论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】This paper discusses the previous and current research including different hypotheses or models towards incidental vocabulary acquisition and English reading， revealing some factors affecting incidental vocabulary acquisition in English reading process for native Chinese learners， and finally clarifies some strategies on incidental vocabulary acquisition through English reading.
【Key words】second language acquisition； incidental vocabulary acquisition； English reading process
Introduction
In the past decades， a great deal of research has claimed that vocabulary is a key aspect for second language learners to acquire their language skills， including reading， writing， listening， and speaking. According to Nation （2003）， there were two kinds of vocabulary learning： direct and indirect lexical learning. In direct vocabulary learning， learners focus their attention on vocabulary knowledge when they do lexical exercises by applying memorizing techniques， whereas indirect vocabulary learning refers to the acquiring L2 lexical knowledge while learners’ goal is to draw attention to some other features other than lexical learning. Indirect vocabulary learning is also can be called “intentional” lexical learning. Hatch and Brown （2001） defined intentional learning as “being designed， planned for， or intended for a teacher or student” and incidental learning as “the type of learning that is a by-product of doing or learning something else” （p.368）. Unlike intentional vocabulary learning， incidental vocabulary acquisition （IVA） is not based on the instructional focus in the classroom pedagogical setting， as Gass （1999） considered， but takes place “as a by-product of other cognitive exercises （e.g. reading/listening） involving comprehension” （p. 319）. Therefore， incidental vocabulary acquisition requires an understanding of the surrounding context of the unknown words， and the proper amount of attention the learner spends on both correct meaning and form of those words.
In this paper， the current literature theoretical models are reviewed on incidental vocabulary acquisition for the readers/learners during the L2 reading process. Next， some factors affecting incidental vocabulary acquisition in the L2 reading process are discussed. After illustrating the pedagogical implications， I finally provide a conclusion on the main concerns of this paper.
Theoretical Models in the Study of IVA
Currently， in many empirical studies， “Depth of Processing Model” and “Involvement Load Hypothesis” are frequently applied to testify the process and effect of incidental vocabulary acquisition from the aspects of cognitive psychology. Craik and Lockhart （1972） put forward the “Depth of Processing Model”， which illustrated that “memory trace can be understood as a by-product of perceptual analysis and that trace persistence is a positive function of the depth to which the stimulus has been analyzed” （p. 671）. This theory consists of two forms of cognitive processing： （shallow） formative and （deep） semantic processing. The depth of process of a stimulus has a great impact on its memorability when acquiring the new lexical items. However， Craik and Lockhart’s model has been refined in the following years， and their definition of processing level and cognitive effort is an oversimplification， which can not reveal the essence of the learner’s cognitive processing for the new lexical items.
With the further study of incidental vocabulary acquisition， Laufer and Hulstijn （2001） proposed the “Involvement Load Hypothesis”， which exemplifies the incidental vocabulary acquisition from the perspective of cognitive psychology. They stated that a construct of involvement in the tasks will have an impact on the learner’s retention of unfamiliar words. The amount of ‘involvement load’ contains three components： need （one motivational dimension）， search and evaluation （two cognitive dimensions）. Need represents the learner’s motivation for the target words. For instance， when a learner comes across an unfamiliar word affecting a reading comprehension， he/she will have a motivation to satisfy the reading tasks. Search takes place when the learner attempts to look for the meaning of the target words by checking a dictionary or asking the instructors. Meanwhile， Laufer
【Key words】second language acquisition； incidental vocabulary acquisition； English reading process
Introduction
In the past decades， a great deal of research has claimed that vocabulary is a key aspect for second language learners to acquire their language skills， including reading， writing， listening， and speaking. According to Nation （2003）， there were two kinds of vocabulary learning： direct and indirect lexical learning. In direct vocabulary learning， learners focus their attention on vocabulary knowledge when they do lexical exercises by applying memorizing techniques， whereas indirect vocabulary learning refers to the acquiring L2 lexical knowledge while learners’ goal is to draw attention to some other features other than lexical learning. Indirect vocabulary learning is also can be called “intentional” lexical learning. Hatch and Brown （2001） defined intentional learning as “being designed， planned for， or intended for a teacher or student” and incidental learning as “the type of learning that is a by-product of doing or learning something else” （p.368）. Unlike intentional vocabulary learning， incidental vocabulary acquisition （IVA） is not based on the instructional focus in the classroom pedagogical setting， as Gass （1999） considered， but takes place “as a by-product of other cognitive exercises （e.g. reading/listening） involving comprehension” （p. 319）. Therefore， incidental vocabulary acquisition requires an understanding of the surrounding context of the unknown words， and the proper amount of attention the learner spends on both correct meaning and form of those words.
In this paper， the current literature theoretical models are reviewed on incidental vocabulary acquisition for the readers/learners during the L2 reading process. Next， some factors affecting incidental vocabulary acquisition in the L2 reading process are discussed. After illustrating the pedagogical implications， I finally provide a conclusion on the main concerns of this paper.
Theoretical Models in the Study of IVA
Currently， in many empirical studies， “Depth of Processing Model” and “Involvement Load Hypothesis” are frequently applied to testify the process and effect of incidental vocabulary acquisition from the aspects of cognitive psychology. Craik and Lockhart （1972） put forward the “Depth of Processing Model”， which illustrated that “memory trace can be understood as a by-product of perceptual analysis and that trace persistence is a positive function of the depth to which the stimulus has been analyzed” （p. 671）. This theory consists of two forms of cognitive processing： （shallow） formative and （deep） semantic processing. The depth of process of a stimulus has a great impact on its memorability when acquiring the new lexical items. However， Craik and Lockhart’s model has been refined in the following years， and their definition of processing level and cognitive effort is an oversimplification， which can not reveal the essence of the learner’s cognitive processing for the new lexical items.
With the further study of incidental vocabulary acquisition， Laufer and Hulstijn （2001） proposed the “Involvement Load Hypothesis”， which exemplifies the incidental vocabulary acquisition from the perspective of cognitive psychology. They stated that a construct of involvement in the tasks will have an impact on the learner’s retention of unfamiliar words. The amount of ‘involvement load’ contains three components： need （one motivational dimension）， search and evaluation （two cognitive dimensions）. Need represents the learner’s motivation for the target words. For instance， when a learner comes across an unfamiliar word affecting a reading comprehension， he/she will have a motivation to satisfy the reading tasks. Search takes place when the learner attempts to look for the meaning of the target words by checking a dictionary or asking the instructors. Meanwhile， Laufer