13 Vocabulary and reading

comprehension

It is difficult to see how even a conservative estimate of English vocabulary

could go much below a million lexemes. More radical accounts, allowing in all
of science nomenclature, could easily double that figure. Only a small fraction
of these totals, of course, are learned by any one of us. (Crystal, 1995: 119)

Over the past 15 years, there has been an increasing number of impor-
tant research studies, review chapters, and books on the learning and
teaching of vocabulary. A review of many current surveys of L1 and
L2 vocabulary reveals a fairly standard set of questions that are posed
and then answered. For example, what does it mean to know a word?
How many words are there in English? How many words can be learned
from the reading context? Should vocabulary be taught directly? How
many words can be taught? (Baumann & Kame’enui, 2004; Bogaards
& Laufer, 2004; Folse, 2004; Hiebert & Kamil, 2005; Nation, 2001;
Schmitt, 2000; Stahl & Nagy, 2006; Wagner, Muse, & Tannenbaum,
2007b). Furthermore, most publications addressing vocabulary learning
make strong connections between reading and the learning of written
forms of words. There are, of course, good reasons for this connection
between vocabulary and reading. This chapter departs somewhat from
the format of other chapters in this book – it addresses the questions
listed above (and others) in the process highlighting the promising rela-
tionship between reading and vocabulary.

The reading–vocabulary relationship

In L1 reading research, many studies demonstrate the strong relationship
between vocabulary and reading. Thorndike (1973), in a study of reading
in 15 countries (and with over 100,000 students), reported median cor-
relations across countries and age groups of between r =.66 and r =.75
for reading and vocabulary. Stanovich (1986, 2000) has also reported
on studies that support this relationship, and in his own research, he
has reported strong correlations between vocabulary and reading for
third- through seventh-grade L1 students (r =.64 to r =.76). In fact,
265
266 Developing reading comprehension abilities

Stanovich (1986, 2000) makes a strong argument for a reciprocal causal

relation between reading and vocabulary. That is, vocabulary growth
leads to improved reading comprehension, and amount of reading leads
to vocabulary growth. (See also Beck & McKeown, 1991; Biemiller,
2005; Roth, Speece, & Cooper, 2002; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986; Wagner,
Muse, & Tannenbaum, 2007a.) In Chapter 8, we commented as well
on research by Hart and Risley (1995) and Snow et al. (2007) that
demonstrates the strong role of early vocabulary learning in later read-
ing achievement, describing the importance of vocabulary learning
from the age of one to its impact on reading at the age of 16 (tenth
grade).
In a further set of research studies, Carver (2000, 2003) has argued
that the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and reading com-
prehension is so strong that they can produce perfect correlations. When
reliable vocabulary tests are converted to grade-level equivalent scores (to
give an example, a student with a score of 52 on standardized vocabulary
measures could be rescored as reading at fourth-grade level), and when
reliable reading comprehension measures are also converted to grade-
level equivalent scores, Carver predicts that the correlations between
the two measures will be almost perfect. While the argument is almost
startling in its assertion, Carver presents extensive evidence from multi-
ple sources of assessment data to support his position. For our purposes,
it is fairly safe to claim that a strong and reliable relationship exists
between vocabulary and reading comprehension.
In L2 settings, Verhoeven (2000) reported strong relations between
vocabulary knowledge and reading abilities in a LISREL multivariate
component analysis (a type of Structural Equation Model). Vocabulary
was a predictor variable for reading at .63. In a second major study,
Droop and Verhoeven (2003) demonstrated a powerful causal effect of
vocabulary on the reading comprehension abilities of third- and fourth-
grade language-minority children in the Netherlands. Bossers (1992)
reported that L2 vocabulary knowledge was the strongest predictor of
L2 reading ability in his research among 50 Turkish L2 Dutch learners.
Nassaji (2003b) showed that vocabulary knowledge was strongest
among component skills associated with L2 reading for 60 university-
level ESL learners. Schoonen, Hulstijn, and Bossers (1998) reported that
L2 vocabulary knowledge was a very strong predictor of L2 reading
ability for eighth-grade Dutch EFL students (r = .76).
In research on L2 language assessment, there are many reports of
strong relationships between vocabulary and reading comprehension.
Pike (1979) reported correlations between vocabulary and reading on
TOEFL tests in the order of r =.88 to r =.94. Laufer (1997) cited several
assessment studies with strong correlations between reading and vocab-
ulary knowledge (r = .50 to r = .75). More recently, Qian (2002) found
 Vocabulary and reading comprehension 267

correlations from r = .68 to r = .82 between TOEFL reading and three

vocabulary measures.

What does it mean to know a word?

A number of recent surveys of vocabulary learning have pointed out
that there are many ways to know a word; the simple form–meaning
connection does not provide an accurate picture of the types of word
knowledge we all learn (Nation, 2001; Richards, 1976; Schmitt, 2000).
In the case of the reading–vocabulary connection, when we know a word
well, we access at least nine components of word knowledge (cf. Nation,
2001), as listed in Table 13.1.

