While online lexical analysis tools can help reading teachers determine whether materials are suitable for their students of English as a second language, one aspect of the analysis that teachers may be unsure how to approach is proper names. It is commonly assumed in second language (L2) vocabulary and reading research that proper names are known, though there is little empirical support for this assumption. This study investigates how L2 readers handle proper names in continuous text. Japanese readers of English (N = 49) were given texts of varying difficulty, and asked to mark any unknown vocabulary. Choosing from marked vocabulary, participants listed items to check in a dictionary. It was found that participants did mark proper names as unknown vocabulary. A Chi-square test of independence indicated a significant dependence between the number of names marked as unknown and text difficulty, with a small to medium effect size (V = .23). Nearly a third of participants listed at least one proper name to check, not supporting the assumption that L2 readers understand all proper names. The finding that proper names may represent enough of a burden to trigger look-up behaviour has implications for classroom teachers, and materials and test writers.
BilerA. (2019). The reliability of readability tools in L2 reading. In PapageorgiouS.BaileyK.M. (Eds.), Global perspectives on language assessment. Routledge.
BrownD. (2010). An improper assumption? The treatment of proper nouns in text coverage counts. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22, 355–361. Available at: http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl (accessed July 2024).
4.
CarrellP.L. (1987). Readability in ESL. Reading in a Foreign Language, 4, 21–40.
5.
CarverR. (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, 413–437.
6.
CobbT. (2010). Learning about language and learners from computer programs. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22, 181–200.
7.
CobbT. (n.d.). VP-Compleat: Version 2 [computer program]. Available at: https://www.lextutor.ca/vp/comp (accessed July 2024).
8.
CrossleyS.A.AllenD.B.McNamaraD.S. (2011). Text readability and intuitive simplification: A comparison of readability formulas. Reading in a Foreign Language, 23, 84–101.
9.
FleschR. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221–233.
10.
FrancisW.N.KuceraH. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage. Houghton Mifflin.
11.
HanksP. (2013). Lexical analysis: Norms and exploitations. MIT Press.
12.
HirshD.NationP. (1992). What vocabulary size is needed to read unsimplified texts for pleasure?Reading in a Foreign Language, 8, 689–696.
13.
HorstM. (2013). Mainstreaming second language vocabulary acquisition. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16, 171–188.
14.
HuM.H.NassajiH. (2014). Lexical inferencing strategies: The case of successful versus less successful inferencers. System, 45, 27–38.
15.
HuM.H.NationI.S.P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13, 403–430.
16.
HulstijnJ.H. (1993). When do foreign-language readers look up the meaning of unfamiliar words? The influence of task and learner variables. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 139–147.
17.
HwangK.NationI.S.P. (1989). Reducing the vocabulary load and encouraging vocabulary learning through reading newspapers. Reading in a Foreign Language, 6, 323–335.
18.
KlassenK. (2021). Second language readers’ use of context to identify proper names. The Reading Matrix, 21, 85–105.
19.
KlassenK. (2022). Proper name theory and implications for second language reading. Language Teaching, 55, 149–155.
20.
KodaK. (2004). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach. Cambridge University Press.
21.
Larson-HallJ. (2010). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. Taylor & Francis.
22.
LauferB. (1989). What percentage of text-lexis is essential for comprehension? In LaurenC.NordmanM. (Eds.), Special language: From humans to thinking machines (pp. 316–323). Multilingual Matters.
23.
LauferB. (1992). How much lexis is necessary for reading comprehension? In ArnaudP.J.L.BejointH. (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 126–132). Macmillan.
24.
LauferB.Ravenhorst-KalovskiG.C. (2010). Lexical threshold revisited: Lexical text coverage, learners’ vocabulary size and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22, 15–30.
MatsuokaW.HirshD. (2010). Vocabulary learning through reading: Does an ELT course book provide good opportunities?Reading in a Foreign Language, 22, 56–70.
27.
MiltonJ. (2022). Vocabulary denial and the false god of structuralism in Ofsted’s 2021 Curriculum Research Review for languages. The Language Learning Journal, 50, 156–171.
28.
NagyW.E.AndersonR.C. (1984). How many words are there in printed school English?Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 304–330.
29.
NassajiH. (2003). L2 vocabulary learning from context: Strategies, knowledge sources, and their relationship with success in L2 lexical inferencing. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 645–670.
30.
NationI.S.P. (2006). How large a vocabulary size is needed for reading and listening?The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 59–82.
31.
NationI.S.P.BeglarD. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher, 31, 9–13.
32.
NationI.S.P.WangK.M. (1999). Graded readers and vocabulary. Reading in a Foreign Language, 12, 355–380.
RedishJ.C. (2000). Readability formulas have even more limitations than Klare discusses. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation (JCD), 24, 132–137.
36.
RedishJ.C.SelzerJ. (1985). The place of readability formulas in technical communication. Technical Communication, 32, 46–52.
37.
SchmittN.JiangX.GrabeW. (2011). The percentage of words known in a text and reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 26–43.
38.
SchmittN.SchmittD.ClaphamC. (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing, 18, 55–88.
39.
StæhrL.S. (2008). Vocabulary size and the skills of listening, reading and writing. The Language Learning Journal, 36, 139–152.
40.
SunS.PanW.WangL.L. (2010). A comprehensive review of effect size reporting and interpreting practices in academic journals in education and psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 989–1004.
