Effects Of Different Task Involvement Loads On Second Language Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition Through Reading

Vocabulary is one of the crucial parts in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research. The close relationship between extensive reading and L2 learners' vocabulary building is investigated in order to prove the possibility of incidental vocabulary acquisition and point out another way of learning for L2 learners. To translate the motivational-cognitive terms in the acquisition process, Laufer & Hulstijn made bold steps and put forward Involvement Load Hypothesis in 2001. It's assumed that incidental vocabulary acquisition is closely related to involvement load, which consists of three basic components: need, search and evaluation. The hypothesis operationalizes the notions for empirical studies and serves as another important perspective to explore incidental vocabulary acquisition through reading.The present study is conducted within the framework of Involvement Load Hypothesis with an aim to testify and reassess it. Six tasks, different in the amount of involvement load and component distributions, are designed and assigned to six groups of English-majored students who have already reached a vocabulary size. We validate Involvement Load Hypothesis not only by investigating it as a whole in one-way ANOVA, but also in an all-round way to examine the role of each individual component and establish their relative importance by Independent Samples T Tests.The results turn out as follows:Firstly, the results partially support Involvement Load Hypothesis. It's acknowledged that Involvement Load Hypothesis holds truth in incidental vocabulary acquisition. Generally speaking, tasks with higher involvement loads lead to better vocabulary acquisition.Secondly, the roles of the three components are justified in the present study. Each component need, search or evaluation is important and has positive effects in Laufer & Hulstijn's construction. None of them can be eliminated when we predict the effect of involvement load on incidental vocabulary acquisition.Finally, of the three components, evaluation is relatively the most important one, and then need; search, however, is of the least importance. Moreover evaluation is effective in its strong form and can best reflect the effect of involvement load on incidental vocabulary acquisition.The above findings indicate Involvement Load Hypothesis still calls for more specific definitions of a strong need and a strong search. We can be more exact in the identification of them in any task assignments and be definite about the induced involvement loads, if the differences between the strong form and the moderate form are described in the hypothesis. In addition, Involvement Load Hypothesis can be further explored by observing the involvement load induced in each target word rather than that induced in every task.Based on the major findings, pedagogical implications are made. Further studies that specify involvement load for each target word or studies on search operationalized in other authorities e.g. a teacher or an electronic dictionary Wen Quxing are suggested. Proposals of greater scope and depth, which can exhaust all possible combinations of the components, are also welcomed.