Applied Linguistics 28/1: 66–86
doi:10.1093/applin/aml049
ß Oxford University Press 2007
DIANA PULIDO
Michigan State University
The study examines the impact of topic familiarity and passage sight
vocabulary on lexical inferencing and retention. Independent variables include
(a) a topic familiarity questionnaire, and (b) a passage sight vocabulary test.
A repeated-measures design was used with a cross-sectional sample of 35 adult
L2 learners of Spanish. Ss read narratives (1 more and 1 less familiar) containing
nonsense words. They guessed meanings of target words and rated degree of
difficulty in guessing. After reading all stories, all participants completed
an inference verification task to confirm or correct guesses, and to encourage
deeper processing of target words. This was followed by two measures of
retention: (a) translation production, and (b) translation recognition. Analyses
reveal (a) robust effects of topic familiarity and passage sight vocabulary on
lexical inferencing, (b) a significant interaction between topic familiarity and
passage sight vocabulary on difficulty in lexical inferencing, and (c) robust
effects of passage sight vocabulary on lexical retention and a significant effect
of topic familiarity on lexical retention–translation recognition measure.
The discussion concerns the significance of findings for lexical inferencing,
processing, and retention through strategic reading tasks.
L2 vocabulary development through reading is complex. It takes place
through various component processes involved in text processing and
comprehension. For example, it involves noticing that particular words are
unfamiliar. Then, in the absence of dictionaries or human assistance,
it requires inferring meaning (lexical inferencing), using context cues and
linguistic and extra-linguistic knowledge (Faerch et al. 1984). Readers
must also attend to the connections between new lexical forms and their
meanings and integrate the new linguistic information into their developing
language system. This involves some unspecified degree of elaborative
rehearsal—forming connections between the new lexical form and meaning
and associating these with previous knowledge (Baddeley 1998). If there are
too many constraints on the individual’s processing capacity (McLaughlin
1987; Just and Carpenter 1992), characteristic of lower proficiency learners,
or if unfamiliar words are not deemed important enough to warrant deeper
processing (Craik and Tulving 1975), then these words may be processed
more superficially, and are less likely to be retrieved from memory
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/28/1/66/174802 by University of Newcastle user on 02 February 2021
The Effects of Topic Familiarity and Passage
Sight Vocabulary on L2 Lexical Inferencing
and Retention through Reading
DIANA PULIDO
67
REVIEW OF RESEARCH
Effects of background knowledge on lexical inferencing
and retention
Research reports that greater levels of background knowledge contribute to
efficiency of attentional allocation to input during reading, enabling richer
textual interpretations, and, in turn, superior memory performance (e.g. Ellis
2001; Graesser et al. 1994; Kintsch 1998; Nassaji 2002; Robinson 2003;
Rumelhart 1980; Schank and Abelson 1977). During reading the syntactic,
semantic, and pragmatic knowledge that is activated, held in working
memory, and utilized online during text processing can constrain subsequent
textual and lexical interpretations. The De Bot, Paribakht, and Wesche
(1997) model of L2 vocabulary processing during reading describes
subprocesses that serve to activate various knowledge when connecting a
new word form (i.e. a lexeme, containing phonological and morphological
specifications) to its semantic and syntactic specifications (i.e. its lemma).
For example, upon recognizing words, readers can use the activated semantic
information about meaning relations and semantic fields, and pragmatic
information about conventional and contrastive uses of words and
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/28/1/66/174802 by University of Newcastle user on 02 February 2021
(see also Ellis 1994, 2001; Gass 1999; Hulstijn 2001, 2003; Laufer and Hulstijn
2001; Robinson 2003; Schmidt 2001). An attempt to operationalize
the construct of elaboration during L2 incidental vocabulary acquisition
is the Involvement Load Theory (Laufer and Hulstijn 2001), which proposes
that retention of new words depends upon levels of ‘need’, ‘search’, and
‘evaluation’ imposed by reading tasks. ‘Need’, a motivational aspect, concerns
the need to comply with the task. ‘Search’ entails making attempts to
determine the meaning of an unknown word, and ‘evaluation’ involves
making a decision about ‘semantic and formal appropriateness (fit) of the word
and its context’ (Laufer and Hulstijn 2001: 15), the latter two being cognitive
processing components. The theory predicts that the greater the involvement
in a given task, the better the retention. Thus, to establish form–meaning
connections for new words through reading, the new words must be noticed
and sufficient attention allocated. The quality of processing during reading and
on any tasks intended to facilitate integration of new words is crucial.
Moreover, text processing and comprehension are influenced by reader-based
factors such as background knowledge and L2 proficiency (see Pulido 2000,
2003, 2004b for further explanation). Scarce, however, is research investigating, in a controlled fashion, the impact and interaction between such readerbased factors in L2 lexical inferencing and retention. A study of this nature
may not only contribute to interactive theories of reading and further
refinement of models of lexical development through reading, but also help to
explain the variability found in vocabulary learning outcomes through reading
within instructed L2 learning environments.
68
TOPIC FAMILIARITY AND PASSAGE SIGHT VOCABULARY
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/28/1/66/174802 by University of Newcastle user on 02 February 2021
expressions to interpret meanings of unfamiliar words. When processing
the new words themselves, readers can use morphological information
(e.g. bound roots, inflectional, or derivational morphemes) to obtain clues
about word class, word meaning components, grammatical function,
and semantic roles. During sentence parsing, readers can use syntactic
information (e.g. word order and argument structure), combined with
knowledge about event probabilities, to identify semantic information and
roles of new lexical items. When a word’s meaning is not known, new form–
meaning mapping can occur through the bootstrapping processes described
above (e.g. for L1 fast-mapping see Clark 1993; for L2 accounts see De Bot
et al. 1997; Nassaji 2003; Paribakht and Wesche 1999), in combination with
cues in the local or global context (Chern 1993; Nagy 1997; Sternberg 1987).
Thus, adult L2 learners may use whatever information available to interpret
new words, to the extent that their proficiency level enables them to use
such information. The significance of this explanation for understanding
L2 lexical development through reading is that the role of background
knowledge that is stored in long-term memory is largely determined by the
quality of the textbase that is constructed during reading, which is affected
by the individual’s text processing efficiency (i.e. ability in word recognition
and syntactic processes, sentence parsing, and use of causal and rhetorical
knowledge structures) and working memory. All of these elements function
in tandem in generating initial form–meaning connections for new words.
Research within a lexical inferencing paradigm1 has observed strategies
and knowledge sources that L2 learners use to infer word meanings. Studies
with advanced and intermediate ESL (Chern 1993; Nassaji 2003,
respectively) and beginning EFL learners (Haastrup 1989) illustrated that
learners of all levels relied on background knowledge to guess word
meanings during think-aloud protocols. However, Rott (2000), also using a
think-aloud task, found that few intermediate learners of German used
background knowledge during inferencing. Similarly, De Bot et al. (1997)
and Paribakht and Wesche (1999) reported that intermediate ESL learners
appealed less frequently to background knowledge than to grammatical
knowledge during a retrospective think-aloud task. In a cross-sectional study
Lee and Wolf (1997) observed that native Spanish speakers used background
knowledge the most to infer meaning, followed by the advanced,
intermediate, and then beginning learners of Spanish during a retrospective
think-aloud task. Finally, Parry’s (1993, 1997) longitudinal case studies
described advanced ESL learners’ use of knowledge about anthropology to
select which words to guess in their anthropology texts. These introspective
accounts generally illustrated learners using background knowledge to some
degree, whereas several studies demonstrated advanced learners using it
more frequently.
