Reading-Based Exercises in Second
Language Vocabulary Learning:
An Introspective Study
MARJORIE BINGHAM WESCHE
Second Language Institute
University of Ottawa
P.O. Box 450, Station A
Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5
Canada
Email: mwesche@uottawa.ca
T. SIMA PARIBAKHT
Second Language Institute
University of Ottawa
P.O. Box 450, Station A
Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5
Canada
Email: paribakh@aix1.uottawa.ca
In this study, university English as a Second Language (ESL) learners’ responses to 5 different
types of text-based vocabulary exercises were examined. The objective was to understand
better how such exercises may promote different kinds of lexical processing and learning and
to compare these outcomes with those from thematic reading for comprehension. The results
support a view of vocabulary acquisition as an elaborative and iterative process and demonstrate the primary role of the tasks learners carry out with new words that they encounter. Tasks
provide learners with varied and multiple encounters with given words that highlight different
lexical features, promoting elaboration and strengthening of different aspects of word knowledge. The findings also provide insight into the nature of the advantages, found in previous
research, of using text-based vocabulary exercises together with a reading text as opposed to
using multiple reading texts for the learning of particular words and their lexical features.
THIS STUDY, A FOLLOW-UP TO AN EARLIER
experiment, analysed university English as a Second Language (ESL) learners’ introspective reflections while they were carrying out different
kinds of vocabulary learning exercises drawn
from a written text.1 Its purpose was to explore
how the exercises might promote vocabulary
growth. The study was prompted by our interest
in examining how reading practice interacts with
vocabulary development and in explaining the
outcomes of an earlier experiment in which reading, combined with text-based vocabulary exercises, led to gains in second language (L2) vocabulary knowledge that were superior to those
obtained from a reading for comprehension condition involving multiple texts and equal instructional time (Paribakht & Wesche, 1997). The text
and the exercises used in this study were the same
as those used in the earlier experiment, and the
student participants were similar to the earlier
participants in English proficiency, age, academic
background, and variability of the first language
(L1). The exercises represented a five-part classification based on the nature of the language task
and its emphasis on given aspects of word knowledge (Paribakht & Wesche, 1996). The focus of
this research is on how learners responded to
different vocabulary tasks—particularly with respect to the target words and their features. A
better understanding of how given tasks may promote different kinds of lexical learning and of
how learners deal with unfamiliar words while
reading (Paribakht & Wesche, 1999) may, together, help explain the different vocabulary
learning outcomes of the two conditions in the
earlier experiment and lead to useful insights for
vocabulary instruction.
The Modern Language Journal, 84, ii, (2000)
0026-7902/00/196–213 $1.50/0
©2000 The Modern Language Journal
Researchers in both L1 and L2 acquisition have
studied the role of reading in the acquisition of
vocabulary knowledge. In vocabulary acquisition
READING AND VOCABULARY
DEVELOPMENT
Marjorie Bingham Wesche and T. Sima Paribakht
through reading, word knowledge appears to be
elaborated gradually through multiple exposures
to words in varied discourse contexts (Nagy &
Herman, 1987; Stoller & Grabe, 1993). In most
cases, gains appear to be incremental and cumulative, with success in inferring word meanings
and other lexical features also dependent on
other factors such as clear textual cues to the
meanings of unknown words (Dubin & Olshtain,
1993), readers’ L2 proficiency adequate to use
the cues, and the formal similarity of the new
words to known words in the L1 (Haastrup, 1991;
Haynes, 1993). Research has suggested that
learning through incidental exposure is most effective when students know how to take advantage of it, for example, by being aware of word
families and of productive affixes for analysing
words into parts, by knowing when and how to
use contextual cues, and by knowing how to use
a dictionary effectively (Fraser, 1999). A frequent
finding from L2 research concerns the role of
relevant content knowledge (or schemata) in the
comprehension and learning of new lexical items
in context as a basis for their integration into
learners’ existing semantic networks (Carrell &
Eisterhold, 1988; de Bot, Paribakht, & Wesche,
1997). Some L2 vocabulary research, while recognizing the importance of incidental vocabulary
development, has also highlighted its shortcomings. Many unknown words are simply ignored by
readers (Fraser, 1999; Paribakht & Wesche,
1999), and attempts to infer their meanings from
context often lead to wrong guesses, which are
related both to lower learner L2 proficiency and
to the inadequacy of contextual cues (Bensoussan & Laufer, 1984; Li, 1988). Furthermore, many
researchers have noted that even if a learner succeeds in inferring the correct meaning of the
unknown word in the given context, the correct
guess does not necessarily lead to acquisition of
the new word (Nation & Coady, 1988). This failure may occur because once the immediate communicative need has been met, the learner does
not undertake further mental processing of the
word. Another shortcoming of incidental vocabulary learning is the very low rate of retention of
new words from one or several exposures
(Huckin & Coady, 1999; Hulstijn, 1992, in press).
Research has also indicated ways in which reading-based vocabulary development can be enhanced through manipulation of various word,
text, and task factors to provide optimal support
for successful inferencing by learners. For example, student self-selection of reading materials
may ensure high motivation and an appropriate
difficulty level (Krashen, 1989), while themati-
197
cally related reading provides repeated exposures
to words in a given domain (Parry, 1993, 1997).
In Hulstijn’s 1992 research, procedures that encouraged inferencing of word meanings in a
reading text, while limiting guessing through the
presentation of multiple choices, helped eliminate wrong guesses. At the same time, inferencing led to a level of retention of the new words
that was superior to that achieved when glosses
were provided. Hulstijn saw this increase in retention as evidence for the importance of “deeper”
processing (greater mental effort) during initial
word learning. Joe (1995) likewise found that
tasks encouraging such deeper word processing,
including retrieval of stories that had been read
and generative use of the new words in retelling,
led to better retention. Perhaps most telling was
Hulstijn’s (1992) finding that when learners were
given a brief period of time to study the words for
a test, they performed much better than under
any of the incidental learning conditions; that is,
their intention to learn the vocabulary overrode
the influence of the other conditions.
Research has also indicated that whereas reliance on reading for L2 vocabulary development
may lead to the ability to recognize a large
number of words in context, it is not likely to
ensure development of the complex knowledge
of these words which underlies the ability to use
them correctly in a productive mode (Paribakht
& Wesche, 1997). Learning a new word involves
an ongoing elaboration of knowledge about the
word and the ability to use it. Relationships are
established between the word form and its semantic concepts and linguistic functions, as well as
with other words that share some of these features, forming lexical networks (Henriksen,
1999). Learning also involves automatization of
word access and, with time, the capability of producing the word in appropriate contexts (de Bot,
Paribakht, & Wesche, 1997; Hulstijn, in press;
Nation, 1990). This complex outcome implies
the need for repeated and diverse mental processing over time which cannot necessarily be
expected from the multiple exposures obtained
while reading for comprehension.
Stoller and Grabe (1993) have suggested that
L2 reading plus related vocabulary activities
might be one appropriate way to direct and enhance the effects of incidental learning from
reading. The authors’ earlier experiment and the
current research have explored this possibility.
The studies have been guided by an input processing perspective on vocabulary development
(cf. Gass, 1988, 1997; Hulstijn, 1990, in press;
McLaughlin, 1990; Paribakht & Wesche, 1999;
198
Wesche & Paribakht, 1998). Such an approach
offers a general description of how language
data—in this case perceived written word forms,
comprehended meanings, and other features of
words encountered while reading—may become
mentally represented and stored as knowledge
for subsequent communicative use. The acquisition of new L2 vocabulary knowledge is viewed as
a multistage process that involves many factors.
For example, factors such as their form or collocation with other words may influence learner
attention to particular word features, to contextual clues, or to words stored in memory, as learners take in and integrate novel lexical information into existing knowledge. Any new knowledge
that is retained is likely to be modified, strengthened, and elaborated in successive encounters
with the words—or associated features—in diverse contexts. It is through these encounters and
learner-initiated use of the new knowledge in production that a lexical entry “matures” in the mental lexicon.
