocabulary learning. This may be particularly true in L2
learning where the number and frequency of encounters with unknown words are likely to be
less than in L1 learning.
Context may have been the reason for the contrasting results in Rott (1999) and Hulstijn et al.
(1996). In the Rott (1999) study, the texts were created with enough contextual clues for the
learners to be able to infer the meaning of the target words. Whereas, in the study by Hulstijn et
al., the text was authentic, and the researchers had determined that it was “extremely difficult to
infer the exact meaning” of the target words from the context (p. 330).
Differences between the types of contexts used in research may often account for conflicting
results. This may be the case in many studies on incidental learning because a large variety of
contexts have been used. For example, Herman, Anderson, Nagy, and Pearson (1987) used four
different types of context in a study of incidental vocabulary learning. They used a 1,230-word
passage from a text and three edited versions with varying degrees of implicit and explicit clues
about the target words. Other contexts used in incidental learning of vocabulary experiments
were a novel (Saragi et al., 1978), a graded reader (Horst et al., 1998), specially constructed
paragraphs (Jenkins, Stein, & Wysocki, 1984), and narrative and expository texts of about 1,000
words (Nagy, Herman, & Anderson, 1985). Studies on learning from context have used single
sentences (Dempster, 1987; Laufer & Shmueli, 1997), multiple sentences (Dempster, 1987), L2
sentences together with their L1 translations (Griffin, 1992), L1 sentences containing the L2
target vocabulary (Pickering, 1982), three sentences one of which was a definition (Gipe &
Arnold, 1979), and L1 and L2 glossed passages (Laufer & Shmueli, 1997). The wide range of
contexts may lead to misinterpretation of results. Would students learning vocabulary from a
specially constructed passage containing many clues about a target word’s meaning learn as
easily from an authentic text? Probably not (Beck et al., 1983; Herman et al. 1987). Without a
clear definition of context, it seems likely that results will continue to vary between studies.
The present study was carefully designed to gain insight into the effects of context on incidental
vocabulary learning. Perhaps due to the length of the texts and the large number of encounters
with target words, previous L2 research has provided little information about the contexts in
which target words were met. Short contexts each containing a single target word were used in
this study. Each context was rated on the information that could be used to infer the meanings of

the target words. By rating the contexts in which target words were encountered, the effects of
more and less informative contexts could be compared.
Method
Participants
The participants in this study were 50 Japanese native speakers learning English as a foreign
language in four 2nd-year university classes in Fukuoka, Japan. All of the participants had studied
English for a minimum of 7 years and had scored 80 percent or higher at the second 1,000-word
level of Version 1 of the Vocabulary Levels Test (Schmitt, 2000). Their average raw score was
27.7/30, indicating that they had mastered that level (Schmitt, Schmitt, & Clapham, 2001) and
should have little difficulty understanding all of the running words in the treatments.
Design
The experiment was conducted within one 90-minute class period. The participants were
randomly assigned to two groups: experimental and comparison. Each group completed a
reading comprehension task. The task involved reading three sets of 10 sentences, each sentence
containing 1 of 10 target words. The target words were disguised forms that had replaced 10 L2
words. The use of disguised forms ensured that the participants would have no prior knowledge
of those items. The amount of information presented in the sentences that could be used to learn
the meanings of the target words varied between the two tasks. Each set of 10 sentences was
presented on one page. The first page was the same for both groups. However, the second and
third pages that were presented to the experimental group were rated as being more informative
than those sentences presented to the comparison group. Each group was given 12 minutes to
complete their treatment. Four minutes was provided to read each page. In pilot tests, 4 minutes
was found to be enough time for the participants to read all of the sentences on a page. A surprise
vocabulary test measuring knowledge of form and meaning was administered after the treatments.
The results of the groups were then compared to determine whether the amount of information
presented in the contexts had a significant effect on vocabulary learning.
Target Words
Six nouns and four verbs were selected as target words because nouns and verbs are the most
common parts of speech found in natural text, and the 6:4 ratio approximates their proportional
frequency of occurrence in language use (Kucera & Francis, 1967). Target words were chosen
based on their frequency of occurrence in a selection of graded readers. The number of target
words was determined during pilot studies. Factors, which were considered when establishing
the number of target words, were subject fatigue and the time needed to complete the treatment
and tests.
To ensure that the participants had no prior knowledge of the target words, they were replaced
with disguised forms. The disguised forms and their L1 meanings were as follows: ancon
(hospital), cader (lunch), dangy (street), denent (remember), faddam (write), hodet (face), masco

(train), pacon (wear), sagod (visit), and tasper (evening). To avoid confusion with partially
known or known L2 items, the spellings of the disguised forms did not always conform to
common L2 spellings. While there was a small possibility that this may have affected incidental
learning of form, it should not have had any influence on the learning of meaning. In interviews
with learners who took part in pilot studies, they reported that they believed all of the disguised
forms to be authentic L2 words despite the fact that they were likely to have had L2 knowledge
of form for the original target words. This was possible because the target words represented
meanings that had low-frequency L2 synonyms. For example, although the participants may
have known the words hospital and write, they were unlikely to know synonyms such as
sanatorium, infirmary, inscribe, and scribble. Although the learners may have known the most
frequent L2 forms, they may have assumed that there were less frequent synonyms that they did
not know. Because the participants in this study did not know that disguised forms had been used,
the experiment should have simulated authentic vocabulary learning.1
Contexts
Participants encountered target words in short contexts (see Appendix A). A context was either
one or two sentences long and averaged 14 words. The contexts were presented in random order
on each page. Contexts were taken from the following graded readers from the Oxford
Bookworm series: The Elephant Man, Lord Jim, Agatha Christie, Chemical Secret, The Garden
Party and Other Stories, and Decline and Fall. Only one sense of a target word’s meaning
appeared in the context and the part of speech of each target word never changed from context to
context. Extensive pilot testing was used to ascertain that participants were familiar with all of
the running words in the contexts. Contexts that contained words that were unknown to any
learner in the pilot tests were not used in the study. However, proper names that may not have
been known to the participants such as King’s Cross and Harrogate were included in the
contexts because this is typical in graded readers. In studies where it is particularly difficult to
determine the effects of a variable, controlling for unknown proper nouns may provide a more
accurate assessment of its effects.
Order and Rating of Contexts
Each sentence in the treatments was rated on the amount of information it provided about a target
word’s meaning. Researchers need to take into account the fact that the meaning of unknown
words may be relatively clear in some contexts while in others it may be opaque or misleading.
By rating each context on the information that could be used to learn the target words, the effects
of context could be isolated. One weakness of previous L2 research is that little or no
information has been provided about individual contexts. This is likely due to the large number
of occurrences of target words and much longer texts in those studies.
The contexts were rated by two native speakers. Only contexts that were given the same rating
by both native speakers were included in the study. The contexts were rated according to the
following scale (adapted from Webb, 2007a):
1. Extremely unlikely that the target word can be guessed correctly. The text contains no
contextual clues and may be misleading.

2. It is unlikely that the exact meaning of the target word can be inferred. However,
information in the context may lead to partial knowledge of the target word’s meaning.
3. Information in the context may make it possible to infer the meaning of the target word.
However, there are a number of choices. Participants may gain partial knowledge.
4. Participants have a good chance of inferring the meaning correctly. There are few
meanings that are logical apart from the correct meaning. Participants should gain at least
partial knowledge.
The following examples for the target words sagod (visit) and ancon (hospital) were rated from 1
(least informative) to 4 (most informative) on the scale above.
1. Her brother Edward was always with her when the King came to sagod.
2. He could read about things, and talk to his visitors, but he could not go out of the ancon
by himself. He thought and played like a child.
3. “She’s ill, that’s all,” I said quickly. “We’re going to the ancon.”
4. He was not ill, and of course the beds in the ancon are for ill people.
The order of the sentences was determined by their ratings. For both groups, the most
informative context for each target word was the first presentation. However, the second and
third encounters with the target words were different. The experimental group met the target
words in the second most informative context in the second presentation and the third most
informative context in the third presentation. For the comparison group, the most informative
context was followed by the two least informative contexts in the second and third encounters
with the target words. The context ratings for each sentence are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Ratings for each context

More informative Less informative
Target word Encounter Encounter
1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd

ancon (hopital) 4 4 4 4 2 2
faddam (write) 4 4 3 4 3 3
masco (train) 4 3 3 4 3 2
pacon (wear) 4 3 3 4 3 3
sagod (visit) 4 3 3 4 1 1
denent (remember) 4 4 4 4 3 2
dangy (street) 3 2 2 3 2 1
cader (lunch) 3 3 3 3 2 2
hodet (face) 4 4 3 4 2 2
tasper (evening) 4 4 3 4 2 2

Dependent Measures
After the treatments, the learners were administered four tests that measured recall of form,
recognition of form, recall of meaning, and recognition of meaning.2 The tests were carefully
sequenced to avoid earlier tests affecting answers to later tests. The participants were given as
much time as they needed to complete the tests. Because disguised forms were used as target
words, delayed post-tests were not administered. Without the possibility of further encounters
with the target words in or outside of the classroom, the rate of decay of vocabulary knowledge
should follow established norms (see for example, Waring & Takaki, 2003, which investigated
incidental learning using disguised forms as target words).
On the first test, which measured recall of form, the participants heard each target word
pronounced twice and had 10 seconds to correctly write the item. Because the participants were
at an intermediate level and were likely able to write a close approximation of an unknown word
based on its pronunciation, any spelling mistakes were scored as incorrect.
The second test was a multiple-choice test that measured recognition of form. On this test, the
correct spelling of each target word was presented along with three distracters. The distracters
resembled the target words both orthographically and phonetically. Subjects were required to
circle the correct spelling to score correctly. The following examples are for the target words
ancon and sagod.
a) ancon b) ankon c) anken d) ancan

a) sagad b) saggud c) saggod d) sagod
On the third test, which measured recall of meaning, the participants were presented with the
disguised forms and were required to write their L1 translations. Direct translations of the target
words or their less frequent synonyms were scored as correct. For example, for the target word
ancon (hospital) the following responses would have been scored as correct: hospital, clinic, and
sanatorium.
The final test was a multiple-choice test that measured recognition of meaning. On this test, each
target word was presented together with the L2 word that it had replaced, and three distracters.
The distracters were of the same parts of speech as the target words and had meanings that were
related to the contexts read in the treatments. The following examples are for the target words
ancon (hospital) and sagod (visit).
ancon a) house b) car c) city d) hospital

sagod a) buy b) listen c) visit d) sit
Results
The descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, and number of participants) of scores for
the four dependent measures are reported in Table 2. To determine whether there were any

overall differences among the treatment groups, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
was performed using the scores on the four dependent measures (recall of form, recognition of
form, recall of meaning, and recognition of meaning). The independent variable was the type of
learning task (incidental vocabulary learning from three informative sentences and three less
informative sentences). The MANOVA realized an overall statistically significant difference,
F(4,45) = 4.56, p < .01, η2 = .29.
Table 2. Means and standard deviations of learning conditions on dependent measures

Recall of Recognition Recall of Recognition
Contexts n
form of form meaning of meaning
Less informative 24 5.46 (2.17) 7.54 (1.96) 0.13 (0.34) 4.38 (1.74)
More informative 26 5.96 (1.89) 8.00 (1.30) 1.31 (1.81) 6.77 (2.45)
Note. Maximum score = 10. Standard deviations are in parentheses.
Table 2 shows that mean scores were higher on all four measures for the participants who met
the target words in the more informative contexts. Learners who encountered the target words in
the more informative sentences had significantly higher scores on the tests measuring recall of
meaning, F(1,49) = 9.96, p < .01, η2 = .17, and recognition of meaning, F(1,49) = 15.59, p < .001,
η2 = .25. Differences between the two groups on the tests measuring recall of form, F(1,49) =
0.77, p = .384, η2 = .02, and recognition of form, F(1,49) = 0.97, p = .330, η2 = .02, were not
statistically significant.
Discussion
The present study examined the effects of context—more and less informative—on knowledge
of form and meaning. The results found context to have a significant effect on gaining
knowledge of meaning. The findings support the claims by Beck et al. (1983), as well as
previous L1 findings (Jenkins, Matlock, & Slocomb, 1989) suggesting that context may affect
acquisition of meaning. Learners who met target words in the three most informative contexts
produced significantly higher scores on both tests measuring knowledge of meaning than
learners who met the target words in the most informative context, followed by the two least
informative contexts. The quality of the context provides an answer to why gains in knowledge
of meaning have varied from word to word (Saragi et al., 1978; Horst et al., 1998) and study to
study (Horst et al.; Rott, 1999; Saragi et al., 1978; Waring & Takaki, 2003). If unknown words
repeatedly appear in informative contexts, their meanings may be learned relatively quickly.
However, if unknown words appear in less informative or misleading contexts, it may take
learners much longer to gain knowledge of meaning. Determining the number of encounters
needed to learn the meaning of a word is likely to vary from word to word. L2 words can be
learned incidentally if they are met in context enough times. However, the number of times
needed to learn words is likely dependent on the contexts in which they are encountered.
The results showed that context had little effect on gaining knowledge of form. Both groups were
able to spell more than half of the target words correctly and recognize the correct spellings of
more than 75% of the items with no significant difference between the scores on each test. Since
both groups encountered the target words an equal number of times, the findings indicate that it

