View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 197 (2015) 50 – 56

7th World Conference on Educational Sciences, (WCES-2015), 05-07 February 2015, Novotel
Athens Convention Center, Athens, Greece

The Role of Vocabulary Knowledge in Reading Comprehension: A

Cross-Linguistic Study
Sidek H.M.a*, H. Ab. Rahima
a
Faculty of Major Languages Studies, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia (USIM)., Malaysia
b
Faculty of Major Languages Studies, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia (USIM)

Abstract

The purpose of the present cross-linguistic study was to find out the role of vocabulary knowledge of the language of the text on
reading comprehension performance when reading texts in that language. The study involved 10 participants who were students
of English as a foreign language (EFL) in a Malaysian public high school selected using the random sampling. The instruments
for the study were a set of reading comprehension test and a set of vocabulary test for the selected EFL grade-level reading text
and a set of reading comprehension test and a set of vocabulary test for the selected grade-level reading text in the participants’
native language. The tests were administered on an individual basis. Each participant was allowed to read the EFL text without
time limit but to do the tests without looking back at the text within a specified duration for the reading comprehension and
vocabulary tests. The same procedures were conducted for reading comprehension test and vocabulary in context test for the first
language (L1) or native language text. A brief interview was conducted immediately after the participants had completed the
reading comprehension and vocabulary in context tests for the EFL and L1 texts. The participants’ vocabulary test and reading
comprehension were scored and the test scores for the EFL text and L1 text were compared. The findings show that the
participants’ vocabulary test and reading comprehension test scores for the L1 text were significantly better than their scores for
the EFL text. The results from the interviews indicate that the participants were lacked of vocabulary knowledge in the EFL in
comparison to in their native language. The findings provide evidence that a reader’s level of vocabulary knowledge is one of the
elements that plays an impacting role in determining reading comprehension performance in that language.
© 2015 Published
© 2015 The Authors. Published
by Elsevier Ltd.by Elsevier
This Ltd.access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
is an open
Peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Education and Research Center.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Education and Research Center.
Keywords: Vocabulary, reading comprehension, cross-linguistic, EFL, L1

* Sidek H.M. Tel.:+3-234-53-23-1.

E-mail address: harison@usim.edu.my, emma_azeman05@yahoo.com

1877-0428 © 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Education and Research Center.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.046
 H.M. Sidek and H. Ab. Rahim / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 197 (2015) 50 – 56 51

1. Introduction

Here introduce the paper, and put a nomenclature if necessary, in a box with the same font size as the rest of the
paper. The paragraphs continue from here and are only separated by headings, subheadings, images and formulae.
The section headings are arranged by numbers, bold and 10 pt. Here follows further instructions for authors.
Vocabulary learning is dominant in language acquisition, whether the language is second or a foreign language
(Folse, 2004; Mehring, 2005). The importance of vocabulary in determining the success of a reading comprehension
has long been established. The knowledge of word meanings and the ability to access the knowledge efficiently are
recognized as an essential factor in reading comprehension (Ali & Mohd. Ayub, 2012; Bee Eng & Abdullah, 2003).
Moghadam, Zainal and Ghaderpour (2012) state that when a reader does not know many words in a text, such
condition would hinder the effectiveness and efficiency of text processing, which leads to difficulties in the reader
comprehending the text. Since word recognition and lexical access often prevent comprehension, providing
vocabulary instruction may help improve students’ reading comprehension skills (Curtis & Longo, 2001). Second
language learners are typically conscious in their limitations in their vocabulary knowledge which deficit would
hinder their ability in performing reading comprehension tasks successfully (Read, 2004).
Past studies on vocabulary in both first language (L1) and second language (L2) have indicated that knowledge
on vocabulary is one of the best predictors of reading ability and the capability to obtain new details from texts
(Nation, 2001; Qian, 2002; Read, 2000; Tannenbaum, Torgesen & Wagner, 2006). Thus, this study attempts to
investigate whether vocabulary knowledge affects reading comprehension in L1 and L2. Another research by Hu
and Nation (2000) and Schmitt (2000) hold the view that the amount of familiar and unfamiliar vocabulary is one of
the significant aspects in distinguishing the difficulties of a reading passage. Thus, the relationship between
vocabulary and reading comprehension is a “vigorous” one and the knowledge of the vocabulary system of a
language has constantly been the “foremost indicator of a text’s difficulty” (Stahl, 2003). Hence, the relationship
between vocabulary knowledge in processing and understanding a reading passage in L1 and L2 would be analysed
in this study. In sum, the findings of past studies have established the relationship between vocabulary knowledge
and reading comprehension, which findings suggest the importance of readers having the required vocabulary
knowledge in text processing for comprehension purpose.

