Essay Book Review

Reading in a Second Language: Moving From Theory to Practice. William Grabe. 2009. New York: Cambridge
University Press. 484 pp. Hardcover ISBN 9780521509862. US$100.00. Paperback ISBN 9780521729741. US$43.00.
Second Language Reading Research and Instruction: Crossing the Boundaries. ZhaoHong Han & Neil J.
Anderson (Eds.). 2009. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 248 pp. Paperback ISBN 9780472033508. US$32.50.

Issues in Second-Language Reading:

Implications for Acquisition
and Instruction
Hossein Nassaji
University of Victoria, BC, Canada

ABSTR ACT
The study of second-language (L2) reading comprehension and instruction has become the focus of increasing attention
in the past few decades. Two recent publications, Reading in a Second Language: Moving From Theory to Practice by
William Grabe and Second Language Reading Research and Instruction: Crossing the Boundaries edited by ZhaoHong
Han and Neil J. Anderson, have each explored and provided up-to-date analyses of current theory and research in L2
reading and their implications for reading pedagogy. Grabe has provided a detailed examination of the various processes
involved in L2 reading and their implications for effective classroom instruction. Han and Anderson have addressed the
issue of L2 reading research and pedagogy by putting together a useful collection of essays, each exploring a specific
aspect of L2 reading. This article reviews the two books and evaluates their theoretical, empirical, and practical insights.

R
eading in general is a complex cognitive skill,
involving many subskills, processes, and knowl-
edge sources ranging from the basic lower level
visual processes involved in decoding the print to
higher level skills involving syntax, semantics, and
discourse, and even to skills of text representation and
integration of ideas with the reader’s global knowledge.
When it comes to second-language (L2) reading, the
issue becomes even more complicated. As Bernhardt
and Kamil (1995) noted, L2 reading is “not merely an
impoverished version of L1 [first-language] reading”
(p. 31). For instance, L2 reading is a cross-linguistic
process involving more than one language (Koda,
2005). Thus, added to the overall complexity of reading
are a host of L2-specific processes that make the nature
of L2 reading unique and different from L1 reading.
Furthermore, although L1 and L2 reading have many
processes in common, they also have a number of ma-
jor differences, raging from linguistic and processing
differences to experiential, institutional, and sociocul-
tural ones (Grabe & Stoller, 2002). These differences
have profound implications for understanding how L2
reading comprehension works and should be taught.
Both books reviewed here, Reading in a Second
Language: Moving From Theory to Practice by William
Grabe and Second Language Reading Research
and Instruction: Crossing the Boundaries edited by
ZhaoHong Han and Neil J. Anderson, emphasize
and seek to understand the complexity of L2 reading.
However, each book has its own specific characteristics
and structure. Grabe’s is a detailed examination of the
various processes involved in L2 reading in general, tar-
geting a variety of readers reading for a variety of pur-
poses. A major focus is on fluent reading in academic
contexts. Han and Anderson’s book is an edited volume,
consisting of a collection of chapters, each examining a
particular aspect of L2 reading. A major theme is the
idea that L2 reading is not simply a literacy skill to be

Reading Research Quarterly  •  46(2)  •  pp. 173–184  •  dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.46.2.5  •  © 2011 International Reading Association 173
learned for comprehension purposes but also a neces-
sary tool for developing linguistic competence. Thus, a
critical point of departure addresses how to make use of
reading opportunities for the purpose of both compre-
hension and language acquisition. This is an important
and appropriate focus of the book, given that for many
L2 learners, learning to read in an L2 involves the devel-
opment of literacy skills and a considerable amount of
language learning.
Much of the discussion in both books concerns
English as an L2, learned by those who are already liter-
ate in their L1, although there are occasional references
to other languages or learners. In addition, most of the
literature drawn on focuses on the North American con-
text, but both books are written with an international
audience in mind, where English may be largely limited
to the classroom. In what follows, I will first summa-
rize briefly the contents of each book, discuss what I
consider the most important themes running through
their chapters, and evaluate their insights from my own
perspective. I will then conclude with some additional
remarks about the books and their contributions.
Reading in a Second Language:
Moving From Theory to Practice
Grabe provides a detailed and comprehensive discus-
sion of the various cognitive and linguistic processes
involved in L2 reading and their implications for L2
reading comprehension and development. In the pref-
ace, he describes two main goals for the book. The first
and primary one is to describe how information about
the nature of reading could be used to improve reading
practices. To fulfill this aim, he provides an in-depth
analysis of the implications of the issues discussed in
each chapter for effective instruction. The second goal
is to explore how reading comprehension takes place
and, in particular, what processes underlie fluent read-
ing. To this end, Grabe explores a wide variety of topics
essential for understanding reading processes, includ-
ing the various linguistic and cognitive skills and strate-
gies involved in L2 reading, models of reading, L1–L2
relationships, reading fluency, vocabulary, grammar,
motivation, and reading assessment.
Grabe observes that if teachers are to understand
the implications of research for teaching practices, they
need to have a good understanding of the nature of
skilled reading and how it develops. However, he has
also been careful to point out that implications from
theory and research are tentative and do not directly
translate into pedagogical practices. Thus, before any
implications can be turned into curriculum decisions,
they must be verified by further research. This is a key
consideration in light of the wide range of contexts,
174
goals, and purposes for L2 reading. Indeed, not only
should implications from research be empirically vali-
dated, but their relevance should also be tested and
tried out by individual teachers in their own teaching
contexts. Grabe has structured the book into four parts
and 18 chapters, which I briefly review next, discussing
their key themes and insights.
Foundations of Reading
Part 1 of the book consists of five chapters that collec-
tively attempt to explain the nature of reading compre-
hension and how it takes place. The view of reading
presented describes reading as a complex set of com-
ponent skills and processes that interact in an intricate
manner to produce comprehension. This perspective
on the nature of reading is an important one and is cur-
rently shared by many L2 reading researchers, includ-
ing many of the authors in Han and Anderson’s book,
reviewed below. Grabe defines reading ability also in
terms of the different types of reading, such as reading
to learn, reading to evaluate, and reading for general
comprehension. Such a perspective is also important,
as there are different goals for reading, and therefore,
there are different ways in which readers approach
a reading task. These different ways of reading affect
considerably the way in which information in the text is
extracted and processed.
In exploring the component processes, Grabe pro-
vides a detailed discussion of the role of the various cog-
nitive and linguistic processes that underlie reading. To
this end, he provides a thorough analysis of both lower
level processes involved in decoding the text, includ-
ing word recognition and phonological, orthographic,
syntactic, and semantic processes, as well as higher
level processes used in creating interpretation and rep-
resentation of a text, including inferential and contex-
tual processes, schema activation, and executive control
processes. He also shows how a number of other cogni-
tive concepts, such as automaticity, associative learning,
attention and noticing, inferencing, and explicit and
implicit learning, are essential to an understanding of
reading processes.