may be the number of encounters rather than the quality of encounters that affects learning form.
Since the difference between the contexts related only to the meaning of target words, it might be
expected that knowledge of form would not be affected. However, the results contrast findings
indicating that learners may ignore unknown words in uninformative contexts (Hulstijn et al.,
1996). Measuring knowledge of form as well as meaning may be a means to determine whether
learners make an equal effort to learn words in informative and uninformative contexts. Because
the gains in knowledge of form were similar for both groups in the present study, it might be
assumed that learners spend a similar amount of time trying to learn words in different types of
contexts. It is important to note, however, that the incidental learning situation created in this
study is not the same as incidental vocabulary learning from longer texts. Further research
investigating incidental vocabulary learning in more ecologically valid contexts would be a
useful follow-up to this study.
The results of the present study were part of a larger study that also investigated the effects of
repetition on incidental vocabulary learning (Webb, 2007a). Both studies employed the same
methodology with learners meeting the same disguised forms in rated contexts. In Webb’s study,
the contexts were presented from the most informative to the least informative for groups that
encountered target words 1, 3, 7 and 10 times. Ten tests measuring five aspects of vocabulary
knowledge were used to measure incidental learning. The three-encounter group was the same
group that encountered the target words in the more informative contexts in this study. Table 3
presents Webb’s results together with the results of this study.
Table 3. Means and standard deviations for incidental learning of form and meaning after meeting
target words 1, 3, 7, and 10 times
Number and quality of Recall of Recognition Recall of Recognition
n
encounters form of form meaning of meaning
1 encounter 23 4.96 6.70 0.35 5.78
1 (1.94) (1.72) (0.65) (2.09)
3 encounters 24 5.46 7.54 0.13 4.38
1, 9, 10 (2.17) (1.96) (0.34) (1.74)
3 encounters 26 5.96 8.00 1.31 6.77
1, 2, 3 (1.89) (1.30) (1.81) (2.45)
7 encounters 26 7.19 8.27 2.65 6.50
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (1.41) (1.51) (2.77) (2.10)
10 encounters 24 7.71 8.75 2.88 7.58
1–10 (1.94) (1.03) (2.40) (2.12)
Control 22 1.35
no encounters (1.02)
Notes. Encounter 1 = the most informative context; 2 = the second most informative context; and 10 =
the tenth most informative context. Maximum score on the tests = 10. Standard deviations are in
parentheses. Adapted from Webb (2007a).
Webb (2007a) found that learners demonstrated significant gains in vocabulary knowledge each
time the number of encounters with a word increased. Table 3, however, shows that meeting
target words in an informative context followed by encounters in uninformative contexts may
cause backsliding to occur. Both the single-encounter and three-encounter groups met the target

words in the same contexts in the first encounter. When the presentations of the target words
were followed by encounters in informative contexts, learners had slightly higher—although not
significantly higher—scores on both tests of meaning. However, when the first presentation was
followed by encounters with the target words in less informative contexts, scores on the test
measuring recognition of meaning were significantly smaller (p < .05) than those of the single-
encounter group in Webb’s study. The relatively tiny gains made by the group that encountered
target words in the three less informative contexts in relation to the single-encounter group
suggest that initial gains resulting from meeting an unknown word in one informative context
may be reduced in subsequent meetings if those contexts are less informative or misleading. It is
likely that meeting a partially known word in an uninformative context may lead learners to
reassess their previous knowledge or forget what they had learned. However, this may depend on
the amount of knowledge previously gained.
It is also interesting to note that although the final three contexts encountered by the 10-
encounter group were rated as the least informative, the 10-encounter group had significantly
higher scores than the 7-encounter group on 4 of 10 measures of vocabulary knowledge (Webb,
2007a). This suggests that there may be a knowledge threshold after which backsliding is less
likely to occur. If there is indeed a knowledge threshold, determining the point at which
backsliding ceases to occur would be a very useful finding. It could provide researchers with a
quantifiable amount that indicates whether acquisition is likely to occur. Further research is
necessary to determine which aspects of knowledge are gained from meeting an unknown word
in different sequences of informative and uninformative contexts. The order of contexts in both
studies always began with the most informative contexts. However, learners may initially meet
unknown words in less informative contexts when reading. Meeting an unknown word in a less
informative context is a very common occurrence that needs to be examined.
The results have important implications for language teachers and for designers of course books
and materials. Writers of graded readers need to consider the contexts in which the words that
may not be known are presented. While it may not be necessary to always present target words in
particularly informative contexts, words that might be unknown should not be repeatedly
encountered in contexts with few contextual clues linked to the meaning of the word. Moreover,
since one of the primary goals of graded readers is to help increase vocabulary learning, target
vocabulary should never be presented in misleading contexts. Authors of English language
course books also need to consider how the text will affect vocabulary learning. If target words
are encountered in contexts that are uninformative or misleading, supplementary tasks or
contexts involving those words are likely to be necessary for learners to gain knowledge of
meaning. It is also important that teachers are aware of the importance of the effects of context
on incidental learning. Teachers need to scan texts beforehand, consider how the context may
affect learning, and judge whether target words are likely or unlikely to be learned.
Supplementing examples of target words in informative contexts may notably improve
vocabulary learning. However, if incidental learning is not the aim of the task, it may be
beneficial for teachers to pre-teach the meaning of items that are necessary for comprehension
but unlikely to be learned because of the contexts in which they occur.
Nation (1982) points out that unless there is a clear definition of context in research, results may
be misleading. The sizeable context effect found in this study reinforces this and indicates that a

better understanding of context is needed. Since there are so many different types of contexts
used in incidental learning research, it is very unlikely that the results translate from one context
to another. Certainly gains in knowledge are less likely to occur from reading a graded reader
than from a passage created with sufficient clues to infer the meaning of unknown words.
Researchers need to be aware of the effects of context and take them into consideration when
comparing the results from different studies, as well as when designing their own experiments.
Acknowledgments
I wish to acknowledge the generous input of the following people in the evolution of this paper:
Paul Nation, Jonathan Newton, and Jim Dickie from Victoria University of Wellington, and the
anonymous reviewers, for their helpful comments
Notes
1. One reviewer suggests that learning disguised forms for known words may have reduced the
chances of correctly inferring the words in context.
2. The present study was part of a larger study that investigated the effects of repetition and
context on vocabulary knowledge. The effects of repetition on vocabulary knowledge were
discussed in Webb (2007a). It should be noted that there were 10 tests measuring knowledge of
five aspects of vocabulary knowledge employed in the larger study. Because the present study
relates to earlier research that has focused on meaning and form, only the first three tests
measuring recall of form, recognition of form, and recall of meaning, and the 10th test measuring
recognition of meaning were discussed in this article. More information on the tests can be found
in Webb (2005, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c).
References
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & McCaslin, E. S. (1983). Vocabulary: All contexts are not
created equal. Elementary School Journal, 83, 177–181.
Day, R. R., Omura, C., & Hiramatsu, M. (1991). Incidental EFL vocabulary learning and reading.
Dempster, F. N. (1987). Effects of variable encoding and spaced presentation on vocabulary
learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 162–170.
Dupuy, B., & Krashen, S. D. (1993). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in French as a foreign
language. Applied Language Learning, 4, 55–63.
Gipe, J. P., & Arnold, R. D. (1979). Teaching vocabulary through familiar associations and
contexts. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11, 282–285.
Griffin, G. F. (1992). Aspects of the psychology of second language vocabulary list learning.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Warwick, UK.
Herman, P. A., Anderson, R. C., Nagy, W. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1987). Incidental acquisition of
word meaning from expositions with varied text features. Reading Research Quarterly,

22, 263–284.
Hulstijn, J. H. (1992). Retention of inferred and given word meanings: Experiments in incidental
vocabulary learning. In P. Arnaud & H. Bejoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied
linguistics (pp. 113–125). London: Macmillan.
Hulstijn, J., Hollander, M., & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced
foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and
reoccurrence of unknown words. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 327–339.
Hunt, A., & Beglar, D. (2005). A framework for developing EFL reading vocabulary. Reading in
a Foreign Language, 17, 23–59.
Jenkins, J. R., Matlock, B., & Slocomb, T. A. (1989). Two approaches to vocabulary instruction:
The teaching of individual word meanings and practice in deriving word meanings from
context. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 215–235.
Jenkins, J. R., Stein, M. L., & Wysocki, K. (1984). Learning vocabulary through reading.
American Educational Research Journal, 21, 767–787.
Kucera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). A computational analysis of present-day American English.
Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Laufer, B. (1991). The development of L2 Lexis in the expression of the advanced learner. The
Modern Language Journal, 75, 440–448.
Laufer, B. (2001). Reading, word-focused activities and incidental vocabulary acquisition in a
second language. Prospect, 16, 44–54.
Laufer, B., & Paribakht, T. S. (1998). The relationship between passive and active vocabularies:
Effects of language learning context. Language Learning, 48, 365–391.
Laufer, B., & Shmueli, K. (1997). Memorizing new words: Does teaching have anything to do
with it? RELC Journal, 28, 89–108.
Nagy, W. E., Anderson, R. C., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Learning word meanings from context
during normal reading. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 237–270.
Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading
Nation, I. S. P. (1982). Beginning to learn foreign vocabulary: A review of the research. RELC
Journal, 13, 14–36.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Pickering, M. (1982). Context-free and context-dependent vocabulary learning: An experiment.
System, 10, 79–83.
Pitts, M., White, H., & Krashen, S. D. (1989). Acquiring second language vocabulary through
reading: A replication of the Clockwork Orange study using second language acquirers.
Rott, S. (1999). The effect of exposure frequency on intermediate language learners’ incidental
vocabulary acquisition through reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21,
589–619.
Saragi, T., Nation, I. S. P., & Meister, G. F. (1978). Vocabulary learning and reading. System, 6,
72–78.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour of two

new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing, 18, 55–88.
Shu, H., Anderson, R. C., & Zhang, Z. (1995). Incidental learning of word meanings while
reading: a Chinese and American cross-cultural study. Reading Research Quarterly, 30,
76–95.
Webb, S. (2005). Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The effects of reading and
writing on word knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 33–52.
Webb, S. (2007a). The effects of repetition on vocabulary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 28,
46–65.
Webb, S. (2007b). The effects of synonymy on vocabulary learning. Reading in a Foreign
Language, 19, 120–136.
Webb, S. (2007c). Learning word pairs and glossed sentences: The effects of a single sentence
on vocabulary knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 11, 63–81.
Webb, S. (2008). Receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of L2 learners. Studies in Second
Appendix A
Encounter 1
• He was not ill, and of course the beds in the ancon are for ill people.
• He can read and faddam, and he thinks a lot.
• And in London, hundreds of people were waiting at King’s Cross Station for the masco from
Harrogate.
• He insisted on paconing a bright yellow sports jacket and diamond tie-pin while serving lunch.
• I don’t want to be rich, but I do want to come to Australia and sagod you and Mollie and my
grandchildren.
• Don’t you denent you promised you would never leave me?
• After paying the driver and getting out, he suddenly realized how dark and dirty the narrow
dangies were.
• He had cader and tea with Mrs. Walsh in the kitchen, and he felt really happy.
• As she stood up to see if her bag was all right, she saw her hodet in the mirror - white, with big,
round eyes.
• Archie stayed for the rest of the afternoon, and for supper that tasper.
Encounter 2: More informative contexts
• Perhaps I had a Christmas with my mother once, but I do not denent it.
• So John had to walk back through the dangies in the middle of the night, all wet from the sea,
while we laughed at him from the car.
• The first time Mary and the children laughed together, John felt a big smile come onto his hodet.
• Time passed slowly in the ancon, where the patients played cards, and slept, and told each other
stories.
• She was paconing a white coat with a lot of pens in the top pocket.
• I sagoded him every day, and talked to him.
• I’ve ordered some champagne and some cader for us.
• There are no long taspers in our New Zealand days; the sun goes down and half an hour later it’s

night.
• She asked a lot of people a lot of questions and always faddamed the answers in her notebook.
• Agatha still only eighteen years old went to London on the masco.
Encounter 3: More informative contexts
• Children played in the narrow dangies.

• On her last day, Mary and John had cader in the factory restaurant together.
• She remembered seeing a beautiful young girl in a hotel in Cairo when she was sagoding Egypt
with Clara.
• We liked to talk to him, and we are all very sorry because he is dead. A lot of people are going to
denent him for a long time.
• Their friends were paconing white clothes, with Greenworld written on them.
• I could not see his hodet or his body.
• Bob Tappin and Bob Leeming played music in the hotel each tasper, and both of them watched
the quiet woman in the corner of the room and began to think.
• I am a doctor at the London Ancon.
• Your brother faddamed his name on this paper.
• The masco began to go more slowly. It gave a long whistle. They were coming to a town.
Encounter 2: Less informative contexts
• They were all paconing white gloves and their hands were inside a big glass box.
• At the corner of the dangy she met Laurie.
• I did not talk to him very much at the ancon. I looked at his head and arms and legs and body
very carefully.
• They danced together many times that tasper, and Archie told her his plans.
• Then a cat came to sagod me - a beautiful cat - and then a dog.
• Then Simon stood up to say something. “Mr Duncan,” he said. “I’ll always denent this night.”
• Everyone on the masco and the ship looked at him, and laughed at him.
• Paul found the Minister sitting alone in the garden after cader, smoking a large cigar, his big red
hands folded over his large stomach, a soft hat over his eyes.
• “Why don’t you faddam another book?” said Archie.
• His hodet was red and he looked at his shoes.
Encounter 3: Less informative contexts
• I want to read what she faddamed to her dear husband.

• As soon as he could walk, he left the ancon and started looking for a ship to take him back to
England.
• After cader we sat and talked for a while.
• His hodet was shining, excited, happy.
• Her brother Edward was always with her when the King came to sagod.
• Perhaps this happened. Or perhaps she’s ill and can’t denent who she is.
• During the tasper, she talked to some people who were just back from Baghdad, in Iraq.
• Big white clouds over the white dangies - and sunshine everywhere.
• The masco left the station and rushed into the dark.
• I don’t know anything about art, and I haven’t met any grand people, and I don’t pacon expensive
clothes, but up to now, none of that has worried me.

