Applied Linguistics Advance Access published March 27, 2014

Applied Linguistics 2014: 1–25 ß Oxford University Press 2014

doi:10.1093/applin/amu007

The Effects of Vocabulary Breadth and

Depth on English Reading
1,
*MIAO LI and 2JOHN R. KIRBY
1
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto and 2Faculty of
Education, Queen’s University, Canada
*E-mail: miaomiao.li@utoronto.ca

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ of Southern California on April 4, 2014

This study explored the relationship between two dimensions of vocabulary
knowledge, that is, breadth of vocabulary (the number of words known) and
depth of vocabulary (the richness of word knowledge), and their effects on
different aspects of English reading in Chinese high school students learning
English as a second language. Two hundred and forty-six Grade 8 students in
China were administered measures of word reading, vocabulary breadth, vo-
cabulary depth, and reading comprehension. Results showed that breadth and
depth of vocabulary were moderately correlated. They both contributed to word
reading, but breadth of vocabulary had a stronger effect than depth of vocabu-
lary. When reading comprehension was the outcome measure, vocabulary
breadth significantly predicted a multiple-choice reading comprehension meas-
ure, which requires general understanding of the text, while vocabulary depth
contributed to summary writing, a measure of deeper text processing. Discussion
focuses on the important roles of different dimensions of vocabulary knowledge
for different types of second language reading.

According to the Lexical Quality Hypothesis (Perfetti 1985, 2007), skilled reading
depends on high-quality lexical representations, and therefore vocabulary
should be a powerful predictor of reading. Many empirical studies in both
English as a first language (EL1) and English as a second language (ESL)
have demonstrated that there is a close relationship between vocabulary
knowledge and reading (e.g. Stahl and Fairbanks 1986; Qian 1999, 2002;
Nation 2001; Beck et al. 2002). Although many studies have found a strong
relationship between vocabulary and reading, they have often employed only
a single measure of vocabulary and have not addressed the multidimensional
nature of vocabulary knowledge (Kieffer and Lesaux 2008).
It has been proposed that traditional measures of vocabulary assess mainly
breadth of vocabulary, because although they do capture a sense of how many
words are known, they do not indicate how well or how deeply those words
are known (Nagy and Herman 1987; Wesche and Paribakht 1996). Depth of
vocabulary knowledge is an important construct which has been claimed to
measure the deep understanding of word meanings (Anderson and Freebody
1981; Henriksen 1999); we examine this construct further in the following
section. Compared with breadth of vocabulary, depth of vocabulary has been
2 VOCABULARY IN ENGLISH READING

less researched. The purpose of this article is to examine the relationship be-
tween breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge and the effects of these two
dimensions of vocabulary knowledge on different aspects of reading in ESL
students.

BREADTH AND DEPTH OF VOCABULARY KNOWLEDGE

Although vocabulary has proven to be one of the strongest predictors of read-
ing comprehension in both EL1 and ESL learners (e.g. Laufer 1992; Read 2000;

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ of Southern California on April 4, 2014