A central theme in Part 1 also relates to the various
theoretical models of reading. In this context, Grabe
presents a useful review of different theories and mod-
els proposed in the literature to explain the nature of
the reading process. There are many such models in the
literature, ranging from those that attempt to explain
the overall nature of reading comprehension, such as
Kintsch’s (1988) construction–integration model and
Stanovich’s (1980) interactive-compensatory model, to
more specific models that attempt to explain the nature
of reading subcomponents, such as syntactic and lexical
processing, working memory, and the role of cognition.
In his review, Grabe focuses on the former group, that
Reading Research Quarterly • 46(2)
is, the models that describe comprehension processes.
However, he also reviews word recognition models,
such as the E-Z reader model of eye movement (Reichle,
Rayner, & Pollatsek, 2003) and the lexical quality model
(e.g., Perfetti, 2007). Although these models do not con-
cern comprehension, they are included as models of
reading on the grounds that efficient reading in essence
involves efficient lower level word recognition processes
without much demand on higher level processes.
Visual word recognition is also a component
unique to reading and not to other types of language
skills, such as listening or speaking. Grabe, however,
excludes an inf luential model from his list of use-
ful models, Goodman’s psycholinguistic model (e.g.,
Goodman, 1994), and he does so for a good reason.
Although Goodman’s model has been popular, particu-
larly among L2 reading researchers (see, e.g., Freeman
& Freeman’s chapter in Han & Anderson), as Grabe
points out, this model is not supported by much evi-
dence from current research. Goodman’s model views
reading as a psycholinguistic process, whereby good
readers simply sample the text to verify conceptually
driven hypotheses. It also claims that these processes
are universal across all languages. Ample evidence from
current research, however, suggests that reading pro-
cesses are not the same across languages and also that
good readers do not sample the text to derive meaning,
but rather they process efficiently and effortlessly most
print symbols on the page (see Stanovich & Stanovich,
1995, for a review).
One thing that is worth noting, and also acknowl-
edged by Grabe, is that the bulk of research drawn on
in Part 1 is L1-based research conducted in the field of
cognitive and educational psychology on readers with
English as their L1. He points out that most of the in-
formation available about how reading works in general
derives from L1 research. Furthermore, most of the L2
research in this area has followed L1-based research. He
also observes that, despite major differences between L1
and L2 reading, basic cognitive processes operate simi-
larly across languages. Therefore, L1 research findings
in these areas can be easily generalized to L2 reading.
While these observations are true, given the com-
plex interaction between general and L2-specific pro-
cesses in the act of reading, the reading behavior of L2
readers cannot be fully understood if these processes
are examined or discussed separately or irrespective of
one another. Furthermore, although much of the early
research in L2 reading has followed L1 reading research,
as Grabe himself points out, there is no true replication.
Therefore, even L2 studies that have followed L1 re-
search have led to important additional insights about
the nature of L2 reading. Furthermore, there is currently
a growing body of research that has examined L2 com-
ponent processes, including word recognition, among
Issues in Second-Language Reading: Implications for Acquisitionand Instruction
different groups of L2 readers (e.g., Koda, 2005). If con-
sidered along with L1-based research, this body of work
can provide a fuller understanding of the realities of L2
reading processes.
The reading models Grabe reviews are L1-based.
L1 models are helpful for explaining reading processes
in general. However, they are not helpful for explain-
ing the unique character of L2 reading, because they do
not take into account the cross-linguistic nature of L2
reading. In addition, since such models are based on
research primarily conducted in English, they are also
biased toward a particular writing system and a particu-
lar conception of literacy (Bernhardt, 2005). L1-based
models are also based on the assumption that read-
ing development occurs after the development of oral
language skills. Although this is true for L1 readers, it
is not necessarily true of L2 readers, who often begin
their reading instruction without having sufficient oral
proficiency. Many L2 learners may even begin learn-
ing to read when they have very minimal knowledge of
basic L2 vocabulary and grammar. For these readers,
learning to read becomes less about comprehension or
getting information from text than a tool for developing
basic language skills.
Thus, what is missing from Grabe’s discussion is
L2-specific models. Of course, there are not many L2
reading models, and if there are, they are mainly deriva-
tions of L1 models. However, one L2 reading model that
recognizes and attempts to explain L2-specific reading
processes is Bernhardt’s (2005) reading model. Grabe
mentions Bernhardt’s (1991, 2000) model, but describes
it as vague in its specification of the processes involved
in reading. Bernhardt (2005), however, presents an inter-
active compensatory version of the model that attempts
to deal with some of the limitations of the earlier model.
What is noteworthy about Bernhardt’s (2005) model
is that it provides an integrative, three-dimensional con-
ceptualization of the L2 reading process that not only
takes into account the complex interactions of various
textual processes (i.e., word recognition, graphophonic,
syntactic) and intratextual variables (e.g., prior knowl-
edge, strategies) but also encompasses a number of
L2-specific factors that are absent in L1-based models,
such as L2 proficiency, differences in syntactic and vo-
cabulary knowledge, and L1–L2 linguistic distance (see
Bernhardt, 2011). The model also attempts to capture
the interplay of readers’ L1 literacy skills and L2 knowl-
edge sources over time. Because of these characteristics,
Bernhardt’s model provides a useful framework for ex-
amining and understanding the nature of L2 reading
and the factors that impact its development. Thus, an
advantage of this model is that it allows us to under-
stand the additional sources of variance in L2 reading
ability that are not explicated in L1-based models.
175
Patterns of Variation in Reading
Part 2 of the book examines patterns of variation in
reading. Languages differ in their orthographic, phono-
logical, syntactic, morphological, and semantic systems.
Grabe shows how reading processes in any language
are influenced by these differences. Other important
themes discussed include processing differences across
languages, the relationship between L1 and L2 reading,
and the role of social and motivational variables.
In exploring processing differences across languag-
es, Grabe focuses on word-level processes. To this end,
he provides a useful discussion of variations in ortho-
graphic, phonological, and morphological processes.
Although languages also differ in syntactic and seman-
tic processes, such differences are not discussed on the
grounds that there is relatively little empirical research
in these areas. With respect to word-level processes, a
major hypothesis discussed is the orthographic depth
hypothesis (e.g., Katz & Frost, 1992), according to which
languages differ in the way they are processed depend-
ing on their orthographic depths, that is, the degree of
transparency between the orthography and phonology
of a given language. Grabe provides a fairly detailed
discussion of the different ways in which orthographic
depth can be analyzed and their implications for the
reading process. However, there is not much discussion
of how lexical access occurs in L2 reading or how mean-
ing is activated in the L2 lexicon.