A few studies controlled for background knowledge, or measured
inferencing in contexts varying in degree of semantic richness. Adams
(1982) found that script activators (i.e. statements describing the topics)
DIANA PULIDO
69
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/28/1/66/174802 by University of Newcastle user on 02 February 2021
facilitated lexical inferencing for beginning learners of French when reading
paragraphs, one sentence at a time, about everyday activities. Li (1988)
reported more success and greater ease in guessing (determined by Likertscale ratings) when Chinese advanced learners of English processed
semantically rich compared to semantically poor sentences. Likewise,
Mondria and Wit-de Boer (1991) reported more successful inferencing
in semantically rich sentences with Dutch intermediate learners of French.
The studies above demonstrate that background knowledge and rich
semantic contexts affect lexical inferencing in discrete sentence contexts.
Few of the studies above assessed retention after the inferring phase.
Retention in the present study refers to memory for the correct meaning of
the word. Li (1988) reported superior retention of the words in the
semantically rich sentences based on a cued recall. Rott (2000) also reported
occasional successful recall of target word (TW) meanings when learners had
used background knowledge to guess the meanings. However, Mondria and
Wit-de Boer (1991), who assessed retention after a verification task to
confirm or correct the guesses, reported low retention on an L2–L1 translation task, and weak and negative correlations between inferencing and
retention. Similarly, Mondria (2003) also found low retention of correctly
inferred words after a verification task, and high correct retention of incorrectly inferred words in a study with intermediate learners of Dutch. The
latter two studies concluded that due to the strong association of context and
meaning, and assumed ease in guessing, learners likely did not pay sufficient
attention to the word form and its meaning during the learning tasks.
A few studies investigated effects of background knowledge on retention of
nonsense words, via an incidental research paradigm, where learners were
not alerted to the vocabulary tests (see Hulstijn 2001, 2003 for
methodological descriptions). Pulido (2000, 2003) measured retention after
a cross-section of adult learners of Spanish read two stories describing more
familiar scenarios (grocery shopping and doctor visit) and two describing less
familiar scenarios (publishing and homebuying). Familiarity was determined
by participants’ ratings on a questionnaire. Pulido found short-term
facilitative effects of background knowledge on a multiple-choice translation
recognition test administered two days after reading. In another study, with
intermediate Spanish learners, Pulido (2004b) obtained facilitative effects of
cultural background knowledge on immediate retention of nonsense words
after learners read narratives depicting either culturally familiar or culturally
unfamiliar versions of everyday scenarios (registering for classes and grocery
shopping). Results from the adapted version of the Vocabulary Knowledge
Scale (VKS), (Paribakht and Wesche 1993), reflected only self-reported
memory for having seen the TWs within the stories, which is regarded as an
initial stage in vocabulary acquisition.
There are limitations to these studies. The majority of the inferencing
studies did not measure retention of inferred words, and the retention-only
studies did not measure inferencing. Most of the inferencing studies did not
70
TOPIC FAMILIARITY AND PASSAGE SIGHT VOCABULARY
Effects of passage sight vocabulary on lexical inferencing
and retention
Reading also entails the use of linguistic knowledge. One type of competence
contributing to text processing, comprehension, and vocabulary acquisition is
vocabulary knowledge associated with the texts, hereafter referred to as
passage sight vocabulary. With efficient decoding skills and large sight
vocabularies, readers can allocate attentional resources to the construction
and integration of ideas from context, and the access and use of information
from long-term memory. This results in a greater likelihood of successful
lexical inferencing. Without such processing skills and proficiency, readers
are more apt to experience a short-circuit of the lexical inferencing and
integration process, and fewer chances for vocabulary development
(e.g. Grabe and Stoller 2002; Koda 2005; Laufer 1997). Although studies
report positive significant relationships between general breadth of
vocabulary knowledge and vocabulary gains through reading (Haynes and
Baker 1993; Horst et al. 1998), and general depth of vocabulary knowledge
and lexical inferencing success (Nassaji 2004), such findings do not illustrate
the precise relationship between vocabulary knowledge specific to a given
text and lexical development associated with processing that text.
Several studies reported in the previous section also observed more
successful lexical inferencing when readers knew vocabulary in the passage
(e.g. Haynes 1993; Haynes and Baker 1993; Lee and Wolf, 1997; Parry 1997;
Rott 2000). Lower-proficiency learners experienced more difficulty in
integrating multiple textual and extra-textual cues (background knowledge)
than did higher proficiency learners, who appeared to know more words in
the context. These results were determined by anecdotal observations, rather
than quantitative measurements of passage sight vocabulary.
Research concerning the impact of measured passage specific sight
vocabulary is scarce. Within an incidental framework, Holley (1973) found
no effects of new-word density on vocabulary retention after beginning
German learners read a narrative text. Pulido’s (2000, 2003) study reported
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/28/1/66/174802 by University of Newcastle user on 02 February 2021
assess background knowledge or ‘difficulty’ in guessing, which may provide
insight on individual differences in strategies or outcomes. Most studies used
expository texts, concerning difficult themes. Both factors combined may
have curtailed opportunities to appeal to background knowledge. Moreover,
most focused on one level of proficiency, prohibiting necessary crosssectional generalizations. Finally, most studies addressing inferencing and
retention focused on discrete sentences, rather than text processing, which
places additional constraints on memory because readers must construct,
integrate, and store meaning across sentence boundaries. This study aimed to
fill this gap by investigating the impact of background knowledge on both
lexical inferencing and retention for narrative text processing, via a crosssectional, repeated measures design that accounts for background knowledge.
DIANA PULIDO
71
Research questions
The following questions guided this study:
1 Which of the following factors have a significant impact on L2 lexical
inferencing when reading brief narratives: (a) topic familiarity,
(b) passage sight vocabulary?
2 Which of the following factors have a significant impact on difficulty in
lexical inferencing when reading brief narratives: (a) topic familiarity,
(b) passage sight vocabulary?
3 Which of the following factors have a significant impact on L2 lexical
retention from reading brief narratives, after an inference verification task
to confirm or correct original guesses: (a) topic familiarity, (b) passage
sight vocabulary?
