JapanSociety

Japan Society Language

of English Language
ofEnglish Education
Education

The effects of different

types of glossesinvocabulary learning
and reading comprehension

YasushiMitarai
Oitalhiversitly

KazumiAizawa
7bbyoDenkiUhiversily

Glessing unknown words in a passage is useful for helping second language (L2)readers
acqtiire new vocabulary as well as overcome lexicalobstacles. However, there isno conclusive

answer te the question as to what type of glossing bestsenres these purposes. One hundredand
eighty-five Japaneselearnersof Englishread a passage with four differenttypes of glosses(a
Japanesesingle gloss, a Japanese
multiple choice g]oss,an English single gloss and an English
multiple-cheice gloss) and took a reading comprehension and two vocabu]ary tests (immediate
and delayed). Results indicated that an L2
gloss w･as the rnost effective in reading
single

comprehension, It was also discovered that firstlanguage (Ll)glosses worked better for
vocabulary Iearning
as a whole and that there was no differenceof the effect between the Ll single

gloss and the Ll multiple-choice gless.

lntroduction

Vocabularylearningisundeniably one of themost important aspects of L2 learningand many

learnerstry to increasetheirvocabulary by intentional

memorization of words, It is equally
uncleniable, however, that they unintentionally enlarge their vocabulary through incidental
acquisition in a variety･ of ways. Among thesereading is claimed to afford the best opportunity
forincidental
vocabulary acquisition (Pitts,
"ihiteand Krashen, 1989; Day, Omura and Hiramatsu,
1991). As an initial
step in vocabulary learning,it is critically important for L2 readers to

recognize the meaning of unknown words w･hen they come across them. There are several ways

to accomplish thisiinferring the meaning of unknown words from context, using a dictionary and

referring to a gloss.
Lexicalinference isencouraged as an effect[ve strategy to overcome the lack of vocabulary in
L2 reading. Apart from beinga reading strategy, lexicalgLiessingis claimed to be instrumental
in vocabulary learning (Hulstijn,1992). Accordingto Hulstijn's effort hypothesis",
`Lmental

73

NII-Electronic Library Service

JapanSociety
Japan Society Language
of English Language
ofEnglish Education
Education

readers can acquire more vocabulary by directing

theirattention to unknown words when they are
attempting to guess their rneaning. However, it is often argued that readers frequentlymake
incorrectinferencesand are misled into learningthe wrong meanings of words, Furthermore,
Aizawa (1998)
discovered that a Ll (Japanese)
single gloss was more helpful in vocabulary

acquisition than guessing the meaning of the target words while reading in English.
Using a dictionaryrnay be expected to clear the hurdle of recognizing the correct meaning of

unknown words. In fact, itwas found that stuclents learned more words when they were allowed

to use a dictionary
while reading, than when they were not (Luppescuand Day, 1993). XVhile
consulting a dictionarymay result in better retention of new words, it is not without serieus

drawbacks. Learners'use of the dictionaryresults in lower reading speed, and may confuse the
learner,
especially ifthereare a largenumber of entries under the head word from which to choose
{Luppescuand Day, 1993). Another concern is thatfrequent lookingup of words interferes with

short-term memory and thus disruptsthe comprehension process. In addition to these problems
Hulstijnet al. (1996)
and Aizawa (1998)
offered evidence that glossing had a greater positive effect
on the retention of vocabulary than dictionaryuse.
From the above discussionwe may determinethe superiority of glossing. Yet the
reasonably

question now arises as to whether (1992)