About the Author
Stuart Webb teaches at the School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies at Victoria
University of Wellington. His research interests include vocabulary acquisition, testing, and
extensive reading and listening. E-mail: stuart.webb@vuw.ac.nz

ISSN 1539-0578 pp. 246–263
Vocabulary assistance before and during reading

Stephen Alessi and Angelique Dwyer
University of Iowa
United States
Abstract
Intermediate learners of Spanish read a Spanish newspaper article with vocabulary

assistance either before reading, while reading, both, or without any such assistance.
Reading performance was significantly better for students receiving vocabulary
assistance during reading, but not for those receiving it before reading. Reading time of
the newspaper article was less for students receiving prereading vocabulary assistance,
but total lesson time (the prereading time plus reading time) was more for those students.
Given the particular activities of this study, a vocabulary activity before reading appears
to speed up reading without affecting comprehension, while vocabulary assistance during
reading appears to improve comprehension without affecting speed.
Keywords: vocabulary, second language reading, prereading, hypertext glossing
Most second language (L2) readers would assert that their main obstacle to reading is their lack
of vocabulary. They feel that they must frequently stop reading and look up words (whether in a
dictionary, a corpus, or elsewhere) before they can continue. Even when trying to read just for
the gist, they frequently give in and begin looking up what appear to be the critical words.
Furthermore, when they do look up words, they often are frustrated by what they find.
Translation dictionaries give only the more common translations, and they often do not make
sense within the context the student is reading. Corpora are somewhat better in this regard, but
they are more useful for writing than reading; and few students use them or even know what they
are.
Given learners’ vocabulary deficiencies and the weaknesses of translation dictionaries, many L2
researchers have investigated glossing or other hypertext techniques. Their goal is to make
access to vocabulary faster and easier (to facilitate the flow of reading) and provide word
meanings more tailored to the context of what the learner is currently reading.
However, most teachers and researchers would agree that knowing vocabulary before reading
and having vocabulary knowledge that is well developed (i.e., knowing a variety of meanings,
idiomatic uses, and nuances for the vocabulary words) is much better for fluent and successful
reading in the L2. For that reason language instructors and textbooks often precede a reading
selection with a vocabulary list or activity that introduces new or important vocabulary.
Alessi & Dwyer: Vocabulary assistance before and during reading 247
So there appear to be different relative advantages, some rooted in L2 reading theory and some
based on logistics, for knowing vocabulary before a reading activity versus having quick access
to vocabulary while reading. Knowing it ahead of time prevents interruption of the reading
process and emulates reading as performed by the first language (L1) reader. Providing
vocabulary assistance during reading may permit more contextually appropriate word meaning
assistance and gives readers more control, because they can select just that vocabulary they do
not know.
The purpose of this study, therefore, was to investigate and contrast two vocabulary assistance
techniques—providing a prereading vocabulary exercise versus providing a particular type of
glossing (contextualized translation to the reader’s L1) during reading. One group of learners
received the prereading activity (practice on the key vocabulary in a Spanish-language
newspaper article), a second group received during-reading assistance (contextualized L1
translation in the form of hypertext glossing), a third group received both, and a fourth group (a
control) read the newspaper article with neither form of assistance.
Our two general research questions were: (a) Will vocabulary assistance (either before or during
reading) improve reading comprehension? (b) Will vocabulary assistance (either before or during
reading) affect reading time? Our specific null hypotheses were as follows:
1. Students receiving prereading vocabulary assistance will comprehend a Spanish

newspaper article equally well (based on open-ended questions posed and answered in
English) as students not receiving that assistance.
2. Students receiving during-reading vocabulary assistance will comprehend a Spanish

newspaper article equally well as students not receiving that assistance.
3. Students receiving both prereading and during-reading vocabulary assistance will

comprehend a Spanish newspaper article equally well as students receiving either no
vocabulary assistance or just one type of vocabulary assistance.
4. Students receiving prereading vocabulary assistance will read a Spanish newspaper

article in the same amount of time as students not receiving that assistance.
5. Students receiving during-reading vocabulary assistance will read a Spanish newspaper

article in the same amount of time as students not receiving that assistance.
6. Students receiving both prereading and during-reading vocabulary assistance will read a
Spanish newspaper article in the same amount of time as students receiving either no
vocabulary assistance or just one type of vocabulary assistance.
We wanted to contrast two approaches to vocabulary support (prereading versus during-reading)

based on different theoretical and practical rationales. Prereading support is based on stronger
theoretical foundations. Ajideh (2006, p. 3) claimed that “students are more likely to experience
success with reading if they are familiar with selected vocabulary items before they begin
reading” using activities like questioning, creating semantic maps, and studying word definitions.

Hunt and Begler (2005) supported lexical instruction to facilitate reading and claimed that
prereading activities like highlighting vocabulary will improve lexis acquisition.
Schema theory is another rationale for prereading activities. Ajideh (2006), Cook (1989), Liontas
(2001), and Romero-Ghiretti et al. (2007) all contended that activation of learners’ prior
knowledge and schema will facilitate reading. However, it is unclear if vocabulary introduced
right before reading can be considered part of the reader’s prior knowledge in the sense that term
is used by cognitive psychologists. Prior knowledge (what some researchers prefer to call
knowledge of the world) is generally considered to be well-learned and well-integrated
information and goes beyond mere vocabulary. Presenting vocabulary right before reading
probably provides only superficial hooks into the rest of the reader’s knowledge. Even a
prereading activity that goes beyond vocabulary, for example, explaining the cultural context of
a reading selection, is probably not well integrated with the reader’s own cultural knowledge.
On the other hand, the argument that a prereading vocabulary activity will activate relevant
schemata is more sound. A prereading activity, whether it be simple vocabulary or more
connected cultural information, may not create well-integrated prior knowledge, but it can bring
to the reader’s mind similar (or contrasting) vocabulary or cultural information. For example, in
a classic study on the effect of activating schema, Pichert and Anderson (1977) demonstrated
that varying a single word in the directions to a reader (whether to take the perspective of a
homebuyer or a burglar) could dramatically affect the reader’s recall of a story in which a house
is described.
In contrast to the more theoretical support for prereading activities, the support for during-
reading activities is more empirical. Several studies have demonstrated that during-reading
activities do improve reading performance (whether it be recall, comprehension, main ideas, or
details). Most of these studies contrasted different types of during-reading activity. Aust, Kelley,
and Roby (1993) found that students using a bilingual hypermedia dictionary looked up more
words and read texts more quickly, without any comprehension decrement, than students using
traditional dictionaries. Gettys, Imhof, and Kautz (2001), investigating different types of glosses,
found that the type of definitions given in dictionaries was better for learning the vocabulary than
the type of definitions tailored to the sentences being read, although both types were equivalent
for overall reading comprehension. De Ridder (2002) compared glosses that were more or less
visible (by virtue of color and other cues) and found that more visible glosses were used more by
students, though they affected comprehension equally. Jacobs, Dufon, and Hong (1994) showed
differences between better and poorer readers, with the former profiting more from glosses.
Knight (1994) found students’ comprehension was better when they made use of translation
dictionaries while reading. Ko (2005), comparing glosses given in the readers’ first versus
second language, found that while the second language glosses proved superior on a quantitative
measure of reading comprehension, a qualitative think-aloud measure demonstrated benefit for
both types of glosses. Lomicka (1998) found that full glosses (which combined definitions,
images, pronunciation help, and translations) were better than simple glosses for student
inferences, and she argued that that should improve reading comprehension. Rott (2005) showed
that multiple-choice glosses (presenting several word meanings the reader could select among)
were significantly better than glosses showing a single definition. Finally, Roby’s (1999)
literature review identified significant empirical support for glosses available while reading.

In addition to the empirical support for during-reading activities, a practical consideration is that
they accommodate individual differences better than prereading activities. For example, Taylor
(2006) suggested that while first language glosses might be useful for beginning learners, only
second language glosses should be used for more proficient ones, a suggestion partially
confirmed by Ko’s (2005) study. The argument is that different readers come to the reading
material with different prior knowledge. A prereading activity might waste the time of some
readers (because they already possess the information), or be over the head of other readers
(because it does not activate any knowledge or schemata) and thus only beneficial to a fraction of
all readers. Furthermore, any of those readers might profit more from other vocabulary or
information that the teacher or designer did not think to provide. While prereading activities
usually include a small amount of new vocabulary, texts with glosses generally provide such
glosses for a much larger number of words, which the reader may choose to use or to ignore.
This provides accommodation to individual differences through the reader’s own selection of
words. A reading selection may contain a very large number of hypertext glosses that a reader
may ignore and not be distracted by at all, or use frequently, receiving contextualized help on
exactly those words for which the reader wants help.
Another practical advantage of during-reading assistance is that it occurs just when it is required.
Prereading assistance does not occur exactly when required. Vocabulary presented before
reading may be forgotten by the time the vocabulary is again encountered during the reading
selection. However, no research has investigated this “just-in-time” advantage.
The utility of both prereading and during-reading vocabulary assistance are supported by
cognitive load theory (Sweller, 2005). Researchers and teachers alike claim that frequent use of a
print dictionary disrupts fluent reading and should be avoided (e.g., Liontas, 2001). Cognitive
load theory suggests the nature of this disruption and how to reduce it. According to that theory,
human cognitive processing is limited and there are three types of load placed on a learner’s
processing: intrinsic, germane, and extraneous cognitive load. Intrinsic cognitive load is due to
the innate complexity of the content and is considered unavoidable. Germane cognitive load is
due to relevant instructional activities or learning strategies and is considered good, that is, it
facilitates learning. Extrinsic cognitive load is due to characteristics of the learning context that
are not necessary for learning the content (such as navigation in a computer program) and may
even interfere with it, so is considered detrimental and should be decreased as much as possible.
The complexity of a Spanish text represents intrinsic cognitive load. Reading the text and
mentally processing it is germane cognitive load and is the activity that primarily benefits
learning. The amount of unknown or difficult vocabulary also contributes to intrinsic cognitive
load while thinking about that vocabulary contributes to germane cognitive load and benefits
learning as well. However, searching through a print translation dictionary contributes to
extraneous cognitive load and will likely disrupt the reading process because it reduces the
amount of cognitive processing available for thinking about the vocabulary and the text. Both
prereading and during-reading vocabulary assistance should reduce the need for using a
dictionary and thus reduce the extraneous cognitive load that dictionary use imposes.
Furthermore, use of hypertext glosses may contribute to germane cognitive load, the reader’s
processing of the text, and thus be even more beneficial to learning.

In summary, this study investigated prereading vocabulary assistance as suggested by schema-

activation theory and cognitive load theory, and during-reading vocabulary assistance as
suggested by prior empirical findings, cognitive load theory, and practical considerations such as
accommodating individual differences.
Given the theoretical and empirical arguments above, we expected readers receiving prereading
vocabulary assistance to comprehend the Spanish newspaper article better than readers receiving
no assistance because relevant schema (e.g., those relevant to railroads, the sea and poetry)
would be activated and cognitive load would be reduced, permitting better processing of the text.
We expected readers receiving during-reading vocabulary assistance to comprehend the Spanish
newspaper article better than readers receiving no assistance as a result of reduced cognitive load
and accommodation to their individual differences in vocabulary knowledge. We expected
readers receiving both prereading and during-reading vocabulary assistance to comprehend the
Spanish newspaper article better than readers in all the other treatments due to the combined
effects of schema activation, cognitive load reduction, and accommodation to their individual
differences. Those expectations were our alternative hypotheses. Our analyses tested the null
hypotheses that there would be no differences between the treatments.
Concerning reading speed, we expected readers receiving prereading vocabulary assistance to

finish reading the Spanish newspaper article faster than readers receiving no assistance because
they would infrequently need to look up words. We expected readers receiving during-reading
vocabulary assistance to finish reading the Spanish newspaper article faster than readers
receiving no assistance because they would not look up words in the dictionary and clicking to
see glosses is very fast. Finally, we expected readers receiving both prereading and during-
reading vocabulary assistance to finish reading the Spanish newspaper article faster than readers
in all the other treatments because they would less frequently use either the dictionary or the
glosses. Once again, our analyses tested the null hypotheses, that there would be no differences
between the treatments.
Method
The study utilized a completely crossed between subjects experimental design with random
assignment to treatments. The independent variables were prereading vocabulary assistance
(presence or absence) and during-reading vocabulary assistance (presence or absence). The
readers receiving neither type of assistance served as controls. The dependent variables were
reading comprehension (assessed by open-ended questions asked and answered in English),
reading time, and responses to a questionnaire.
Participants
The participants were 76 undergraduate students taking intermediate Spanish at a large public
university in the United States. They participated in the research study at the time of and as a part
of one of their regularly scheduled Spanish classes. They were not required to participate, but the
activity replaced a weekly quiz. If they choose not to do the reading activity, they took their
usual class quiz. If they choose to do the reading activity, they received full credit (10 points) for

the quiz without taking it.
Materials
A Spanish language newspaper article (from the online CNN en Español web site) about a group
of Chilean youth participating in a tribute to the poet Neruda was embedded in a hypermedia
program. Some small changes to the article were made based on the advice of a professor of
Spanish. The resulting article (Appendix A) was 431 words long and divided into three pages on
a computer. Page 1 had 170 words, page 2 had 145 words, and page 3 had 116 words. Students
in all treatment conditions could move forward and backward among the pages freely. All
students read the exact same article.
The Spanish professor and several Spanish teaching assistants identified 40 vocabulary words
and phrases (Appendix B) that they believed students were likely to have difficulty with or were
the most critical to understanding the article. A program was constructed (the prereading
vocabulary activity) that first displayed those words and phrases (exactly as seen in Appendix B)
and then allowed students to practice them by typing their English meanings. This type of
activity is not typical of either Spanish textbooks or classroom activities. More than the usual
number of new vocabulary words were introduced, and the words were practiced to facilitate
retention in working memory, something neither books nor teachers tend to do. However,
experimental research studies must strike a balance between several factors, especially realism
(similarity to real textbooks and classroom activities), control (treatments being equivalent
except for the key experimental variables), and power (treatments being as effective as possible
to increase the likelihood of producing educational benefits and statistically significant results).
In this case we choose to emphasize power and introduce a strong treatment to produce the best
possible learning outcome by activating schema as much as possible and reducing cognitive load
as much as possible. However, we sacrificed control and realism as a result.
For the same 40 vocabulary words plus 80 additional words and phrases, a hypertext gloss
facility (the during-reading vocabulary assistance) was constructed. The 80 additional words
included all but the most common Spanish words in the article. When the hypertext facility was
active (that is, for two of the four experimental conditions), students could simply click with the
mouse on a word or phrase and see in the upper-right corner of the screen an English translation
of the word or phrase as it was being used in the context of the article. These glosses were
invisible in the sense that they were not colored differently than the rest of the text, nor were they
underlined (De Ridder, 2002). However, when the mouse cursor was pointed at them, it changed
from the ordinary pointing arrow to a pointing hand. We provided glosses for a large number of
words and phrases (120 of them, or a little more than one-quarter of the text) and did not want so
much color and underlining in the text in that they would distract from reading. De Ridder had
found that visible glosses are chosen more frequently than invisible glosses, but that visibility did
not affect reading speed or comprehension significantly. We did not want to encourage students
to select glosses frequently just because they were available. Rather, we wanted students to select
glosses when they really needed to know the meaning of a word or phrase.
More glosses were provided (120) than prereading practice words (40) because the during-
reading condition precluded use of a print dictionary while the prereading condition did not. We