First, from previous research it was hypothesized that topic familiarity would
significantly affect both lexical inferencing and retention, yielding greater
outcomes when subjects are more familiar with a particular topic. Next, topic
familiarity was also expected to affect degree of ease/difficulty in lexical
inferencing given the richer context and greater likelihood that learners
could utilize background knowledge successfully during reading. Last,
passage sight vocabulary was expected to have a significant impact on
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/28/1/66/174802 by University of Newcastle user on 02 February 2021
above also found that passage sight vocabulary, measured by a translation
test, was a robust predictor of vocabulary retention measured by translation
production and recognition tests 2 and 28 days after reading. As passage sight
vocabulary increased, so did lexical retention. Moreover, on the difficult
production measure, passage sight vocabulary was more robust than the
variable of background knowledge. Pulido (2004b) also investigated passage
sight vocabulary effects on immediate vocabulary retention by intermediate
learners of Spanish, but found only one high significant positive correlation
from the four narratives (i.e. a culturally familiar story about grocery
shopping). The lack of more robust findings may have been an artifact
of the homogenous group of participants, the small amount of passage
sight vocabulary tested, or the gain measure (e.g. an adapted version
of the VKS).
A limitation of most of the research cited above is the absence of a
measure of passage sight vocabulary and systematic study of its role in both
lexical inferencing and retention. To the best of my knowledge there is no
such study investigating the role of passage sight vocabulary on the lexical
inferencing process itself. Based upon the review and limitations reported
above, this study investigates the nature of the impact and interaction of the
reader-based variables of passage sight vocabulary, and background knowledge, hereafter referred to as topic familiarity, when a cross-section of L2
learners are assigned strategic tasks involving lexical inferencing and
processing of new vocabulary in narrative passages.
72
TOPIC FAMILIARITY AND PASSAGE SIGHT VOCABULARY
METHOD
Participants
Thirty-five adult learners of Spanish as an L2 served as participants. They
were recruited from five university courses: beginning (intensive for false
beginners), n ¼ 8; intermediate (4th semester language), n ¼ 8; highintermediate (5th and 6th semester grammar and composition), n ¼ 6;
advanced (7th and 8th semester literature), n ¼ 11; and graduate (Spanish
literature), n ¼ 2. All participants were native speakers of English only.
Passages
The texts were two contrived narrative passages, one depicting a more
familiar scenario and one a less familiar scenario (see Appendix A; available
online at http://applij.oxfordjournals.org). The more familiar passage, ‘The
Trip to the Supermarket’, was based on a scenario considered to be routine
and very familiar to the participants. The less familiar passage, ‘Publishing an
Article’, was based on a scenario regarded as less familiar to participants. That
the scenarios were actually more or less familiar to participants was later
confirmed by their self-reported ratings of familiarity on a topic familiarity
questionnaire, described in the corresponding section below. Each passage
conformed to a temporally ordered set of activities pertinent to the specific
scenarios, where certain actions typically precede others. There were also
particular roles and objects associated with the scenarios. Each story loosely
conformed to a script purported to be stored in long-term memory (Graesser
et al. 1994; Schank and Abelson 1977), if participants were familiar with the
scenario. The contents of each story were constructed via the script norm
procedure where an independent sample of 24 American university
undergraduates wrote at least 20 actions and their order of occurrence
corresponding to each scenario. The stories were constructed around the
most frequently occurring actions and their order of occurrence.
Both stories were of comparable length, however the Grocery story
contained more semantic propositions (i.e. units of meaning, see Kintsch
1998) than the Publishing story (see Table 1). In terms of structural difficulty,
the Publishing story contained one more que clause and more object
pronouns than the Grocery story due to more personal interaction involved
in the Publishing scenario compared to the Grocery scenario.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/28/1/66/174802 by University of Newcastle user on 02 February 2021
lexical inferencing, difficulty in lexical inferencing, and retention. As passage
sight vocabulary increases, learners should not only have fewer words to
learn and fewer constraints on memory, they should also have more
available context to enable deeper processing of new words, contributing to
ease and success in lexical inferencing, processing, and retention.
DIANA PULIDO
73
Table 1: Comparison of stories
Less familiar
Publishing
174
10.89
1
3
1
58
164
10.25
2
6
1
45
Note: ASL ¼ average sentence length.
Target Words
Sixteen lexical items, representing concepts frequently associated with the
scenarios, were chosen evenly from among the two stories: eight per story
(see Appendix B). They were then substituted with nonsense words
to ensure that nobody had prior knowledge of the TWs. The nonsense words
were invented words constructed according to the orthographic and
morphological rules of Spanish. All derivational and inflectional morphemes
were maintained. A ratio of nouns to verbs was kept constant from one story
to the next. Each TW appeared only once in each story, and there were no
definitional context clues provided for any of them.
Independent Variables
Topic familiarity was assessed by a 10-item Likert-scale questionnaire
(see Appendix C: available online at http://applij.oxfordjournals.org).
Participants rated on a scale of 1–5 their level of familiarity with specific
routine activities and scenarios, the two portrayed in the passages and an
additional eight distracters. Response options tapped participants’ selfreported knowledge of the activities involved in the scenarios and their
order of occurrence. This task furnished information about participants’
background knowledge and confirmed the prior categorization of the
passages. The results indicated that, overall, the Grocery scenario was more
familiar than the Publishing scenario (see Table 2).
To assess passage sight vocabulary of the non-TWs from each passage, a
single measurement was administered, an open-ended translation (L2–L1) of
the words that participants reported as being familiar (see Appendix D:
available online at http://applij.oxfordjournals.org). All translations were
scored as follows: 0 ¼ incorrect; .5 ¼ partially correct; 1 ¼ correct. A word
designated as unfamiliar received a score of 0. Since it was not feasible to test
every lexical item from each passage, I first counted the amount of unique
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/28/1/66/174802 by University of Newcastle user on 02 February 2021
Length (words)
ASL
Que clauses
Object pronouns
Reflexive pronouns
Semantic propositions
More familiar
Grocery
74
TOPIC FAMILIARITY AND PASSAGE SIGHT VOCABULARY
Table 2: Response frequency on topic familiarity questionnaire
Less familiar Publishing
Rating
f
%
f
%
1
2
3
4
5
0
0
1
1
33
0
0
3
3
94
14
12
9
0
0
40
34
26
0
0
Note: N ¼ 35 participants. Ratings on a 5-point scale.
lexical items and multi-word units from each story. From this figure I
estimated which function words and cognates were likely to be known by all
learners, and excluded them (e.g. el, la, para, en, supermercado, publicación).
The remaining 104 words were then randomized and included on one test.
The total amount of words tested from each story and corresponding
percentage of text coverage of all unique lexical items was as follows: more
familiar Grocery story—64 words tested (77 per cent coverage); and less
familiar Publishing story—59 words (81 per cent coverage).2
Dependent variables
To measure lexical inferencing, participants were assigned the task of
writing the meaning or translation of each underlined and boldfaced TW
in the L1, English. Participants received the following instructions: ‘You are
going to read 2 very brief stories in Spanish. Contained within each story
are 8 bold-face underlined words (e.g. reading). Your first task is to guess
the TRANSLATION of each of these 8 words based upon the context.