Nation 2001; Beck et al. 2002; Koda 2005; Tannenbaum et al. 2006; Farnia and
Geva 2011), the nature of vocabulary knowledge is not clear. Over the years,
researchers have attempted to explain what is involved in vocabulary know-
ledge. An early definition proposed by Cronbach (1942) considered vocabulary
knowledge as the ability to define words, the ability to know the multiple
meanings of words, and the ability to recognize situations appropriate for
using words. As more research on vocabulary was conducted, other aspects
were recognized in defining vocabulary knowledge, such as pronunciation,
register, morphosyntactic properties, orthographic knowledge, semantic fea-
tures, pragmatic features, and collocation (Laufer 1992; Nagy and Scott
2000; Read 2000). Taking these aspects into consideration, Nation (2001) sug-
gested that vocabulary knowledge comprises three dimensions: form (oral and
written), meaning, and use. Nation’s definition bears much similarity to the
term lexical knowledge in the lexical quality hypothesis proposed by Perfetti (see
Perfetti 1985, 2007). Lexical knowledge refers to the extent to which the read-
er’s knowledge of a given word represents the word’s form, meaning, and
knowledge of use with pragmatic features. A person’s vocabulary includes
words of widely varying lexical quality; those of high quality have bonded
phonology, orthography, grammar, and meaning, whereas those of low qual-
ity have missing information or incomplete bonds (Perfetti 2007).
Anderson and Freebody (1981) first made the distinction between two di-
mensions of vocabulary knowledge: breadth and depth. They argued that vo-
cabulary breadth refers to ‘the number of words for which the person knows at
least some of the significant aspects of meaning’ (p. 93), while vocabulary
depth is ‘the quality or depth of understanding’ (p. 93). In other words,
breadth of vocabulary refers to how many words a person knows, whereas
depth of vocabulary refers to how well a person knows these words.
There is a consensus that breadth of vocabulary involves how many words
are known. But how do we define the extent to which a word is known?
Perhaps Nation’s summary of the various types of word knowledge can shed
light on this question. Nation (2001) divided word knowledge into three areas:
form, meaning, and use. Under this guideline, breath of vocabulary would
include knowing the oral and written forms of the words, the surface mean-
ings, and basic uses of the words.
There have been many different approaches to conceptualizing and measur-
ing depth of vocabulary knowledge. Some researchers have viewed depth of
 M. LI AND J. R. KIRBY 3

vocabulary as mainly involving the knowledge of a word’s different sense re-

lations to other words in the lexicon (Meara 1996; Qian 1999, 2002; Haastrup
and Henriksen 2000; Read 2004). This approach attempts to define depth of
vocabulary as the degree to which lexical networks have been established and
from the perspective of word meaning and collocation. Other researchers have
argued that other aspects are also relevant. Morphological information has
been suggested as another aspect of depth of vocabulary because knowledge
of affixes and roots can help students understand the formation of words,
which enriches their understanding of the relations among words, and morph-

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ of Southern California on April 4, 2014

ology may act as the binding agent that integrates word meaning with orthog-
raphy and phonology (Qian 1999; Perfetti 2007; Kieffer and Lesaux 2008;
Proctor et al. 2009; Bowers and Kirby 2010). Depth of vocabulary has also
been related to the understanding of words’ multiple meanings and how the
meanings can be used within multiple contexts (Beck et al. 2002; Tannenbaum
et al. 2006). Qian (1999, 2002) and Read (2004) suggested that phonological,
morphological, orthographic, semantic, syntactic, collocational, and pragmatic
properties all contribute to what depth of vocabulary means. Based on these
definitions, we argue that depth of vocabulary can be seen to involve at least
precision and multiplicity of meaning, collocational use of words, and mor-
phological knowledge about word structure.
Although breadth and depth are described differently, they are closely
related to each other both conceptually and empirically. Qian (1999, 2002)
found correlations of .82 and .70 between breadth and depth of vocabulary in
L2 university students. Vermeer (2001) reported correlations of .85 between
breadth and depth of vocabulary in Dutch monolingual kindergarteners and
0.76 in Dutch bilingual kindergarteners, leading her to argue that there is
essentially no difference between breadth and depth of vocabulary. Nurweni
and Read (1999) suggested that these two dimensions of vocabulary know-
ledge may converge when learners are relatively advanced, but be more dis-
tinct when they are at lower levels of language proficiency. The high
correlations are consistent with the view that breadth and depth are two inter-
connected dimensions of vocabulary knowledge which facilitate each other.
Instead of being two different entities, we suggest that they are better seen as
two dimensions of the same entity. When language development begins, a
small number of words can be recognized and known in terms of basic mean-
ings. Knowledge of more and more words accumulates, constituting breadth of
vocabulary. With increased experience, these words can be defined in greater
detail and are associated with other words in different contexts, supporting the
learning of these new words (Meara 1996; Haastrup and Henriksen 2000;
Perfetti 2007; Ma 2009). Therefore, depth contributes to breadth and vice
versa. We would argue that both are acquired by extensive exposure to lan-
guage. The relationship between breadth and depth of vocabulary may be
dependent on how these two constructs are measured.
Standardized measures have been established to assess breadth of vocabu-
lary, including written multiple-choice vocabulary tests that require synonym
4 VOCABULARY IN ENGLISH READING