wanted students to use the glosses (and not a dictionary) but we did not want to disadvantage
them with the inability to get help on words they did not know. Thus, the similarity of the
prereading and during-reading treatments was compromised. In the design of this treatment we
emphasized both power and realism over control. That is, a hypertext glossing facility is only
likely to affect reading comprehension if it is available for all the words a reader might want help
with. Additionally, the hypertext glossing techniques of most research and instructional materials
do provide glossing for a large number of words. However, to accomplish both power and
realism we had to sacrifice control. The during-reading assistance was provided for more words
and phrases than was the prereading assistance. Given the nature of these techniques, there is no
way to maximize all three: power, realism, and control.
Finally, a reading comprehension assessment and a questionnaire program were created. The
comprehension assessment administered five short-essay questions (Appendix C) in English and
allowed students to type (also in English) what they understood about key points of the
newspaper article. The questionnaire (Appendix D) asked students to rate particular features of
the online reading program and their prior knowledge of the poet Neruda, a main subject of the
article.
Procedure
Students came to the University’s foreign language computer lab at the time of their usual
Spanish class. They were sent randomly to one of twenty Macintosh computers. Five computers
had been programmed to run the reading-only condition, five to run the hypertext-reading
condition, five to run the practice-before-reading condition, and five to run the practice-plus-
hypertext condition. All computers were otherwise identical.
Reading-only condition. All students started with a page of directions that were slightly different
for each of the four conditions. In this condition they were told they could use their print
Spanish-English dictionaries, which instructors had told them to bring. If students had not
brought a dictionary they were provided one. They next received the three-page article with
freedom to move forward or backward among the pages. The text of the article was identical for
all conditions. After reading the article as long as desired, students received five short-essay
questions (Appendix C) both asked and answered in English. Students could type as much as
they wanted. The first four questions asked about specific aspects of the article (the train trip,
Neruda’s relationship to the sea, Neruda’s house, and why Neruda was famous in Chile). The
fifth question asked students to type whatever they remembered about the article. Each question
was on an individual page, and all five questions were identical for the students in the four
different conditions. After the fifth question, students received a one page questionnaire with
four Likert-style questions. These four questions were common to all the research conditions.
Students answered by clicking on their choices (strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly
disagree). The questions included affect (whether or not they enjoyed reading online), self-report
of their own behavior (how often they had to look up words), and prior knowledge (how much
they knew about Neruda). After completing the questionnaire and going to the next page, the
students were thanked for their participation and could leave.
Hypertext-reading condition. Directions in this condition told students that they would be able to

click on words during the article to see their English meaning. They were asked to not use a print
dictionary. They next received the same three-page article. The only difference from the reading-
only condition was that 120 of the more important words or phrases could be clicked on, in
which case their meaning (within the context of the article) appeared in English in the upper-
right corner of the screen. After the article they received the same five short-essay questions.
They then received the questionnaire with the four questions common to all conditions and one
additional question asking how much they liked the glossing feature.
Practice-before-reading condition. Directions in this condition told students that they would
begin with an activity introducing the article’s critical vocabulary. They were told (like the
reading-only condition) that they could use a print Spanish-English dictionary while reading.
They next received a page showing the 40 critical vocabulary words and phrases and their
English meanings. The meanings given were identical to what appeared as glosses for the
students who received glosses. After that page students received a practice activity in which each
of the words was presented and they were required to type the English meaning. If answered
correctly, a word was not asked again. If answered incorrectly, a word was repeated three items
later. If a word was answered incorrectly during the last two items of the practice activity, some
of the other words (which had been correctly answered on previous occasions) were used to pad
the list. After the 40 words were correctly answered, students received the same three-page
article as for the other conditions. They did not receive hypertext glosses. After the article they
received the same five short-essay questions as the other conditions. They next received the
questionnaire with the four questions common to all conditions and one additional question
about how much they thought the vocabulary practice helped them in reading the article.
Practice-plus-hypertext condition. Directions in this condition told students they would begin
with an activity introducing the article’s critical vocabulary and that they would be able to click
on words during the article to see their English meaning. They were asked to not use a print
dictionary. They received the vocabulary display page and practice activity as in the practice-
before-reading condition followed by the same three-page article. Like the hypertext-reading
condition, the 120 identified words and phrases could be clicked to see glosses. After the article
they received the same five short-essay questions as all the other conditions. They then received
the questionnaire with the four questions common to all conditions and two additional questions
about how much they liked the hypertext feature (the same as was given to students in the
hypertext-reading condition) and how much they thought the vocabulary practice helped them in
reading the article (the same as was given to students in the practice-before-reading condition).
Data Analysis
Online data recording and retrieval. While students worked, the program recorded all their
activities in a formatted text file. Every line of this file included a time stamp and a description
of the activity (e.g., entering or leaving a page of the article). Events recorded included starting
and ending the program, starting and ending the vocabulary list, starting and ending the
prereading practice activity, each practice item presented and the answer given by the student,
starting and ending each page of the article, each hypertext (glossed) word clicked upon, words
clicked upon which did not have glosses, starting and ending each essay question, the typed
answer given to each essay question, starting and ending the questionnaire, and the choice

clicked for each questionnaire item (including changing one’s mind and clicking a new choice).
In addition to the above event data, each text file recorded the experimental condition and the
number of the computer used by the student. Nothing identifying the student (name or university
ID number) was stored. The text files were formatted allowing them to be retrieved by a word
processor (to print and grade the typed essay answers), a spreadsheet (to read times and other
objective data for analysis), and a preprocessing program created by the researchers to prepare
the data for the primary statistical analysis using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS). Preanalysis processing included, for example, counting the number of hypertext clicks
and summing the total time spent reading.
Objective data preparation. The spreadsheet and preprocessing program generated a file with
objective information for each participant including their condition, time in various parts of the
activity, number of appropriate and inappropriate hypertext clicks, and final questionnaire
choices.
Reading performance test scoring. For each of the five essay questions a scoring key was created.
The scoring key identified the primary correct idea units (those present in the article) and
possible incorrect idea units (those reflecting misunderstanding or mistranslation of idea units in
the article). The first four essay questions (on specific topics) had 4–7 correct idea units and the
same 14 incorrect idea units, which had been compiled during a prior reading of all the students’
responses. The fifth essay question (which asked students to type anything they could remember)
had a longer list of 35 correct idea units and the same 14 incorrect idea units. These keys were
used to score each student’s essay questions, assigning each student a number correct and a
number incorrect for each of the five questions. Both researchers (the authors) performed blind
scoring of all responses by all students and discussed score differences so as to come to
agreement. These numbers, plus the total correct and incorrect, were added to the objective data
file. The data were analyzed with a univariate analysis of variance, using SPSS.
Results
Reading Performance
A completely crossed 2 × 2 (Glossing During Reading for the First Factor × Prereading Practice
for the Second Factor) analysis of variance was performed on the total number of correct idea
units given (across all five questions). Reading-only students had a mean of 10.35 idea units (n =
23, SD = 6.7), hypertext-reading students had a mean of 15.53 idea units (n = 19, SD = 5.41),
practice-before-reading students had a mean of 10.0 idea units (n = 16, SD = 5.38), and practice-
plus-hypertext students had a mean of 13.06 idea units (n = 18, SD = 6.73). The main factor of
glossing was significant, F(1, 72) = 8.39, MS = 316.58, p < .005, indicating that students who
were able to click on words for their meaning performed significantly better. Neither the main
factor of prereading practice nor the interaction of the two factors was significant for this
dependent variable. Thus, Null Hypothesis 2 was rejected, but Null Hypotheses 1 and 3 were not.
During-reading vocabulary assistance appeared to be the most beneficial treatment with regard to
reading comprehension.

The same analysis was performed on the five essay questions individually. Three of the five
questions (1, 3, and 5) were significant at better than the .05 level for the main effect of hypertext
glossing, with students receiving hypertext glossing performing better.
For students who received glossing, we performed a Pearson Correlation between the number of
times students looked up word meanings (that is, clicked on words) and the total number of idea
units reported. The correlation (r = .305) was not significant at the .05 level, but was close to it
(n = 37, p = .066). This suggests, albeit tentatively, that the more students looked up words, the
more they understood about the article.
Study Time
The same 2 × 2 analysis of variance was performed on the time spent reading the article and the
combined time spent both practicing the vocabulary before reading and then reading the article.
For reading the article alone, reading-only students spent a mean of 653 seconds reading the
article (n = 23, SD = 394), hypertext-reading students spent a mean of 631 seconds reading the
article (n = 19, SD = 202), practice-before-reading students spent a mean of 385 seconds reading
the article (n = 16, SD = 212), and practice-plus-hypertext students spent a mean of 371 seconds
reading the article (n = 18, SD = 191). The main factor of prereading practice was significant,
F(1, 72) = 17.165, MS = 1,296,224, p < .001, indicating that students who had done the
prereading practice read the article significantly faster. Neither the main factor of glossing nor
the interaction of the two factors was significant for this dependent variable. Thus, Null
Hypothesis 4 was rejected, but Null Hypotheses 5 and 6 were not. Prereading assistance
appeared to be the most beneficial treatment with regard to article reading time. However, the
importance of this result is tempered by the next analysis.
For the time spent in both the prereading activity plus reading the article the results were the
opposite. Reading-only students spent a mean of 653 seconds overall (n = 23, SD = 394), and
hypertext-reading students spent a mean of 631 seconds overall (n = 19, SD = 202). Practice-
before-reading students spent a mean of 1,345 seconds overall (n = 16, SD = 305), and practice-
plus-hypertext students spent a mean of 1,245 seconds overall (n = 18, SD = 369). The main
factor of prereading practice was significant, F(1, 72) = 73.122, MS = 7,981,458, p < .001,
indicating that students who had done the prereading practice spent significantly more time in the
combination of prereading and reading activities. Neither the main factor of glossing nor the
interaction of the two factors was significant for this dependent variable.
Questionnaire Responses
On the first question, difficulty of the article, all students in all conditions found the article
moderately difficult (M = 2.45 on a 1–4 Likert scale).
On the second question, how much they had to look up vocabulary words (whether online or
offline), all students in all conditions did so moderately (M = 2.11 on a 1–4 Likert scale).
On the third question, how much they liked the online vocabulary help (hypertext glossing),
which was only asked of students who received glossing, the students who only received

glossing liked it significantly more (M = 1.05, n = 19, SD = .23) than students who received both
glossing and prereading practice (M = 1.94, n = 18, SD = .94) on a 1–4 Likert scale, F(1, 35) =
16.191, MS = 7.351, p < .001.
On the fourth question, how much they thought the prereading vocabulary activity helped them,
which was only asked of students who received that prereading activity, all students (whether
they received glossing or not) thought it helped moderately (M = 2.0 on a 1–4 Likert scale).
On the fifth question, comparing the interactive reading to reading a regular book, there was a
significant main effect for glossing and a significant interaction. Control students had a mean of
2.35 on a 1–4 Likert scale (n = 23, SD = .775), hypertext-reading students had a mean of 1.42 (n
= 19, SD = .838), practice-before-reading students had a mean of 1.94 (n = 16, SD = .443), and
practice-plus-hypertext students had a mean of 1.72 (n = 18, SD = .895). The main effect for
glossing was significant, F(1, 72) = 10.342, MS = 6.09, p < .003. The interaction was significant,
F(1, 72) = 4.014, MS = 2.364, p < .05. Overall, students receiving hypertext glossing liked online
reading more than students who did not receive glossing. The significant interaction was
produced because that effect (favoring hypertext glossing) was much more pronounced for
students who did not have the prereading vocabulary practice. Students who did receive the
prereading vocabulary practice had a much smaller effect for hypertext glossing. That is, they
only liked having it a little more than not having it.
On the sixth question, prior familiarity with the poet Neruda, all students in all groups were
equally unfamiliar with him (M = 3.5 on a 1–4 Likert scale). We had chosen a topic we hoped
and expected students would not have prior knowledge of, and this confirmed our expectation.
Discussion
Comparing the two techniques in this study, prereading vocabulary assistance (the practice
activity) and during-reading vocabulary assistance (hypertext glossing), the latter was clearly
more effective. The hypertext glossing had significant positive impact on reading performance
even though participants did not have access to regular dictionaries, and without significantly
affecting the time to read.
On the other hand, the prereading assistance showed mixed results. It did appear to shorten
reading time without affecting reading performance significantly, which would itself seem good;
but that is only true if we measure reading time of the article alone. If we include the time spent
studying the vocabulary, the total time in the lesson is significantly increased by the prereading
activity. On the one hand, reading itself may be a little more efficient, but on the other hand
overall study time is less efficient, requiring more time without improved comprehension.
A concern is that the condition that combined both prereading and during-reading vocabulary
assistance demonstrated slightly worse reading performance (though it was not a significant
difference) than the condition with during-reading vocabulary assistance alone. One should not
overinterpret a nonsignificant difference, but what might account for this if the difference is real
(that is, if it were to be shown significant with a greater number of participants)? One possibility

