Dictionary Use While Reading: The
Effects On Comprehension and
Vocabulary Acquisition For Students
Of Different Verbal Abilities
SUSAN KNIGHT
Department of Foreign Languages, Literatures, and Cultures
Central Michigan University
Mt. Pleasant, M I 48859
Email: 32gzbxbQcmuum.csu.cmich.edu
VOCABULARY ACQUISITION IS CONSID-
ered by many to be the single most important
aspect of foreign language learning. Not only
do the majority of students studying foreign
languages cite vocabulary as their number one
priority (16; 50; 71), but it is often considered a
priority by teachers as well. As Candlin asserts,
“The study of vocabulary is at the heart of lan-
guage teaching in terms of organization of syl-
labuses, the evaluation of learner performance,
and the provision of learning resources” (viii).
Nevertheless, while most first and second
level courses emphasize vocabulary knowledge
through their textbooks, courses with authentic
texts often lack this emphasis (16; 24; 56). It
appears that when the pedagogical focus shifts
from medium to message, when students study
literary texts instead of language texts, that the
pedagogical assumption regarding vocabulary
learning also shifts in emphasis from inten-
tional to incidental. Vocabulary is no longer a
primary classroom focus, something to be
taught and tested; but rather, something to be
acquired incidentally by the student while read-
ing. Although one popular theory of second
language acquisition (SLA) is based on this
premise of incidental vocabulary acquisition as
the result of comprehensible input (37; 38),
does this actually happen? Do students acquire
unknown words incidentally while reading? If
so, how many and to what degree?
The Modern Language Journal, 78, iii (1994)
0026-7902/94/285-299 $1.50/0
01994 The M o h n Langwgq Journal
c
An additional concern is dictionary use. Al-
though many students express reliance on dic-
tionaries (5; 69), many educators and re-
searchers discourage the practice, advising
students to guess at word meaning and to use
the dictionary only as a tool of last resort (27;
48; 63). The primary concern is that looking up
words frequently interferes with short term
memory and thus disrupts the comprehension
process. Empirical evidence to substantiate
these assertions and corresponding pedagogi-
cal practices, however, is lacking (13; 43).
Some of the unanswered questions that this
study explores are: 1) Do students indeed ac-
quire a significant amount of vocabulary while
reading? 2) Are more words learned by guessing
from context or by looking them up in a dic-
tionary? 3) Does dictionary use affect reading
comprehension? 4) Does dictionary use help
some students more than others (i.e., those of
higher or lower verbal ability levels)?
RELATED RESEARCH
These research questions are rooted in first
language (Ll) and second language (L2) vo-
cabulary investigations and particularly in
studies of contextual guessing, dictionary use,
and contextual learning.
Contextual guessing. The hypothesis that
vocabulary can be learned incidentally while
reading is not new. It has been used as a default
explanation in L1 research to account for all
words children actually learn without formal vo- ’
cabulary instruction (47).The hypothesis is also
bolstered by L1 and L2 studies showing that stu-
dents can correctly guess the meaning of un-
286
known words while reading (2; 11; 12; 31; 41; 60;
61), especially students with higher verbal ability
(17; 42; 52; 65). Other studies, however, contra-
dict these findings by showing that readers are
often unable to glean the meaning of an un-
known word from a text (4; 27; 35; 39; 55).
Part of the difficulty in interpreting the con-
flicting findings of these studies is that re-
searchers have used very different texts to test
the same construct. For example, some have
used artificial words or cloze-type blanks in-
stead of real, unknown words to test word guess-
ability (2; 12; 43; 52; 65). This practice, however,
removes clues at the morphemic level. Others
have included different amounts of contextual
support, either increasing contextual clues by
artificially constructing paragraphs to provide
rich support (11; 15; 23) or decreasing clues by
providing the word with only a single sentence
(55). Research on deriving meaning using natu-
ral texts is notably lacking.
Dictionary use. In addition to using contextual
cues to guess the meaning of an unfamiliar
word, the L2 reader often chooses another strat-
egy: looking the word up in a dictionary. Al-
though in recent years, many researchers,
teachers, and textbook authors have encour-
aged students to guess, to use inference as the
strategy of first choice (30; 48; 49; 64), this ad-
vice appears to be based more on conjecture
than on empirical findings (13). The relevant
literature regarding dictionary use falls into two
major categories: vocabulary learning and read-
ing comprehension.
In general, the practice of relying on the dic-
tionary as the primary method of increasing
students’ vocabulary has not been substantiated
by L1 research (14; 15; 20; 23). Many of the L1
investigations were comparison studies be-
tween dictionary definitions and contextual
guessing to see which condition best facilitated
the learning of new vocabulary (14; 15; 23). Al-
though the results showed contextual guessing
to be superior to dictionary definition, the
findings are confounded by the fact that many
of the texts used for the context-only condition
provided definitions or gave examples for the
targeted words-much the same as the diction-
ary condition (57; 58). In order to clarify these
findings, Stahl and Fairbanks conducted a
meta-analysis of L1 vocabulary instruction
studies and concluded that a combination of
definitional and contextual approaches is more
effective than either approach in isolation. The
L2 implication is that students would learn
more new word meanings if they could see the
The Modern Language Journal 78 (1994)
words in context and also have access to a
dictionary.
Dictionary use has also been examined with
respect to L2 reading. A recent study by
Hulstijn found no significant difference in the
number of words looked up by students with
high inferencing ability (i.e., those able to guess
word meaning from context) and students with
low inferencing ability-suggesting that some
students use dictionaries when it may not be
necessary. Likewise, the results of the seminal
Bensoussan, Sim, and Weiss study question the
benefit of dictionary use for reading compre-
hension. Their study included three investiga-
tions in which advanced English as a foreign
language students read texts in three different
dictionary conditions: monolingual, bilingual,
and no dictionary. Subjects with dictionaries
were asked to underline the words they looked
up while reading. With the text still in front of
them, the subjects answered multiple-choice
questions to check comprehension. No signifi-
cant correlations appeared between dictionary
use and reading comprehension scores in any
of the three studies. Thus, while using a diction-
ary to increase comprehension has rational ap-
peal, research evidence supporting the claim is
still lacking.
Contextual learning. Students may look up an
unknown word in a dictionary or guess its
meaning from context while reading, but later,
may not be able to remember the word or recall
its meaning. According to Pressley, Levin, and
McDaniel, guessing from context is only the
first step in learning from context (51). Four
recent L1 studies have dealt with incidental
learning of vocabulary while reading (32; 36;
46; 47). The specific results differ, but the gen-
eral findings of these studies show small but
significant gains in word knowledge after read-
ing. These results, however, have been ques-
tioned by other researchers whose studies indi-
cate that students are often unable to gather
word meaning from context (35; 55; 70).
Several learning-from-context studies have
been also been conducted in L2, but the find-
ings regarding word learning vary greatly.
White sought to duplicate an L1 study by Saragi,
Nation, and Meister in which subjects learned
sixty-eight percent of the unknown nadsat
words (i.e., neologisms of Russian origin) in
Clockwork Orange. White conducted two experi-
ments with students of English as a second lan-
guage (ESL) reading two chapters of the text.
The multiple-choice test results showed that six
percent of the thirty targeted words were
Susan Knight
learned in the first experiment and eight per-
cent in the second, percentages that were much
lower than for L1 students. White attributed the
low scores to text difficulty and to lack of back-
ground knowledge.
Much higher rates for word learning were
found by Haynes and Baker, even though sub-
jects had to supply instead of merely select the
definition. Taiwanese college students, who
had studied English for at least six years, first
read a passage on the treatment of skin wounds
and then wrote definitions for the selected
words. The freshmen learned an average of 6.9
out of thirty-six words, while seniors learned
13.6 words. The majority of these targeted
words, however, had rich textual support that
included definitions, illustrations, and exam-
ples. The differences between the findings of
the White study and the Haynes and Baker
study can perhaps be explained by the types of
words targeted (i.e., neologisms versus real
words), level of difficulty of text, and amount of
contextual support provided.
