Vocabulary Word Exposure Frequency On Incidental L2 Vocabulary Acquisition

Languagehttp://ltr.sagepub.
com/
Teaching Research
The effects of word exposure frequency and elaboration of word processing

on incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition through reading
Johannes Eckerth and Parveneh Tavakoli
Language Teaching Research 2012 16: 227
DOI: 10.1177/1362168811431377
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/16/2/227
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Language Teaching Research can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://ltr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://ltr.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/16/2/227.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Jul 17, 2012
What is This?
Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at BEIJING FOREIGN STUDIES UNIV on February 18, 2014
431377
2012
LTR16210.1177/1362168811431377Eckerth and TavakoliLanguage Teaching Research
LANGUAGE
TEACHING
Article RESEARCH
Language Teaching Research
The effects of word exposure

16(2) 227252
The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permissions: sagepub.
frequency and elaboration of co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1362168811431377
word processing on incidental ltr.sagepub.com
L2 vocabulary acquisition
through reading
Johannes Eckerth
Kings College London, UK
Parveneh Tavakoli
London Metropolitan University, UK
Abstract
Research on incidental second language (L2) vocabulary acquisition through reading has claimed
that repeated encounters with unfamiliar words and the relative elaboration of processing these
words facilitate word learning. However, so far both variables have been investigated in isolation.
To help close this research gap, the current study investigates the differential effects of the variables
word exposure frequency and elaboration of word processing on the initial word learning and
subsequent word retention of advanced learners of L2 English. Whereas results showed equal
effects for both variables on initial word learning, subsequent word retention was more contingent
on elaborate processing of formmeaning relationships than on word frequency. These results,
together with those of the studies reviewed, suggest that processing words again after reading
(inputoutput cycles) is superior to reading-only tasks. The findings have significant implications for
adaptation and development of teaching materials that enhance L2 vocabulary learning.
Keywords
incidental word learning, involvement-load hypothesis, word exposure, frequency, vocabulary
knowledge
IIntroduction
While interest in vocabulary teaching and learning has a long history of more than a cen-
tury (Laufer, 2009), it has turned into a prominent specialist area of research over the past
Corresponding author:
Parveneh Tavakoli, London Metropolitan University, 166220 Holloway Road, London, N7 8DB, UK
Email: p.tavakoli@londonmet.ac.uk
228 Language Teaching Research 16(2)
few decades with a number of established strands looking into different aspects of direct
and indirect instruction and acquisition of vocabulary (Laufer, 2009; Nation, 1990). In
research on instructed second language vocabulary acquisition it has been argued that
intentional word learning based on focus on form vocabulary teaching is more efficient
than incidental, meaning-focused word learning (de la Fuente, 2006; Laufer, 2005).
Therefore, the explicit teaching of contextualized lexical word items has been claimed to
be superior to word learning that occurs as a by-product of second language (L2) use dur-
ing listening or reading (Barcroft, 2009; Sonbul and Schmitt, 2010). However, and not-
withstanding the usefulness and efficiency of explicit vocabulary teaching and intentional
word learning, it is also widely acknowledged that classroom time is typically far too
restricted to provide sufficient opportunities for intentional word learning (Hunt and
Beglar, 2005; Schmitt, 2008). Thus, in order to achieve the breadth (Nation, 2006a) and
depth (Nation, 2001) of word knowledge necessary for unassisted comprehension of
authentic spoken and written language, extensive exposure to aural and textual input may
be essential in order to enhance opportunities for incidental vocabulary learning.
Although there has been some research on incidental word learning from listening
(Barcroft and Sommers, 2005; Ellis and He, 1999; Mason and Krashen, 2004; Vidal, 2003),
the bulk of studies have focused on vocabulary learning from textual input. The fact that
readers seem to be in control of the pace of their reading, and can take time to notice unfa-
miliar words in the input may have made it a richer area of research than that based on aural
input. Therefore, reading for information or entertainment provides a quantitatively and
qualitatively rich context and resource for lifelong lexical development. However, although
some studies report relatively high word learning and retention rates (Horst, 2005; Pigada
and Schmitt, 2006), the overall picture is that learning new words by reading only is a slow
and error-prone process (Peters et al., 2009, p. 114) with a low word pick-up rate (Horst et
al., 1998; Nation, 2001; Read, 2004). Thus, in reviewing past and current research, Schmitt
(2008, p. 348) concludes that incidental word learning from exposure to reading alone:
is dependent on encountering a vast amount of textual input;

does not result in the learning of many new words;
is useful in developing orthographic and grammatical knowledge aspects of par-
tially known vocabulary;
results in word recognition gains that are more time-stable than gains in word
recall, and, therefore
facilitates the development of partial rather than complete word knowledge.
Overall, these findings are consistent with research on text and discourse comprehen-
sion, which points out that the cognitive processes involved in text comprehension are
distinct and different from those involved in building up and expanding the productive
mechanism of the mental lexicon (Hulstijn, 2003; Kintsch, 1998; Rott, 2007).
Accounting for the deficiencies of the input only model of word learning through
extensive reading only (Krashen, 1993; Mason and Krashen, 2004), research has sug-
gested an alternative input plus position (Hulstijn et al., 1996; Peters et al., 2009, p.
114). This line of research seeks to manipulate input features and reading conditions in
order to increase learners exposure to and involvement with unfamiliar words. Significant
strands of research have explored the effects of word exposure frequency (Rott, 2007;
Eckerth and Tavakoli 229
Waring and Takaki, 2003; Zahar et al., 2001), word enhancement (Han et al., 2008;
Watanabe, 1997; Yoshi, 2006) and active translation of new words (Hummel, 2010), as
well as the effects of learners relative elaboration of word processing (Hulstijn and
Laufer, 2001; Laufer and Girsai, 2008) on L2 vocabulary acquisition.
Studies on word exposure frequency during extensive reading (e.g. Horst et al., 1998;
Zahar et al., 2001), taken together, provide considerable evidence for the positive effects
of word repetition on incidental word learning. However, as Webb (2007) shows, there is
no set number of repetitions that will ensure vocabulary learning, as the effects of con-
text and other variables have a very strong influence on the number of repetitions needed
to gain knowledge of a word (Webb, 2007, p. 63). As studies on incidental word learning
and word inferencing strategies suggest (Nassaji, 2006; Pulido, 2003, 2007), one of these
variables may be the kind and amount of attention an unfamiliar word receives, and how
intensively the reader engages in establishing formmeaning relationships. At present,
initial formmeaning connections, elaboration of subsequent word processing, and expo-
sure frequency are assumed to be among the main explanatory variables in L2 vocabu-
lary acquisition. As Peters et al (2009) write:
The literature on learning and memory and the literature on L2 vocabulary learning, in
particular, suggest that successful L2 vocabulary acquisition through reading is contingent on
three factors. First, L2 learners should discover the meaning of unfamiliar words. Second, they
should process the lexical information elaborately. Third, the formmeaning connections of
these words should be reinforced by means of repetition. (pp. 11415)
So far, repeated word exposure and the relative elaboration of word processing have
been investigated separately. Given their assumed role as main factors in explaining
vocabulary acquisition from textual input, this constitutes an important research gap. In
order to help close this gap, the present study has been designed to investigate the effects
of the variables word exposure frequency and elaboration of word processing on the
initial word learning and subsequent word retention of advanced L2 learners of English.
In the following section we will discuss both strands of the previous research, exposure
frequency and elaboration of word processing, before turning to the aims, procedures
and results of the current study.
IIBackground
1 Word exposure frequency
Early research on second language vocabulary acquisition has shown that incidental learn-
ing of word meaning and form through reading occurs (Nagy et al., 1987; Pitts et al., 1989),
and, together with more recent research, has established the widely held view that vocabu-
lary acquisition is a gradual and incremental process during which word knowledge devel-
ops from more to less partial (Laufer, 2009; Schmitt, 2008). For full word knowledge to
develop, repeated encounters with unfamiliar or partially known words in one or multiple
texts are assumed to be indispensable (Baddeley, 1997; Paribakht and Wesche, 1999).
However, Waring and Takaki (2003) found that even after encountering a word 15
times word knowledge diminished drastically within 3 months, underscoring again the
need for longitudinal studies. Whereas moderate needs arise from lesser urges such as
those externally imposed by the teacher or the task, stronger needs are self-imposed,
reflecting the learners desire to accomplish the task. In cognitive terms, the relative fail-
ure to learn from repeated encounters may be due to the interaction between textual, situ-
ational and learner factors that can foster or impede the allocation of sufficient attentional
resources required for establishing, strengthening and retaining formmeaning connec-
tions during repeated encounters with unfamiliar words.
2 Elaboration of word processing