It appears that some level of noticing novel
input features—whether conscious or not, and
whether or not it involves focal or only peripheral
attention—is a necessary condition for new learning (Gass, 1988). Evidently, the intention to understand and learn words should help ensure
such noticing, but intention is not a necessary
condition, as evidenced by learning that occurs in
the absence of such intention (Haynes, 1998).
The critical issue, as noted by Hulstijn (in press),
is what learners actually do with the new word. He
emphasized the importance of initial learner attention to a new word form and to its contextual
meaning. The forging of a form-meaning association is a vital first step in acquiring a new word,
and rehearsal of auditory forms during initial
learning also promotes subsequent retention.
Further elaboration of this knowledge, and eventual automatic access to it in appropriate contexts, is secured through repeated use (or practice) of the new words in different environments
(Henriksen, 1999; Huckin & Coady, 1999; Hulstijn, in press).
OUR PREVIOUS RESEARCH
The authors’ earlier studies demonstrated
measurable vocabulary learning through the
reading of thematically related texts, as well as
through more restricted reading combined with
text-based activities focusing on given target
words (Paribakht & Wesche, 1997). Both conditions required equivalent class time and presented the target words three times. In the first
The Modern Language Journal 84 (2000)
condition (Reading Only), a core reading text plus
two thematically related texts, which again presented the target words, were read by learners,
after which they answered comprehension questions. In the second condition (Reading Plus),
learners read only the core text, then carried out
a sequence of eight vocabulary exercises using
the words. The exercises represented a five-part
typology, based on the kind of activity they required, which had been developed through a
classification of the major types of vocabulary instructional activities found in a survey of ESL
textbooks for adults (see Table 1 under Materials). Although both instructional conditions led
to significant gains in vocabulary knowledge, the
Reading Plus condition led to gains in vocabulary
knowledge that were superior to gains in the
Reading Only condition, as measured by the Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (Paribakht & Wesche,
1993; Wesche & Paribakht, 1996). The Reading
Plus advantage was found both in the number of
words for which learners demonstrated knowledge gains and in the “depth” of the knowledge
they gained (Paribakht & Wesche, 1997).2
In order to understand better the processes
leading to differential word-learning outcomes in
the two experimental conditions and the effects
of specific vocabulary activities, the authors undertook follow-up introspective research to determine what learners actually do when carrying out
the activities. The materials and procedures of
the earlier study were used again with similar
learners.
The Reading Only introspective study (reported
in Paribakht & Wesche, 1999) focused on how
learners dealt with unfamiliar words when reading for meaning and on the knowledge sources
and textual cues they called upon when inferring
meanings for these words. Two comprehension
tasks were used to ensure that learners would try
to understand text meanings and be motivated to
understand unfamiliar words. It was found that
learners ignored approximately one half of the
words they had previously identified as unknown
and attempted to infer meanings for many of the
others although a dictionary was available. They
used a variety of knowledge sources (e.g., sentence level grammar, world knowledge) when
making inferences, depending upon features of
the word, its context, and individual preferences.
The two comprehension tasks differentially influenced the learners’ initial attention to particular
words and the kinds of associations they reported. Learners in the Reading Only introspective study, like those in the earlier experiment,
tended to exhibit only recognition knowledge of
199
Marjorie Bingham Wesche and T. Sima Paribakht
the new words they remembered. This outcome
suggested that the process of inferring word
meanings while reading for comprehension, may,
indeed, lead to comprehension and have the potential to lead to integration of new knowledge
for recognition, but it does not necessarily establish the knowledge base needed for subsequent
recall and production of the word.
THE CURRENT STUDY
The Reading Plus introspective study reported
here focused on how learners who had read the
core text (see Appendix A) carried out the textbased word-learning exercises, because this process might relate to their initial learning and retention of the target words. The activities ranged
from locating underlined target words in a text to
matching words with their definitions and constructing sentences from scrambled words. Evidence bearing on the following research issues
was sought:
1. Learner responses to the different wordlearning tasks: (a) How does each learner carry
out the exercise? (b) What shared and what individual response patterns can be identified?
2. Ways in which the different exercises might
promote acquisition of lexical knowledge.
3. Why the Reading Plus condition led to vocabulary gains superior to those of Reading Only
in the earlier experiment. In this case, evidence
reported here was compared with that found in
the introspective study of Reading Only (Paribakht
& Wesche, 1999).
METHODOLOGY
Introspection was selected as the appropriate
methodology to answer the questions raised. This
process of individuals’ observing and reflecting
on their thoughts, feelings, motives, reasoning
processes, and mental states is one of very few
data collection methods available for going beyond observable behaviour and attempting to access the underlying mental processes that determine that behaviour (cf. Nunan, 1994). The
methodology offers different techniques for generating verbal protocols which vary in the time
lapse between performing a task and reporting it.
In the concurrent think-aloud method, learners verbalize what they are thinking and doing while
they are carrying out a task. The advantage of this
technique is that it provides detailed information
generated by the learner in response to the immediate context. Both the immediate retrospection
and the delayed retrospection techniques generally
involve question prompts that ask learners to reflect on what they have done immediately after
completing a task or that ask, more generally,
about how they carried out a task or tasks at a
prior time, respectively. Although retrospective
techniques may yield more comparable and generalizable information than does the concurrent
think-aloud technique, they are thought to be
further removed from the learner’s actual
thought processes while doing the task. The use
of several different techniques can provide complementary data on the same activities, with each
technique compensating, to some extent, for the
weak points of the others. All three techniques
were employed in this study.
In recent years, the use of data based on introspection by learners has gained credibility in L2
acquisition research, including research on vocabulary acquisition processes (cf. Fraser, 1999;
Haastrup, 1991; Huckin & Bloch, 1993; Joe,
1995). Its indisputable merit is that it provides a
means—however approximate—of accessing
learners’ thoughts and perceptions. Introspection nonetheless presents difficulties that relate
to participants’ ability to observe and report their
mental processes accurately and, beyond this, to
individual differences in their willingness to do
so. The validity and the reliability of introspective
data can, however, be improved substantially
through training of participants and the consistent use of materials and procedures, both of
which have characterized this study. There is a
further concern that introspection may interfere
with learners’ usual problem-solving approaches.
Whereas concurrent think-aloud procedures may
have some effect on task performance, the fact
that all participants receive the same training and
task administration should reduce the individual
differences that are based on such interference.
Retrospective responses evidently do not affect
task performance. The cumulative identification
of repeated patterns within and across studies
also lends credibility to findings from introspective research.
Participants
Ten intermediate-level ESL students, predominantly from French L1 backgrounds, but including speakers of French Creole, Chinese, and
Arabic, took part on a volunteer basis in the outof-class research sessions in a Canadian university
setting.
200
Materials
A reading text on the topic of Acid Rain was
used (see Appendix A). The target words3 in this
text were the same as those that had been used in
the previous experimental study, as were the
eight text-related vocabulary exercises. The typology on which the exercises were based is presented schematically in Table 1. Each type of exercise is designed to elicit a different kind of
mental activity and learner behaviour, ranging
from selective attention to guided production. For
example, Task 1 requires only recognition of written word forms, whereas Task 8 requires identification of the meanings of key words and of syntactic functions and constraints for most, or all,
words presented (see Tasks 1 through 8 below).
Procedures
At the beginning of the individual research
sessions, participants were trained by the interviewer in think-aloud procedures. First, the student was presented with a coloured picture and
was asked to describe, in English, what he or she
was thinking about while looking at it. The student then read a short text in English on a topic
similar to that of the target text and, while reporting aloud what he or she was doing and thinking,
The Modern Language Journal 84 (2000)
carried out tasks similar to those used in the research.
