The Concise Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Carol A. Chapelle
Word form analysis is also necessary for accessing, storing, and manipulating phonological information (Torgesen & Burgess, 1998). Studies involving English‐speaking children have consistently demonstrated that poor readers are handicapped in a variety of phonological tasks; and that their deficiencies tend to be “longitudinally predictive, and relatively unaffected by non‐phonological factors—such as general intelligence, semantic knowledge, or visual processing” (Share & Stanovich, 1995, p. 9). It is agreed that efficiency in phonological decoding is causally related to achievement in word recognition, vocabulary acquisition, and text comprehension.
The primary function of phonological decoding is to enable the child to identify the meaning of printed words through their spoken sounds (Frost, 1998). The importance of efficient decoding is also understood as the means to enhance the functioning of working memory (Kleiman, 1975; Levy, 1975). It has been shown that phonologically encoded information is more durable in working memory than visually encoded information (Gathecole & Baddeley, 1993). Because complex mental operations rely upon working memory, efficient decoding is essential for their execution and completion.
Morphological Knowledge
As the smallest functioning unit in the composition of words, morphemes represent both rule‐based grammatical information and item‐specific lexical information. As the child advances to higher grades, morphological analysis becomes increasingly central to word recognition, vocabulary acquisition, and text comprehension. Morphological awareness, sensitivity to the abstract structure of words, enables the child to analyze a word into its morphological constituents. Such sensitivity emerges early in spoken language development through recurrent experiences of mapping particular grammatical functions, such as plurality and tense, onto specific sounds in speech. Morphological awareness plays a significant role, particularly in later stages of reading development (Nunes & Bryant, 2006; Frost, 2012; Ehri, 2014), wherein the child learns a large number of new words. According to Nagy and Anderson (1984), roughly 60% of the new words are structurally transparent multimorphemic words, such as “fire‐fight‐er” and “un‐lady‐like.” As evident in these examples, the ability to decompose morphologically complex words makes it possible for the child to infer the meaning of an unfamiliar word based on knowledge of the component morphemes, which, in turn, contributes to incidental word learning through reading.
Vocabulary Knowledge
Knowledge of word meanings and the ability to retrieve them through word form analysis contribute directly and reciprocally to all other operations in reading. As an illustration, word meaning retrieval depends on accurate and speedy word form analysis (orthography, phonology, and morphology) for identifying the word whose meaning is to be retrieved. It also relies on local text meanings for selecting the context‐appropriate sense from a set of meanings conveyed by the word. Conversely, vocabulary knowledge serves as a joint that connects the graphic form of a word with what the reader knows about the referent of the object the word represents. The connection is important because stored knowledge of word forms has an arbitrary relation to representations of real‐life experiences in memory (Schreuder & Flores d'Arcais, 1992). Knowledge of word meanings in a way functions as a passcode to one's knowledge bases because they include “information about the things to which words refer—be they related to the external world or internal states of the mind” (p. 422).
As a complex construct, vocabulary knowledge emerges gradually through repeated encounters with a word referring to a particular object, event, or property in particular situations. Because words convey different meanings in different contexts, word meaning retrieval must include the selection of the sense that best fits the context in which the word appears. Anderson and Nagy (1991) underscore the importance of flexibility in meaning sense selection during text comprehension. They contend that “really knowing a word… always means being able to apply it flexibly but accurately in a range of new contexts and situations” (p. 721).
In recent years, academic vocabulary has attracted considerable attention. The central concern of this research is how instruction can foster the genre‐specific vocabulary knowledge. Using the metaphor of “words as tools,” Nagy and Townsend (2012) argue that knowing words implies the ability to use the knowledge as tools for communicating and thinking about disciplinary contents. Because academic language competence differs across disciplines, it is essential that vocabulary instruction take into account the genre‐specific purposes for which words are used, so as to provide the learner with opportunities to use academic words for those discipline‐specific purposes.
Syntactic Knowledge
Sentence comprehension entails the incremental integration of word meanings in such a way that an integrated “chunk” reflects the overall meaning of larger text units, such as phrase and clause. The integration process, often referred to as “syntactic parsing,” involves two major operations: phrase construction through word meaning integration and case assignments to the constructed phrases. To illustrate, the sentence “Nancy tapped the man with the cane” allows two interpretations regarding the cane holder. If the phrase “with the cane” is taken as a modifier of the verb “tapped,” Nancy is the cane holder. If, on the other hand, the phrase is interpreted to modify “the man,” the cane should be in his hand. Hence, decisions regarding phrase attachment have major semantic consequences, and syntactic knowledge is integral to this process.
Because syntactic structures vary from one language to another, the learner must understand how phrases are constructed, and cases are assigned to the phrases in a new language. It has been reported that syntactic knowledge significantly contributes to reading performance among school‐age second language learners (e.g., Nagy, McClure, & Mir, 1997; Verhoeven, 2000). Second language reading studies have shown that syntactic knowledge is an equal, if not better, predictor of reading comprehension than vocabulary knowledge among college language learners (Jeon, 2011; Shin & Kim, 2012; Kim & Cho, 2015).
Discourse Knowledge
To build coherent text representations, readers must integrate local text meanings across sentences and paragraphs. A text's surface structure offers a variety of reliable clues signaling coherence relations among text elements. As a case in point, significant information is often placed in prominent text locations that highlight its relative weight (e.g., at the beginning of a text) and connection with other text segments (e.g., at the end of a paragraph) (Goldman & Rakestraw, 2000). Linguistic devices, such as connectives and co‐references, are also used to achieve text coherence. Studies have demonstrated that knowledge of coherence devices differs considerably among native English‐speaking children (e.g., Garner et al., 1986); that explicit training on coherence awareness tends to improve text comprehension and memory (e.g., Pearson & Fielding, 1991); that explicit demonstrations of text organization generally improve text comprehension (e.g., Buss, Ratliff, & Irion, 1985; Baumann & Bergeron, 1993); and that efforts to increase the structural salience of a text facilitate comprehension (e.g., Anderson & Davison, 1988; Beck & Dole, 1992). It is important to note, however, that knowledge of discourse structure and coherence devices promotes global text comprehension, but, at the same time, the acquisition of this knowledge occurs only through substantial reading experience.
To sum up, the process of building text meanings entails a large number of diverse skills, each necessitating a distinct facet of linguistic knowledge. Without sufficient knowledge of the language, it is simply impossible to build accurate and coherent text representations. However, the reverse is also true—that is, linguistic knowledge is augmented and refined through the autonomous use of this knowledge for constructing and analyzing content meanings during reading. Reading ability and linguistic knowledge are thus developmentally reciprocal, mutually enhancing their acquisition and refinement.
Reading Ability in a Second Language
The study of second language reading encompasses a broad range of learners, including those of different ages, with diverse linguistic backgrounds, and with varying educational