Hulstijn's mental effort hypothesisstill holdsfor glossing

conditions. We must ask ourselves whether a multiple-choice gloss (MCG)ismore effective than
a singlegloss(SG)because the former requires more mental efforts in the semantic decision-making
process. In answer to this question, Watanabe (1997a,b)
reported seemingly contradictory

findings. On the hand, W'atanabe (1997a)

one discoveredthat an L2 SG was mere effective than
an L2 MCG. On the other hand, an L2 MCG was more effective than an Ll SG for higher
preficiency learners,
while the converse was the case forlower proficiencyleamers {Mratanabe,
1997b). It is noteworthy that, as "･"atanabe(1997a)
assumed, this apparent inconsistency was
caused by the subjects' erroneous choice of alternatives in the MCG during reading. In other
words, if subjects had selected correct choices in the MCG, they might have outperformed SG
counterparts in theposttests,as evidenced in Watanabe {1997b).
We decidedthat this unexamined assumption de$ervedtestingand that,in order to test it,it
was essential to investigate the vocabulary Iearning of good performers in the choice of
alternatives ina MCG. Besidesvocabulary learning,
we were interestecl
to explere validity of the

effectiveness of the L2 SG in reading comprehension, as clairned by Furuya and Mitarai (1995).

"riththisbackground in mind, we conducted a study on the effects of different
types of glosses in
L2 vecabulary learningand reading comprehension.

Method

Subjects
The subjects foranalysis were 185 college-Ievel students who had been selected from 221

74

NII-Electronic Library Service

JapanSociety
Japan Society of English Language Education
ofEnglishLanguageEducation

initial
participants. All of them were Japanesenative speakers and were leaniing English as a

foreignlanguage, The detailsef thisselection procedure will be describedbelow.

Design
There were two independentvariabl es: language of the glosses {English
the or Japanese) and
-choice). Thus cach group didthe reading task with the
the type of the glosses (single
or multiple-

aid of one of the fourglosses:

Group 1 Japanesesingle gloss (SG)

Japanesemultiple-choice
Group 2Group3Group4 gloss (MCG)
Englishsingle gless
Englishmultiple-choice gloss

An example of each type of gloss isas follows,

in the same order as the sequence of groups above:

)tVlteDC･t6
glaze:glaze
igo }J6
1 . )EttF(
2. ag<t6
to make
glaze:glaze something shiny

1.to make something shiny

2. to make something dark

There were three dependentvariables: comprehension test scores, immediate vocabulary

posttestscores and the scores ef a delayed vocabulary posttest that was administered two weeks

later.

Materials
The 432-word reading passage used forthisstudy was
"Compa$sion
isin the eyes" taken from
Chicken sozip forthe sottg Ler(HealthCommunication Inc.,1996). From the passage we selected as

target words 14 words thatwe decidedvery few participantswould be familiar

with after we had

examined their frequency in the .1?ICET

evord gist4000 and the word listdeveloped by Hokkaido
University. The target words consisted of the following:four nouns (mpPrehension,
bena
commise?atio?z, hooves),
fouradjectives (coa};
devou4 inquisitive,
numb) and six verbs (dismoun4
glaze,Tecleon, iein, sect{re, veto).

The reading fourdescriptive

cemprehension questions and fourmultiple-choice
testcontained

questions. The former had Japanesequestions to be answered in Japanese and the latter

Japanesequestionsand English choices. Each question was given two points, the maximum
possible score being 16,

75

NII-Electronic Library Service

JapanSociety
Japan Society Language
of English Language
ofEnglish Education
Education

The vocabulary posttests censisted of 14 items of multiple--choice questionwith four cho{ces:

one key and three distractors.Half of the 14 items were accompanied by Japanesechoices and
the other halfwere by Englishchoices. The languageof the choices foreach question item was
reversed in the delay･edposttest. That is,the item$ that had been accompanied by Japanese
choices in the firstposttestwere accompanied by Englishchoices in the delayed posttest, and vice

versa. "re used multip]e-choice tests rather than those that required the subjects to write the
Japaneseequivalent in order to avoid the flooreffect that might be incurredby any unexpectedly
low scores. Our decisionto employ the former type was basedon Knight(1994>, who foundthat
"select-definition"
the (i.e.
multiple-choice) test led to the learningof a greater nurnber of words

than the
`'supply-definition"
test,which required Ll equivalents fortarget words.