is that the combination of two types of vocabulary assistance imposed too much cognitive load
and thus detracted from the cognitive processing available for reading comprehension. This
particular prereading vocabulary exercise was considerably more effortful than just looking at
new vocabulary words or being told a little about the context, both of which are more common
prereading activities in second language classrooms and textbooks. Students who had the
prereading practice might have been growing weary and becoming eager to finish the entire
activity. That is supported by the fact that overall time (prereading and reading) was slightly less
for the condition with both types of assistance than for the condition with just prereading
assistance (although that contrast was not significant either). It is also supported by the responses
to the fourth questionnaire item. Students who only received hypertext glossing liked it much
more than students who received both hypertext glossing and the prereading activity.
The greater benefit of the during-reading vocabulary assistance (hypertext glossing) is also
supported by the data from the fifth questionnaire item. In that question, students were asked to
compare online reading to regular books. Students who received hypertext glossing rated online
reading better than regular books significantly more than students who did not receive hypertext
glossing, and students who only received hypertext glossing rated online reading the best of them
all, as evidenced by the interaction.
Theoretical Implications
The contention of schema theory that prereading activities activate learners’ relevant schemata
(background knowledge relevant to the reading selection) is not supported by our results.
Schema theory would predict a benefit for reading comprehension and not for time. Quite the
opposite was found. The prereading activity did not improve reading performance, it only
reduced reading time and only if we do not count the prereading activity itself as part of the
reading time. One might maintain, however, that our particular prereading activity emphasized
vocabulary practice in a way that is less likely to activate schemata than, for example, providing
some cultural context for the reading selection or presenting vocabulary that activates learners’
own cultural knowledge in a way relevant to that of the reading selection.
In contrast to the lack of support for schema activation through prereading activities, our results
do support and add to findings of the practical effects of during-reading vocabulary assistance
(e.g., Taylor, 2006), the effect of cognitive-load reduction (Sweller, 2005) and are consistent
with several studies (De Ridder, 2002; Ko, 2005; Lomicka, 1998) providing empirical evidence
that hypertext glossing facilitates L2 reading.
Practical Implications
For teachers and designers of instructional materials we have both good news and bad news.
During-reading support may be more effective than prereading support, but it is currently more
difficult to implement. Prereading activities (a list of vocabulary, a cultural orientation given
orally) can be easily created and delivered by teachers and can be used for any type of reading
material, whether it is in a book or on a computer.
In contrast, during-reading activities such as hypertext glossing are only practical when reading

on a computer, and they demand a level of technical development (such as creating a glossing
utility and connecting it to appropriate vocabulary) that most teachers would find difficult.
During-reading vocabulary assistance clearly finds more support in research studies, but its
practical application is dependent on two things. First, more reading materials must become
available online. Second, programs must be developed that generate hypertext vocabulary
assistance automatically for any electronic text.
We are on a good trajectory for the first to occur. More and more reading material is available
online. That is not the same, however, as students reading the material online. Many readers still
prefer to print electronic texts and read them on paper, which obviates hypertext support.
Although academic texts are quickly going electronic, the movement of students toward being
comfortable with reading on line is occurring a little more slowly. That may change (i.e.,
students may be much more willing to read on line) if online texts provide beneficial features
that paper texts do not. More students will be willing to read online texts (rather than print them)
if they get additional benefits not available with the print materials.
There is also progress towards programs that automatically provide hypertext support in
electronic texts. Providing glosses with basic word translation is fairly easy, but there will be
greater benefit in programs that can automatically generate the context-sensitive support most
hypertext glossing programs provide. That will require more intelligent programming that
incorporates some degree of language understanding, enough to determine context and thus
select and present glosses that are truly helpful to readers.
Limitations of the Study
In the Method section we discussed the need to balance realism, control, and statistical power. In
one instance we choose to compromise realism (the prereading activity is much longer and more
intensive than most textbook or classroom prereading activities) to benefit power. In another
instance we choose to compromise control (providing bilingual dictionaries only to the students
who did not receive glossing) to benefit realism. However, the first instance turned out to
compromise not only realism but also control. The data indicate that students spent considerably
more time in the conditions with prereading assistance. That confuses the issue of whether
reading was really more efficient (equal learning in less time) or not. Furthermore, the effort
required to complete the prereading vocabulary practice may have caused fatigue and,
subsequently, diminished reading effort and performance. Perhaps just presenting our vocabulary
list would have been equally effective. That would be a worthwhile follow up study. Not only
would it be less time consuming and less likely to fatigue students, but it would be more like the
prereading activities of real textbooks and classrooms.
Conclusion
This study contrasted prereading vocabulary assistance (presenting and practicing new
vocabulary) and during-reading vocabulary assistance (hypertext glosses). During-reading
assistance proved more valuable as it significantly improved reading comprehension and
students liked that assistance the most. The effect of prereading assistance was mixed. If one

only considers the time to read the article, prereading assistance significantly decreased reading
time without affecting comprehension. On the other hand, if we consider the combined time of
both the prereading activity plus reading the article, prereading assistance significantly increased
the time, thus lowering overall efficiency.
The greatest benefit will likely accrue from combining glossing and automated processing of text.
Because hypertext glossing is clearly effective (as demonstrated not only in this study but many
others) and students like it, techniques for automatically generating hypertext glosses for
arbitrary L2 texts would be very beneficial. Software development towards that goal would be
welcomed by L2 learners as well as effective in improving their reading comprehension.
References
Ajideh, P. (2006). Schema-theory based considerations on pre-reading activities in ESP

textbooks. The Asian EFL Journal Teaching Articles, 16, 1–19.
Aust, R., Kelley, M. J., & Roby, W. (1993). The use of hyper-reference and conventional
dictionaries. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(4), 63–73.
Cook, G. (1989). Discourse (Language teaching: A scheme for teacher education). Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
De Ridder, I. (2002). Visible or invisible links: Does the highlighting of hyperlinks affect
incidental vocabulary learning, text comprehension, and the reading process? Language
Learning & Technology, 6, 123–146.
Gettys, S., Imhof, L. A., & Kautz, J. O. (2001). Computer-assisted reading: The effect of
glossing format on comprehension and vocabulary retention. Foreign Language Annals,
34, 91–106.
Hunt, A., & Beglar, D. (2005). A framework for developing EFL reading vocabulary. Reading in
a Foreign Language, 17, 23–59.
Jacobs, G. M., Dufon, P., & Hong, F. C. (1994). L1 and L2 vocabulary glosses in L2 reading
passages: Their effectiveness for increasing comprehension and vocabulary knowledge.
Journal of Research in Reading, 17, 19–28.
Knight, S. (1994). Dictionary use while reading: The effects on comprehension and vocabulary
acquisition for students of different verbal abilities. The Modern Language Journal, 78,
285–299.
Ko, M. H. (2005). Glosses, comprehension, and strategy use. Reading in a Foreign Language, 17,
125–143.
Liontas, J. I. (2001). Reading and multimedia annotations: Going beyond bells and whistles, hot
links and pop-up windows. IALL Journal of Language Learning Technologies, 33(1), 53–
78.
Lomicka, L. L. (1998). “To gloss or not to gloss”: An investigation of reading comprehension
online. Language Learning & Technology, 1, 41–50.
Pichert, J. W., & Anderson, R. C. (1977). Taking different perspectives on a story. Journal of
Roby, W. B. (1999). “What’s in a gloss?” Language Learning & Technology, 2, 94–101.
Romero-Ghiretti, G., White, V., Berg, B., Quintana, D. R., Grayson, B. L., & Weng, M. (2007).
Research and theory driven insights: Ten suggestions for L2 reading instruction. The

Reading Matrix, 7(3), 44–54.

Rott, S. (2005). Processing glosses: A qualitative exploration of how form-meaning connections
are established and strengthened. Reading in a Foreign Language, 17, 95–124.
Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer
(Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19–30). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, A. (2006). Factors associated with glossing: Comments on Ko (2005). Reading in a
Appendix A
The following three screen shots show the three pages of the article. The third page also demonstrates the
appearance of a hypertext gloss, in this case for the word suelo in the second to last line. The first and
second pages have a small letter D in the upper-right corner, indicating to the researchers that those
students are allowed use of print dictionaries. The student who received glosses (the third page) was not
allowed use of a print dictionary.


Appendix B
The screen shot below shows the forty Spanish words presented and practiced in the prereading
vocabulary activity.
Appendix C
Below are the five short-essay questions given to students after reading. Questions were displayed one per
computer page and students typed their answers in English.
Why was the trip done on a train?

What was Neruda’s relationship to the sea?
Describe Neruda’s house on Isla Negra.
Why is Neruda revered in Chile?
Please type a summary of the newspaper article.
Appendix D
The screen shot below shows the questionnaire. Items 1, 2, 5 and 6 were seen by students in all conditions.
Item 3 was only seen by students receiving during-reading hypertext assistance. Item 4 was only seen by
students receiving prereading vocabulary practice. This particular screen, with all six items, was seen by
students in the practice-plus-hypertext condition. Strongly agree was scored as 1, agree as 2, disagree as

3, and strongly disagree as 4.
About the Authors
Stephen Alessi is an associate professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Iowa.

His teaching and research emphasize the application of cognitive learning theory to the design of
educational software and online instruction. He is coauthor (with Stanley Trollip) of Multimedia
for Learning: Methods and Development. For further information, see www.stevealessi.com
E-mail: steve-alessi@uiowa.edu
Angelique Dwyer is a PhD candidate in the Department of Spanish and Portuguese at the
University of Iowa. Her doctoral dissertation is on female performers of Greater Mexico and
identity politics within a transnational context. Her research engages current work in border
studies, performance studies, and identity studies. E-mail: angelique-dwyer@uiowa.edu

ISSN 1539-0578 pp. 264–268
Reviewed work:
Inside Reading: The Academic Word List in Context.

(2009). Cheryl Boyd Zimmerman (Series Ed.). New
York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 744. ISBN:
9780194416122. $28.95
Reviewed by
Averil Coxhead, Margaret Gari, and Matella
Urakowi
Massey University
New Zealand
http://www.oup.com
The Inside Reading: The Academic Word List in Context series comprises four textbooks with
CDs and four instructor packs with test-making software. The series editor is Cheryl Boyd
Zimmerman. The series is attractively presented and focuses on the connection between reading
and learning academic vocabulary, in this case the Academic Word List (AWL; Coxhead, 2000).
The AWL is a list of 570 word families that occur with reasonable frequency across a broad
range of academic subjects, such as biology, history, and accounting. The list is useful for
English for Academic Purposes (EAP) students and is divided into 10 sublists, with the 60 most
frequent families of the list in Sublist 1, the next most frequent in Sublist 2, and so on. For more
on the AWL, go to http://language.massey.ac.nz/staff/awl/index.shtml or see Coxhead (2000,
2006) or Nation (2001).
Inside Reading integrates findings from studies on second language reading (e.g., Carrell, Devine,
& Eskey, 1988; Koda, 2005), vocabulary (Coxhead, 2000; Nation, 2001; Laufer, 2005; Schmitt
& Zimmerman, 2002), and second language reading and vocabulary combined (Laufer, 1992)
into carefully presented and well-organised units of work. The introductory unit for teachers at
the beginning of each book clearly discusses and illustrates connections between applied
linguistics research findings, teachers, learners, and the series. The readings provide useful
contexts for the target vocabulary with a slant mostly towards U.S. topics.
Coxhead et al.: Review of the book Inside Reading 265
The series is organised logically and follows similar approaches even though each book has a
different author: Book 1 is written by Arline Burgmeier, Book 2 by Lawrence Zwier, Book 3 by
Bruce Rubin, and Book 4 by Kent Richmond. Each unit contains two readings and follows
roughly the same organisation: introduction of target words, self-rating of current levels of
knowledge of these words, prereading questions, a reading of approximately two pages, reading
comprehension, a reading strategy, and word and sentence level vocabulary work. The second
reading is also followed by a discussion of the content of the readings, and then a list of related
topics for writing and/or discussion. Some words from the readings are glossed, but the
principles behind the selection of the glossed words are not clear. We also noticed that the
reading strategies sometimes changed order in some units to allow for different strategies to be
practised. For example, Unit 4 of Book 2 has a prereading strategy for the second reading.
Another activity—making an outline of a reading that highlights the main points and details—in
the same unit requires students to find an example of an outline on the Internet rather than
providing an example in the text. Both these activities needed explanations—for the change in
the first instance and the need to find an online outline (rather than in the book itself) in the
second.
The range of reading strategies, including skimming, scanning, predicting, reading graphs and
tables, identifying definitions, and finding main ideas, is quite wide and appears in different
books within the series. For example, previewing is found in Books 1, 2, and 3, whereas
skimming occurs in all four books. According to the Unit Tour, which explains the organisation
and purpose of the contents of the units in the books, “readings [in the series] represent a variety
of genres: newspapers, magazines, websites, press releases, encyclopedias, and books” (p. xi).
We thought that the series provided a wide range of very interesting topics, such as readings
about child prodigies in Book 2, debates in literature, such as whether Shakespeare penned his
own plays, in Book 2, and stories of migrants to the US in Book 3. High interest readings are
important to us because we are writing this review as EAP students and an EAP lecturer. For
each of these topics there was also a solid amount of reading appropriate to the levels. The
readings are comprehensible and are surrounded by plenty of white space, which is easy on the
eyes. Pictures and illustrations that are relevant to the readings are included in the units.
We were concerned that at times the texts were not clearly referenced and did not seem to be
very representative of academic reading at the undergraduate level, at least from our experience
in a New Zealand university context. For example, there were 13 AWL words in the first reading
in Unit 10, Book 1, out of approximately 800 words. We analysed the first two paragraphs of this
reading and found that out of the 177 running words, 8 were from the AWL. This figure means
that the number of AWL words in the text is approximately 5 every 100 words. This number
contrasts with Coxhead’s (2000) finding that the AWL covered roughly 10% of the words in a
corpus of 3,500,000 running words of written academic English. That is, roughly 10 AWL words
occur every 100 words. In addition, long noun phrases that seem to characterise academic
writing (Coxhead & Byrd, 2007) do not appear often in the readings. Here is an example from
the reading mentioned earlier in this paragraph (the bolding represents the first occurrence of an
AWL target word in the reading):
For more of human history, humans have had to live with the body that nature gave them.
They lacked the knowledge to improve eyes that couldn’t see clearly, or help ears that

