The Effects Of L1and L2Glosses On Incidental Vocabulary Learning For Learners At Different Proficiency Levels

Vocabulary learning is an essential part of language learning. L2learners can learnnew words incidentally while reading. However, for L2learners, it has some difficulties ininferring word meanings correctly due to their lack of vocabulary knowledge or generalproficiency level. Glossing has been found to solve this problem and to promote incidentalvocabulary learning.Most of researchers home and abroad on vocabulary glosses focus on proving theeffectiveness of glosses on reading comprehension and vocabulary learning, and makingcomparison of different glossing types without much consideration of learners’ proficiencylevels that may interact with glossing types in affecting the learning outcome.Based on Input Hypothesis, Noticing Hypothesis, Depth of Processing Hypothesis,and Bilingual Lexicon, the present study probes into the interaction between glossinglanguages and learners’ proficiency levels and the effect of L1and L2glosses on incidentalvocabulary acquisition with university-level English learners as subjects.Altogether113English majors from two year-one classes and two year-three classesof a comprehensive university which is located in the east of China participated in theexperiment. Two year-one classes were considered low proficiency learners (L-group)while two year-three classes were considered high proficiency learners (H-group). The fourclasses read the same texts with two different glossing languages (Chinese and English) fora reading comprehension test. Immediately after participants finished the readingcomprehension test, they took an unexpected vocabulary knowledge test (VKS), whichthey took once again two weeks later. All participants also completed a written interviewfor exploring their preference towards different glossing languages.The present study has yielded the following findings:(1) Both L1and L2glossing groups perform better in the immediate test than in thedelayed test no matter whether they are learners of high proficiency or low proficiencylearners. In the immediate test, both with L1and L2glosses, high proficiency learners outperform the low proficiency learners, but in the delayed test, the high proficiencylearners outperform the low proficiency learners only with L1glosses.(2) As for the comparison of L1and L2glosses as a whole, in the immediate test, themean of VKS with L1glosses come out to be higher than that with L2glosses for learnersof both L-group and H-group. However, the delayed tests reverse the result, with bothL-group and H-group performing better with L2glosses than L1glosses.(3) More participants tend to prefer L1-glossed texts, and with the increase ofproficiency level, more participants would like to choose L2-glossed texts.The findings of the present study have pointed to some practical and pedagogicalimplications for both teachers and text compilers. First, teachers could give specificsuggestions for students at different English proficiency levels on how to choose properglossed reading materials. Second, text compilers are recommended to integrate L1and L2glosses in reading texts, because L1glosses allow learners to grasp the meanings ofunfamiliar words directly, and L2glosses benefit learners greatly by offering themadditional usage of the new words in meaningful context, especially if the glosses arewritten in comprehensible English.