The relative depth and elaboration with which verbal input is processed, and its impact on
learning and retention has been addressed by the depth of processing hypothesis originally
proposed by Craik and Lockhart (1972). The basic idea is that new incoming information
proceeds through a series of processing stages. In the revised version of their hypothesis,
depth of processing refers to qualitatively different types of processing (Lockhart and
Craik, 1990, p. 100). This comprises a first, shallow stage of input analysis, including sen-
sory features such as orthographic or phonological word characteristics, and a subsequent,
deeper analysis of semantic and conceptual input features. In addition, elaboration refers to
the richness or extensiveness of processing within one level. In a review of their original
hypothesis, Lockhart and Craik (1990) suggest considerable amendments to their original
model, but conclude that the assumption that different types of processing impact on reten-
tion and recall has now been widely accepted in cognitive psychology.
Within applied linguistics, the relative elaboration of the cognitive processes involved
in decoding unfamiliar words in the textual input, and their effects on incidental word
learning, have been addressed by the involvement load hypothesis as put forward by
Laufer and Hulstijn (2001). Building upon Craik and Lockharts work and integrating
Schmidts (1990; 2001) work on attention allocation in second language acquisition
Laufer and Hulstijn suggest that the amount of motivational-cognitive involvement is an
explanatory and predictive variable in incidental vocabulary acquisition. The elaboration
with which words are processed is considered to be one key variable in word learning and
retention, and is assumed to be contingent on the relative involvement load. Involvement
load can be manipulated by task design (task induced), and is operationalized as the sum
of different levels of the motivational component need, and the two cognitive compo-
nents search and evaluate. Whereas a moderate need is externally imposed by the
teacher or the task, a strong need is self-imposed, reflecting the learners desire to accom-
plish the task. Search refers to the relative efforts put into establishing the formmeaning
relationships of an unfamiliar word by consulting a textual reference (textbook, diction-
ary, internet, etc.) or a human agent (teacher, native speaker, peer learner, etc.), and can be
either present or absent during task completion. Evaluation denotes the comparison of an
unfamiliar word with other words (weak evaluation), comparing the specific meaning of
a word with other meanings of the same word (moderate), or assessing whether a word fits
a specific linguistic context (strong). Finally, the involvement load hypothesis weights
these three factors equally, predicting that independent of its internal composition, the
higher the overall involvement index, the better vocabulary learning and retention. It is
worth noting that although there is an emerging literature using Laufer and Hulstijns
(2001) operationalization, it has not necessarily been universally adopted.
Since the original proposal, some empirical studies have directly (Hulstijn and Laufer,
2001; Keating, 2008; Kim, 2008) or indirectly (Folse, 2006; Rott, 2007) addressed the
predictions made by the involvement load hypothesis, and have produced mixed results.
Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) found full support for the hypothesis in their experiment with
learners of L2 English in Israel, but only partial support in their parallel study with L2
English learners in The Netherlands. Kim (2008), in two experiments with learners of L2
English in the USA, provided full support for the involvement load hypothesis, both for
initial word learning and for subsequent word retention. Keating (2008) used pseudo-words
with his learners of L2 Spanish in the USA and provided partial support for the hypothesis.
Rott (2007) argued that her overall results of the impact of word enhancement frequency
on word retention are consistent with the predictions of the involvement load hypothesis.
Finally, Folse (2006), based on his results from a study of learners of L2 English in the
USA, claimed that the important feature of a given L2 vocabulary exercise is not depth of
word processing but number of word retrievals required (Folse, 2006, p. 273).
3 Aims and research questions of the current study

The current study has been designed to examine whether elaboration of word processing
impacts on word learning and retention, and whether it co-varies with exposure fre-
quency. In order to investigate these issues, the study employs three reading tasks,
including subsequent multiple-choice reading comprehension questions, which are
administered to advanced learners of L2 English. These tasks systematically manipulate
the first independent variable, exposure frequency, and the second independent varia-
ble, elaboration of word processing. This second variable has been operationalized by
manipulating the degree of cognitive-motivational task-induced involvement load as
defined by the involvement load hypothesis (Laufer and Hulstijn, 2001).
Using immediate and delayed posttests, the study investigates the impact of both inde-
pendent variables on learners initial word learning and subsequent word retention, the
dependent variable. Being fully aware of the multi-layered nature of vocabulary knowl-
edge, we decided to focus on the centrality of formmeaning links in our vocabulary test.
Following Laufer et al. (2004), in the present study word learning and retention is opera-
tionalized by four independent word knowledge tests on active and passive word recall,
and on active and passive word recognition. Although there is some disagreement on what
knowing, learning and retaining vocabulary mean, there is a consensus among vocabulary
researchers that knowledge of vocabulary can be divided into either passive-receptive or
active-productive knowledge, and on whether a word has been recalled or recognized by
a learner (Laufer et al., 2004). In other words, a distinction is to be made between those
learners who can recall the form or meaning of a word and those who cannot but can rec-
ognize the form or meaning in a set of options. Data is collected and analysed via a within-
group design, so that each single participant is exposed to each of the target words in each
of the three reading conditions, while time on task is controlled for.
Such a carefully controlled design has been chosen in order to improve on some meth-
odological procedures adopted in earlier studies. Previous research has partly relied on
multiple-choice tests, although multiple-choice tests only assess prompted meaning rec-
ognition, not the unprompted meaning recognition one needs for normal reading (Waring
and Takaki, 2003, p. 133). In the current study, we therefore used a test format that
accounted for prompted and unprompted word recognition. Furthermore, we sought to
replace vocabulary learning measures such as the vocabulary knowledge scale (Kim,
2008; Wesche and Paribakht, 1996) or word translation tests (Hulstijn and Laufer, 2001;
Keating, 2008) with more multifaceted word learning measures that were informed by
current insights from vocabulary test theory, and included receptive and productive word
knowledge. We therefore decided to adapt a vocabulary measure developed by Laufer
et al. (2004), covering both active and passive word recall and word recognition.
In addition, we controlled for the time participants were exposed to the target words,
as the huge time lapse between tasks in some studies (e.g. from 4045 to 7080 minutes;
see Hulstijn and Laufer, 2001, p. 548) may suggest an alternative interpretation of the
results to that suggested by the authors. Finally, we decided to employ a within-group
rather than a between-group design (as in Hulstijn and Laufer, 2001; Keating, 2008;
Kim, 2008). Such a design allowed us to control for the potential impact of characteris-
tics of the different reading texts on word retention, as this variable is counterbalanced
across participants. Accordingly, within such a design the selected target words are con-
sidered to be a random factor, as they were encountered under all three reading condi-
tions. The downside of using a within-participant design in this study is that the
participants experience of taking the immediate posttest in week 9 may raise their
awareness of being tested after each task and may therefore shift their learning focus
from an incidental to a intentional mode in weeks 10 and 11. The possibility of such an
effect is investigated through statistical analyses (see Section IV.1).
The study addresses three research questions:
1. What are the effects of exposure frequency and task-induced involvement load
on learners overall initial word learning and medium-term word retention?
2. What are the effects of exposure frequency and task-induced involvement load on
learners four types of word knowledge (receptive and productive, recall and recogni-
tion) in initial word learning and in medium-term word retention?
3. Do word retention rates differ for the four types of word knowledge measured?
IIIMethod
1Participants
Participants in the study were 30 students enrolled in three parallel advanced (IELTS 7)
pre-university English for Academic Purposes (EAP) courses at the English Language
Centre of a university in the UK. Courses met five times a week each for four hours each
time. Participants were aged between 22 and 27; most were Asian while some of the oth-
ers had Slavic and Romance first language backgrounds. All participants were informed
about the broad aims of the project related to reading in an L2, but the details of the
specific aims of the study were not given. Neither were they aware that vocabulary tests
were to be administered after the reading tasks. All tasks and tests took place in partici-
pants regular classes. In line with the participants advanced L2 proficiency, all materi-
als and instructions (oral and written) were provided in English.
2 Data collection
Data was collected through three different reading tasks. The three tasks varied the inves-
tigated independent variable task-induced involvement load (low in Task 1, medium in
Table 1 Data collection timetable, tasks and texts
Time Class
A B C
Week 1 Pretest 1 (150 words)
Week 2 Pretest 2 (75 words)
Week 9 Task 1 Task 3 Task 2
Text 1 Text 1 Text 1
Week 14 Delayed posttest
Task 2, high in Task 3) by imposing different reading conditions on the participants