There is a growing literature on the exact mecha-
nisms whereby L2 word recognition takes place in bi-
linguals and the various L2-related factors affecting
these processes (see Koda, 2005; Koda & Zehler, 2008).
There is not much discussion of these mechanisms ei-
ther. However, Grabe provides an insightful discussion
of the factors affecting orthographic depth, such as the
regularity of sound–letter correspondences, consistency
of spelling patterns, and degree of completeness of or-
thographic representation. He also shows how a number
of other orthographic-related factors are relevant to the
development of word recognition in different languag-
es, including syllable and morphological complexities
as well as the visual density of written texts. These are
important issues, as they reveal the complexity of the
notion of orthographic depth and the different ways in
which its effects can be studied in different languages.
Grabe also provides a very useful analysis of key
differences between L1 and L2 reading, including lin-
guistic processing differences, educational and devel-
opmental differences, and institutional and cultural
variables. In this respect, he provides a thoughtful dis-
cussion on the major theories that have attempted to
explain the relationship between L1 and L2 reading, in-
cluding the developmental interdependence hypothesis
(e.g., Cummins, 1979, 1991) and the language threshold
hypothesis (e.g., Alderson, 1984; Clarke, 1980). The
176
developmental interdependence hypothesis holds that
there is a common reading proficiency that underlies
both L1 and L2 reading. In other words, L1 and L2
reading developments are interdependent, in that the
development of reading skills in one language is facili-
tated by that of the other. Grabe reviews a number of
studies that have provided some evidence for the vari-
ous aspects of this hypothesis. Of course, the exact re-
lationship between L1 literacy and L2 knowledge has
remained controversial. As Grabe points out, a debat-
able issue, for example, is the nature of the common un-
derlying proficiency. The interdependence hypothesis
seems to give particular attention to the role of general
reading ability over that of L2 proficiency and suggests,
for example, that L2 learners who have a weak L2 pro-
ficiency can still be successful readers as long as they
have strong L1 literacy skills. This assumption has been
challenged by research that has shown that L2 knowl-
edge not only plays a crucial role but is also a stronger
predictor of L2 reading than general L1 literacy skills
(e.g., Bernhardt & Kamil, 1995).
Another concept regarding the relationship between
L1 and L2 reading is the notion of L2 reading as a cross-
linguistic process (e.g., Koda, 2005). This perspective
holds that bilingual reading is different from monolin-
gual reading, in that the former involves a dual-­language
system. That is, while L1 reading processes take place
in one language, L2 reading processes involve at least
two (Koda, 2005). Grabe provides a brief description of
this perspective, as well. Of course, he does not discuss
the nature of cross-linguistic variability at any length,
or how and what cognitive or language-specific aspects
of L2 reading are affected by L1-based processing strat-
egies. The focus seems to be more on overall L1–L2
differences. Koda (2005) has presented a thorough dis-
cussion of the cross-linguistic nature of L2 reading.
Although understanding the role that cognitive and
linguistic processes play in reading is essential, there
are other factors that can be the sources of variations
among readers that cannot be explained simply by psy-
cholinguistic factors. Grabe examines the role of two
such factors: social context and motivation. The discus-
sion of social factors concerns the role of a number of
sociocultural variables, such as learners’ socioeconomic
status, family beliefs, values, attitudes toward reading,
home language, and literacy environments, as well as
identity and sociocultural values and status affecting
language-minority learners.
As for social context, the major focus of Grabe’s dis-
cussion is on children learning to read in the U.S. K–12
settings with little discussion of other contexts. However,
although much of the social context research on reading
has been carried out with children in L1 contexts, there
are a variety of sociolinguistic settings for L2 learning,
ranging from places where the L2 is the predominant
Reading Research Quarterly • 46(2)
language (e.g., speakers of minority languages in the
United States) to those in coexisting bilingual environ-
ments (e.g., French speakers learning English in Canada)
or various multilingual settings (see Siegel, 2003, for
a discussion of social context in second-­language ac-
quisition [SLA]). L2 learners also vary considerably in
terms of the classroom contexts in which they learn the
language, ranging from learners who learn the L2 in
monolingual classrooms, to those who are in classroom
settings where learning takes place solely in the L2, to
those whose L2 instruction is supported by different
degrees of L1 use. These context factors can also have
important influences on how adult L2 learners socialize
into literacy events and consequently develop reading
skills. There is little discussion of the role of these is-
sues. Grabe, however, emphasizes the diversity of social
factors that can affect students of English as a second
language (ESL) or English as a foreign language (EFL)
and also provides a clear discussion on the role of factors
such as educational background, instructional history,
and expectations in advanced literacy development.
Another source of variation discussed by Grabe is
motivation. Many L1-based studies have examined the
role of motivation in L1 reading. However, this area has
been much less explored in the field of L2 reading. Of
course, a great deal of research has explored the role of
motivation in L2 learning in general (e.g., Dörnyei, 2001;
Gardner, 1985; Gardner & Lambert, 1972). Grabe, how-
ever, highlights the essential role that motivation plays
in L2 reading specifically. He also offers numerous
suggestions about how motivation can be enhanced in
classroom instruction.
One issue that could have been further discussed in
this chapter is the role of motivation in different L2 set-
tings, such as EFL contexts, where the target language
is not spoken in the country where the learner lives, ver-
sus ESL contexts, where the target language is also the
language of the home country. In many EFL contexts,
English is merely a compulsory subject matter that
learners have to take. Also, in such contexts for many
learners, the only motivation for learning to read could
be passing exams or getting scores on tests. It would be
useful to know how to tackle the issue of motivation in
different L2 settings, particularly EFL ones.
Developing Reading Comprehension
Abilities
Whereas Parts 1 and 2 of the book examine the role of
linguistic and cognitive processes underlying reading,
Part 3 shifts attention to the role of other component
skills, including the skill of main idea comprehension,
the contribution of vocabulary and grammar, aware-
ness of discourse structure, and the role of reading strat-
egies. A number of authors in Han and Anderson also
Issues in Second-Language Reading: Implications for Acquisitionand Instruction
emphasize the importance of these language skills for
reading, although largely from an acquisition perspec-
tive. Their concern is more with how best to employ
reading as a tool to facilitate the development of these
skills. Grabe’s focus, however, is on the relationship
between these knowledge sources and reading com-
prehension. Drawing on evidence from a large num-
ber of studies in both L1 and L2 reading, he provides
a comprehensive and coherent discussion of these fac-
tors and their relevance for L2 reading development and
instruction.
