Abstract
This study aimed to determine as to whether or not the text type and strategy usage affect the EFL learners’ lexical inferencing performance. The participants were comprised of 87 first-year English majors at a technical university. Data were collected from (1) a lexical inferencing test with excerpts of narrative and expository texts, for which both multiple-choice and definition tasks were designed, respectively, and then (2) the responses from the learners’ self-reported strategy usage. The quantitative analyses demonstrated that the text types significantly affected the EFL learners’ lexical inferencing performance, in which the EFL learners performed better for the narrative excerpt than for the expository texts. However, significant coefficients between the strategy use and the lexical inferencing performance were not found in this study. The results further implied that the text structure and the lexical inferencing strategies should be explicitly taught to the EFL learners.
Appendix I: Sample reading passages
READING EXERCISE 1: Study each of the passage, and choose the best answers to the question that follow.
#Expository Passage (Questions 1–5): Autism
Autism is a developmental disorder that is characterized by severe behavioral abnormalities across all primary areas of functioning. Its onset is often early; it generally makes itself known by the age of two and one-half. It is not a single disease entity but is instead a syndrome defined by patterns and characteristics of behavior; it, therefore, most likely has multiple etiologies rather than a single causative factor. … … ..
*Adopted from Longman Course for The TOEFL Test: iBT (Phillips 2010)
Part I: Definition, Description, & Response
Directions: (I) Define each of the words marked in the passage.
(II) Describe how you determine the meaning of the word.
(III) Answer the question by circling “helpful” or “not helpful”
| Definition | Brief description of the clues you used | Is the clue helpful? | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. primary | 1) helpful 2) not helpful | ||
| 2. onset | 1) helpful 2) not helpful | ||
| 3. syndrome | 1) helpful 2) not helpful | ||
| 4. etiologies | 1) helpful 2) not helpful | ||
| 5. with respect to | 1) helpful 2) not helpful |
Part II: Study the passage, and choose the best answer to the questions that follow.
The word primary in the passage could best be replaced by
elementary
main
introductory
primitive
The word onset in the passage is closest in meaning to
placement
arrangement
support
beginning
The word syndrome in the passage is closest in meaning to
concurrent set of symptoms
feeling of euphoria
mental breakdown
repetitive task
The word etiologies in the passage is closest in meaning to
symptoms
patterns
causes
onsets
… … … .
# Narrative Passage (Questions 1–10)
Edna Ferber (1887–1968) was a popular American novelist in the first half of the twentieth century. She embarked on her career by working as a newspaper reporter in Wisconsin and soon began writing novels. Her first novel, Dawn O’Hara, the Girl Who Laughed, was published in 1911, when she was only twenty-four years old.
Her big break came with the novel So Big (1924), which was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in Literature. The main conflict in the novel is between a mother who places a high value on hard work and honor and a son who repudiates his mother’s values, instead preferring the easier path to fortune and celebrity. Like many of Ferber’s novels, this novel features a tenacious female protagonist with strong character who struggles to deal with ethical dilemmas about the importance of status and money.
… … … … … … … … … … . … … … … … … … … … … … … …
*Adopted from Longman Course for The TOEFL Test: iBT (Phillips 2010)
The phrase embarked on in paragraph 1 is closest in meaning to
took a trip to
started out on
improved upon
had an opinion about
The word break in paragraph 2 could best be replaced by
rupture
revelation
opportunity
rest
The word places in paragraph 2 could best be replaced by
locates
puts
recites
positions
Appendix II: Sample vocabulary strategies
Q1- to relate the unknown word by its word form (i. e. appearance similarity) to another word previously learned.
Q2- to utilize syntactic cues (i. e. the relationship between sentences and clauses, and the additional meaning given in the sentence)
Q3- to utilize morphological analysis (i. e. prefix, suffix).
Q4- to check the part of speech of the unknown word.
Q5- to utilize semantic cues (i. e. synonyms, restatement, comparison and contrast).
Q6- to utilize prior knowledge by examining the title or illustrations.
Q7- to use personal experiences (i. e. the association between an object and its function).
Q8- to visualize the content.
Q9- to reread the sentence including the unknown word.
Q10- to generate questions about the words they don’t understand.
Q11- to produce synonyms to substitute for the unknown word.
Q12- to read it aloud in an attempt to make a sound link.
Q13- to slow their reading rate in an attempt to comprehend the word meaning.
Q14- to have a self-directed dialogue (i. e. talking to oneself).