Table 13.1. Components of word knowledge

1. Orthography (spelling)
2. Morphology (word-family relations)
3. Parts of speech
4. Pronunciation
5. Meanings (referential range, variant meanings, homophones)
6. Collocations (what words very commonly go with a word)
7. Meaning associations (topical links, synonyms, antonyms, hyponyms)
8. Specific uses (technical, common)
9. Register (power, politeness, disciplinary domain, formality, slang,
dialect form)

When we learn a word, we do not know everything about a word

immediately, and in many cases, we continue to add information to our
mental lexical entries throughout our lives. First encounters with words
may only leave a brief impression of the word form or the part of speech
of the word. Much of our word knowledge outlined above develops over
time through multiple encounters in multiple contexts. Given the range
of types of word knowledge to be learned, it should be evident that word
learning must be an incremental process. Moreover, knowing one or two
meanings for most words is not nearly the full set of word information
that we eventually build. Even when we know a word, we continually
update the entry for the word and fill additional pieces of the puzzle.
At the same time, each time we access a word, we increase our word-
recognition fluency until we achieve automatic access for that word.
This range of word knowledge that we build while reading points
out the strength of the argument made by Perfetti (1992, 1999, 2007;
Perfetti & Hart, 2001). He has argued consistently that the ability to
know words thoroughly may be one of the best indicators of reading-
ability levels (an argument presented as the Lexical Quality Hypothesis).
268 Developing reading comprehension abilities

If, in fact, the information listed in Table 13.1 represents the network
of information that can be accessed automatically with thorough word
learning, it is not difficult to see how such an extensive network would
build multiple paths for reading comprehension. From a more practical
applied linguistics perspective, Read (2004) has noted that relatively
little has been done in L2 contexts to explore relationships among the
various components of word knowledge beyond breadth and depth of
vocabulary knowledge.

How many words are there in English?

A second question commonly asked over the past two decades is how
many words there are in English (without asking here how well each
of the words needs to be known). Estimates vary (almost wildly, and
depending on the selected unit of analysis). Certainly, if one were to
count all the technical and scientific words used in English, and add
proper names for the many things we know, one could easily say that
there are probably between one and two million words in English (see
Crystal, 1988). For this chapter, the immediate answer is that there are
likely to be about 110,000 words in common use.
Staying with a more general criterion of unabridged dictionaries and
analyses of large academic and educational corpora, estimates of the
number of words in general use range between 100,000 and 500,000
words (see Anglin 1993; Miller, 1999; Nagy & Anderson, 1984; Schmitt,
2000; Stahl, 1999; Zeno et al., 1995). An interesting argument has been
made for a much smaller total number of (nonspecialist) words, claim-
ing that English has 54,000 word families (Goulden, Nation, & Read,
1990). This argument remains to be validated, and a number of prob-
lems remain with the assumptions underlying the claim. The concept of a
word family is not entirely clear as a unit of analysis. For example, recent
evidence suggests that claims about the complete semantic transparency
of word families (base word, inflectional forms, and derived forms) do
not hold up well (Anderson, 1996; Cobb, 2009; Gardner, 2007a; Stahl &
Nagy, 2006). Many derived words are not readily understandable from
knowing the base meaning of a word (Anglin, 1993; Cobb, 2009; Nagy,
1997; Nation, 2001; Schmitt, 2000; Schmitt & Zimmerman, 2002). It
is almost impossible to sort out competing claims about word size based
on either number of words or number of word families. Without going
into extensive detail, there are good reasons to accept that there are
many more word meanings to learn than the more restrictive claims of
Goulden, Nation, and Read (1990).
Based on the work of Nagy and his colleagues (e.g., Nagy, 2005;
Nagy & Anderson, 1984; Nagy & Scott, 2000; Stahl & Nagy, 2006) as
well as the American Heritage word-list frequencies compiled by Carroll,
 Vocabulary and reading comprehension 269

Davies, and Richman (1971), it is reasonable to assume a general vocab-

ulary of well over 100,000 words in active use in English (compound
forms, idioms, and common names will increase this total consider-
ably) (see Miller, 1999; Nagy, 1997; Nation, 2001; Schmitt, 2000). Such
an argument matches well with the claimed coverage of the Webster’s
3rd International Dictionary, noted by Nation (2001: 20) as presenting
113,161 base words in general use.

How many words do L1 students know?

The number of words that are used in general academic settings up to uni-
versity levels appears also to be quite large. Nagy and Anderson (1984)
estimated that L1 students encounter approximately 88,000 word fam-
ilies (for Nagy & Anderson, these include base word forms, inflectional
forms, and transparent, closely related derivational forms) in texts dur-
ing the course of primary and secondary schooling in the United States.
In the American school setting, good estimates of L1 word knowledge
by graduating high-school students appears to be about 40,000 words
(recognizing that there will be wide variability among individual stu-
dents) (Anderson, 1996; Cunningham, 2005; Graves & Watts-Taffe,
2002; Nagy & Anderson, 1984; Stahl, 1999, 2005; White, Graves, &
Slater, 1990). This number is a useful benchmark to consider in that
it represents the likely upper limit of what could be expected of any
L2 student hoping to study in an English L1 university setting (allow-
ing for wide-ranging fluent reading ability). Claims for a much smaller
number of word families known by L1 students in the United States
have been proposed (D’Anna, Zechmeister, & Hall, 1991; Zechmeister
et al., 1995). This estimate appears to be based on a notion of complete
transparency of word families which is unlikely (cf. Anderson, 1996;
Gardner, 2007a; Schmitt, 2000; Schmitt & Zimmerman, 2002). Nation
(2001) suggests that L1 readers know about 20,000 word families. Rec-
ognizing that word families are likely to be in a 1:2 relationship with
independent word meanings, his estimate matches with 40,000 words as
an average for educated L1 adults.

How many words should an L2 learner know?

In order to make sense of competing assertions about the amount of
vocabulary that an L2 reader should know, some preliminary informa-
tion on word frequency and word counts in texts is helpful. In most
English texts for nonspecialized nontechnical uses, the most common
word is the, usually representing 6–7 percent of the words in a text.
The 100 most frequent words in the English language represent about
270 Developing reading comprehension abilities

44 percent of the words appearing in the text. The 1,000 most frequent
word families (ignoring the word vs. word family distinction) from the
General Service List (West, 1953) that appear in a text usually represent
about 71 percent of the total words in a text. The 2,000 most frequent
word families usually represent about 76 percent of total word coverage
in an English text (Nation, 2001, 2004). When one adds the Academic
Word List (570 additional word families; Coxhead, 2000) or the BNC
3000 word list (1,000 additional word families; Nation, 2004), coverage
of most academic texts reaches 85 percent or 86 percent, respectively.
From this outline (see also Table 13.2), one can see that a goal would be
to identify the most frequent word families and teach them in order to
cover the highest number of words appearing in a text, and this has been
a goal of much research and instructional advice on vocabulary teach-
ing. However, the problem for reading comprehension is a bit more
complicated than just teaching the 2,000 or 3,000 most frequent word
families.

