Keywords
vocabulary
English as an additional language
idioms
bilingual language development
How to Cite
Number of views: 1077
Number of downloads: 805
Abstract
Vocabulary plays an important role in reading comprehension in both the L1 and the L2 (Murphy, 2018). In measuring vocabulary knowledge, however, researchers typically focus on mono-lexical units where vocabulary assessments tend not to take into account multi-word expressions which include phrasal verbs, collocations, and idioms. Omitting these multi-word lexical items can lead to an over-estimation of comprehension skills, particularly in reading. Indeed, adult learners of English comprehend texts containing a larger number of multi-word expressions less well compared to texts containing fewer of these expressions, even when the same words are used in each text (Martinez & Murphy, 2011). To investigate whether children learning English as an additional language (EAL) face a similar challenge, two reading comprehension tests were administered to EAL and monolingual (non-EAL) English-speaking children in primary school. Both tests contained the same common words, but whereas in one test some of the words occurred in multi-word expressions, in the other test they did not. Reading comprehension was significantly reduced for both groups of children when multi-word expressions were included. Monolingual participants generally performed better than children with EAL on both tests further suggesting that children with EAL may face a particular disadvantage in English reading comprehension. These results are discussed within the context of the importance of developing rich vocabulary knowledge in all children, and especially emergent bilingual children, within primary school and beyond.
References
Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1979). Vocabulary knowledge. Technical report No. 136. Washington, D.C.
Babayiğit, S., & Stainthorp, R. (2014). Correlates of early reading comprehension skills: A componential analysis. Educational Psychology, 34(2), 185-207. http://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.785045
Bailey, E. G., & Marsden, E. (2017). Teachers’ views on recognizing and using home languages in predominantly monolingual primary schools. Language and Education, 31(4), 283-306.
Beech, J. R., & Keys, A. (1997). Reading, vocabulary and language preference in 7- to 8-year-old bilingual Asian children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(4), 405-414. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1997.tb01254.x
Bialystok, E., Luk, G., Peets, K. F., & Yang, S. (2010). Receptive vocabulary differences in monolingual and bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(4), 525-531. http://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728909990423
Bishop, H. (2004). The effect of typographic salience on the look up and comprehension of unknown formulaic sequences. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences (pp. 227-248). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Burgoyne K., Kelly J. M., Whiteley, H. E., & Spooner A. (2009). The comprehension skills of children learning English as an additional language. British Journal of Educational Pyschology, 79, 735-747.
Burgoyne, K., Whiteley, H. E., & Hutchinson, J. M. (2011). The development of comprehension and reading-related skills in children learning English as an additional language and their monolingual, English-speaking peers. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 344-354.
Cameron, L. (2002). Measuring vocabulary size in English as an additional language. Language Teaching Research, 6(2), 145-173.
Carrol, G., & Conklin, K. (2019). Is all formulaic language created equal? Unpacking the processing advantage for different types of formulaic sequences. Language and Speech, 63(1), 95-122.
Cieślicka, A. (2006). Literal salience in on-line processing of idiomatic expressions by second language learners. Second Language Research, 22(2), 115-144.
IBM Corp. (2017). IBM SPSS statistics for Windows (Version 25.0). Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
DfES (Department for Education and Skills). (2013). Understanding reading comprehension. London: DfES.
DfE (Department for Education). (2016). School and college performance measures. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/school-and-college-performance-measures
DfE (Department for Education). (2018). Schools, pupils and their characteristics: January 2018. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/719226/Schools_Pupils_and_their_Characteristics_2018_Main_Text.pdf
Dunn, L. M., Dunn, D. M., & NFER. (2009). British picture vocabulary scales (3rd ed.). Windsor: Granada.
Genesee, F. (2009). Early childhood bilingualism: Perils and possibilities. Journal of Applied Research on Learning, 2, 1-21.
Gollan, T. H., & Silverberg, N. B. (2001). Tip-of-the-tongue states in Hebrew–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 63-83.
Gollan, T. H., Montoya, R. I., & Werner, G. A. (2002). Semantic and letter fluency in Spanish-English bilinguals. Neuropsychology, 16, 562-576.
Goswami, U. (2001). Early phonological development and the acquisition of literacy. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 111-125). New York: Guildford Press.
Grant, L., & Bauer, L. (2004). Criteria for re-defining idioms: Are we barking up the wrong tree? Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 38-61.