(reading a text with marginal glosses in Task 1, filling in text gaps from a word list in
Task 2, reading a text with marginal glosses and writing a related composition in Task 3).
The textual base of these tasks consisted of three different reading texts (texts Google,
Sleep and Easter extracted from Richmond, 2009). The other independent variable,
exposure frequency, following from Rott (2007) was operationalized at two levels of
1-occurence (1-OC) and 5-occurences (5-OC). This was represented by 10 target words
in each reading text of which five occurred once and five occurred five times. In order to
minimize the possibility of a text-task confound effect, the research was designed in a
way that all the participants were exposed to all the target words, the three reading texts
and the three reading conditions.
In order to identify the words that were unknown to the participants, all target words
were pretested with the same groups prior to task completion (Pretest 1 and 2 in Table 1).
Word knowledge was tested through two posttests in this study: once immediately after
completion of the tasks in each session (Weeks 9, 10 and 11), and once three weeks after
the last task was completed (Week 14). Whereas the immediate posttests included the 10
target words in the task that had just been completed, the delayed posttest comprised all
30 target words from Tasks 1, 2 and 3 and was administered in one single session three
weeks after the final immediate posttest (see discussion below).
3Procedures
The participants belonged to three different classes and were exposed to the intervention
during three successive weeks. Each week the reading passage and the target words were
the same for all the three classes but each class was exposed to a different type of reading
condition (Tasks 1, 2 and 3). As a result, at the end of week 11 all three classes had been
exposed to all the target words, had read the three reading texts, and had worked under the
three reading conditions (tasks). After each reading activity they immediately took a post-
test, which assessed their short-term word learning. In week 14, in order to measure their
medium-term word retention they took a delayed posttest that included all 30 target words.
4Materials
a Target words: In related studies, vocabulary pretesting has been based on estimates
from learners comparable to the participants (Hulstijn and Laufer, 2001; Kim, 2008) or
has been pretested with the participants shortly (one day) before the tasks (Folse, 2006).
In the current study, we decided to include two pretests. For Pretest 1 we selected 90
words from the 5,000 and 10,000 word level of the revised and validated version of
Nations (1990) Vocabulary Level Test (Schmitt et al., 2001) and 60 words from the
Academic Word List (Coxhead, 2000). From the results of the first pretest we selected 50
words and added another 25 words that we judged useful to seed the selected reading
texts with. Pretest 2 included these 75 words from which 30 words unknown to at least
98% of the participants were selected and inserted into the reading texts.1 Finally, the 10
target words in each text were assigned to important text propositions (Rott, 2007), but
no effort was made to account for the relative learning difficulty of different parts of
speech (Ellis and Beaton, 1993; Laufer, 1990; Ludwig, 1984) as all target words were
encountered under all three different reading conditions (i.e. Tasks 13) and were there-
fore considered a random factor.
b Reading texts: The selection and adaptation of the three reading texts was guided by
the course themes, the pedagogical appropriateness and length (approx. 1,200 words) of
the texts, and linguistic difficulty as judged by the participating teachers and the institu-
tions course coordinator. We chose longer expository texts adapted from an EAP text-
book (Richmond, 2009) not only for their high instructional authenticity, but also as
longer expository texts have been claimed to represent an underresearched genre in stud-
ies on vocabulary learning through reading (Min, 2008, p. 102).
c Operationalization of exposure frequency: The first independent variable, exposure

frequency, refers to the textual characteristics of the reading texts, and was operational-
ized on two levels, representing the frequency of the target words in the text. Each of the
reading texts contained 10 target words. Five of these words occurred once in the texts
(1-OC) and five occurred five times (5-OC). The two levels of exposure frequency were
used to find out whether more frequent exposure to a word, 5-OC compared with 1-OC,
would have an impact on the learning and retention of the word.
d Operationalization of elaboration of word processing: The second independent variable,

elaboration of word processing, refers to the conditions under which the textual input
is read, and was operationalized in terms of task-induced involvement load. Task 1
involved reading a text with marginal glosses. Task 2 involved reading a text in which
the 10 target words (1-OC, 5-OC) were replaced by uniform-size gaps. These gaps had
to be filled in from a word list providing the target word itself, its parts of speech (noun,
verb, adjective, adverb) and a brief definition. These definitions were adapted from the
Longman Online Dictionary of Contemporary English (2008), and were identical to
those provided as glosses in Task 1 and Task 3. Finally, Task 3 involved reading a text
with marginal glosses under the same conditions as in Task 1. After having read the text,
students could choose to write either a brief summary of the text or an expository com-
position on a given aspect of the text. Students were provided with the same word list as
in Task 2, and were instructed to use all of the words on the list (for an example of each
task, see Appendix 1). The three tasks represent different involvement loads as defined
Table 2 Task-induced involvement load index
Involvement load Task 1 Task 2 Task 3