2. Vocabulary Knowledge and L2 Reading Comprehension in the Malaysian Context

A good vocabulary system is indeed an asset to a child; those who know more words are able to process various
reading text and are competent to engage in active conversation with people from different background and
proficiency level (Anderson & Freebody, 1981). Studies on vocabulary knowledge in the Malaysian setting have
been conducted in certain areas. In a review by Moghadam, Zainal and Ghaderpour (2012) on the important role of
vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension performance, they posited that vocabulary learning is central in
language acquisition, whether second or foreign language. Researchers have also suggested that knowing a word
completely should take into consideration a variety of linguistic knowledge ranging from pronunciation, spelling
and morphology (Haastrup & Henriksen, 2000) to knowledge of antonym, synonym, hyponym and collocational
meanings (Chapelle, 1998; Henriksen, 1999). They also stated that vocabulary knowledge is an indicator of
language ability and in order to be a competent second or foreign language learner, a great amount of words is a
dominant factor. Hence, such vocabulary knowledge is also required for successful reading comprehension.
Bee Eng and Abdullah (2003) reported that secondary school students adopted three strategies – knowledge and
use of contextual clues, doing structural analysis and making associations to acquire word meaning of selected
vocabulary items from reading texts. These processes would assist their vocabulary development and hence improve
their vocabulary knowledge in text comprehension. In a more international context, Kameli and Baki (2013) studied
the impact of vocabulary knowledge level on EFL reading among Iranian students. They found that there is a
positive relationship between knowledge on vocabulary and successful reading comprehension achievement when
the Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT) and Reading Comprehension Test (IELTS) were conducted on the students.
Chou (2011) studied the effects of vocabulary knowledge and background knowledge in an EFL reading
comprehension test and established that participants who received a list of vocabulary to study performed better in
the reading comprehension test in comparison to the participants who relied on background knowledge. Unlike past
52 H.M. Sidek and H. Ab. Rahim / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 197 (2015) 50 – 56

studies in Malaysia, this study examined vocabulary knowledge in L1 and L2 and its relationship with L1 and L2
reading comprehension performance. Therefore, the findings of this study may have implications on L2 reading
comprehension instruction, not only in the Malaysian setting but also in other L2 contexts.

3. Methodology

The aim of the present cross-linguistic study was to find out the role of vocabulary knowledge in reading
comprehension. In doing so, a comparison was made between the participants’ reading comprehension
performances when reading in L1 and L2 with regards to their performances on the vocabulary in context tests for
the same reading texts. This study was guided by the following research questions:
1. What is the participants’ comprehension performance for the processing of explicit text information for L1
and L2 texts?
2. What is the participants’ comprehension performance for the processing of implicit text information for L1
and L2 texts?
3. What are the participants’ perceptions of L1 text?
4. What are the participants’ perceptions of L2 text?

3.1. Participants

The participants were 5 sixteen year-old Malay boys and girls who were selected randomly. All participants are
currently in the 10th Grade according to the American educational standard. Their native language or L1 is Malay.
The participants receive formal English language instruction beginning from Year 1 in the primary education at the
Malaysian public schools.

3.2. Instrument

Two reading comprehension passages were used as reading instruments in this current study. The first passage is
in the participants’ L1, which is a Malay text, and the other is in their L2, which is a text in the English language.
The L1 Text is an authentic text equivalent to a 10th grade-level text taken from the Form 4 standardized
examination paper. Form Four in Malaysia is equivalent to 10th grade. It is an expository text. The L2 Text is a text
at the participants’ current L2 reading proficiency level and their grade-level. The text was extracted from the
English language textbook mandated by the Malaysian Ministry of Education. It is also an informational text at
grade-level. Linguistically and in terms of length, the text is at the 10th grade-level for high school students.