One important theme discussed concerns aware-
ness of text structure. Much research in the field of both
L1 and L2 reading has shown that successful readers
are able to identify how texts are organized and utilize
this information effectively to support text comprehen-
sion. This research has shown how readers use differ-
ent types of discourse-level information and how these
knowledge sources contribute to reading and process-
ing text. Grabe discusses the role of knowledge of text
structure, including that of cohesion, the way given and
new information are structured, transitional words,
anaphoric references, text coherence, and text genre and
purposes. An extensive body of research has also dem-
onstrated the critical importance of vocabulary knowl-
edge for L2 reading development, as do Horst, Pulido,
and Cobb in Han and Anderson’s book. Grabe also em-
phasizes the role of vocabulary knowledge in L2 read-
ing and presents a number of useful suggestions about
how to address learners’ vocabulary needs in reading
comprehension.
As for grammar, the role of this knowledge source
has not received much attention in L2 reading instruc-
tion. As Han and D’Angelo also point out in Han and
Anderson’s volume, with the emergence of communica-
tive approaches to L2 pedagogy over the last decades,
L2 reading instruction has tended to focus primarily on
how to extract meaning from texts. This dominance of
meaning-focused approaches has downplayed the role
of grammar in L2 reading instruction. Grabe, however,
emphasizes the importance of grammar in L2 reading,
enumerating a number of key roles for it, such as provid-
ing information about content through the ways words
and sentences are ordered, disambiguating ideas, track-
ing referents, helping interpret the timing of events, and
indicating an author’s attitudes or position. Through
examples, he shows how these functions provide im-
portant information needed for text comprehension and
interpretation.
Another important issue in L2 reading concerns the
role of reading strategies. The fact that successful read-
ing involves effective use of strategies is well document-
ed in the field of both L1 and L2 reading. This research
has identified a number of cognitive and metacogni-
tive strategies that have been shown to support reading
177
comprehension. Grabe highlights their importance to
L2 reading. An important focus of the discussion con-
cerns the notion of the strategic reader, that is, readers
who are able to select, use, and adjust reading strategies
effectively and appropriately depending on the type of
text they read as well as the context and goals of reading.
Grabe believes that effective reading strategies cannot
be developed simply as a result of reading but should
also be explicitly instructed. However, he emphasizes
that strategies should not be presented in isolation;
rather, they should become an integral component of
L2 reading instruction, which is best achieved through
teaching that involves regular modeling, scaffolding,
and long-term practice. These are crucial points, be-
cause guiding learners to become strategic readers is not
an easy task, and it certainly needs considerable time
and effort.
Of course, one question that arises here and needs
consideration is how such guidance can be effectively
conducted in instructional contexts where important
time limitations exist, such as in many EFL classes
where students meet only a few hours a week. In such
contexts, affording proper instructional time for teach-
ing even the most basic aspects of the L2 would be a
great challenge. Thus, it is important to know how to
tackle the teaching of various aspects of reading in such
contexts. Perhaps one solution is that teachers recognize
and then prioritize those aspects of the language that
should become the focus of instruction.
Another issue relates to the ineffective strategies
that L2 readers employ when reading. For example, be-
ginner L2 readers often use strategies such as engaging
in word-by-word reading, translating into their L1, or
paying too much attention to words that are not essen-
tial to the overall meaning of the text. Grabe points out
that engagement in such local strategies might be the
result of text difficulty or lack of adequate L2 knowl-
edge to efficiently process the text for meaning. Such
observations underscore the importance of L2 profi-
ciency (e.g., Bernhardt & Kamil, 1995), and therefore,
teachers should ensure that learners have the necessary
resources to linguistically process a given text before
they expect learners to use reading strategies effectively.
Expanding Reading Comprehension Skills
Whereas Part 3 deals with the various knowledge sourc-
es and strategies that learners use to support compre-
hension, Part 4 expands on these topics and introduces
a number of other issues important for effective reading,
including the development of reading fluency, the value
of extensive reading, and the role of reading assessment.
The notion of fluency has received considerable atten-
tion in the field of L1 reading, and as a result, many
L1-based studies have explored its various aspects and
their relationship with reading comprehension. In the
178
field of L2, however, the major concern has been with
reading accuracy with relatively much less attention on
the importance of fluency, although this issue has start-
ed to receive attention.
Grabe provides an in-depth discussion of the im-
portance of fluency in L2 reading. A major theme of the
discussion concerns the development of word recogni-
tion fluency and its relationship with other aspects of
reading ability, such as reading rate and automaticity.
In this context, an important reference is made to the
work of Segalowitz (e.g., Segalowitz, 2000; Segalowitz &
Segalowitz, 1993) and his distinction between two types
of fluency: performance (e.g., speed, accuracy) and cog-
nitive (i.e., the efficiency of the cognitive processes un-
derlying fluency). In Segalowitz’s framework, central to
reading fluency is understanding the nature of cogni-
tive fluency, as performance fluency may simply involve
speed of processing without any changes to the under-
lying processes such as automaticity. Grabe favorably
reviews this line of research and also presents L2 stud-
ies that show how the development of word recognition
fluency is critical to reading fluency. He also offers a
number of instructional practices that can be used for
improving L2 reading fluency, including repeated read-
ing, assisted reading, timed reading, and word recogni-
tion exercises.
Another key issue in Grabe’s discussion relates to
the notion of extensive reading, which is an important
one, because it highlights the significance of the much-
needed ability of reading-extended L2 text. Grabe
emphasizes the crucial role of extensive reading, de-
scribing it as “a hallmark of fluent reading” (p. 311). He
then reviews a considerable number of L1 and L2 read-
ing studies in the past two decades that strongly sup-
port the benefits of extensive reading. This review also
draws attention to the results of the meta-analysis by the
National Reading Panel in the United States (National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development,
2000), which reported that there was no evidence of a
significant impact of extensive reading on reading im-
provement. Grabe attributes such findings to the strict
criteria that the National Reading Panel adopted in
screening studies. Including only experimental studies
with a large sample size eliminated many correlational
studies that have found major effects of extensive read-
ing on reading development. In Han and Anderson’s
book, Horst offers an excellent discussion of the impor-
tance of extensive reading and its effects on L2 reading
abilities.
