Vocabulary aspects of reading... with special attention to what the teacher can do Part 1: You need vocab in order to read

• The learner needs to know vocab in order to read... • ....but not only vocab. • What other kinds of knowledge does a learner need in order to read? Aka What factors potentially affect ‘readability’ of text? • Is vocab the top problem?

TASK

Factors affecting readability....

Can we improve on this?...

Ease-of-reading is the result of the interaction between the text and the reader.

In the reader, those features affecting readability are 1. prior knowledge, 2. reading skill, 3. interest, and 4. motivation. In the text, those features are 1. content, 2. style, 3. design/format, and 4. structure (Gray and Leary 1935; style includes vocab and grammatical complexity; design = print font, layout etc.; structure = text organisation, paragraphing etc.)

Gray and Leary found… Of the 64 countable variables related to reading difficulty, those with correlations of .35 or above were the following (p.115): 1. Average sentence length in words: -.52 (a negative correlation, that is, the longer the sentence the more difficult it is).

2. Percentage of easy words: .52 (the larger the number of easy words the easier the material).

3. Number of words not known to 90% of sixth-grade students: -.51

4. Number of “easy” words: .51

5. Number of different “hard” words: -.50

6. Minimum syllabic sentence length: -.49

….so words are the top = problem with sentence length

Can you spot what lexical items might be least likely to be known in this FCE text?... So cause vocab-related difficulty Is it just ‘unknown words’?

TASK

Types of vocab problem...

• Words you know you don’t know • Words etc. which you think you know but cannot retrieve • Also unknown meanings and phrases with words that you know in other meanings • Words etc. which you think you know but actually don’t (Laufer 1997 ‘mistaken ID’)

 What % of words in a text actually does a reader need to know in order to read it successfully? (assuming the focus is on reading comprehension, not ‘vocabulary mining’)  The coverage ‘threshold’

Density of unknown words in relation to comprehension

% of running words known by reader (coverage) Rate of unknown words in running text % comprehension success of reader

100 99 98 95 90 80 0 in 100 1 in 100 1 in 50 1 in 20 1 in 10 1 in 5 87 73 68 43 Comprehension figures based on Hu &Nation (2000) who had students read a text with differing % of nonsense words, no dictionaries allowed, followed by a 14 item m/c comprehension test

What % coverage gives an appropriate % comprehension?

It depends on..... What?

TASK

The ideal % lexical coverage (% of words known by the reader already) depends on: • type of text (fiction, academic...; how clearly structured…) • length of text • what % comprehension score you regard as ‘successful’: 55% (Laufer 1989) or 100%?

• purpose of reading (intensive, extensive1, extensive2) • amount of support (dictionary, teacher etc.)

Hu and Nation’s answer on coverage: • 95% needed to read intensively, with support of dictionary, teacher etc. (level i + 1) • 98% needed to read extensively1 for pleasure without use of dictionary, for vocab expansion purposes (level i + .5) • 100% needed to read extensively2 for pleasure without use of dictionary, for fluency purposes (level i)

What are the teacher’s (or textbook’s) solutions if a text has too many unknown words for specific readers? TASK

Specific to the text: a. Change the text for an easier one b. Simplify the text c. Preteach the vocab in the specific text d. Allow more resources to be available (e.g. ask teacher, peers, dictionary) when reading the text. More general solutions to implement, before expecting such texts to be read: e. Train learners in WAS, incl. dic. use f. Raise the readers’ general lexical prof

a. Change the text for an easier one • Often not an option in practice... e.g. required syllabus, textbook, exam. Fine with extensive reading.

• How to choose a suitable text?

TASK

Three ways of assessing the vocab level of a text (% of words likely to be unknown) • Teacher judgment of text, based on knowledge of students and what vocab they are likely not to know • Use of Compleat Lexical Tutor facilities to check text against general frequency (what frequency level of words do students need to know to attain 95% or 98% coverage?) or a specific syllabus wordlist. Students’ vocab prof profile can also be measured to assess the match. Khim. • Rely on learner judgment as to whether a text is at the right level for them? (Hu and Nation found 2/3 students could predict their comprehension scores within 14%)

b. Simplify the text, aka ‘Input modification’ • Often not an option either... • But anyway how do people do it?