couldn’t hear. Such disabilities were more than an inconvenience for early humans; they
were a threat to their existence. A person with impaired vision might not be able to hunt or
work with tools, for example. Over time, the incentive to survive led people to develop
devices that would fix the errors in their own bodies (Burgmeier, 2009, p. 128).
We understand that the conflict between providing high interest readings that can provide both
lexical instruction and practice for reading strategies can be difficult to manage. The primary aim
of connecting reading and vocabulary is well achieved in this series, however.
The words of the AWL are approached in a serious and well principled way. Each 14 page unit
presents 15 words from the AWL and the words are practised and recycled. In Unit 4 of Book 2,
for example, protocol is a target word and is presented at least 20 times: once in a list, twice in
reading texts, six times in a meaning-based exercise, three times in a collocation exercise, three
times in explanations, twice in rubrics, and once each in exercises such as choosing the odd word
out in a group of words, a reading comprehension question, and a sentence level vocabulary task.
Another target word in the same unit, accumulate, occurs eight times in various ways. The
vocabulary is treated very carefully within the units and students are encouraged to work on
different aspects of knowing a word, both at word and sentence level. The books also encourage
learners to consult their dictionaries. The authors focused on Nation’s (2001, p. 29) description
of lexical knowledge, that is form, meaning, and use, and made these concepts come alive
through clear examples and plenty of practice. It is clear that Zimmerman’s (2008) new book,
Word Knowledge, informed the development of this series, as did her earlier work on the benefits
of reading and interactive vocabulary instruction (Zimmerman, 1997) and learner knowledge
about derivative word forms (Schmitt & Zimmerman, 2002).
The end-of-unit reflection on what the students know about the target word compared to what
they knew before is very helpful. The AWL words are listed alphabetically at the end of each
book, with the AWL sublist number listed next to each word along with the corresponding book
and unit number. We felt this index would be very helpful for students and teachers, but a
comparison across the books shows there is little repetition of words between units and books.
Also, the reasons for the ordering of the words across the books are not obvious. For example,
we noted that notwithstanding from Sublist 10 of the AWL is a target word in Book 2, but
research and require from Sublist 1 (the most frequent 60 words of the AWL) appear in Book 4.
The final sections of each unit provide writing and discussion activities, from online research
projects through to writing prompts. We were not sure what the teacher and the students should
do with the target vocabulary at this point. For example, Unit 7 on page 98 of Book 1 asks us to
“think about all of the fast-food restaurants you have visited. In what ways are they the same?
What are some differences?” Perhaps we missed the point of the activity and were looking for
more guidance than we needed at this late stage in the unit.
We all liked the CDs from the student books. We found them easy to work with and thought that
students would enjoy doing some self-study on a computer. The presentation and quality were
extremely professional. The CDs allow students to focus on the AWL words in different ways
through gapfills and reflection on the words and their uses. These exercises were helpful for
learning, although in some places in the world, such as Papua New Guinea, where two of the
authors of this review work, access to computers can be limited. Very helpfully, the instructor’s

pack CD includes an answer key and a test generator. Teachers can customise the test questions
to their class by choosing from a range of questions on target lexis and readings. This innovative
use of technology would be interesting to explore with several teachers working in different
classes to see if they selected similar or different questions from the CD for their classes.
Overall, we found that this series met its aims in supporting teachers and learners to develop
their knowledge and understanding of the connection between reading and vocabulary. We
would recommend Inside Reading to students and teachers working in classrooms, especially in
the U.S. context. In particular, we felt it would be most suitable for students who are at the
beginning of their preparation for undergraduate studies.
References
Burgmeier, A. (2009). Inside reading: The academic word list in context (Book 1). Cheryl Boyd
Zimmerman (Series Ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Carrell, P., Devine, J., & Eskey, D. (1988). Interactive approaches to second language reading.
Coxhead, A. (2000). An academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213–238.
Coxhead, A. (2006). Essentials of teaching academic vocabulary. Boston, MA: Heinle.
Coxhead, A., & Byrd, P. (2007). Preparing writing teachers to teach the vocabulary and grammar
of academic prose. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 129–147.
Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Laufer, B. (1992). Reading in a foreign language: How does L2 lexical knowledge interact with
the reader’s general academic ability? Journal of Research in Reading, 15, 95–103.
Laufer, B. (2005). Instructed second language vocabulary learning: The fault in the ‘default
hypothesis’. In A. Housen & M. Pierar (Eds.), Investigations in instructed second
language acquisition (pp 286–303). New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
Schmitt, N., & Zimmerman, C. B. (2002). Derivative word forms: What do learners know?
TESOL Quarterly, 36, 145–171.
Zimmerman, C. B. (1997). Do reading and interactive vocabulary instruction make a difference?
An empirical study. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 121–140.
Zimmerman, C. B. (2008). Word knowledge. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
About the Reviewers
Averil Coxhead is a lecturer in English for Academic Purposes and Applied Linguistics in the
School of Language Studies, Massey University, New Zealand.
E-mail: a.coxhead@massey.ac.nz

Margaret Gari is a Rural Development Officer with the Department of Agriculture, Livestock, &
Fisheries in Papua New Guinea. She is undertaking study in Agribusiness at Massey University.
E-mail: margaretgari@yahoo.com
Matella Urakowi is a Registered Nurse and Health and Community Development Trainer in
Papua New Guinea. She is undertaking Health Science study at Massey University. E-mail:
murakowi@yahoo.com

ISSN 1539-0578 pp. 269–272
Reviewed work:
Academic Reading (5th ed.). (2004). Kathleen T.

McWhorter. Boston, MA: Pearson Longman.
Pp. 540. ISBN 0321104242. $68.00
Reviewed by
Kyae-Sung Park
United States
http://www.pearsoned.com/
Academic Reading encompasses general learning and reading strategies and critical thinking
skills, which are essential for college students to be successful in academics. The most notable
feature of its content is a focus on adapting those skills and strategies to field-specific demands
in six academic disciplines: social sciences, business, humanities and the arts, mathematics,
natural sciences, and technical and applied fields.
The book is presented in four units: Fundamental Reading Strategies (Part 1, chapters 1–3),
Critical Reading Strategies (Part 2, chapters 4–6), Academic Reading Strategies (Part 3, chapters
7–12), and Strategies for Specific Disciplines (Part 4, chapters 13–18). The sequence of the
content is based on the author’s adoption of Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive skills. This
taxonomy classifies the required learning and reading skills and strategies for students from
lower- to higher-level skills and from general learning and reading skills to more specific ones.
Within such a framework, the fundamental reading strategies at a lower level, outlined in the first
part of the book, deal with the recognition and recall of specific facts such as identifying main
ideas and supporting details and recognizing words using context clues and word parts. Moving
from the basic reading skills to the more complex thinking level, the second part (critical reading
strategies) includes evaluating the author’s message, techniques, and arguments. The third part is
concerned with higher-level academic reading skills required in research and study as well as
Park: Review of the book Academic Reading 270
general ones: recognizing patterns of academic thought, identifying textbook formats and
features, reading graphics, searching and evaluating online sources, using writing as a vehicle of
learning, and evaluating and synthesizing research materials. The final part provides students
with opportunities to practice what they have learned from the previous parts of the text by
applying the skills and strategies to their course work.
Among the many virtues of the book are a variety of features that aid students in learning more
efficiently. Each chapter commences with a list of summarized learning objectives, explicitly
addressing the goals to be achieved in the chapter. End-of-chapter summaries help students to
review and refresh their memories about the content. The book also makes it possible for
students to review what they learn throughout the text by pulling study tips together in an
appendix showing factors of academic success at the end of the last chapter. Along with an end-
of-book glossary, all these features enhance the effectiveness of the text by allowing students to
conveniently access a summary of information that is scattered throughout the text.
The most prominent feature of the book is that it encourages students to familiarize themselves
with the use of electronic sources by providing web activities and website links: “multimedia
activities” introduces two online activities at the end of each chapter, and “multimedia
applications” contains a list of useful curriculum-specific websites in the six disciplines at the
end of each chapter in Part 4. These two kinds of follow-up activities guide students to apply the
skills they learned in each chapter, which reinforces their learning and extends their knowledge
through supplementary materials that are accessible electronically. In addition, they allow
students to read authentic materials that are current and regularly updated on the Internet, making
up for the limitations of materials in print form that soon become outdated.
Other valuable features of the book are the ample and varied reading selections and exercises,
which make it an effective resource. It contains a wide variety of reading passages excerpted
from authentic college textbooks and relevant academic sources. Note that in the 5th edition, a
great deal of the original out-of-date materials have been replaced with materials published in the
early 2000s. The lengths of the passages vary from one paragraph to several pages according to
the purposes and type of activities. Within-chapter passages are tailored to lengths appropriate to
the student’s purpose in practicing the reading and study skills presented in the chapter. Three- to
five-page end-of-chapter reading selections, each accompanied by a vocabulary learning task,
questions for both simple comprehension skills and higher-order critical thinking skills, and a
task for applying strategies are suitable ways for students to integrate all of the reading and
learning skills that they encounter in the chapter.
Exercises throughout the book comprise various types of activities, such as pair work and group
work, which facilitate collaborative learning as well as individual work. Students can interact
with each other as they apply, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate the skills and strategies they
learn in a chapter, while also individually accessing the reading and initiating their
comprehension of the passages and problems. In addition, the exercises allow diverse ways of
responding, from written to oral forms and from closed to open answers, encouraging students to
interact with the author and text by predicting, questioning, and analyzing concepts and also with
peers by discussing, comparing, and evaluating each others’ ideas.

As such, the book primarily takes an interactive approach, focusing on the interaction between
readers as well as between the reader and the author or text. This approach serves as an
underlying theoretical basis. Concurrently, the notion of schema is assumed to be crucial in
reading and learning: students are encouraged to build their knowledge in their own course work
step by step. For example, the text familiarizes students with the common academic patterns of
thought prevalent in the six academic disciplines and directs them to the field-specific texts that
illustrate these patterns. By laying out reading and learning skills consistently in sequence from
the lower level to the higher level and repeating an identical chapter format, the organization of
the textbook reinforces students’ systematic learning and provides predictability. In addition, the
book emphasizes the role of writing as a vehicle of reading and learning, devoting an entire
chapter to the subject of using writing for reading and learning.
Despite all the positive values of the book, it has some limitations. First, although its target
audience is college students, presumably freshmen, and its purpose is to improve their reading
skills specifically in academic disciplines, the book does not necessarily have to include purely
academically oriented reading selections throughout. Such a selection can cause difficulties in
maintaining students’ focus and decrease their motivation for and interest in reading. Also, in
dealing with vocabulary and other fundamental skills in Part 2, the book focuses on the receptive
level of vocabulary learning through reading. Given that the book views reading and writing as
an interactive process, however, readers would expect it to delve into strategies to develop
vocabulary in terms of depth as well as breadth at a productive level. In addition, except for the
end-of-reading selections accompanied by a brief vocabulary review, the other parts of the book
do not consider vocabulary learning. This gap could be filled by adding some relevant and
meaningful activities for vocabulary learning throughout.
In addition to the lack of sufficient vocabulary learning skills and exercises, grammar is notably
not dealt with in this book. Possibly, the author did not see a need to emphasize the role of
syntactic structure in reading or the audience is expected to be native speakers of English, who
have already reached a level of proficiency that requires no further grammar instruction. Finally,
some skills could be rearranged to increase the efficiency of learning; for example, reading rate
in chapter 2 could be combined with skimming and scanning in chapter 12.
McWhorter’s Academic Reading explicitly presents skills and strategies of academia, not only
for reading but also for general learning, that are in harmony with a wealth of reading selections
and exercises and a variety of learning features and activities. Although its organization is in part
controversial, on the whole, it serves as a useful guidebook for both native and advanced
nonnative English-speaking college students who need to prepare for the challenge of university
study and ultimate success in the academic world.
About the Reviewer
Kyae-Sung Park is a PhD student in the Department of Second Language Studies at the
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa. She has been teaching ESL reading and writing at the English
Language Institute. Her principal research interests are formal approaches to first and second

language acquisition within the generative grammar framework. E-mail:

estellar97@hotmail.com

ISSN 1539-0578 pp. 273–277
Reviewed work:
Teaching Second Language Reading. (2007). Thom

Hudson. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 350.
ISBN 9780194422833. $26.75
Reviewed by
Sue Ollerhead
Macquarie University
Australia
http://www.oup.com
Teaching Second Language Reading by Thom Hudson purports, according to the back-cover
description, to be “a useful handbook for both beginning and experienced teachers who want to
improve their practical strategies in teaching second language reading and their understanding of
the reading process.”
During my career as a teacher of English as a foreign language to students ranging from

elementary to university level, I would certainly have rejoiced at the discovery of such a book. I
would have been particularly attracted to the claim on the back cover that the book would
explore in detail the myriad approaches, strategies, and methods used to teach reading. From a
classroom teacher’s point of view, it would have seemed that at last I was being provided with a
veritable manual on how to tackle the very complex and challenging task for second language
teachers, experienced or otherwise, of teaching reading.
Unfortunately, the publisher’s blurb is at odds with the core content of the book. The reader
encounters not so much a “handbook” (to use the actual term in the blurb) brimming with
practical hints and evidence of what works in second language reading classrooms, but rather
something akin to an extensive literature review of research studies conducted on multiple
aspects of the reading process.
Ollerhead: Review of the book Teaching Second Language Reading 274
In order to gain a more accurate sense of the book’s contents, one would be better off starting at
the back, where a perusal of the bibliography reveals 38 pages of cited sources, 471 entries, to be
exact. This, in my opinion, is where the true significance of the book lies: for in analysing,
condensing, and collating decades’ worth of reading research studies, Hudson gives readers a
chronological overview of the development of reading research, thereby enabling them to
identify the emergence and growth of key research trends in the field. The studies cited range
from approaches as diverse as Carroll’s (1964, p. 62) bottom-up view of reading as “the activity
of reconstructing … a reasonable spoken message from a printed text” to the new literacy
approaches that view the act of reading as an inherently social practice embedded in specific
contexts, discourses, and positions (Street, 1993; Prinsloo & Breier, 1996).
That is not to say that the book does not attempt to address instructional issues. Hudson does
present implications for instruction in response to the different research findings. However, these
are made explicit only in chapters relating to strategies and metacognitive skills (chapter 5),
formal schema (chapter 7), and the relationship between reading and writing (chapter 10). Also,
the instructional implications are often inconclusive in nature, such as “several studies at
different levels of instruction have indicated that first language instruction in text structure can
be effective in teaching discourse organisation” (p. 192). Otherwise, readers are left to sift
through the summaries and conclusions of each chapter to identify any significant suggestions
for classroom practice. While this may well be a function of the book’s design and organisation
of content, it could be argued that a book marketed as a tool to help teachers to reflect on and
improve their teaching methods would be enhanced by foregrounding the implications for
instruction that may be drawn from the relevant research.
In the same vein, the discussion activities and questions at the end of each chapter, while useful
in inviting readers to reflect on their own reading activities and their comprehension of the
research studies presented, seem to bear little relevance to concrete classroom practice. For
example, at the end of chapter 8 on genre and contrastive rhetoric, the reader is asked, “How
does Swales relate the six defining characteristics to be sufficient for identifying people as
members of discourse communities to the five criterial observations about genres?” (p. 225).
This question seems to have little if any link to the act of teaching reading; a task relating to the
application of genre theory and contrastive rhetoric in a typical second language reading
classroom would prove more practical for most teachers or teacher trainers.
Hudson structures the book in a way that reflects his view that reading skills can be broadly
categorised into word-attack skills (decoding skills), comprehension skills, fluency skills, and
critical reading skills. He takes as his point of departure a discussion of the salient issues
surrounding second language reading, which comprises a description of the reading process and
summarises the key prerequisites for effective reading. In my opinion, this is the most engaging
chapter, where the reader is invited to interact with various text types to explore the numerous
formats, tasks, and goals involved in the complex act of reading.
Hudson proceeds with a chronological summary of the development of models of first language
reading, affording readers a useful framework for the content of the chapters to follow. In
chapter 3, he examines the core issues in second language reading and discusses several second