The other important theme discussed relates to
reading assessment. Assessment is a key component of
effective reading instruction, as it provides important
information not only about what learners know or do
not know but also the amount of classroom learning ac-
complished as well as the extent to which instructional
Reading Research Quarterly • 46(2)
activities are in line with curricular objectives. Grabe
provides a very useful discussion of the various goals
for assessment in L2 reading and also various kinds
of assessment procedures commonly used in instruc-
tional contexts, such as standardized assessments,
classroom-based assessment, placement, and diagnos-
tic assessment.
Drawing from the literature on reading assessment,
he also presents a number of specific tasks that testers
can use in assessment situations, such as cloze tasks,
free recall, text segment ordering, and editing tests. A
brief description of some of these tasks is also provided,
although there is less information about most of them.
Of course, a detailed treatment of all the test options
would need much more space than what an author has
in one chapter. However, further information about
what aspect of the reading ability each test option mea-
sures or the purposes for which each should be used
would have been helpful. Alderson (2000) presents a
thorough discussion of these issues.
Second Language Reading
Research and Instruction:
Crossing the Boundaries
To understand the complexity of the reading process,
reading researchers and educators have used a vari-
ety of perspectives. In their introduction to Second
Language Reading Research and Instruction: Crossing
the Boundaries, Han and Anderson, joined by Freeman,
begin the book by discussing three different approaches
to reading development and instruction that have been
prominent in the reading literature: whole language,
skills oriented, and an acquisition view. They argue that
these perspectives present not only different conceptu-
alizations of the role of reading processes but also dif-
ferent methodological suggestions about how to teach
reading. For example, whereas the whole-language
perspective emphasizes a holistic content-focused ap-
proach, the skills-based perspective stresses the cru-
cial importance of the various cognitive and linguistic
skills that underlie reading comprehension. The third
perspective, acquisitional, treats reading not simply as
a literacy skill but as a source of input for L2 acquisi-
tion. Thus, it stresses the need to move beyond teach-
ing reading for comprehension to using it as a tool for
language learning.
Han, Anderson, and Freeman argue that treating
these perspectives separately is counterproductive to
L2 reading instruction. Thus, they emphasize the need
for an approach that combines insights from diverse
theoretical approaches and consider their potential im-
plications for L2 reading instruction. The book reflects
the diversity of researchers’ perspectives by including
Issues in Second-Language Reading: Implications for Acquisitionand Instruction
essays with different orientations: those that emphasize
the importance of component processes in L2 reading,
those that stress overall comprehension processes, and
also those that highlight the role of reading as a resource
for language learning. The volume seeks to bring to-
gether these perspectives and their insights for reading
pedagogy.
The book is organized into two parts, each with four
chapters, plus an epilogue. Part 1 focuses on research
and begins with a study by Shiotsu, who takes the view
that successful reading comprehension depends on
competent word recognition abilities. She then exam-
ines this hypothesis in a study with a group of Japanese
EFL university students and finds evidence that effi-
ciency of visual orthographic and lexical semantic pro-
cessing is strongly related to reading proficiency.
In their chapters, Horst and Pulido take an acqui-
sition perspective, addressing what linguistic elements
are learned through reading. Presenting a quasi-­
experimental study involving ESL students participat-
ing in a five-week extensive reading program, Horst
shows how extensive reading can contribute to the
development of L2 vocabulary knowledge, in line with
Grabe’s discussion on the topic. Pulido also highlights
the issue of vocabulary learning through reading, with
a special focus on factors affecting the rate of vocabu-
lary learning. Reviewing a large number of studies, she
shows how the differential growth of vocabulary learn-
ing through reading is related to learner-related variables
such as background knowledge, L2 reading proficiency,
and passage sight vocabulary. Leow addresses the role
of text modification and simplification in facilitating
comprehension and acquisition. Reviewing research
findings in three strands of research, that is, simplified
text, textual enhancement, and glossing, he demon-
strates that simplification may promote comprehension
but not necessarily acquisition.
Part 2 focuses on instruction and begins with a
chapter by Freeman and Freeman, who argue for the
importance of overall literacy skills in teaching L2 read-
ing. They take the perspective that L1 literacy skills are
critically essential for successful L2 reading compre-
hension, and hence, reading skills should be first taught
in learners’ primary language. They believe that once
learned, L1 reading skills can be transferred into L2
reading (see Grabe for a discussion of the complexity of
transfer issue). Anderson focuses on successful reading
instruction by presenting and reviewing the research
basis for six principles that he believes underlie effective
reading pedagogy: activating prior knowledge, cultivat-
ing vocabulary, teaching for comprehension, increasing
reading rate, verifying reading strategies, and evaluating
progress. He also offers a number of suggestions about
how to facilitate the development of these strategies in
L2 classrooms.
179
 Cobb discusses the role of the computer in devel-
oping reading abilities with specific focus on learn-
ing vocabulary. He provides an excellent review of the
essential role of vocabulary in L2 reading and then
shows how computer technology can be used as a tool
to support vocabulary learning and instruction. Han
and D’Angelo argue for the importance of attention to
both comprehension and acquisition in L2 reading in-
struction. They begin by discussing the inadequacies
of purely comprehension- and meaning-focused ap-
proaches to L2 reading instruction and then propose a
pedagogical approach that seeks to balance reading for
communicative and form-focused purposes.
The book concludes with an epilogue by Grabe,
in which he nicely summarizes the main points of the
book and outlines additional areas of research that de-
serve attention.
Although each chapter in Han and Anderson’s vol-
ume addresses a different topic, an important theme
running through most of the chapters relates to the re-
lationship between L2 reading comprehension and L2
acquisition. Many of the authors observe, although in
different ways, that comprehension is distinct from ac-
quisition, and that reading instruction should provide
opportunities for the development of both comprehen-
sion and language skills. Leow, for example, points out
that simplified text may assist comprehension but not
necessarily acquisition. Thus, textual manipulations
will be helpful if they provide learners with opportu-
nities to pay attention to form. Han, Anderson, and
Freeman, as well as Han and D’Angelo, take the view
that comprehension and acquisition involve different
processes, and that to be effective, L2 reading instruc-
tion should attempt to help learners develop compre-
hension skills as well as linguistic competence. Pulido
emphasizes the role of learner engagement, arguing for
opportunities that encourage form-meaning connec-
tions for acquiring new lexical items during reading.
Of course, not all of the authors in the book have
similar opinions. As noted earlier, Freeman and
Freeman, for example, emphasize the importance of
general literacy skills, and to this end, they review fa-
vorably the studies conducted within Goodman’s psy-
cholinguistic view of L2 reading that endorse the claim
that reading is a universal process and that readers rely
mainly on linguistic cues to derive meaning from the
text. These researchers assert that written language is
like oral language and “is acquired when readers receive
comprehensible written input” (p. 114).
