Depth and Breadth of Lexical Knowledge in Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition of English Language: A Study on EFL Undergraduate Learners in Odisha.

Introduction

Vocabulary plays a vital role in the process of language learning. Its role has been considered an important variable influencing learners ‘reading comprehension in both first and second language learning. The Correlation between Vocabulary Knowledge level preferred to use textbooks written in English to teach learners professional knowledge and strengthen their English ability. However, reading academic textbooks written in English has been regarded as a challenge for many undergraduates. One of the reasons learners could not understand the contents of academic reading was because those unfamiliar words and the lexical combination were foreign to them. So vocabulary knowledge can be used to be an important indicator to predict learners’ overall readability, the result of which may reveal that the increasing of lexical familiarity could improve one’s reading performance. Such a statement revealed that weak vocabulary knowledge may handicap one’s reading comprehension. To the definition of vocabulary knowledge, we can study a word in terms of various linguistic perspectives such as phonemes, the combination of phonemes, the formation of a word, lexical meaning, sentence structure, and its situated context.

Vocabulary knowledge should at least consist of two dimensions, vocabulary breadth and vocabulary depth. The former refers to how many words a learner knows, and the latter refers to how well a learner knows a word. In the dichotomy of vocabulary knowledge, vocabulary breadth is much easily to be investigated than vocabulary depth because of its measurability and accessibility. Most studies relative to vocabulary knowledge have adopted the concept of lexical breadth to measure how many words a learner knows. However, for vocabulary depth, perhaps due to its complexity, research into how well a learner knows a word was still sparse. Tertiary level students, in particular English major students need to read many academic textbooks written in English over their four years of academic study. Several studies demonstrated positive correlation between vocabulary breadth (size) and reading comprehension. The accumulation of vocabulary breadth is helpful in understanding the meaning of written texts but may be insufficient to comprehend the in-depth meaning of different articles, as the meaning of a word is determined by its situated context. Learners have to develop a good vocabulary depth to internalize words and combination of words to deal with various academic genres including linguistics, literature. Due to the lack of previous research of vocabulary depth, the researcher adopted the concept of lexical depth as a basis to conduct the present study and to investigate the correlation of vocabulary depth and reading comprehension of college students. Based on the above statement, this study investigated the following research questions on the participants’ overall performance while aims to investigate vocabulary knowledge in relation to different proficient groups since the differences between these two groups will be more significant and meaningful. A prevailing consensus had been that vocabulary knowledge was a vital factor to determine or influence one’s ability. If a person’s literacy was low, he or she would probably experience difficulty in acquiring the message or information from a text. Numerous studies investigating the relationship between vocabulary and reading in first language (L1) acquisition had found a significant correlation between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension.

Review of Literature

The Relationship between Vocabulary and Reading

The Correlation between Vocabulary Knowledge Vocabulary should have the same weight in second or foreign language acquisition, and its importance has been recognized by several scholars. Yorio (1971), in describing some of the origins of learners’ reading problems, claimed that difficulty in using vocabulary was the sources to cause reading difficulties for foreign and second language learners. Cody (1993) and Grabe (1991) both claimed that the ability to quickly recognize words assisted learners in creating the process of automatic decoding in reading tasks for second language learners. Research on English as a second language had showed both a positive and significant correlation between learners’ vocabulary knowledge and their reading comprehension (Read, 1993, 1998; Qian, 1998, 1999, 2002; Qian & Schedl, 2004; Kaivanpanah & Zandi, 2009). According to Carr & Levy(1990), word-identification ability played a central role in successful reading in itself a complex process (Goodman, 1988; Harris & Sipay,1985). Readers comprehend and interpret a writer’s message by using their linguistic knowledge and prior knowledge. According to Rumelhart(1977), reading was an interactive process in which readers construct the meaning by using their background knowledge and information provided by the text. In the process of reading, the fact that vocabulary knowledge was instrumental in reading comprehension had long been accepted in the field of reading and vocabulary research (Nation, 2001;Alderson, 2000; Laufer, 1996). Although the more words a reader known, the better the comprehension in reading, Qian (1999) claimed that the knowledge of vocabulary depth was an important indicator to predict learner’s performance in reading tasks. Since the crucial role of vocabulary in reading had been established by many scholars, it is significant to explore how learners’ depth of vocabulary knowledge correlated to their reading comprehension.