Need Low (1) Low (1) Low (1)
Search Absent (0) Absent (0) Absent (0)
Evaluation None (0) Moderate (1) Strong (2)
Involvement load index 1 2 3
in the involvement load hypothesis2 (Laufer and Hulstijn, 2001). The motivational vari-
able need is low in all three tasks, as the necessity to understand an unfamiliar word is
task-generated rather than self-imposed. The first cognitive variable, search, is absent
in all three tasks. The second cognitive variable, evaluation, was systematically manip-
ulated across the three tasks. Values for Evaluation were none in Task 1, as word
meaning was provided via glosses, moderate in Task 2, as word meaning had to be
selected from a word list, and strong in Task 3, as word meaning had to be selected and,
via composition writing, to be evaluated in the context of other words (see Table 2).
5Assessment
a Time of measurement: Whereas the posttests took place immediately after task comple-
tion, the delayed posttest for all three tasks was administered three weeks after the last
task. In the delayed posttest, in order to reduce the likelihood of students missing tests and
to reduce the amount of test forewarning the students would otherwise have received,
all the target words were tested at the same time. The schedule for the delayed posttest was
based on the assumption that although initial word learning is typically fragile, word
retention tends to become relatively stable after three weeks (Schmitt et al., 2001).
b Vocabulary acquisition measure: The vocabulary acquisition measure used was based on
the monolingual version of the Computer Adaptive Test of Size and Strength (CATSS)
developed by Laufer et al. (2004). This test measured the participants receptive and pro-
ductive word recall and word recognition respectively. Although they have an implica-
tional relationship, these four levels of word knowledge are treated as independent
measures (see Nation, 2001; Read, 2000).3 Following Laufer et al.s (2004: 207) recom-
mendation on the frequency relationship between target words and distractors in the dif-
ferent parts of the test, and to ensure comparability of the two, the target words and
distractors were checked for frequency, drawing upon the British National Corpus and the
British Academic Written English corpus (BAWE; Nesi, 2008). Although it could be
argued that a more valid way of measuring vocabulary is in context (Read, 2000), this was
judged as not feasible within the current study. Thus, a word knowledge measure that
included different dimensions of word knowledge was considered to be a good compro-
mise between fully contextualized vocabulary testing (Read and Chapelle, 2001) and
decontextualized mono-dimensional word knowledge tests (e.g. Laufer and Nation, 1995;
Meara and Buxton, 1987) (for an example of test items, see Appendix 2).
c Reading comprehension measure: In the current study, and in order to focus partici-
pants attention on reading for meaning, students were informed that after reading the
texts they were to answer five multiple-choice reading comprehension questions. How-
ever, participants responses were not scored because reading comprehension was not
included in the research questions in this part of the study.
IVResults
1 Overall effects
Before conducting the main statistical analyses in the study, ANOVAs were run to find out
whether there was any effect of time of initial learning emerging from the posttest experi-
ence on the overall results of the initial word learning in weeks 9, 10 and 11. The ANOVAs
indicated that there were no statistical differences between the means of each task across
the three weeks (Task 1: F = .167, p = .847; Task 2: F = .094, p = .910; Task 3: F = .118,
p = .890). These results imply that the participants initial word learning was not affected
by the experience of taking a posttest in week 9. Although these results suggest that the
within-participants design of the study has not encouraged a shift in the participants
learning mode from incidental to intentional, we acknowledge that this possibility cannot
be totally ruled out. This issue will be explored in Section V.
A 3 2 2 4 repeated measures MANOVA was conducted with task-induced involve-
ment load (3 levels), exposure frequency (2 levels), time of measurement (2 levels) as the
independent variables and word knowledge type (4 levels) as the dependent variable. The
results of the analysis showed significant main effects for task-induced involvement load
(F = 30.98, p = .001, 2 = .561), exposure frequency (F = 12.73, p = .001, 2 = .305), time of
measurement (F = 106.83, p = .001, 2 = .786), and word knowledge type (F = 138.44,
p = .001, 2 = .827). These main effects were qualified by significant two-way and three-way
interactions among the different variables (Table 3). According to Tabachnick and Fidell
(1996) and Cohen (1988), the effect sizes for these differences can be interpreted as moder-
ate to strong, suggesting that a considerable amount of the variance in the learners target
word gains resulted from the effects of task-induced involvement load and word frequency,
and that these effects differed significantly over time and across word knowledge types.
To answer Research Questions 1 to 3, a number of further analyses were conducted,
which are presented successively below.
2 Research question 1
To answer this question, two separate repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted for
initial word learning and medium-term word retention. As no a priori hypotheses were
specified, the ANOVAs were followed up by post hoc pairwise comparisons of means. In
order to avoid Type I errors, a Bonferroni correction was used to adjust the confidence
interval. Assumptions of sphericity were checked and, if violated, degrees of freedom
were corrected using HuynhFeldt estimates of sphericity.
a Overall initial word learning: The results of the repeated measures ANOVA for initial word
learning show significant and strong main effects for task-induced involvement load (F =
41.71, p = .001, 2 = .590) and for exposure frequency (F = 166.90, p = .001, 2 = .852).
Table 3 MANOVA: Effects of task-induced involvement, frequency, and time of measurement

on word knowledge type
Source F p h2
Involvement 30.98 .001* .52
Frequency 12.73 .001* .30
Time 106.83 .001* .79
Knowledge type 138.44 .001* .83
Involvement frequency 3.43 .040* .11
Involvement time 30.69 .001* .51
Involvement knowledge type 9.37 .001* .24
Frequency time 41.01 .001* .59
Frequency knowledge type 2.64 .050* .08
Knowledge type time 20.05 .001* .41
Involvement frequency time 2.57 .115 .07
Involvement frequency knowledge type 1.00 .420 .03
Involvement knowledge type time 13.81 .001* .32
Frequency knowledge type time 5.46 .002* .16
Involvement frequency knowledge type time 2.48 .030* .08
Notes: N = 30; * p < .05
Furthermore, a third significant effect is observed for the interaction between the two varia-
bles (F = 15.40, p = .05, 2 = .347). A post hoc pairwise comparison of means shows that the
effects are a result of significant differences between all three levels of task-induced involve-
ment load and between the two levels of exposure frequency.4 Figure 1 shows the means for
overall initial word learning across the three involvement load levels and the word frequency
levels. As can be seen in Figure 1, increased frequency (5-OC and 1-OC) and a higher
involvement load (Task 3 with the highest load) increased learning of the target words.
14
12
Exposure frequency
10
8 5-OC
6 1-OC
0
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3
Task-induced involvement
Figure 1 Effects of involvement load and frequency on initial word learning
7.2
7.0
6.8
Exposure frequency
6.6
6.4 5-OC
6.2 1-OC
6.0
5.8
5.6
5.4
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3
Figure 2 Effects of involvement load and frequency on medium-term word retention
b Overall medium-term word retention: The results of the repeated measures ANOVA for
word retention show only one significant and moderate effect for the involvement load
variable (F = 12.814, p = .001, 2 = .306). A post hoc pairwise comparison of means for
the three levels of involvement load reveal significant mean differences between Task 3
on the one hand, and Tasks 1 and 2 on the other, but no significant differences between
Tasks 1 and 2.5 No significant effects exist were found for exposure frequency. Figure 2
shows the means for overall medium-term word learning across the three involvement
loads and the two frequency levels. As can be seen in Figure 2, word retention resulting
from working on Task 3 is clearly more effective than that resulting from Tasks 1 and 2.
As the initial MANOVA revealed significant and strong effects for word knowledge type
(F = 138.40, p = .001, 2 = .827; see Table 3, above), we sought to differentiate the findings
on overall word learning and retention with respect to the four different word knowledge
types measured in this study. These were active recall (Test A), active recognition (Test B),
passive recall (Test C), and passive recognition (Test D). To answer this question, two three-
factorial repeated measures ANOVAs with task-induced involvement load, exposure fre-
quency, and word knowledge type as measured on the immediate and delayed posttests were
performed.
a Knowledge-type specific initial word learning: The first ANOVA shows no significant
interaction between word knowledge type and exposure frequency, and between word
knowledge type and involvement load. Thus, scores for knowledge-type specific initial
word learning are distributed in a consistent pattern (Figures 3 and 4). As these two
figures demonstrate, across all involvement loads (Tasks 1, 2 and 3) and the two levels
of exposure (5-OC, 1-OC), participants scores were increasing from Test A (active
recall) to Test C (passive recall), followed by D (passive recognition) and B (active
recognition).
12
10
8
Task 3
6 Task 2
Task 1
4
0
Test A Test B Test C Test D
Word know ledge type
Figure 3 Effects of involvement load on word knowledge type in initial word learning
Notes: Test A = active recall; Test B = active recognition; Test C = passive recall; Test D = passive recognition
14
12
Exposure frequency
10
8 5-OC
6 1-OC
0
Word knowledge type
Figure 4 Effects of frequency on word knowledge type in initial word learning

(Test A= active recall, Test B= active recognition, Test C= passive recall, Test D= passive recognition)
b Knowledge-type specific medium-term word retention: In order to see whether the treat-
ment resulted in knowledge-specific medium-term word retention, a second ANOVA
was conducted for the scores on the delayed posttest. Consistent with the scores for ini-
tial word learning, word retention scores showed no significant interaction between word
knowledge type and exposure frequency. However, interaction was significant between
word knowledge type and involvement load (F = 19.19, p = .001, 2 = .398), suggesting
that elaboration of word processing is connected with word knowledge type. These
results are shown in Figures 5 and 6. Figure 5 also shows that compared with the input
tasks (Tasks 1 and 2), the input-and-output task (Task 3) appears to be less conducive to
8
7
6
5 Task 3
4 Task 2
3 Task 1
2
1
0
Word knowledge type
Figure 5 Effects of involvement load on word knowledge type in medium-term word retention
Notes: Test A = active recall; Test B = active recognition; Test C = passive recall; Test D = passive recognition
9
8
7
Exposure frequency
6
5 5-OC
4 1-OC
3
2
1
0
Word knowledge type
Figure 6 Effects of frequency on word knowledge type in medium-term word retention

