The present study examines how glossing of second language (L2) texts affects L2 learners’ reading comprehension as well as their learning of L2 grammar and vocabulary. It employed a pretest, immediate posttest, and delayed posttest design with two treatment sessions. The target features were English unaccusativity and 10 pseudo-word items. Participants were 52 Korean college students learning English, who were randomly assigned to a glossed or unglossed condition. Glossing was achieved by means of providing Korean translation of each targeted item in the margin of the text. Reading comprehension was measured with 14 multiple-choice items for each text. The learning of the target features was assessed with a grammaticality judgment test and a word form and meaning recognition test. These tests were supplemented with reaction time data and binary confidence ratings in order to assess the solidity of the knowledge acquired. The results indicated that glossing significantly facilitated learning of the target constructions, while having no influence on reading comprehension scores. These results will be discussed in light of potential usefulness of glossing as a means to facilitate learning of L2 grammatical and lexical features.
Al-SeghayerK. (2001). The effects of multimedia annotation modes on L2 vocabulary acquisition: A comparative study. Language Learning & Technology, 5, 202–232.
2.
BalcomP. (1997). Why is this happened? Passive morphology and unaccusativity. Second Language Research, 13, 1–9.
3.
BeckI.L.McKeownM.G.McCaslinE.S. (1983). Vocabulary development: All contexts are not created equal. The Elementary School Journal, 83, 177–181.
4.
BellF.LeBlancL. (2000). The language of glosses in L2 reading on computer: Learners’ preferences. Hispania, 83, 274–285.
5.
BirchB.M. (2007). English L2 reading: Getting to the bottom. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
BlauE.K. (1982). The effect of syntax on readability for ESL students in Puerto Rico. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 517–528.
7.
Bley-VromanR.MastersonD. (1989). Reaction time as a supplement to grammaticality judgments in the investigation of second language learners’ competence. University of Hawai’i Working Papers in ESL, 8, 207–237.
8.
BoersF. (2000). Enhancing metaphoric awareness in specialized reading. English for Specific Purposes, 19, 137–147.
9.
BowlesM. (2004). L2 glossing: To CALL or not CALL. Hispania, 87, 541–552.
ColemanM.LiauT.L. (1975). A computer readability formula designed for machine scoring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 283–284.
14.
CraikF.I.M.LockhartR.S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671–684.
15.
CraikF.I.M.TulvingE. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268–294.
16.
CroftW. (1995). Modern syntactic typology. In: ShibataniM.BynonT. (Eds.), Approaches to language typology (pp. 85–144). New York: Clarendon Press.
17.
DavisJ.N.Lyman HagerM. (1997). Computers and L2 learning: Student performance, student attitudes. Foreign Language Annals, 30, 58–72.
18.
DaviesM. (2008–). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 400+ million words, 1990-present. Retrieved from http://www.americancorpus.org/
19.
Educational Testing Services. (2012). Official TOEFL iBT Tests. New York: McGraw-Hill.
20.
EskeyD.E. (2005). Reading in a second language. In: HinkelE. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 563–579). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
FleschR.(1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221–233.
22.
GettysS.ImhofL.KautzJ.O. (2001). Computer-assisted reading: The effect of glossing format on comprehension and vocabulary retention. Foreign Language Journals, 34, 91–99.
23.
GodfroidA.UggenM.S. (2013). Attention to irregular verbs by beginning learners of German: an eye-movement study. SSLA, 35, 291–322.
24.
GrabeW. (2009). Reading in a second language: moving from theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
GuidiC. (2009). Glossing for meaning and glossing for form: A computerized study of the effects of glossing and type of linguistic item on reading comprehension, noticing, and L2 learning. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
26.
GunningR. (1952). The technique of clear writing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
27.
HanZ.AndersonN.FreemanD. (2009). Introduction: Crossing the boundaries. In: HanZ.AndersonN. (Eds.), Second language reading: Research and instruction (pp. 1–13). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
28.
HoribaY. (2000). Reader control in reading: Effects of language competence, text type, and task. Discourse Processes, 29, 223–267.
29.
