The aim of this experiment was to investigate how glossing influences second language (L2)reading comprehension in relation to text difficulty and the two local and global meaning representations. Fifty-eight undergraduate students were asked to read three easy, moderate, and difficult texts and, following each passage, answer twenty comprehension questions targeting local and global concepts in one of the two first-language-glossed and unglossed conditions. Half of the participants in each group were supposed to think aloud while reading. The results revealed a significant difference between the performance of glossed and unglossed groups on comprehension of local concepts in all three difficulty levels. However, the impact of glossing on comprehension of global concepts was significantly influenced by text difficulty. The qualitative analysis of think-aloud protocols suggested a substantial difference in glossing functionality on fluency between the easy and the difficult texts. Furthermore, it is suggested that revisiting the glossing effect in combination with text difficulty on the reading product and underlying processes might reconcile some divergent hypotheses on glossing impact on fluency.
BellF.LeBlancL. (2000). The language of glosses in L2 reading on computer: Learners’ preferences. Hispania, 83, 274–285.
2.
BowlesM. (2004). L2 glossing: To CALL or not CALL. Hispania, 87, 541–552.
3.
BowlesM.LeowR. (2005). Reactivity and type of verbal report in SLA research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 415–440.
4.
BrittonB.K.GulgozS. (1991). Using Kintsch’s computational model to improve instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 329–345.
5.
CarverR.P. (1994). Percentage of unknown vocabulary words in text as a function of the relative difficulty of the text: Implications for instruction. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 413–433.
6.
ChunD.M.PlassJ.L. (1996). Effects of multimedia annotations on vocabulary acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 80, 183–198.
7.
Collins-ThompsonK.CallanJ. (2004). A language modeling approach to predicting reading difficulty. In Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: HLT-NAACL 2004 (pp. 193–200). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
8.
DavisJ.N. (1989). Facilitating effects of marginal glosses on foreign language reading. Modern Language Journal, 73, 41–48.
9.
DavisJ.N.Lyman HagerM. (1997). Computers and L2 learning: Student performance, student attitudes. Foreign Language Annals, 30, 58–72.
10.
FleschR. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221–233.
11.
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 dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
12.
HallidayM.A.K.HasanR. (2013). Cohesion in English. New York: Routledge. Original work published1976.
13.
HeilmanM.Collins-ThompsonK.CallanJ.EskenaziM. (2007). Combining lexical and grammatical features to improve readability measures for first and second language texts. In Proceedings of the NAACL Human Language Technology Conference (pp. 460–467). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
14.
HeilmanM.Collins-ThompsonK.EskenaziM. (2008). An analysis of statistical models and features for reading difficulty prediction. In EANL ’08 Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications (pp. 71–79). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
15.
HiebertE.H.PearsonP.D. (2014). Understanding text complexity. The Elementary School Journal, 115, 153–160.
16.
HoribaY. (2000). Reader control in reading: Effects of language competence, text type, and task. Discourse Processes, 29, 223–267.
17.
HuM.NationP. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13, 403–430.
18.
HulstijnJ.H.LauferB. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 539–558.
19.
IBM Corp. (2016). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
20.
JacobsG. (1994). What lurks in the margin: Use of vocabulary glosses as a strategy in second language reading. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 5, 115–137.
21.
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.
22.
JohnsonP. (1982). Effects on reading comprehension of building background knowledge. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 503–516.
23.
JungJ. (2016). Effects of glosses on learning of L2 grammar and vocabulary. Language Teaching Research, 20, 92–112.
24.
JungJ. (2017). Effects of task complexity, glossing and working memory on L2 reading and L2 learning. Unpublished dissertation, University College London, London, UK.
25.
JungJ. (2020). The impact of glossing and reading activity manipulation on learning of L2 lexico-grammatical and lexical items. Language Teaching Research. Epub ahead of print: 10March2020. DOI: 10.1177/1362168820911198.
26.
JungJ.RévészA. (2018). The effects of reading activity characteristics on L2 reading processes and noticing of glossed constructions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 755–780.
27.
KhalifaH.WeirC.J. (2009) Examining reading: Research and practice in assessing second language reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
KimY.-S. (2020). Toward integrative reading science: The direct and indirect effects model of reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53, 469–491.
29.
KintschW. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.
30.
KoH.M. (2005). Glosses, comprehension, and strategy use. Reading in a Foreign Language, 17, 125–143.
31.
KoH.M. (2012). Glossing and second language vocabulary learning. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 56–79.
32.
LauferB. (1989). What percentage of lexis is necessary for comprehension? In LaurenC.NormanM. (Eds.), From humans to thinking machines (pp. 316–323). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
33.
LomickaL.L. (1998). ‘To gloss or not to gloss’: An investigation of reading comprehension online. Language Learning & Technology, 1, 41–50.
34.
LupoS.M.TortorelliL.InvernizziM.RyooJ.H.StrongJ.Z. (2019). An exploration of text difficulty and knowledge support on adolescents’ comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 54, 457–479.
35.
Martínez-FernándezA.M. (2008). Revisiting the involvement load hypothesis: Awareness, type of task and type of item. In BowlesM.FooteR.PerpiñánS.BhattR. (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2007 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 210–228). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
36.
Martínez-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 dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
37.
McDanielM.A.EinsteinG.O. (1989). Material-appropriate processing: A contextualist approach to reading and studying strategies. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 113–145.
38.
McDanielM.A.EinsteinG.O. (2004). Material-appropriate difficulty: A framework for determining when difficulty is desirable for improving learning. In HealyA.F. (Ed.), Experimental cognitive psychology and its applications (pp. 73–85). Washington, DC: American Psychology Association.
39.
McLaughlinB. (1987). Theories of second-language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
40.
McLaughlinB.RossmanT.McLeodB. (1983). Second language learning: An information-processing perspective. Language Learning, 33, 135–157.
41.
McNamaraD.S.KintschW. (1996). Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247–288.
42.
NagataN., (1999). The effectiveness of computer-assisted interactive glosses. Foreign Language Annals, 32, 469–479.
NurmukhamedovU.WebbS (2019) Research timeline: Lexical coverage and profiling. Language Teaching, 52, 188–200.
45.
PakJ. (1986). The effect of vocabulary glossing on ESL reading comprehension. Unpublished manuscript, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Manoa, HI, USA.
46.
PerfettiC.A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
47.
PerfettiC.A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383.
48.
PerfettiC.StafuraJ. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 22–37.
49.
RichardsJ.C.LesleyT.SandyC.HansenC.ZukowskiJ. (2008). Placement and evaluation package interchange third edition/passages second edition with audio CDs: Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50.
SchrawG.BruningR.SvobodaC. (1995). Sources of situational interest. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27, 1–17.
51.
SchreiberP.A. (1980). On the acquisition of reading fluency. Journal of Reading Behavior, 12, 177–186.
52.
SchwarmS.OstendorfM. (2005). Reading level assessment using support vector machines and statistical language models. In ACL '05: Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 523–530). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
53.
SheehanK.M.KostinI.NapolitanoD.FlorM. (2014). The TextEvaluator tool: Helping teachers and test developers select texts for use in instruction and assessment. The Elementary School Journal, 115, 184–209.
