vocabulary learning through reading and especially focuses on the effects of text

Chapter Two Literature Review

Many previous studies have demonstrated the important role reading plays in l e a r ner s ’vocabulary growth. It is also consented that incidental vocabulary learning process is incremental in essence and many factors are involved in l ea r ner s ’growth of

vocabulary. In order to explore the factors determining l ea r ner s ’vocabulary gain and

retention, the current research reviews some empirical studies on incidental

vocabulary learning through reading and especially focuses on the effects of text

enhancement via gloss on vocabulary learning.

2.1 Incidental Vocabulary Learning through Reading

Krashen (1989) stated that a large amount of vocabulary is acquired while

learners are engaged in extensive reading. Convincing evidence from numerous

studies confirms positive effects reading has on enhancing learners’vocabulary

growth (Hulstijn et al., 1996; Knight, 1994; Krahen, 1989; Luppescu & Day, 1993;

Paribakht & Wesche, 1997). Hulstijn et al. (1996) found that L2 advanced learners

could incidentally learn more unknown words that appear three times in the text than

the words that appear only once. The study of Paribakht and Wesche (1997) showed

that university ESL students could learn words through either reading only or reading

plus vocabulary instruction. Luppescu and Day (1993), and Knight (1994) also found

that L2 learners could pick up some unknown words incidentally from reading, even

though the learning rate was quite low.

Through extensive reading, learners can acquire vocabulary learning either

intentionally or incidentally. The difference between intentional learning and

incidental learning is whether learners are informed of the need to take a vocabulary

test after reading before they are engaged in reading. Some researchers agree that l e a r ner s ’vocabulary can be acquired incidentally and that vocabulary actually is a by-product of reading comprehension (Gass, 1999; Huckin & Coady, 1999; Paribakht

& Wesche, 1999). The meanings of new words can be derived and learned in a

reading process, even though the main purpose of the reading is not vocabulary

learning (Swanborn & Glopper, 2002). Swanborn and Glopper (2002) had students

read an L1 Dutch text in three conditions:(a) reading for free reading; (b) reading to

learn the topic of the text; (c) reading for text comprehension. After reading, students

took a vocabulary test, in which they were asked to define the target words. The

results showed that students could acquire 6% of the target words for free reading,

10% for learning about the topic and 8% for text comprehension. Besides, they also

found that readers with high proficiency could learn 27% of the unknown words when

reading for comprehension, whereas learners with low proficiency scarcely learned

any words incidentally.

There are some studies revealing the advantageous role of incidental vocabulary

learning over direction instruction. Krashen (1989) reviewed 144 studies, from which

he justified that the input from reading leads to vocabulary acquisition. Based on the

evidence he gathered from the studies, he contended that even though direct

instruction could account for vocabulary gain, it demanded more time and efforts than

incidental learning from reading. Besides, though he admitted that extensive reading

might not always lead to vocabulary acquisition, he still strongly argued that

extensive reading is the best explanation for how learners acquire language and

acquire words beyond their current level. Nagy (1997) also argued that the nature of

most vocabulary instruction was superficial. Similarly, Killian, Nagy, Pearson,

Anderson, and Garcia (1995) demonstrated that incidental vocabulary learning was

more facilitative than direct instruction. Their study found that direct instruction

before reading did not lead to vocabulary learning and that learners of different

proficiency level could learn words incidentally from context.

Incidental vocabulary learning through extensive reading has the following

advantages. To begin with, extensive reading provides learners with sufficient sources

to process unknown words via a variety of contexts and more accessibilities, which

allows learners more time for mental lexical processing through retrieving, inferring

or elaborating word meanings (Fraser, 1999). It is also claimed that extensive reading

serves as an abundant source for learners to gain more exposure to new-learned words,

which helps to accumulate learners’knowledge of words. Another proposed

advantage of incidental vocabulary learning via reading is that learners can

simultaneously be engaged in both reading and vocabulary learning in a more

learner-based condition rather than teacher-based condition (Huckin & Coady, 1999).