The same research assistant administered all
the individual sessions. A voice-activated tape recorder was used to record interview data. Learner
response sheets and observation notes taken by
the research assistant provided supplementary
data. During the interview session, learners had
access to a dictionary and could refer back to
their response sheets as needed. Following the
training exercise, participants were asked by the
research assistant first to read the text. They were
then asked to carry out the eight tasks, all in the
same order, while verbalizing what they were
thinking and doing. In this way, concurrent
think-aloud protocols were collected as the participants did the vocabulary tasks. These protocols constituted the core data of the study. At the
end of each exercise, learners were asked to reflect on how they had done each task, which led
to immediate retrospective protocols. At the end
of the research session, learners were interviewed
about the different tasks and their respective utility for vocabulary learning, which led to delayed
retrospective protocols.
All tape-recorded data were transcribed by a
research assistant. In cases where the assistant
had difficulty understanding what the learner
had said, the researchers listened again to the
tapes and verified the transcriptions. Data analy-
TABLE 1
Typology of Text-Based Vocabulary Exercises
Selective Attention
Draws learners’ attention to target word; ensures that they notice it.
Examples: underlining, bold-facing, circling.
Recognition
Requires association of the written target word form with at least one of its meanings.
Examples: matching word with definition or synonym; recognizing meaning of target word from multiplechoice responses.
Manipulation
Requires structural analysis of target word to rearrange/organize given elements.
Examples: changing grammatical category of target word; constructing words using stems and affixes.
Interpretation
Involves semantic and syntactic analysis, including the relationship of target word with other words in given
contexts (e.g., collocations, synonyms, antonyms).
Examples: guessing meaning of target word in context, multiple-choice cloze exercises.
Production
Requires retrieval and production of target word in appropriate novel contexts.
Examples: open cloze exercises, answering a question requiring the target word.
Note. After Paribakht & Wesche (1996).
201
Marjorie Bingham Wesche and T. Sima Paribakht
sis was based on the transcripts, with reference to
the original tapes, learners’ response sheets, and
notes made by the interviewer during each research session.
Analyses
Qualitative analysis of the data involved repeated independent readings and analysis of each
transcript and the accompanying documents by
the researchers and an assistant in order to identify the elements of the learners’ responses to each
task and evidence of their lexical processing and
possible acquisition of different kinds of lexical
knowledge. These steps were followed by repeated
collaborative readings and detailed discussion in
order to identify both group patterns and individual variation with respect to the research issues.
FINDINGS
Learner Responses to the Different Tasks
Each task is reproduced below, in order, followed by a summary of the analysis of learner
responses to it and examples (see Appendix A for
the Acid Rain text on which the tasks were
based). Summaries include the intended purpose
of the task in terms of learner behaviour, the
nature of lexical input processing expected by
the researchers (e.g., selective attention), and the
aspects of lexical knowledge apparently involved
in carrying it out. The summaries describe both
shared and individual learner responses and an
indication of the extent to which the task
achieved its purpose.
Learner Responses to Each Task
Task 1
Purpose: Selective attention to particular word
forms.
Activity: Learners were instructed to read the
list of target words, then locate them
(underlined) in the text.
Read the words provided in the list below. Note that the
same words are underlined in the text.
otherwise
trigger
decay
release
sink
in order to
while
coal
point out
layer
Learner responses to Task 1. There was a wide
range of behaviour in response to this task. Some
participants appeared unsure as to whether sim-
ply to follow the instructions (probably because
so little was required), or to read the text and try
to figure out target word meanings. Most read the
words out loud. Half of the participants then followed instructions, scanning the text to note and
match the target words from the list, while the
others read the text. Some tried to infer the
meaning of the underlined words by reading
them in context or guessing their meanings without consulting the text. In all, 5 students went
beyond the instructions and tried, to some extent, to discover the word meanings. Overall,
learner reports indicated that the task achieved
its purpose of making the words, including those
which were already familiar to some, more salient
for all subjects.
Task 2
Purpose: Recognition of word forms with particular syntactic properties.
Activity: Learners were asked to identify which
of the target words were “connectives,”
then to find and circle them in the text.
Circle the connectives in the following list of words, then
find and circle them in the text.
decay
trigger
release
in order to
while
coal
sink
otherwise
layer
point out
Learner responses to Task 2. Most students did not
go beyond the explicit task instructions of identifying and circling the connectives in the list, then
scanning the text and circling them there. However, (in spite of previous thorough coverage of
the concept in class) 4 students had problems
understanding what was meant by “connective.”
Several students were misled by the presence of
nontarget connectives in the text. One student
tried to find the exact meaning for the words,
using his knowledge of grammatical categories,
and also tried to understand the text. For most
learners, the task achieved its purpose of focusing
their attention on the target connectives and
their syntactic properties, while it called the others’ attention to this word class.
Task 3
Purpose: Recognition of form-meaning relationships.
Activity: Learners were given the list of target
words to be matched with a longer list
of definitions. They were not explicitly
instructed to read the text. The purpose was to ensure that they could rec-
202
The Modern Language Journal 84 (2000)
ognize the target words and their
meanings.
Match the study words in the left column with the
appropriate definitions in the right column. There are
more definitions than words.
decay
layer
sink
trigger
point out
coal
release
a natural substance used for fuel
to bring to someone’s attention
one thickness above or below another
a mining process
to set free, to allow to go
to put a series of objects in a row
disintegration
to set off, to initiate
to fall to a lower level
Learner responses to Task 3. All students followed
the instructions, tending to work first with known
words, then to guess the unknown ones by using
a process of elimination. There was no apparent
general preference for definitions or words first,
nor were there consistent individual patterns.
Four participants referred to the words as used in
the text, but only for the more difficult words.
Three of these 4 participants substituted some of
the definitions for the target words in the text to
see if they made sense. A few individuals read the
words out loud. Two used a dictionary and 2 used
their grammatical knowledge in matching words
and definitions (e.g., “I see that thick is the adjective of ‘layer,’ donc [therefore], in this case I suppose that ‘layer’ is, meaning one thickness above
another”). Overall, the task worked well in enabling students to recognize the words and associate them with their definitions by using diverse
means.
Task 4
Purpose: Manipulation to generate derived
word forms in different word classes
from related forms.
Activity: Learners were presented with target
words in a derivational grid and asked
to fill in missing derivations. The instructions did not suggest that they refer to the text.
Complete the chart providing the missing derivations
Noun
Verb
release
decay
layer
to trigger
to sink
Adjective
Learner responses to Task 4. This exercise, like the
previous one, did not instruct the students to refer
to the text, and no one did. A common strategy for
this exercise was to tackle the known words first,
then either to guess or ignore the unknown ones.
One half of the students used their knowledge of
morphology and grammatical categories, especially with known words (e.g., “I think we can put
-ed at the end for . . . an adjective”). A few students
used other strategies: consulting the dictionary,
questioning the interviewer (who did not provide
help), and reading the transformations out loud.
It was not clear how some students arrived at their
answers, whereas it was clear that others guessed.
For half of the students, the task succeeded in
focusing their attention on the morphological
and grammatical analysis of target words and derivationally related words.
Task 5
Purpose: Interpretation of form-meaning relationships in several contexts (paradigmatic/synonyms).
Activity: Learners were instructed to read the
text and find there the underlined
words corresponding to the definitions provided. There were more definitions than words.
Read the text again and find the underlined words
corresponding to the following definitions. There are
more definitions than words.
Example
1. lake large area of fresh water surrounded by land
2.
a blackish, natural substance used
for fuel
3.
a wasting away, disintegration
4.
one thickness above or below another
5.
a period of one hundred years
6.
to bring to someone’s attention
7.
to set free, to allow to go
8.
to fall to a lower level (often in water)
9.
top layer of the earth, which plants
can grow in
10.
to set off, to initiate
Learner responses to Task 5. All but one student
read the definitions first. Although the instructions told them to read the text, only 2 participants did so with any thoroughness. The students
tended to work from more to less familiar
(“hard”) words, although several tried to work
systematically through the list. Most referred selectively to the text, scanning for the target words
and reading only the sentences or parts of sentences that contained them. Four students tried
203
Marjorie Bingham Wesche and T. Sima Paribakht
first to match the words without reference to the
text. One student used the text selectively
throughout the exercise, then read the entire
text to verify that the unmatched definitions did
not correspond to any target words. Individual
strategies included translation into the L1, reference to the dictionary, trying out definitions to
replace words in the text, and word analysis (e.g.,
“Disintegration. I know integration; we took it in
math”). Overall, for most students the task
worked well in bringing their attention to semantic and syntactic features of words in their immediate textual contexts.