TASK

Methods of simplifying text • replacing/removing hard words, so all vocab is within a certain frequency level (the usual choice of publishers). E M Forster example text TASK • keeping them, but building in extra clues so they can be easily guessed (context enhancement) • providing glosses along with the text (a common teacher choice). • Danger of oversimplification so words are 100% known: triage

Simplification by context enhancement • Our uncle was a nomad, an incurable wanderer who could never stay in one place • “I’ll take the money now before I leave” “Oh certainly”, Professor Ruddle agreed. “Of course you can have your cheque immediately”.

He wrote quickly across the green paper, and tore it out of his chequebook. Cartney looked hard at the number: one hundred dollars. And the name of the bank: the Farmers and Growers Bank. He pushed the cheque into his shirt pocket. (Longman Structural Readers Me Myself and I)

c. Preteach the vocab in the specific text • Often done in practice • A variety of possible ways of doing it…. TASK • But what are the disadvantages? • Bright and Mcgregor’s objection • Triage: see again FCE text … TASK

d. Allow more resources to be available (e.g. ask teacher, peers, dictionary) when reading the text. • Again not a solution for exam reading typically • but fine in other reading circumstances, arguably • relies on availability of sources, dictionary skills

a-d overall • Beware making the text too easy if new vocab needs to be met and acquired • Allow for some exercise of WAS such as inferencing alongside appeal

e. and f. Have received much attention recently: to prepare students for reading harder texts is it better to teach... • reading strategies (incl. WAS), or ...

• vocab?

e. Train learners in WAS, incl. dic. use • Some WAS are not used in L1, so potentially need teaching. E.g....?

• Some WAS may occur in L1 so arguably don’t need teaching. They can be transferred. E.g.....?

• Some WAS used in L1, however, may be only usable in L2 above a certain threshold level of lang prof (incl. esp. vocab prof) relative to the language level of the text. E.g...?

• ...so will not transfer or usefully be taught unconditionally

The language proficiency threshold hypothesis: ‘Is L2 reading a reading problem or a language problem?’ (Alderson 1984).

• L2 reading ability seen as L1 reading ability + L2 language knowledge (incl. vocab) • L1 reading ability, apart from L1 language knowledge, largely consists of reading strategic competence (incl. WAS) and relevant non linguistic knowledge (content and formal schemata)

General conclusion on (e): • No point in teaching certain reading strategies (incl. some WAS) that are above the threshold to students below (i.e. who would not know a high enough % of words in the texts they have to read) • Next week we will look more at teaching WAS and other VLS (e) • Where students are below the language competence threshold for texts they need to read, teach vocab (f)!

f. Raise the readers’ general lexical proficiency • What is the vocab size that may be the threshold for independent reading of general authentic texts? • Test readers’ vocab size and, if it is below the threshold , teach the most frequent word families (f) • Then WAS can kick in as per the threshold hypothesis (e).

To read authentic novels and have coverage of 95 98% of the running words, so a chance of adequate comprehension, a learner would need a vocabulary size of 3000-5000 word families (Nation and Waring 1997; or 5000-8000 words). (Note: Proper nouns, which typically account for 4-5% of the running words, are counted as known words that do not need to be learned before reading a novel. A word family is a set of words related by wordformation, such as happy, unhappy, happiness, happily etc. as well as by inflection happy, happier, happiest)

What about ESP reading?

To successfully read authentic texts of the field of tourism (EOP), is it more important to know frequent general English words or words distinctively frequent in tourism texts? Carlota

Bibliography Alderson, J.C. (1984). Reading in a foreign language: a reading problem or a language problem? In J.C. Alderson and A. H. Urquhart (eds.), Reading in a Foreign Language. London: Longman. Bright J.A. and G.P McGregor. (1970). Teaching English as a second language. London: Longman Gray, W. S. and B. Leary. (1935). What makes a book readable. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Hu M. Hsueh-chao and P. Nation (2000). Unknown Vocabulary Density and Reading Comprehension Reading in a Foreign Language, 13(1) Hirsh, D. and P. Nation. (1992). What vocabulary size is needed to read unsimplified texts for pleasure? Reading in a Foreign Language 8, 2: 689-696.