Procedure

The study was conducted according to a feur-week scheme in 1998. In the firstweek, we

adrninistered the VKS (Vocabulary

Knowledge Scale)test adapted from Wesche and Paribakht
(1996)
to identify the participants who knew at leasttwe of the target words. The test included20
words of which 14 were targets. The other six were dummies, the knowledge of which was

essential to understand the Engiishglosses. We toldtheparticipants the meanings of these words

after collecting the tests. All the participants finished
the test within fiveminutes.
The VKS test was immediately fo]lowedby a vocabulary pretest to measure the participants'
vocabulary size. This was a inultiple-choice test developed by one of the present authors

(Aizawa)
comprising 18 sets of three Japanesewerds as question items. As seen from the
example below, there were six Englishword choices per set, threebeingkeysand the other three
being distractors:

1 kE'fa[ ]2
ge.$.-･x, eets,de [ ] 3 [ ] ltffLbl

{1) balloen (2)issue <3) schedule (4) target (5) truth (6>victory

All the participants

finishedthe test within 20 minutes.
After eliminating participants who had been found to know at leasttwo of the 14 target w･ ords

in the VKS test,we dividedthe remaining participants into feur groups on the basis of the
vocabulary pretestscores. The fourgroups had comparable yocabulary knowledge.
In the second week, the reading comprehension testand the immediate vocabulary posttest
were administered, The participants were instructedto read the passage and answer the reading

eomprehension questionson a separate sheet of paper. During the task each group referred to
one of the fourdifferent
tyPesof glosses printed te the right of the reading passage:a JapaneseSG,
a Japanese
MCG, an EnglishSG, and an EnglishMCG. The participants were specifically asked

to read through the passage before answering the questions so that they would not rush to answer
the questions without referring to thegloss. They were allowed to refer back to the passage and

76

NII-Electronic Library Service

JapanSociety
Japan Society Language
of English Language
ofEnglish Education
Education

the glosses te answer the questions. All the participants finished the reading test within 20
minutes. During a five-minutes' recess after the test,the participants listenedto an Englishpop
song. The purpose of thisrecess was to divert
theirattention from the glossed target words they
had encountered during the rcading. The first vocabulary posttest, which had not been
announced to the participants beforehand,was conducted immediatelyafter thesong,
Two weeks laterthe second vecabulary posttest was given to investigatethe effect of delay
on vocabulary retention. Again this test had not been announcedbeforehand. It wasconfirmed

thatno participants had studied the target words between the twe posttests.

DataAnelysis

For the analysis we furthernarrowed down the subjects in the two MCG groups. "'e
eliminatecl those who scored lower than 10 out of the maximum possible score of 14 in the choice
of the correct meaning in the MCGs. The reason forthis screening was that we feared the failure
to choose the correct a]ternative in the MCGs would adversely affect the performance in the
vocabulary posttests(Watanabe, 1997a), AIthough the number of subjects in MCG groups was

considerably reduced, no significant differencewas confirmecl between the inean scores ef the
yocabulary pretest of the remaining subjects of fourgroups, F C3,l81)O,69,n.s. =

We used a 2 (language)
x 2 (SGIMCG) de$ign to calculate the analysis of varlance (ANOVA)
on the reading comprehension test. For the vocabulary posttests a three-way ANOVA was

calculated. M[e used a 2 (language)

X 2 (SG/MCG)X 2 (Immediate/Delayed)
design with repeated

measures on the third factor. Because we had counterbalanced the language of choices forhalfof
the question items intwo posttests,the raw data were converted into T-scoresforana}ysis. The
advantage of this conversion is that we can compare the performances in tests of potentially
different
units of measurement.

Results

VocabularyLearning
Table 1 gives the means and standard deviationsof vocabulary posttest scores. Looking at

Table l,one might be puzzled the EnglishMCG group as well as the

at the increaseof the mean of

very slight decrease of the other three groups. These figuresshould not be interpreted as
indicatingactual rise in the raw score. Because the figuresrepresent T scores, they indicatethe
relative performances of each group within respective tests. Hence this interestingbetter
performance by the EnglishMCG group in the delayed test must be understood not as an absolute
gain but as a gain produceclthrough comparison with the scores of the other groups.