Task 6
Purpose: Interpretation of form-meaning-function relationships (semantic/paradigmatic).
Activity: Learners were asked to replace the underlined words presented in new sentences with similar underlined words
from the text.
Replace the underlined words in the sentences below
with similar underlined words or phrases from the text.
1. We got up early to see the sunrise.
2. I have to save my money or else I won’t be
able to take a holiday this summer.
3. Although I like classical music, I prefer to
listen to reggae music.
4. The decomposition of organic waste is a
natural process.
Learner responses to Task 6. Half of the learners
first tried to understand the semantic and grammatical aspects of the new sentences without using the text (e.g., “Decomposition is a noun, so I
will find noun”). Most students used the text selectively, reading only the sentence or part of it
that contained a possible target word rather than
considering a larger context, although they had
been asked to reread the text. A few students
tried out task words in order to see if they made
sense in context. Two students used the dictionary. Three learners mentioned previous exercises
while doing this one (e.g., “decay, the famous decay”). Although some of the learners did not fully
follow instructions, the task succeeded in involving all learners in some semantic and syntactic
analysis of the target items.
Task 7
Purpose: Interpretation of syntagmatic relationships.
Activity: Learners were asked to identify the discourse function (contrast, cause and
effect) of target connectives as used in
the reading text.
The connectives listed below all appear underlined in
the text (paragraph number is given). Look carefully at
the context in which they are used and assign them to
one of the two columns in the table according to whether
their function is to indicate cause and effect or contrast.
while (2)
but (9)
otherwise (2)
yet (3)
in order to (4)
Cause and effect
Contrast
Learner responses to Task 7. It was impossible for
the students to complete this exercise without
understanding the relevant parts of the text. Most
of them attempted to analyse the semantic and
syntactic features of the target item as used in the
text, unlike their efforts in the previous two interpretation tasks. The exceptions were students
who were already familiar enough with the target
words to classify them directly. Student comments
illustrate the syntactic and semantic demands of
this task: “I find is difficult because I must understand . . . the whole meaning of the sentence”; “I
have to understand the meaning of the sentences. . . . How to put them together. How to use
them.” However, for students familiar with the
concept of connective, the task was not more difficult than the other interpretation tasks (e.g., “It’s
easy . . . I know the meaning of . . . these connectives before”). Several learners were misled in
their analysis by the forms of words that they did
not fully understand. For example, one thought
the con in controversial, which was part of the
phrase containing in order to, meant that it was a
connective of contrast. Overall, with almost all
the learners, the task achieved its purpose of promoting attempts to analyse the semantic and syntactic features and discourse functions of target
connectives, even when the specific analysis was
unsuccessful. Guesses were generally preceded by
an attempt at analysing the meaning and context
of the target item.
Task 8
Purpose: Production (controlled output) involving form/meaning/function relationships of words in sentences.4
Activity: Learners were given strings of words
including target words which they were
to rearrange into sentences. The purpose was to focus learners’ attention on
204
The Modern Language Journal 84 (2000)
the characteristics of the target words
required in the production of new sentences.
Unscramble the following strings of words and make
complete sentences.
1. dust / a / our / room / of / fine / covers /
dining / layer / table
sentence:__________________________________
2. been / our / work / last / of / overload /
conflict / has / by / triggered / our
sentence:__________________________________
3. of / sank / the / lake / the / ship / bottom /
to / the
sentence:__________________________________
4. hostage / the / released / their / kidnaped/
terrorists
sentence:__________________________________
5. my / out / yesterday / pointed / assistant /
problem / me / this / to
sentence:__________________________________
Learner responses to Task 8. Whereas no specific
procedure was suggested, most learners began
with word pairs or phrases which, they believed,
belonged together on syntactic or collocational
grounds—lexical phrases, syntax-based chunks,
verbs, or nouns—then they tried to fit these
“chunks” with the other words around them. Several students were guided by word order; several
tried to construct an initial subject-verb pair, another student tried verb-subject-object, then adjectives in order, and one used his knowledge of
where a word usually appears in a sentence (e.g.,
yesterday in the beginning). Overall, the task5 promoted learners’ analysis of sentence-level grammar and of grammatical constraints on particular
words as they tried to figure out ways to use the
words correctly while producing novel sentences
with them.
Overall Learner Responses to the Tasks
The data summarized above provide evidence
that with most learners, most of the tasks succeeded at least partially in eliciting attention to
the relevant features of the target words. The
requirements of each task—as these were perceived by a learner—were the primary determinant of his or her behaviour. It is striking that few
learners went beyond what they perceived to be
the behavioural goal of the activity (e.g., filling in
blanks), and most tended to ignore instructions
that did not appear necessary for arriving at the
solution. There were certain general tendencies
that were more or less consistent for a given exercise, depending upon whether learners had
the prerequisite knowledge and understood the
intent of the instructions. It is also apparent that
learners’ perceptions of what was required sometimes varied considerably, so that from an instructional point of view the intended task was
not always what learners perceived or attempted
to do.
In short, whatever the intended task requirements, the nature and extent of mental activity
elicited by each task was also determined by the
learner’s perception of what was required, the
learner’s effort, and his or her L2 knowledge,
relevant background knowledge, and problemsolving skills. Finally, most learners exhibited partial, rather than full, success or failure in carrying
out tasks, again reflecting their different levels of
proficiency, levels of effort, and kinds of mental
activity. These analyses also identified substantial
differences in individual learner responses to the
same exercises, as well as commonalities where
different tasks successfully focused learners’ attention on specific aspects of lexical knowledge:
word forms, grammatical or discourse functions,
semantic meaning, and relationships with other
words.
In terms of the interest, value, and relative difficulty of individual tasks as perceived by learners,
most of the participants reported finding the tasks
interesting, often because of the novelty of an
exercise type and the challenge it presented—the
prime example being the scrambled sentence task
(Task 8). Most learners reported that they found
at least some of the tasks helpful for learning
some new words and their uses and that this effect
was cumulative as they encountered the same
words in different exercises. Most also reported
that the exercises tended to be increasingly difficult and saw this as a positive feature.
Appendix B presents excerpts from a learner’s
protocol to illustrate some of the above points, as
well as intrasubject tendencies in approaching
two of the exercises (Task 3 and Task 8). The
excerpts also illustrate differences in the type of
data yielded by the concurrent think-aloud technique and the two retrospective techniques.
Evidence of Acquisition of Lexical Knowledge
It is apparent from the learners’ statements
and their eventual correct use of some words
Marjorie Bingham Wesche and T. Sima Paribakht
that, for some learners, at least initial learning of
some kind was taking place for some words in the
different tasks, when, for example, they recognized a previously unfamiliar word, or inferred a
new meaning for an already familiar word. The
transcripts show evidence of seven kinds of new
word knowledge that were retained, at least temporarily, by the learners while they were doing the
exercises, and that were in some cases linked to a
given exercise. These seven types of word knowledge are listed and exemplified below. (Note that
interviewer quotations are introduced by I; student quotations are introduced by S.)
1. Learning Previously Unfamiliar Words to Recognition Level or Beyond. In the transcripts, there were
many examples of words that learners did not
remember ever having seen before the study and
that they remembered working with after particular activities. This result indicated that the new
word forms, usually with associated meanings,
had become salient to the students and had been
retained for at least a brief period—important
initial steps in the word acquisition process.
