The Role of Vocabulary and Syntax in EFL Reading Comprehension among Iranian Graduate Students: Evaluation of Two Causal Models

Shirazizadeh, Mohsen

doi:10.22051/jlr.2020.25642.1689

Document Type : Research

Author

Mohsen Shirazizadeh

Assistant Professor of English Language Teaching, Department of English Language and Literature, Al-Zahra University, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22051/jlr.2020.25642.1689

Abstract

Inability to read in one’s language is now too difficult to get along with as there is an increasing hidden inclination by the human beings toward the written language. Every day that we get out of the house we are sieged by the multitudes of notes, billboards and text messages the simple misunderstanding of which might have irreparable consequences. The significance of reading is incomparably higher in the academia as it is through reading that almost every single piece of knowledge is distributed. We do rarely refer to personal communications even with well-known figures of a field as that figure do definitely have written articles and textbooks to which we can refer. Neither do we highly cite from conference presentations as the presented topic, if is of value, should have appeared in a published text format. One might simply imply that the world of academia does not recognize oral knowledge as legitimate unless it is transformed into written form.
Reading academic texts is a more serious concern for non-native speakers of English who need to handle this in a language they are still learning and in which they are not competent. Many of these L2 academic readers have long been focusing on improving their vocabulary and grammar knowledge with the hope that they will help them in reading and even writing. In this article we will investigate this issue to see if, how and to what extent the knowledge of vocabulary and grammar contribute to reading comprehension ability of Iranian graduate students. More specifically, this study intends to answer the following questions:
1. Is there any relationship between vocabulary and grammar knowledge, and reading comprehension ability? If yes, which of the grammar and vocabulary knowledge are better predictors of reading comprehension?
2. Do our data confirm the fitness of the proposed causal models of the relationships between vocabulary, grammar and reading comprehension (and their different sub-abilities)?
To answer these research questions, a total of 2961 Iranian MA students or graduates and PhD candidate took part in this study. 1107 of the participants were females and 1824 were males. They were all preparing themselves to take part in different English proficiency tests whose score is a necessary condition for admission to PhD programs in Iran. The test they took in this research project was similar in content and length to most of those tests. The test used to collect data in this study comprised of 100 multiple choice items of which 30 were on vocabulary, 40 on grammar and 30 on reading comprehension. The items of the vocabulary section included filing the blank, find the synonym and cloze types; the items of the grammar section included error recognition, fill in the blank and cloze types. Cronbach’s alpha index of reliability for the grammar, vocabulary and reading sections as well as the total test were computed and found to be 0.77, 0.77, 0.66, and 0.78 respectively. Participants’ answers to the test items were fed into SPSS. Descriptive statistics, correlation and reliability analysis were first used to screen the data. To answer the first research question, multiple regression was employed. The second research question which investigated the fitness of the proposed models was answered using path analysis.
Primary analysis of the data showed that vocabulary, grammar and reading comprehension were significantly correlated not only as three independent variables but also as a number of sub-variables (item types of grammar and vocabulary). Multiple regression revealed that vocabulary, compared to grammar, is a better predictor of reading comprehension. Further analysis also showed that of the item types of vocabulary and grammar, vocabulary cloze, vocabulary synonym, grammar error recognition, vocabulary blank and grammar blank question types were, in order, significant predictors of reading comprehension.
Answering the second research question entailed proposing two causal models. The first one was the simple model which assumed that vocabulary and grammar are causes of reading comprehension ability while vocabulary is also the cause of grammar knowledge. The second model was the more complex one in which we assumed that vocabulary synonym and grammar blank item types as less contextualized measures of these two types of knowledge are causes of more contextualized forms of knowledge which are measured through vocabulary and grammar cloze items which are in turn causes of reading comprehension which is the most context-demanding variable in our study. The two proposed models were evaluated through path analysis using AMOS. Results indicated that both models enjoy good fitness indices and are thus acceptable. Our finding has implications for teaching and assessing reading in academic settings.

Keywords

20.1001.1.20088833.1399.12.36.16.8

References

Abtahi, S. M., & Khodadadian, M. (2018). The effect of vocabulary knowledge andbackground knowledge on reading comprehension among Non-Iranian Persian learners. Zabanpazhuhi, 10(28), 195-217 [In Persian].

Berman, R. A. (1984). Syntactic components of the foreign language reading process. In J. C. Alderson & A. H. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language (pp. 139–156). London: Longman.

Bernhardt, E. (2005). Progress and procrastination in second language reading. Annual review of applied linguistics, 25, 133-150.