2.2 Inference of Word Meaning in Vocabulary Growth

Evidence from previous research suggests that learners use a variety of strategies

when they encounter new words, including ignoring unknown words, looking up

word meanings in a dictionary or trying to infer their meanings from context.

Among these strategies, inferring word meanings is found to be the most common

strategy that learners resort to (Fraser, 1999; Paribakht & Wesche, 1999). Fraser used

both introspective and performance data to examine learners’ use of lexical processing

strategies while they were reading and found the vital role that lexical inference

played in reading comprehension and vocabulary learning from context. In an

introspective study, Paribakht and Wesche examined how learners deal with

unfamiliar words in written text based on learners’think-aloud and retrospective

verbal report and also stated that the main strategy used was inferring word meanings.

Hulstijn (1992) proposed a “ mental effort”hypothesis based on two assumptions:

(a) inference required more mental efforts from the learners and (b) information

attained with more mental effort could be better retrieved and recalled. Thus, based on

the hypothesis, Hulstijn claimed that the meaning-inference process would lead to

better retention than when the word meaning was directly presented to learners.

Hultijn’ s assumption had its theoretical foundation in research on human memory.

Craik and Tulving’ s experiment (1975) on human memory revealed that the level of

recall or recognition was determined by the degree of semantic involvement. Similarly,

Honeyfiled (1987) contended that learners’attempt to infer the meaning of the

unknown words from context activated their active searching and thinking process,

which involved consideration of possible meaning dimensions of the word, including

its syntactic behavior, denotations and connotations; such consideration of the

meaning dimension of the word, together with the word form, were then incorporated

into a wider structure of thought, which created a learning condition conforming to

the meaningful learning theory and thus led to learning efficiency and better retention

(Brown, 1972).

Aside from noticing new words and attending to new words, Ellis (1994) also

included inferring word meanings from context and strengthening the memory of

them as one important strategy to enhance vocabulary learning. It is contended that

inferring word meanings can t r i gge r l e ar ne r s ’ me nt a l pr oc e s s i ng whi l e t hey a r e

formulating hypothesis and testing about word meanings (Fraser, 1999; Hulstihn,

1992; Rott, 2003, 2005). Besides, the robust mental and linguistic context provided by

the reading text is considered to serve as a cognitive hook for the memory of the new

words.

2.2.1 The Limitations of Meaning-inferring

Indeed, many researchers would agree that inferring is the most common strategy

learners resort to while reading and that successful inference can foster reading

comprehension and aid vocabulary learning. However, considering the relationship

between the accuracy of learners’inferring and learners’limitation of language

proficiency, some concern about the effectiveness of inferring emerges. To begin with,

learners’inference is imprecise. Second, meaning-inferring usually takes more time

and thus slows down or interrupts the reading process. Besides, meaning-inferring is

effective only when the context is well-understood; thus, it requires good textual clues

and l e a r ne r s ’substantial prior vocabulary knowledge and good reading strategies,

which many learners lack.

2.2.2 Empirical Studies on Meaning-inferring

Fraser (1999) investigated the effect of lexical processing strategies, including

ignoring, consulting or inferring, with a view to describing the lexical processing

strategies that learners usually employed when encountering unfamiliar words.

Findings showed that learners’ r e c a l lof words was significantly better when they

inferred and then consulted word meanings than when they only consulted or inferred

alone. Evidence in the study also confirmed that inferring involved more processing

such as rehearsal and more elaboration than consulting, which subsequently brought

about higher retention. Besides, the study also demonstrated that incidental

vocabulary learning through reading could not be efficient unless learners were

explicitly instructed the importance of lexical processing strategies in advance.

Explicit training on strategies could equip learners with the ability to make use of

different lexical processing strategies and make them more aware of unfamiliar words

rather than simply ignore, which in the long run could enable learners to more fully

exploit the rich material text for vocabulary learning. Overall, Fraser’ s study

supported the generally believed view that reading for comprehension in L2 was

beneficial for incidental vocabulary learning and confirmed the advantages of using

lexical processing strategies while reading. Based on findings of his study, Fraser

further suggested indirect instruction on lexical processing strategies for its several

advantages. First, with instruction on lexical processing strategies, learners are less

likely to ignore unknown words and more successful inference takes place in the

meantime. Second, the lexical processing strategies-focused instruction improves the

prerequisite condition needed for effective vocabulary learning. That is, more

unfamiliar words are paid attention to; more extensive and elaborative processing is

triggered and higher retention rate of words arises.