Krashen S. (1993). The power of reading. Eaglewood Colorado: Libraries Unlimited. Laufer, B. (1989) What percentage of text lexis is essential for comprehension? In C. Lauren and M. Nordman (Eds) Special Language: From Humans Thinking to Thinking Machines Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Laufer, B. (1997). The lexical plight in second language reading: words you don't know, words you think you know and words you can't guess. In Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition: a Rationale for Pedagogy, eds. J. Coady and T. Huckin. Cambridge University Press. pp. 20-34 Nation, P & Waring, R. (1997). Vocabulary size, text coverage, and word lists. In Schmitt N, & McCarthy, M. (Eds). Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition, Pedagogy. New York: Cambridge University Press, p. 6-19

Vocabulary aspects of reading... with special attention to what the teacher can do Part 2: You can learn vocab through reading

Where there is little reading there will be little language learning (Bright and McGregor 1970, p10)

Basics • • • • The learner can valuably learn vocab from reading ... but the teacher may need to play a role in making sure it happens effectively And the reading materials have to have some new lexical material in (not Nation’s extensive2, or oversimplified) ... in fact in some countries the aim of ‘reading classes’ seems to be actually more to learn lots of new vocab than to develop reading comprehension ability!

What do we mean by ‘learning vocabulary’ A: Types of lexical information that can be learnt • There is more to vocab learning than just learning the meaning of a new orthographic word form that is met • What other lexical things can / need to be learnt? TASK • Can they all be learnt though reading?

Types of lexical information

Common tests of vocabulary learning What lexical information do they target?

a) Identify the written form (yes/no test) b) Recognise/understand one meaning (m/c meaning test) c) Recognise/understand one meaning (supply definition in L2, translate into L1) d) Recall/supply word in one meaning (o/c gap fill, word translation into TL) e) Know how to use it in a sentence semantically correctly (sentence creation test scored for meaning) f) Know how to use it in a sentence grammatically correctly (sentence creation test scored for grammar) (Paribakht and Wesche)

• Often researchers talking about vocab learning/acquisition have only measured (b) • Often teachers/textbooks only teach (b) in association with reading

What do we mean by ‘learning vocabulary’ B: Two steps • What is the difference between these?

– He finally learnt the truth – He finally learnt the poem

Two kinds of ‘learning’ or ‘acquisition’ a) He finally learnt the truth: Discovery b) He finally learnt the poem: Consolidation (Schmitt) • When reading you only need (a) for immediate message comprehension / communicative needs • To ‘learn’ vocabulary in the usual pedagogic sense you need (b) as well • • Often researchers talking about vocab learning/acquisition have only measured (a) Often teachers mainly focus on (a)

Three ways that vocab can be learnt from reading text: a. ‘incidentally’ without teacher intervention or conscious activity on the part of the reader b. by teacher/textbook doing work with the learners on new vocab found in reading materials they read c. by the learners using conscious VLS on words found in reading materials, VLS which the teacher may also teach

a. Learning vocab ‘incidentally’ while reading What do we really mean by ‘incidental’? Terminological problem: A) Unconscious, implicit , unaware (vs conscious, explicit) OR B) In a task whose focus is not on vocabulary (vs intentional, vocab-focussed)?

(A) seems to imply (B) but (B) does not imply (A) • So we have potentially two kinds of ‘incidental’: • 1 Non-vocab focussed and implicit/unconscious OR • 2 Non-vocab focussed and explicit/conscious

Incidental1 (incidental2 we treat as (c)) • The model of L1 reading and Krashen’s input hypothesis suggests all lexical aspects can be learnt incidentally • Typically during extensive1 reading: texts must have the right level of new vocab (2%) • Teacher role then would be to encourage extensive reading by selecting and providing interesting texts of the right level (Likely to be more effective if texts are interesting: Huckin and Coady 1999) • Often not realistic to expect a lot of extensive reading in EFL settings?

Effectiveness of incidental1 – How much can be acquired?

• Clockwork Orange studies • • • • • • • Malchick Boy Malenky Little Maslo Butter Merzky Filthy Messel Thought Mesto Place Millicent Policeman

Clockwork Orange type studies

Saragi et al 1978 Pitts et al 1 1989 Pitts et al 2 1989 Day et al 1 1991 Day et al 2 1991 Hulstijn 1992

Subjects Words read Reading time New words tested Test 20 NS 60000 ? days 90 nadsat m/c Mean words learnt % learnt 68.4