substitution (e.g. Gates-MacGinitie Vocabulary Test: MacGinitie and

MacGinitie 1992), checklist tests (e.g. Eurocentres Vocabulary Size Test:
Meara and Jones 1990), and oral picture selection tests (e.g. Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test: Dunn and Dunn 2007; Woodcock Picture Vocabulary Test:
Woodcock 1991). However, there is no standardized measure to assess vocabu-
lary depth, perhaps due to the lack of a clear theory-driven construct definition
and the complexity of assessing the full range of meanings and uses of words.
The most frequently used type of vocabulary depth measure has been the word
definition task, in which the quality of students’ explanations of the meanings

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ of Southern California on April 4, 2014

of provided words are evaluated. Some researchers have used tests of morpho-
logical knowledge to assess depth of vocabulary knowledge because morpho-
logical processing involves the integration of semantic features of lexical
representations and thus enriches the depth of word knowledge (e.g. Qian
1999; Perfetti 2007; Kieffer and Lesaux 2008; Proctor et al. 2009). Paribakht
and Wesche (1993) developed the Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS), in
which students estimate their knowledge of target words but it does not
assess the various meaning relationships a word has with other words (Read
1993). To overcome this weakness, Read (1993) developed the Word
Associates Test, which measures the learner’s depth of vocabulary knowledge
through word associations. Later, Qian (1999, 2002) revised the Word
Associates Test by measuring three elements of the depth dimension: syn-
onymy, polysemy, and collocation. He named this adapted version the
Depth-of-vocabulary-knowledge measure. This measure obtained a reliability
of 0.91 and 0.88 in his 1999 and 2002 studies, respectively. Tannenbaum et al.
(2006) created a multiple meanings measure which required participants to
define words with multiple meanings presented in different contexts. None of
the individual vocabulary depth measures captures the entire scope of the
construct. Because most studies have only included one vocabulary depth
measure, the full construct of vocabulary depth has not been assessed. There
is a need for a full set of measures covering all of the components of vocabulary
depth.

BREADTH AND DEPTH OF VOCABULARY IN L1 READING

Breadth and depth of vocabulary and word reading
Word reading is the ability to apply knowledge of letter-sound relationships
and letter patterns to correctly pronounce written words (Adams 1990). Many
studies have shown that vocabulary knowledge helps to support the develop-
ment of word reading in L1 (e.g. Vellutino et al. 1995; Nation and Snowling
1998; Nation 2008). If one knows the word, one is more likely to decode the
word accurately and quickly.
Connectionist models provide a basis for understanding the relationship be-
tween vocabulary and word reading (Seidenberg and McClelland 1989; Plaut
et al. 1996): vocabulary knowledge supports word reading by allowing the
 M. LI AND J. R. KIRBY 5

creation of mappings between visual (orthographic), phonological, and seman-

tic representations in a child’s developing lexical system (Seidenberg and
McClelland 1989; Plaut et al. 1996; Nation and Snowling 1998). In a longitu-
dinal study from kindergarten to Grade 2, Vellutino et al. (1995) found that
word reading success depended on the complementary use of both meaning-
and sound-based methods of word identification.
Although most researchers only use a vocabulary breadth measure when
examining the relationship between vocabulary and reading, Ouellette (2006)
distinguished between breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge and

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ of Southern California on April 4, 2014

investigated their effects on different aspects of reading in 60 Grade 4
English-speaking students. Receptive vocabulary breadth (measured by the
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test) predicted word reading significantly after
controlling age, nonverbal intelligence, expressive vocabulary breadth, and
depth of vocabulary. Expressive vocabulary breadth was measured by a re-
searcher-designed test that required the subjects to name pictured verbs and
nouns. It also predicted word reading significantly after controlling age, non-
verbal intelligence, receptive vocabulary breadth, and depth of vocabulary.
However, depth of vocabulary knowledge, measured by word definitions,
did not predict word reading. This may indicate that only breadth of vocabu-
lary knowledge is required in word identification, but this interpretation is
limited by the use of only one measure of vocabulary depth.