Notes: Test A = active recall; Test B = active recognition; Test C = passive recall; Test D = passive recognition)
passive word knowledge (Tests C and D), but more conducive to the development of
active word knowledge (Tests A and B). Further post-hoc analyses for Task 3 indicated
that while Test B was statistically different from the other three tests, neither Tests A or
C nor A and D were statistically different.
To find out whether the four different word knowledge types measured were retained dif-
ferently over time we conducted a two-factorial repeated measures ANOVA with the fac-
tors word knowledge type and time. The results showed a significant interaction between
knowledge type and time (F = 41.996, p = .001, 2 = .592), suggesting that recognition
35
30
Time of measurement
25
20 Time 2
15 Time 1
10
0
Word knowledge type
Figure 7 Word knowledge type and word retention over time

Notes: Test A = active recall; Test B = active recognition; Test C = passive recall; Test D = passive recognition)
Table 4 Paired t tests for knowledge specific word gains on immediate and delayed posttests
Knowledge type PT DPT M(sd) M(sd) N t p Cohens d

A (active recall) 8.30 (7.03) 5.03 (3.83) 30 4.73 .001 0.58
B (active recognition) 29.33 (7.92) 16.20 (2.91) 30 10.69 .001 2.20
C (passive recall) 17.53 (8.68) 7.80 (2.94) 30 8.32 .001 1.50
D (passive recognition) 25.70 (9.40) 10.60 (2.80) 30 10.26 .001 2.18
Notes: PT = immediate posttest; DPT = delayed posttest
types in general and the active recognition types of word knowledge in particular will be
retained better than others over time. Figure 7 shows the means for the knowledge-type
specific word scores on the immediate (Time 1) and delayed (Time 2) posttests.
Finally, and in order to compare the differences between the knowledge-type specific
word gains, a series of paired t tests for knowledge-specific word gains as measured on
the immediate and delayed posttest was run. The results, shown in Table 4, reveal that
whereas decreases in word gain were equally significant for all four knowledge types, the
effect sizes (Cohens d) ranged from medium to strong. In sum, the analyses for research
question 3 indicate that there were gains in the learners vocabulary knowledge from
pretests to immediate posttest, and also that some of these gains were then lost between
the immediate and delayed posttests. The loss between the two posttests, although sig-
nificant across all knowledge types, was larger for certain types of word knowledge.
V Discussion and conclusions

The current study shows that receptive and productive word knowledge gains can take
place incidentally through reading, and that incidental word learning and retention can be
contingent upon both the variables investigated, word exposure frequency, and elabora-
tion of word processing. In sum, the analyses for RQ3 indicate that there were gains in
the learners vocabulary knowledge from pretests to immediate posttest, also that some
of these gains were then lost between the immediate and delayed posttests. The loss
between the two posttests, although significant across all knowledge types, was larger
for certain types of word knowledge.
Research Question 1 addressed overall word scores. With respect to initial word
learning, a higher frequency of words (1-OC and 5-OC) and a higher involvement load
(Tasks 1, 2 and 3) resulted in higher word learning gains. These results suggest that initial
word learning was influenced by task-induced involvement load as students scores con-
sistently increased from Task 1 to Task 2 and from Task 2 to Task 3. Similarly, learning
gains appeared to be higher, across all tasks, on words that occurred five times.
Research Question 1 also addressed overall medium-term word retention. As can be seen
from the delayed posttest scores, differences between the input tasks (Tasks 1 and 2) on the
one hand, and the input-and-output task (Task 3) on the other, are significant, but differences
between Tasks 1 and 2 are not. Furthermore, and due to the almost identical word gains for
both frequency levels in Task 3, no significant effects were found for word frequency (Figure
2, above). In other words, the reading-and-writing task clearly outscores the reading-only
task and the reading-and-gap-filling task, indicating that word retention resulting from target
word output is more sustained than that resulting from target word input.
The results of investigating Research Question 1 suggest that there is a clear and posi-
tive correlation between the two independent variables and initial word learning.
However, over time the effect of frequency tends to fade, whereas the effect of task-
induced involvement load is more time-stable. This is especially distinct in the case of
Task 3, the input-and-output task, suggesting that re-using and thus reprocessing target
words in writing after initially having encountered them in reading is particularly condu-
cive to word retention and that, over time, the effect of the output task-component over-
rides input-based exposure frequency effects.
Research Question 2 examined the potential effects of the independent variables on
word knowledge-type specific word gains. Three results are particularly noteworthy.
First, and with respect to the overall distribution of word gain scores, posttest and delayed
posttest scores consistently and significantly increased from Test A (active recall) to Test
C (passive recall), followed by Test D (passive recognition) and Test B (active recogni-
tion) (Figures 36, above). Second, task-induced involvement load did not alter this
overall distribution of word learning scores (Figure 3, above), but did impact on the
distribution of word retention scores (Figure 5, above). Here, the input-and-output task
produced higher active and lower passive word retention scores than the input-only-
tasks. Third, whereas word learning gains increased with higher exposure frequency
(Figure 4, above), this was not the case for word retention (Figure 6, above). In sum, and
in line with the findings on overall word gains, this suggests that the effects of frequency
are less time-stable than those of task-induced involvement load, and that the sustainabil-
ity of task-effects is mainly due to the writing component.
In line with previous research (Laufer et al., 2004; Rott, 2007), recall scores in the
current study were lower than recognition scores, and active word recall proved to be
more difficult than passive recall. However, and in contrast to Laufer et al.s study, pas-
sive recognition scores were significantly lower than those for active recognition. This
inconsistency across studies may be partly due to individual test completion strategies.
As Laufer et al. (2004, p. 222) note, each of the two modalities can be solved either pas-
sively or actively. Thus, participants may have begun the vocabulary tests with the
stimulus, or may have started by reviewing the list of words from which they were to
choose the correct answer. By switching between both strategies, they would have
blurred the distinction between active and passive recognition. Given the fact that the
passive recognition dimension constituted the last part of the test battery, test fatigue
and test attitude (Nation, 2006b) may have played an additional role. During formal and
informal encounters with the teachers and participants, we noted that the reading tasks
were generally given high credit for their instructional authenticity, whereas the discrete-
item test battery was associated with less of a learning opportunity.
Finally, Research Question 3 addressed word retention rates, i.e. knowledge-specific dif-
ferences in word gain between the immediate and the delayed posttest. Results showed that
scores for all four knowledge types decreased significantly over time (Figure 7, above). With
respect to the four word knowledge-type tests, the magnitude of these differences increased
in the order A C D B (Table 4, above). Thus, in the current study, word recall (Tests
A and C) was better retained than word recognition (Tests B and D). However, as this order
parallels the order of absolute word gains reported above, an alternative reading of these
results suggests that not just word knowledge type, but also amount of initial word learning
may have mattered: the more that was gained initially, the more was lost subsequently. It
should be noted that the reasons behind loss of retention from a posttest to a delayed posttest
cannot be easily identified because, as Hulstijn (2003, p. 372) argues, it is not possible to
differentiate the extent to which performance on a delayed posttest is affected by processes
during the experimental learning session or by processes (if any) after the session.
In sum, the findings of the current study suggest that both variables significantly
affect incidental word learning through reading, that over time the relative elaboration of
word processing has stronger effects than does frequency, and that input-and-output
cycles may be particularly conducive to incidental vocabulary acquisition. However,
given that the study took place in classrooms, an intentional learning environment, and
because certain aspects of the research design, such as the immediate posttests, might
have drawn the learners attention to vocabulary acquisition, it is difficult to claim that
the learning which took place was entirely incidental.
Accounting for these results warrants a closer look at the reading conditions investi-
gated. Unlike some previous research (Hulstijn and Laufer, 2001; Keating, 2008; Kim,
2008), this study did not compare reading with writing tasks, but reading with reading-and-
writing tasks. In an EAP context, we suggest, the prototypical and prevailing literacy activ-
ity is not writing based on previous knowledge, but writing based on knowledge gained
from previous reading. Research on text-based inputoutput cycles has shown better word
gain from reading and subsequently engaging in an output task than from reading only (de
la Fuente, 2002; Joe, 1998; Laufer, 2001). However, output alone may not be conducive to
word learning when initial meaning assignment is required, such as in deriving word mean-
ing from multiple-choice glosses (Rott et al., 2002). As these authors conclude, tasks that
require the learner to elaborate the input and generate associations with prior experience
and knowledge are considered ideal for promoting transfer of new knowledge to long-term
memory (Rott et al., 2002, p. 209). In the current study, this input-elaboration effect may
account for the superior short- and medium-term word gains resulting from Task 3. Based
on target word glosses in the reading text and reinforced by target word definitions in the
word list learners established initial formmeaning connections, and subsequently elabo-
rated on these connections when evaluating and using the target words in new linguistic,
conceptual, and epistemological contexts. In the light of information processing models of
SLA (Schmidt, 2001; VanPatten, 2004), we may assume that once meaning has been estab-
lished, attentional resources are freed up to process word form, and to strengthen form
meaning connections. Whether this type of inputoutput task is conducive to longer-term
word retention and across more varied acquisitional contexts, participants, and L2 profi-
ciency and literacy levels, remains a question for further research.
Finally, the task-related findings of the current study lend strong support to Hulstijn
and Laufers Involvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer and Hulstijn, 2001). However, we
suggest that some caution is exercised when interpreting the evidence in favour of the
hypothesis in previous research (Hulstijn and Laufer, 2001; Keating, 2008; Kim, 2008).
As we see it, the main educational appeal of the Involvement Load Hypothesis is its
potential instructional applicability: a formula for teachers to use to better manipulate
and foster their students vocabulary learning. In this sense the three tasks used in
Hulstijn and Laufers (2001) original study are actual, ecologically valid instructional
tasks where the main focus is on reading (learning new content) and essay writing (for-
mulating an idea for an audience), and where word learning is a by-product and not the
focus of the task. A sentence writing task as in Kim (2008, p. 306) and in Keating (2008,
p. 373), however, may shift learners attention to word learning as the primary focus of
the task. Therefore, while word gain scores for composition writing and sentence writ-
ing may be the same (Kim, 2008), word processing may differ substantially. Moreover,
Keatings prior announcement of a subsequent vocabulary test together with the
10-minute pretask learning phase during which participants were asked to review the
target words with the help of L2 glosses and L1 translations (Keating, 2008, p. 373)
move the learning conditions more to the intentional end of the incidentalintentional
learning orientation continuum, so that it is not clear what the results tell us about inci-
dental vocabulary acquisition. Interestingly, in his study the intentional learning task
did not result in the predicted superior word gains (Keating, 2008, p. 378).
VI Limitations and future research

