This document discusses research on second language reading. It addresses several areas of interest in L2 reading, including its importance for academic learning and ability to learn independently. Key differences between L1 and L2 reading are identified, such as differing language proficiency levels and socio-cultural backgrounds. Several aspects of L2 reading are then examined in more detail, including word recognition, vocabulary knowledge, use of context, reading rate and fluency, and the role of metacognition. Research findings on each of these topics are presented and sometimes conflicting findings are noted. Throughout, the document emphasizes that results from L1 reading research may not directly apply to L2 reading due to important linguistic and individual differences between the two.

1. *

2.  Interest in second language reading:
*
Part of this
interest:
• 1) Increasing
recognition that
reading abilities
are critical for
academic learning.
• 2) L2 reading
represents the
way that L2
students can learn
on their own
beyond the
classroom.
Part of this
interest:
• 1) The increasing
recognition that
we all live in a
multi-lingual and
multi-cultural
world.
Part of this
interest:
• 1) Evolves out of
increasing
numbers of
immigrant.
• 2) Language
minority students
in L1 educational
system around the
world and efforts
to address their
needs.

3.  The many purpose of reading, although drawing on the same
cognitive processes and knowledge re-sources, do so in
differing combinational on these processes and re-sources.
 For gathering information, we will search for by combination
of skimming & scanning small segments. Example: reading a
newspaper: we skim & Reading a novel: we don’t skim.
 Carver (1992): Scanning is a reading process that requires
recognition of visual forms (number, word or phrase) that
can be matched to forms in the text.
*

4.  1) Reading for understanding
 2) Reading to learn
 Under both reading Purposes, It is possible to say that
reading is “ the process of receiving and interpreting
information encoded in language form via the medium of
print” (Urquhart & Weir, 1998).
*

5.  L2 readers exhibit the full range of variation that can be
found in L1 readers ( variation in training, schooling,
motivation and…).
 L2 readers are acquiring a complex cognitive ability that is
in some ways distinct from L1 reading.
 L2 readers don’t have the same language resources as L1
readers.
 L2 readers don’t share all the social & cultural assumption
& knowledge bases that L1 readers use when reading in
their own language.
 They are learning L2 for various reasons: a) to return to
their home country, b) to integrate in the L2 Society.
*

6.  First, research in L2 reading will need to examine the
potential impact of these differences and can not assume that
results of research on L1 reading will apply in L2 context.
 Second, these differences suggest that L2 readers may employ
cognitive resources in different ways from L1 readers.
 Third, the cognitive processes maybe different as a result of
working with more than one language.
L2 Reading Versus L1 Reading
 Major differences btw L1 & L2 reading can be catagorized
according to three groupings: Linguistic & processing
differences; Other individual & experiential differences; And
socio-cultural and institutional differences (Grabe & Stoller).
*

7. 1. Differing amounts of lexical, grammatical, and discourse
knowledge at beginning stages of L1 & L2 reading.
2. Varying linguistic differences across any two languages &
varying language-transfer influences.
3. Intracting influence of working with two languages.
4. Varying L2 proficiencies as a foundation for L2 reading. The
consequences of this variation is demonstrated by their
abilities to carry out different reading task successfully.
*

8.  The second set of factor play important roles in L2 reading
development & They suggest that L1 reading findings need to
be examined in light of L2 research findings rather than be
assumed to apply to L2 Instruction.
5. Differing levels of L1 reading abilities among the L2 students.
6. Differing amounts of exposure to L2 print.
7. Differing motivations for reading in the L2.
8. Differing kinds of texts in L2 setting.
9. Differing language learning resources for L2 learners.
*

9.  These topics are unexplored & the L2 research to date
suggests that these differences can influence the
development of L2 reading abilities.
10.Differing socio-cultural backgrounds of L2 readers.
11.Differing ways to recognize discourse & texts in L1 & L2
setting.
12.Differing expectations of educational institutions in L1
& L2 setting.
*