Table 2 shows the results of a three-way ANOVA calculated on the vocabulary posttests.
As seen from Table 2, the main effects of language and SG/MCG were significant in the
vocabulary posttests. Whereas the conversion of the raw scores resulted in no significant

77

NII-Electronic Library Service

JapanSociety
Japan Society Language
of English Language
ofEnglish Education
Education

Table 1,Means and standard deviationsef vocabulary posttestscores

Immediate Delayed

group n M so M sa

JapaneseSG 53495330 53.4751.8649.88,11.04

11.03 52 8151.3248.7645
7.35
Japanese
MCG 8.79 8.97l2.06
EnglishSG 7.70
English MCG 7.95 Ol 9.41

Tabie 2.ANOVA on vocabulary posttests

source ss of MS F p

betweensubjects
Language(A) 3351.57 111T81 3351.571344.l4 25.81IC}.35 O.Oo-qctsO.oe-tsO.05+
SG 1 MCG (B) 1344.14
AxB 493.5Z23500.71 493.52 3.80
error 129.83

withinsubjects

Period (C) l5.00 1111181 15.0 O.301.813.el2.73

O.tt8O.18O.08+O,10
AxC 89.64 89.6148.8135.0
BxC 148.81
AxBxC 135.048948.13
error 49.4
+p < ,10 W < .05 Ep < .ol "tP < .O05

difference
between the two posttests,this isnot a serious drawback in our study. This isbecause
we were concerned with the comparison of the variables within each test and we took it for
granted that there would be overall attrition of newly learned vocabulary retention. VLre,
therefore, did not includeraw scores in our analysis.
A furtheranalysis on interactienrevealed the following:The SGIMCG effect was significant

glossing, F(1,181 )
in English =i 13.35,P< .Oel,but not in Japaneseglossing,F{1,181) =- O.80,n.s.
The language effect was significant both in the SG and MCG, F(1,181) =
4.90,P < .05,F(1,181) =

24.71,P < .OOI,respectively. Regarding the peried condition (immediate/delayed),

the SG was

significantly more effective in the immediate posttest,F(1,362) =

13.32,P< .OOI,and tended to be
so in the delayed posttest, F(1, 362) =
3.34,P < .10. However, no significant simple main effect

was between the two posttests either

obsersred in the SG,F(1,I81)= O.70,n.s., or MCG condition,

F(1,181) 2.61,n.s,
=

78

NII-Electronic Library Service

JapanSociety
Japan Society Language
of English Language
ofEnglish Education
Education

Reading Comprehension
Table 3 presents the means and standard deviationsof the reading comprehension test

scores,

Table 3･ Mean$ and standard deviations

of reading comprehension testscores

group n M so

Japanese
SG 5349533e 9.59 3.493.693.694.27
Japanese
MCG 8,1611,OO

English SG
EnglishMCG 8,67

The results of an ANOVA performed on the reading comprehension test are presented in
Table 4. As Table 4 shows, the SGs were significantly more effective thanMCGs, and, somewhat

surprisingly, Englishglosses tended to be effective in the same way in reading comprehension. A

furtheranalysis of the simple main effect that the Englishsingle gloss group tended to
revealed

outperform theJapanesesingle gloss group, F(1,181) 3,41,P< .10. =

Tabie 4, ANOVA on reading comprehension test

sources ss of MS F p

Language (A) 43.46 1 43.46148.00 3.05le.39 o.es+O.OO-=kO.39

SGfMCG (B) 148.00 1

AxB 10.652578.61 1181 IU.65 O.75

error 14,25

fp< .Ol .O05

azzp
+p < ,10 .05 <
,)\,
<

Discussion

Glossesand VocabularyLearning
Multipte-Choice
Both of the main effects of the Japanese
glosses and the SGs were confirmed in vocabulary
learning. The factthat itwas the Japaneseglesses which were more effective forthe retention of

the rrieaning of targetwords will not be surprising formany L2 teachers. They are empirically

aware of how hard itisforlearners

to memorize the meaning of unknown words in their L2, From
a differentpoint of view, the result is explicable by the claim thatLl meaning network iseasier to

construct thanthatof L2.