Clearly, the L2 reading process is related to L1 read-
ing abilities. However, the relationship between the two is
far more complex than what Freeman and Freeman pro-
pose. In addition, learning to read is different from learn-
ing to speak; every normally developed human being
can speak, but not everyone can read. Learning to read
180
usually requires a considerable amount of instruction.
Furthermore, although Goodman’s psycholinguistic
model claimed that reading is a universal process involv-
ing mainly conceptually driven processing, as Grabe re-
viewed in his volume, many cross-­linguistic studies have
shown that reading processes are not the same across
languages. Finally, as many SLA researchers, including
a number of authors in Han and Anderson’s book, have
emphasized, comprehension does not necessarily lead to
the acquisition of linguistic forms.
Indeed, the distinction between comprehension
and acquisition is an important one and is related to the
distinction that SLA researchers have made among in-
put, intake, and processing. Input is the sample of the
target language that learners are exposed to, and in-
take is what is registered in the learner’s mind, whereas
processing refers to the mechanism that learners use in
extracting meaning from input (e.g., VanPatten, 1996).
Comprehension involves processing input for mean-
ing, but it is the intake that gets further processed and
becomes incorporated into the learners’ developing lan-
guage system. The relationship between input and in-
take, however, is not simple, and the fact that the learner
processes input for meaning does not necessarily guar-
antee that the input will become intake, because decod-
ing the language for comprehension is not the same as
extracting and learning the rules that are used to express
meaning (Cook, 1996). For the same reason, compre-
hending the meaning of unknown words in context is
also different from retaining and acquiring those words.
Due to the difference between comprehension and
acquisition on the one hand, and input and intake on
the other, in recent years, much attention has been paid
in the SLA literature to how the linguistic forms in the
input can get processed for meaning and at the same
time become internalized by the learner’s cognitive
mechanisms. Here, linguistics forms means all features
pertaining to the formal properties of language, includ-
ing phonological, lexical, and grammatical features. In
answering the above questions, many SLA research-
ers have proposed that intake does not take place until
learners notice or somewhat recognize what is in the in-
put (Schmidt, 1990, 1992; Tomlin & Villa, 1994; see also
Leow, Horst, Pulido, and Han & D’Angelo in Han &
Anderson’s volume). In other words, for learning to take
place, learners need to attend to the formal features of
the language contained in the input.
However, given the limited capacity of human cog-
nition, one problem that L2 learners have in processing
input is the difficulty in attending to form and meaning
simultaneously (e.g., VanPatten, 1996). Thus, they may
either focus on drawing meaning from the text or focus
on form, without adequately processing meaning. This
may also be true for L1 readers. However, L1 children
begin to read when they have already acquired a high
Reading Research Quarterly • 46(2)
level of grammatical and lexical competence, which
is not true of L2 learners. For L2 readers, learning to
read in the L2 is both a reading and a language problem
(Alderson, 1984; Bernhardt & Kamil, 1995).
Thus, the great challenge for L2 reading instruc-
tion is now understood to be creating conditions for
tackling these two problems. In their chapter, Han and
D’Angelo attempt to address this issue by proposing
what they call a dual approach to teaching L2 reading.
According to these authors, reading instruction should
have three characteristics: primarily focus on meaning
necessary for comprehension, facilitate both syntactic
and semantic processing necessary for acquisition, and
seek to provide opportunities for focus on grammati-
cal forms through various explicit or implicit strategies.
Han and D’Angelo discuss this approach in detail and
then introduce three instructional strategies from SLA
literature that they believe are useful for promoting a
dual approach in L2 classrooms: narrow reading, input-
processing instruction, and textual enhancement. In
what follows, I summarize key aspects of these three
strategies as important techniques for integrating a fo-
cus on form with a focus on meaning in L2 classrooms
and also comment on their usefulness and compatibil-
ity with the goals of the dual approach, as postulated by
Han and D’Angelo.
Narrow Reading
Narrow reading involves reading a range of texts on the
same topic or message. This strategy is different from
extensive reading, discussed by Horst and by Grabe,
which involves reading on different topics to become
familiar with different genres, text structures, and
language patterns. Narrow reading is a useful strat-
egy for promoting comprehension and acquisition of
form–meaning relationships. However, the theoretical
foundations of this strategy are often seen in Krashen’s
(1981) comprehensible input hypothesis and the idea
that reading instruction should be exclusively focused
on meaning. In other words, a case for narrow reading
is often made based on the assumption that “the ac-
quisition of both structure and vocabulary comes from
many exposures in a comprehensible context, that is,
we acquire new structures and words when we under-
stand messages” (Krashen, 2004, p. 17).
Krashen claimed that comprehensible input is not
only necessary but also sufficient for language acquisi-
tion. Thus, there is no need for any formal instruction
or drawing learners’ attention to linguistic forms (e.g.,
Krashen, 1993, 1999). Evidently, these ideas are contrary
to the argument that learners need to have opportunities
for focus on form in addition to focus on meaning. They
are also contrary to the view that exposure to compre-
hensible input, no matter how much, is inadequate for
L2 development as discussed by Han, Anderson, and
Issues in Second-Language Reading: Implications for Acquisitionand Instruction
Freeman. Thus, the potential effects of narrow read-
ing on the intake of language forms should not be seen
simply in terms of processes that facilitate comprehen-
sion. Rather, as Han and D’Angelo note, it should also
be seen in terms of the fact that repeated exposure to
the same linguistic forms increases the saliency of those
forms and the chances that they become better noticed.
It is this noticing that will facilitate acquisition. Because
narrow reading involves reading familiar content, it also
decreases learners’ cognitive load by easing comprehen-
sion processes, thus leaving learners with greater cogni-
tive resources to allocate to processing forms.
Processing Instruction
Processing instruction is an input-based approach to
focusing on form proposed by VanPatten (1996, 2002).
This approach rests on the assumption that learners
need input for acquisition but that acquisition may be
hindered by the way in which learners process input.
For example, when processing input for meaning, learn-
ers typically assign the role of agent to the first noun
in the sentence (VanPatten, 1996). This first noun strat-
egy works well in languages with subject-verb-object
word order, such as in English, but not in languages
with either different or a more flexible word order, like
Spanish. Thus, to facilitate acquisition, there is a need
for instructional activities that can alter such strategies.