75 35 NNS 6700 60 mins 40 mins 30 mins 30 mins ? Mins 30 nadsat m/c 1.8

6 16 NNS 6700 28 nadsat m/c 2.4

9 89 NNS 1032 17 English m/c 1.1

6 200 NNS 1032 65 NNS 907 17 English m/c 3 18

Dupuy and Krashen 1993

42 NNS Video + 15 pages 40 mins 12 Dutch 30 French State meaning .9

m/c 6.6

8 22

Problems with Clockwork Orange studies • • • • • The rate of new words looks suitable (under 1% of text), but we do not in fact know how many words other than those targeted were unknown We do not know how many words of those targeted (if not nadsat) were already known We do not know how many words not targeted by the test were learnt We do not know if all subjects actually read all the text in the time We do not know how often targeted words recurred

• • • • • • • Horst, Cobb and Meara 1998 Pretested and posttested vocab and recorded % gain = % of words available to be learnt that were learnt, from those pretested (m/c test) 34 Oman students read along, while the teacher read aloud, all 21,232 words of the simplified Mayor of Casterbridge Students not allowed to ask meanings or use dictionary; texts not allowed to be taken home Around 5 words out of 23 available to be learnt were learnt on average = 22% Correl of text frequency with gain .49

No correl of frequency in the language with gain .14

People who scored higher on 5000 word level got higher gain scores more consistently than those who scored well at 2000 level

Effectiveness of incidental1 – What is the process and why not very effective?

• If reading is message/communication oriented then no attention may be paid to new words even unconsciously. Can one unconsciously pay attention/notice? • Nation’s paradox. If a word is easily guessable it may be less noticed; if it is less guessable it may be noticed but its meaning cannot be learnt • Incidental1 learning presumably depends on educated guesswork (?subconscious in L1) and thus can lead to imprecision, misrecognition, and interference with the reading process.

Ellis’s claim about incidental learning • Acquiring a word’s semantic properties and mapping word form to meaning result from explicit learning processes (incidental2) • A word’s form, collocations and grammatical class information are learnt by implicit processes (incidental1) • There is a complete dissociation of implicit (i.e. formal) aspects and explicit (i.e. semantic) aspects of vocabulary acquisition (N. Ellis 1997)

The need for focus on form... Incidental1 > incidental2 • The vital shift from text to word meaning can either be triggered by: • learner-specific factors – – individual interest in a particular word, general motivation for vocabulary enlargement, etc.

• formal factors – – the prominence of a word form recurring encounters with a word (? How many) – content-related factors such as the word’s centrality for the textual meaning (A Rieder)

Modified input: highlighting and incidental2 learning • • • De Ridder, I. (2002). Does the highlighting of hyperlinks affect incidental vocabulary learning, text comprehension, and the reading process? Language Learning & Technology, 6 (1), 123 146 Are visible or invisible links more effective in getting students to check unknown vocabulary, and the effect of each on the reading process and vocab learning Highlighted links are clicked more often but without affecting speed, comprehension or learning of vocab.

Modified input: types of gloss and incidental2 learning • • • • Yoshii, M. and Flaitz, J. (2002). Second language incidental vocabulary retention: The effect of text and picture on annotation types. CALICO Journal, 20 (1), 33-58.

Compared 3 groups for vocabulary acquisition during reading: glosses with picture only, definition only, or both. Surprise vocabulary tests at end and 2 weeks later.

Combination group outperformed others overall; picture group was best on 2-week delayed posttest.

Retention rate – Immediate: picture recognition 49% ; supply definition 21.4% – Delayed: picture recognition 42%; supply definition 14%

• Is modified input compatible with extensive reading?

• Forgotten issue... • Maybe extensive reading is actually best for incidental learning of other lexical aspects than the meaning of totally new words... i.e. Extending knowledge of words where basic knowledge already exists

b. Learning vocab by teacher/textbook instruction associated with reading • • The teacher/textbook can do many things with new vocab that crops up in reading... Typically associated with intensive reading • 1. We already saw that some items may be pre taught in order to bring a text to the level of readability (95-98% known words) that is required Resembles the first part of classic PPP?

2. We already saw that the teacher or textbook may provide while-reading support in the form of answering questions about vocab, providing glosses etc. , in order to bring a text to the level of readability (95-98% known words) that is required

3. ‘The deep end strategy’ / reverse PPP. Read first, and after the students have had a chance to tackle problems themselves with strategies (inferencing, dic use, appeal to peers etc.), then the teacher deals with the new vocab .