Mondria (2003) compared the effects of optimized meaning-inferred method and

meaning-given method. In her study, meaning-given method referred to providing

translation for l e a r ne r s ’immediate memorizing, whereas meaning-inferred method

was optimized by setting up three stages －inferring, verifying, and memorizing.

Mondria managed to prevent incorrect inference by giving pregnant sentences, which

included sufficient clues for inferring the meaning of the words. In addition, she

examined the learning effects of the various stages of the meaning-inferred method

－inferring, verifying, and memorizing. Also, in view of little or no attention paid to the efficiency factor, Mondria focused on the investigation of the achievement rate,

that is, the learning effect in relation to the amount of time learners invested. The

subjects in her study were thirty-eight Dutch students coming from two classes and

learning French as their foreign languages. The learning methods were (a) inferring (b)

inferring+ verifying (c) inferring + verifying + memorizing (meaning-inferred method)

and (d) memorizing method (meaning-given method) .The experiment was conducted

in the form of two consecutive sub-experiments. Mondria’ s study showed the

following results. First, the meaning-inferred method had similar effect on retention to

that of the meaning-given method. But the former was relatively more

time-consuming and thus less efficient. Second, each separate stage of the

meaning– inferred method (inferring, verifying and memorizing) contributed to

retention, while the learning effect of memorizing was the greatest and the effect of

verifying was about the same as that of inferring.

The finding that the meaning-inferred method led to a similar level of retention

to that of the meaning-given method was inconsistent with what was generally

expected. Mondria accounted for such unexpected result with the word-inferred

method itself. First, she specified that the quantity of the memorizing activity in the

meaning-inferred method was less than that in the meaning-given method for two

reasons. For one thing, inferring and verifying already brought about a certain extent

of retention; as a result, students felt less need to invest time in memorizing to achieve

the intended level of word knowledge. For the other reason, inferring and verifying

together had consumed so much time that students in the meaning-inferred method

group were less motivated to invest time in memorizing than students in the

meaning-given group. The second plausible explanation Mondria gave was that the

quality of the memorizing activity in meaning-inferred method was inferior to that of

the meaning-given method. She argued that inferring drew l e a r ne r s ’attention to the

connection of meaning and context, which in turn influenced subsequent memorizing

activity in a way that less attention was paid to the connection of word form and

meaning. Such ignorance of connection of word form and meaning was detrimental

for vocabulary learning. Overall, Mondria gave a conclusion on the basis of wider

perspective, saying that the experiment was a manifestation that actions－

“ elaboration” , or “ search”and “ evaluation”(Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001) －which were supposed to lead to more cognitive activity did not automatically bring about better

retention.

2.3 Text Enhancement through Gloss or Dictionary

2.3.1 Limitations of Incidental Vocabulary Learning

Incidental vocabulary learning through reading is an incremental and

complicated process. Shu, Anderson and Zhang (1995) presented the following

potential problem of incidental vocabulary learning from extensive reading. To begin

with, learners’ attention may mainly be directed to comprehending the text, and little

attention is paid to knowing the meaning of unknown words. Besides, the clues

offered for the unknown words vary greatly. Some contexts offer clear clues of the

meanings of the unknown words, while most contexts offer only opaque or partial

information.