Conclusion. In summarizing the studies dis-
cussed thus far, a gap exists between what is
known about incidental vocabulary learning
and dictionary usage and what is advocated in
the classroom. The gap exists because past re-
search has not provided definitive answers to
issues of guessing from context, dictionary use,
or learning new words through reading. Contra-
dictory findings have resulted because many of
the past studies have used artificially con-
structed texts, texts that were too simple or too
difficult, or neologisms and blanks for target
words. In addition, the relationship between
reading comprehension and vocabulary acquisi-
tion has not been sufficiently examined.
THE PRESENT STUDY OVERVIEW
In an attempt to bridge these gaps, the pres-
ent study investigated incidental vocabulary
learning from context and two factors that
might influence it-whether students had ac-
cess to a dictionary and their level of verbal abil-
ity. A second factor investigated was the effect of
dictionary access on reading comprehension.
University students in intermediate-level
Spanish classes were first blocked (grouped)
according to verbal ability level and then ran-
domly distributed into one of two reading con-
ditions: dictionary access or no dictionary ac-
cess. Both groups read two Spanish magazine
articles via the computer so that the words
looked up by the dictionary group could be
287
electronically recorded. Four texts were used.
Half of the students read the first set of two
articles; the other half read the second set. All
subjects had been instructed to read for mean-
ing and were told that they would be asked to
write an immediate recall protocol. After exit-
ing the readings, subjects were first tested for
reading comprehension and then given an un-
expected vocabulary test on the targeted un-
known words (incidental learning). Although
subjects had read only one text-set, they were
tested on the targeted vocabulary of both text-
sets to provide a comparison for words learned
in context.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The present study addressed the following re-
search questions:
Incidental learning of vocabulary.
1) Is there a significant difference in sub-
jects’ vocabulary test scores after they
have seen words in context (exposure to
text containing these words) and when
they have not seen the words in context
(no exposure to text containing these
words)?
2) Is there a significant difference between
vocabulary learning measures for low
and high verbal ability students?
3) Is there a significant difference between
the vocabulary learning scores of stu-
dents who use a dictionary and those
who do not?
Reading comprehension.
4) Is there a significant difference between
reading comprehension scores for stu-
dents who use a dictionary and those
who do not?
VARIABLES
Independent variables. There were three inde-
pendent variables:
1) Exposure or no exposure to words in
context before testing (within-subject
variable). Each subject was tested on
words seen within the context of an arti-
cle and also on words seen for the first
time on a test (i.e., not in context).
2) Verbal ability (between-subject variable).
Students were divided into high and low
groupings according to their verbal
ability.
3) Dictionary access (between-subject vari-
able). Students within each verbal ability
level were randomly assigned to one of
 288
two reading conditions: dictionary ac-
cess or no dictionary access.
Dependent variables. All subjects were tested
for incidental vocabulary learning and for read-
ing comprehension.
METHOD
Subjects. All 112 Spanish 201 (second year) stu-
dents at Central Michigan University agreed to
participate in the study. Seven were eliminated
because their answers on a checklist vocabulary
test indicated prior knowledge of targeted vo-
cabulary words, leaving the total number of
subjects at 105. These students were all native
speakers of English.
The students were stratified according to
their American College Test (ACT) verbal
scores. A median split of these scores was then
used to determine high and low verbal group-
ings among the students.1
Matm’als.
1. Texts. Four authentic, Spanish articles were
selected for the readings.* The articles were
chosen by several Spanish instructors on the
basis of length, topic, difficulty, and number of
possible unknown words. Each article was no
longer than 250 words so that reading compre-
hension could be measured using the imme-
diate recall protocol. Articles exceeding the
length requirement were shortened (e.g., only
one section of an article on whales was used, a
section dealing with how whales give birth.)
Two native speakers made editing changes to
insure authenticity of the final reading selec-
tions.
In addition to the instructors’ ratings, text
difficulty for the four texts was also formally
analyzed using the Lix formula.3 Based on these
ratings, two text-sets were formed, each con-
taining two readings. (See Appendix for the
text-sets.) The purpose of using multiple texts
with similar readability levels was to control for
text type as an intervening variable in the ex-
periments as well as to control for comprehen-
sion floor and/or ceiling effects.
2. Targeted Words. Each reading contained ap-
proximately twelve unknown words that had
been targeted for measurement. Because sub-
jects were randomly assigned to text-sets of two
articles, each subject encountered twenty-four
targeted unknown words while reading.4 The
ratio of number of unknown words to number
of total words per text was chosen based on
findings of new word density studies (29). The
targeted words were not marked in any way.
The Modern Language Journal 78 (1994)
The forty-eight words (i.e., 24 in each text-
set) were chosen according to the following cri-
teria: a) selected as unknown by the subjects’
instructors, b) not included in the subjects’ text
glossary, and c) checked as unknown by the sub-
jects in the checklist vocabulary test.5 The forty-
eight selected unknown words included thirty-
one nouns, fourteen verbs, and three adjectives.
Measures and Scoring. All subjects were given
the following vocabulary and comprehension
tests:
1. Vocabulary Tests. In order to measure different
levels of word learning, two types of tests were
given. In the first, students were asked to supply
a definition (requiring a written English equiv-
alent or definition of the targeted Spanish
word). Three independent raters scored an-
swers for the supply-definition section of the
test. One point was allotted for a totally correct
answer, a half point for one showing partial
knowledge, and zero points for an incorrect an-
swer. Interrater reliability was .97
The second type of test asked students to se-
lect a definition (requiring a selection from
four possible English definitions or a fifth op-
tion, “don’t know”). The multiple choice an-
swers on the select section were written to
emphasize semantic differences, although the
distractors were similar on a syntactic level
(e.g., el galard6n = a. reward recompense /
b. leading man, suitor / c. awning, canvas /
d. enclosed narrow passageway / e. don’t know).
Each correct answer received one point.
Separate supply- and select-definition tests
were constructed for Text-Set I and Text-Set I1 to
allow for testing of two conditions: no exposure
to words in context and exposure to words in
context. Each subject read only one text-set but
was tested on the target words from both. The
scores of subjects who read the passages could
then be compared with the scores of those who
did not to determine the gain that could be
attributed to learning from context (47).
2. Recall Protocol. The instrument used to assess
reading comprehension was the immediate re-
call protocol, an instrument considered by
many to be the most appropriate measure of the
text-reader interaction (6-8; 26; 34; 40). Stu-
dents were told that they could read the text as
often as they liked and that when they were fin-
ished they would be asked to write in English
everything that they remembered from the text.
The protocols were analyzed quantitatively
using the Johnson System of weighted proposi-
tional analysis (33). In order to assign points,
the researcher and three Spanish language ex-
Susan Knight
TABLE I
Assignment of Subjects
EXPOSURE TO WORDS IN CONTEXT
Test Only
/ TS
;H
; Test-Set I
*Ability
y4)
Dic tonary
1 Text-Set I
(n = 28)
Levels
\
No Dictonary
TS
:;I;
(n = 51)
Text-Set I
(n = 26)
(* 50% of the students in the high verbal-ability group were assigned to the Dictionary Condition and
the other 50% to the No-Dictionary Condition. The same procedure was followed for the low verbal
ability group.)
perts first divided the original articles into ac-
ceptable pausal units and then ranked the units
from one to four depending on their salience to
the message of the text. Four points were given
to the units having the greatest semantic signifi-
cance, and one point to those with the least.
The student protocols were examined for accu-
rate provision of each valid proposition and
awarded points accordingly. The scores from
each article were combined to give each subject
one comprehension score for his/her assigned
text-set (i.e., 298 points possible in Text-Set I;
295, in Text-Set 11.) The scorers’ interrater re-
liability for the four texts was .95.