Clearly print the English translation in the space ABOVE each of the boldface
underlined words. If you cannot think of an exact translation, give an
approximate one, or describe what you think the word means.’ All participants
were first oriented to the reading and inferencing task by completing a
practice exercise to guess the meaning of an unfamiliar boldfaced and
underlined word within a sentence. Lexical inferencing was scored as follows:
0 ¼ incorrect;.5 ¼ partially correct; 1 ¼ correct (either the correct L1 translation,
or a correct paraphrase or definition).3
Level of ease/difficulty in lexical inferencing was determined by
responses on a Likert-scale questionnaire tapping level of difficulty in
inferring the meaning of each TW. The following scale was used: 1 ¼ very
difficult; 2 ¼ difficult; 3 ¼ moderately difficult; 4 ¼ moderately easy; 5 ¼ easy;
6 ¼ very easy. During the orienting task participants were also instructed
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/28/1/66/174802 by University of Newcastle user on 02 February 2021
More familiar Grocery
DIANA PULIDO
75
Procedure
A repeated measures design was used. All participants read passages from
each condition (i.e. one more and one less familiar passage). During session
1, in small groups, all participants completed the L2 passage sight vocabulary
test, followed by the topic familiarity questionnaire. Session 2 was conducted
approximately 1 week later in a laboratory, on an individual basis.
After the training phase, each participant read the first story and completed
the accompanying lexical inferencing and difficulty rating tasks before
continuing to the next story. Order of presentation of the passages was
counterbalanced. After reading both stories, all participants completed the
same self-paced online TW verification task to promote elaborative processing
of the TWs in an error-free manner by allowing participants to confirm or
correct the guesses and in so doing make connections between the new word
form, its meaning, and the context in which it had appeared in the story.
Each TW sentence was presented individually on a computer screen, in the
same order of presentation as in the story. The TW translation appeared
in the right-hand margin. Participants were instructed to confirm or correct
their guesses about each word and to be sure they understood the sentence
before continuing to subsequent sentences. They were told to anticipate
questions about the sentences, but were not explicitly alerted to the
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/28/1/66/174802 by University of Newcastle user on 02 February 2021
to rate guessing ease/difficulty with the following instructions: ‘Immediately
after guessing the translation of each word, please indicate on a scale of 1–6
the degree of ease or difficulty in guessing the translation of the bold-face
underlined word.’ During the practice exercise participants also completed a
difficulty rating to verify that they understood the task and scale.
Two measures assessed lexical retention. Both contained all 16 TWs plus
6 additional nonsense distracters. The verbs were presented in their
infinitival forms, and the nouns in their original text forms. To diminish
effects of memory for order of presentation of the TWs within the stories, or
of a common theme, the test items were first randomized. Two test formats
were created for each measure by reversing the order of presentation of
the items.
A translation production test required participants to supply a translation,
definition, or explanation of the nonsense words into their L1. Retention was
scored as follows: 0 ¼ incorrect; .5 ¼ partially correct; 1 ¼ correct.
A multiple-choice translation recognition test required participants to select
the translation from a series of options emphasizing semantic, not syntactic,
differences. Options included the correct translation of the TW, three
distracters, and a fifth option, ‘I don’t know’. Each distracter met at least
one of the following criteria: (a) contextually proximate to the TW;
(b) schematically appropriate; and (c) orthographically or phonologically
close to another word in the L1 or L2 and plausible for the context. There
were no conceptually bizarre options.
76
TOPIC FAMILIARITY AND PASSAGE SIGHT VOCABULARY
RESULTS
One-way analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) were conducted to answer the
research questions. Topic familiarity was the within-subjects categorical
variable with two levels, more familiar and less familiar. Passage sight
vocabulary was the continuous between subjects variable (covariate)
consisting of each participant’s sight vocabulary score.4 The impact of the
within and between subject independent variables was tested with omnibus
F-tests, observing Type III sum of squares. Because 4 ANCOVAs and 2 t-tests
were completed, a Bonferroni adjustment required an alpha level of .0083
(.05/6) to be used for all statistical tests reported below.
There was considerable variability across the participants of the group for the
independent variable of passage sight vocabulary (combined average of both
stories M ¼ .65, SD ¼ .16; more familiar M ¼ .60, SD ¼ .16; less familiar M ¼ .70,
SD ¼ .16). The percentages also reflect to a minor extent any partial knowledge
about the passage sight vocabulary that was tested.5 A paired t-test revealed
higher scores from the less familiar story relative to the more familiar
story (t (34) ¼ 11.13, p 5 .0001). However, due to the high Pearson
correlation between the passage sight vocabulary scores for the more and
less familiar passage (r ¼ .944, p 5 .0001) I calculated the average of the two
scores, and utilized the new score as the passage sight vocabulary continuous
covariate.
For research question 1, addressing the impact of the reader-based factors
on lexical inferencing, the combined scores revealed that approximately half
of the TWs were successfully inferred (M ¼ 4.51, SD ¼ 1.54, maximum per
story ¼ 8). There were also nearly twice as many correct inferences from the
more familiar passage (M ¼ 5.86, SD ¼ 2.10) compared to the less familiar
passage (M ¼ 3.26, SD ¼ 1.40). In some cases all TWs from the more familiar
passage were successfully guessed.
There were strong Pearson correlations between the passage sight vocabulary
and lexical inferencing scores (combined r ¼ .72, p 5 .0001). As sight vocabulary
increased, so did TW inferencing ability. The correlation was slightly higher for
the more familiar condition (r ¼ .67, p 5 .0001) compared to the less familiar
condition (r ¼ .53, p 5 .01), suggesting a more robust contribution to inferencing
when readers had the appropriate background knowledge.
Results from the one-way ANCOVA revealed a consistent significant main
effect for the within subject variable of topic familiarity (F (1, 33) ¼ 72.18,
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/28/1/66/174802 by University of Newcastle user on 02 February 2021
vocabulary tests that followed in order to encourage integration of the
TW meaning into the sentence and context, as opposed to looking only
at the gloss or engaging in memorization routines. Afterwards, participants
completed the lexical retention tests in the following order: L2–L1 translation
production, L2–L1 multiple-choice translation recognition. Session 2
concluded with a debriefing phase to explain the purpose of the experiment
and use of nonsense words.
DIANA PULIDO
77
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/28/1/66/174802 by University of Newcastle user on 02 February 2021
p 5 .0001, Z2 ¼ .69), and the between subject covariate of passage sight
vocabulary (F (1, 33) ¼ 35.53, p 5 .0001, Z2 ¼ .52) on lexical inferencing. The
interaction between passage sight vocabulary and topic familiarity was not
significant (F (1, 33) ¼ 3.89, p ¼ .057, Z2 ¼ .12), thus confirming consistent
effects of the variables on lexical inferencing.
For the second question, concerning difficulty in lexical inferencing, on
average participants reported moderate difficulty (combined M ¼ 2.72,
SD ¼ 1.04, scale of 1–6). The TWs from the more familiar passage were considered easier to guess, and there was slightly more variability in ratings in this
condition (more familiar M ¼ 2.99, SD ¼ 1.35; less familiar M ¼ 2.45, SD ¼ .97).
