The role of task-induced involvement and learner proficiency in L2 vocabulary acquisition

Language Learning

Volumn 58, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 285-325

  Kim, Youjin ^a  

^a NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

English as a second language; Involvement load hypothesis; Learner proficiency; Processing depth theory; Second language vocabulary acquisition; Task induced involvement

Indexed keywords

EID: 42249115193     PISSN: 00238333     EISSN: 14679922     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00442.x     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Arlov, P. (2000). Wordsmith: A guide to college writing. Upper Saddler River, NJ : Prentice Hall.
2. Barcroft, J. (2002). Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition. Language Learning, 52 (2 323 363.
3. Baddeley, A. D. (1978). The trouble with levels: A reexamination of Craik and Lockhart's framework for memory research. Psychological Review, 85, 139 152.
4. Brown, T. S., & Perry, F. L., Jr. 1991). A comparison of three learning strategies for ESL vocabulary acquisition, TESOL Quarterly, 25, 655 671.
5. Cho, K-S., & Krashen, S. (1994). Acquisition of vocabulary from the Sweet Valley Kids Series: Adult ESL acquisition. Journal of Reading, 37, 662 667.
6. Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671 684.
7. Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology; General, 104, 268 294.
8. de la Fuente, M. J. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary: The roles of input and output in the receptive and productive acquisition of words. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 81 112.
9. Ellis, N. C. (2001). Memory for language. In P. Robinson (Ed. Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 33 68). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
10. Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The role of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meaning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285 301.
11. Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and L2 vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 44, 449 491.
12. Howell, D. C. (2002). Statistical methods for psychology (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA : Duxbury.
13. Hulstijn, J. H., 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. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 327 339.
14. Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 539 558.
15. Joe, A. (1995). Text-based tasks and incidental vocabulary learning. Second Language Research, 11, 149 158.
16. Joe, A. (1998). What effects do text-based tasks promoting generation have on incidental vocabulary acquisition? Applied Linguistics, 19, 357 377.
17. Knight, S. M. (1994). Dictionary use while reading: The effects on comprehension and vocabulary acquisition for students of different verbal abilities. Modern Language Journal, 78, 285 299.
18. Laufer, B. (2000). Electronic dictionaries and incidental vocabulary acquisition: Does technology make a difference? In U. Heid, S. Evert, E. Lehmann, & C. Rohrer (Eds. EURALEX (pp. 849 854). Stuttgart : Stuttgart University Press.
19. Laufer, B. (2001). Reading, word-focused activities and incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Prospect, 16 (3 44 54.
20. Laufer, B. (2003). Vocabulary acquisition in a second language: Do learners really acquire most vocabulary by reading? Some empirical evidence. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 567 587.
21. Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22, 1 26.
22. Luppescu, S., & Day, R. R. (1993). Reading, dictionaries and vocabulary learning. Language Learning, 43, 263 287.
23. Nassaji, H. (2002). Schema theory and knowledge-based processes in second language reading comprehension: A need for alternative perspectives. Language Learning, 52 (2 439 482.
24. Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
25. Newton, J. (1995). Task-based interaction and incidental vocabulary learning: A case study. Second Language Research, 11, 159 177.
26. Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1993). The relationship between reading comprehension and second language development in a comprehension-based ESL program. TESL Canada Journal, 11, 9 29.
27. Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary acquisition. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds. Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp. 174 200). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
28. Pulido, D. (2003). Modeling the role of second language proficiency and topic familiarity in second language incidental vocabulary acquisition through reading. Language Learning, 53 (2 233 284.
29. Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
30. Rott, S. (2004). A comparison of output interventions and un-enhanced reading conditions on vocabulary acquisition and text comprehension. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61 (2 169 202.
31. 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, 183 222.
32. Stahl, S. A., & Clark, C. H. (1987). The effects of participatory expectations in classroom discussion on the learning of science vocabulary. American Educational Research Journal, 24 (1 541 555.
33. 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 (2 130 163.
34. Wesche, M., & Paribakht, T. S. (1996). Assessing second language vocabulary knowledge: Depth vs. breadth. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 13 39.