Table 13.2 Word frequency coverage of academic texts

(Nation, 2001, 2004; Schmitt, 2000)

the 6–7% of total word coverage

top 10 words 22% of coverage
top 50 words 37% of coverage
top 100 words 44% of coverage
top 1,000 words families 71% of coverage
top 2,000 words families 76% of coverage
BNC 3000 word families 86% of coverage

One problem with word-count coverage of texts is that the genre and
specific content of texts can have an impact on these generalizations,
although the variation created is not huge. For the BNC 3000 (Nation,
2004), word-family coverage of a fiction corpus is about 90 percent
while word-family coverage for an academic corpus is about 86 percent.
The bigger problem is that the number of words needed to cover a text
grows in an exponential way, especially after about 89 percent coverage.
That is why about 40,000 words are needed to provide 98–99 percent
coverage for most general texts in English. This changing ratio beyond 89
percent word coverage is a problem for vocabulary learning and reading
comprehension, as will be described below.
A helpful explanation of vocabulary size needed to read a range
of English texts is provided by Nation (2006). He argues that about
4,000 word families (plus proper nouns) (roughly 10,000 independent
word meanings) are needed for reading instructionally (that is, with
instructional support) with approximately 95 percent of words known
in a given text. About 9,000 word families, comprising 98 percent of
words known in a text, are needed for fluent reading in English. Even
 Vocabulary and reading comprehension 271

without examining closely the concept of word families versus word

meanings, this estimate is more realistic than earlier claims of 3,000 word
families as sufficient for English L2 reading comprehension (cf. Nation,
2001; Nation & Waring, 1997).
It seems that a minimum of 10,000 words (not counting inflectional
suffixation distinctions) gives an L2 reader a reasonable chance at under-
standing an academic text, though not reading the text fluently (Hazen-
burg & Hulstijn, 1996; Schmitt, 2000). This minimal level assumes that
instruction of some kind will help students learn key thematic vocabu-
lary that relates to the topic of a given text. Also, the earlier estimate of
40,000 words for L1 students graduating from secondary school (Ander-
son, 1996; Stahl, 2005) matches well with fluent reading requirements,
even for L2 readers. In the American Heritage word list (Carroll, Davies,
& Richman, 1971), the compilers note that 43,831 words provide 99 per-
cent word coverage of most texts. Nation (2001) argues that 98–99 per-
cent word knowledge of a text is a common expectation for fluent read-
ing. However, it is not reasonable to expect that L2 students read almost
any text they encounter in the L2 with fluency, so the real goal is an L2
vocabulary level anywhere above 10,000 words. With more opportuni-
ties for fluent reading practice, a greater number of words will become
known.
It is important to reflect in a concrete way on the idea that readers
should know 95 percent of the words in a text to read it successfully
with instructional support. After all, knowing 95 percent of the words
on a page seems quite reasonable initially. At this coverage, the rate of
unknown words is one to two words for every two lines of continuous
text. Students reading a text in which they do not know 15 words on
a 300-word page (95 percent coverage) will need some instructional
support to comprehend the text well, especially considering that the
unknown words may carry most of the new information in the text. So
this level of word coverage in a text would make it an instructional text.
Students can read and understand the text with help, support, and good
strategies. At 99 percent coverage, there will be three unknown words on
a 300-word page. This level of word coverage would count as a situation
allowing fluent independent reading.
Following this logic, good instructional texts in reading classes need
to aim for a level of vocabulary knowledge that provides 95 percent
of text coverage for most texts encountered and should not go below
90 percent coverage of words known in a text. (This page contains
approximately 510 words. Ninety percent coverage would mean that a
reader did not know 51 words in this single page. This would surely
count as a frustration-level text.) The logic of word coverage reinforces
the more general message that an L2 student will need to develop a very
large receptive vocabulary knowledge base to become an independent
reader. It is also worth pointing out that the relatively small size of an L2
272 Developing reading comprehension abilities

student’s vocabulary does not prevent that student from building word
knowledge by reading, though it is harder to learn words from context
incidentally when words in the immediate context are also unknown
(Nation, 2001; Pulido, 2009).
In some respects, trying to decide the exact number of words an L2
student will need to function in an advanced academic setting is not ever
going to be fully successful. There are too many variables that influence
student comprehension. Moreover, the means for deciding what counts
as an independent word that needs to be learned sometimes can veer
into flights of fancy. At the same time, it is clear that academically
oriented L2 students will need to learn many words beyond the 2,000
most frequent word families, and the notion that L2 students still need to
know the first 2,000 words families in English well retains its force as an
important argument for vocabulary instruction (Meara, 1995; Nation,
2001; Schmitt, 2000).

How many words can be learned from the reading context?

One of the strongest implications from the above section on the size of
vocabulary needed by students is that a good percentage of word learning
needs to occur by extensive exposure to print and learning words from
context. Explicit vocabulary instruction will never include 10,000 words.
There are actually two major issues that arise in discussions of learning
from context. One is the issue of how incidental word learning from
extensive exposure to texts leads to large vocabulary gains over time.
The second is the issue of students learning specifically to guess words
from context. These are potentially independent issues.