PROCEDURES
Preparation for the study included randomly
assigning subjects within each verbal ability
group (i.e., high or low) to the dictionary or no-
dictionary condition. Each of these conditions
was further divided according to reading
passages-either Text-Set I or Text-Set 11. (See
Table I )
The actual study was conducted on three sep-
arate days during the students’ scheduled class
hour. The following procedures are labeled ac-
cording to whether they occurred before, dur-
ing, or after the actual reading of the articles in
the computer laboratory.
Two weeks prior to reading. All subjects were
first given the checklist vocabulary test in order
to validate that all of the targeted words in both
289
EXPOSURE TO WORDS IN CONTEXT
Test Immediately Delayed Test
After Reading
Text-Set I
Text-Set I1 Text-Set I1
Text-Set I Text-Set I
Text-Set I1 Text-Set I1
text-sets were indeed unknown. Later, they were
given the no-exposure vocabulary test (i.e, a
supply- and select-definition vocabulary test
over the 24 targeted words in the text-set that
students had not been assigned to read).
Reading and testing via the computer. Two
weeks later, subjects met in the computer lab.
As each subject entered, he or she picked up a
diskette with his or her name on it. Each disk-
ette had been programmed for either diction-
ary or no dictionary access and included arti-
cles and vocabulary tests from either Text-Set I
or 11.
Subjects were told that the purpose of the
experiment was to test for reading comprehen-
sion using authentic texts. They were directed
to read each article for content and then to
write, in English, everything they could remem-
ber of what they had read. No mention was
made of the vocabulary tests nor were the tar-
geted words marked or distinguished in any
manner.
To show the students how to use the computer
program, the lab director reviewed the function-
key codes using an overhead projector attached
to a computer. In addition, these explanations
also appeared on each student’s computer
screen during the entire experiment.
The basic procedure on all diskettes was the
same. The subjects began by reading on the
computer the first of the two articles in their
text-set, taking as much time as desired. Al-
though movement throughout the text was con-
290
trolled by each student, only those in the diction-
ary condition had access to the computerized
dictionary. The computer-dictionary process
simulated actual dictionary use in two ways:
manner of lookup and type of definition pro-
vided. In order to look up any word, the sub-
jects in the access condition first pressed the
designated lookup key on the computer and
then typed the root form of the Spanish word in
the box. If they entered an incorrect form, the
three words that would alphabetically precede
the false entry in the dictionary as well as the
three words that would succeed the entry were
displayed on the screen along with instructions:
“Word not found. Try one of these . . .” Once
the correct root was supplied,. the dictionary
definitions appeared immediately.6 All diction-
ary displays appeared in the center of the
screen and covered the majority of the text,
making contextualizations of the various defini-
tions as difficult as it might be in a paper-
dictionary situation.
The computer was programmed to tabulate
each word a subject looked up, thus providing
an actual dictionary-use count for all the words
in each passage. In addition, the program re-
corded the amount of time each student spent
reading an article.
After exiting each reading, subjects wrote re-
calls in English of everything they could remem-
ber.’ Following the last recall protocol, students
were administered an unexpected supply- and
select-definition vocabulary test over the
twenty-four targeted words in the text-set that
they had just read.
As students completed the program, the in-
formation stored on their diskettes (i.e., test re-
sults, reading time, words looked up) was auto-
matically printed out on the mainframe printer.
Two weeks afterreading. Subjects took a delayed
supply- and select-definition test over the same
targeted words encountered in their text-set in
order to measure long-term retention. Al-
though this was a paper and pencil test, the
content and the order were identical to that
taken in the computer lab two weeks earlier.
DATA ANALYSIS
Appropriate analyses of variance (ANOVA)
and post-hoc tests were conducted on both de-
pendent measures: vocabulary test scores (im-
mediate and delayed) and reading comprehen-
sion scores. Additional data were provided by
simultaneous measures taken by the computer
during reading (i.e., reading time and the num-
The Modern Language Journal 78 (1994)
ber of words looked up). Both of these measures
were designed as descriptive measures and were
not considered part of the experimental design
per se.
A two-between, one-within subject design was
used to analyze incidental vocabulary learning.
The between-factor variables included two
levels of verbal ability (high and low) and two
levels of reading condition (dictionary and no
dictionary). The within factor was the presence
of exposure (exposure and no exposure) to un-
known words in written context. The depen-
dent measures were scores on immediate and
delayed supply- and select-definition vocabu-
lary tests.
To assess reading comprehension, a two-
between subject design was used: verbal ability
(high and low) and reading condition (diction-
ary and no dictionary). The dependent meas-
ure was the combined scores of the recall proto-
cols for each text-set.
In addition, Pearson correlation coefficients
were found for the number of words looked up
and vocabulary and recall scores.
RESULTS
Incidental learning: vocabulary acquisition (Hy-
potheses one to three). Means and standard devia-
tions for both types of vocabulary tests-supply
definition (i.e., write the English equivalent)
and select definition (i.e., choose the correct
English equivalent) are presented in Tables I1
and 111, respectively. Each test was given imme-
diately after reading and also two weeks later.
The maximum possible score on each measure
was twenty-four points, one for each targeted
word.
Hol: There will be no significant difference between the
exposure and the no-exposure conditions on the results of
vocabulary learning measures. Although the aver-
age supply-definition score was only 3.38 words
for immediate testing and 2.86 for delayed test-
ing, these means were significantly different
from the no-exposure mean of .15. Likewise, the
average select-definition scores for the immedi-
ate test (11.73 words) and for the delayed test
(10.20 words) were also significantly different
from the no-exposure mean of 1.8 words (p <
.001).
There were also significant first-order inter-
actions on each of the four ANOVAs. On the
supply-definition scores, exposure interacted
with dictionary on the immediate results (p <
.001) and on the delayed results (p = .012). A
comparison of pairwise means indicated that
Susan Knight 291
TABLE I1
Supply-Definition Tests. Means and Standard Deviations of Supply-Definition Vocabulary Scores as a
Function of Exposure, Ability Level, and Dictionary Condition
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~

NO EXPOSURE EXPOSURE (IMMEDIATE TEST) EXPOSURE (DELAYED)

Dictionary No Dictionary OVERALL Dictionary No Dictionary OVERALL
mean S.D. mean S.D. mean S.D. mean S.D. mean S.D. mean S.D. mean .S.D.
Highverbal Ability .25 (.72) 5.39 (2.52) 2.02 (1.18) 3.80 (2.61) 3.44 (2.32) 3.13 (1.91) 3.29 (2.12)
(n = 51) (n = 27) (n = 24) (n = 51) (n = 27) (n = 24) (n = 51)
Low Verbal Ability .07 (.26) 4.52 (2.89) 1.44 (1.51) 2.98 (2.76) 3.31 (2.48) 1.57 (1.59) 2.44 (2.24)
(n = 54) (n = 27) (n = 27) (n = 54) (n = 27) (n = 27) (n = 54)
OVERALL .15 (.54) 4.95 (2.72) 1.72 (1.38) 3.38 (2.71) 3.37 (2.38) 2.30 (1.90) 2.86 (2.22)
(N = 105) (n = 54) (n = 51) (N = 105) (n = 54) (n = 51) (N = 105)
(24 points possible)

TABLE I11
Select-Definition Tests. Means and Standard Deviations of Select-Definition Vocabulary Scores as a
Function of Exposure, Ability Level, and Dictionary Condition

NO EXPOSURE EXPOSURE (IMMEDIATETEST) EXPOSURE (DELAYED)

Dictionary No Dictionary OVERALL Dictionary No Dictionary OVERALL
mean S.D. mean S.D. mean S.D. mean S.D. mean S.D. mean S.D. mean S.D.
