Cited by 182Second Language Acquisition and LearningReading and Literacy DevelopmentEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning

The Relationship Between Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge and L2 Learners’ Lexical Inferencing Strategy Use and Success

NASSAJI, HOSSEIN·2006·The Modern Language Journal

Abstract

This article is republished from The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61, 1, 2004, pp. 107–134. It is published as an article exchange between the MLJ and the CMLR. The articles for the exchange were selected by committees from the Editorial Board of each journal according to the following criteria: articles of particular relevance to international readers, especially those in the United States and Canada; and articles that are likely to provoke scholarly discussion among readers of the journal of their republication. The MLJ thanks Martha Nyikos, chair, Michael Everson, Richard Kern, and Peter Robinson for their work selecting this CMLR article for republication in the MLJ. The MLJ article “Testing the Development of French Word Knowledge by Advanced Dutch- and English-Speaking Learners and Native Speakers,” by Tine Greidanus, Bianca Beks, and Richard Wakely (MLJ, 89, 2005, pp. 221–233) appeared in CMLR 62, 2 ( June, 2006). The editors of both journals hope their readers will find this sharing of scholarship interesting and beneficial. This study examines the relationship between English as a second language (ESL) learners’ depth of vocabulary knowledge, their lexical inferencing strategy use, and their success in deriving word meaning from context. Participants read a passage containing 10 unknown words and attempted to derive the meanings of the unknown words from context. Introspective think-aloud protocols were used to discover the degree and types of inferencing strateg…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00431.x

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • Previous research on adult foreign language learners has shown L2 lexical inferencing to be dependent on L2 vocabulary knowledge and L2 reading comprehension skills.

    “Previous research on adult foreign language learners has shown L2 lexical inferencing to be dependent on L2 vocabulary knowledge and L2 reading comprehension skills (Elgort, Perfetti, Rickles, & Stafura, 2015;Elgort & Warren, 2014;Nassaji, 2006;Pulido, 2007).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
NASSAJI, H.
Affiliations
University of Victoria (CA)
Corresponding author
NASSAJI, HOSSEIN
Venue
The Modern Language Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-09
Volume
90
Issue
3
Pages
387-401
ISSN
  • 0026-7902 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-4781
OpenAlex
W2016045035
Cited by
182
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 10
FWCI
5.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Modern Language Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
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
lexical inferencing, depth of vocabulary knowledge, ESL learners, vocabulary acquisition, think-aloud, meaning-making

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