Dimension of Vocabulary Knowledge

Linguistically, to know a word was to know its multidimensional aspects. We could examine vocabulary in terms of various kinds of linguistic knowledge via phonetic, phonology, morphology, and syntax, semantic and pragmatic. Different scholars had proposed different frameworks to examine vocabulary. To a large extent, their proposed theories Ming-Ju Alan Ho, Hsin-Yi Lien 79were complementary and, by reviewing their studies chronologically, a number of their concepts overlapped. The theoretical framework proposed by Richard (1976) laid the foundation of vocabulary research(Read, 2000) and indeed Richard’s proposals of continuant development, frequency, appropriateness, syntactic behavior, morphological property, collocation, semantic value, and various meaning of a given word, have been recast in the present study. Richard’s framework was refined by Nation (1990) into four categories to define vocabulary knowledge in terms of form, position, function and meaning and he also divided the word knowledge into two aspects, receptive and productive process. First, word form involved the pronunciation and spelling of lexical items. Second, word position dealt with syntactic issues in regard to the usage of words such as the rules for word combinations. Third, word function was to discuss the proper way of using words in specific contexts. Finally, word meaning referred to vocabulary depth and its associates. The abovementioned factors in a receptive process may play different function from those in the productive process. Therefore, knowing a word could mean being capable of recognizing and using these factors and applying words to meet different purposes. Using the ideas of partial-precise knowledge, depth of vocabulary knowledge, and receptive and productive knowledge, Henriksen (1999)generated three underlying assumptions to define vocabulary knowledge, and she also believed these three dimensions demonstrated an upgrading status of vocabulary learning. The first assumption was that lexical knowledge of a person should function as a competence to provide translation equivalents, to find the correct explanation in multiple-choice tasks, and to paraphrase target words. The second assumption indicated that the components of vocabulary depth should cover both paradigmatic and syntagmatic knowledge. The former involved a shift of the word meaning in an antonym, synonymy, hyponymy, and gradation, and the later dealt with collocation restrictions of words. The third assumption suggested that word knowledge should consist of a receptive and productive aspect. Receptive performance stood for reading and listening ability while productive ability meant writing and speaking. The receptive and productive domain thus echoed the statements of word knowledge provided by Nation (1990).80 The Correlation between Vocabulary Knowledge Ian (1998, 1999, 2002) found a positive correlation (ranging between 0.78 and 0.82) among vocabulary size, vocabulary depth, and reading comprehension. These results could imply a high correlation between participants’ scores on the vocabulary knowledge with scores on their receptive performance. Oian (1998) refined the theoretical frameworks of Richard’s (1976) and Nation’s (1990) to clarify the vital components of vocabulary depth including pronunciation and spelling, morphological properties, syntactic properties, meaning, register, and frequency as follows. Firstly, phonetically and phonologically, to be familiar with phonemes and their combination in words meant the ability to master the pronunciation of words. The concept of places of articulation, manners of articulation, the permissible combinations of phonetic inventory, and supra-segmental factors were all involved in this domain. The pronunciation of a word reflected its approximate spelling. The combination of phonemes was rule-governed, and it could not violate the phonotactic constraints. Secondly, morphology was to explore the formation of a word. The concept relative to word root, derivational and inflectional morphemes, and part of speech all belonged to morphological properties. Besides, the word coinages such as compounds, abbreviations, acronyms, blending, and conversion were related to the derivational combination of a single word. Thirdly, a syntax domain was to discuss the internal structure of a sentence including word’s collectability, its possible position in a sentence, and its syntagmatic relations with other words in a given context, so the concept of lexical constituent and grammatical category were the main focus. Fourthly, the concept of word meaning contains both semantic and pragmatic knowledge. In the semantic aspect, the meaning of a word and words’ combination were discussed through componential semantics, lexical semantics, and sentential semantics. For example, the concept of polysemy, synonym and antonym were categorized in lexical semantics, while in the pragmatic aspect, the focus was on how to appropriately use a word with respect to its appearing context, which could be discussed from both a linguistic context and situational context. Fifthly, register and discourse features were to discuss the social and regional differences of language use and the application of a word. Hence, the social appropriateness of using a word was the main focus in this aspect. Finally, the concept of word frequency in Ming-Ju Alan Ho, Hsin-Yi Lien 81a language was to analyze the use of common and uncommon words in given contexts. That is, it was to concern the popularity of given words. To sum up, we could know that vocabulary can be examined from micro to macro continuum. When we used a word, we exercised our knowledge of each aspect to reach a particular purpose. Furthermore, an examination of the theoretical foundations mentioned enables us to recognize that the dimension of vocabulary was multifaceted, and that each dimension was closely interrelated.

Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge

Vocabulary depth can be defined as how well a learner knows a word. Comparing with vocabulary breadth, we view vocabulary depth as the quality of words rather than quantity. Qian (1999) further stated that “the depth dimension should cover such components as pronunciation,spelling, meaning, register, frequency, and morphological, syntactic, and collocational properties”. Among these components, meaning, such as synonymy and polysemy, and collocation are two important variables. As mentioned above, the depth of vocabulary knowledge can be regarded as the combination of interrelated multi-knowledge. Moreover, the importance of depth of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension has been confirmed by many L1 researchers (Anderson & Freebody,1981; Mezynski, 1983). However, in L2 research, only few studies recognize the importance of vocabulary depth (Read, 1990, 1998; Qian,1998, 1999, 2002). To test learners’ knowledge of a given word, some researchers had developed a scale to assess learner’s multi-dimension knowledge of a word (Dale, 1965; Qian, 1998; Read, 1990; Wesche& Paribakht, 1996). Read (1990) developed a measure to assess learner’s vocabulary depth in terms of a format of developed word association, known as Word-Associate Test (WAT). In this test, the design of test items is primarily based on semantic relationship with a target word(nouns, adjectives, or verbs) including the paradigmatic (synonym), syntagmatic (collocation) and analytic (meaning association) pairs. Qian(1998) refined Read’s design and develop the Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge Measure (DVKM) to assess the learner’s depth of vocabulary

Purpose of the Study

Vocabulary knowledge has been regarded as an important aspect in foreign language learning, and a number of researchers have explored vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension. However, research on the depth of EFL learners’ vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension is limited. Thus, the present study attempts to   investigate EFL learners with more depth of vocabulary knowledge that should be highlighted with an emphasis on both synonyms and collocations.

Objectives

1. To study the correlation of participants’ performance on the depth of vocabulary knowledge measure and the reading comprehension test  

2. To study the paradigmatic knowledge (synonym) or syntagmatic knowledge (lexical collocation) of participants

3To study the better predictive power on reading comprehension test performance.

4. To study the participants’ reading speed correlation to their depth of vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension.

5. To study the significant differences on the performance of the participants on the depth of vocabulary knowledge measure.

Methodology

.The aim of the study was to investigate participant’s scores on the depth of vocabulary knowledge measure (DVKM) and a reading comprehension test (RCT) to know how learners’ depth of vocabulary knowledge correlates to their reading comprehension, the correlation between learner’s reading speed and their reading comprehension, and the comparison of the high and low achievers’ performance. The present study adopts descriptive survey design to develop depth knowledge measure to assess learners’ vocabulary depth

Participants

180 English-major undergraduates at different colleges of Odisha were investigated by employing qualitative research method in the present study. They have learned English for at least 6 years before participating in this study. All of them have academic training in English in college for three months.

Instruments

The present study employed three instruments including one depth of vocabulary knowledge (DVK) measure, one reading comprehension test, and one questionnaire.

Questionnaire

A twenty-item questionnaire was administered to investigate participants’ background about English learning, and to elicit their attitudes toward English lexical learning, vocabulary knowledge, reading, and reading speed.

The results of the participants’ performance on the two tests, the correlation between two tests, and the results of comparison between high and low achievers on the tests were presented and discussed toanswer the research questions in the present study.

The Correlation of Participants’ Performances

The study shows the participants’ overall performances on the depth of vocabulary knowledge measure (DVKM) and the reading comprehension test (RCT)

TABLE

Descriptive statistics of participants’ performance in DVKM and RCT

Test	Valid	MPS	Mean	SD	Min Score	Max Score	Reliability
DVKM	180	150	87.02	9.83	123	54	0.84
RCT	180	50	19.08	4.51	29	21	0.73

Note: DVKM: Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge Measure; RCT: Reading

Comprehension Test; MPS: Maximum possible score. Numbers in the parentheses

stand for the ratio of correctness.

The results of the participants’ performance on the two tests, the correlation between two tests, and the results of comparison between high and low achievers on the tests were presented and discussed to answer the research questions in the present study. Table 1 shows the participants’ overall performances on the depth

of vocabulary knowledge measure (DVKM) and the reading comprehension test (RCT). The alpha coefficient in Table revealed the reliability of the two test (DVKM). The participants’ performances (ratio of correctness) on DVKM and RCT were 62% and 55%. By running the paired sample t-test, the result indicated that their difference was significant (p < 0.01), but how they were correlated with one another still needs to be further investigated.

