CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 149Second Language Acquisition and LearningReading and Literacy DevelopmentEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 84 of the 85 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The effects of word exposure frequency and elaboration of word processing on incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition through reading

Eckerth, Johannes, Tavakoli, Parveneh·2012·Language Teaching Research
DOI 10.1177/1362168811431377
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Research on incidental second language (L2) vocabulary acquisition through reading has claimed that repeated encounters with unfamiliar words and the relative elaboration of processing these words facilitate word learning. However, so far both variables have been investigated in isolation. To help close this research gap, the current study investigates the differential effects of the variables ‘word exposure frequency’ and ‘elaboration of word processing’ on the initial word learning and subsequent word retention of advanced learners of L2 English. Whereas results showed equal effects for both variables on initial word learning, subsequent word retention was more contingent on elaborate processing of form–meaning relationships than on word frequency. These results, together with those of the studies reviewed, suggest that processing words again after reading (input–output cycles) is superior to reading-only tasks. The findings have significant implications for adaptation and development of teaching materials that enhance L2 vocabulary learning.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1362168811431377

Cites

84 of 84 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 85 references

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. 10.3138/cmlr.61.3.355 · DOI
  2. Horst M., 1998, Reading in a Foreign Language, 11, 207
  3. Hunt A., 2005, Reading in a Foreign Language, 17, 23
  4. Laufer B., 2001, Prospect, 16, 44
  5. Nation P., 2006, Modeling and assessing vocabulary knowledge, 35
  6. Nation P., 1999, Reading in a Foreign Language, 12, 355
  7. Nesi H., 2008, Proceedings of the 8th Teaching and Language Corpora Conference, 239
  8. Pigada M., 2006, Reading in a Foreign Language, 18, 1
  9. Waring R., 2003, Reading in a Foreign Language, 15, 130
  10. Webb S., 2008, Reading in a Foreign Language, 20, 232

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–148 of 148

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Eckerth, J., & Tavakoli, P.
Affiliations
  • London Metropolitan University (GB)
  • London Metropolitan University, UK
Venue
Language Teaching Research
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2012-04
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
227-252
ISSN
  • 1362-1688 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0954
DOI
10.1177/1362168811431377
OpenAlex
W2082324569
Cited by
149
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
18.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Language Teaching Research (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, elaborative processing, vocabulary retention, form-meaning relationship, advanced learners, L2 English

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