Given the complicated process of incidental vocabulary learning, some

researchers expressed their concern on the efficacy of incidental vocabulary learning

from reading. (Hulstijn et al, 1996; Paribakht & Wesche, 1999; Parry, 1993 & 1997;

Watanabe, 1997). Hulstijn et al. (1996) argued that incidental learning was not

thought to occur often due to learners’ failure in learning the meanings of unfamiliar

words in text spontaneously. He proposed several reasons for the problem. First, when

reading mainly for comprehension of the text, learners tended to ignore most

unknown words, which they considered to be irrelevant to the main idea. Their

ignorance of the unfamiliar words accounted for their failure in vocabulary learning,

since the premise for vocabulary learning to take place was learners’ noticing and

attention to the unknown words. Second, learners often overestimated their

vocabulary size; that is, there were some unfamiliar words that learners thought they

knew but in fact did not know. Third, the contextual information in the text might

direct l e a r ne r s ’attention solely to the meaning of the unknown words, not to the

unfamiliar word form. Thus, learners failed to form the connection between word

form and meaning, which was an essential component in knowing a word. Last,

learners’ inference of the unknown words might be incorrect, which in turn caused

them to retain the incorrect meaning of the words.

2.3.2 Text Enhancement through Gloss

In view of the limitation of incidental vocabulary learning, considerable concern

has arisen over the application of text enhancement via L1 gloss or L2 gloss to

address the potential problem of incidental vocabulary learning. (Hulstijn, 1992;

Hulstijn et al., 1996; Jacobs et al., 1994; Nagata, 1999; Watanabe, 1997).

Glosses are viewed as valuable tool that facilitates reading in a foreign language

(Richgels & Hansen, 1984; Watanabe, 1997). It is also widely used in authentic

materials, which contains too many unfamiliar words or words of low frequency for

L2 learners (Davis, 1989). Glosses, by definition, are notes that are written in a

simpler language or L1 for readers to consult and include explanations or definitions

to facilitate reading. To attract learners’ attention, glossed words or information can be

boldface typed or underlined (Roby, 1999). With the provided information on the new

words from the glosses, learners can know the meaning of the unknown words

immediately with the minimum interruption of reading process since they do not need

to stop reading and look unknown words in the dictionary or make inference of the

meaning of the words (Lomicka, 1998; Nagata, 1999).

There are many advantages in using glosses on reading and vocabulary learning.

First, being boldfaced or underlined, glosses can make unfamiliar words salient to the

learners and lead them to pay more attention to the unknown words, which in turn

enhance their vocabulary learning. (Jacobs et al., 1994, Kost, Foss, & Lenzini, 1999;

Nagata, 1999). Second, the presence of gloss enables learners to look back and forth

between the text and target words, thus creating multiple encounters of the words to

facilitate word retention (Watababe, 1997). Next, glosses can make reading process

more enjoyable for learners because of the easy accessibility to the meaning of

unknown words in a text (Jacobs et al., 1994). Last, due to the salience of glossed

words, learners with the aid of glosses can retain more information in the text than

those who have no access to glosses (Stewart & Cross, 1991).

2.3.3 Empirical Studies on Effects of Gloss on Incidental Vocabulary Learning

Over the last decade, there were numerous empirical studies on the effects of

glosses on L2 reading comprehension, incidental vocabulary learning, and vocabulary

retention. The following are some empirical studies about the effects of glosses.

2.3.3.1 L1 Gloss, L2 Gloss or Access to Dictionary

Jacobs, Dufon and Fong (1994) had 85 Spanish learners whose native language

was English read a Spanish text under three conditions: (a) reading with no gloss; (b)

reading with English glosses; (c) reading with Spanish glosses. After reading, the

participants were required to write a recall protocol about the text for reading

comprehension and translate 32 glossed words for incidental vocabulary learning and

finish a questionnaire on their attitude toward the glosses. The same translation task

was given four weeks later to measure their vocabulary retention. The results showed

that glosses had no significant effects on reading comprehension. Besides, the

participants with glosses condition performed better than those without glosses on the

immediate word translation task, but the difference did not exist on the delayed post-

test. In other words, glosses benefit incidental vocabulary learning, but not in

vocabulary retention. Moreover, the result showed no significant difference between

L1 gloss or L2 gloss. Last, the questionnaire revealed learners’ preference of L1 gloss

to L2 gloss.