The key components of processing instruction are
that (a) learners are provided with input, (b) they are
informed of the input-processing strategies that may
negatively affect their processing of the target structure,
and (c) they carry out structured input activities that
help them understand and process certain grammatical
forms during comprehension. A number of studies in
SLA have examined the effectiveness of processing in-
struction and found support for this approach as a tech-
nique for promoting attention to form while processing
input for meaning. Therefore, as Han and D’Angelo
have proposed, a processing instruction approach may
promote both a focus on form and a focus on meaning
in L2 reading. However, it should be noted that process-
ing instruction also has important limitations. First, it
concerns mainly the acquisition of morphosyntax not
vocabulary, which is a critical component of reading
comprehension. Furthermore, it may enhance compre-
hension of target forms but not necessarily their produc-
tion (see DeKeyser, Salaberry, Robinson, & Harrington,
2002, for a discussion). If the process of acquisition is
regarded to be incomplete until learners are able to
produce the target language in their output (Batstone
& Ellis, 2009), the effects of processing instruction on
acquisition can be said to be limited to the same degree.
Another important limitation of processing instruc-
tion, which is more related to Han and D’Angelo’s pro-
posal, is the kind of input activities used in this approach.
181
Although VanPatten has suggested the possibility of us-
ing extended texts, the kind of input activities typically
used in processing instruction involves contrived and of-
ten isolated sentences designed to target certain linguis-
tic forms (see Lee & VanPatten, 1995). To direct learners’
attention to particular grammatical forms, these activi-
ties often remove from the text many contextual clues
that are normally used in naturalistic discourse and are
essential for establishing form–meaning relationships in
the input (Batstone, 2002). Thus, although such activi-
ties may promote learners’ attention to intended forms
in the input, hence fulfilling one of the goals of Han
and D’Angelo’s dual approach, they do not necessarily
promote skills of processing naturalistic discourse, thus
limiting the usefulness of processing instruction for pro-
moting comprehension of connected texts.
Textual Enhancement
Textual enhancement aims to draw learners’ attention
to linguistic forms by making input physically more sa-
lient within the text, which is usually achieved by high-
lighting certain aspects of the text through typographic
devices, such as bolding, underlining, and italicizing.
This approach rests on the assumption that such vi-
sual modifications of input make linguistic forms more
noticeable and hence promote language intake (e.g.,
Smith, 1993). Like processing instruction, many studies
have examined the effectiveness of this approach and
shown that, in general, this strategy may promote notic-
ing of linguistic forms (e.g., Jourdenais, Ota, Stauffer,
Boyson, & Doughty, 1995; Leow, 1997; Simard, 2009;
White, 1998). However, these studies do not provide
any compelling evidence that textual enhancement pro-
motes acquisition, because the visual enhancement of
linguistic forms in the input does not necessarily guar-
antee that learners will process those forms or even no-
tice them during comprehension.
Conclusion
In this essay, I have reviewed two books on reading in
a second language, one by Grabe that explores various
processes in reading comprehension and how they can
be facilitated in L2 instruction, and the other edited by
Han and Anderson that has an additional acquisitional
focus, arguing for an integrative approach to reading
instruction that promotes both comprehension and
acquisition. Writing about L2 reading is not an easy
task. There are many issues and questions that can be
examined and discussed, ranging from those related
to the nature of reading comprehension itself, to how
reading abilities are acquired and taught, and still to the
many differences between first- and second-language
reading comprehension and instruction. Both books
182
have explored a host of key topics fundamental to un-
derstanding L2 reading comprehension and instruc-
tion and have been able to do this task in a satisfactory
manner.
Grabe has produced an impressive book, examin-
ing in great detail the various cognitive and linguistic
processes involved in L2 reading as well as a number
of other important reading-related topics, such as read-
ing strategies, reading fluency, motivation, and issues
surrounding reading assessment. Drawing on his deep
knowledge of the field, he has been able to synthesize
and interpret a huge amount of research on L1 and L2
reading related to these topics and also present them
in an easy-to-read manner. His explicit commitment
to pedagogy has also led to numerous practical sug-
gestions and recommendations in the book about how
to improve instructional practices in L2 reading class-
rooms. Han and Anderson have assembled a very use-
ful volume, containing a number of important essays,
each addressing a key area of reading, such as word rec-
ognition, vocabulary knowledge, extensive reading, and
reading instruction. They have also been able to give
prominence to a timely issue of how to balance reading
for comprehension and for acquisition.
Of course, there are other issues or topics that could
have been included in both books. I have already men-
tioned some of them, and there are a few others that are
worthy of attention. As for Grabe’s book, as he also notes,
it does not include a section on teacher training. Given
that one of the stated aims of the book is to contribute to
effective reading pedagogy, a specific chapter discussing
details about teacher training for L2 reading instruction
would have been a welcome addition. This issue is par-
ticularly important in light of the increasing need of L2
teachers who should be able to act both as effective read-
ing teachers as well as language teachers. Furthermore,
as noted earlier, although the role of social factors in read-
ing have been discussed, the social dimension of adult
L2 reading has not been dealt with in any detail, even
though many L2 readers are adult learners.
There are also topics that could have been includ-
ed in Han and Anderson’s book, such as the role of
cross-linguistic issues, sociocultural factors, affective
domains of L2 reading, L2 proficiency, and the role of
individual differences. These omissions are quite un-
derstandable and reflect the limitations of an edited
book with only eight chapters. However, since one of
the main focuses of the book is on instruction, one es-
sential and relevant issue that could have been further
discussed relates to the differences in the context of in-
struction. In their chapter, Han and D’Angelo have con-
sidered an exclusive meaning-focused approach to L2
reading instruction as inadequate and instead rightfully
argued for a dual approach to L2 instruction. However,
there is little discussion of how the dual approach can
Reading Research Quarterly • 46(2)
be implemented in different instructional contexts that
may necessitate different instructional focus.
For example, whereas some learners may learn
an L2 in contexts where there is already a substantial
amount of explicit instruction and limited amount of
exposure to meaning-focused input, like many foreign-
language contexts where the dominant approach to
teaching is traditionally focused on grammar, others
may learn the L2 in settings where there is already sub-
stantial exposure to meaning-focused L2 but perhaps
limited amount of form-focused instruction, as in many
L2-immersion or K–12 contexts. These characteristics
of instructional settings are extremely important and
have serious consequences for determining the kind of
instructional approach for each context. For instance, in
the former context, where there is already a heavy focus
on form component, a more meaning-focused approach
may be more appropriate, whereas in the latter, with
already a heavy meaning-focused component, a more
form-focused instruction may be more appropriate.
Despite the above, the two books are major con-
tributions to the field. Both set to balance issues in L2
reading research and pedagogy and seek to explain
research-based ways of promoting effective instruction.
These features distinguish the books from other signifi-
cant publications on L2 reading that mainly focus on
either research (e.g., Koda, 2005; Koda & Zehler, 2008)
or instruction (e.g., Anderson, 1999; Hudson, 2007).