3.3. Comprehension Measures

For each of the passages in L1 and L2, a set of open-ended comprehension questions was attached. The
comprehension measure comprises 2 explicit items and 2 implicit items. Table 1 presents the types and scoring
system for the comprehension items.

Table 1: Types of Reading Comprehension Items and Scoring

Text Explicit Comprehension Total Score Implicit Comprehension Total Score Overall Comprehension
Items (Explicit) Items (Implicit) Score
L1 Q1 - Q2 3 Q3 – Q4 2 5
L2 Q1 –Q2 2 Q3 – Q4 2 4
 H.M. Sidek and H. Ab. Rahim / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 197 (2015) 50 – 56 53

3.4. Reading Comprehension Administration

Both passages were administered to the selected participants on individual basis. The participants were given
unlimited time to read and complete the reading comprehension tasks. A similar procedure was carried out for both
texts.

3.5. Analysis of Data

The two comprehension tasks in both L1 and L2 were scored by allocating 1 mark for every correct answer to the
comprehension questions. If the answer was partially correct, a half mark would be awarded. There was no mark
awarded for the wrong answer or if the answer was not provided. The scores of the comprehension tasks for both L1
and L2 were scored using the scoring system in Table 1. The total score for each participant was used as the index of
reading comprehension performance. Each participant was asked 2 semi-structured questions: 1) Did you understand
all the words in the passage? and 2) What is the biggest problem for you to understand the passage (vocabulary,
sentence structure, sentence length, lack of prior knowledge, etc.)? Interviews were tape-recorded with informed
consent and transcribed verbatim in order to capture the entire responses from the participants without missing any
valuable data. The finding from the interview for each participant was analyzed in relation to each participant’s
reading comprehension score in inferring the roles of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension performance.

4. Findings

The findings of the study are presented according to the research questions.

4.1. Findings on Reading Comprehension for Explicit Items

RQ1: What is the participants’ comprehension performance for the processing of explicit text information for L1
and L2 texts?

Table 2: Reading Comprehension Score on Explicit Text Information for L1 Text

Participants Marks Percentage (%)
1 2 67%
2 2 67%
3 3 100%
4 3 100%
5 2 67%

Table 3: Reading Comprehension Score on Explicit Text Information for L2 Text

Participants Marks Percentage (%)
1 1 50%
2 1 50%
3 0 0%
4 2 100%
5 0 0%

Table 2 and 3 display the findings for comprehension scores on explicit text information in both L1 and L2 texts.
Table 2 demonstrates that Participant 3 and 4 obtained a full mark (100%) for the explicit questions. In comparison,
Participant 3 could not obtain a single mark for the explicit questions in the L2 text. In overall, there is a decrease in
scores for the explicit1 text information in L2 text in contrast to the scores in the L1 text.
54 H.M. Sidek and H. Ab. Rahim / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 197 (2015) 50 – 56

4.2. Findings on Reading Comprehension for Explicit Items

RQ2: What is the participants’ comprehension performance for the processing of explicit text information for L1
and L2 text?

Table 4 presents the findings on reading comprehension scores

Table 4: Reading Comprehension Score on Implicit Text Information for L1 Text

Participants Marks Percentage (%)
1 1 50%
2 1.5 75%
3 2 100%
4 1 50%
5 2 100%

Table 5: Reading Comprehension Score on Implicit Text Information for L2 Text

Participants Marks Percentage (%)
1 1 50%
2 1 50%
3 1 50%
4 1 50%
5 1 50%

Table 4 and 5 exhibits the results for comprehension scores on implicit text information in both Malay and
English texts. Table 3 shows that Participant 2 and 5 obtained a full mark (100%) for the implicit questions and the
remaining 3 participants managed to obtained more than 50% score. In comparison, all participants only scored 50%
for the implicit questions in the L2 text. There is a slight decline in scores for the implicit text information in L2 text
in contrast to the scores in the L1 text. Nevertheless, all participants were able to acquire 50% scores in both texts
which means that they manage to attempt at least one implicit question.