Learning words incidentally from context

In L1 settings, researchers have estimated that children learn somewhere
between 1,000 and 5,000 words per year (Graves & Watts-Taffe, 2002;
Stahl, 1999; White, Graves, & Slater, 1990), with most estimates being
in the 2,000–4,000 range. However, the situation for L2 learners, partic-
ularly in EFL settings, is not generally comparable. Even assuming that
a reading curriculum included an intensive vocabulary-learning compo-
nent, it is probably not realistic to expect L2 students to learn 2,000
words per year taught directly in class (assuming 50 words per week
times 40 weeks) in any circumstance other than an intensive language-
learning program (20 or more hours of instruction per week). Word
learning in an intensive context would also likely only provide a par-
tial level of word knowledge. And even in a very intensive L2 language
experience, it is unlikely that students could learn any number of words
close to the 10,000 minimum through direct vocabulary instruction over
 Vocabulary and reading comprehension 273

the course of a year (though some intensive programs may approximate

the estimates for L1 children — 2,000 to 4,000 words to some level of
word knowledge). Given this circumstance, the only way a learner will
gain the number of words needed to read most academically oriented
texts with some level of adequate comprehension is through additional
exposure to the needed words in the context of reading (Cunningham,
2005).
Learning words from context entails incidental exposure to new
words; that is, the goal of the learner is to read and understand, not
to notice and try to learn new words. Exposure to new words involves
some passing attention as comprehension is constructed, but a new word
may not even be noticed in any conscious way. If it is noticed, it may
be skipped, or some minimal possible meaning may be assigned to it
in order to continue the effort to understand the text. Multiple studies
have shown that word learning from context typically involves learning
5–15 percent of the new words read on a first encounter, at least to
some extent of word knowledge (Kuhn & Stahl, 1998; Nagy, Herman,
& Anderson, 1985; Nation, 2001; Scott, 2005; Stahl & Nagy, 2006;
Swanborn & de Glopper, 1999). Rates of new word understanding and
retention are higher with instructional support and multiple exposures
(Cobb, 2009; Horst, 2009; Stahl & Nagy, 2006).
The argument for learning words from context is persuasively argued
by Nation (2001), Schmitt (2000), Stahl (1999), and Stahl and Nagy
(2006) in the context of extensive reading. If students read approximately
a million words of running text in a year, and if they know 96–98 percent
of the words, they will be exposed to 20,000 to 40,000 new words. (One
million words equals 10–12 shorter novels, 25 Newsweek magazines, or
65 graded readers.) If a student reads 100 wpm for 45 minutes per
day, and for 222 days in the year, that student would read just under
one million words in a year (Nation, 2001). If students learn one word
in ten through context, they will learn somewhere between 2,000 and
4,000 new words through extensive reading in a year. And, as Nation
(2001: 238) notes: “Learning rates can be increased considerably by some
deliberate attention to vocabulary.” Similar analyses are provided by
Hiebert and Kamil (2005) and Stahl and Nagy (2006). One consequence
of this argument is that students learn vocabulary by reading extensively
over an extended period of time.
It is important to stress that learning the vocabulary required to
become a good reader does not mean making a choice between direct
vocabulary instruction and extensive exposure to words through read-
ing. Both paths to vocabulary learning are needed and they support each
other in complementary ways. Direct instruction can target the most fre-
quent words, key topical words, and generally useful academic words.
Direct instruction also supports the reading practice that is needed as
274 Developing reading comprehension abilities

learners work to build larger recognition vocabularies. Extensive read-

ing reinforces the more frequent words, adds many more topical words,
builds elaborated meaning networks to connect many of the related
words, and exposes readers to many less frequent words (see Chapter
15).

Guessing words from context

Learning words from context leads naturally to a discussion of con-
sciously guessing word meanings from context, a far more complex
issue (see also Chapter 4). Guessing words from context is a general
skill practiced by all readers to varying extents (Beck, McKeown, &
Kucan, 2002; Kuhn & Stahl, 1998). When we see a new word, we may
notice it and (tacitly) recognize its form and part of speech; we may
notice some aspects of the word form – some affixes or word-stem parts
that contribute to a guess; we may quickly associate some meaning with
the word – a property, a thing, an action – within the topic of the read-
ing passage; we may quickly decide on a meaning that seems to work
well enough in the immediate context of trying to understand the text.
These decisions are all inferences made about words, or ‘guesses at word
meaning from context.’ In some cases, the guess may be fairly accurate,
but in more cases, the guess may not be accurate at all. When a guess
is not very accurate, it may not affect overall comprehension, though
sometimes the new word may carry important meaning and disrupt
comprehension.
In many instances, the guessed meaning of the word will be quickly
lost. On further encounters with the word, the process repeats itself,
but with more supporting information available on each iteration. Over
many encounters in differing contexts, a reasonable meaning (or mean-
ings) of the word takes shape and develops into an ever-wider range of
knowledge about the word. It is important to point out that this way
to learn new vocabulary is relatively inefficient if replicated as a type of
exercise to learn specific words. After all, a 5–15 percent learning rate
across one reading of a text is not very efficient and many words are
not repeated frequently enough to maintain learning through just a few
exposures. But if one recognizes the need for multiple exposures to a
word and the very gradual nature of vocabulary acquisition, and if one
also recognizes the many other benefits of extensive reading, then the
strategic process of guessing words from context takes on tremendous
importance over time (see also Nagy, 2005; Nassaji, 2003a).
Guessing words from context (in L1 reading situations) represents a
reasonable way to problem-solve one’s way quickly through unknown
words in a text, a way of doing the best one can with what one has
available without seriously disrupting the reading process itself. Direct
 Vocabulary and reading comprehension 275