The Pearson correlations between the passage sight vocabulary and lexical
inferencing difficulty scores illustrated that perceived ease in lexical
inferencing was directly proportionate to passage sight vocabulary knowledge
(combined r ¼ .54, p 5 .01). However, there were differences between the
two correlations (more familiar r ¼ .63, p 5 .0001; less familiar r ¼ .30,
p ¼ n.s.) suggesting that regardless of degree of passage sight vocabulary
knowledge, TWs within the less familiar topic were more difficult to guess.
A comparison of the correlations revealed significant differences
(t (32) ¼ 2.61, p ¼ .007).
Results from the one-way ANCOVA revealed a significant effect of the
variable of topic familiarity (F (1, 33) ¼ 11.10, p ¼ .002, Z2 ¼ .25), and also of
the covariate of passage sight vocabulary (F (1, 33) ¼ 13.61, p ¼ .001,
Z2 ¼ .29) on difficulty in lexical inferencing. However, these effects are
qualified by a significant two-way interaction between topic familiarity and
passage sight vocabulary (F (1, 33) ¼ 11.03, p ¼ .002, Z2 ¼ .25; more familiar
condition, B ¼ 5.35, t ¼ 4.50, p 5 .0001, Z2 ¼ .38; less familiar condition,
B ¼ 1.88, t ¼ 1.83, p ¼ .076, Z2 ¼ .09).6 The significant interaction revealed
that the slopes of the two regression lines were significantly different,
suggesting that the role of passage sight vocabulary in the perception of
ease/difficulty in lexical inferencing depended upon the degree of familiarity
with the topic (see Figure 1).
To interpret the significant interaction it was necessary to identify regions
where the two regression lines were significantly different for all possible
points. The point of intersection of the two regression lines was at .50 on the
horizontal axis, representing the range of passage sight vocabulary scores (see
Figure 1). To determine at what value of passage sight vocabulary beyond 50
per cent the TWs from the more familiar scenario were significantly easier to
guess compared to those of the less familiar scenario Potthoff’s extension of
the Johnson–Neyman test was used. This analysis allows one to obtain cutoff
values of the predictor variable (passage sight vocabulary), above and below
the point of intersection, where significant differences are predicted to
occur.7 Results revealed that when participants scored at least 67 per cent on
the passage sight vocabulary measure (i.e. knowledge of approximately twothirds of the passage vocabulary) new TWs from the more familiar passage
were significantly easier to guess than those from the less familiar passage.
78
TOPIC FAMILIARITY AND PASSAGE SIGHT VOCABULARY
6
Average difficulty/ease rating
5
4
3
2
Less familiar
rsq = 0.0924
1
0
0.0
More familiar
rsq = 0.3801
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Passage sight vocabulary (%)
Figure 1: Significant interaction between topic familiarity and passage sight
vocabulary for dependent variable of lexical inferencing difficulty
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/28/1/66/174802 by University of Newcastle user on 02 February 2021
For the third research question, concerning lexical retention, on average
scores were better on the multiple-choice recognition measure (combined
M ¼ 6.13, SD ¼ 1.45, maximum per story ¼ 8) compared to the production
measure (combined M ¼ 3.83, SD ¼ 2.09, maximum possible ¼ 8) after the
inference verification task. Scores were slightly higher for the TWs from the
more familiar story compared to the less familiar story for both measures
(production more familiar M ¼ 4.23, SD ¼ 2.39; less familiar M ¼ 3.43,
SD ¼ 2.29; and recognition more familiar M ¼ 6.66, SD ¼ 1.47; less familiar
M ¼ 5.60, SD ¼ 2.03).
The Pearson correlations between the scores for passage sight vocabulary
and the translation production and recognition measures are both positive,
revealing that as passage sight vocabulary improved, so did memory for the
L1 translation equivalents (production r ¼ .51, p 5 .01; recognition r ¼ .52,
p 5 .01). However there are notable differences in the magnitudes across the
different familiarity conditions. For both measures, in the less familiar
condition there were moderate correlations between passage sight vocabulary
and retention (production r ¼ .53, p 5 .01; recognition r ¼ .51, p 5 .01),
whereas in the more familiar condition the correlations were considerably
weaker (production r ¼ .35, p 5 .05; recognition r ¼ .27, p ¼ n.s.).
A comparison of the correlations yielded no significant differences.
Nonetheless, these patterns are the opposite from those observed for the
DIANA PULIDO
79
DISCUSSION
To determine the impact of two variables (passage sight vocabulary and topic
familiarity) on lexical inferencing (success and ease of processing) and on
retention of specific TWs that were encountered in two brief narrative
passages, the following discussion focuses first on the impact of topic
familiarity and then on that of passage vocabulary knowledge. Both are
discussed in terms of the accompanying strategic tasks of lexical inferencing
and difficulty rating during reading, followed by an online verification task to
confirm or revise initial hypotheses.
Topic familiarity had a significant impact on lexical inferencing. There
were substantially more correct TW inferences when reading about a more
familiar scenario compared to a less familiar scenario. Having appropriate
background knowledge may have helped learners to more efficiently direct
attention to input while reading the more familiar story. The local and global
context cues that activated the readers’ syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic
knowledge in constructing the meaning of the text were held in working
memory and must have constrained ongoing textual interpretations, and in
turn, form–meaning mappings for new words. These results expand upon
previous research reported above that observed learners using background
knowledge during think-aloud tasks in lexical inferencing research
paradigms, or that studied effects of topic familiarity and semantic richness
on discrete sentence processing. The results also increase our understanding
of the strong role of background knowledge in vocabulary development
that begins during reading by studying learners’ initial meaning assignments
to new words. This broadens the conclusions from my previous studies
(e.g. Pulido, 2000, 2003, 2004b) because in those studies only post-reading
tasks were administered. In sum, from a cross-sectional perspective, the
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/28/1/66/174802 by University of Newcastle user on 02 February 2021
lexical inferencing and difficulty dependent variables, where correlations
were stronger in association with the more familiar story scenario.
Results from the one-way ANCOVA for the translation production
measure revealed a significant effect only for the covariate of passage sight
vocabulary (F (1, 33) ¼ 11.46, p ¼ .002, Z2 ¼ .26). The within subject variable
of topic familiarity did not reach the pre-established level of significance
(F (1, 33) ¼ 4.99, p ¼ .032, Z2 ¼ .13). The interaction was not significant
(F (1, 33) ¼ .77, p ¼ .39, Z2 ¼ .02). Results from the one-way ANCOVA for the
translation recognition measure revealed a significant effect for the variables
of topic familiarity (F (1, 33) ¼ 9.88, p ¼ .004, Z2 ¼ .23) and passage sight
vocabulary (F (1, 33) ¼ 12.32, p ¼ .001, Z2 ¼ .27). The interaction was not
significant (F (1, 33) ¼ 2.84, p ¼ .10, Z2 ¼ .08). These results indicate that on
the recognition measure, more TWs were remembered from the more
familiar story compared to the less familiar story, regardless of how much
passage sight vocabulary learners knew. In addition, both analyses illustrate
a similarly robust role of passage sight vocabulary on retention.