High Verbal Ability 1.88 (1.68) 15.22 (4.47) 10.21 (2.83) 12.86 (4.52) 13.48 (4.34) 9.92 (3.16) 11.80 (4.20)
(n = 51) (n = 27) (n = 24) (n = 51) (n = 27) (n = 24) (n = 51)
Low Verbal Ability 1.74 (1.94) 13.88 (4.49) 7.44 (3.34) 10.67 (5.10) 11.00 (4.04) 6.41 (3.19) 8.70 (4.29)
(n = 54) (n = 27) (n = 27) (n = 54) (n = 27) (n = 27) (n = 54)
OVERALL 1.80 (1.81) 14.56 (4.49) 8.75 (3.38) 11.73 (4.93) 12.24 (4.33) 8.06 (3.61) 10.20 (4.50)
(N = 105) (n = 54) (n = 51) (N = 105) (n = 54) (n = 51) (N = 105)
(24 points possible)

although all subjects learned more words when
they were exposed to them in context than
when they were not, those who had dictionary
access learned the most. A Least Squares Means
post-hoc test indicated that the no-exposure
means were not significantly different from one
another, yet all other immediate and delayed
supply-definition comparisons were signifi-
cant. Thus, all subjects, regardless of verbal abil-
ity level, were unable to correctly supply many
word meanings without first being able to see
the targeted words in context.
ANOVA results for select-definition scores,
both immediate and delayed, revealed two first-
order interactions: exposure*dictionary and
exposure*ability. Although subjects identified
the meaning of more words after reading them
in context than they did before, those who had
dictionary access identified the most. Similarly,
high verbal ability students learned more words
from context than low ability students reading
the same articles. All post- hoc test comparisons
found the difference in no-exposure scores to
be nonsignificant and the difference in the ex-
posure scores significant on every measure.
The null hypothesis was thus rejected.
Ho2: There will be no significant differences between
low verbal ability and high verbal ability subjects on the
vocabulary learning measures. Means differed sig-
nificantly for high and low verbal ability levels
on the immediate supply-definition test (3.80
and 2.98, respectively; p = .049); on the delayed
supply-definition test (3.29 and 2.44; p = .023);
on the immediate select-definition test (12.86
and 10.67; p = .009); and the delayed select-
definition test (11.80 and 8.70; p <.001). The null
hypothesis was rejected.
Ho3: There will be no significant differences between
the dictionary access and no-dictionary access condi-
tions on the scores of vocabulary learning measures.
Immediately after reading, those subjects with
dictionary access achieved a supply-definition
mean score of 4.95 words while those without
access obtained a mean score of 1.72. Two weeks
later, the dictionary group mean was 3.37 and
the no-dictionary group mean, 2.3. Both of
these comparisons were significant ( p < .001
and p = .024, respectively.)
292
TABLE IV
Means and Standard Deviations of Recall Scores as a Function of Ability Level, and Dictionary Condition
Dictionary
mean S.D.
High Verbal Ability 80.33 27.42
(n = 27)
Low Verbal Ability 67.70 26.14
(n = 27)
OVERALL 74.01 27.29
(n = 54)
(297 points possible)
On the select-definition measures, subjects
having access to the dictionary had a mean
score of 14.6 on the immediate test and 12.2 on
the delayed test compared to the no-dictionary
group with respective means of 8.8 and 8.1. The
immediate and delayed comparisons were both
significant at p < ,001. No significant interaction
appeared on any of the four tests between dic-
tionary condition and verbal ability level.
Reading com$n-ehension.
Ho4: There will be no significant dqference between the
dictionary access/no-dictionary access conditions on
reading comprehension scores. As seen in Table W,
the dictionary group had an overall reading
comprehension mean of 74.01, while the no-
dictionary group attained an overall mean of
56.65. The ANOVA indicated a significant dif-
ference between the two means (p < .001). The
null hypothesis is therefore rejected.
Another ANOVA was performed on these
reading comprehension scores, but it included
text-set as an additional independent variable
in order to verify that comprehension did not
vary according to text. Text type was not signifi-
cant (p = .739).
DISCUSSION AND ADDITIONAL FINDINGS
Word karning: The above results indicate that
subjects indeed learn a significant number of
new words while reading for meaning; however,
high verbal ability students learn more words
than low verbal ability students, and students
who use a dictionary learn more than those who
do not. These results become more meaningful
when converted into learning percentages. A
method similar to one proposed by Nagy, Her-
man, and Anderson (47) was used to determine
the percentage of words learned while reading
with or without a dictionary. The no-exposure
mean score (which represents how many words
the subject could guess without seeing the
words in context) was subtracted from the ex-
The Modern Language Journal 78 (1994)
No Dictionary OVERALL
mean S.D. mean S.D.
67.83 22.54 74.45 25.77
(n = 24) (n = 51)
46.70 19.53 57.20 25.19
(n = 27) (n = 54)
56.65 23.35 65.58 26 .79
(n = 51) (N.= 105)
posure mean score and then divided by the to-
tal number of words per test (i.e., twenty four).
Table V summarizes the percentage results.
The select-definition test reflected the learn-
ing of a greater number of words than the
supply-definition test. This difference was ex-
pected, however, because each test taps a differ-
ent type or degree of learning. Normally, when
a word is encountered once in context, the
amount of learning that occurs is small-
allowing only for recognition of a similar defini-
tion rather than production (18; 48; 59). In this
study, forty-three of the forty-eight words ap-
peared only once in the readings; four ap-
peared twice; and one appeared five times.
An unusual finding surfaced in the no-
dictionary condition between immediate and
delayed supply-definition scores-after two
weeks both ability groups somehow learned ad-
ditional words. Possible explanations are that
subjects may have learned the meanings after
leaving the test setting or perhaps confirmed
suspicions during the succeeding select-
definition test. Although the word increase is
small, it is interesting that this effect did not
occur in the dictionary condition, suggesting
perhaps that the no-dictionary group processed
the information more deeply (i.e., learned the
words better), perhaps because more analysis
was needed initially to discover the meaning.
In order to compare the results of this study
with those of past studies, it is necessary to dis-
tinguish between the findings of those who had
dictionary access and those who did not.
1) Words learningfor those without dictionary access.
The learning from context percentages are con-
sistent with results found in similar L1 studies
(e.g., 32, 36, 46, 47). The Nagy, Herman, and
Anderson (47) study-which was most similar
to the present study in terms of using authentic
texts, manner of selecting unknown words, and
types of vocabulary measures-found that the
likelihood of a subject’s learning a word was
Susan Knight
TABLE V
Percentage of Words Learned Incidentally
SUPPLY
Immediate
NO DICTIONARY
High Verbal Ability 7%
Low Verbal Ability 5%
DICTIONARY
High Verbal Ability 21%
Low Verbal Ability 19%
(% = percentage of words learned after corrected for guessing)
# correct on Exposure test - # correct on No-Exposure test
%=
24 possible words
between .15 and .22 for the select-definition
test and between .I1 and .19 for the supply-defi-
nition test depending on the level of question
difficulty.
The two previously mentioned L2 studies also
provide comparative percentages for new word
learning. In White’s study of ESL students read-
ing parts of Clockwork Orange, select-definition
findings were much lower than those found in
the current study (i.e., ESL subjects learned 6%
of the words for the first experiment and 8% on
the second; compared to 29% in the present
study). As White concluded, however, these low
results may have been related to passage diffi-
culty or to insufficient time to finish reading
the passage.
Considerably higher percentages of word
learning were found in the Haynes and Baker
study; for example, on immediate supply-
definition measures, Taiwanese college fresh-
men learned nineteen percent of the targeted
words while college seniors learned thirty-eight
percent. Their study, however, focused on lexi-
cal familiarizations and thus provided either a
direct definition, synonym, or illustration of
the new concept. In the present study, targeted
words were selected only because they were un-
known, not because they had strong contextual
support.
