Cited by 75Second Language Acquisition and LearningReading and Literacy DevelopmentEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning

The Relationship Between Text Comprehension and Second Language Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition: A Matter of Topic Familiarity?

Pulido, Diana·2007·Language Learning

Abstract

The study reported in this article describes second language (L2) vocabulary learning outcomes associated with adult L2 reading comprehension processes, thus connecting L2 learning with the complex cognitive and linguistic processing involved in reading. The study aimed to determine whether background knowledge moderated the relationship between passage comprehension and lexical input processing outcomes, such as intake and receptive gain and retention of target‐word meanings. The primary theoretical contribution concerns the nature of the relationships that obtained between passage comprehension and lexical input processing. Overall, the results suggest that as learners become more efficient in engaging in the various processing activities required during L2 reading, they experience greater memory for linguistic elements encountered during reading, such as orthographic forms and semantic aspects of new lexical items. The results support connectionist models of L2 reading and conclusions concerning efficiency in lower level text processing (e.g., see Koda, 2005 ; Nassaji, 2002 ). Reading is a complex cognitive activity, involving simultaneous linguistic processing such as pattern recognition, letter identification, lexical access, concept activation, syntactic analysis, propositional encoding, sentence comprehension, and intersentence integration, as well as the activation of prior knowledge, information storage, and comprehension monitoring. The prior knowledge that is acces…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00415.x

Cites

6 of 6 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?

  • Because the vocabulary tests only included predefined target words, the study is unaware of any other learning gains.

    “Because our vocabulary tests only included predefined TWs, we are unaware of any other learning gains (Pulido, 2007).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pulido, D.
Affiliations
Michigan State University (US)
Corresponding author
Pulido, Diana
Venue
Language Learning
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-06
Volume
57
Issue
s1
Pages
155-199
ISSN
  • 0023-8333 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9922
OpenAlex
W2332278089
Cited by
75
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
FWCI
3.92
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
second language reading comprehension, incidental vocabulary learning, prior knowledge, topic familiarity, vocabulary retention, bootstrapping, episodic memory, lexical access, adult L2 learners

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