HoribaY. (2013). Task-induced strategic processing in L2 text comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 25(2), 98–125.
30.
HulstijnJ.H. (1992). Retention of inferred and given word meanings: Experiment in incidental vocabulary learning. In: ArnaudP.J.BéjointH. (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 113–125). London: McMillan.
31.
HulstijnJ.H.LauferB. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 539–558.
32.
HulstijnJ.H.HollanderM.GreidanusT. (1996). Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and reoccurrence of unknown words. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 327–339.
33.
HwangJ.B. (1999). L2 acquisition of English unaccusative verbs under implicit and explicit learning conditions. English Teaching, 54, 145–176.
34.
HwangJ.B. (2001). Focus on form and the L2 learning of English unaccusative verbs. English Teaching, 56, 111–133.
35.
IBM Corp. (2011). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 20.0). Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
36.
JacobsG.DufonP.HongF.C. (1994). L1 and L2 glosses in reading passages, their effectiveness for increasing comprehension and vocabulary knowledge. Journal of Research in Reading, 17, 19–28.
37.
JiangN. (2011). Conducting reaction time research in second language studies. New York: Routledge.
38.
JohnsonP. (1982). Effects on reading comprehension of building background knowledge. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 503–516.
39.
JuM.K. (2000). Overpassivization errors by second language learners: The effect of conceptualizable agents in discourse. SSLA, 22, 85–111.
40.
JuffsA. (2001). Psycholinguistically oriented second language research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 207–221.
41.
KimJ.KimH.S. (2012). Korean L2 overpassivization of unaccusative verbs: Focusing on the relative effects of linguistic and cognitive factors. The Journal of English Language and Literature, 54, 155–183.
42.
KoH.M. (2005). Glosses, comprehension, and strategy use. Reading in a foreign language, 17, 125–143.
43.
KoH.M. (2012). Glossing and second language vocabulary learning. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 56–79.
44.
KodaK. (2012). Development of second language reading skills: Cross-linguistic perspectives. In: GassS.M.MackeyA. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 303–318). London: Routledge.
45.
KostC.R.FossP.LenziniJ.J. (1999).Textual and pictorial glosses: Effectiveness on incidental vocabulary growth when reading in a foreign language. Foreign Language Annals, 32, 89–113.
46.
KrashenS. (1982). The input hypothesis. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
47.
KunimotoC.MillerJ.PashlerH. (2001). Confidence and accuracy of near-threshold discrimination responses. Consciousness and Cognition, 10, 294–340.
48.
LauferB.HulstijnJ. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22, 1–26.
49.
LeeS.-K.MiyataM.OrtegaL. (2008). A usage-based approach to overpassivization: The role of input and conceptualization biases. Paper presented at the 26th Second Language Research Forum, Honolulu, HI, USA, October17–19.
50.
LeeserM.J. (2007). Learner-based factors in L2 reading comprehension and processing grammatical form: Topic familiarity and working memory. Language Learning, 57, 229–270.
51.
LeowR.P. (2009). Modifying the L2 reading text for improved comprehension and acquisition: Does it work? In: HanZ.-H.AndersonN.J. (Eds.), Second language reading research and instruction: Crossing the boundaries (pp. 83–100). The University of Michigan Press.
52.
LevinB.Rappaport HovavM. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the syntax–lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
53.
LomickaL.L. (1998). ‘To gloss or not to gloss’: An investigation of reading comprehension online. Language Learning & Technology, 1, 41–50.
54.
LongM.H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In: de BotK.GinsbergR.KramschC. (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
55.
Martinez-FernándezA.M. (2010).Experiences of remembering and knowing in SLA, L2 development, and text comprehension: A study of levels of awareness, type of glossing, and type of linguistic item. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
56.
McLaughlinG. (1969). SMOG grading—A new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 12(8), 639–646.
57.
NagataN. (1999).The effectiveness of computer-assisted interactive glosses. Foreign Language Annals, 32, 469–479.
58.
NoG.ChungT. (2006). Multiple effects and the learnability of English unaccusatives. English Teaching, 61, 19–39.