10.  Word recognition is at the center of reading fluency &
automaticity.
 Much of the research in second language reading has focused
on vocabulary issues.
Koda (1996):
 Word recognition in second language reading must be viewed
as a ‘ significant phenomenon in its own right’ and not just
as a facet of overall second language proficiency.
 L2 word recognition is affected by:
1) The amount of L2 orthographic processing experience,
2) The distance btw the orthographies of L1 & L2,
3) The interaction btw L1 & L2 orthographic knowledge.
*

11. Segalowitz (1983):
 If a second language is weaker than the first language, and
reading is slower in the second language, word recognition in
the L2 is less automatic than in the L1.
 Segalowitz (1993) showed that practice on word recognition
tasks lead to faster and more stable (less variable) response.
Geva et al. (1997):
 Steps associated with the development of L1 reading efficiency
maybe applicable to the development of word recognition
skills in L2.
 Linguistic features such as ‘orthographic depth’ (the degree
which the written system corresponds to spoken system)
morpho-syntactic complexity, may interact with more global L2
proficiency effects’ determine the course of early L2 reading
development.

12.  According to the orthographic depth hypothesis (Feldman &
Turvey,1983):
 Pre lexical phonology play an important role in lexical access
in ‘shallow orthographics’ , where the correspondences of
graphemes to phonemes are more direct & consistent than in
‘deep orthographics’, where the mapping of letters to sound
is less direct & consistent.
 Cross-linguistic research comparing L2 learners with different
L1 backgrounds has demonstrated superior word recognition
performance for those with L1 orthographic backgrounds
more similar to the L2.
*

13. Green & Meava (1987):
 L1 writing system have a deep and lasting effect on the
ways in which L2 materials are processed.
 Researchers have investigated the influence of L1 phonology
on L2 word recognition, and on L2 reading.
 L1 learners show preferences for acquiring new vocabulary
(in their L1) with phonological pattern (‘phonotactics’) that
are familiar to them.
 Meaning of common English words with familiar L1
Phonotactic pattern were easier to acquire than the
meaning of common English word with unfamiliar L1
phonotactic pattern.

14.  Issues that center on the contributing role of vocabulary
knowledge for L2 reading abilities:
1. The number of words needed to read L2 texts independently &
for instructional uses.
2. The role of context in L2 vocabulary acquisition & in the
guessing of word meaning in L2 reading.
3. The role of dictionary of various kinds & the use of cognates in
L2 vocabulary acquisition & in L2 reading.
4. The ways L2 learners go about a task of acquiring vocabulary
in the L2.
5. The role of extensive reading in the ‘incidental’ acquisition of
L2 vocabulary & the role of vocabulary instruction.
6. The impact of various kinds of vocabulary instruction on L2
vocabulary learning.
*

15.  Laufer (1989): L2 readers had a significantly higher chance
of being a ‘reader’ if they understood 95 percent of the
text’s word tokens.
 Based on Hu & Nation the percentage necessary might be
closer to 98 percent.
 Hirsh & nation (1992): Their result showed that in order to
achieve 97-98 percent coverage of running words in such
texts, that a vocabulary size of about 5000 word families
would be needed.
*

16.  Hazenberg & Hulstign (1996):
 Assessed the representativeness of the same 23,000 words
to cover first-year university reading materials.
 Found that the coverage of the academic corpus didn’t
differ from the coverage of the larger general corpus.
 Developed a vocabulary test aimed at measuring receptive
knowledge of more than 18,000 content words of the
23,000 words.
 They concluded that the minimal size vocabulary needed
for university study is 10,000 base words.

17.  Haynes (1984):
 Students make greater use of local, rather than global,
contextual clues in their contextual guessing of word
meanings.
 Guessable contexts to native speakers are often
incomprehensible context to non-native speakers.
Guessing from Context & Retention
 Mondria & Wit-de Boer (1991):
 Factors such as ‘subject’, ‘verb’ & ‘function’ contribute to
the guessability of a word in a sentence context, and that
correctly guessing a word didn’t lead to improved retention
as compared guessing a word incorrectly.
*

18. By Contrast
*
Sim & Weiss (1984):
These two studies together
suggest that dictionary use
during reading may not be
facilitative of second
language reading
comprehension, and
possibly unnecessary
Knight (1994):
Reading comprehension
was the better for the
group who had access to a
computerized dictionary
than for the group with
no access to the
dictionary

19.  Knight examined the reading comprehension scores according
to verbal ability, no difference was found btw the dictionary
& non-dictionary condition for high verbal ability learners.
 The dictionary access was significant only for the lower
verbal ability group.
 Higher group performed better than lower group both with &
without dictionary, But the two groups performed similarly
to each other when they access to the dictionary.
 The dictionary use can help weaker students close the gap
btw themselves & higher ability students.