On the other hand the more favorableeffect of the SGs runs counter to the argument forthe
superiority of MCGs based on the "mental
effort 1992). We have to note
hypothesis"(Hulstijn,

79

NII-Electronic Library Service

JapanSociety
Japan Society Language
of English Language
ofEnglish Education
Education

the fact,however, that the positivernain effect of SGs can be attributable to thepoor results of the
EnglishMCG the EnglishSG group; there
group cempared with was by contrast no significant

difference
betweenthe two Japaneseglos$ groups, A probable cause of this was the subjects'
English proficiency.As Watanabe (1997b)
found with his subjects, lower proficiency Iearners
benefitedmore from an Ll SG than an L2 MCG. Certainlyitisimpossibleto directlycornparethe
proficiency of subjects in our study and Watanabe's. Yet, compared with Watanabe'ssubjects,
who were students (non-native
pre-university, undergraduate or graduate)in the U.S.,our subjects
are unlikely to have beenlessweak in theirEnglishabilities. Itseems, therefore,reasonable to
conclude that even though we selected those who had scored more than 9 points in the choice of

alternatives of MCGs, theyhave not reached the L2 thresholdlevelto endorse the superiority of

MCGs. If we had furtherrestricted the subjects for analy$is to those who scored, forexample,
mere than 1O,the results might havebeenreversed. However, had we cloneso, we would nothave
been able to validate the equality of the vocabulary knowledge oi the four groups on the basisof
thevocabulary pretest. In addition, a serious imbalancewould have risen betweenthegroups by
eliminating a largenumber of subjects, especially from the English MCG group, in which only 16
subjects scored more than 10. 0ne conceivable way to make the MCG absolutely fail-safe
rnaybe

to provide MCGs with almost synonymous alternatives, whichever learnerschoose and incidentally
learnwill work in the posttest.
In spite of the above discussion,
we cannot totall},rule out the significance of MCGs forthe
following reasons, First of all, as far as the Japanese
gloss groups were concerned, the MCG
group did as well as, ifnot betterthan,the SG group, Furthermore, as the factthat interaction
between SG!MCG and period conditions tended to be significant indicates,MCG groups, in
particularthe English MCG group, performed unexpectedly well inthe delayedposttest. This
leads us to the question whether an L2 MCG has a more positive long-term effect than other
glosses on the retention of newly learnedvocabulary. This point may be interesting
enough to
merit furtherresearch.

L2 Single-Gloss
and Reading Comprehension

To turn to reading comprehension, itwas found that the English SG was the most effective.

Apparently thisseeTns to be contrary to the received opinion thatassistance with firstlanguage is

more helpfulin overcoming vocabulary problems. Yet the similar results were reported by
Furuya and Mitarai(1995),who found that an alphabetically ordered Englishglossworked better
than an English-Japanese dictionary
forgrasping the gist of an Englishpassage. Itisimportant
to note that the present study provided comparable glossesin each languageto overcome the
complication in Furuya and Mitarai'sstudy: namely that difficulty
in identifying
the appropriate
meaning under a headword may possibly have caused the poorer performance on the part of
dictionary
users. One for the results is that the glosses employed in both studies used
explanation

relatively easy language. Although this may have been favorable,we must be reminded that

80

NII-Electronic Library Service

JapanSociety
Japan Society Language
of English Language
ofEnglish Education
Education

comprehension isgenerally easier to attain in Ll than in L2. Therefore we cannot determine that
the simple English glossing excessively contributed to the higher scores. The more like!},
explanation isthat Englishgloss users were encouraged to be rnore deeply involvedin the reading

process because the L2 gloss ma}r have requirecl more striving in reading. The inferiorresults of

MCG groups will be ascribable to the fact thatreaders in thesegroups devoted too much mental

energy to the decision-making process of meaning selection for each glossed word. In other
words, the MCGs had similarly disruptive
effects on the readers, as use <Aizawa,
diddictionary
1998, Luppescu and Day, 1993), We must point out that the study would have been more

complete, if the four groups had been formed with equal ability in L2 reading as well as L2
vocabulary, though itwould have demanded a fairlycomplicated process to realize this.