Although we found considerable empirical support for the Involvement Load Hypothesis
as proposed by Laufer and Hulstijn (2001), we suggest that the hypothesis may at present
not be tenable as a valid construct because it cannot account for some crucial variables
involved in incidental vocabulary learning through reading. First, we do not know whether
students actually looked at the glosses or not, nor how much time they spent on glosses and
target words. Second, none of the studies that have addressed the Involvement Load
Hypothesis described how difficult it is to find the correct meaning for the fill-in reading
task. How many contextual clues (Webb, 2008) are there, if any? Is it a guessing game?
How successful are students? If they inferred the wrong word meaning and retained it over
time, then what we are measuring is not a learning-retention issue but an inferencing issue.
Were students in the writing only (Hulstijn and Laufer, 2001; Keating, 2008; Kim, 2008)
and reading-and-writing (current study) groups more concerned about integrating the tar-
get words and less so with the content and organization of the essay? Was it actually a
composition that students produced or did they perceive the task as a sentence writing task?
Given the far-reaching claims of the Involvement Load Hypothesis, its theoretical
implications for SLA research, and its pedagogical relevance for teachers, task designers
and material writers, we suggest that it is worthwhile pursuing these questions in future
research. This should be in the form of qualitative research particularly to find out how
tests and tasks are perceived and accomplished by learners and what factors they perceive
as facilitating or inhibiting their vocabulary learning process. Given the complexity of
word knowledge, and the limitations imposed on studies conducted in actual classrooms,
vocabulary posttests will probably always be too narrow to do justice to all aspects of
participants lexical development. Employing more implicit ways of testing representa-
tion of and access to lexical knowledge (Wesche and Paribakht, 1999) and think-aloud
protocols (Hill and Laufer, 2003) should be considered as alternative ways of enabling
researchers to better understand the processes involved in vocabulary learning and devel-
opment and to discover the extent to which the learning has been either incidental or
intentional. One way forward may be to conduct experiments in laboratory settings that
allow for more extensive assessment of receptive and productive knowledge (Webb,
2007), including both single-unit and multiple-unit collocational lexical items (Siyanova
and Schmitt, 2008; Webb and Kagimoto, 2009). However, if conducted in actual class-
rooms, researchers should be cautious in not unwarrantedly assuming the ecological
validity (in the sense of Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 29) of their research: in classrooms
does not necessarily equal under classroom conditions.
Finally, there is the pertinent issue of intentional and incidental learning (Hulstijn,
2001, 2003). On a methodological level, repeated measure tasktesttasktest designs
inevitably risk directing participants attention partially to deliberate word learning rather
than to meaning-oriented reading only. Some of the test scores may thus be due to inten-
tional, rather than incidental learning. This, however, raises the more fundamental ques-
tion of whether we will ever be able to show that a given word was learned incidentally
(e.g. Gass, 1999). As our answer is no, we suggest conceptualizing incidental and
intentional vocabulary learning not as two dichotomous learning modes, but rather as
orientations of learners while working on a task, situated on a continuum from (more)
intentional to (more) incidental (Barcroft, 2009). Such a concept of a learning continuum
is in line with Paribakht and Wesche, who argue that vocabulary learning through read-
ing is in some fundamental sense not incidental, at least from the learners perspective
(Paribakht and Wesche, 1999, p. 215).
Acknowledgement and dedication