2) Word learning for those with dictionary access.
Although the dictionary condition increased
the percentage of words learned for both verbal
ability levels, it appeared to give the low verbal
ability group a special advantage. For example,
on the immediate-select-definition test, the dic-
tionary condition enabled the low verbal ability
students to learn almost as many words as the
high verbal students in the same condition (51%
and 55%, respectively).
Reading comprehension. The main effects
293
SELECT
Delayed Immediate Delayed
11% 35% 33%
6% 23% 20%
13% 55% 48%
14% 51% 39%
found for the dictionary condition seem to con-
tradict the study by Bensoussan, Sim, and Weiss,
which found no significant difference in com-
prehension scores for those who used diction-
aries and those who did not. Although there
were several major differences between the
studies, one of the most important is the profi-
ciency level of the subjects. Even the low profi-
ciency subjects in the Bensoussan et al.’s re-
search had studied English for seven years and,
in comparison to the present study, would be
considered advanced. When the reading com-
prehension scores were divided according to
verbal ability level, no significant difference was
found for the high verbal ability groups in the
dictionary and the no-dictionary condition-a
finding similar to that of Bensoussan et al. This
was not true, however, for the low verbal ability
group whose dictionary/no-dictionary scores
were significantly different (p = .002). (See Ta-
ble IV for mean scores.) In addition, it was
found that although there were significant dif-
ferences between scores of the low and high
verbal ability groups in the no-dictionary condi-
tion, these differences were not significant in
the dictionary condition. Partial explanation
for this finding may come from studies showing
that beginning readers are much more depend-
ent on vocabulary for comprehension than are
more proficient readers (6; 9).
Word lookup. It was initially assumed that sub-
jects who had access to the dictionary would use
the dictionary frequently. To check this hypoth-
esis, the computer was programmed to tabulate
words actually looked up. The low verbal ability
subjects in the dictionary condition accessed an
average of 35.62 words per text-set while the
high verbal ability subjects averaged 43.41
words.
Table VI presents Pearson correlation coeffi-
294 The Modern Language Journal 78 (1994)
TABLE VI
Number of Words Looked Up Correlated with Vocabulary and Recall Scores for High and Low Verbal
Ability Groups

VOCABULARY RECALL
Immediate Delayed
Supply Select Supply Select
Low: .24 .54 -.01 .54 .68
p = .224 p = .003 p = .945 p = .004 p < .001
High: .10 .40 -.01 .48 .17
p = ,603 p = .041 p = ,984 p = .011 p = .397

TABLE VII
Means and Standard Deviations for Reading Time in Minutes According to Ability and Dictionary
Condition
~

No Dictionary Dictionary OVERALL

Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
Low 18.92 5.38 27.29 10.62 23.10 9.35
High 20.49 4.89 28.95 8.92 24.97 8.40
OVERALL 19.66 5.16 28.11 9.75 24.01 8.91

cients between the number of words looked up
and scores on the vocabulary and recall meas-
ures for subjects according to ability level. On
the vocabulary measures, higher correlations
were found for select-definition test scores than
for supply-definition, for the low verbal ability
students than for the high, for the recall meas-
ure than for the vocabulary measures. Correla-
tions were higher for low verbal ability subjects
on both vocabulary scores and reading compre-
hension scores. The high correlation between
recall scores and number of words looked up
for the low verbal ability group (.68) seems to
indicate that dictionary lookup does not dis-
rupt the short-term memory, but rather en-
hances comprehension. On the other hand, the
low correlation (.17) for the high verbal ability
group makes the efficacy of dictionary lookup
questionable, a finding that corroborates the
results of Bensoussan, Sim, and Weiss.
Reading time. In addition to recording the
words solicited from the dictionary, the com-
puter also recorded the reading time for each
passage. These data, when combined with the
mean vocabulary and recall scores, were used to
produce time-learning comparisons for the dif-
ferent conditions. Overall means and standard
deviations for time are presented in Table VII.
As noted in Table VII, the subjects in the dic-
tionary condition spent more time on the pas-
sages than those in the no-dictionary condition.
This may have been time spent comprehending
the passage, accessing the dictionary, or a com-
bination of both. Because the subjects in the
dictionary condition also scored higher on the
vocabulary and recall measures than those is
the no-dictionary condition, the question be-
comes: Can the increase in learning be attrib-
uted simply to the increase in time? In order to
determine this, the increase in time between
the no-dictionary and the dictionary condition
was calculated for each ability group. These per-
centages appear in Table VIII along with the
increase in scores on the dependent measures
that occurred between the no-dictionary and
dictionary condition.
High verbal ability subjects with dictionary
access spent forty-one percent more time read-
ing and looking up words than did their no-
dictionary counterparts. Only two of the de-
pendent measures, however, exhibited an equal
or greater increase than did the time measure.
Reading comprehension scores increased only
eighteen percent.
Low verbal ability subjects with dictionary ac-
cess spent forty-four percent more time in the
reading mode than did their no-dictionary
counterparts. Yet, every dependent measure
shows a similar or greater increase in learning.
Thus, although reading comprehension in-
creases proportionally with time under this con-
dition, the amount of vocabulary learned in-
creases in greater proportion. This analysis of
time on task demonstrates that the low verbal
ability subjects benefited from the dictionary
more than high verbal ability subjects.
Susan Knight
TABLE VIII
Percentage Increases in Time and Dependent Variable Scores from the No-Dictionary Condition to the
Dictionary Condition for High and Low Verbal Ability Groups
Time Immediate Delayed
Supply Supply
High 41.3 166.8 9.9
Low 44.2 213.8 110.8
IMPLICATIONS
Pedagogicalimplications. This study offers data
that speaks to three pedagogical questions:
1) Can intermediate-level FL students learn a
significant amount of new vocabulary through
reading? 2) Should teachers encourage guess-
ing or dictionary use? 3) Should different ap-
proaches be encouraged for students of differ-
ent ability levels?
Results demonstrate that intermediate-level
FL students reading short texts (i.e., approx-
imately 450 words for each text-set) can indeed
learn new vocabulary while reading, whether
they guess' from context or use a dictionary.
These findings, however, do not mean that
words are learned more completely or more
quickly through reading than through formal
instruction, merely that significant incidental
learning does occur. The results suggest that
reading-with or without a dictionary-is an-
other viable way of increasing vocabulary and
should be encouraged.
The second question addresses the wide-
spread practice of advising students to guess
word meaning and refrain from dictionary use.
The findings of this study shown in Tables 11-V
do not support those assumptions. Subjects who
used the dictionary not only learned more
words but also achieved higher reading compre-
hension scores than those who guessed from
context. In addition, correlations between ac-
tual number of words looked u p and recall
scores reinforce the finding that comprehen-
sion does not suffer as a result of dictionary use.
Caution must be used in interpreting these re-
sults, however, because when time is taken into
consideration for high verbal ability subjects
(Table VIII), the benefits attributed to diction-
ary use become questionable.
It is precisely this third question, regarding
students of different ability levels, that presents
the most interesting pedagogical implications.
Low verbal ability subjects are at a disadvantage
when they are simply told to guess from context.
They are more dependent than high verbal abil-
295
Immediate Delayed Recall
Select Select
49.1 35.9 18.4
86.5 71.6 45.0
ity subjects on vocabulary knowledge, as seen in
correlations between number of words looked
up and vocabulary scores and in correlations
between number of words looked up and recall
scores. In addition, although it was found that
both ability levels spent more time reading in
the dictionary condition than in the no-
dictionary condition, only the low verbal ability
group exhibited proportionately similar or
greater increases in vocabulary learning and in
reading comprehension scores.
These results have even greater significance
considering that high ability and low ability
subjects in this study were defined by a median
split of all subjects. Had blocking occurred in
three sections-to include an average verbal
ability group-the high and low differences
may well have been even greater.