Hessel, A. K., & Murphy, V. A. (2018). Understanding how time flies and what it means to be on cloud nine: English as an additional language (EAL) learners’ metaphor comprehension. Journal of Child Language, 46(2), 265-291. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000918000399
Hessel, A. K., Nation, K., & Murphy, V. A. (in press). Comprehension monitoring during reading: An eye-tracking study with children learning English as an additional language. Scientific Studies of Reading.
Hirsh, D., & Nation, P. (1992). What vocabulary size is needed to read unsimplified texts for pleasure? Reading in a Foreign Language, 8(2), 689-696.
Hu, M. H., & Nation, P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13, 403-430.
Hutchinson, J. (2018). Educational outcomes of children with English as an additional language. Retrieved from https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/educational-outcomes-children-english-additional-language/
Hutchinson, J. M., Whiteley, H. E., Smith, C. D., & Connors, L. (2003). The developmental progression of comprehension-related skills in children learning EAL. Journal of Research in Reading, 16(1), 19-32.
Joseph, H., & Nation, K. (2018). Examining incidental word learning during reading in children: The role of context. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 166, 190-211.
Laufer, B. (1992). How much lexis is necessary for reading comprehension? In P. J. L. Arnaud & H. Béjoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 126-132). London: Macmillan.
Laufer, B., & Ravenhorst-Kalovski, G. C. (2010). Lexical threshold revisited: Lexical text coverage, learners’ vocabulary size and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(1), 15-30.
Mahon, M., & Crutchley, A. (2006). Performance of typically-developing school-age children with English as an additional language on the British Picture Vocabulary Scales II. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 22(3), 333-351. http://doi.org/10.1191/0265659006ct311xx
Martinez, R. (2008). The effect of frequency and idiomaticity on second language reading comprehension (Unpublished MSc thesis). University of Oxford, Oxford.
Martinez, R., & Murphy, V. (2011). Effect of frequency and idiomaticity on second language reading comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), 267-290. http://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.247708
McKendry, M., & Murphy, V. A. (2011). A comparative study of listening comprehension measures in English as an additional language and native English-speaking primary school children. Evaluation and Research in Education, 24, 17-40.
Murphy, V. A. (2014). Second language learning in the early school years: Trends and contexts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Murphy, V. A. (2018). Literacy development in linguistically diverse pupils. In L. Miller, D., Bayram, F., Rothman, J., & Serratrice, L. (Eds.), Bilingual cognition and language: The state of the science across its subfields (Studies in Bilingualism, 54) (pp. 312-323). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Murphy, V. A., & Unthiah, A. (2015). A systematic review of intervention research examining English language and literacy development in children with English as an additional language (EAL), (January). Retrieved from http://www.naldic.org.uk/Resources/NALDIC/ResearchandInformation/Documents/eal-systematic-review-prof-v-murphy.pdf
Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
OECD. (2012). Percentage of immigrant children and their outcomes. http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/49295179.pdf
Oxley, E., & De Cat, C. (2018). A systematic review of language and literacy interventions in children and adolescents with English as an additional language. Retrieved from https://osf.io/92s6v
Özoflu, D. (2012). The effect of frequency and idiomaticity on the English L2 reading comprehension of Turkish university students (Unpublished MSc thesis). The University of Oxford, Oxford.
Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1999). Reading and “incidental” L2 vocabulary acquisition: An introspective study of lexical inferencing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(2), 195–224. http://doi.org/10.1017/S027226319900203X
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191-225). London: Longman.
Pearson, B. Z., Fernández, S. C., & Oller, D. K. (1993). Lexical development in bilingual infants and toddlers: Comparison to monolingual norms. Language Learning, 43(1), 93-120.
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., & Martinez, R. (2015). The idiom principle revisited. Applied Linguistics, 36(5), 549-569. http://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt054
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., & Pellicer-Sánchez, A. (2018). Formulaic language: Setting the scene. In A. Siyanova-Chanturia & A. Pellicer-Sánchez (Eds.), Understanding formulaic language: A second language acquisition perspective (pp. 1-15). London, New York: Routledge.
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., & Van Lancker Sidtis, D. (2018). What on-line processing tells us about formulaic language. In A. Siyanova-Chanturia & A. Pellicer-Sánchez (Eds.) Understanding formulaic language: A second language acquisition perspective (pp. 38-61). London, New York: Routledge.
Smith, S. A., & Murphy, V. A. (2015). Measuring productive elements of multi-word phrase vocabulary knowledge among children with English as an additional or only language. Reading and Writing, 28, 347-369.