Breadth and depth of vocabulary and reading comprehension

There is an extensive body of research in L1, demonstrating that vocabulary
knowledge is a significant predictor of reading comprehension even after con-
trolling the effects of word reading and phonological processing skills (Muter
et al. 2004; Nation and Snowling 2004; Ricketts et al. 2007). For example,
Ricketts et al. (2007) found that vocabulary knowledge accounted for a large
portion of unique variance (17.8 per cent) in reading comprehension after
controlling age, nonverbal IQ, and word reading in a group of 8- to 9-year-
old children. Nation and Snowling (2004) showed that vocabulary predicted
reading comprehension after accounting for age, nonverbal IQ, decoding, and
phonological skills in a group of 8-year-old children.
Researchers have suggested several models to describe the relationship be-
tween vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension. Among them,
Anderson and Freebody (1981) argued in their instrumentalist hypothesis
that vocabulary knowledge is a major prerequisite and causal factor in com-
prehension because the reader has to know the actual words in the text to be
able to comprehend it. The lexical quality hypothesis proposed by Perfetti
(1985, 2007) provides a convincing basis for the instrumentalist hypothesis.
It speaks to the importance of mastering word knowledge and postulates that
the key to optimal reading comprehension is high-quality knowledge of words.
In support of Perfetti’s theory, empirical studies have shown that the strong
relationship between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension
6 VOCABULARY IN ENGLISH READING

appears to be constant throughout the developmental process, with those who

know more vocabulary being better able to comprehend (Snow 2002; Muter
et al. 2004; Verhoeven and Van Leeuwe 2008). In a longitudinal study tracking
Grade 1 children for 2 years, Muter et al. (2004) found that receptive vocabu-
lary predicted reading comprehension even after the effects of prior word rec-
ognition and grammatical skills were controlled.
Given the multiple aspects of both vocabulary knowledge and reading com-
prehension, it would be useful to clarify the relationships between different
aspects of vocabulary and reading comprehension. Although breadth and

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ of Southern California on April 4, 2014

depth of vocabulary knowledge were introduced in the L1 reading literature
three decades ago, studies have usually focused only on the role of vocabulary
breadth in reading comprehension. Only recently has depth of vocabulary
been given attention in L1 studies. For example, when viewing vocabulary
breadth as number of lexical entries and vocabulary depth as the extent of
semantic representation, Ouellette (2006) found that both vocabulary breadth
and depth predicted reading comprehension after controlling for age, nonver-
bal IQ, decoding, and visual word recognition for Grade 4 students. Although
depth of vocabulary predicted reading comprehension beyond measures of
vocabulary breadth, the effect of vocabulary breadth on reading comprehen-
sion disappeared once depth of vocabulary was controlled. This result suggests
that vocabulary depth plays a more important role than breadth in predicting
reading comprehension. In contrast, Tannenbaum et al. (2006) found that
breadth of vocabulary (which they described as the size of the mental lexicon)
had a stronger relationship to reading comprehension than did vocabulary
depth (the richness of an individual’s word knowledge) in Grade 3 students
but these two dimensions had significant overlapping variance that also con-
tributed to reading comprehension. As they pointed out, the high correlation
(r = .88, p < .001) between breadth and depth may have prevented the depth
factor from attaining significance.
Based on the reviewed studies, the extent to which breadth and depth of
vocabulary contribute to reading comprehension is far from clear. The lack of
clarity is due to varying grade levels of participants, the lack of theory-driven
and broadly based measures of vocabulary depth, and the different reading
comprehension measures that have been used. Participants’ grade levels are
important because there is good reason to expect different effects of vocabulary
breadth and depth at different levels of reading competence (Tannenbaum et al.
2006). The measurement issues around vocabulary depth have yet to be settled,
and it is not even clear that vocabulary depth is reliably distinct from vocabulary
breadth. Given the complexity of the vocabulary depth construct, it should be
measured with a battery of measures, not with any single test.
The measurement of reading comprehension raises other problems. Ouellette
(2006) used a cloze test but Tannenbaum et al. (2006) used a multiple-choice
reading comprehension test. Different measures of reading comprehension tap
different cognitive processes (Paris and Stahl 2005; Cutting and Scarborough
2006; Keenan et al. 2008). Some reading comprehension measures, for example,
 M. LI AND J. R. KIRBY 7