Example (think-aloud)
S: I’m not sure if coal is “a blackish, natural substance used for fuel.” ’Cause it still that it’s . . .
come from the diesel exhaust. “A natural substance used for fuel.” I know . . . I think it’s
coal. I think coal now I think . . . I know what
is it now.
2. Learning New Meanings for Known Words. There
were indications that learners had become aware
of new or more precise meanings for already familiar words.
Example (delayed retrospection)
S: I learn trigger . . . decay . . . By doing this exercise, I will remember words several meaning,
not one meaning.
3. Learning More About Different Uses of the Word.
There are many examples of learners becoming
aware of different uses for given words.
Example (delayed retrospection)
S: Because I see the word . . . in other context,
not the same context. . . . Maybe the signification of the word is the same but I know now I
can use this word on two or three context
different.
4. Learning About the Grammatical Properties of a
Word. There is some evidence that some learners
became more aware of the grammatical proper-
205
ties of certain words, even though, as in the first
example given, they did not reach an understanding of the meaning.
Example (think-aloud)
I: You gave me two definitions for fine, you said
. . . either of those didn’t fit in this sentence.
But how did you . . . place it?
S: It’s an adjective. I compared with . . . here. “A
thick layer of snow.” I try to get the same
construction here. “A fine layer of dust.”
I: So what do you think fine means?
S: Fine. I think it means thick too.
5. Learning New Derivations. Task 4, which focused
on derivational relationships, appears to have led
several learners to new insights about the target
words.
Example (immediate retrospection)
S: You can improve your vocabulary. Because I
get release. And I got it when I read the text. I
got it as a verb. . . . But I see I can use it as a
noun too. . . . I get the noun, and right now
found the verb of the adjective. I just use the
past participle of the verb for the adjective.
And right now, I get the verb, the noun and
the adjective for the same word.
6. New Metalinguistic Insights. One of the learners
reported several cases of gaining new metalinguistic knowledge.
Example (after Task 7, immediate retrospection)
S: I think I learned something new. . . . I can
classify, I can classify this connective in categories.
7. Increase in the Level of Certainty of Knowledge of
Some Words. Finally, there were cases in which
learners reported greater certainty in their
knowledge of some target words.
Example (after Task 5, immediate retrospection)
S: Now that I know, I’m sure what point out or
release or the other words, the definition of
the words.
Evidence for the Value of Multiple, Related Exercises
Learning the meaning of a new word is incremental and normally involves more than one exposure as learners elaborate different aspects of
word knowledge and practice this knowledge by
using it. Many students began to perceive the
pedagogical advantage of multiple exercises with
the same target words as they repeatedly encountered the words in different contexts. The mul-
206
tiple-exercise format seemed to help some learners overcome an initial frustration with their inability to understand certain target words in the
earlier tasks as they achieved success in the later
tasks.
If learners do not get the meaning of a target
word in one exercise, they cannot avoid trying
again in a subsequent exercise and may get the
meaning as a result. Unlike thematic reading for
comprehension, such tasks ensure not only repeated meaningful exposure to target words, but
require that learners deal with different aspects
of the words’ meanings and uses.
Example (delayed retrospection)
S: Very interesting. Because I see there is a repetition. The same words, the same vocabulary
from time to time. If you get the words and
you try to play with them, to make sense with
them, you get them. That means repetition,
without the efforts, you get them easily.
The learner may infer a wrong meaning for a
target word in one exercise and take advantage of
the information provided by another exercise to
become aware of this or even get the right meaning.
Example (Task 5, think-aloud)
S: I think that my answer in the exercise 3 probably be wrong with decay because I don’t see
the definition that I give to decay in exercise
3 here.
Possible Explanations for the Differential Learning
Outcomes of the Reading Plus and Reading Only
Treatments
A comparison of the above findings with those
from the Reading Only introspective study helps
explain the differential word-learning outcomes
found for the two treatments in the earlier experimental study. There appear to be six major
explanations for the superior results of the Reading Plus condition.
1. Reading Plus vocabulary tasks tend to make
more words salient to learners than does Reading
Only.
Example (delayed retrospection)
S: You just read the text, you get a global idea of
the text. But when you have to work with
words in the text . . . you have to use it in
sentences. . . . You have to do exercises with
the words according to the text. That means
The Modern Language Journal 84 (2000)
at the end, I think you get the word, and you
get . . . more information about the text.
2. Reading Plus tasks encourage learners to continue to explore target words on their own.
Example (delayed retrospection)
S: Only read text, I don’t know which words I
don’t remember. So when I do exercise, I find
mean which words I don’t remember. So I will
. . . look up for dictionary and find the . . .
word and later I will remember the words.
3. Vocabulary tasks motivate learners to work
more with a given word than do related readings
presenting it on several occasions for text comprehension. Greater mental effort may increase
the likelihood of learning the word.
Example (delayed retrospection)
S: Because . . . that makes . . . your brains work
more. . . . You know when it’s harder, which
means progress.
4. Considerable text reading is also required to
carry out reading based vocabulary tasks, because
learners constantly need to go back to the text to
do them; thus they benefit from reading for comprehension as well as from the tasks. This type of
reading may involve more sentence level analysis
of the reading text than does reading for meaning, which promotes discourse level processing.
Example (delayed retrospection)
S: I think it’s important to read . . . the same
texts. But is important, like you can just focus
on this, and when you, you know all this kind
of words, then after you can go to other texts
and . . . found like the same words and just
know if you really know the meaning. It’s
better to just focus on one text and after that
we can understand the words and things like
that. After, go to the, another text with the
same words.
5. Reading-based tasks promote practise in using
the acquired words.
Example (delayed retrospection)
S: [It’s important not only to read but] to do the
exercises too. That means a lot. . . . because
you practice them. It is not only you’re learning the words, but you practice the word. You
put the word together. . . . That’s when you
get your progress.
6. Some learners became aware, while doing an
exercise, of how imprecise their knowledge of
Marjorie Bingham Wesche and T. Sima Paribakht
certain target words was and of what they needed
to know to do that exercise.
Example (delayed retrospection)
S: I saw the definition in the dictionary . . . but
it’s not correspond to . . . and the one dictionary and when I read that I not sure what it is.
DISCUSSION
The results of this study reflect the complex
links between instructional tasks and learning
outcomes. Although there was considerable variation in learner response, most learners tended
to work from the principle of minimal effort,
focusing on what they perceived to be the required behavioural outcome. They did not necessarily follow all the instructions provided or engage themselves in the mental processes
envisaged. Some learning outcomes were clearly
linked to the requirements of particular tasks,
such as learning a new meaning or a new use for
a somewhat familiar word, learning about morphosyntactic properties of the word, or gaining
metalinguistic knowledge. Other outcomes appeared to be cumulative, leading to the development of more precise knowledge of the word’s
meanings or relations to other words, or to
stronger knowledge (toward automatization)
through practice. Whether a given task succeeded in eliciting the anticipated mental response and effort largely depended upon a
learner’s perception of the required outcome,
relevant prior knowledge (including English proficiency), and his or her motivation and perseverance. The learners saw the activities as generally
requiring progressively higher-level lexical processing and presenting increased difficulty.
Our findings thus support the conclusion of
other researchers that multiple exposures to
words are normally required for their acquisition,
and give meaning to what has been described as
the iterative, elaborative, and incremental nature
of vocabulary acquisition. Varied tasks provide
multiple encounters with the target words and
require attention to different lexical features, a
combination that appears to lead to elaboration
as well as strengthening of the knowledge learners have of particular lexical items. They also enable learners to self-correct wrong inferences
they may have made about a word in earlier exercises. The appearance of a target word in several
tasks may also provide encouragement for learners to make an extra effort to identify its features,
because they know that they will have to deal with
the word again.