20. Carver (1992):
 Fluent readers read at rates btw 200 wpm & 300 wpm & this
fluency develops consistency across age & grade levels.
Anderson (1991): Worked with students to increase reading
rate.
*
• Increase their reading rate (from
161 wpm to 275 wpm)
• Didn’t make significant
comprehension signs
Students in
experimental
group
• An insignificant increase (from 160
wpm to 167 wpm)
• Make significant comprehension
signs
Students in control
group

21.  In Contrast
*
Speculate that
reading rate
development
training may have
been more effective
for students who
were strong L2
readers
Weaker readers need to
develop their ‘bottom-
up’ skills of word
recognition & vocabulary
development before rate
development exercises
can be beneficial

22.  A major research topic for L2 reading is L2 language
proficiency is needed as a support for L2 reading before
L1 reading strategies & skills can be used in a context.
 Research results led to the formulation of two
contradictory positions:
a) ‘Language threshold’ or ‘short-circuit hypothesis’
b) ‘Linguistic interdependence hypothesis’
*

23.  The language threshold hypothesis: Some minimal
threshold of proficiency in the L2 must be attained in
order for the reader’s first language skills to transfer to
reading in the second language.
 The linguistic interdependence hypothesis: reading or
learning to read is accomplished only once, and the once
learners have matured in their ability to read in the first
language, the awareness of the reading process transfers
to the second language & does not need to be relearned.

24.  Studies show that for students who lacked cultural background
knowledge for particular texts, explicit teaching of appropriate
background information could facilitate second language
reading (Floyd & Carrell, 1987).
 Bernhardt (1991) caution against a predictive relationship btw
background knowledge & foreign language reading
comprehension.
 Recent research has shown that there are complex interaction
btw background knowledge & topic-interest, found significant
interaction btw the two.
 If either prior knowledge or topic-interest is high, students
perform better than if both of them are low.
*

25.  Texts have particular rhetorical organizational patterns &
text readers background knowledge of text structure cues
affect their reading in a foreign language (Geva,1983;
Carrell,1984).
 Carrell (1992) found that students who process a kind of
background knowledge-awareness of different patterns are
more likely to use a structure strategy when they read , and
also more likely to understand more what they read.
*

26.  Meta cognition plays a vital role in reading.
 One’s ‘knowledge’ as well as ‘control’ or regulation of one’s
own action while reading for different purposes are two
different aspects of meta-cognition.

*
Higher
levels of
meta-
cognitive
knowledge
as well as
control of
their
reading
Less
sophistication
in meta-
cognition
Successfulreaders
show…
Lesssuccessful
readersshow…

27.  One important aspect of meta-cognition is controlling one’s
reading process through the use of strategies.
 Block (1986) found four characteristics seem to differentiate
the more successful from the less successful:
 Ability to integrate information.
 Ability to recognize aspect of text structure.
 Ability to use general knowledge, personal experience &
associations.
 Ability to address information in the text rather than respond
personally.
 Anderson (1991): Successful strategic reading was not only ‘a
matter of knowing strategy to use, but also… knowing how to
use a strategy successfully & to orchestrate its use with other
strategies.

28. Learners who were taught mapping strategies
to recognize & use the rhetorical structure of
texts, strategies for word, sentence & discourse
analysis & strategies relating to Experience-
Text-Relationship (ETR) & semantic mapping all
improved their reading skills.

29.  Due to the nature of extensive reading treatment, it is
difficult to control a number of other factors & variables.
 Although there are good reasons to believe in the
importance of extensive reading, what is not clear is
extensive reading should be balanced with an intensive
reading programme containing well-considered reading
instruction/pedagogy. For example: in reading strategies,
in vocabulary.
*

30. *