• 1 2 3 all tend to focus on – Receptive knowledge of one meaning of the word (the one in the text) rather than other aspects of word knowledge – Discovery rather than Consolidation of that

• Paribakht and Wesche’s study shows how a wider range of aspects of lexical items can be targeted • Students read text with targeted words in and answered comprehension questions then EITHER read more text with targeted words in (‘reading only’) OR did various exercises on the targeted words (‘reading plus’)

Exercise types in P and W – – Recognition: Make students show recognition/receptive knowledge of meaning (e.g. match word with picture) b – Selective attention: Make students identify/notice wordform (e.g. underline the word wherever it occurs in the text) a Manipulation: make students show wordformation knowledge (e.g. change word from noun to adjective) – Interpretation: make students show knowledge of collocation and syntactic properties (e.g. guess meaning from context, give grammatical function of word in text) – Production: make students show recall/production word knowledge (e.g. open cloze) c

P and W result • • • We do not exactly know whether the ‘reading only’ students were told what the targeted words were: there was a pretest of targeted vocab though We do not know if the ‘reading only’ students obtained basic discovery information about the new words: reading done at home ‘Reading plus’ had about twice the vocab gain of ‘reading only’

c. Learning vocab by use of VLS associated with reading • Associated with intensive or extensive1 (incidental2) reading • An ‘autonomous’ solution, but teacher can be involved • Three areas: • Discovery VLS: Inferencing WAS • Discovery VLS: Dictionaries and their use • Consolidation VLS: Note-taking, mnemonics (not reading-specific)

• • General approaches to VLS teaching Focus on learning the strategy not (just) the word Three general approaches: – Allow or encourage them (e.g. ‘Use your dictionary’, ‘Try guessing it’, ‘Why not put that in your vocab notebook?’) – Teach them overtly as opportunities arise during a reading task, on specific instances • Inductively: e.g. ‘What did/could you do here to get the meaning?’ • Deductively: e.g. ‘Look at the phrase after the word and guess’ – Teach them overtly and separately from reading task • Inductively: e.g. ‘What do you do when you meet an unknown word?’, ‘What do you do to try to remember words?’ • Deductively: e.g. ‘I am going to show you how to use your dictionary properly’. Note: examples used may be known words

Teaching inferencing/guessing for reading What kinds of inferencing WAS (guessing) are there and how to teach them?

TASK

Teaching inferencing WAS for reading • Method: Talk about clues (both the clues and the possible meanings may be talked about in L1) – – Context/morphology based guessing of pos Context guessing of meaning (Allen TASK) – Decomposition of wordformation... purely receptively – Exploitation of polysemy...

They boxed him in; full board £100

– Cognate correspondence ‘rules’

siop, silff, sialc, sialens

– Use of pictures/diagrams

• Effectiveness of inferencing – – Both good and bad learners use it More successful discovery if number of unknown words is low – – Optimum discovery success rate maybe 50% Consolidation effect / retention?

• Effectiveness of inferencing training Alseweed

Teaching dictionary use for reading • Method: Talk about dictionaries and their use (maybe in L1, and maybe using known examples sometimes) • When to look up • Guess first • • What dictionary to choose Steps for finding a word and then the relevant meaning of the word and exploiting the information – – – – Pretreatment: suffix stripping, choice in a phrase Alphasearch: alphagame What to do if word not found How to select right homonym or sense: use of partial guess – Integrate meaning into text

• • Effectiveness of dic use – Dic versus guessing – Dictionary versus glossary: m/c gloss more effective for retention than normal gloss – Glossaries vs dic: those reading with L1 marginal glosses could acquire eighteen percent of the target words and retain two percent; those with electronic dictionary could acquire fifteen percent and retain four percent; and, those without any assistance acquire three percent and retain less than one percent (0.6%) of the target (Chang 2002) Effectiveness of dic use instruction

Teaching consolidation strategies usable associated with reading • Method: Talk about note-taking, self-memorisation and self-practice • CALLA (Issariya) • • Effectiveness of consolidation VLS Effectiveness of consolidation VLS instruction

Bibliography (incomplete) • • • Ellis, Nick C. 1997. “Vocabulary acquisition: word structure, collocation, word class”. In: Schmitt, Norbert & Michael McCarthy (eds.). Vocabulary: Description,

acquisition and pedagogy. Cambridge: C.U.P., 122-139.

Krashen, Stephen. 1989. “We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: additional evidence for the Input Hypothesis”. Modern Language Journal 73: 440-

464.

Thomas Huckin and James Coady (1999, SSLA, 21, 190-191) based on their review of the literature