In light of these findings, the common prac-
tice of encouraging all students to guess word
meaning from context must be re-examined.
Unless low verbal ability students are somehow
able to improve their ability to derive meaning
from context, dictionary use should be en-
couraged. On the other hand, it appears that
many high verbal ability students refer to the
dictionary when they have already correctly
guessed the meaning, a finding confirming that
of Hulstijn. Teachers should be aware of these
tendencies and be prepared to offer different
strategy assistance to different types of learners.
It is important to note that although the major-
ity of subjects in this study had previous classes
in which guessing from context and dictionary
use were addressed, this instruction was mini-
mal. Intense instruction in either area might
have produced different results.
An additional pedagogical implication from
this study relates to computer technology in FL
reading. Past research (21; 22; 53; 66; 67) has
shown no significant difference between com-
prehension scores or reading rates of students
reading from traditional texts and those read-
ing from computer screens when the material is
presented in a similar manner. Indeed, the ma-
jority of students in the present study not only
296
f o u n d it easy t o read articles on t h e c o m p u t e r
screen and t o adjust to t h e dictionary lookup,
b u t stated t h a t they enjoyed the process as well.
As universities b e c o m e m o r e technologically
based, programs of this s o r t may be used f o r
purposes o t h e r t h a n research.
Research suggestions. This study has focused on
vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehen-
s i o n of c o l l e g e i n t e r m e d i a t e - l e v e l S p a n i s h
learners using s h o r t texts. F u r t h e r investiga-
tions are needed to d e t e r m i n e whether these
conclusions c a n be extrapolated to different
levels o f s t u d e n t s or different types of texts
(e.g., texts that are longer, m o r e difficult, or
have a different density of unknown words). Ad-
ditionally, different types of dictionaries should
be examined-monolingual as well as bilingual.
T h i s study focused on bilingual dictionaries be-
cause they are more widely u s e d by undergradu-
a t e FL students; however, monolingual diction-
aries may produce different results.
Although there are many misconceptions re-
g a r d i n g d i c t i o n a r y u s a g e ( 5 ) , this study has
shown t h a t dictionary use c a n b o t h a i d compre-
hension and increase vocabulary acquisition.
The f i n d i n g s f o r students o f different verbal
abilities are especially interesting and should en-
courage researchers t o investigate o t h e r learner
variables. How vocabulary is acquired and what
facilitates t h a t acquisition are important con-
cerns f o r researchers, teachers, and students.
NOTES
‘The fifty-one subjects in the high verbal ability
group had an average verbal ACT score of 24.2 (SD =
1.8).The fifty-four subjects in the low verbal ability
group had an average score of 19.3 (SD = 1.5).
*The four articles were “Las ballenas de Punta
Mita,” Caminos del aire (1); “Tocuaro, la fiesta de 10s
negritos,” Mixico desconocido (62); “Los invencibles
maremotos,” Amhicas (44), and “Los genios del
hipbdromo,” Mris (45).
3The Lix formula is a readability formula recom-
mended by Schulz for use in analyzing foreign texts.
It is derived from combining the number of words in
an article by the number of sentences and adding that
total to the number of long words (i.e., over 6 letters)
multiplied by 100 and divided by the number of words
in the text. The Lix average for the two articles/text-
set was almost identical: Text-Set I = 43.95, Text-Set I1
= 43.25.
4Following are the targeted words from each text-
set. Text-Set I: la ballena, la yubarta, el parto, la
bahia, dar a luz, la cria, la partera, la tonelada, la
hembra, amedrentar, rastrear, el velo, la bocanada,
The Modern Language Journal 78 (1994)
tallar, el disfraz, el levantamiento, labrar, la travesura,
fulminado, Tocuaro, tentar, alborotar, ataviado, la
carcajada. Text-Set 11: adiestrar, el jinete, las canas, el
roble, la pista, la cifra, el heredero, el son, la hada, el
galardbn, alimentar, ceder, el hipismo, el puesto, la
tripulacibn, recostado, descabezando (descabezar),
el casco, el maremoto, la caxionera, atravesar, fon-
dear, la onda, azotado (azotar).
5The checklist vocabulary test is a pre-test based on
Anderson and Freebody’s Yes/No Vocabulary Test
used to test for prior knowledge of the selected unfa-
miliar words. Working from a list of vocabulary words,
subjects simply check whether or not they know the
meaning of a word. (In addition to the 48 targeted
words, 26 other words were chosen from a wide range
of frequencies along with 6 nonwords.)
6The computer program, including the dictionary,
was designed specifically for this project. All of the
words in the two text-sets were included. The diction-
ary entries were based on definitions in the Harper
Collins Spanish-English Dictionary and the Diccionario esen-
cia1 ingk-espaiiol espaiiol-ingk diifora, each containing
approximately 50,000 entries. The parts of speech
along with various bilingual equivalents and idioma-
tic expressions were provided.
’Students who preferred to write recalls by hand
instead of on the computer were permitted to do so.
Only two students preferred to write by hand.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Alisua, P. “Las ballenas de Punta Mita.” Caminos del
Aire March 1988: 74-80.
2. Ames, Wilbur S. “The Development of a Classifica-
tion Scheme of Contextual Aids.” Reading Re-
search Quarter4 2 (1966): 57-82.
3. Anderson, Richard C. & Peter Freebody. “Reading
Comprehension and the Assessment and Acqui-
sition of Word Knowledge.” Advances in Reading/
Language Research 2 (1983): 231-56.
4. Bensoussan, Marsha & Batia Laufer. “Lexical Guess-
ing in Context in EFL Reading Comprehension.”
Journal @Research in Reading 7 (1984): 15-32.
5. - ,Donald Sim & Razelle Weiss. “The Effect of
Dictionary Usage on EFL Test Performance
Compared With Student and Teacher Attitudes
and Expectations.” Reading in a Foreign Language
2 (1984): 262-76.
6. Bernhardt, Elizabeth B. ReadingDevelopment in a Sec-
ond Language. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing
Corporation, 1991.
7. - . “Three Approaches to Reading Compre-
hension in Intermediate German.” Modern Lan-
guageJournal 67 (1983): 111-15.
8. -& Charles J.James. “The Teaching and Test-
ing of Comprehension in Foreign Language
Learning.” Proficiency, Policy and Professionalism in
Foreign Language Education. Ed. D. W. Birck-
bichler. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook
Company, 1987: 65-81.
Susan Knight
9. Brisbois, Judith. “Do First Language Writing and
Second Language Reading Equal Second Lan-
guage Reading Comprehension? An Assess-
ment Dilemma.” Diss., Ohio State Univ., 1992.
10. Candlin, Christopher N. Preface. Vocabulary and
Language Teaching.Ed. R. Carter & M. McCarthy.
New York: Longman, 1988.
11. Carnine, Douglas, Edward J. Kameenui & Gayle
Coyle. “Utilization of Contextual Information in
Determining the Meaning of Unfamiliar Words.”
Reading Research Quarterb 19 (1984): 188-94.
12. Carroll, B. & P. Drum. “The Effects of Context
Clue Type and Variations in Content on the
Comprehension of Unknown Words.” New In-
quiries in Reading Research and Instruction. Thirty-
First Yearbook of the National Reading Confwence. Ed.
J. Niles & L. A. Harris. Rochester, NY: National
Reading Conference, 1982: 89-93.
13. Carter, Ronald & Michael McCarthy. Vocabulary and
Language Teaching. New York: Longman, 1988.
14. Crist, Robert L. “Learning Concepts From Contexts
and Definitions: A Single Subject Replication.”
Journal ofReading Behavior 13 (1981): 271-77.
15. -& J. M. Petrone. “Learning Concepts From
Contexts and Definitions. Journal of Reading Be-
havior 9 (1977): 301-03.