instruction in guessing from contexts has been proposed as a good tech-

nique for supporting reading comprehension and also enhancing word
learning (Fukkink & de Glopper, 1998; Nation, 2001; Schmitt, 2000;
Sinatra & Dowd, 1991; Stahl 1999; Stahl & Nagy, 2006; Sternberg
& Powell, 1983). However, the arguments to support explicit vocab-
ulary learning by guessing word meanings from context needs to be
qualified by the extensive research conducted on this issue over the past
15 years.
First, the context in which new words appear can vary radically. Beck,
McKeown, and Kucan (2002) argue that word contexts are generally of
four types: (a) misdirective contexts; (b) nondirective contexts; (c) general
contexts; and (d) directive contexts. Misdirective contexts lead students
to the wrong meaning. Nondirective contexts provide no assistance in
directing a student to any particular meaning for a word. General con-
texts provide a minimal level of support. Only directive contexts provide
a strong set of clues for guessing the right meaning for a new word.
Following this taxonomy, only one of the four possible contexts pro-
posed by Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002) strongly supports guessing
from contexts in real texts. In addition, any context, to be at all use-
ful, requires that almost all of the surrounding words are known to the
learner. It also seems that most useful clues are in the immediate context
of the word – within a few words of the new word – and guessing works
better when there are no confusing alternative clues in the immediate
context. Moreover, most useful context information requires that the
word itself be identified precisely – assuming good decoding skills (Beck,
McKeown, & Kucan, 2002; Nassaji, 2003a; Qian, 2004; Schmitt, 2000;
see also Coady & Huckin, 1997; Huckin, Haynes, & Coady, 1993).
Second, there is persuasive evidence that guessing words from context
does not provide a good way of learning precise meanings of specific
words. In several studies, the observation of student guesses shows that
they more often than not make poor guesses from the context given.
In other cases, the assessment of word learning from context shows
that the percentages of word meanings learned reasonably well were
quite low. Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002) reported on a study in
which adults were able to guess one out of 13 words correctly when
the words appeared in a very supportive context (a directive context).
Gough and Wren (1999) demonstrated that only 14 percent of nondi-
rective context words were guessed correctly. Words in a strongly sup-
portive context were guessed correctly approximately 25 percent to
45 percent of the time. (See also Bensoussan & Laufer, 1984; Carnine,
Kame’enui, & Coyle, 1984; McKeown, 1985; McKeown & Beck, 2004;
Nassaji, 2003a; Pressley & Woloshyn, 1995; Shatz & Baldwin 1986;
Stahl, 1999.) The conclusion to draw from this research is that guessing
from context is a strategic way to read through difficult texts, but it is
276 Developing reading comprehension abilities

not a very efficient way to learn new words as part of explicit vocabulary
instruction.
Despite these qualifications, guessing words from context represents
an important independent word-learning strategy over time (e.g., Huckin
& Bloch, 1993; Nassaji, 2003a; Nation, 2001; Sanaoui, 1995). It also
represents an important way for learners to cope with difficult texts.
To help students develop guessing skills appropriately, students need
to practice and analyze guessing from context in texts that they are
reading, recognize clues that may be useful (e.g., discourse-marking
words, punctuation, word-part information, part of speech, examples,
and descriptions), and be encouraged by teachers to become more aware
of new words while reading. Fukkink and de Glopper (1998), “in a
meta-analysis of 21 studies involving native speakers found that training
resulted in better guessing, particularly if learners’ attention was directed
to clues in the context” (cited in Nation, 2001: 251; cf. Baumann et al.,
2002, who point out that there was no vocabulary from context stud-
ies found to be sufficiently rigorous to be included in the meta-analysis
by the National Reading Panel 2000). A reasonable conclusion to draw
from the debate on teaching context clues is the need to raise L2 stu-
dent awareness of context information that will help them derive a good
guess of the meaning of a new word (see Baumann et al., 2005; Huckin
& Bloch, 1993; Nation, 2001; Stahl & Nagy, 2006).

Should vocabulary be taught directly?

Learning words from context does not represent the sole, or even the pri-
mary, way to support vocabulary learning for better reading comprehen-
sion. In fact, most vocabulary researchers argue that effective vocabulary
learning is a combination of (a) learning words from context through
extensive reading; (b) providing direct instruction of vocabulary words;
(c) developing word-learning strategies; (d) building word-recognition
fluency; and (e) developing word appreciation (and motivation) on stu-
dents’ parts (Graves, 2000; Nation, 2001; Stahl & Nagy, 2006).
While the number of words learned through explicit instruction may
not be very large, they represent key words for comprehension, words
that associate with many other words conceptually and thematically,
and words that form foundations for less powerful contextual word
learning. A number of research studies and research syntheses have iden-
tified several specific approaches for direct instruction of vocabulary that
provide effective word-learning outcomes (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan,
2002; Blachowicz & Miller, 2000; Graves, 2000; Nation, 2001; Sanaoui,
1995). The techniques and activities outlined in Table 13.3 all provide
ways for students to learn vocabulary through direct instruction.
 Vocabulary and reading comprehension 277

Table 13.3: Direct instruction that promotes vocabulary learning

1. Engaging in semantic mapping and word mapping

2. Developing concept-of-definition maps
3. Attending to glosses in texts
4. Learning key words before reading
5. Experiencing multiple exposures to words
A. Repeating words multiple times
B. Encountering words in multiple contexts
C. Manipulating words in multiple activities and for multiple purposes
D. Encountering words in structured overviews, reading guides, and advance
organizers before reading
6. Developing strategies for independent word learning
A. Using mnemonic strategies (key-word methods) as well as analogies and
imagery
B. Learning word-part, word-root, and word-affix information
C. Reading ahead, rereading, verbally repeating the word, paraphrasing,
substituting synonyms
D. Using a dictionary
E. Working with synonym word lists and flash cards
7. Raising awareness of words and motivation for learning
A. Becoming more aware of words
B. Choosing individual words to learn
C. Increasing interest in words and motivation for word learning