This article is dedicated to the memory of Johannes Eckerth who initiated and guided this research but
sadly did not live long enough to see it published. During his time in London, Johannes talent, vision
and amazing personality inspired many colleagues and friends, and his commitment to excellence in
research and his caring and loving attitude to others will remain a legacy that continues to guide us.
We would like to thank the editors of this special issue of Language Teaching Research as well
as the two anonymous Language Teaching Research reviewers for their constructive comments on
an earlier version. Our special thanks go to Professor Jan Hulstijn and Professor Peter Skehan for
their invaluable feedback on an earlier draft of the manuscript, and to Bianca Sauer for her unre-
mitting help and support in the early stages of the project.
Notes
1. The words in Pretest 1 were approximately distributed in a 3 (noun) : 2 (verb) : 1 (adjective/
adverb) ratio, reflecting the distribution of these word classes in English (Schmitt, 2008: 58).
As in Schmitt et al. (2001), part A of Pretest 1 asked the participants to tick either I know the
word, word is somewhat familiar or dont know the word. Part B of Pretest 1 asked the
participants to match 45 out of the 150 words with synonyms or definitions. The calculated
match between meaning allocations in part B and self-report statements in part A was 87% for
known and 95% for unknown words. The same procedure was then applied to Pretest 2.
2. The two input tasks (Task 1 and 2) were identical with the task type in Hulstijn and Laufer
(2001). Task 3 in the current study, however, is a reading-and-writing (input-and-output) task
rather than a writing (output-only) task as in Hulstijn and Laufers study.
3. Part A assessed active recall by providing participants with a conceptual description of the
target word and required them to provide the target word by filling in a blank. In this blank,
the first letter of the target word was given to avoid non-target words with identical mean-
ing. Part B assessed active recognition. Participants again received a conceptual description
of the target word, and then had to choose among five answer options (the target word, three
semantically unrelated distracters, and an I dont know option). Part C assessed passive
recall by providing the target word within a gapped sentence. Filling in the blank required the
participants to deliver a conceptual description of the target word by means of a synonym or
semantically related words. Participants were informed that several answers were possible.
Part D assessed passive recognition. Participants were provided with the target word and, as
in part B, had to choose from among five answer options.
4. Involvement: 1 vs. 2: MD = 1.444, p = .000; 2 vs. 3: MD = 1.033, p = .000; 1 vs. 3: MD =
2.478, p = .000. Frequency: 1 vs. 2: MD = 1.889.
5. Involvement: 1 vs. 3: MD = .817, p = .001; 2 vs. 3: MD = .667, p = .000, 1 vs. 2: MD =
.150, p = n.s.
References
Baddeley, A. (1997). Human memory: Theory and practice. Hove: Psychology Press.
Barcroft, J. (2009). Effects of synonym generation on incidental and intentional L2 vocabulary
learning during reading. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 79103.
Barcroft, J. & Sommers, M.S. (2005). Effects of acoustic variability on second language vocabu-
lary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 387414.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 21338.
Craik, F. & Lockhart, R. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal
of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 67184.
De la Fuente, M.J. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 24, 81112.
De la Fuente, M.J. (2006). Classroom L2 vocabulary acquisition: Investigating the role of peda-
gogical tasks and form-focused instruction. Language Teaching Research, 10, 26395.
Ellis, N. & Beaton, A. (1993). Psycholinguistic determinants of foreign language vocabulary
learning. Language Learning, 43, 559617.
Ellis, R. & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and modified output in the incidental acqui-
sition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285301.
Folse, K.S. (2006). The effect of type of written exercise on L2 vocabulary retention. TESOL
Quarterly, 40, 27393.
Gass, S. (1999). Incidental vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 31933.
Han, Z., Park, E., & Combs, C. (2008). Textual enhancement of input: Issues and possibilities.
Applied Linguistics, 29, 597618.
Hill, M.M. & Laufer, B. (2003). Type of task, time-on-task and electronic dictionaries in incidental
vocabulary acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 41, 81106.
Horst, M. (2005). Learning L2 vocabulary through extensive reading: A measurement study.
Canadian Modern Language Review, 61, 35582.
Horst, M., Cobb, T., & Meara, P. (1998). Beyond a clockwork orange: Acquiring second language
vocabulary through reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 11, 20723.
Hulstijn, J. (2001). Intentional and incidental second language vocabulary learning: A reappraisal
of elaboration, rehearsal, and automaticity. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second lan-
guage instruction (pp. 25886). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hulstijn, J. (2003). Incidental and intentional word learning. In M. Long & C. Doughty (Eds.), The
handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 34981). Oxford: Blackwell.
Hulstijn, J. & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in
vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 53958.
Hulstijn, J., Hollander, M., & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced
foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and reoccurrence
of unknown words. Modern Language Journal, 80, 32739.
Hummel, K. (2010). Translation and vocabulary retention. Language Teaching Research, 14, 6174.
Hunt, A. & Beglar, D. (2005). A framework for developing EFL reading vocabulary. Reading in
a Foreign Language, 17, 2359.
Joe, A. (1998). What effect do text-based tasks promoting generation have on incidental vocabu-
lary acquisition? Applied Linguistics, 19, 35777.
Keating, G. (2008). Task effectiveness and word learning in a second language: The involvement
load hypothesis on trial. Language Teaching Research, 12, 36586.
Kim, Y. (2008). The role of task-induced involvement and learner proficiency in L2 vocabulary
acquisition. Language Learning, 58, 285325.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Krashen, S.D. (1993). The power of reading: Insights from research. Englewood, CO: Libraries
Unlimited.
Laufer, B. (1990). Why are some words more difficult than others? Some intralexical factors
that affect the learning of words. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching, 28, 293307.
Laufer, B. (2001). Word focused activities and incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second lan-
guage. Prospect, 16, 4454.
Laufer, B. (2005). Focus on form in second language vocabulary learning. EUROSLA Yearbook,
5, 22350.
Laufer, B. (2009). Second language vocabulary acquisition from language input and from form-
focused activities. Language Teaching, 42, 34154.
Laufer, B. & Girsai, N. (2008). Form focused instruction in second language vocabulary learning:
A case for contrastive analysis and translation. Applied Linguistics, 29, 694716.
Laufer, B. & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The con-
struct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22, 126.
Laufer, B. & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written produc-
tion. Applied Linguistics, 16, 30722.
Laufer, B., Elder, C., Hill, K., & Congdon, P. (2004). Size and strength: Do we need both to meas-
ure vocabulary knowledge? Language Testing, 21, 20227.
Lockhart, R. & Craik, F. (1990). Levels of processing: A retrospective commentary on a frame-
work for memory research. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 44, 87112.
Longman Online Dictionary of Contemporary English. (2008). Retrieved from: http://www.
ldoceonline.com (January 2012).
Ludwig, J. (1984). Vocabulary acquisition as a function of word characteristics. The Canadian

