Cited by 181Second Language Acquisition and LearningReading and Literacy DevelopmentEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning

Modeling the Role of Second Language Proficiency and Topic Familiarity in Second Language Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition Through Reading

Pulido, Diana·2003·Language Learning

Abstract

The study examines the impact of topic familiarity, second language (L2) reading proficiency, and L2 passage sight vocabulary on incidental vocabulary acquisition. Independent variables include (a) a topic familiarity questionnaire, (b) the Adult Basic Learning Examination, Spanish Battery (Karlsen & Gardner, 1990), and (c) a passage sight vocabulary test. A repeated‐measures design was used with a cross‐sectional sample. Participants read narratives (2 more and 2 less familiar) containing nonsense words. Two and 28 days after reading, 2 gain measures were administered: (a) translation production and (b) translation recognition. Analyses reveal robust effects of reading proficiency, differential effects of topic familiarity, and isolated effects of passage sight vocabulary. The discussion concerns the impact of these factors and plausibility of interactive compensatory processing.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1467-9922.00217

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Prior studies have reported positive effects of cultural familiarity on reading comprehension.

    “Several studies have reported positive effects of cultural familiarity on reading comprehension (Alptekin, 2006;Steffensen, Joag-Dev, & Anderson, 1979) and vocabulary learning (Pulido, 2003(Pulido, , 2004)).”

    From The effects of cultural familiarity on reading comprehension (2009) · cites this paper as Pulido, 2003

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 81 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pulido, D.
Affiliations
Washington State University (US)
Corresponding author
Pulido, Diana
Venue
Language Learning
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-05-12
Volume
53
Issue
2
Pages
233-284
ISSN
  • 0023-8333 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9922
OpenAlex
W1575716360
Cited by
181
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 14
FWCI
8.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Language Learning (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Keywords
incidental vocabulary learning, second language reading, topic familiarity, reading proficiency, sight words, Spanish as a second language, translation production, translation recognition, compensatory processing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review