Q15- to translate word for word.
Q16- learned to comment on their behavior or guessing process.
Q17- to monitor their comprehension of the word meaning.
Q18- to evaluate the guessing.
Q19- to note errors in the guessing process and recover word meaning through repair.
Q20- to distinguish between critical and unimportant words.
Q21- to detour the difficult words and try another skill, e. g. continue reading.
References
Alavi, A. M. & S. Kaivanpanah. 2009. Examining the role of individual differences in lexical inferencing. Journal of Applied Science 9(15). 2829–2834.10.3923/jas.2009.2829.2834Search in Google Scholar
Alderson, J. C. 2000. Assessing reading. UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511732935Search in Google Scholar
Baumann, J., E. C. Edwards, G. Font & C. Tereshinski. 2002. Teaching morphemic and contextual analysis to fifth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly 37(2). 150–176.10.1598/RRQ.37.2.3Search in Google Scholar
Cain, L., K. Lemmon & J. Oakhill. 2004. Individual differences in the inference of word meanings from context: The influence of reading comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, and memory capacity. Journal of Educational Psychology 96(4). 671–668.10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.671Search in Google Scholar
Cohen, A.D. 1999. Strategies in learning and using a second language. New York: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Cooter, R. B. & E. S. Flynt. 1996. Teaching reading in the content areas: Developing content literacy for all students. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Search in Google Scholar
Craig, M. T. & L. D. Yore. 1995. Middle school students’ metacognitive knowledge about science reading science text: An interview study. Reading Psychology 16. 169–213.10.1080/0270271950160203Search in Google Scholar
Ediger, M. 2002. Factors which make expository reading difficult. Journal of Instructional Psychology 29(4). 312–317.Search in Google Scholar
Ehsanzadeh, S. J. 2012. Depth versus breadth of lexical repertoire assessing their roles in EFL students’ incidental vocabulary acquisition. TESL Canada Journal 29(2). 24–40.10.18806/tesl.v29i2.1098Search in Google Scholar
Frantzen, D. 2003. Factors affecting how second language Spanish students deriving meaning from context. The Modern Language Journal 87. 168–199.10.1111/1540-4781.00185Search in Google Scholar
Fraser, C. A. 1999. Lexical processing strategy use and vocabulary learning through reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21(2). 225–241.10.1017/S0272263199002041Search in Google Scholar
Fukkink, R. G. & H. Block. 2001. Deriving word meaning from written context: A multicompontential skill. Language Learning 51(3). 477–496.10.1111/0023-8333.00162Search in Google Scholar
Hu, H. C. & H. Nassaji. 2012. Ease of inferencing, learner inferential strategies, and their relationship with the retention of word meanings inferred from context. The Canadian Modern Language Review 68(1). 54–77.10.3138/cmlr.68.1.054Search in Google Scholar
Hu, M. & H. Nassaji. 2014. Lexical inferencing strategies: The case of successful versus less successful inferencers. System 45. 27–38.10.1016/j.system.2014.04.004Search in Google Scholar
Hu, H. C. & P. Nation. 2000. Unknown word density and reading comprehension. Reading in A Foreign Language 13(1). 403–430.Search in Google Scholar
Huckin, T. & J. Block. 1993. Strategies for inferring word-meanings in context: A cognitive model. In T. Huckin & M. Haynes (eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning, 153–178. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Search in Google Scholar
Hunt, A. 1996. Constrains on inferring meaning from context: Should we encourage it? Journal of Inquiry and Research 63, 239–249.Search in Google Scholar
Jelić, A-B. 2007. Lexical inferencing strategy use by Croatian foreign language learners. UPRT 2007: Empirical Studies in English Applied Linguistics. 245–255.Search in Google Scholar
Kaivanpanah, S. & S. M. Alavi. 2008. The role of linguistic knowledge in word-meaning inferencing. System 36. 172–195.10.1016/j.system.2007.10.006Search in Google Scholar
Laufer, B. 1997. The lexical plight in second language reading. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition, 20–34. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524643.004Search in Google Scholar
Levine, A. & T. Reves. 1998. Does the method of vocabulary presentation make a difference? TESOL Canada Journal 8. 37–51.10.18806/tesl.v8i1.577Search in Google Scholar
Lin, C. W. 2007. Using context clues to infer word meanings: A case study of EFL university students in central Taiwan. Taipei, Taiwan: Crane.Search in Google Scholar