16. Crow, John T. “Receptive Vocabulary Acquisition
for Reading Comprehension.” Modern Language
Journal 70 (1986): 242-50.
17. Daneman, Meredyth & Ian Green. “Individual Dif-
ferences in Comprehending and Producing
Words in Context.” Journal of M m q and Lan-
guage 25 (1986): 1-18.
18. Deighton, L. C. Vocabulary Development in the C h s -
room. New York: Bureau of Publications,
Teacher’s College, Columbia Univ., 1959.
19. Diccionario esencial ingk-espafiol espaiiol-ingk d i b f i a
1st ed. Barcelona, Spain: Cassell, 1981.
20. Eeds, Maryann & Ward A. Cockrum. “Teaching
Word Meanings by Expanding Schemata vs.
Dictionary Work vs. Reading in Context.” Jour-
nal ofReading (1985): 492-97.
21. Feldman, Shirley C. & Marian C. Fish. Reading
Comprehension of High School Students on Print VS.
Microcomputer-Generated Text. Washington, DC,
1987. [ERIC DOC ED 282 1751.
22. Gillingham, Mark G. “Text in Computer-Based In-
struction: What the Research Says.” Journal of
Computer-Bused Instruction 15 (1988): 1-6.
23. Gipe, Joan. “The Teaching of Word Meanings.”
Reading Research @arten$ 14 (1978-1979): 624-
44.
24. Hague, Sally A. “vocabulary Instruction: What L2
Can Learn From Ll.” Foreign LanguageAnnals20
(1987): 217-25.
25. Harper Collins Spanish-English English-Spanish Diction-
ary. New York: William Collins Sons, 1990.
26. Hayes, John R. The Complete Problem Solvm Hills-
dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1989.
27. Haynes, Margot. “Patterns and Perils of Guessing
in Second Language Reading.” Annual Con-
297
vention of Teachers of English to Speakers of
Other Languages, Toronto, Canada, 1983.
[ERIC DOC ED 275 1491.
28. -& Ila Baker. “American and Chinese
Readers Learning from Lexical Familiarization
in English Text.” Second Language Reading and
Vocabulary Learning. Ed. Thomas Huckin, Mar-
got Haynes & James Coady. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex, 1993: 130-52.
29. Holley, Freda M. “Study of Vocabulary Learning
in Context: The Effect of New Word Density in
German Reading Materials.” Foreign Language
Annals 6 (1973): 339-47.
30. Hosenfeld, Carol, Vicki Arnold, Jeanne Kirchofer,
Judith Laciura & Lucia Wilson. “Second Lan-
guage Reading: A Curricular Sequence for
Teaching Reading Strategies.” Foreign Language
Annals 14 (1981): 415-22.
31. Hulstijn, Jan H. “When Do Foreign-Language
Readers Look Up the Meaning of Unfamiliar
Words? The Influence of Task and Learner Vari-
ables.’’ Moden LanguageJournal77 (1993):139-47.
32. Jenkins, Joseph R., Mary L. Stein & Katherine Wy-
socki. “Learning Vocabulary Through Read-
ing.” American Educational Research Journal 21
(1984): 767-87.
33. Johnson, Ronald E. “Recall of Prose as a Function
of the Structural Importance of the Linguistic
Units.” Journal of Vwbal Learning and Verbal Behav-
ior 9 (1970): 12-20,
34. Johnston, P. H. Reading Comprehension Assessment: A
Cognitive Basis. Newark, D E International Read-
ing Association, 1983.
35. Kelly, P. “Guessing: No Substitute for Systematic
Learning of Lexis.” System 18 (1990): 199-207.
36. Konopak, Bonnie, Catherine Sheard, Debbie
Longman, Barbara Lyman, Edith Slaton,
Rhonda Atkinson & Dana Thames. “Incidental
Versus Intentional Word Learning From Con-
text.” Reading Psychology 8 (1987): 7-21.
37. Krashen, Stephen D. “We Acquire Vocabulary and
Spelling by Reading: Additional Evidence for
the Input Hypothesis.” Modern LanguageJournal,
73 (1989): 440-64.
38. - . The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications.
New York: Longman, 1985.
39. Laufer, Batia & Donald D. Sim. “Does the EFL
Reader Need Reading Strategies More Than
Language?” Paper, IATEFL Conference, Lon-
don, UK, December, 1981.
40.Lee, James F. “On the Use of the Recall Task to
Measure L2 Reading Comprehension.” Studies
in Second Language Acquisition 8 (1986): 83-93.
41. Liu, Na & I.S.P. Nation. “Factors Affecting Guess-
ing Vocabulary in Context.” RELC Journal 16
(1985): 33-42.
42. McKeown, Margaret G. “The Acquisition of Word
Meaning From Context by Children of High
and Low Ability.” Outstanding Diss. Mono-
graph. International Reading Association,
Newark, DE, 1986. [ERIC DOC ED 297 3151.
298
43. Marzano, Robert J. & Jana Marzano. A Cluster Ap-
proach to Elementary Vocabulary Instruction. Inter-
national Reading Association, 1988.
44. Mooney, J. J. “Los invencibles maremotos.” Am&
icm 42 (1990): 25-28.
45. Mufiiz, Clemson Smith. “Los genios del hip6-
dromo.” M h Fall 1990: 42-43.
46. Nagy, William, Richard C. Anderson & Patricia
Herman. “Learning Word Meaning From Con-
text During Normal Reading.” A m ’ c a n Educa-
tional Research Journal 24 (1987): 237-70.
47. - , Patricia Herman & Richard Anderson.
“Learning Words From Context.” Reading Re-
search Quarterly 2 0 (1985): 233-53.
48. Nation, I.S.P. Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. New
York: Newbury House, 1990.
49. -& James Coady. “Vocabulary and Read-
ing.” Vocabulary and Language Zaching Ed. R.
Carter & M. McCarthy. New York: Longman,
1988: 97-110.
50. Nunan, David. The Learner-Centered Curriculum. New
York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1988.
51. Pressley, M., J. R. Levin & M. A. McDaniel. “Remem-
bering Versus Inferring What a Word Means:
Mnemonic and Contextual Approaches.” The Na-
ture of Vocabulary Acquisition. Ed. M. McKeown &
M. Curtis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1987 107-27.
52. Quealy, Roger J. “Senior High School Students’
Use of Contextual Aids in Reading.” Reading Re-
search Quarterly 4 (1969): 512-33.
53. Reinking, David. “Computer-Mediated Text and
Comprehension Differences: The Role of Read-
ing Time, Reader Preference, and Estimation
of Learning.” Reading Research Quarterly 23
(1988): 484-98.
54. Saragi, T., I. S. P. Nation & G. F. Meister. “Vocabu-
lary Learning and Reading.” System 6 (1978):
72-78.
55. Schatz, Elinore K. & R. Scott Baldwin. “Context
Clues Are Unreliable Predictors of Word Mean-
ings.” Reading Research Quarterly 21 (1986): 439-
53.
56. Schulz, Renate A. “Literature and Readability:
Bridging the Gap in Foreign Language Read-
ing.’’ Modern LanguageJournal 65 (1981): 43-53.
57. Stahl, Steven A. “To Teach a Word Well: A Frame-
work for Vocabulary Instruction.” Reading World
24 (1985): 16-25.
58. - . “Differential Word Knowledge and Read-
ing Comprehension.” Journal of Reading Behavior
15 (1983): 33-50.
59. -& Marilyn Fairbanks. “The Effects of Vo-
cabulary Instruction: A Model-Based Meta-
Analysis.” Review ofEducationalResearch 56 (1986):
72-110.
60. Sternberg, Robert. “Most Vocabulary is Learned
From Context.” The Nature of Vocabulary Acquisition.
Ed. Margaret G. McKeown & Mary E. Curtis.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
1987: 89-105.
