Effects of dimensions of word knowledge and their accessibility on different levels of reading comprehension in adolescent EFL learners

Researchers have investigated that different dimensions of word knowledge (breadth versus depth) may play distinct roles in second language (L2) reading comprehension. Yet, little research has addressed how learners’ efficiency of accessing those dimensions of knowledge functions in their comprehension (i.e., the issue of knowledge availability versus accessibility in Cremer and Schoonen, 2013), not to mention comprehension at different levels. To fill gaps in previous research and enrich our knowledge about the lexical basis of L2 reading comprehension, the present study examined how different dimensions of L2 word knowledge and their respective accessibility function concurrently in explaining different levels of L2 reading comprehension in adolescent English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners in Korea. To achieve this research goal, the present study defined lexical competence by distinguishing between vocabulary breadth and depth knowledge as well as between knowledge availability and accessibility. A number of tasks were employed to measure participants’ lexical competences: three paper-and-pencil tests for knowledge availability and three researcher-developed, computer-based tests for knowledge accessibility documenting response accuracy as well as latency. Reading comprehension was measured with the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Comprehension Test (MacGinitie & MacGinitie, 1992), which assessed both literal and inferential comprehension. In addition, the participants’ working memory and grammatical knowledge were also measured. The following key research findings were revealed. First, Confirmatory Factor Analysis analyses confirmed that knowledge of individual word meanings (breadth availability) and the ability to activate that knowledge efficiently (breadth accessibility), and knowledge of meaning relations among words (depth availability) and the ability to access that knowledge efficiently (depth accessibility) are distinctive constructs under the conceptualization of lexical competence. Second, availability and accessibility of depth knowledge were the only predictors that made significant contributions to reading comprehension when the impacts of those of breadth knowledge and working memory were controlled for. Within vocabulary depth, availability played a more important role than did accessibility. Availability and accessibility of breadth knowledge made no unique contribution to reading comprehension over and beyond those of depth knowledge. Third, the patterns of predictive roles of each lexical competence in reading comprehension did not seem substantially different between literal and inferential comprehension, confirming a stronger impact of depth knowledge, both availability and accessibility, than of breadth knowledge, and of availability of depth knowledge than of accessibility. However, the involvement of depth knowledge, particularly availability, seemed greater in inferential comprehension than in literal comprehension. These findings enriched our understanding about the lexical basis of L2 reading comprehension, particularly, the importance of efficient access to semantic network knowledge for textual reading and potentially differential involvement of semantic network knowledge in different levels of comprehension. Pedagogically, they suggested that vocabulary instruction should provide a learning environment where new words are provided in a meaningful reading context so that learners can establish a semantic network in their lexicon and continue developing, expanding, and consolidating the lexicon as they learn new words.