language reading models. He goes on to emphasise the significant differences between first and
second language readers, which are crucial to understanding the influence of factors such as first
language literacy and age on second language reading performance (p. 290).
In chapter 4, the author critically challenges the conventional view of reading skills as being
hierarchically ordered and discrete, putting forward numerous research studies that lend weight
to the theory that reading skills are initiated and applied during the act of reading and are heavily
influenced by factors such as text purpose and content (p. 79).
In the ensuing chapter on strategies and metacognitive skills, Hudson makes the helpful
distinction between strategies as representing either a type of “repair action” (p. 293) or a more
subconscious action, such as monitoring and regulation. He cites numerous studies that indicate
the benefits of the explicit teaching of strategies and metacognitive skills to students, yet stresses
the need to examine such training in context as exemplars of strategy use, rather than presenting
them as dislocated lists of strategy types to be tried out on texts that have little significance to
students.
Chapters 6 and 7 deal respectively with content and formal schema. In chapter 6, Hudson
underscores the importance of the teacher’s role in understanding the cultural background of
second language students in order to develop an insight into how this can affect the way in which
they extract meaning from a text. Chapter 7 includes a useful and thorough summary of the
different types of methodology used to teach text structure. This leads well into the ensuing
chapter (chapter 8), which presents an extended discussion of the various teaching methods that
have been used to focus on text genre and contrastive rhetoric.
The subject of vocabulary (chapter 9) is approached from three different angles, affording the
reader a comprehensive understanding of its role in second language reading. Hudson addresses
in some detail the “breadth and depth” dimensions of vocabulary knowledge (p. 235) before
going on to cite research studies that explore the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and
comprehension. He then proceeds to explain how, although students can learn new vocabulary
both intentionally and incidentally, incidental acquisition requires the learner to experience many
different instances of the word; tools such as dictionaries and marginal glosses play a useful role
in this regard.
Chapter 10, which discusses the relationships between reading and writing, advocates the
combining of reading and writing in the teaching of literacy. This, according to the author,
prevents artificial distinctions being made between the two skills and affords the second
language student more “cross-learning opportunities” as well as serving to develop critical
thinking skills (p. 288).
Chapter 11 ties all of the abovementioned issues together in an extended discussion, which helps
the reader to retain an overall perspective of the core issues in second language reading research.
The book is helpful in the way in which it addresses the ambiguity and complexity of terms
relating to the teaching of reading. The distinctions, which some may consider inconsequential,

are subtle and potentially confusing, and it is refreshing to encounter an author who tackles them
directly, as can be seen in his discussion of the term skills:
There is a need to recognise how the term skill is used in multiple ways. The term skills,
subskills, processing strategies, ability, and Stanovich’s (1980) term, ‘‘knowledge sources’’,
are terms used variably in the applied linguistics and language teaching literature. The
distinctions in usage can depend upon whether the term is used to refer to a language
component or to an individual reader’s ability to perform. (p. 78)
Unfortunately, the sheer breadth and scope of research included by Hudson comes in general at
the expense of interesting and engaging details pertaining to the individual studies he cites.
Where these details are included, they prove to be relevant and illustrative, such as his account of
research into how the respective personal knowledge and cultural background of white and
African-American eighth grade students in the United Sates affected their interpretation of a text
that dealt with an incidence of violence at a school (p. 144).
As with much literature on reading, Hudson’s position with regard to the teaching of learners
with very low levels of literacy appears, at times, contradictory. While advocating against the use
of synthetic syllabi, saying that activities that isolate and teach unitary skills are problematic in
that they fail to take into account the complex nature of reading acts, Hudson goes on to
underscore Gordon’s (1982) assertion that readers need to develop core reading competencies in
order to become effective readers. These comprise discrete “prerequisites,” such as the names of
letters, consonants, plurals, root words, and vowels (p. 292). Understandably, the issue of
teaching low-literate adults is a multifaceted one, a detailed explication of which perhaps lies
outside of the scope of this book, yet a clear description from the author on where he stands in
this regard would have been helpful in the light of increasing numbers of such students emerging
in second language classrooms around the world.
It must be acknowledged that Hudson does not attempt to shy away from the complexities of the
issues surrounding the process of second language reading in order to present a more coherent
read for his audience. This allows him to illustrate how the process of reading involves the co-
ordination of a number of factors, such as grapheme recognition, phonological representation,
syntactic structure, background knowledge, processing strategies, text structure understanding,
vocabulary, and context. The confounding, complex and ultimately very human science of
reading is perhaps best encapsulated in Hudson’s somewhat desultory conclusion that “we are
left knowing that there is no magic bullet, no single explanation for what teachers can do to
ensure that their students learn to read in a second or foreign language” (p. 297).
There can be no doubt that anyone navigating the complex and often conflicting body of
literature available on reading research will find Hudson’s comprehensive documentation and
lucid explanations of research methodology and findings extremely valuable. However, it is
questionable whether teachers or teacher trainers seeking concrete and direct guidance on
teaching strategies and methods would find this a useful handbook. Ultimately, for this reader,
the book fails to bridge the gap between theory and practice.

References
Carroll, J. B. (1964). Language and thought. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Gordon, W.M. (1982). The reading curriculum: a reference guide to criterion-based skill
development in Grades K-8. New York: Praeger.
Hudson, T. (2007). Teaching second language reading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Prinsloo, M., & Breier, M. (Eds.). (1996). The social uses of literacy: Theory and practice in
contemporary South Africa. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; and Johannesburg: SACHED
Books.
Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in
the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32–71.
Street, B.V. (1993). Cross-cultural approaches to literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
About the Reviewer
Sue Ollerhead is a PhD student in Applied Linguistics at Macquarie University. She has an MA
in Linguistics from Stellenbosch University, South Africa, and an MEd (TESOL) (Merit) from
the University of Sydney, Australia. Her main interests are second language acquisition,
language in education, and adult literacy. E-mail: susan-helen.ollerhead@students.mq.edu.au

ISSN 1539-0578 pp. 278–286
Readings on L2 reading: Publications in other venues

2007–2008
Cindy Brantmeier and Tracy Van Bishop, Editors
Washington University in St. Louis
United States
This feature offers an archive of articles and books published in other venues during the past year
and serves as a valuable tool to readers of Reading in a Foreign Language (RFL). The Articles
section treats any topic within the scope of RFL and second language reading. Articles are
organized by topic and are listed in alphabetical order. This section includes titles of the articles
as well as brief summaries. One additional section includes a list of dissertations that treat second
language reading. The editors of this feature attempted to include all related articles that appear
in other venues. However, undoubtedly, this list is not exhaustive.
Articles
Course Design
Rivas de White, E., & Payne, M. (2008). Using sustained silent reading in the language
classroom. The Language Educator, 3(3), 54–56.
This article describes one high school Spanish teacher’s program of including sustained silent
reading (SSR) in the classroom. The authors contend that the program has been a success by
creating more excitement about reading and the language itself, and leading to authentic
improvement. Students involved in the program use more vocabulary and advanced grammar
structures in their writing, and 90% of them affirm that the tests and exams were easier for them
after participating in the SSR program.
Individual Reader Differences
Brady, E. C., & Kritsonis, W. A. (2008). Targeting reading fluency for ESL students: A research
based and practical application. The Lamar University Electronic Journal of Student
Research, 7, 1–6.
In this article the authors correlate research in ESL reading and adult education reading
instruction to practical strategies used to teach fluency in a second-grade ESL reading class. The
exercises for each story or play begin with learning vocabulary and emphasize repeated reading
over the next 4 days. The 5th day focuses entirely on extending the story through writing
exercises. The authors conclude that the strategies used in the class effectively employ research-
Brantmeier & Bishop: Readings on L2 reading 279
based principles.
Harrison, G., & Krol, L. (2007). Relationship between L1 and L2 word-level reading and
phonological processing in adults. Journal of Research in Reading, 30, 379–393.
This investigation examines associations among word-level and phonological processing skills of
32 adults learning ESL who are L1 speakers of Mandarin Chinese. The authors also explored the
identification of potential students who may have English reading difficulties. Findings indicated
that phonological processing skills can be assessed in students’ L2 to predict L2 reading
performance and that it may be possible for ESL instructors in adult language centers to predict
and attend to L2 reading difficulties. The authors cite prior literature on explicit and intensive
instruction on the phonological aspects of reading into ESL instruction.
Lexis
Golkar, M., & Yamini, M. (2007). Vocabulary, proficiency and reading comprehension. The
Reading Matrix, 7(3), 88–112.
In an attempt to empirically prove the reliability and viability of the Vocabulary Levels Tests,
Golkar and Yamini administered the Vocabulary Levels Test, the Productive Version of the
Vocabulary Levels Test, and the TOEFL test to 76 Iranian students. Their conclusion is that
these tests are, indeed, dependable and can be useful resources for language teachers as well as
second language acquisition teachers. The results for one research question (“What is the
relationship between learners’ passive and active vocabularies and their reading comprehension
ability?”) indicate that active vocabulary is more highly correlated with reading comprehension
than passive vocabulary.
Hamada, M., & Koda, K. (2008). Influence of first language orthographic experience on second
language decoding and word learning. Language Learning, 58, 1–31.
With native Korean and Chinese speakers learning English, the authors conducted two
experiments to examine the influence of L1 orthographic experience on both L2 decoding and
word learning. The findings of the first experiment demonstrated that L1 orthographic
background does affect L2 decoding efficiency, and consequently the second experiment
examined whether L2 decoding efficiency positively impacts learning and retention of newly
introduced L2 words. The authors offer a detailed and highly exhaustive literature review.
Overall results suggested that print processing experiences in both L1 and L2 jointly form
decoding skills and that decoding efficiency enhances intentional word learning in the L2 (p. 24).
In conclusion, the authors offer connections between findings and practical implications for
decoding and word learning.
Min, H.-T. (2008). EFL vocabulary acquisition and retention: Reading plus vocabulary
enhancement activities and narrow reading. Language Learning, 58, 73–115.
The aim of this study was to determine the effects of reading plus vocabulary-enhancement (RV)
activities on English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ vocabulary acquisition and long-term

retention. The participants, 50 male Chinese EFL speakers at a senior high school in Taiwan,
were divided into two groups: One received instruction using RV methodology, and the other
was instructed using narrow reading (NR). The researcher concludes that the more effective and
efficient approach for the EFL teacher who wants to enhance students’ receptive and productive
vocabulary acquisition and long-term retention is to teach reading plus focused vocabulary
exercises.
Metacognition
Lawrence, L. J. (2007). Cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies revisited: Implications

for instruction. The Reading Matrix, 7(3), 55–63.
This article reviews research on cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies. The author
includes a table that outlines prior research on reading strategies of bilingual students and
describes the populations studied as well as results. The synthesis of studies includes elementary
grade students as well as university level students. A detailed discussion of each reviewed
investigation is offered. The author’s examination of prior research emphasizes the differences
between cognitive and metacognitive strategies with investigations that utilized both
monolingual and bilingual participants. Finally, specific approaches to strategy instruction are
detailed.
Practical Implications (Methods and Materials)
Avalos, M. A., Plasencia A., Chavez, C., & Rascón, J. (2007). Modified guided reading:
Gateway to English as a second language and literacy learning. The Reading Teacher, 61,
318–329.
The authors assert that by modifying the guided-reading instructional model, teachers can
provide additional language-learning opportunities for English-language learners (ELLs). They
outline the theoretical framework for modified guided reading (MGR), describe its components,
present a sample lesson, and reveal the results of a small sample study. The modifications focus
on clarifying features of the text, such as difficult vocabulary, figurative language, complex
syntax, and culturally specific information, which native speakers may implicitly understand but
could cause difficulty for ELLs. The authors maintain that each time they have implemented
MGR in their classrooms, their students have achieved reading gains.
Gibson, S. (2008). Reading aloud: A useful learning tool? ELT Journal, 62, 29–36.
The author challenges prior assertions that reading aloud (RA) is not an effective practice. She
begins the article with a review of arguments that oppose reading aloud in classrooms, and then
balances the assertions with benefits of using RA. She includes details of how to effectively use
RA for diagnostic purposes, pronunciation, prosody, anxiety, and writing. She then offers a
detailed description of RA as it is effectively used with ESL students from various countries. The
author concludes with a strong statement about how instructors should reconsider the negative
perceptions of RA in the classroom.