80
TOPIC FAMILIARITY AND PASSAGE SIGHT VOCABULARY
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/28/1/66/174802 by University of Newcastle user on 02 February 2021
results of the first question illustrated robust findings of topic familiarity
on inferencing, regardless of how much passage sight vocabulary was known.
However, topic familiarity had inconsistent effects on perceived ease or
difficulty in guessing. For readers of the group with passage sight vocabulary
scores at or beyond 67 per cent (i.e. 18 of the participants, including
2 graduate, 9 advanced, 3 high-intermediate, and 4 intermediate) the
TWs from the more familiar passage were easier to guess, and were also
guessed correctly more often. These readers likely experienced more success
in constructing a textbase and situation model for this passage. In spite of
knowing ample vocabulary from the less familiar, Publishing, passage, such
knowledge did not compensate for lack of familiarity with the topic, insofar
as ease and success of guessing was concerned. For the readers of the group
with weaker passage sight vocabularies, they experienced equivalent degrees
of difficulty in inferencing, regardless of the degree of familiarity with the
topics. These readers were expected to have fewer processing resources
given the predicted difficulties in word recognition. With incomplete
and inaccurate access to meaning they also had less available context to
support the use of lexical inferencing strategies. This finding refines our
understanding of lexical inferencing and strategic processing during reading,
going beyond anecdotal observations of beginning and intermediate learners’
frustration and ‘short-circuiting’ when encountering unfamiliar words during
reading (e.g. Haynes 1993; Haynes and Baker 1993; Lee and Wolf 1997;
Parry 1997; Rott 2000).
Topic familiarity also had inconsistent effects on lexical retention after the
inference verification task to promote revision, integration, and retention.
Significant effects were only obtained on the translation recognition measure
(a similar finding observed in Pulido 2000, 2003, where similar measures
were used). First, there were on average fewer words to revise and learn
from the more familiar condition compared to the less familiar condition,
which could have freed up attentional resources during the verification task
to better enable some learners to concentrate on correcting the words
that were incorrectly guessed. Second, the translation recognition test itself
contained retrieval cues (i.e. the L1 translation options) which likely
facilitated access to rich episodic memory traces about the local or global
story context that had been constructed for the more familiar story during
the previous input processing cycles. These two combined factors may have
contributed to superior memory for the TWs from the more familiar
condition on the translation recognition measure.
As for the translation production measure, although retention from the
more familiar story was greater, there were no significant differences
obtained between the two conditions. A similar finding was also obtained in
Pulido (2000, 2003), which was conducted under different experimental
conditions (i.e. participants read twice as many passages, did not complete
lexical inferencing or verification tasks, and took retention measures 2 days
after reading). However, there are some salient differences. In the previous
DIANA PULIDO
81
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/28/1/66/174802 by University of Newcastle user on 02 February 2021
study there was only 3 per cent correct retention on the translation
production measure from both familiarity conditions, whereas in the present
study there was on average 48 per cent, and a much wider gap in retention
between the more and the less familiar conditions (53 per cent and 43 per
cent, respectively). Still, with only the TW and no available cues, topic
familiarity does not have as robust an effect on memory for meaning as
tested in this manner. This conclusion is similar to that drawn in Pulido
(2004b) concerning the effects of cultural familiarity on immediate retention.
That study, using an adapted version of the VKS, found that topic familiarity
only had an effect in terms of episodic memory, that is memory for having
noticed the new words in certain stories.
With regard to retention there were test effects: higher retention on the
translation recognition measure compared to the translation production
measure. This is understandable in light of transfer-appropriate processing
(TAP) effects on human memory (Morris et al. 1977) proposing that memory
improves when there is more similarity between the nature of the task at
study and at testing. The inference verification task depicted the TW in the
original sentence and its L1 translation in the margin, which was somewhat
similar to the translation recognition task, which depicted the TW
(in isolation) and L1 translation options. Finally, there were lower effect
sizes obtained for the variable of topic familiarity over the duration of the
experiment and strategic tasks. This may be attributed to other factors related
to retention outcomes, such as repeated exposure to the TW sentences and
TWs themselves, and the presence of glosses during the verification task.
Passage sight vocabulary also played a robust role in the process of making
form–meaning connections for new words during the reading tasks. The
results consistently demonstrated that as passage sight vocabulary increased
so did ability to correctly infer TW meanings. Recognizing words entails
accessing meaning. When lexical access is laborious and/or inaccurate this
strains the processing resources also needed for syntactic parsing, propositional generation, retention of information in working memory, and access to
information in long-term memory. When learners know more vocabulary in
a passage they also have more available context and clues from which to
interpret specific relationships among ideas, and any new vocabulary
contained therein. These findings expand upon anecdotal observations about
the role of passage sight vocabulary during lexical inferencing (e.g. Haynes
1993; Haynes and Baker 1993; Lee and Wolf 1997; Rott 2000; Schouten-van
Parreren 1989) by using an independent measure representing a range of
vocabulary specifically connected with the texts that were read.
Passage sight vocabulary also consistently predicted lexical retention,
although the effect sizes were not as strong as on the lexical inferencing
measure, a finding explained in the previous section. As stated above, those
with greater passage sight vocabularies were expected to have had more
available processing resources to engage in the verification task. Thus, to
the extent that learners were efficient in word recognition, one would
82
TOPIC FAMILIARITY AND PASSAGE SIGHT VOCABULARY
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/28/1/66/174802 by University of Newcastle user on 02 February 2021
expect correspondingly richer interpretations and more efficient cognitive
involvement as they reprocessed the TWs and meanings, and reconstructed
the textbase and situation model. This may have contributed to facilitating
recall of the word meanings on the retention tasks. Although there
were directly proportionate relationships between passage sight vocabulary
and retention, there were differences in the strengths of the correlations
across the different conditions. Such differences are due to the restriction in
range of retention scores from the more familiar passage, perhaps a result of
several factors, such as fewer words to learn, greater ease and success in
learning and remembering the TWs across the different tasks, or even
forgetting by some learners. Future studies will want to address the specific
relationship between inferencing and retention, and learner involvement and
attentional allocation during strategic tasks in order to furnish a more precise
explanation. That passage sight vocabulary was more relevant to retention
from the less familiar passage may be due to greater difficulty experienced by
the weaker learners of the group in engaging in the elaborative processes
required for word learning, namely, assigning initial meaning, making
comparisons and revising the meanings in light of the TW translations,
relating information to previous knowledge, and storing the new information. The stronger learners of the group, with larger sight vocabularies and
fewer words to learn, likely had more attentional resources to successfully
engage in the processes described above.
In Pulido (2000, 2003) similar overall effects of passage sight vocabulary were
obtained on the lexical retention measures, but there were also some
differences. In that study the correlations were slightly greater for the more
familiar conditions compared to the less familiar conditions. However, in the
present study the opposite pattern was obtained, and with pronounced
differences in magnitude. Second, in the earlier study there were stronger
correlations on the translation recognition measure compared to the production measure, a pattern opposite from that of the current study. As suggested
above, the characteristics of the strategic tasks, in combination with learner
variables, likely facilitated more word learning from the more familiar
condition, resulting in less variability compared to the less familiar condition.