Bernhardt, E. B., & Kamil, M. L. (1995). Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2 reading: consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic interdependence hypotheses. Applied linguistics, 16(1), 15-34.

Brisbois, J. E. (1995). Connections between first-and second-language reading. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27(4), 565-584.

Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D. N., & White, C. E. (2004). Closing the gap: addressing the vocabulary needs of English‐language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 188-215.

Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2003). Language proficiency and reading ability in first‐and second‐language learners. Reading research quarterly, 38(1), 78-103.

Ellis, R. (2006). Modelling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: the differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics,27, 431-463.

Ellis, R. (2008). Explicit knowledge and second language learning and pedagogy. In J. Cenoz & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education Volume 6: Knowledge about Language (2^nd ed., pp. 143–153). New York: Springer.

Fender, M. (2001). A review of L1 and L2/ESL word integration skills and the nature of L2/ESL word integration development involved in lower‐level text processing. Language Learning, 51(2), 319-396.

Givón, T. (1995). Coherence in text vs. coherence in mind. In M. A. Gernsbacher & T. Givón (Eds.), Coherence in Spontaneous Text (pp. 59–115). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: movingfrom theory to practice. New York: Cambridge University Press

Hedgcock, J. S., & Ferris, D. R. (2018). Teaching readers of English: students, texts, and contexts. New York: Routledge

Hsueh-Chao, M. H., & Nation, P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a foreign language, 13(1), 403-30.

Joh, J., & Plakans, L. (2017). Working memory in L2 reading comprehension: the influence of prior knowledge. System, 70(1), 107-120.

Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: across‐linguistic approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kremmel, B., Brunfaut, T., & Alderson, J. C. (2015). Exploring the role of phraseological knowledge in foreign language reading. Applied Linguistics, 38(6), 848-870.

Kurnia, N. (2003). Retention of multi-word strings and meaning derivation from L2
reading. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.

Laufer, B. (1992). Reading in a foreign language: how does L2 lexical knowledge interact with the reader’s general academic ability? Journal of Research in Reading, 15(1), 95-103.

Martinez, R., & Murphy, V. A. (2011). Effect of frequency and idiomaticity on second language reading comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), 267-290.

Mecartty, F. H. (2000). Lexical and grammatical knowledge in reading and listening comprehension by foreign language learners of Spanish. Applied Language Learning, 11(2), 323-348.

Nassaji, H. (2003). Higher–level and lower–level text processing skills in advanced ESL reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 261-276.

Nation, I. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening?. Canadian modern language review, 63(1), 59-82.

Perfetti, C. A., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skills. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: a handbook (pp. 227–247). London: Blackwell.

Qian, D. D. (1999). Assessing the roles of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56(2), 282-307.

Qian, D. D. (2002). Investigating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and academic reading performance: an assessment perspective. Language Learning, 52(3), 513–536.

Schoonen, R., Hulstijn, J., & Bossers, B. (1998). Metacognitive and language‐specific knowledge in native and foreign language reading comprehension: an empirical study among Dutch students in grades 6, 8 and 10. Language Learning, 48(1), 71-106.

Shiotsu, T. (2010). Components of L2 reading: linguistic and processing factors in the reading test performances of Japanese EFL learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shiotsu, T., & Weir, C. J. (2007). The relative significance of syntactic knowledge and vocabulary breadth in the prediction of reading comprehension test performance. Language Testing, 24(1), 99-128.

Shirazizadeh, M. (2009). Perfectionism, anxiety and performance: an investigation of reading and writing in English as a foreign language. (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ulijn, J. M., & Strother, J. B. (1990). The effect of syntactic simplification on reading EST texts as L1 and L2. Journal of research in reading, 13(1), 38-54.

Urquhart, S., & Weir, C. (1998). Reading in a second language: Process, product, and practice. New York: Longman.

Yano, Y., Long, M. H., & Ross, S. (1994). The effects of simplified and elaborated texts on foreign language reading comprehension. Language learning, 44 (2), 189-219.

Zhang, D. (2012). Vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second language reading comprehension: a structural equation modelling study. The Modern Language Journal, 96(4), 558-575.

ZABANPAZHUHI (Journal of Language Research)

The Role of Vocabulary and Syntax in EFL Reading Comprehension among Iranian Graduate Students: Evaluation of Two Causal Models

References

References

Volume 12, Issue 36
December 2020
Pages 363-384

The Role of Vocabulary and Syntax in EFL Reading Comprehension among Iranian Graduate Students: Evaluation of Two Causal Models

References

References

Volume 12, Issue 36December 2020Pages 363-384

Volume 12, Issue 36
December 2020
Pages 363-384