Carol A. Chapelle - The Concise Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics

Knowledge of word meanings and the ability to retrieve them through word form analysis contribute directly and reciprocally to all other operations in reading. As an illustration, word meaning retrieval depends on accurate and speedy word form analysis (orthography, phonology, and morphology) for identifying the word whose meaning is to be retrieved. It also relies on local text meanings for selecting the context‐appropriate sense from a set of meanings conveyed by the word. Conversely, vocabulary knowledge serves as a joint that connects the graphic form of a word with what the reader knows about the referent of the object the word represents. The connection is important because stored knowledge of word forms has an arbitrary relation to representations of real‐life experiences in memory (Schreuder & Flores d'Arcais, 1992). Knowledge of word meanings in a way functions as a passcode to one's knowledge bases because they include “information about the things to which words refer—be they related to the external world or internal states of the mind” (p. 422).

As a complex construct, vocabulary knowledge emerges gradually through repeated encounters with a word referring to a particular object, event, or property in particular situations. Because words convey different meanings in different contexts, word meaning retrieval must include the selection of the sense that best fits the context in which the word appears. Anderson and Nagy (1991) underscore the importance of flexibility in meaning sense selection during text comprehension. They contend that “really knowing a word… always means being able to apply it flexibly but accurately in a range of new contexts and situations” (p. 721).

In recent years, academic vocabulary has attracted considerable attention. The central concern of this research is how instruction can foster the genre‐specific vocabulary knowledge. Using the metaphor of “words as tools,” Nagy and Townsend (2012) argue that knowing words implies the ability to use the knowledge as tools for communicating and thinking about disciplinary contents. Because academic language competence differs across disciplines, it is essential that vocabulary instruction take into account the genre‐specific purposes for which words are used, so as to provide the learner with opportunities to use academic words for those discipline‐specific purposes.

Sentence comprehension entails the incremental integration of word meanings in such a way that an integrated “chunk” reflects the overall meaning of larger text units, such as phrase and clause. The integration process, often referred to as “syntactic parsing,” involves two major operations: phrase construction through word meaning integration and case assignments to the constructed phrases. To illustrate, the sentence “Nancy tapped the man with the cane” allows two interpretations regarding the cane holder. If the phrase “with the cane” is taken as a modifier of the verb “tapped,” Nancy is the cane holder. If, on the other hand, the phrase is interpreted to modify “the man,” the cane should be in his hand. Hence, decisions regarding phrase attachment have major semantic consequences, and syntactic knowledge is integral to this process.

Because syntactic structures vary from one language to another, the learner must understand how phrases are constructed, and cases are assigned to the phrases in a new language. It has been reported that syntactic knowledge significantly contributes to reading performance among school‐age second language learners (e.g., Nagy, McClure, & Mir, 1997; Verhoeven, 2000). Second language reading studies have shown that syntactic knowledge is an equal, if not better, predictor of reading comprehension than vocabulary knowledge among college language learners (Jeon, 2011; Shin & Kim, 2012; Kim & Cho, 2015).

To build coherent text representations, readers must integrate local text meanings across sentences and paragraphs. A text's surface structure offers a variety of reliable clues signaling coherence relations among text elements. As a case in point, significant information is often placed in prominent text locations that highlight its relative weight (e.g., at the beginning of a text) and connection with other text segments (e.g., at the end of a paragraph) (Goldman & Rakestraw, 2000). Linguistic devices, such as connectives and co‐references, are also used to achieve text coherence. Studies have demonstrated that knowledge of coherence devices differs considerably among native English‐speaking children (e.g., Garner et al., 1986); that explicit training on coherence awareness tends to improve text comprehension and memory (e.g., Pearson & Fielding, 1991); that explicit demonstrations of text organization generally improve text comprehension (e.g., Buss, Ratliff, & Irion, 1985; Baumann & Bergeron, 1993); and that efforts to increase the structural salience of a text facilitate comprehension (e.g., Anderson & Davison, 1988; Beck & Dole, 1992). It is important to note, however, that knowledge of discourse structure and coherence devices promotes global text comprehension, but, at the same time, the acquisition of this knowledge occurs only through substantial reading experience.

To sum up, the process of building text meanings entails a large number of diverse skills, each necessitating a distinct facet of linguistic knowledge. Without sufficient knowledge of the language, it is simply impossible to build accurate and coherent text representations. However, the reverse is also true—that is, linguistic knowledge is augmented and refined through the autonomous use of this knowledge for constructing and analyzing content meanings during reading. Reading ability and linguistic knowledge are thus developmentally reciprocal, mutually enhancing their acquisition and refinement.

The study of second language reading encompasses a broad range of learners, including those of different ages, with diverse linguistic backgrounds, and with varying educational experiences. This entry focuses on cognitively mature readers who have completed formal literacy education in their first language when they begin to receive reading instruction in a second language. The basic assumption underlying the investigation of reading development in these learners is that second language reading ability evolves through complex crosslinguistic interaction between well‐established cognitive and conceptual resources in the first language and emerging knowledge of the target language (Koda, 2007). Under this assumption, three factors have been identified as the key determinants that explain individual differences in reading development in a second language (Koda, 2016, 2017). These include first language reading ability, linguistic distance between two languages, and second language linguistic knowledge.

The contributions of first language reading ability have been examined in crosslinguistic transfer studies (Reddy & Koda, 2012; Zhang & Koda, 2013; Ke & Koda, 2019). By isolating word meaning retrieval subskills, results from those studies have shown (a) that first language morphological awareness makes a unique contribution to word meaning inference in a second language (Zhang & Koda, 2013); (b) that variations in word form analysis are systematically related to distinct first language orthographic properties (Zhang & Koda, 2017; Ke & Koda, 2019); and (c) that higher proficiency learners draw on their first language resources, such as prior knowledge and metalinguistic awareness, to a greater extent than their lower proficiency counterparts, during reading (Koda & Ke, 2018; Koda & Miller, 2018). Collectively, these findings provide solid evidence suggesting that first language reading subskills are used in second language reading; that transferred subskills differentially affect distinct reading operations among linguistically diverse learners; and that insufficient linguistic knowledge constrains the learner's access to the resources available in her first language.