These results concerning passage sight vocabulary contribute to lexical
threshold theories and the importance of vocabulary knowledge in reading
(e.g. Grabe and Stoller 2002; Hazenberg and Hulstijn 1996; Horst et al. 1998;
Koda 2005; Laufer 1997). In this study, readers with a wide range of passage
sight vocabulary were able to correctly infer and retain some degree of
semantic knowledge about the new words. Still, greater success was observed
by those with stronger sight vocabularies, providing further support for the
Matthew effects in language learning, described by Stanovich (1986) for L1
reading, and by Ellis (1994) for L2 vocabulary acquisition. These results also
shed a new light on the impact of this variable on other stages involved in
lexical development through reading (i.e. inferencing) as they are observed
in connection with strategic tasks.
DIANA PULIDO
83
Final version accepted November 2005
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/28/1/66/174802 by University of Newcastle user on 02 February 2021
The combined results of the effects of both independent variables
also contribute to the Involvement Load theory (Laufer and Hulstijn 2001)
for various stages of lexical development through reading tasks. They suggest
that cognitive involvement (i.e. ‘search’—the attempt to find the meaning
of the new word, and ‘evaluation’—decision-making to determine whether
a word does or does not fit its context) in lexical inferencing and processing
tasks is also affected by the interaction between reader-based variables, such
as background knowledge and passage sight vocabulary.
There are noteworthy pedagogical implications. First, teachers should
consider whether the topic and vocabulary in the context are familiar to
learners when assigning reading and inferencing tasks. If they are not, then
learners may benefit from instruction to promote passage sight vocabulary
development and to activate relevant background knowledge. Next, since
weaker learners experience difficulty and little success in lexical inferencing,
providing a verification task to encourage deeper processing of the TWs
may provide additional benefits beyond a mere reading-inferring task,
especially if learners are familiar with the topic (e.g. see Fraser 1999; Mondria
2003; Schouten-van Parreren 1989). Last, instructors should consider that one
form of assessment compared to another (e.g. recognition vs. production) might
provide greater opportunities for learners to demonstrate vocabulary gains.
There are some limitations that could be addressed by future studies.
It is possible that other intervening factors (e.g. those related to local textual
cues, such as syntactic structure) affected outcomes. Also, lengthier texts
with more TWs could be used to enhance the generalizability of the findings.
This study did not systematically address the effectiveness of the online
strategic verification task itself, compared to an inferring-only method.
Studies could compare task effectiveness, in combination with how
performance is affected by the interactions between various reader-based
factors. Future research could also consider the nature of processing at each
stage and determine the relationships between lexical inferencing, difficulty
in inferencing, inference verification, episodic memory, retention, and
strategy use. Finally, this study considered only two reader-based
factors. Other reader-based factors would provide a more robust picture
of lexical inferencing, processing, and retention during strategic reading
tasks (e.g. reading proficiency, working memory, and syntactic knowledge).
In sum, the present study sheds a new light on SLA research concerned
with individual differences in lexical development through strategic reading
tasks. An attempt was made to operationalize and measure variables that
have received little attention, via a repeated-measures cross-sectional design. The
results suggest the complex nature of the impact and interaction between passage
sight vocabulary and background knowledge during lexical input processing,
both of which work in tandem with other processes during reading.
84
TOPIC FAMILIARITY AND PASSAGE SIGHT VOCABULARY
APPENDIX B: TARGET WORDS
More and less familiar passages
Verbs
‘Publishing an Article’
las borrigas—aisles
el resmo—grocery cart
la olneda—checkout
las pifantas—tabloids
el lastredón—checkout counter
las afeltas—bags
dacar—to ring up
sapirar—to compare
las dostas—guidelines
el tı́dero—letter of receipt
los toleneros—reviewers
las mascuas—proofs
la segua—cover letter
las acriciones—stipulations
betenar—to delete
regamir—to resubmit
NOTES
1 Learners are told to guess meanings of
unfamiliar words, often through a
think-aloud task while reading. Typically, there is no test to measure
retention of the words.
2 There were 19 words appearing in both
stories and which were included only
once on the passage sight vocabulary
test.
3 For the TW concept proofs (mascuas) in
the following context (translated into
English), Two months before publication
Sue received the proofs. She had three
days to make the changes. She also had to
sign the copyright agreement, incorrect
responses included ‘book’, ‘royalties’,
partially correct responses were ‘revisions’ and ‘drafts’, and correct responses
were ‘final draft before its publication’,
and ‘final copy before printing’.
4 I was also interested in determining
if topic familiarity moderated the purportedly strong relationship between
passage sight vocabulary and lexical
input processing. This was accomplished
by investigating the interaction between
the independent variables.
5 All participants demonstrated partial
knowledge of at least 1, but not more
than 10, of the 104 tested passage
sight vocabulary items. The mean
percentage of words partially known
was .05, SD ¼ .02.
6 B represents the parameter estimate
slopes of the regression lines from the
ANCOVA model.
7 The procedure to determine the cutoff
values involves three steps: (a) running two separate regression analyses
using the values of the continuous
predictor variable and outcome
variable for the two different familiarity conditions; (b) calculating three
intermediate quantities using three
different equations that require
values obtained from the two separate
regression analyses, such as F2, N–4
(the tabled F value), N, total SSresidual,
SS associated with the predictor
variables for each of the familiarity
conditions, M of the predictor
variables for each condition, and the
slopes and intercepts obtained in each
of the regression analyses; and (c)
calculating the cutoff regions using
two
additional
equations
that
contain the three intermediate quantities derived in (b) above (see
Aiken and West 1991: 134–6 for
equations).
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/28/1/66/174802 by University of Newcastle user on 02 February 2021
Nouns
‘The Trip to the Supermarket’
DIANA PULIDO
85
REFERENCES
Reading and Vocabulary Learning, Norwood,
NJ: Ablex, pp. 46–64.
Haynes, M. and I. Baker. 1993. ‘American
and Chinese readers learning from lexical
familiarizations in English text’ in T. Huckin,
M. Haynes, and J. Coady (eds): Second Language
Reading and Vocabulary Learning, Norwood,
NJ: Ablex, pp. 130–50.
Hazenberg, S. and J. Hulstijn. 1996. ‘Defining a
minimal receptive second-language vocabulary
for non-native university students: An
empirical investigation,’ Applied Linguistics 17:
145–63.
Holley, F. 1973. ‘A study of vocabulary learning
in context: The effect of new-word density in
German reading materials,’ Foreign Language
Annals 6: 339–47.
Horst, M., T. Cobb, and P. Meara. 1998. ‘Beyond
A Clockwork Orange: Acquiring second language
vocabulary through reading,’ Reading in a Foreign
Language 11: 207–23.
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,
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 258–86.