The first recommendation for direct instruction has been shown to

improve vocabulary learning and retention in various research stud-
ies (Blachowicz & Miller, 2000; de Groot & van Hell, 2005). Seman-
tic mapping typically emerges from a reading text and a topic, and
allows students to generate a range of associated words that can then
be grouped in relation to the information actually presented in the text
(see Appendix, this chapter). Word mapping focuses on a key word and
has students generating word-family members and associated words in a
visual display (see Appendix, this chapter). The second activity, concept-
of-definition maps, provides an intensive exploration of the meaning of
a key word, focusing on the meaning, meaning associations, examples,
and non-examples (see Appendix, this chapter).
The use of glosses for unknown words has proven to be helpful
for reading comprehension. Glosses make the reading context easier
to understand, and they provide students with simple definitions that
they can use as needed. Both Nation (2001) and Schmitt (2000) refer to
a number of studies that demonstrate the usefulness of glossing words in
texts. They also agree that providing quick simple definitions for words
leads to reasonably good learning of words appearing in a text.
A focus on a few key words per text allows students to focus on a small
number of important words and not try to learn long lists of words that
278 Developing reading comprehension abilities

are quickly forgotten. Key words should provide learning connections

to sets of additional thematic or associated words that appear in a given
text, providing students with opportunities to work with many good
vocabulary items while only being required to learn a small set of words
that are central to the text.
Instructional activities that involve students in repeated exposure
to words and opportunities to manipulate words in various contexts
will improve vocabulary learning. Both Beck, McKeown, and Kucan
(2002) and Nation (2001) review research and suggest a wide variety
of vocabulary-learning activities that support effective learning through
instruction that provides multiple exposures to new words and gets stu-
dents to manipulate these words in various ways. Vocabulary activities
that involve matching, sorting, classifying, connecting, and example find-
ing can create ways to reintroduce large numbers of words in a variety
of contexts and uses. Activities that ask students to use words in new
contexts or for new purposes, and then generate additional examples,
require students to see words in new contexts and manipulate them in
new ways.
Research supports a number of strategies for learning vocabulary.
The further benefit of strategy learning is that students can continue
learning on their own if they are motivated to do so. Among strate-
gies for word learning are using dictionaries, working with word lists
(paired associations and L1–L2 synonyms), using flash cards, learning
word-part information, and using mnemonics, analogies, and key-word
methods to build associations for word meanings. While reading texts,
some word-learning strategies are very simple and seemingly not very
imaginative. These include repeating words, rereading sentences, trying
simple synonyms or translations, and reading ahead. Nonetheless, these
strategies often trigger connections and associations that help vocabu-
lary learning. Many traditional strategies for word learning (e.g., flash
cards) are often derided and viewed as ineffective; yet research has
shown that, in the right contexts, and used in the right ways, they
are effective supports for vocabulary learning. Overall, word-learning
strategies of various types are important supports for vocabulary learn-
ing (Gardner 2007b; Nation, 2001; Nist & Olejnik, 1995; Schmitt,
2000).
Word-part knowledge, in particular, has been gaining increasing
research support as an effective vocabulary-learning resource. Several
studies have demonstrated that knowledge of prefixes and suffixes
improves students’ word learning (Anglin, 1993; Baumann et al., 2005;
Graves, 2004; Schmitt & Meara, 1997; Stahl & Nagy, 2006; White,
Power, & White, 1989; White, Sowell, & Yanagihara, 1989). While
word-part knowledge cannot be conveyed simply and quickly, a steady
set of simple exercises over time as well as activities that raise word-part
awareness can provide learners with a useful resource for learning words
 Vocabulary and reading comprehension 279

from context (e.g., Baumann et al., 2005; Nation, 2001; Stahl & Nagy,
2006).
Raising students’ awareness of new words that they encounter in texts
represents an important learning goal. Almost every current review of
vocabulary now stresses the importance of (a) making students aware of
the new words they encounter, and (b) motivating students to learn and
use the new words. Students need to become collectors of words; that
is, they need to attend to new words they encounter, either by listing
words that are interesting or difficult, or by noting possible connections
between new words and known words, or by trying to use new words
in some interesting way. Arguments for the role of word awareness
are discussed in Anderson (1999), Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002),
Graves and Watts-Taffe (2002), Nation (2001), Pressley and Woloshyn
(1995), Schmitt (2000), Scott (2005), Scott and Nagy (2004), and Stahl
and Nagy (2006).

What words should be taught (and learned)?

An important issue commonly asked is what words to teach (and what
words should be learned). Many researchers suggest that the first crite-
rion for word selection should be frequency. Logically, this is a reason-
able argument. If everyone agrees that students need many thousands
of words, then the more frequent words need to be learned first. It is
at this point that one can also see a major difference between L1 and
L2 contexts. Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002) argue that L1 learners
up to the third grade have vocabularies of approximately 8,000–10,000
words so the focus of vocabulary instruction should be on what they call
“tier 2” words – words from 8,000 to 15,000 on frequency lists. They
argue that, for L1 learners, these “tier 2” words (n = 7,000) represent
a range that is necessary for school learning through ninth grade. If 700
words per year could be part of the curriculum, by tenth grade, these
additional 7,000 words would be covered.
L2 vocabulary-learning contexts are very different from the L1
vocabulary-learning context described above. Most L2 curricula would
be considered very successful if students knew the most frequent 8,000
words, no less taking that figure as a starting point. As noted above, a
useful end goal for students hoping to read advanced academic texts or
study in an English-medium university is a minimum of 10,000 words
(although many other L2 instructional settings do not need to aim so
high). In such circumstances, it is quite reasonable that students would
need to know the 2,000 most frequent words in the L2 and also the
general academic words described in Coxhead (2000) or the BNC 3000
(Nation, 2004). The issue becomes how to make decisions about word
coverage beyond this simple goal.
280 Developing reading comprehension abilities