multiple-choice questions, may assess mainly lower-level skills, but others, for
example, summarization, may demand higher-level skills. Reading comprehen-
sion can be seen as involving distinct levels of understanding of text (Kintsch
1998). Kintsch’s Construction-Integration (CI) model describes three levels. The first
level consists of a surface representation of the text in which a sequence of prop-
ositions (the smallest units of meaning within individual sentences and clauses) is
constructed directly from words and phrases in the text. At the second level, the
propositions generated are connected with previous and subsequent propositions
in a network, representing the local meaning relationships (microstructure), and

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ of Southern California on April 4, 2014

with more important concepts in the network, representing the more global re-
lationships in the text (macrostructure). Together the microstructure and macro-
structure form the textbase. The textbase involves deeper processing than the
surface representation because it links more information in the text and indicates
relative importance. These first two levels are the construction phase of the CI
model. The final level is an integration process in which the constructed textbase
is integrated with the reader’s prior knowledge to form a coherent mental repre-
sentation of the text (termed the situation model). The situation model is a more
elaborated level; it involves deeper processing than the textbase because it
incorporates information from long-term memory. Theories such as Kintsch’s
describe complex processes that are difficult to assess with traditional multiple-
choice or cloze measures, and suggest that comprehensive measurement requires
a range of measures. More research needs to be done to explore the effects of
vocabulary breadth and depth on various aspects of reading comprehension.

BREADTH AND DEPTH OF VOCABULARY IN L2 READING

Breadth and depth of vocabulary and word reading
Although fewer studies have been conducted in L2, research has shown that
the relationship between vocabulary and word reading in young L2 children is
similar to that in L1 children (e.g. Geva et al. 2000; McBride-Chang and Kail
2002; McBride-Chang et al. 2006). For example, McBride-Chang and Kail
(2002) compared 190 Hong Kong kindergarteners who were learning
English as L2 with 128 American English-speaking kindergarteners. They
found that like American kindergarteners, English vocabulary (L2) was signifi-
cantly correlated with English word reading (L2) for Hong Kong
kindergarteners (r = .17, p < .05). This finding has also been confirmed in
McBride-Chang et al.’s (2006) study in which English receptive vocabulary
was significantly correlated with English word reading for Hong Kong kinder-
garteners (r = .43, p < .001).

Breadth and depth of vocabulary and reading comprehension

The relationship between vocabulary and reading comprehension in L1 is also
found in L2 learners (e.g. Laufer 1992; Nation 2001; Proctor et al. 2005;
8 VOCABULARY IN ENGLISH READING

Gottardo and Mueller 2009). Correlations between .50 and .75 were found
between the vocabulary size tests and reading comprehension tests, and vo-
cabulary has proven to be a significant predictor of reading comprehension for
L2 learners (Qian 1999, 2002; Carlisle and Beeman 2001; Nation 2001; Qian
and Schedl 2004; Proctor et al. 2005; Gottardo and Mueller 2009). In their
study with fourth-grade ESL students, Proctor et al. (2005) found that although
L2 word decoding skills are important for L2 reading comprehension, L2 vo-
cabulary knowledge played a more predictive role in L2 reading comprehen-
sion than did word decoding. Carlisle and Beeman (2001) found that first-