207
Considerable evidence was found showing differences in the way learners responded to targeted unfamiliar words in text-based vocabulary
exercises vis-à-vis their responses to reading extended texts for meaning. In the Reading Only
treatment, the goal was text comprehension, and
the comprehension tasks guided learners to focus
on task-related words and to ignore most of the
others. Because text comprehension, rather than
finding specific word meanings, was the goal,
only an approximate meaning for target words
was needed in most cases. Learners were sometimes able to use world and topic knowledge to
compensate for gaps in lexical knowledge and to
answer comprehension questions successfully
without having to deal with specific lexical items.
It is reasonable to suggest that inferencing for the
purpose of text processing, even if it leads to
successful comprehension, may, at best, lead to
the integration of some words into the learner’s
lexicon at a recognition level; many other words
will be lost once they have served their immediate
text comprehension purpose. In the experimental study, it was found that in the Reading Only
condition learners’ retention of most of the target words they learned remained at the recognition level. In contrast, gains in vocabulary knowledge in the Reading Plus condition covered a
range of aspects of word knowledge and word use
ability, indicating that input processing had gone
beyond the comprehension and initial formmeaning associations of the recognition level. In
addition to varied word knowledge, learners appeared to gain a certainty in what they already
knew about some of the words as well as a readiness to use them in production.
In short, when compared with the findings of
the parallel introspective study of Reading Only,
the Reading Plus treatment appeared to make
more target words salient to learners, to promote
the learners’ interest in further exploring some
target words on their own, and to guide their
attention to different aspects of target word
knowledge. The tasks also provided opportunities
to use the words in different contexts, thus promoting both knowledge elaboration and practice, factors which could explain the learners’
better retention of new knowledge. Differences
between learner responses under the Reading
Only and Reading Plus instructional conditions
may help to explain the superior effectiveness of
the latter condition in the number of target
words retained and the greater depth of word
knowledge gained in the former experiment. At
the same time, although tasks have a dramatic
influence on learner behaviour, individual differ-
208
ences are always present, ensuring considerable
variability in responses and learning outcomes
under both conditions. Taken together, the findings of the introspective study of Reading Only
(Paribakht & Weshe, 1999) and the present study
of Reading Plus support and help explain the earlier experimental research outcomes.
Research Implications
The findings of this study demonstrate the
value of introspective data as a complement and
explanatory follow-up to experiments. Thinkaloud techniques give some insight into what
learners think they do and into the cognitive
processes that lead to measurable outcomes.
They are particularly useful in a task-oriented activity that allows some confirmation of what learners actually do. Concurrent and retrospective
protocols provide different kinds of insights. The
first allow the researcher an immediate way to
check what learners are thinking about and doing—in this case, with the target words. This
more immediate method can be compared with
generally more structured and selective recollections at the end of a task and at the end of a
session, about how the learners remember approaching the various tasks and what they think
they have learned.
With respect to procedures, the importance of
interviewer presence (as opposed to just a tape
recorder) during introspective data collection
should not be underestimated. Prompts keep
learners talking during concurrent thinking
aloud and guide retrospection. The interviewer
also observes, describes, and confirms certain behaviours which learners would not otherwise report and can elicit learner comments on specific
issues of research interest.
Pedagogical Implications
The unquestioned value of extensive thematic
reading in the long-term development of L2 language proficiency, including lexical development,
is not diminished by our findings. However, the
unpredictability of gains in word knowledge
makes sole reliance on extensive reading a questionable instructional strategy for L2 programs
that aim at specific vocabulary knowledge. Even
with careful text selection to ensure repeated presentation of words of interest (as in thematic or
discipline-related language teaching), many important words will not be learned incidentally, or
they may be inaccurately learned, or, at best,
learned only to a recognition level in context.
The Modern Language Journal 84 (2000)
Text-based vocabulary activities such as those used
in the Reading Plus treatment can, within a limited
instructional period, provide cumulative and varied exposures to target words that lead to more
predictable and effective retention. Tasks can
guide learners to focus attention on (a) specific
words; (b) global or word-level comprehension;
(c) different aspects of word forms, functions, and
meanings; and (d) the relationships of the words
with other words. Instructional guidance should
provide multiple and successful encounters with
target words. These encounters should involve
successively more complex input processing in order to ensure the elaboration of different kinds of
lexical knowledge and the gradual automatization
of this knowledge. This method is a more attractive instructional option than sole reliance on extensive reading for the systematic development of
learners’ active command of specific words and
kinds of word knowledge.
Part of the instructional solution may come
from the two reading-based approaches discussed
in this article, which, together, demonstrate ways
to promote the guided acquisition of targeted L2
words and learners’ long-term L2 vocabulary development through reading and inferencing
from context. Related findings from other studies
(cf. Fraser, 1999; Haynes, 1993; Huckin &
Haynes, 1993; Sternberg, 1987) suggest that reading-based approaches might reasonably be combined with explicit instruction for an initial core
of several thousand very frequent, or specific purpose, words to bring learners to a threshold level
for text comprehension. This combination of approaches could be supplemented with instruction in strategies in order to enhance the effectiveness of vocabulary learning and retention.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was made possible through grants from
the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
of Canada, and the University of Ottawa. We are grateful
to our research assistants, Marilyn Minnes, Laura Collins, and Louise Jasmin, and to the student participants.
We thank Norbert Schmitt and the anonymous reviewers for their careful reading of earlier versions of the
manuscript and Beatrice Magyar for word processing
and layout.
NOTES
1 An earlier version of this article was presented at the
American Association for Applied Linguistics 1998 Annual Conference, Seattle, WA, March 14–17, 1998.
Marjorie Bingham Wesche and T. Sima Paribakht
2 “Depth” of word knowledge refers here to the ability
to go beyond recognition of the word form and its
meaning to a demonstrated level of ability to use the
word. In the past several years, several researchers have
attempted to characterize and measure depth of word
knowledge (Henriksen, 1999; Laufer, 1997; Laufer &
Paribakht, 1998; Paribakht & Wesche, 1993; Qian, 1997;
Read, 1989, 1993, 1996; Schmitt,1998, 1999; Wesche &
Paribakht, 1996). Henriksen distinguishes three dimensions of developing lexical competence: (a) partial to
precise knowledge, (b) “depth of knowledge,” and
(c) receptive to productive use capability. Emphasizing
the need to distinguish item-learning from systemchanging lexical development, she proposes that
“depth” be reserved for describing knowledge of the
various paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships of a
word.
3 The target words were all noncognates of French
and were judged by experienced teachers to be challenging to these participants, because they had been
challenging for similar learners in the earlier experiment.
4 The task did not require recall as would a normal
production task.
5 Whereas this exercise did not require the retrieval of
words from memory, as in a spontaneous production
exercise, it exhibited important qualities of production
by requiring the retrieval of syntactic and semantic features and the recombination of the words into novel
sentences. In future research, both controlled and spontaneous production tasks would be useful.
REFERENCES
Bensoussan, M., & Laufer, B. (1984). Lexical guessing in
context in EFL reading comprehension. Journal of
Research in Reading, 7, 15–32.
Carrell, P., & Eisterhold, J. C. (1988). Schema theory
and ESL reading pedagogy. In P. Carrell, J.
Devine, & D. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to
second language reading (pp. 73–92). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
de Bot, K., Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1997). Towards a lexical processing model for the study of
second language vocabulary acquisition: Evidence
from ESL reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 309–329.
Dubin, F., & Olshtain, E. (1993). Predicting word meanings from contextual clues: Evidence from L1
readers. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady
(Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 181–202). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Fraser, C. (1999). Lexical processing strategy use and
vocabulary learning through reading. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 21, 225–241.
Gass, S. (1988). Integrating research areas: A framework
for second language studies. Applied Linguistics, 9,
198–217.
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language
learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
209
Haastrup, K. (1991). Lexical inferencing procedures or talking about words. Tübingen, Germany: Naar.
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. (1998, March). Word form, attention, and
vocabulary development through reading. Paper
presented at the annual conference of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Seattle,
WA.
Henriksen, B. (1999). Three dimensions of vocabulary
development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 303–317.
Huckin, T., & Bloch, J. (1993). Strategies for inferring
word meaning in context: A cognitive model. In T.
Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp.
153–178). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Huckin, T., & Coady, J. (1999). Incidental vocabulary
acquisition in a second language: A review. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 181–193.
Huckin, T., & Haynes, M. (1993). Summary and future
directions. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady
(Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 289–298). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hulstijn, J. H. (1990). A comparison between the information processing and the analysis/control approaches to language learning. Applied Linguistics,
11, 30–45.
Hulstijn, J. H. (1992). Retention of inferred and given
word meanings: Experiments in incidental vocabulary learning. In P. Arnaud & H. Béjoint
(Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp.
113–125). London: MacMillan.
Hulstijn, J. H. (in press). Intentional and incidental
second-language vocabulary learning: A reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity.
In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language
instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Joe, A. (1995). Text-based tasks and incidental vocabulary learning. Second Language Research, 11,
149–158.
Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling
by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 73, 440–464.
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. 20–34). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Laufer, B., & Paribakht, T. S. (1998). The relationship
between passive and active vocabularies: Effects of
language learning context. Language Learning, 48,
365–391.
Li, X. (1988). Effects of contextual cues on inferring
and remembering meanings of new words. Applied
Linguistics, 9, 302–313.
210
McLaughlin, B. (1990). Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11, 113–128.
Nagy, W. E., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Breadth and depth
of vocabulary knowledge: Implications for acquisition and instruction. In M. G. McKeown & M.
Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition
(pp. 19–35). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary.
New York: Heinle.
Nation, I. S. P., & Coady, J. (1988). Vocabulary and
reading. In R. Carter & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching (pp. 97–110). New
York: Longman.
Nunan, D. (1994). Research methods in language learning
(3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1993). Reading comprehension and second language development in a
comprehension-based ESL program. TESL Canada Journal, 2(1), 9–29.
Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1996). Enhancing vocabulary acquisition through reading: A hierarchy
of text-related exercise types. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 52, 250–273.
Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in
second language vocabulary development. In J.
Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp.
174–200). New York: Cambridge University Press.
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. (1993). Too many words: Learning the vocabulary of an academic subject. In T. Huckin, M.
Haynes, & J. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading
and vocabulary learning (pp. 109–129). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Parry, K. (1997). Vocabulary and comprehension: Two
portraits. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second
language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for peda-
The Modern Language Journal 84 (2000)
gogy (pp. 55–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Qian, D. (1997). Depth of vocabulary knowledge: Assessing its role in adults’ reading comprehension
in English as a second language. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. University of Toronto,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Read, J. (1989). Measuring the vocabulary knowledge of
second language learners. RELC Journal, 19,
12–25.
Read, J. (1993). The development of a new measure of
L2 vocabulary knowledge. Language Testing, 10,
355–371.
Read, J. (1996, August). Validating the word associates format as a measure of depth of vocabulary knowledge.
Paper presented at the 11th World Congress of
Applied Linguistics, Jyväskylä, Finland.
Schmitt, N. (1998). Tracking the incremental acquisition of second language vocabulary: A longitudinal study. Language Learning, 48, 281–317.
Schmitt, N. (1999). The relationship between TOEFL
vocabulary items and meaning, association, collocation and word class knowledge. Language Testing, 16, 189–216.
Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Most vocabulary is learned from
context. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.),
The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 89–105).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stoller, F., & Grabe, W. (1993). Implications for L2 vocabulary acquisition and instruction from L1 vocabulary research. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J.
Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 29–45). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Wesche, M., & Paribakht, T. S. (1996). Assessing second
language vocabulary knowledge: Depth versus
breadth. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53,
13–40.
Wesche, M., & Paribakht, T. S. (1998). The influence of
“task” in reading-based L2 vocabulary acquisition:
Evidence from introspective studies. In K. Haastrup & Å. Viberg, (Eds.), Perspectives on lexical acquisition in a second language (pp. 19–59). Lund, Sweden: Lund University Press.
APPENDIX A
Acid Rain Text
1. For almost half the year, most of northeastern North America is covered in a thick layer of snow. Hibernating
among the snowflakes, awaiting the bears of springtime, is a potent dose of sulfuric acid that, when released in the
spring runoff, packs the knockout wallop of a heavyweight prizefighter.
2. As the snow melts and enters lakes and rivers, parts of these bodies of water can become as much as 100 times
more acidic in a very short time. “While this acid bath usually only lasts for a few days to a few weeks, the pH values
are often acutely lethal even in lakes that otherwise do not appear to be in danger,” Dr. David Schindler of the
Freshwater Institute in Winnipeg—a pioneer researcher into effects of acid rain on fish—told an Ontario government
committee investigating acid rain. As an example, Dr. Schindler pointed out that Panther Lake in the Adirondacks
normally has a pH of 7. But in the spring runoff it drops to a pH of 5.
3. Yet the air pollution picture is not totally bleak. Continuing research offers some hope of improvement. In late
1986 two scientists reported a chemical process capable of eliminating nitrogen oxides from diesel exhaust gases and
coal-fired boilers. The hot gases, passed over a nontoxic chemical called cyanuric acid, break down into harmless
Marjorie Bingham Wesche and T. Sima Paribakht
211
nitrogen and water. If later research supports the findings, a giant step could be taken toward eliminating a major
contributor to acid rain and man-made ozone.
4. Perhaps the most controversial environmental issue of the decade is acid rain, but that too is clouded in mystery.
“We are in the infancy of understanding the full effects of an atmosphere acidified by burning fossil fuels,” Dr. Chris
Bernabo, an air-quality expert, told me. “In order to really understand it, we must conduct years of research.”
5. The federal Clean Air Act of 1970, amended in 1977, expired in 1981. As of this writing it continues on
extensions, outdistanced by the growing knowledge about air pollution.
6. We live on a forgiving planet, with mechanisms to deal with natural pollutants. Decay, sea spray, and volcanic
eruptions annually release more sulfur than all the power plants, smelters, and other industries in the world.
Lightning bolts create nitrogen oxides just as automobiles and industrial furnaces do, and trees emit hydrocarbons
called terpenes. Their release triggers a bluish haze that gave the Blue Ridge its name.
7. For millions of years the ingredients of such substances have been cycling through the ecosystem, constantly
changing form. They pass through plant and animal tissues, to sink into the sea, return to the earth, and are vaulted
aloft in some geologic event to begin the cycle again. An atom of oxygen completes the cycle approximately once
every 2,000 years. A portion of the next breath you take could have last been breathed by Jesus.
8. Can the earth assimilate the additional 70 million tons of sulfur that we release each year? What happens to plants
that absorb the additional nitrogen oxides (NOx) we create with our miniature lightning bolts inside car cylinders?
Can the atmosphere take on the extra load of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, man-made ozone, and chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants that scientists say could raise global temperatures by the greenhouse effect?
9. Such chemical increases can be accommodated somehow, over time. Earth has plenty of that, but do we?
APPENDIX B
Excerpts from a Learner’s Transcripts of Tasks 3 and 8
This student uses knowledge of word collocation and metalinguistic concepts together with contextual information as a basis for
inferencing in both exercises.
I: ⫽ Interviewer, S: ⫽ Student
Task 3
Concurrent think-aloud
I: Well there you go. Can you tell me what you’re doing in this exercise?
S: I have to match the study words in the left column with the appropriate definition in the right column. There
are more definitions than words.
I: So right away, you’re putting point out with “to bring to someone’s attention.” Can you tell me how you came up
with that answer? What you were thinking about?
S: Because I get in my, in the other exercise.
I: So you’ve put coal with “a natural substance used for fuel.” What did you come up with your answer there, what
were you thinking there?
S: I know coal is a natural substance. And I get it in the other exercise.
I: And release?
S: Release. When you release something, that means, you try to get, to get it free. I may be wrong because I get
another one here. “A mining process.” That mean, that can be coal too.
I: And how would you come up with that answer, “a mining process,” to coal?
S: Because I know there is mine of coal. I don’t know. Is also can be wrong.