59.
OshitaH. (2000). What is happenedmaynot be what appears to be happening: A corpus study of ‘passive’ unaccusatives in L2 English. Second Language Research, 16, 293–324.
60.
PakJ. (1986). The effect of vocabulary glossing on ESL reading comprehension. Unpublished manuscript.
61.
PerlmutterD.M. (1978). Impersonal and the unaccusative hypothesis. In:Proceedings of the 4th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 157–190.
62.
PicaT. (2002). Subject-matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic needs of classroom language learners?Modern Language Journal, 86, 1–19.
63.
PulidoD. (2007). The effects of topic familiarity and passage sight vocabulary on L2 lexical inferencing and retention through reading. Applied Linguistics, 28, 66–86.
64.
RebuschatP.WilliamsJ.N. (2012).Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 829–856.
65.
RobinsonP. (1995). Attention, memory and the ‘noticing’ hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283–331.
66.
RobinsonP.MackeyA.GassS.M.SchmidtR. (2012). Attention and awareness in second language acquisition. In: GassS.M.MackeyA. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 247–267). London: Routledge.
67.
RottS. (2005). Processing glosses: A qualitative exploration of how form–meaning connections are established and strengthened. Reading in a Foreign Language, 17, 95–124.
68.
RottS.WilliamsJ. (2003). Making form–meaning connections while reading: A qualitative analysis of word processing. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15, 45–75.
69.
RottS.WilliamsJ.CameronR. (2002).The effect of multiple-choice L1 glosses and input–output cycles on lexical acquisition and retention. Language Teaching Research, 6, 183–222.
70.
SchmidtR. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.
71.
SchmidtR. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning. In: SchmidtR. (Ed.), Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning (pp. 1–63). Manoa, HI: University of Hawai’i at Manoa: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
72.
SchmidtR. (2001). Attention. In: RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
SenterR.J.SmithE.A. (1967). Automated readability index. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. p. iii. AMRL-TR-6620.
75.
Sharwood SmithM. (1986). Comprehension versus acquisition: Two ways of processing input. Applied Linguistics, 7, 239–256.
76.
Sharwood SmithM. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 72, 118–132.
77.
SharwoodM.S. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165–179.
78.
ShinJ.A. (2011). Overpassivization errors in Korean college students’ English writings. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics, 27, 255–273.
79.
SoraceA. (2000). Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language, 76, 859–890.
80.
SoraceA. (2004). Gradience at the lexicon–syntax interface: Evidence from auxiliary selection and implications for unaccusativity. In: AlexiadouA.AnagnostopoulouE.EveraertM. (Eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle: Explorations of the syntax–lexicon interface (pp. 243–268). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
81.
SoraceA.ShomuraY. (2001). Lexical constraints on the acquisition of split intransitivity. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 247–278.
82.
TomlinR.S.VillaV. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. SSLA, 16, 183–203.
83.
UrquhartA.H.WeirC.J. (1998). Reading in a second language: Process, product, and practice. New York: Longman.
84.
VanPattenB. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
85.
VanPattenB. (2004). Processing instruction: Theory, research and commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
86.
VanPattenB. (2012). Input processing. In: GassS.M.MackeyA. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 268–281). London: Routledge.
87.
VanPattenB.CadiernoT. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. SSLA, 15, 225–243.
88.
WatanabeY. (1997). Input, intake, and retention: Effects of increased processing on incidental learning of foreign language vocabulary. SSLA, 19, 289–307.
89.
YipV. (1994).Grammatical consciousness-raising and learnability. In: OdlinT. (Ed), Perspectives on pedagogical grammar (pp. 123–139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
90.
YoshimuraF. (2006). Does manipulating foreknowledge of output tasks lead to differences in reading behavior, text comprehension and noticing of language form?Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 419–434.
91.
ZoblH. (1989). Canonical typological structures and ergativity in English L2 acquisition. In: GassS.M.SchachterJ. (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language (pp. 203–221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
92.
ZyzikE. (2009). The role of input revisited: Nativist versus usage-based models. L2 Journal, 1, 42–61.