Both books deserve careful reading by anyone inter-
ested in learning about L2 reading comprehension and
instruction.
Note
I would like to thank Rose-Marie Weber for inviting me to contrib-
ute this essay book review and for her useful comments on an earlier
draft of the manuscript.
References
Alderson, J.C. (1984). Reading in a foreign language: A read-
ing problem or a language problem? In J.C. Anderson & A.H.
Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language (pp. 1–27). New
York: Longman.
Alderson, J.C. (2000). Assessing reading. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Anderson, N.J. (1999). Exploring second language reading: Issues and
strategies. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Batstone, R. (2002). Making sense of new language: A discourse
perspective. Language Awareness, 11(1), 14–29. doi:​10​.1080​/0965​
8410​208667043
Batstone, R., & Ellis, R. (2009). Principled grammar teaching.
System, 37(2), 194–204. doi:10.1016/j.system.2008.09.006
Bernhardt, E.B. (1991). Reading development in a second language:
Theoretical, empirical, and classroom perspectives. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Bernhardt, E.B. (2000). Second-language reading as a case study
of reading scholarship in the 20th century. In M.L. Kamil, P.B.
Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading
research (Vol. 3, pp. 791–811). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Issues in Second-Language Reading: Implications for Acquisitionand Instruction
Bernhardt, E. (2005). Progress and procrastination in second lan-
guage reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 133–150.
doi:​10​.1017/S0267190505000073
Bernhardt, E.B. (2011). Understanding advanced second-language
reading. New York: Routledge.
Bernhardt, E.B., & Kamil, M.L. (1995). Interpreting relationships
between L1 and L2 reading: Consolidating the linguistic thresh-
old and the linguistic interdependence hypotheses. Applied
Linguistics, 16(1), 15–34. doi:10.1093/applin/16.1.15
Clarke, M.A. (1980). The short circuit hypothesis of ESL reading—
or when language competence interferes with reading perfor-
mance. Modern Language Journal, 64(2), 203–209.
Cook, V. (1996). Second language learning and language teaching
(2nd ed.). London: Arnold.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educa-
tional development of bilingual children. Review of Educational
Research, 49(2), 222–251.
Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first- and second-language
proficiency in bilingual children. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language
processing in bilingual children (pp. 70–89). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
DeKeyser, R., Salaberry, R., Robinson, P., & Harrington, M. (2002).
What gets processed in processing instruction? A commen-
tary on Bill VanPatten’s “Processing instruction: An update.”
Language Learning, 52(4), 805–823. doi:10.1111/1467-9922.00204
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. New York:
Longman.
Gardner, R.C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning:
The role of attitudes and motivation. Baltimore: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R.C., & Lambert, W.E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in
second-language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Goodman, K.S. (1994). Reading, writing, and written texts: A
transactional sociopsycholinguistic view. In R.B. Ruddell, M.R.
Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes
of reading (4th ed., pp. 1093–1130). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F.L. (2002). Teaching and researching reading.
New York: Longman.
Hudson, T. (2007). Teaching second language reading. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Jourdenais, R., Ota, M., Stauffer, S., Boyson, B., & Doughty, C.
(1995). Does textual enhancement promote noticing? A think-
aloud protocol analysis. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and
awareness in foreign language learning (Technical Report No.
9, pp.  183–216). Honolulu: Second Language Teaching and
Curriculum Center, University of Hawai’i.
Katz, L., & Frost, R. (1992). The reading process is different for dif-
ferent orthographies: The orthographic depth hypothesis. In R.
Frost & L. Katz (Eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology, and
meaning (pp. 67–84). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehen-
sion: A construction–integration model. Psychological Review,
95(2), 163–182.
Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross-­
linguistic approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Koda, K., & Zehler, A.M. (Eds.). (2008). Learning to read across lan-
guages: Cross-linguistic relationships in first- and second-language
literacy development. New York: Routledge.
Krashen, S.D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second lan-
guage learning. New York: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. (1993). The effect of formal grammar teaching: Still pe-
ripheral. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 722–725.
Krashen, S.D. (1999). Seeking a role for grammar: A review of some
recent studies. Foreign Language Annals, 32(2), 245–254. doi:​10​
.1111/j.1944-9720.1999.tb02395.x
183
Krashen, S. (2004). The case for narrow reading. Language
Magazine, 3(5), 17–19.
Lee, J.F., & VanPatten, B. (1995). Making communicative language
teaching happen. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Leow, R.P. (1997). The effects of input enhancement and text length
on adult L2 readers’ comprehension and intake in second lan-
guage acquisition. Applied Language Learning, 8(2), 151–182.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
(2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to
read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research litera-
ture on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH
Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Perfetti, C.A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehen-
sion. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357–383.
Reichle, E.D., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2003). The E-Z reader
model of eye-movement control in reading: Comparisons to other
models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26(4), 445–476.
Schmidt, R.W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second lan-
guage learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. doi:10.1093/
applin/11​.2​.129
Schmidt, R. (1992). Awareness and second language acquisition.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206–226. doi:​10​.1017/
S0​26​7190500002476
Segalowitz, N. (2000). Automaticity and attentional skill in fluent
performance. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency
(pp. 200–219). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Segalowitz, N.S., & Segalowitz, S.J. (1993). Skilled performance,
practice, and the differentiation of speed-up from automatization
effects: Evidence from second language word recognition. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 14(3), 369–385. doi:10.1017/S0142716400010845
184
Siegel, J. (2003). Social context. In C.J. Doughty & M.H. Long
(Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 178–
223). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Simard, D. (2009). Differential effects of textual enhancement for-
mats on intake. System, 37(1), 124–135. doi:10.1016/j​.system​.2008​
.06​.005
Smith, M.S. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA:
Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2),
165–179. doi:10.1017/S0272263100011943
Stanovich, K.E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model
of individual differences in the development of reading fluency.
Reading Research Quarterly, 16(1), 32–71.
Stanovich, K.E., & Stanovich, P.J. (1995). How research might inform
the debate about early reading acquisition. Journal of Research in
Reading, 18(2), 87–105.
Tomlin, R.S., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science
and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 16(2), 183–203. doi:10.1017/S0272263100012870
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in
second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language
Learning, 52(4), 755–803. doi:10.1111/1467-9922.00203
White, J. (1998). Getting the learners’ attention: A typographical
input enhancement study. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.),
Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 85–
113). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hossein Nassaji is a professor of applied linguistics in the
Department of Linguistics at the University of Victoria, BC,
Canada; e-mail nassaji@uvic.ca.
Reading Research Quarterly • 46(2)
Copyright of Reading Research Quarterly is the property of International Reading Association and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.