Conc[usion

Itisby no means easy to consider the pedagogical implications

of thisstudy because we hav･e

obtained apparently incompatibleresults. Wherea$ both Ll and L2 SGs, in particular an L2 SG,

worked for reading comprehension, both the Ll SG ancl Ll MCG were effective in vocabulary
learning. If we rnust make a choice, itmay be best to employ an Ll SG, which was the second
best gloss ty･pefor reading comprehension and one of the best for vocabulary learning,
IndisputablyL2 readers should not be expected to exert unnecessary mental efforts on any MCGs
in what should be a reading activity, and L2 vocabulary learnersshould also be relieved of the
burden of difficult
MCGs. However, itmay be too hasty to conclude that L2 vocabulary Iearners
should not engage in extra work for any kind of MCGs. It deservesfurtherresearch to
investigatewhether the above mentionecl MCGs with synonymous alternatives really have a

favorableeffect in vocabulary learning, Until the questionhas been crarified, teachers have no

single best t},pe of gloss to serve bothpurposes and are leftto choose whichever bestserves fer
theirs.

Note

We wou]d like to thank J.Hulstijn,Vrije UniversitietAmsterdarn for his suggestions

Prc)fessor
and cemments on the initiaistage of this study. We are also deep]ygrateful to Professor
Kazunori Kojo, Oita University,whose assistance in data processing was indispensableto the
completion of this paper.

References

Aizawa, K. (1998).
Incidentalvocabulary learningthrough
Guessing exercises, glossing reading: or

accessing dictionaries? K}intoKoshinetsuEigo K]y,ouiku

GakkaiKenk}'uKlyou, 12, 79-94.

81

NII-Electronic Library Service

JapanSociety
Japan Society of English Language Education
ofEnglishLanguage Education

Day, R., Omura, C. & Hiramatsu,M. (1991).

IncidentalEFL vocabulary learningand reading.

Readi7zgin a FoxeignLangucrge,7(2),541-551.
Furuya, T. & Mitarai,Y. (1995). A comparative study of the effect of monofingual and bilingual

glosses on reading comprehension by JapaneseEFL learners. K))t{shtt f!)igo

K]y,ouiktt
(inkhai
Kbnts'tt
Klyou.23,67'74.
Hulstijn,J. (l992).
Retention of inferredand given word meanings: Experiments in incidental
vocabulary learning. In Arnaud, P. & Bejoint,II.(eds.).Vocabblla7J,
and aXiplied linguistics.

London:MacmMan.
J. Hollander,M. & Greidanus,
Hulstijn, , T. (1996).
Incidentalvocabulary learningby advanced

foreignlanguage students: The influence of marginal glosses,dictionary usc, and reoccurrence

of unknown words. 71heModern Langttcrgefourna4

80 (3),
327-:1
39.
Knight,S. (1994).
Dictionary
use while reading; The effects on comprehension and vocabular>r

acquisition forstudents of differentverbal abilities. 7'PreModema Lavegztcrgelournat,78 (3),

285-
299.
Luppescu, S, & Day, R.R. (1993).
Reading, dietionaries,
and vocabulary iearning.Languqge
Learning 43 C2),
263-287,
H. & Krashen, S. (1989).
Pitts,M., VLJhite, Acquiring second language vocabulary through reading:
i'X replication of the clockwork orange study using second language acquirers. Readiiag.
in a
foreign
langztdrge,
5(2),271-275.
Watanabe, Y. (1997a).Input,intakc,and retention-Effects of increased processingon incidental

learningof foreignlanguage vocabulary. Studiesin SecondLanguage Acquisition, 19 (3),287-

307.
Watanabe, Y. (1997b).
Effectsof single and multiple-choice glosseson incidentalvocabulary
learning.UI CIETBulletin,
2g, 177-191.
Wesche, Dvl.& Paribakht, T. (1996). Assessing second language vocabulary knowledge: depth
versus ClanadianModern LangzfageReview,53 (1),
breadth.711ze 13-40.

82

NII-Electronic Library Service