I: I see you’ve matched “one thickness above or below another.”
S: Yes. Same process as in the other exercise.
I: You’re matching. . .
S: “To fall to a lower level.”
I: And how did you match that one, what were you thinking?
S: Is like in the exercise, when you see something in water, in the sea, to sink something into the sea.
Disintegration, I explain it to you a while ago.
I: Now you’re looking at trigger. Can you tell me what you’re doing in order to try and figure out trigger? Can you
tell me what you’re doing?
S: For trigger? I try to see, its context in the text.
I: Okay, so you’re looking back at the text.
S: Yeah, to the text, to see in which way it is used. I’m not sure of “mining process.”
I: Okay, and how did you come up with that answer?
212
The Modern Language Journal 84 (2000)
S: Because here it is a name. In the text it is a name. And here it is a name, and this is a name. Again the other, we
cannot matched, they are verbs. It is impossible to match but if nouns. Like here I put with mining process. But
maybe wrong, I don’t know. Coal can be, for me coal, coal can match with a mining process. Because there is coal
in the air. We can talk about coal, mine of coal, something like that.
I: Okay, good. . . .
Task 8
Immediate retrospection
I: Okay. So how difficult did you find this exercise?
S: It not difficult if you know the words. If you know the words that is scrambled, you can unscramble easily. But if
you don’t know the words, it is difficult. Is my problem with ??? too. I’m not for sure for triggered and I’m not
sure for sure for “overload.” Because of these two words, I have difficulty to arrange. Unscramble the sentence.
I: Did you find it interesting?
S: Yeah it is interesting. Is like to, when you, how you say in English, mots croisés? To find. . . Back in French you
can say casse-tête, puzzle. Like puzzle words. I find it interesting but the problem is when you don’t know the
words, the meaning of the words.
I: And which words do you remember working with here?
S: In the sentences? I remember triggered, I remember “overload.” I remember “dust,” I remember “fine.” Fine dust.
I remember fine dust.
I: What did you do with those words in order to do the exercise? Like the first two you mentioned were trigger and
“overload” you remembered.
S: If I what?
I: What did you do with the words in order to do the exercise?
S: What I did, what I do with them, I read them first. And I try to classify them. . . according they are, they can
belong to, to group of subject. Verbs or complements.
I: And do you think you learned anything about any of these words by doing this exercise?
S: Yes. You learn things because when you have them scrambled like that and you have to, and you have to
unscramble them, is ??? the meaning. And even though you didn’t know the meaning you have to think about
the meaning. That mean interesting. That mean okay. If you keep doing that, that means you will get them.
All Tasks
Delayed retrospection
I: Now I have some questions to ask you for the end of all the exercises. Do you have any comments about the
exercises you just did?
S: The comment I have of the exercises. It’s good, is interesting. That means if you want to learn vocabulary, and to
improve your vocabulary, it’s so interesting. That means you have the text, first you have the text, then you the
words underlined. That means at the beginning you have, you know the words you are going to work with.
Through the exercises, through the exercise you have the same words that are repeated. And each time you
have to make an exercise, you have the same words but in different context or in different situation. That
means if you, sometimes you have the same definition of the words, but you have them from time to time.
I think. If you work with them, this repetition, you will get them. At the end of the exercise, without making too
much effort to learn the words, you get them automatically.
I: Which of these exercises did you find particularly interesting? I think you have them all here, so let’s have a look
at them.
S: The problem is all of these exercise are interesting for me.
I: So you can’t pick one. You don’t feel that there is one or ones that are more interesting than the others?
Or some that are less interesting than the others?
S: They are all interesting for me. Because, that depends on. If they impose you to do the, if they impose you to do
it, you can find it difficult. If you don’t like to learn vocabulary, you will find it difficult. But if you want to learn
vocabulary, and you want to know, to speak a language, I think it is a good way, to make practice. Sometimes, for
me, when I was a child, in my childhood, I tried to learn English. But I try to memorize the words. They give me
the words, I try to memorize them. But after a short time I forget them. Because I never practiced them, I never
worked with them, I never used them in situation. But if I, right now I realize if I get this exercise since the
beginning, right now I can speak or write English, quickly or fluently.
I: Which type of exercise do you think works best for learning vocabulary?
S: For learning vocabulary. It’s difficult for me to say which words, which test is first, or which test is worst.
Because, I see that they the person who work the test, it proceeds, it goes by steps. First you have the words, you
read them, and they told you, they ask you to see that they are underlined in the text. It’s not so difficult. You
just read the words and you try to see if they are underlined in the text. And you go to another exercise. They
tell you to do something with these words. ??? they give another ??? to match them and so on. That means is the
process. The process, for me the process is okay. You start with something easy and. . . that means to see that the
Marjorie Bingham Wesche and T. Sima Paribakht
I:
S:
I:
S:
I:
S:
I:
S:
I:
213
words are there, that means you’re going to work with the word. If you know that, my problem of that, I didn’t
know I had to work with the words since the beginning to the end. If I knew that I had to work with the words
from the beginning to the end, perhaps I do the exercise better. But I didn’t know that. Until I doing, I doing
the exercise I see I have to same the words that comes, and that makes the work so funny, so interesting. It’s so
difficult for me to tell you that of this one is better than the other one.
Okay, so you see it as a process.
Is a process. Is a skill. You have to get the first one, and so on. I don’t know someone who is, a special in
teaching languages can improve, according to experience, to experience made in classroom, with such exercise,
can improve these exercises. But I can tell you right now what to do or what you have to do if. . .
I’ll ask you one last question. Do you think vocabulary exercises of this type, after reading more texts, are helpful.
Do you think vocabulary exercises of this type are helpful for learning vocabulary, or reading more texts with the
same words in them, be more useful?
Yeah, is useful. So helpful.
Which way is useful, or helpful. This way with vocabulary exercises? Or just reading more texts with the same
words in them?
No. When you read the text, the first contact you have of the text, you don’t understand the text very well.
Because you just read the text, you get a global idea of the text. But when you have to work with words in the
text, each time you have to go, you have a word, and you have to use it in sentences. You have to go to the text
to see in which, you have to insert the question according to the text. You have to make exercises, you have
to do exercises with the words according to the text. That means at the end, I think you get the word, and you
get the, more information about the text. That means you get a lot of things about the text.
So that’s more meaningful to you.
Yeah, meaningful. Very helpful to me. First, I read the text. There is words you don’t understand. But, when
you, you, you, you, have something to do with words in the text, and words that are difficult. Words, you are not
accustomed to. When you work with them from time to time, by doing exercises, to see in which context, in
what context the words are used, I think you get them at the end. It’s so interesting.
Okay, good. Thank you.
SLRF 2000 at UW–Madison
The University of Wisconsin–Madison will host the Second Language Research Forum (SLRF), September 7–10, 2000. The theme of SLRF 2000 is “Second Language Research: Past, Present, and Future.”
Plenary Speakers:
Ellen Bialystok, York University: “Against Isolationism: Cognitive Perspectives on Second Language
Research”
Lynn Eubank, University of North Texas: “Generative Research in L2 Acquisition: Some Whats, Wherebeens, and Whithers”
Claire Kramsch, University of California, Berkeley: “What Can Foreign Language Learning Contribute
to Second Language Research?”
Bonny Norton, University of British Columbia: “Non-participation, Imagined Communities, and the
Language Classroom”
Colloquia Topics:
Ultimate Attainment in End-State Grammars
Language Attrition
Technology and SLA Research
Conversation Analysis: A Methodological Resource for SLA in the New Millennium
For more information, visit the SLRF 2000 web site at: http://mendota.english.wisc.edu/~SLRF/
The SLRF 2000 committee may be reached by Email at: SLRF2000@studentorg.wisc.edu or by regular
mail at: Applied Linguistics Student Association, SLRF Committee, 7187 Helen C. White Hall, 600 N.
Park St., Madison, WI 53706–1475 USA