Cited by 57Second Language Acquisition and LearningEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningReading and Literacy Development

The Influence of Incidental and Intentional Vocabulary Acquisition and Vocabulary Strategy Use on Learning L2 Vocabularies

Open access
Alemi, Minoo, Tayebi, Alireza·2011·Journal of Language Teaching and Research

Abstract

This study is an attempt to investigate the role of incidental and intentional vocabulary acquisition in addition to the influence of language learning strategy: namely, the use of vocabulary strategy by Iranian EFL learners in learning new vocabularies.Accordingly, this study is two-faceted.First, Part A examines the difference between different modes of presentation, incidental and intentional learning of new vocabularies (i.e., incidental, etymology-based intentional, and meaning-based intentional), and acquisition of new vocabularies.Part B investigates the impact of the use of language learning strategies-in this case vocabulary and reading strategy use using The Language Strategy Use Inventory-on the learning of new vocabularies.Part A, studying the influence of incidental as opposed to intentional presentation and acquisition of vocabularies, involved 30 students (i.e., 26 males and 4 females).Part B of the study, investigating the role of vocabulary learning strategy use, involved 59 students (i.e., 49 males and 10 females).The results of Part A shown by t-test indicate that, as far as performance of the students on a test of vocabulary acquisition is concerned, there is no significant difference between the two modes-incidental and intentional learning.However, for the same part, linear regression proved that among the vocabularies presented through different modes of presentation, it is vocabularies learned through meaning-based intentional mode that is the most predictive of the performance of the students on a test of vocabulary acquisition.Moreover, as for part B, the study found that there is a positive, but weak, correlation between the students' vocabulary strategy usemeasured by students filling out a self-report questionnaire entitled The Language Strategy Use Inventory developed by Cohen, A, Oxford, L. R, and Chi.J. -and their learning of new vocabularies.Finally, the findings of part B of the study indicate that, as the degree to which the students' use of vocabulary strategy use increases, so does their use of reading strategy use.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4304/jltr.2.1.81-98

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 33 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Farhadi, H. (2006). Twenty-five years of living with applied linguistics: Collection of articles. Iran, Tehran. Rahnama press.
  2. Griffiths, C. (2006). Language learning strategies: Theory and research. Iran. ILI Language Teaching Journal 2, 1.
  3. Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in language classrooms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  4. Hulstijn, J. H. (2003). Insidental and intentional learning. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (eds). The handbook of second language acquisition (349-381). Oxford: Blackwell.
  5. Magogwe, J. M. & Oliver, R. (2007). Relationship between language self-efficacy beliefs, age, proficiency and language learning strategies, self-efficacy beliefs and age: An investigation. System Journal 35, (2007), pp. 353-367.
  6. Nyiazadeh, A. (2009). Input-outputEnhancement and Incidental Learning of Propositions. MA Thesis, Allameh-Tabatabayi University. Tehran, Iran
  7. Tajeddin, Z. (2006). Language learning strategies after 30 years of research. ILI Language teaching Journal 2, No 1.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alemi, M., & Tayebi, A.
Affiliations
Sharif University of Technology (IR)
Venue
Journal of Language Teaching and Research
Published
2011-01-01
Volume
2
Issue
1
ISSN
1798-4769 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1973089687
Cited by
57
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
7.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Language Teaching and Research (publishedVersion)
  • Intellectum (Universidad de La Sabana) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Americanae (AECID Library) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Americanae (AECID Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Intellectum (Universidad de La Sabana) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Universidad Nacional de Colombia
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
incidental vocabulary learning, intentional vocabulary learning, vocabulary acquisition, vocabulary learning strategies, reading strategies, presentation format, EFL learners, Iranian 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