4.3. Perception of Vocabulary Knowledge in L1 Text

RQ3: What are the participants’ perceptions of L1 text?

Table 6: Level of Word Knowledge in L1 Text

Participant Responses
1. The language could be understood – 80%
2. The language is easy to understand
3. The language is partially understood because the words are long
4. It was easy to understand all the words in the text
5. The language was not so difficult to understand

Table 7: Major Problems in Understanding L1 Text

Participant Responses
1. The nature of long word structure in the Malay language. So need more time to process text
2. No major problem in processing the text.
3. The long words gives me some problem in understanding the text
4. The topic was a bit negative so in a way it influences the way I would attempt the
comprehension questions
5. I don’t like to read texts which touches on drugs so indirectly I have slight problems in
processing the text
 H.M. Sidek and H. Ab. Rahim / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 197 (2015) 50 – 56 55

Table 6 and 7 exhibit the result of the interview session with 5 participants involved in this study. The interview
was conducted to collect relevant data pertaining the participants’ vocabulary knowledge and major problems in
understanding the L1 text. Participant 1 and 3 found that the nature of words in the Malay language play an
important role in them processing the text. Malay language is known for having long words so the participants need
more time to understand the text. In addition, Participant 4 and 5 were having a slight problem with the negative
connotation of the topic thus hampers their understanding of the text. However, in general the participants could
understand the L1 text.

4.4. Perception of Vocabulary Knowledge in L2 Text

RQ4: What are the participants’ perceptions of L2 text?

Table 8: Level of Vocabulary Knowledge in L2 Text

Participant Responses
1. I have slight problems understanding some of the words in the text – 60%-70%
understanding
2. I could understand the text generally
3. The language is difficult to understand
4. I can understand the text well
5. The language is quite easy to understand

Table 9: Major Problems in Understanding L2 Text

Participant Responses
1. I couldn’t answer question no 4 on vocabulary
2. New words that I have never come across.
3. A lot of difficult words and I don’t understand some of the questions.
4. The understanding of some of the words pertaining to the topic
5. Background knowledge on certain issues can influence a student’s understanding of the text.

Table 8 and 9 demonstrate that students have more problems in understanding the L2 text in comparison to the
text in their native language. Factors like new words, the misinterpretation of questions and jargons related to
certain issues and topics are some of the challenges that these participants had to overcome to process the L2 text.
All participants, except no 5, feel that their lack of knowledge on vocabulary is the main factor for them not being
able to understand the text.

5. Discussion and Conclusion

The findings in this study indicate that vocabulary knowledge is a determinant factor for the success of a reading
comprehension activity in L1 and L2. This view is evident as the participants involved in this small scale study
explained that lack of knowledge in word meaning results in them being unable to process certain information which
is crucial to the understanding of the whole text. Although L1 is their native language, some words that appear in the
L1 text are still new to the students and they are unaware of the meaning of these words. The same situation also
occurred when they processed the L2 text. Gunning (2005) also argued that knowledge in vocabulary is one of the
major hindrances for reading comprehension. Other studies (Baker, 1995; Nagy, 1988; Nelson-Herber, 1986) have
also assumed that knowledge in vocabulary and reading comprehension are interdependent and there is strong
correlation between the two in order to successfully process reading text in any language. One of the possible
explanations on Malaysian EFL learners’ low vocabulary could be due to their adverse attitudes towards reading in
EFL (Sidek, 2009) and lack of exposure in EFL formal training (Sidek, 2010). Based on the findings of the current
study, vocabulary knowledge does have its share in L2 reading comprehension performance.
56 H.M. Sidek and H. Ab. Rahim / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 197 (2015) 50 – 56