Modern Language Review, 40, 55262.
Mason, B. & Krashen, S. (2004). Is form-focused vocabulary acquisition worthwhile? RELC
Journal, 35, 17985.
Meara, P. & Buxton, B. (1987). An alternative to multiple choice vocabulary tests. Language
Testing, 4, 14251.
Min, H.T. (2008). EFL vocabulary acquisition and retention: Reading plus vocabulary enhance-
ment activities and narrow reading. Language Learning, 58, 73115.
Nagy, W., Anderson, R., & Herman, P. (1987). Learning word meanings from context during
normal reading. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 26382.
Nassaji, H. (2006). The relationship between depth of vocabulary knowledge and L2 learners
lexical inferencing strategy use and success. Modern Language Journal, 90, 387401.
Nation, P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nation, P. (2006a). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian Modern
Language Review, 63, 5982.
Nation, P. (2006b). Fundamental issues in modeling and assessing vocabulary knowledge. In
H. Daller, J. Milton, & J. Treffers-Daller (Eds.), Modeling and assessing vocabulary knowl-
edge (pp. 3543). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nation, P. & Wang, K. (1999). Graded readers and vocabulary. Reading in a Foreign Language,
12, 35580.
Nesi, H. (2008) BAWE: An introduction to a new resource. In A. Frankenberg-Garcia, T. Rkibi,
M. Braga da Cruz Carvalho, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Teaching and Language
Corpora Conference (pp. 23946). Lisbon: ISLA.
Paribakht, T. & Wesche, M. (1999). Reading and incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 195224.
Peters, E., Hulstijn, J.H., Sercu, L., & Lutjeharms, M. (2009). Learning L2 German vocabulary
through reading: The effect of three enhancement techniques compared. Language Learning,
59, 11351.
Pigada, M. & Schmitt, N. (2006). Vocabulary acquistion from extensive reading: A case study.
Reading in a Foreign Language, 18, 118.
Pitts, M., White, H., & Krashen, S. (1989). Acquiring second language vocabulary through read-
ing: A replication of the Clockwork Orange study using second language acquirers. Reading
in a Foreign Language, 5, 27175.
Pulido, D. (2003). Modeling the role of second language proficiency and topic familiarity in second
language incidental vocabulary acquisition through reading. Language Learning, 53, 23384.
Pulido, D. (2007). The effects of topic familiarity and passage sight vocabulary on L2 lexical
inferencing and retention through reading. Applied Linguistics, 28, 6686.
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Read, J. (2004). Research in teaching vocabulary. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 14661.
Read, J. & Chapelle, C. (2001). A framework for second language vocabulary assessment.
Language Testing, 18, 132.
Richmond, K. (2009). Inside reading: The academic word list in context. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Rott, S. (2007). The effect of frequency of input-enhancements on word learning and text compre-
hension. Language Learning, 57, 16599.
Rott, S., Williams, J., & Cameron, R. (2002). The effect of multiple-choice L1 glosses and input
output cycles on lexical acquisition and retention. Language Teaching Research, 6, 183222.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics,
11, 12958.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction
(pp. 332). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N. (2008). Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research,
12, 32963.
Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour of two
new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing, 18, 5589.
Siyanova, A. & Schmitt, N. (2008). L2 learner production and processing of collocation: A multi-
study perspective. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64, 42958.
Sonbul, S. & Schmitt, N. (2010). Direct teaching of vocabulary after reading: Is it worth the effort?
English Language Teaching Journal, 64, 25360.
Tabachnick, B. & Fidell, L. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper Collins.
VanPatten, B. (2004). Input and output in establishing formmeaning connections. In B. VanPatten,
J. Williams, S. Rott, & M. Overstreet (Eds.), Formmeaning connections in second language
acquisition (pp. 2947). London: Routledge.
Vidal, K. (2003). Academic listening: A source of vocabulary acquisition? Applied Linguistics,
24, 5689.
Waring, R. & Takaki, M. (2003). At what rate do learners learn and retain new vocabulary from
reading a graded reader? Reading in a Foreign Language, 15, 13063.
Watanabe, Y. (1997). Input, intake, and retention: Effects of increased processing on incidental
learning of foreign language vocabulary. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 287307.
Webb, S. (2007). The effects of repetition on vocabulary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 28, 4665.
Webb, S. (2008). The effects of context on incidental vocabulary learning. Reading in a Foreign
Language, 20, 23245.Webb, S. & Kagimoto, E. (2009). The effects of vocabulary learning on
collocation and meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 5577.
Wesche, M. & Paribakht, T. (1996). Assessing vocabulary knowledge: Depth vs. breadth.
Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 1339.
Wesche, M. & Paribakht, T.S. (1999). Introduction. In M. Wesche & T.S. Paribakht (Eds.), Studies
in Second Language Acquisition (Special Issue), 21, 19524.
Yoshi, M. (2006). L1 and L2 glosses: Their effect on incidental vocabulary learning. Language
Learning and Technology, 10, 85101.
Zahar, R., Cobb, T., & Spada, N. (2001). Acquiring vocabulary through reading: Effects of
frequency and contextual richness. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 54172.
Appendix 1
Sample tasks (first paragraph of the reading text Sleep)
Task 1: Glossed Reading
Sleep
Findings
Many people are surprised to learn that researchers have discovered
a single treatment that has many benefits. It improves memory,
increases concentration, strengthens the immune system, and aggravate: to
decreases accidents. Sound too good to be true? It gets even better. make worse
The treatment is completely free, even for people with no health
insurance. It has no side effects and will not aggravate patients
health conditions. Finally, most people consider the treatment highly
enjoyable. Would you try it?
Task 2: Reading and filling the gaps
Sleep
Findings
Many people are surprised to learn that researchers have discovered a
single treatment that has many benefits. It improves memory, increases
concentration, strengthens the immune system, and decreases acci-
dents. Sound too good to be true? It gets even better. The treatment is
completely free, even for people with no health insurance. It has no
side effects and will not __________ patients health conditions.
Finally, most people consider the treatment highly enjoyable. Would
you try it?
Word list
Use this word list to fill in the gaps in the reading tasks.
Please remember that this list contains some words that are used only
once in the text and some that are used twice. To fill in the gaps, you
may need to change the form of the words.
Words Word form Definition

1. aggravate v. to make a bad situation worse
2. pernicious adj. very harmful
3. enervated adj. too tired or weak
4.impair v. to damage something or make it
not as good as it should be
5. augmentation n. an increase in the value or
amount of something
6. colossal adj. very huge and extremely large
7.diminution n. a reduction in number or size of
something
8. substantiate v. to prove the truth of something
9.exuberant adj. very happy, lively and full of
energy
10.deprivation n. lack of something that you need
in order to be healthy, comfortable and happy
-------
Task 3: Glossed reading and writing a brief composition
Sleep
Findings
Many people are surprised to learn that researchers have discovered
a single treatment that has many benefits. It improves memory,
increases concentration, strengthens the immune system, and aggravate: to
decreases accidents. Sound too good to be true? It gets even better. make worse
The treatment is completely free, even for people with no health
insurance. It has no side effects and will not aggravate patients
health conditions. Finally, most people consider the treatment highly
enjoyable. Would you try it?
Follow-up writing task

You have just read a text on how more sleep would make people
healthier, happier and safer.
Write two paragraphs, answering EITHER question 1 OR question 2.
Please note that you have to use all ten words given in the word
list below.
Question 1:
Write a summary of the text that you have just read. Focus on
those points which you found most interesting and/or
important.
Question 2:
Do you think that everyone needs the same amount of sleep and
whether more sleep makes everyone happier, healthier and
safer? Support your arguments with some personal experience!
Word list
Words Word form Definition
11. aggravate v. to make a bad situation worse
12. pernicious adj. very harmful
13. enervated adj. too tired or weak
14.impair v. to damage something or make
it not as good as it should be
15.augmentation n. an increase in the value or
amount of something
16. colossal adj. very huge and extremely large
17.diminution n. a reduction in number or size
of something
18.substantiate v. to prove the truth of
something
19.exuberant adj. very happy, lively and full of

energy
20.deprivation n. lack of something that you
need in order to be healthy, comfortable and happy
Appendix 2
Sample test items (one item out of 15)
Active recall
To make a bad situation worse is to __________.
Active recognition
To make something worse is to
a. aggravate, b. stimulate, c. nominate, d. collocate, e. I dont know
Passive recall
If you are aggravating something you are making it _________.
Passive recognition
aggravate
a. make something worse, b. renovate, c. help something develop, d. propose,
e. I dont know

Vocabulary Word Exposure Frequency On Incidental L2 Vocabulary Acquisition

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Vocabulary Word Exposure Frequency On Incidental L2 Vocabulary Acquisition

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Languagehttp://ltr.sagepub.

The effects of word exposure frequency and elaboration of word processing

The online version of this article can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://ltr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

>> Version of Record - Jul 17, 2012

Language Teaching Research

The effects of word exposure

is dependent on encountering a vast amount of textual input;

2 Elaboration of word processing

3 Aims and research questions of the current study

Table 1 Data collection timetable, tasks and texts

Task 2, high in Task 3) by imposing different reading conditions on the participants

c Operationalization of exposure frequency: The first independent variable, exposure

d Operationalization of elaboration of word processing: The second independent variable,

Table 2 Task-induced involvement load index

Involvement load Task 1 Task 2 Task 3

Table 3 MANOVA: Effects of task-induced involvement, frequency, and time of measurement

Figure 1 Effects of involvement load and frequency on initial word learning

Figure 2 Effects of involvement load and frequency on medium-term word retention

Figure 4 Effects of frequency on word knowledge type in initial word learning

Figure 6 Effects of frequency on word knowledge type in medium-term word retention

Figure 7 Word knowledge type and word retention over time

Knowledge type PT DPT M(sd) M(sd) N t p Cohens d

V Discussion and conclusions

VI Limitations and future research

Acknowledgement and dedication

Ludwig, J. (1984). Vocabulary acquisition as a function of word characteristics. The Canadian

Task 2: Reading and filling the gaps

Words Word form Definition

Task 3: Glossed reading and writing a brief composition

Follow-up writing task

19.exuberant adj. very happy, lively and full of

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi

19.exuberant adj. very happy, lively and full of