Spottl, C., & McCarthy, M. (2004). Comparing knowledge of formulaic sequences across L1, L2, L3, and L4. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences (pp. 191-225). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Strand, S., & Demie, F. (2005). English language acquisition and educational attainment at the end of primary school. Educational Studies, 31, 275-291. http://doi.org/10.1080/03055690500236613
Strand, S., & Hessel, A. (2018). English as an additional language, proficiency in English and pupils’ educational achievement: An analysis of local authority data. Retrieved from https://www.bell-foundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/EAL-PIE-and-Educational-Achievement-Report-2018-FV.pdf
Vermeer, A. (1992). Exploring the second language learner lexicon. In De Jong, Verhoeven (Eds.), The construct of language proficiency: Applications of psychological models to language assessment (pp. 147-162). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wechsler, D. (2011). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (2nd ed.) (WASI-II). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Whiteside, K. E., Gooch, D., & Norbury, C. F. (2016). English language proficiency and early school attainment among children learning English as an additional language. Child Development. http://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12615
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
License
1.1 The Author hereby warrants that he/she is the owner of all the copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Work and that, within the scope of the present Agreement, the paper does not infringe the legal rights of another person. The owner of the copyright work also warrants that he/she is the sole and original creator thereof and that is not bound by any legal constraints in regard to the use or sale of the work.
1.2. The Publisher warrants that is the owner of the PRESSto platform for open access journals, hereinafter referred to as the PRESSto Platform.
2. The Author grants the Publisher non-exclusive and free of charge license to unlimited use worldwide over an unspecified period of time in the following areas of exploitation:
2.1. production of multiple copies of the Work produced according to the specific application of a given technology, including printing, reproduction of graphics through mechanical or electrical means (reprography) and digital technology;
2.2. marketing authorisation, loan or lease of the original or copies thereof;
2.3. public performance, public performance in the broadcast, video screening, media enhancements as well as broadcasting and rebroadcasting, made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them;
2.4. inclusion of the Work into a collective work (i.e. with a number of contributions);
2.5. inclusion of the Work in the electronic version to be offered on an electronic platform, or any other conceivable introduction of the Work in its electronic version to the Internet;
2.6. dissemination of electronic versions of the Work in its electronic version online, in a collective work or independently;
2.7. making the Work in the electronic version available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, in particular by making it accessible via the Internet, Intranet, Extranet;
2.8. making the Work available according to appropriate license pattern Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) as well as another language version of this license or any later version published by Creative Commons.
3. The Author grants the Publisher permission to reproduce a single copy (print or download) and royalty-free use and disposal of rights to compilations of the Work and these compilations.
4. The Author grants the Publisher permission to send metadata files related to the Work, including to commercial and non-commercial journal-indexing databases.
5. The Author represents that, on the basis of the license granted in the present Agreement, the Publisher is entitled and obliged to:
5.1. allow third parties to obtain further licenses (sublicenses) to the Work and to other materials, including derivatives thereof or compilations made, based on or including the Work, whereas the provisions of such sub-licenses will be the same as with the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license or another language version of this license, or any later version of this license published by Creative Commons;
5.2. make the Work available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, without any technological constraints;
5.3. appropriately inform members of the public to whom the Work is to be made available about sublicenses in such a way as to ensure that all parties are properly informed (appropriate informing messages).
6. Because of the royalty-free provision of services of the Author (resulting from the scope of obligations stipulated in the present Agreement), the Author shall not be entitled to any author’s fee due and payable on the part of the Publisher (no fee or royalty is payable by the Publisher to the Author).
7.1. In the case of third party claims or actions for indemnity against the Publisher owing to any infractions related to any form of infringement of intellectual property rights protection, including copyright infringements, the Author is obliged to take all possible measures necessary to protect against these claims and, when as a result of legal action, the Publisher, or any third party licensed by the Publisher to use the Work, will have to abandon using the Work in its entirety or in part or, following a court ruling in a legal challenge, to pay damages to a third party, whatever the legal basis
7.2. The Author will immediately inform the Publisher about any damage claims related to intellectual property infringements, including the author’s proprietary rights pertaining to a copyrighted work, filed against the Author. of liability, the Author is obliged to redress the damage resulting from claims made by third party, including costs and expenditures incurred in the process.
7.3. To all matters not settled herein provisions of the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act shall apply.