The statistics report the correlation between learners ‘depth of vocabulary knowledge and their reading comprehension. A significant and positive correlation was found between participants’ depth of vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension This was in agreement with previous findings which showed that learners’ DVK was a good indicator in predicting reading comprehension test performance. Furthermore, the researcher thinks that the better depth of vocabulary knowledge the learners have (such as synonym and collocation), the better their reading comprehension is (Strongly Agree = 50%; Agree = 47%) revealed that most of the participants believed that in order to enhance one’s reading comprehension, it was necessary to strengthen their DVK.

Paradigmatic Knowledge vs  Syntagmatic Knowledge

The correlations between synonyms with reading comprehension and collocations with reading comprehension (RC) revealed that the mean scores of synonym and collocation were 51.81 and 47.49 respectively. The correlation between the participants’ performance on synonyms with reading comprehension and also the correlation between participants’ performances on collocations and reading comprehension were positive and significant, with slight differences(Synonym: r = 0.462, p < 0.01; Collocation: r = 0.45, p < 0.01).In this trend, we might say that participants’ synonym and collocational knowledge should play a similar role to predict their performance on reading comprehension.

Correlations Between RS With DVK And Between RS With RC

A larger value in the reading speed (time) meant that the participants took longer to complete the reading comprehension test. Correlations between depth of vocabulary knowledge (DVK) and reading comprehension (RC) with the reading speed (RS) of participants are studied that shows the significant (p < 0.01) negative correlation between and RS (r = -0.333) and between DVK and RS (r = 0.297) indicated that a competent reader tended to read faster and had better DVK. These results suggested that reading speed could be a possible indicator in evaluating reading comprehension ability.

Findings

The findings in the present study could be summarized as follows. Firstly, a difference was found between participant’s performance on both the DVKM and RCT. Based on participants ‘scores, the correlation between their’ DVK and RC was investigated and a significantly positive correlation established (DVKM with RC. This was in line with previous research indicating that learners with insufficient vocabulary knowledge may lead to a poor reading comprehension ability due to their inability to transfer reading skills or background knowledge to understand the texts In the second research question, the correlation of participants’ performance on synonym and collocation with reading comprehension was investigated. Although the results showed that participants’ performance on synonyms was slightly higher than their performance on collocations, their correlations with reading comprehension were similar. Such result showed us that both synonym and collocations are equally important for reading comprehension. The knowledge of synonym is the familiarity of the similarity of a word’s semantic features, while collocation knowledge contains lexical chunks and ready-made units which could assist readers to understand and interpret texts more precisely and efficiently. As the result indicated, learners with better DVK were better able to comprehend the texts. In the third research question, the correlations of participants’ reading speed (RS) with their DVK and RC were investigated. The result showed that both correlations were significant and negative. Such a finding indicated that participants with better DVK and RC would have better reading speed. As it is found, language ability would determine one’s reading comprehension ability with efficient readers tending to read faster than weaker readers. This would indicate that participants’ DVK played not only a crucial role in influencing their reading comprehension but suggested that learners with better collocation knowledge were better able to incorporate other forms of knowledge to comprehend written texts.

Conclusion

In Odisha, some English teachers who used traditional teaching methods such as Grammar-translation method or Audio-lingual method still encourage their learners to learn English vocabulary by memorizing its translational equivalents. In other words, vocabulary memorization in English education is still prevailing in Odisha. Although such ways of English teaching may broaden learners’ vocabulary size, it may not improve their vocabulary depth a lot. A word normally appears in context rather than in isolation, and as such can take on different semantic interpretations in different contexts. The concept of depth of vocabulary knowledge thus should be emphasized and within emphasis on understanding both synonyms and collocations Learners at the tertiary level in Odisha have to read a lot of academic textbooks written in English. Reading those textbooks for some of them could be afflictive because there are too many unknown words. or lexical combinations disturbing their understanding. In order to strengthen learners’ overall vocabulary knowledge, teachers can instruct their learners how to examine a word from different linguistic perspectives such as the spelling, the pronunciation, the word formation, and the lexical combination. As for the learners, they have to realize that learning word requires more than mere memorization of the translational equivalent. Learners can improve their receptive performance by constructing quantity of ready-made lexical chunks and familiarizing themselves with the multidimensional knowledge of a word with a consequent improvement in comprehension and reading speed. In addition, if the multiple word features can be taught to learners, their DVK can be improved and their collocational errors in speaking can be reduced, thereby improving productive performance.

