The Lexical Basis of Second Language Reading Comprehension: From (Sub)Lexical Knowledge to Processing Efficiency

Abstract

This study compared how distinct lexical competences, including lexical knowledge as well as processing skills at both word/lexical and sublexical/morphological levels, collectively and relatively predict reading comprehension in adult learners of English as a foreign language (EFL). The participants were 220 Arabic‐speaking EFL learners in a Saudi university. A battery of paper‐ and computer‐based tests was administered to measure the participants’ lexical competences, reading comprehension ability, and working memory. Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that over and above working memory, both lexical and sublexical knowledge were significant and unique predictors of reading comprehension, and sublexical processing efficiency, as opposed to lexical processing efficiency, predicted reading comprehension significantly. In addition, among the measured lexical competences, lexical knowledge was the strongest predictor, and the two knowledge variables collectively had a far greater influence on reading comprehension than did the two processing efficiency variables. These findings are discussed in light of the lexical basis of text comprehension.

Direct and Indirect Contributions of Three Aspects of Morphological Knowledge to Second Language Reading Comprehension

“…Researchers often include various covariates such as phonological awareness, vocabulary, and word reading in their analyses to partial out the effects of related variables and identify the unique contribution of morphological knowledge to reading skills. A large body of research has supported unique contributions of morphological knowledge to reading comprehension from children to adults in both L1 and L2 readers (e.g., L1: [7][8][9][10][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] and L2: [27][28][29][30][31]). However, some studies did not find unique effects in the presence of other variables (L1 and L2: [32][33][34]), while others found different results across different reader groups (L1: [35] and L2: [36]) or different types of morphological knowledge (L2: [37,38]).…”

“…The distinction among these three aspects of knowledge was succeeded by the Computer Adaptive Testing version of the WPLT (CAT-WPLT) by Mizumoto et al [59]. Yet another theoretical distinction was adopted by Alshehri and Zhang [27]: knowledge (accuracy) and efficiency (speed).…”

“…Zhang and Koda [37] found that knowledge of derivation and compounding, but not that of inflection, contributed to reading comprehension in L1 Chinese/L2 English children. Alshehri and Zhang [27] adopted the distinction between the knowledge and processing of derivational morphemes with L1 Arabic/L2 English university students. Both aspects contributed to reading comprehension, but knowledge showed stronger effects than processing.…”

A Study of the Utility of Artificial Translation in English Reading Comprehension

“…The improvement of reading comprehension ability lies in the improvement of both reading and text comprehension ability, and reading emphasizes the quality and speed of reading [19][20][21]. Students at the university level have sufficient reserves of basic knowledge of English and an adequate accumulation of reading articles [22].…”