If the 300 most frequent words are essentially the “glue” of the
language, being words that have to be learned just to learn the grammar
and have enough words for simple sentences to manipulate as L2 learn-
ing begins, they are part of any basic English instruction. These words do
not have to be covered explicitly as part of separate vocabulary instruc-
tion. For example, the words that appear between 41 to 50 in the list
of the most frequent words in American English (Fry, Kress, & Foun-
toukidis, 1993) are as follows: would, all, she, her, more, been, about,
there, when, its. These words are all function words in English. Words
between 91–100 involve two verbs (call and get), one noun (water), and
seven function words. Since the first 1,000 words provide 71 percent of
coverage of most texts (Nation, 2004), the remaining 700 words need to
be included in part of explicit vocabulary instruction. The second 1,000
words may provide about 4.5 percent coverage, but the first 500 of these
second 1,000 do most of the work. These second-tier words, from 300
to 1,500, should all be strong candidates for explicit instruction. The
third tier should include words from 1,500 to 2,500, including the Aca-
demic Word List (Coxhead, 2000). They should be taught whenever the
opportunity arises and it is reasonable to do so. Alternatively, Nation’s
(2004) British National Corpus Word List could provide the third tier
for words from 1,500 to 3,000 on this list. This core word list of three
tiers, based on word families, would most likely provide L2 learners with
about 6,000 important independent words to learn. This, in itself, is a
formidable L2 learning task.
Beyond these 6,000 primary candidate words for learning, students
need to build up additional words through multiple exposures to topi-
cally related reading material (e.g., through extensive reading) as well as
instructional discussions on content materials. Reading topically related
material offers good opportunities for the recycling of vocabulary, work-
ing with associated sets of words, and word collecting (as well as greater
engagement with reading and learning). These reading materials will
allow for extended vocabulary learning through context, exposure to
less common words, and repetitions with more frequent vocabulary. The
combination of extensive reading, word-collecting habits, and word-
learning strategies will eventually bring the motivated learner to the
recognition vocabulary level needed for advanced academic study.

How many words can be taught? (How are

words learned?)
Most L1 direct vocabulary instruction in classrooms does not involve
more than 300 to 500 words per academic year (Beck, McKeown, &
Kucan, 2002; Stahl, 1999; Stahl & Nagy, 2006). However, vocabulary
 Vocabulary and reading comprehension 281

instruction in L2 contexts, involving widely varying contexts and differ-

ent types of demands on learning, may make it possible to learn many
more words per year in some situations. Even in contexts of FL (and
EFL) learning, there is a much greater emphasis on word learning as
part of instruction than occurs in L1 learning contexts. Because students
are actively trying to raise their basic (and increasingly advanced) L2
proficiency levels, it is reasonable to expect a greater level of vocabulary
learning for L2 students. Students who are in ESL settings, or in more
intensive instructional situations, will certainly have many opportunities
to engage in intensive vocabulary learning through direct instruction and
explicit exercises.
Unlike in more common settings of 3–6 hours of foreign-language
instruction per week, it is possible to argue that, in fairly intensive
instruction (12–20 hours per week) 2,000 words per year (50 words per
week × 40 weeks) could be taught directly to L2 learners. More inten-
sive settings for ESL instruction (20–30 hours per week) could include
well over 2,000 words per year (assuming that these 2,000 words would
be the target of multiple exposures in multiple contexts and be parts
of word lists, word sets, semantic mapping, word-part mapping, and
other vocabulary exercises). As students move beyond the 2,000 most
frequent words, they should develop word-learning strategies and also
greater efficiency in word learning because they already know a larger
set of words to build upon (the more words a learner knows, the easier
it is to make connections to new words and to use textual contexts).
For example, the words mild, or even tepid, are far easier to learn when
a learner already has control over hot, cold, freezing, warm, and cool
(Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002). L2 learners have many such sets,
based on both L2 words already learned and L1 vocabulary knowledge.
Nagy and Scott (2000) highlight another such example. The word dol-
phin is more likely to be learned very quickly when a learner already
knows the words for mammal, whale, and shark.
L2 students have an important advantage over L1 learners with respect
to vocabulary development. In most cases, L2 students already know the
concepts that the words refer to and only need the appropriate label for
these concepts in the L2. While conceptual overlap may not be com-
plete between two languages for any given word pairing, the overlap
is generally sufficient for the building of an initial entry of the new L2
word in the learner’s lexicon. These quick connections as a labeling pro-
cess have some parallels to a concept known as “fast mapping” in L1
vocabulary development among young children. It seems that certain
words are learned very quickly by children with very few exposures.
(They are “fast-mapped” into the young learners’ lexicon.) Whether
because of immediate needs, or because the word fills a perceived gap
in words being learned, or because the word simply attracts attention,
282 Developing reading comprehension abilities

fast mapping is possible (though this is probably not done with a large
percentage of learned words in the L1). L2 learners have real advantages
in that many L2 words represent labels for concepts that are already
well-developed, and there is a ready-made space in the L2 lexicon that
is waiting to be filled. It is reasonable to suggest that L2 students have
their own favorable conditions for some type of fast mapping with some
subsets of encountered words.
The argument that words are ready to be learned because they can
fill a cognitive space may seem, at first glance, to be an unusual idea.
One might ask why the word dolphin, from the example above, might
fill a cognitive space said to be well-established across L1 knowledge
networks as well as a growing L2 network. Theoretically, the idea that
dolphin is “ready to be learned” gains support from the recent theory of
Latent Semantic Analysis (Landauer, 1998; Landauer & Dumais, 1997).
As Stanovich (2000) notes:

Landauer’s (1998) work . . . has demonstrated how the paradox of vocabulary

growth – how children’s vocabularies grow at prodigious rates despite the
seeming inefficiency of direct instruction in vocabulary – can be explained by
the effect of mere exposure. Specifically, when a word is encountered in the
context of other known words, it is not just the representation of the unknown
word that is sharpened, but that of all related words in the lexicon (which, in
the abstract, includes all words in the lexicon). (Stanovich, 2000: 254)