There are some limitations in the present study which can be outlined. Firstly, the participants in the present study are all English majors and consequently the research finding may not be applicable to other academic disciplines. Secondly, the number of participants is limited and all of them are freshmen, so the findings of the present study may not be generalized to all the undergraduates in Odisha. Thirdly, as indicated in the literature review, a word can be examined from different aspects. In the current study, only the knowledge of synonyms and collocations is examined in the depth of vocabulary knowledge measure (DVKM). Other linguistic aspects such as lexical spelling, its morphological properties, or its appropriateness in a given context are ignored and the study result may not represent the overall DVK of a learner. Fourthly, the collocational knowledge examined in the present study is only adjective + noun pair, and this may be insufficient to truly reflect learners’ overall collocational competence, because collocations can be examined through lexical and grammatical perspectives and each of them can be divided into many types. Fifthly, because vocabulary knowledge is the combination of the vocabulary breadth and the vocabulary depth, by only examining the vocabulary depth the result still cannot tell how well a learner knows a word solidly and the connection between vocabulary breadth and vocabulary depth will be lost. Last but not least, better vocabulary knowledge may help readers comprehend better; however, extensive reading may also shape one’s vocabulary knowledge. In the present study, the rationale only focused on the importance of lexis but not context. Some learners are explicit-oriented while others prefer implicit way of learning. The results of this study thus cannot be generalized to all possible learners. To eliminate these limitations, the following suggestions are provided for future research.

Suggestions for future research

In order to make an extension to similar research, later researchers can take different disciplines and increase the sample population. It will be of particular interest to determine whether differences exist in DVK and RC among English major students and those in other fields. Furthermore, the design for future research should combine other instruments, such as the instruments for measuring grammatical knowledge or morphological knowledge, which involve a great number of aspects of vocabulary in conjunction with the DVKM in order to make cross comparisons and increase validity and reliability of the results. Thirdly, the collocational knowledge should be examined independently because of its complexity. Future research can analyze which collocational type is more difficult to be understood in reading texts. Fifthly, because vocabulary knowledge is the combination of vocabulary breadth and vocabulary depth, it is worthwhile to apply these two theoretical frameworks together and examine their correlation both with each other and with other language skills. Lastly, to eliminate the limitation of possible ways to learn vocabulary, the following researchers might consider bilateral investigation to observe which way of learning is more effective and efficient to learners. To sum up, the correlation between participants’ DVK and their RC was significant indicating that by improving participants’ overall vocabulary knowledge (in particular vocabulary depth), reading comprehension would also be improved. Students at the tertiary level may comprehend better and read faster if their vocabulary knowledge can be improved. It is hoped that this finding can draw both English teachers and learners’ attention on depth of vocabulary knowledge.

References

1.Adams, M. J., & Huggins, A. W. F. (1985). The growth of children’s sight vocabulary: A quick test with educational and theoretical considerations. Reading Research Quarterly 20(3), 262-281.

2.Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

3.Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. InJ. Guthrie (Ed.), Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews(pp. 77-117). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

4.Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1983). Reading comprehension and the assessment and acquisition of word knowledge. In B. Hutson(Ed.), Advances in reading/ language research: a research annual. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

5.Alderson, J. C., & Urquhart, A. H. (1984). Reading in a foreign language. London: Longman.

6.Carr, T. H., & Levy, B. A. (1990). Reading and its development: Component skills approaches. New York: Academic Press.

7.Coady, J. (1993). Research on ESL/EFL vocabulary acquisition: Putting itin context. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 3-23). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

8.Dale, E. (1965). Vocabulary measurement: Techniques and major findings. Elementary English, 42, 895-901.

9.Goodman, K. S. (1988). The reading process. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine& D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language teaching. (pp. 11-21). NY: Cambridge University Press.

10.Grabe, W. (1991). Current development in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 375-406.

11.Harris, A. J., & Sipay, E. R. (1985). How to increase reading ability: A guide to developmental and remedial method. New York: Longman.

12.He, S. S., Jian, C. G., & Lin, M. J. (1994). A concise dictionary of English collocation. Taipei, Taiwan: Jian Hong Press.

13.Henriksen, B. (1999). Three dimensions of vocabulary development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 303-317.

14.Hill, J., & Lewis, M. (1997). LTP dictionary of selected collocations. England: Language Teaching Publishing Press.