Liu N. & I.S.P. Nation. 1985. Factors affecting guessing vocabulary in context. RELC Journal 16(1) 33–42.10.1177/003368828501600103Search in Google Scholar
Mineishi, M. 1997. The role of comprehension monitoring in EFL reading: Research and practical considerations. Elec Bulletin 105. 40–47.Search in Google Scholar
Muth, K. D. 1987. Structure strategies for comprehending expository text. Reading Research and Instruction 27(1). 66–72.10.1080/19388078709557927Search in Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. 2004. The relationship between depth of vocabulary knowledge and L2 learners’ lexical inferencing strategy use and success. The Canadian Modern Language Review 16(1). 107–134.10.3138/cmlr.61.1.107Search in Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. 2006. The relationship between depth of vocabulary knowledge and L2 learners’ lexical inferencing strategy use and success. The Modern Language Journal 90(3). 387–401.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00431.xSearch in Google Scholar
Nation, I.S.P. 1990. Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. New York: Newbury House.Search in Google Scholar
Nazmia, B. F. 2004. L2 reading proficiency and lexical inferencing by university EFL learners. The Canadian Modern Language Review 61(2). 225–249.10.3138/cmlr.61.2.225Search in Google Scholar
O’Malley, J. M. & A. U. Chamot. 1995. Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Oxford, R. L. 1990. Language learning strategies and beyond: A look at strategies in the context of styles. In S. S. Magnan (ed.), Shifting the instructional focus to the learner, 35–55. Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.Search in Google Scholar
Oxford, R.L. 2010. New perspectives on language learning strategies. Paper presented at the College of Education. University of Maryland: College Park, MD. October.Search in Google Scholar
Parel, R. 2004. The impact of lexical inferencing strategies on second language reading proficiency. Reading & Writing 17(6). 847–873.10.1007/s11145-004-9347-6Search in Google Scholar
Phillips, D. 2010. Longman Courses for the TOEFL: iBT. Pearson Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Prior, A., A. Goldina, M. Shany & T. Katzir. 2014. Lexical inference in L2: Predictive roles of vocabulary knowledge and reading skill beyond reading comprehension. Reading and Writing 27(8). 1467–1484.10.1007/s11145-014-9501-8Search in Google Scholar
Puildo, D. 2007. The effects of topic familiarity and passage sight vocabulary on L2 lexical inferencing and retention through reading. Applied Linguistics 28(1). 66–86.10.1093/applin/aml049Search in Google Scholar
Read, J. 2000. Assessing vocabulary. UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511732942Search in Google Scholar
Riazi, A. & N. Babaei. 2008. Iranian EFL female students’ lexical inferencing and its relationship to their L2 proficiency and reading skill. The Reading Matrix 8(1). 186–195.Search in Google Scholar
Robb, L. 2000. Tackling tough words. Instructor 110(3). 35–38.Search in Google Scholar
Schmitt, N. 2000. Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Schmitt, N. & M. McCarthy. 1997. Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy, 2nd edn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Shen, M-Y. 2009, December. Technical university EFL learners’ reading proficiency and their lexical inference performance. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching (e-FLT)-Center for Language Study /National University of Singapore 6(2). 189–200.Search in Google Scholar
Shen, M-Y. 2010, November. Effects of perceptual learning style preferences on L2 lexical inferencing. System 38. 539–547.10.1016/j.system.2010.09.016Search in Google Scholar
Shokouhi, H., S. Goosh & M. Maniati. 2009. Learners’ incidental vocabulary acquisition: A case on narrative and expository texts. English Language Teaching 9(1). 13–23.10.5539/elt.v2n1p13Search in Google Scholar
Tavakoli, M. & S. Hayati. 2011. The relationship between lexical inferencing strategies and L2 proficiency of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 2(6). 1227–1237.10.4304/jltr.2.6.1227-1237Search in Google Scholar
Vacca, R. T. 1998. Let’s not marginalize adolescent literacy. Journal of Adult and Adolescent Literacy 8. 604–609.10.1598/JAAL.41.8.1Search in Google Scholar
Villanueva de Debat, E. 2012. Applying current approaches to the teaching of reading. http://www.scribd.com/doc/98645273/Applying-Current-Approaches-to-the- Teaching-of-Reading.Search in Google Scholar
Walters, J. 2006. Methods of teaching inferring meaning from context. RELC Journal 37(2). 176–190.10.1177/0033688206067427Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