Hulstijn, J. 2003. ‘Incidental and intentional
learning’ in C. Doughty and M. Long (eds):
Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford,
UK: Blackwell, pp. 349–81.
Just, M. and P. Carpenter. 1992. ‘A capacity
theory of comprehension: Individual differences
in working memory,’ Psychological Review 99:
122–49.
Kintsch, W. 1998. Comprehension: A Paradigm
for Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Koda, K. 2005. Insights into Second Language
Reading: A Cross-linguistic Approach. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
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 and T. Huckin
(eds): Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition:
A Rationale for Pedagogy, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 20–33.
Laufer, B. and J. Hulstijn. 2001. ‘Incidental
vocabulary acquisition in a second language:
The construct of task-induced involvement,’
Applied Linguistics 22/1: 1–26.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/28/1/66/174802 by University of Newcastle user on 02 February 2021
Adams, S. 1982. ‘Scripts and the recognition
of unfamiliar vocabulary: Enhancing second
language reading skills,’ Modern Language Journal
66: 155–9.
Aiken, L. and S. West. 1991. Multiple Regression:
Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Baddeley, A. 1998. Human Memory: Theory
and Practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Chern, C. 1993. ‘Chinese students’ word-solving
strategies in reading in English’ in T. Huckin,
M. Haynes, and J. Coady (eds): Second Language
Reading and Vocabulary Learning, Norwood,
NJ: Ablex, pp. 67–82.
Clark, E. 1993. The Lexicon in Acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Craik, F. and E. Tulving. 1975. ‘Depth of
processing and the retention of words in episodic
memory,’ Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General 104: 268–94.
De Bot, K., T. Paribakht, and M. Wesche. 1997.
‘Toward a lexical processing model for the study
of second language vocabulary acquisition,’
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19: 309–29.
Ellis, N. 1994. ‘Vocabulary acquisition: The implicit
ins and outs of explicit cognitive mediation’ in
N. Ellis (ed.): Implicit and Explicit Learning of
Languages, London: Academic Press, pp. 211–82.
Ellis, N. 2001. ‘Memory for language’ in
P. Robinson (ed.): Cognition and Second Language
Instruction, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 33–68.
Faerch, C., K. Haastrup, and R. Phillipson.
1984. Learner Language and Language Learning.
Copenhagen: Clevedon Multilingual Matters.
Fraser, C. 1999. ‘Lexical processing strategy
use and vocabulary learning through reading,’
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21: 225–41.
Gass, S. 1999. ‘Incidental vocabulary learning,’
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21: 319–33.
Grabe. W. and F. Stoller. 2002. Teaching and
Researching Reading. Essex: Longman.
Graesser, A., M. Singer, and T. Trabasso. 1994.
‘Constructing inferences during narrative
text comprehension,’ Psychological Review 101:
371–95.
Haastrup, K. 1989. ‘The learner as word
processor,’ AILA Review 6: 34–46.
Haynes, M. 1993. ‘Patterns and perils of guessing
in second language reading’ in T. Huckin,
M. Haynes, and J. Coady (eds): Second Language
86
TOPIC FAMILIARITY AND PASSAGE SIGHT VOCABULARY
dissertation, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign.
Pulido, D. 2003. ‘Modeling the role of second
language proficiency and topic familiarity in
second language incidental vocabulary acquisition through reading,’ Language Learning, 53/2:
233–84.
Pulido, D. 2004a. ‘The relationship between
text comprehension and second language incidental vocabulary acquisition: A matter of topic
familiarity?’ Language Learning, 54/3: 469–523.
Pulido, D. 2004b. ‘The effect of cultural familiarity
on
incidental
vocabulary
acquisition
through reading,’ The Reading Matrix: An Online
International Journal, 4/2: 20–53.
Robinson, P. 2003. ‘Attention and memory’ in
C. Doughty and M. Long (eds): Handbook
of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford, UK:
Blackwell. pp. 631–78.
Rott, S. 2000. ‘Relationships between the process
of reading, word inferencing, and incidental
word acquisition’ in J. F. Lee and A. Valdman
(eds): Form and Meaning: Multiple Perspectives,
Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle, pp. 255–82.
Rumelhart, D. 1980. ‘Schemata: The building
blocks of cognition’ in R. Spiro, B. Bruce, and
W. Brewer (eds): Theoretical Issues in Reading
Comprehension, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, pp. 33–58.
Schank, R. and R. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, Plans,
Goals, and Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Schmidt, R. 2001. ‘Attention’ in P. Robinson (ed.):
Cognition and Second Language Instruction,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 3–32.
Schouten-van Parreren, C. 1989. ‘Vocabulary
learning through reading: Which conditions
should be met when presenting words in texts?’
AILA Review 6: 75–85.
Stanovich, K. 1986. ‘Matthew effects in reading:
Some consequences of individual differences
in the acquisition of literacy,’ Reading Research
Quarterly 21: 360–400.
Sternberg, R. 1987. ‘Most vocabulary is learned
from context’ in M. McKeown and M Curtis (eds):
The Nature of Vocabulary Acquisition, Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 89–105.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/28/1/66/174802 by University of Newcastle user on 02 February 2021
Lee, J. F. and D. Wolf. 1997. ‘A quantitative
and qualitative analysis of the word-meaning
inferencing strategies of L1 and L2 readers,’
Spanish Applied Linguistics 1: 24–64.
Li, X. 1988. ‘Effects of contextual cues on inferring
and remembering meanings of new words,’
Applied Linguistics 9/4: 402–13.
McLaughlin, B. 1987. Theories of Second Language
Learning. London: Arnold.
Mondria, J. 2003. ‘The effects of inferring,
verifying, and memorizing on the retention of
L2 word meanings: An experimental comparison
of the ‘‘meaning-inferred method’’ and
the ‘‘meaning-given method’’,’ Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 25: 473–99.
Mondria, J. and M. Wit–de Boer. 1991. ‘The
effects of contextual richness on the guessability
and retention of words in a foreign language,’
Applied Linguistics 12/3:249–67.
Morris, C., J. Bransford, and J. Franks. 1977.
‘Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate
processing,’ Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior 16: 519–33.
Nagy, W. 1997. ‘On the role of context in first- and
second-language vocabulary learning’ in
N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy (eds): Vocabulary:
Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 64–83.
Nassaji, H. 2002. ‘Schema theory and knowledgebased processes in second language reading
comprehension: A need for alternative perspectives,’ Language Learning 52/2: 439–81.
Nassaji, H. 2003. ‘L2 vocabulary learning from
context: Strategies, knowledge sources, and
their relationship with success in L2 lexical
inferencing,’ TESOL Quarterly 37/4:645–70.
Nassaji, H. 2004. ‘The relationship between
depth of vocabulary knowledge and L2 learners’
lexical inferencing strategy use and success,’ The
Canadian Modern Language Review 61/1: 107–34.
Paribakht, T. and M. Wesche. 1999. ‘Reading
and ‘‘incidental’’ L2 vocabulary acquisition. An
introspective study of lexical inferencing,’ Studies
in Second Language Acquisition 21: 195–224.
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