Chang (2002) had ninety-two 12

graders read a short story under three

conditions: (a) reading with L1 marginal glosses; (b) reading with electronic

dictionaries; (c) reading with no assistance. After reading, participants were given

three vocabulary tests on sixteen target words and one reading comprehension test;

two weeks later, participants received the same vocabulary test. The results showed no

significant difference in reading comprehension test; however, on incidental

vocabulary learning, it was found that marginal glosses had greater effects than

electronic dictionaries on immediate test, but the positive effects marginal glosses

generated vanished on the delayed test for retention. In the study, participants reading

with L1 marginal glosses could acquire eighteen percent of the target words and retain

two percent; participants with electronic dictionary could acquire fifteen percent and

retain four percent; whereas those without any assistance acquire three percent and

retain 0.6 percent of the target words.

In the study of Stewart and Cross (1991), 121 undergraduates were given a text

with vocabulary gloss and informational gloss one week before the discussion of the

article in class. On the day of class discussion, students took an unexpected test on the

article for intentional and incidental learning. Four weeks later, the same tests were

given to the participants for measurement of their retention. The result showed that

marginal glosses facilitated short-term incidental and intentional learning, but only

enhanced long-term intentional learning.

Hulstijn et al. (1996) assumed that incidental vocabulary learning did happen

while reading, but it did so in an incremental way with small quantity because of low

incidence of correct or spontaneous inferring. Thus, Hulstijn investigated how

marginal gloss or dictionaries could redress the incorrect inferences and how

reoccurrence of unknown words could foster incidental vocabulary learning through

reading. Subjects of her study were 78 French-learners. They read a French story in

one of the three text reading conditions: marginal gloss condition with provision of L1

translations of target words, dictionary condition with availability for a bilingual

dictionary and the control text with no additional information. After reading, a recall

test of 16 words that had appeared once or three times in the text was given to the

students. The study revealed the following findings. First, word occurrence frequency

had clearly positive effects on vocabulary learning. Next, the provision of marginal

gloss contributed to better retention of words than dictionary did. Next, students in

dictionary group seldom used their dictionary. Last, when students in the dictionary

group did resort to dictionary, their retention of the word meaning was greater than

that in the marginal gloss group.

Based on the above findings, Hulstijn claimed that the effects of marginal gloss

were greater than the effects of dictionary, since learners tended to regard dictionary

as the last resort because they d i dn’ twant to interrupt their reading or they c oul dn’ t

find the correct meanings among so many entries in the dictionary. She also stated

that the reoccurrence of words in marginal gloss could r e i nf or c e l e a r ne r s ’

form-meaning connection, entailing the important role of word encounter frequency

in vocabulary learning through reading. Besides, Hulstijn maintained that the

provision of marginal gloss could address the problems of learners’ ignoring new

words and wrong inference of word meanings.

2.3.3.2 Single Gloss or Multiple-choice Gloss

Comparing the effects of meaning-inferred procedure and meaning-given

procedure, Hulstijn (1992) had forty-five adult Dutch learners read an article under

two conditions: (a) texts with synonym for unknown words; (b) texts with

multiple-choice gloss for unknown words. After reading, learners were given a

reading comprehension task, followed by unexpected vocabulary tests. The results

indicated participants reading text with multiple-choice gloss performed significantly

better in incidental vocabulary learning than those reading text with synonyms for

unknown words. Based on the results of the study, Hulstijn claimed that

multiple-choice gloss possessed both the advantages of meaning-inferred procedure

and meaning-given procedure a s we l l a s r e dr e s s t he l ow i nc i de nc e of s t ude nt s ’

inferring or high incidence of incorrect inferring while at the same time increase s t ude nt s ’ e nc ount e r f r e que nc y wi t h t he t a r ge t wor ds .

Watanabe (1997) had 231 Japanese college students randomly assigned to read a

500-word article under four conditions: (a) reading without any vocabulary

explanations; (b) reading with appositives as vocabulary explanations; (c) reading

with marginal gloss; (d) reading with multiple-choice glosses. The multiple-choice

glosses in the study were intended to trigger learners’ deeper processing of the target

words with over one definitions or translation of the target words for learners to

choose from. The results showed that learners with marginal gloss and learners with

multiple-choice gloss performed better than those with appositive or those without

any vocabulary explanations on one vocabulary immediate post-test and the

unexpected vocabulary delayed post-tests. It was also found that learners with

appositives did not perform better than those without any assess to word meanings.