To put the idea simply, the more known words that regularly appear
in the semantic neighborhood of the word dolphin, the easier it will be to
acquire the meaning of the word dolphin. When we learn about whales
and sharks, we learn also about the sea, about fins, about swimming
habits, about predators, and so on. As a result, many concepts associated
with certain fish and sea mammals are readily transferable to the new
word, dolphin, and dolphin becomes easy to learn.
Landauer and his colleagues (Landauer & Dumais, 1997) have
demonstrated this phenomenon empirically, drawing on conceptualiza-
tions from connectionist modeling and large-scale statistical analyses.
They wrote a computer program to “learn” many words simply by being
exposed to many texts. The performance of the connectionist learning
program on a vocabulary test indicated that many words could be learned
by the computer from fairly minimal direct exposure if the words were
associated with large networks of related words that were given many
exposures. This empirical demonstration functions much like the student
who knows a lot of related words and many concepts associated with
the word to be learned.
L2 students may find themselves in many situations in which a word
is “ready” to be learned, both because of growing L2 vocabulary knowl-
edge and because of extensive cognitive / conceptual networks from their
 Vocabulary and reading comprehension 283

L1 knowledge. In short, L2 students, in a vocabulary-rich environment,

and with extensive exposure to new words, can acquire quite a large
vocabulary through relatively few exposures if words are ready to be
learned and if teachers can estimate likely words to include in instruc-
tion. A similar perspective on accelerating vocabulary learning has been
developed by both Biemiller (2005) and Hiebert (2005) in L1 contexts.
Biemiller (2005) discusses the need to identify and teach words that are
already partially known in order to accelerate word learning, arguing
that many words are partially known and ready to be learned well. Both
Biemiller (2005) and Hiebert (2005) discuss possible ways to determine
which words are more likely to be partially known words. These perspec-
tives, while exploratory, could also be useful for L2 vocabulary teaching
and learning.

Implications for instruction

Vocabulary learning needs to be developed from a combination of direct
vocabulary instruction, vocabulary-learning strategies, extensive reading
and word learning from context, heightened student awareness of new
words, and motivation to use and collect words. Instruction needs to
provide opportunities for practice using words and multiple encounters
with words over time. There needs to be a continual effort to recycle
words into new lessons. A number of researchers have generated impor-
tant principles for direct vocabulary instruction (Anderson, 1999; Beck,
McKeown, & Kucan, 2002; Nation, 2001; Stahl, 2005; Stahl & Nagy,
2006). Drawing on these ideas, 17 key implications for planning vocab-
ulary instruction emerge:

1. Prioritize instruction so that key activities are practiced consistently

and systematically over time. (Vocabulary learning is a long-term
incremental process.)
2. Provide vocabulary exposures in multiple contexts. Teach differ-
ent words in different ways (e.g., words for which students know
synonyms, words that can be explained well with definitions and
examples, words that represent new or complex concepts).
3. Teach words while working with the reading texts that they come
from. Teach at the point of contact; use discussion around texts to
teach vocabulary.
4. Read aloud to students and draw their attention to key words while
reading.
5. Develop procedures for selecting words to teach.
284 Developing reading comprehension abilities

6. Teach a limited set of key words for depth, precision, and multiple
encounters.
7. Focus on word relationships (parts-of-speech variations, word fam-
ilies, synonyms, antonyms, graded relations).
8. Provide word instruction that combines contextual information and
definitional information (word-part information, cognates, context
cues, affix information, flash cards, imagery).
9. Help students learn word-part information and apply it to greater
word awareness.
10. Use visual supports and mapping techniques.
11. Work with dictionary definitions and rewrite more accessible defi-
nitions.
12. Develop activities that recycle a lot of words at one time (e.g., sort-
ing words into lists, semantic mapping, matching activities, word-
recognition fluency activities, repeated reading practice).
13. Create a vocabulary-rich environment.
14. Raise student awareness of words: Have students collect, keep, use,
and share words they want. Talk about words and build word con-
sciousness and word interest.
15. Recycle vocabulary over time to ensure multiple exposures to words
throughout vocabulary instruction (rereading prior texts for new
purposes, having students nominate words to work with, adding
words from prior units as part of sorting, classifying, and connecting
activities).
16. Give students some choices in word learning.
17. Develop student motivation for word collecting and provide a sup-
portive learning environment.

These principles represent important implications from vocabulary

research for building a vocabulary-learning curriculum (that will also
support reading-comprehension development). In summary, a coherent
approach to direct vocabulary learning must combine some understand-
ing of how students are likely to learn words as a result of direct instruc-
tion, a systematic approach to appropriate word selection, many oppor-
tunities for students to practice and use the words being learned, and
a vocabulary-rich environment in the classroom. Students also need to
develop effective independent word-learning strategies, become metacog-
nitively aware of the power of words, and be strongly motivated to learn
words, both through instruction and independently. The end goal is to
ensure that key words are overlearned, that large numbers of related
words are learned, that students appreciate the power of words, and
that they become life-long collectors of words.
 Vocabulary and reading comprehension 285

appendix: vocabulary activities

Semantic Map

tigers poachers
frogs danger
apes loss
condors oil companies
global warming

ENDANGERED

parks
protection biology
Panatanal environment
Galapagos Islands species
Rain forests evolution
Greenpeace

Word Map

Container Countenance contention

containing detain contentious

retain attain Intention

retainer sustain
retention CONTAIN sustenance

maintain attention
maintenance entertain intentional
entertainment

Concept-of-definition Map

Presence of many different

life forms

Nature McDonalds
Conservancy BIODIVERSITY Oil refineries
Greenpeace Acid rain
Amazon forests
Forest Variety of species
Different habitats
Interdependence
Symbiotic relationships