References

Ali, Z. & Mohd. Ayub, A. F. (2012). Obstacles and Successes in Learning Vocabulary from Context. Paper presented at Graduate Research in
Education Seminar (GREduc2012).
Anderson, R.C. & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary Knowledge In J.T. Guthrie (Ed), Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp.77-
117). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Bee Eng, W. & Abdullah, M. H. (2003). The effects of vocabulary development on text comprehension. Retrieved from http://www.docin.com/p-
327483870.html on the 6th of October 2014.
Biemiller, A. (1999). Language and reading success. Cambridge, MA: Brookline
Chapelle, C. (1998). Construct definition and validity inquiry in SLA research, In L. F. Bachman and A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Interface between
Second Language Acquisition and Language Testing Research, p. 32-70.
Chou, P. T-M. (2011). The effects of vocabulary knowledge and background knowledge on reading comprehension of Taiwanese EFL students.
Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 8(1), 108-115.
Coady, J. & Huckin, T. (1997). Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Curtis, M. E. & Longo, A. M. (2001). Teaching vocabulary to adolescents to improve comprehension, Reading Online, 5(4).
http://www.readingonline.org/articles/curtis/
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Folse, K. S. (2004). The underestimated importance of vocabulary in the foreign language classroom. CLEAR News 8:2, 1–6
Haastrup, K. & Henriksen, B. (2000). Vocabulary acquisition: acquiring depth of knowledge through network building. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics 10, 221-240.
Hatch, E., & Brown, G. (1995). Vocabulary, semantics, and language education. New York: Cambridge University.
Henriksen, B. (1999). Three dimensions of vocabulary development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 303-317.
Hu, H. C. & Nation, I. S. P. (2000). Unknown word density and reading comprehension. Reading in Foreign Language, 13(1), 403-430.
Kameli, S. & Baki, R. (2013). The impact of vocabulary knowledge level on EFL reading. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English
Literature, 2(1), 85-90
Mehring, J. G. (2005). Developing vocabulary in second language acquisition: From theories to classroom. Retrieved from
http://www.hpu.edu/CHSS/LangLing/TESOL/ProfessionalDevelopment/200680TWPfall06/03Mehring.pdf on the 6th of October 2014.
Moghadam, S. H., Zainal, Z. & Ghaderpour, M. (2012). A Review on the Important Role of Vocabulary Knowledge in Reading Comprehension
Performance. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 66, 555-563.
Mokhtar, A. A., Rawian, R. M., Yahaya, M. F., Abdullah, A., & Mohamed, A. R. (2008). Vocabulary Learning Strategies of Adult ESL Learners.
The English Teacher XXXVIII: 133-145.
Mohamad, A. A., Mohd. Rawian, R., Yahaya, M. F., Abdullah, A. & Mohamad, A. R. (2008). Vocabulary Learning Strategies of Adult ESL
learners. The English Teacher,
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pulido, D. (2003). Modeling the role of second language proficiency and topic familiarity in second language incidental vocabulary acquisition
through reading. Language Learning, 53, 233–284.
Read, J. (2004). Research in Teaching Vocabulary. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 146-161.
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sidek, H. M (2009). Reading attitudes: A case study in Malaysia. In Shafaei, A. & M. Nejati (Eds.), Annals of Language Teaching, (pp. 209-
215), Boca Raton, Florida: Universal-Publishers.
Sidek, H.M. (2010). An analysis of the EFL secondary reading curriculum in Malaysia: approaches to reading and preparation for higher
education. Doctor of Philosophy, University of Pittsburgh.
Singleton, D. (1999). Exploring the second language mental lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stahl, S. A. (2003) Vocabulary and readability: How knowing word meanings affects comprehension. Topics in Language Disorders, 23(3), 241-
247.
Swanborn, M. S. L., & de Glopper, K. (2002). Impact of reading purpose on incidental word learning from context. Language Learning, 52, 95–
117.
Tannenbaum, K. R., Torgesen, J. K. & Wagner, R. K. (2006). Relationships between word knowledge and reading comprehension in third-grade
children, Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(4), 381-398.
Qian, D. (2002). Investigating the relationship between vocabulary and academic reading performance: An assessment perspective. Language
Learning, 52, 513-536.
Wesche, M., & Paribakht, S. (Eds.). (1999). Incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition: Theory, current research, and instructional implications
[Special issue]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(2).