Effects Of Different Gloss Information On L2Vocabulary Acquisition And Reading Comprehension

Gloss is acknowledged as an important enhancement technique in facilitating L2vocabulary learning during reading comprehension. With gloss provided, moreattentional resources are directed to the processing of the novel words. And the lexicalform-meaning mapping would be more easily achieved with the comprehensive input.Accordingly, reading comprehension can also be enhanced with less wrong inference ofthe new words and smoother reading process. Currently, gloss research has focused itsattention on the study of different gloss languages or different gloss modes. Few studieshave attempted to explore the effects of different gloss information on the acquisition ofspecific lexical knowledge (i.e. lexical form, meaning and particular application).Besides, disputes also exist over the effects of gloss on reading comprehension.Both quantitative and qualitative methods have been employed in the present studyto investigate the effects of different gloss information on intentional L2vocabularylearning and reading comprehension on the basis of “Input Hypothesis”,“NoticingHypothesis” and “Elaboration Processing Hypothesis” and “Limited AttentionalCapacity”.Totally187non-English majored freshmen from Jiangnan University are enrolledin the experiment. They belong to six parallel classes, of which, one is administered forthe pilot study, the other five are arranged for the main study: a) the Control group, b)L1gloss, c) L1gloss plus phonetic symbols, d) L1gloss plus example sentence, e) L1gloss plus phonetic symbols and example sentence. No significant difference has beenfound among the six groups in English proficiency test before the experiment.Research results are summarized as follows, a) L1-gloss showed no significantdifference with the control group in either immediate or delayed vocabulary tests,which is unexpected. Nevertheless, all the other three groups did show positiveinfluence on vocabulary acquisition. b) L1+Ph demonstrated a salient betterperformance in word form acquisition than all the other three gloss conditions,especially in the immediate vocabulary test. c) Both L1+Ex and L1+Ph have shown significantly better performance in both form-meaning mapping and vocabularyapplication during the immediate vocabulary tests. d) No significant difference has beenfound among each group in reading comprehension.For the above statistic results, interpretations have been drawn:1) The overall results reflect that there are positive effects of glosses on vocabularyacquisition. Nevertheless, the insignificant effect of L1gloss indicates that the encodingof merely one lexical aspect is not enough for vocabulary acquisition as theoversimplified gloss information could only lead to a superficial processing of the targetwords and therefore an insignificant effect.2) Richer gloss information can help toconstitute an intensive and elaborative processing of the unfamiliar words with moreattention attracted and more lexical retrieval accesses provided. Thereinto, phoneticsymbols, presented as an enhancement technique to phonological processing, haveformulated sound-form mapping and further promoted form-meaning accessing. While,the presentation of example sentences has facilitated word meaning acquisition in aneven better fashion by offering more specific context as well as more comprehensibleand clearer lexical usage for learners to have an intensive deep processing of the words.3) The richest gloss information was found to have caused interferential rather thanfacilitating effects in intentional L2learning during reading. With limited attentionalresources, it would be quite burdensome for learners to simultaneously conduct readingcomprehension and vocabulary encoding. Worse yet, the limited attentional capacitycould be further divided by the psychological pressure or nervousness produced underthe classroom setting. Despite that, most students still showed preference for the glosswith richest lexical information reflected from the qualitative study. The non-significantdifference among differently glossed groups in reading comprehension is inferred to becaused by two main factors. One is the familiar background information to readers. Theother is the inadequate amount of multiple choice questions as assessment task canhardly distinguish the difference.Above all, the study has confirmed the effective role of “noticing”. Furthermore,the intentional condition together with richer gloss information synergisticallystrengthened the role of “noticing” and led to a deeper processing at the same time.However, L1+Ph+Ex, the richest gloss information, which was supposed to generate advantageous effect in facilitating vocabulary acquisition based on “ElaborationHypothesis” has failed to meet the expectation due to limited attentional resources oflearners and the negative emotions induced by the in-class learning environment. Theresearch result is enlightening to the future pedagogical practice, for which, severalpieces of suggestions are proposed: a) Proper amount of gloss information isrecommended to be added to L2reading materials and textbooks for L2learners to havean intensive encoding of the unfamiliar words; b) The experiment result manifested asignificant dependence of learners on phonetic symbols. Hence, it is of great necessityto provide gloss with phonetic symbols for those unfamiliar words in reading materials;c) For those words which are hard to comprehend, sentence context is recommended tobe offered for an intensive and more direct understanding of the words. d) Gloss withmuch richer information is more applicable to extracurricular reading. Under suchcondition, the learning environment is much freer, and learners are more stronglymotivated and less stressed so that the rich gloss information can be better exploited.