Watanabe gave some explanations on the inferiority of appositive and the significant

effects of gloss. She pointed out that appositives were not easy to be recognized by

students as the explanation of target words because of lack of manifest connection

with the target words. As for the effects of different gloss type, there was no

significant difference between single gloss and multiple-choice gloss. Watanabe (1997)

stated that marginal gloss provided more input frequencies and had explicit

connection with the target words for learners to take notice of. Overall, Watanabe’ s

study demonstrated that gloss is a facilitative tool to enhance learners’ vocabulary. For

one thing, it provides an explicit connection between word form and word for learners

to take notice of and thus arouse their attention to the unknown words rather than just

ignore them. For another, marginal glosses provided learners with extra opportunity to

be exposed to the words, which also caused another effect of frequency factor.

Addressing the possible problem of Watanabe’ s study, in which students in the

multiple-choice group were not informed which alternative was correct, Nagata (1999)

replicated Watanabe’ s study and investigated the effectiveness of meaning-inferred

gloss and meaning-given gloss. He used a computer program called BANAZI

READINGS, which offered reading text accompanied by gloss to enhance reading

comprehension. In the study, the meaning-inferred gloss was multiple-choice gloss,

consisting of two possible L1 alternatives; immediate feedback followed in response

to l e a r ne r s ’selections. As for the meaning-given gloss, BANAZI provided a single

English translation for each target word in the reading text. The subjects in the study

were twenty-six English-speaking students learning Japanese, assigned to either a

single-gloss group or a multiple-choice group. In either group, subjects read one of

the readings from BANZI READINGS, in which twenty target words were glossed

either in single translation or multiple-choice format. Before the reading session, the

subjects took a pretest on target words, in which they were required to translate the

target words into English. The reading session lasted forty minutes and subjects in the

study were told that they would be asked about the content of the reading text, but not

informed of post-test on vocabulary.

The result of Na ga t a ’ s study showed that multiple-choice gloss was more

effective than the single gloss for recalling of the target words. Nagata maintained that

the significant effect of multiple-choice gloss resulted from the more required active

involvement load, which in turn increased the lexical processing, leading to more

retention of words. He also suggested using a computer to provide on-going,

immediate feedback regarding mistaken selections to avoid the problems of wrong

selection of meanings. Overall, he summarized that multiple-choice gloss augmented

by immediate feedback could generate better effects than a single gloss procedure.

With a view to finding out if multiple-choice glosses, said to require more mental

effort from learners, can increase vocabulary retention, Rott, William and Cameron

(2002) had seventy-six fourth-semester learners of German read a text in one of the

four conditions: (a) L1 multiple-choice glosses; (b) L2 text reconstruction; (c)

combined treatments and (d) control condition. After reading, learners were given an

immediate test on productive and receptive vocabulary knowledge for measurements

of their word gain; five weeks later, the same test was administered to assess their

vocabulary retention. Findings of the study indicated that multiple-choice gloss

generated significantly deeper productive and receptive word gains immediately after

the treatment, but the significant receptive word gain was retained only for those with

combined treatment.

In a later study, Rott and William (2003) conducted a qualitative study to explore

the effects of multiple-choice glosses and periodic text reconstruction on vocabulary

learning. She had fourteen fifth-semester L1 English learners of German read a text

under two conditions: (a) reading with multiple-choice glosses; (b) reading with no

glosses. To measure word gain, two immediate vocabulary tests, including a modified

Vocabulary Knowledge Scale based on Wesche and Paribakht (1996) and a word

recognition test, were administered after learners read the passage. Besides, to elicit

L2 readeres’processing behavior, a think-aloud protocol, was conducted. The results

indicated that learners with glosses and learners without glosses differed in their

reading behavior and scores for vocabulary tests, suggesting the following points.