Kalia, V. (2007). Assessing the role of book reading practices in Indian bilingual children’s
English language and literacy development. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35, 149–
153.
With 24 bilingual children from schools in Bangalore, India, the study examines the roles of
Indian bilingual parents’ book reading practices and associates these practices to the
development of oral language and literacy skills in English. Findings revealed correlational links
among oral language skills (complex syntax and narrative complexity) and exposure to book
reading. Findings also indicated positive associations between concepts about print and exposure
to book reading. This investigation holds important practical implications for both preschool
teachers and parents in India.
Memom, R., & Badger, R. (2007). Purposeful change? Changing the teaching of reading in a
regional university in Pakistan. System, 35, 551–565.
This article details the changes and outcomes for a new way of teaching reading in a regional
university of Pakistan. The article explains what happens in the traditional classroom, and also
what takes place in the classroom according to the innovative strategies approach (Bamford &
Day, 1998). Results show that, with the strategies approach, the reading courses are more
sophisticated in their structure as they allow students to approach and interact with the reading
materials in different ways. Also, in this new approach, the instructor serves as a facilitator of
activities, which contrast the traditional, teacher-centered approach to reading. In the end, the
new style supports reading, but the authors discuss the limitation—a lack of evidence for
improved reading skills. Future research could address this issue.
Ranker, J. (2007). Using comic books as read-alouds: Insights on reading instruction from an
English as a second language classroom. The Reading Teacher, 61, 296–305.
In this article Ranker details three lessons in which a teacher uses comic books as read-aloud
texts in her first-grade ESL classroom. In the first lesson, the teacher uses a Spider-Man comic to
teach students to recognize a central problem and resolution in narrative structure. In the second,
Hulk and Wild Girl help the students become aware of the gendered representations of the
characters and help the teacher incorporate critical media literacy into her reading curriculum. In
the final lesson, the teacher creates her own comic and instructs the students in distinguishing
between narration and dialogue.
Tilfarlioglu, F. Y., & Basaran, S. (2007). Enhancing reading comprehension through task-based
writing activities: An experimental study. The Reading Matrix, 7(3), 134–152.
In this experimental study, the authors’ goal was to provide evidence that task-based writing
activities positively affect reading comprehension for students of English as a foreign language.
The study included two groups of 28 students in their 1st year at a university in Turkey. The
control group was taught using only traditional methods while the experimental group received
additional task-based instruction. The results show significant gains in reading comprehension
for the experimental group, thus providing a theoretical validation for those who advocate the
use of task-based learning in the foreign language classroom.

Tran, A. (2007). A learning-center vocabulary-reading activity for English-language learners.

The Clearing House, 81(2), 61–62.
In this brief article, Tran suggests a reading activity for English-language learners that proposes
to maximize the use of class time and encourage students to take responsibility for their own
learning. The activity combines vocabulary learning, cooperative learning, and extensive reading.
Reading and Technology
Absalom, M., & Rizzi, A. (2008). Comparing the outcomes of online listening versus online text-
based tasks in university level Italian L2 study. ReCall, 20(1), 55–66.
In this exploratory study, the authors compare the results of online listening and online text-
based tasks and conclude that the former encourage an integrative and deep approach to learning,
while the latter promote a surface approach to learning. Fourteen students of Italian were divided
into two groups with different tasks: a listening group and a text-based group. The listening
group became engaged with the topics and language and applied a variety of learning strategies
to the task; however, the text-based group tended to treat the text superficially, skimming for
answers and often misunderstanding the text. The authors readily admit that the small sample is a
major limitation of their study and make a case for additional research to further scrutinize the
cross-modality effects of online listening.
Cobb, T. (2007). Computing the vocabulary demands of L2 reading. Language Learning &
Technology, 11, 38–63.
The author provides a strong case for the contributions of linguistic computing to L2 reading
instruction. He makes the following claim grounded in data-driven evidence: Free or wide
reading alone is not a sufficient source of lexical knowledge for L2 reading. The author offers
solutions to this issue with suggestions for computer processing that links and increases the
supply of vocabulary input that is available to the learner. Cobb offers detailed descriptions of
instructional implications for the use of both books and computers in the teaching of L2 reading.
He provides detailed examples of how to link texts to speech, use a group lexical database, and
incorporate postreading vocabulary activities.
Cobb, T. (2008). Commentary: Response to McQuillan and Krashen (2008). Language Learning
& Technology, 12, 109–114.
In this article Cobb responds to the critique by McQuillan and Krashen of his 2007 article cited
above. His primary disagreement with his critics is that the reading rate research they cite in their
article is inappropriately applied to the circumstances described by Cobb. His original statements
relate to ESL and EFL students, in their 1st years at an English-speaking university, who need to
reach a 3,000-level vocabulary in order to facilitate their education. Dissimilarly, the numbers
provided by McQuillan and Krashen are taken from studies of participant groups with significant
prior experience in Canada or the United States, or from studies whose texts are considerably
below the 3,000 word level.

Huang, H. -T., & Liou, H. -C. (2007). Vocabulary learning in an automated graded reading
program. Language Learning & Technology, 11(3), 64–82.
With the intent of building vocabulary, the authors created a 12-week online English extensive
reading program for a group of 38 Chinese-speaking EFL college students. They began with a
corpus of 5,008 authentic texts dealing with issues in Taiwan and eventually limited the corpus
to 16 texts, each with a minimum of 95% known word coverage. They developed a syllabus
called Textgrader, which they used to sequence the texts from easiest to most difficult based on a
series of research-based criteria and four word lists. The study shows measurable vocabulary
learning for all 38 participants; however, the authors found a high level of reliance on reading
habits and strategies learned in high school and associated with intensive reading. The authors
determine that for constructive vocabulary acquisition the online extensive reading syllabus can
effectively function as a link between explicit teaching and implicit learning.
Lan, Y. -J., Sung, Y. -T., & Chang, K. -E. (2007). A mobile-device-supported peer-assisted
learning system for collaborative early EFL reading. Language Learning & Technology, 11,
130–151.
With 26 third-grade students of EFL in Taiwan, the present investigation included two different
studies. The first study examined collaborative learning for EFL reading in a classroom. Results
indicated serious flaws and weaknesses in this technique. The second study examined how a
mobile-device-supported peer-assisted learning (MPAL) system was created and utilized in order
to address the issues involved with collaborative learning. A very descriptive and detailed
analysis revealed that MPAL does indeed enhance collaboration in elementary school level EFL
readers, and MPAL also improves issues concerning motivation of the learners.
Lin, H., & Chen, T. (2007). Reading authentic EFL text using visualization and advance
organizers in a multimedia learning environment. Language Learning & Technology, 11, 83-
106.
Driven by theories from cognitive psychology in support of the use of multimedia to facilitate L2
learners’ reading comprehension, the investigation examines the effects of advance organizers
and visualizations on comprehension. With 115 intermediate EFL learners in Taiwan, findings
indicated that animations are more effective than static visuals in only one of four tests. However,
animation that included a question with an advance organizer had a marginal effect with four
treatments for reading comprehension. The authors include a very detailed and useful description
of how to include static visuals and dynamic visuals as represented via animation in order to
improve L2 reading comprehension.
McQuillan, J., & Krashen, S. D. (2008). Commentary: Can free reading take you all the way? A
response to Cobb (2007). Language Learning & Technology, 12, 104–108.
The authors examine and critique Cobb’s (2007) assertion that free reading does not provide
sufficient opportunities for L2 readers to achieve high levels of lexical acquisition, and they
point out the following two problems with this claim: (a) The amount of reading that Cobb

proposes as optimistic is the opposite, that is, it is “pessimistic” in the extreme; (b) free reading
across different genres can give a reader the necessary vocabulary for adult-level fluency. The
authors contend that Cobb’s data indeed show how powerful free reading can be, even at
minimal levels.
Murphy, P. (2007). Reading comprehension exercises online: The effects of feedback,

proficiency and interaction. Language Learning & Technology, 11, 107–129.
With Japanese students from upper and lower levels of English proficiency, the author describes
an online version of a reading program that embraces an interactionist view of second language
acquisition. Quantitative analysis revealed that interaction between type of feedback and manner
of study (either individual or pair work) was significant for comprehension as assessed via
multiple choice questions. Learners achieved higher scores on a comprehension task when in
pairs and when provided with elaborative feedback. Additionally, findings showed that
elaborative feedback positively effected quality interaction. The author provides detailed
descriptions of elaborate feedback and manners of study.
The Reading Process
Erten, I. H., & Karakas, M. (2007). Understanding the divergent influences of reading activities
on the comprehension of short stories. The Reading Matrix, 7(3), 113–133.
This study reaffirms the necessity of using a variety of reading activities to promote the
comprehension of a text by students of a foreign language. The researchers examined two types
of reading comprehension, literal comprehension and evaluation, with two groups of 3rd-year
university students in Turkey. One group made use of activities such as previewing, scanning,
skimming, clarifying, and drawing conclusions, which led to a greater literal comprehension of
the short story. The second group used activities such as brainstorming, reciprocal teaching,
inferring, thinking aloud, and discussion, and scored significantly higher on evaluative
comprehension. The authors state that the study should be considered tentative and limited in
scope because it did not monitor variables that might have biased the results, yet they conclude
that reading teachers must carefully and purposefully select reading activities according to their
desired outcome.
Testing and Assessment
Fraser, C. A. (2007). Reading rate in L1 Mandarin Chinese and L2 English across five reading
tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 372–394.
With native Chinese speakers learning English, this investigation examined a phenomenon not
yet widely examined in L2 reading: L1 and L2 reading rates and task performance across five
tasks (scanning, skimming, normal reading, learning, memorizing). Through a thorough and
detailed literature review, the author offers compelling support from past L1 and L2 research as
motivation for the current study. Findings indicate some decrease in L2 scores on three tasks
(scanning, skimming, memorizing) and on all L1 tasks. Additionally, results showed that L2
proficiency was not a predictor of L2 reading rate but was a predictor of L2 performance on two

tasks (learning, memorizing). The author provides strong support for future studies of this nature.
Dissertations Treating L2 Reading
Ballard, T. Y. (2007). The effect of audio self-modeling on the reading fluency, comprehension,
vocabulary and reading level of first and second grade students who are at-risk in reading.
Dissertation Abstracts International, Section A: The Humanities and Social Sciences. 68, 929.
Goodman, N. E. (2007). Word-reading strategies: English-speaking first graders learning

Hebrew as a second language. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section A: The
Humanities and Social Sciences. 68, 931.
Lee, C. N. (2007). Supporting English learning in the family: An ethnographic case study of a
young Korean-English learner. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section C: Worldwide. 68,
20–21.
Lowdermilk, C. (2007). The impact of language acquisition on second language reading fluency.
Yoshida, M. (2007). The effects of task, text, and proficiency on second language reading.
About the Editors
Cindy Brantmeier is Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics and Spanish at Washington

University in St. Louis. She is Director of the proposed Graduate Program in Applied Linguistics,
Co-Director of the Graduate Certificate in Language Instruction, Director of Teacher Training,
and Director of the Undergraduate Program in Applied Linguistics. She also oversees the
technology-based exams for language program assessment and placement. Dr. Brantmeier has
published articles concerning interacting variables in adult second language reading, language
research methodology, testing and assessment, and other related areas in journals such as The
Modern Language Journal, System, Foreign Language Annals, and Reading in a Foreign
Language among others. She is also Editor of several volumes and a book on adult foreign
language reading.
Tracy Van Bishop is Lecturer in Spanish and Applied Linguistics at Washington University in St.
Louis, where he teaches both language level courses in Spanish as well as graduate courses in
Applied Linguistics. He is Coordinator of Advanced Spanish Grammar and Composition II and
oversees summer placement of incoming Spanish students. Dr. Bishop has published works on
the Baladro del sabio Merlín, and his recent research involves computer assisted textual analysis
and foreign language pedagogy, particularly the teaching of reading strategies. Dr. Bishop has
also been Assistant Professor and Coordinator of Language Instruction at Hofstra University
where he directed and supervised all aspects of elementary and intermediate Spanish language
instruction and created and administered the Spanish proficiency exam for Secondary Education

majors. Additionally, he was Language Lecturer and Coordinator of Intensive Spanish Courses at
NYU where he taught courses in language, literature, and Spanish culture.
RFL readers are encouraged to send to Dr. Brantmeier titles of appropriate articles. Please
include all relevant information (e.g., author[s], journal, date of publication) and, if possible, a
brief summary. Send to: cbrantme@wustl.edu

Volume 20, Number 2, October 2008

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Volume 20, Number 2, October 2008

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Volume 20, Number 2, October 2008

Advisory and Editorial Boards

Richard Day, Co-Editor Reading in a Foreign Language readfl@hawaii.edu

Copyright © RFL 2008

Copyright © RFL 2008

Reading in a Foreign Language (RFL) seeks submissions of previously unpublished manuscripts

Copyright © RFL 2008

Copyright © RFL 2008

Readings on L2 Reading: Publications in Other Venues offers an archive of articles published in

2. By mail: Send the material on a disk to the following address:

Copyright © RFL 2008

The following policies apply to all articles, reviews, and commentaries:

RFL Guidelines for Reporting on Research

Research should generally include the following sections:

Five to seven keywords for index and search purposes

1. stating the research issue to be investigated

Copyright © RFL 2008

1. describing the participants or subjects and research site

1. presenting graphs and tables that help to explain the results

3. for qualitative research, data should reflect prolonged engagement, persistent

1. presenting an evaluation and interpretation of the results

1. including a summary and general implications of the study

References in APA format

Appendices of instrument(s) used

Copyright © RFL 2008

Reading in a Foreign Language

Copyright © RFL 2008

Special Issue on Reading and Vocabulary

Editorial Board, About RFL, and Information for Contributors

From the Editors

From the Guest Editor

Incidental vocabulary acquisition from reading, reading-while-listening, and listening to stories

Beyond raw frequency: Incidental vocabulary acquisition in extensive reading

Evaluating L2 readers’ vocabulary strategies and dictionary use

The effects of context on incidental vocabulary learning

Vocabulary assistance before and during reading

Inside Reading: The Academic Word List in Context

Academic Reading (5th ed.)

Teaching Second Language Reading

Readings on L2 reading: Publications in other venues 2007-2008

Copyright © RFL 2008

From the Editors

vocabulary retention, and effect of occurrence frequency and word classes.

The feature, “Readings on L2 Reading: Publications in Other Venues,” presents references

Sue Ollerhead reviews Teaching Second Language Reading, by Thom Hudson.

Reading in a Foreign Language 20(2)

From the Guest Editor

I would also like to thank the following copy editors:

Reading in a Foreign Language 20(2)

Incidental vocabulary acquisition from reading, reading-while-listening, and

Reading in a Foreign Language 20(2)

In a further study conducted by Horst (2005), a modified vocabulary knowledge scale,

Studies investigating the effectiveness of reading-while-listening for comprehension have

Reading in a Foreign Language 20(2)

The main questions under investigation in this paper are as follows:

Reading in a Foreign Language 20(2)

Table 1. An overview of the study

Thirty-five Japanese students of English literature from a medium-sized private university in

Reading in a Foreign Language 20(2)

Materials and Design

Reading in a Foreign Language 20(2)

Table 2. Lexical coverage of the running words by recurrences and types

Reading in a Foreign Language 20(2)

were meeting 400-headword-level texts, the pre-intermediate- and intermediate-level subjects

1) mird ハッピーワクワクする寒い臭い分からない