61. -& Jane Powell. “Comprehending Verbal
The Modern Language Journal 78 (1994)
Comprehension.” American Psychologist 38
(1983): 878-93.
62. Stransky, L. A. “Tocuaro, La Fiesta de Los Ne-
gritos.” Mixico desconocido 168 (1991): 14-16.
63. Summers, Della. “The Role of Dictionaries in
Language Learning.” Vocabulary and Language
Zaching Ed. R. Carter & M. McCarthy. New
York: Longman, 1988: 111-25.
64. Twaddell, F. “Vocabulary Expansion in the ESL
Classroom.” TESOL Quarterly 7 (1973): 61-78.
65. Van Daalen-Kapteijns, M. Maartje & Marianne
Elshout-Mohr. “The Acquisition of Word Mean-
ings as a Cognitive Learning Process.” Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 20 (1981): 386-
99.
66. Wepner, Shelly &Joan Feeley. “College Students’
Reading Efficiency With Computer-Presented
Text.” Paper, International Reading Associa-
tion, Anaheim, CA, 1987.
67. - ,Joan Feeley & Sara Wilde. “Using Com-
puters in College Reading Courses?” Journal of
Developmental Education 13 (1989): 6-24.
68. White, William Howard. “Vocabulary Acquisition
From Reading and the ESL Learner.” Diss., Univ.
of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1988.
69. - , Gayle Vierma, Hee-Won Kang, Stephen
Krashen & Dianne Tritica. “Attitudes Toward
Vocabulary Acquisition Among College Fresh-
men: Are Students Aware of the Power of Read-
ing?’’ Reading Improvement 24 (1987): 273-77.
70. Williamson, Julia. “Vocabulary Acquisition: New
Findings.” Paper, TESOL. San Antonio, TX:
March 1989. [ERIC DOC ED 307 8011.
71. Yorio, C. A. “Some Sources of Reading Problems
for Foreign Language Learners.” Language
Learning 21 (1971): 107-15.
APPENDIX
TEXTSET I
READING A: Las ballenas de Punta Mita
Cada afio, entre diciembre y marzo, cientos de balle-
nas yubartas emigran para reproducirse en las aguas
de Bahia de Banderas, Mexico. Como muchas de las
criaturas del mar, las ballenas han estado cubiertas
por un velo de misterio durante siglos. Su enorme
tamafio amedrentaba con frecuencia a 10s marinos de
antafio, quienes las llamaban monstruos marinos.
El hecho de que la yubarta prefiera las aguas poco
profundas para criarse, la hace accesible a 10s investi-
gadores y f5cil de rastrearla.
El period0 de gestaci6n es de 12 meses y las ballenas
gustan del clima cfilido de MCxico para dar a luz a sus
crias. El reciin nacido tiene baja resistencia a1 frio
debido a que nace sin una capa de grasa que le proteja
el cuerpo. Los primeros segundos de la existencia del
bebC ballena dependen de que tome oportunamente
su primera bocanada de aire, ya que nace bajo el agua.
Susan Knight
Justo antes del nacimiento, varias hembras se rek-
nen alrededor de la ballena en trance de parto, listas
para ayudarla. En cuanto el bebC nace, con la cola
por delante y pesando alrededor de cuatro toneladas
y media, las parteras, lo empujan inmediatamente a la
superficie para que respire por primera vez.
READING B: La fiesta de 10s negritos
Tocuaro es un pueblito con no mis de 300 habitantes.
Una tradici6n de este pueblo es el tallado de mPs-
caras en madera que representan a sus antiguos di-
oses y personajes mitol6gicos. Los artesanos de este
lugar dedican la mayor parte de su vida a este arte de
tallar, ademis de labrar la tierra.
Segdn una de sus leyendas, el universo se divide en
tres regiones: la regi6n del cielo, la de la tierra y la de
10s muertos. En cada regi6n bay un grupo de dioses;
10s rnis importantes son 10s de la primera regi6n que,
simbolizados con miscaras y ataviados en sus colo-
ridos disfraces, siempre tienen un motivo para la
danza y la alegria.
En Tocuaro, cada 2 de febrero, se celebra esta fa-
mosa “fiesta de 10s negritos”. Es una dramatizaci6n
del levantamiento del nifio Jesds, una lucha entre el
bien y el ma1 escenificada con miscaras fantisticas.
El bien es representado por el arcingel San Miguel,
guardian del nifio Jesds, y sus protectores. Entre estos
protectores se encuentran caporales, ermitatios y 10s
“negritos”.
El ma1 lo representan tres diablos llamados As-
tucia, Pecado y Luzbel. Entre carcajadas alborotan a
10s humanos y tientan a1 niiio Jesds. Se libra entonces
una terrible batalla. La gente observa como 10s tres
demonios caen de pronto fulminados por el arcingel
San Miguel y son expulsados de la iglesia a las calles
donde continuan sus diab6licas travesuras.
TEXT-SET I1
READING A: 10s genios del hipodromo
A 10s 47 afios de edad, el jinete puertorriquefio Angel
Cordero, padre de cinco hijos, abuelo de una nieta y
hombre sin canas, sigue siendo dueiio y sefior del
especticulo en la hipica americana.
Duro y fuerte como un roble, no cede frente a la
edad y sigue triunfando en las pistas de Nueva York
como lo hizo por vez primera hace 30 afios, llevando su
299
caballo siempre a1 frente. El afio pasado, Cordero gan6
$12,204,417en galardones y hasta la fecha ha sumado
rnis de 6,600 victorias, una cifra que s610 la superan
Willie Shoemaker y el panamefio, Laffit Pincay.
Aun el mismo JosC Santos, lider de premios en 10s
Estados Unidos, acepta que Cordero es el rey y 61, su
heredero. “Es un rey con la corona bien puesta”,
afirma Santos. “Ha sido consistente toda su vida. Su
Cxito no es un cuento de hadas”. Cordero ha ganado
tres veces el Kentucky Derby y ha sido considerado el
mejor jinete de Saratoga, N.Y., durante 13 de las dl-
timas 14 temporadas.
En la hipica americana rnis vale hablar espafiol. A1
amanecer, hora de adiestrar y alimentar a 10s caballos,
e n 10s hip6dromos se trabaja a1 son de la salsa o a1
ritmo de las rancheras. “Sin 10s hispanos no habria
hipismo”, afirma Jack Bradley, entrenador nuevayor-
quino. “A 10s muchachos americanos se les hace di-
ficil mantener el peso”.
READING B: Los invencibles maremotos
Monstruosas paredes de agua han devastado por afios
la costa pacifica de Amtrica del Sur. Estas gigantescas
olas, conocidas como maremotos o “tsunami”, son 10s
hermanos de 10s terremotos.
El jueves 13 de agosto de 1868, dos grandes terre-
motos de una intensidad de 8.5 conmovieron cientos
de kilbmetros de territorio costero entre Chile y Perk.
Estos temblores, sin precedentes originaron las ondas
sismicas mis gigantescas que jamis hayan azotado las
costas del Pacifico.
La cationera norteamericana U.S.S. Wateree, que
fondeaba en el puerto peruano de Arica, sobrevivib
10s dos terremotos sucesivos. El primer0 de ellos pro-
dujo s610 una “tsunami” de proporciones moderadas.
A1 tener un casco plano, la Wateree se mantuvo de-
recha y entera. Per0 10s otros navios, de formas con-
vencionales, habian quedado recostados sobre sus
bordas, y no pudieron evitar ser inundados total-
mente por las aguas cuando el mar volvi6 con la pr6-
xima ola gigante.
Segdn un testigo, la caiionera atraves6 todo el
pueblo descabezando algunos techos en su camino,
hasta que la ola la deposit6 con toda la tripulaci6n en
sus puestos, temblando per0 intacta. No podia creer
que hasta el dltimo mariner0 se habia salvado la vida,
mientras 10s habitantes de la costa habian de-
saparecido casi por completo.