First, Rott contended that multiple-choice glosses trigger a search for concrete

meaning and form-meaning mapping. Besides, access to gloss triggered learner-text

interaction, leading to better comprehension. Next, Rott claimed that the

multiple-choice glosses guide learners to infer word meanings from context and

consolidate the memory of the new words. Last, Rott added that the multiple-choice

gloss presented an extrinsic need for learners to assign meanings to the target words,

which in turn led readers to keep on processing the target words by searching for

meanings in the test and evaluating their hypothesis on word meanings.

To explore the word processing strategies triggered by multiple-choice gloss and

single-translation gloss, Rott (2005) subsequently conducted a qualitative study via a

think-aloud procedure. In the study, Rott had ten native speakers of English learning

German read a passage under two conditions: (a) text with multiple-choice gloss; (b)

text with single-translation gloss. After the reading process, learners were given a

reading comprehension test, an immediate vocabulary test for measurement of word

gain and a four-week post-delayed test for word retention. The results showed that (a)

learners with multiple-choice gloss and single translation gloss had similar

performance in their vocabulary gain, (b) but in word retention, learners with

multiple-choice gloss performed much better than learners with single gloss

translation; (c) as for the gloss effects on reading comprehension, there was no

significant difference.

Through the think-aloud protocol, Rott made the following observations. First,

unlike learners with single translation gloss, learners with multiple-choice gloss were

more likely to perceive their need to assign a concrete meaning to the target words,

thus paying more attention to the target words. Moreover, learners with

multiple-choice gloss actively searched for the meaning of the target words and

reevaluated their hypothesis on word meaning during consecutive encounters. Last,

the data suggested that multiple-choice gloss could lead to more robust and complete

connections between word form and word meaning, since learners with

multiple-choice glosses employed both meta-cognitive and semantic-elaborative

resources, while learners with single translation gloss only depended on

meta-cognitive resource. That is, learners with multiple-choice gloss evaluated the

word meaning by using their background knowledge, context and hypothesis-testing

strategies, while learners with single translation gloss just briefly glanced at the gloss

and integrated their meaning.

2.4 Summary

Despite the fact that learning vocabulary incidentally from extensive reading has

many advantages, there are still some limitations. Some researchers state that learners

pay more attention on the comprehension of the text and tend to ignore the meaning

of the unfamiliar words. Besides, even when learners notice the unknown words and

make attempts to infer the meaning of the words, incorrect inference are likely to

occur because of insufficient text clues or opaque information of the texts.

Thus, it is suggested that text enhancements through gloss is facilitative for

incidental vocabulary learning through reading. To begin with, the presence of gloss

can trigger learners’ noticing of unknown words, and thus lead them to pay additional

attention to the unfamiliar words. Besides, with the provided information on the new

words from the glosses, learners can know the meaning of the unknown words

immediately with the minimum interruption of reading process without having to look

up words in dictionaries. Moreover, the easy accessibility of meanings of unknown

words can make reading process more enjoyable for learners.

On the other hand, there is still concern over the effectiveness of meaning-given

gloss in that the easy accessibility of word meanings may deprive learners of their

in-depth processing of words, which in turn affects their incidental vocabulary

learning. Hulstijn (1992), based on the assumptions that more mental efforts on

inferring the word meaning can lead to better vocabulary learning, proposed the use of

multiple-choice gloss. He claimed multiple-choice served as a good compromise

between inferring the word meaning from context and understanding the word

meaning directly from the meaning-given gloss.

However, few empirical studies have been done on the effectiveness of

multiple-choice gloss. Besides, findings of previous research on the multiple-choice

meaning-inferred gloss are limited and inconsistent. Watanabe (1997) found no

significant difference between the effects of meaning-given gloss and

meaning-inferred gloss. Nagata (1999) and Rott (2005), on the contrary, found the

positive effects of multiple-choice gloss. In view of the limited empirical studies and

mixed findings of previous research, the current study aimed to find out the effects of

meaning-inferred gloss and meaning-given gloss in incidental vocabulary learning.