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ of Southern California on April 4, 2014

grade Spanish–English bilingual students’ L2 vocabulary knowledge predicted
their L2 reading comprehension. Gottardo and Mueller (2009) argued that L1
language proficiency skills should be considered when examining L2 reading
performance because they may affect the relationship between vocabulary and
reading in bilingual students. Not controlling L1 reading when examining the
relationship between L2 vocabulary and reading is problematic, as L1 reading
is a factor that influences L2 reading.
Similar to L1 studies, L2 studies on the relationship between vocabulary and
reading comprehension have focused more on vocabulary breadth than depth.
However, there is growing attention to the relative effects of breadth and depth
of vocabulary knowledge on reading comprehension in L2 students (Qian
1999, 2002; Vermeer 2001; Proctor et al. 2009). In his study with 80
Canadian ESL university students, Qian (1999) found that both L2 breadth
and depth of vocabulary significantly predicted L2 reading comprehension.
However, depth explained 11 per cent of the variance in reading comprehen-
sion after controlling breadth, whereas breadth only explained 3 per cent of
the variance in reading comprehension after controlling depth. The depth of
vocabulary measures were a morphological knowledge test and a revised ver-
sion of the Word Associates Test, which Qian called depth of vocabulary know-
ledge (DVK). In a later study, Qian (2002) also found that depth assessed by
the DVK measure explained more variance (13 per cent) than breadth (8 per
cent) in reading comprehension in a group of 217 ESL university students.
These two studies suggest an important role of depth of vocabulary in reading
comprehension in ESL adult students.
To better understand how quality of vocabulary knowledge affected reading
comprehension, Proctor et al. (2009) examined the role of depth of vocabulary
in reading comprehension from the perspective of semantic depth in a group of
35 bilingual and monolingual fifth-grade students. Semantic depth was con-
ceptualized as the ability to connect word meanings across contexts in a net-
work (Proctor et al. 2009). Results indicated that the semantic depth of
vocabulary explained an additional 3 per cent of the variance in reading com-
prehension beyond word decoding and breadth of vocabulary for both mono-
lingual and bilingual students, which is consistent with Qian’s (1999, 2002)
findings. It should be noted that the unique variance contributed by depth of
vocabulary in Proctor et al.’s (2009) study is less than that reported in the
previous studies because both breadth of vocabulary and word decoding
 M. LI AND J. R. KIRBY 9

were controlled. Therefore, the finding regarding the important role of depth
of vocabulary beyond breadth of vocabulary in reading comprehension from
Proctor et al.’s (2009) study is stronger than the other studies that did not
control for factors such as word reading which have been shown to influence
reading comprehension.

GAPS IN THE LITERATURE

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ of Southern California on April 4, 2014

Although breadth and depth of vocabulary have been described as distinct
dimensions of vocabulary knowledge, there is evidence that they are highly
correlated (e.g. Nurweni and Read 1999; Qian 1999, 2002; Vermeer 2001). The
precise nature of the relationship between these two different aspects of
vocabulary is still far from clear. To our knowledge, there is no research on
the effect of depth of vocabulary on word reading in L2 learners. Most L2
studies examining the contributions of breadth and depth of vocabulary to
L2 reading comprehension have not controlled L1 proficiency and L2 word
reading which also influence L2 reading comprehension. Furthermore, the
measures of vocabulary depth have not always been well designed and typic-
ally only one reading comprehension measure has been used.

PURPOSES OF THE STUDY

The present study was designed to overcome these limitations in the literature.
It examines the relationship between breadth and depth of vocabulary and
their unique effects on different aspects of reading (i.e. word reading and
reading comprehension) in Chinese English-immersion students. Based on
the literature reviewed, vocabulary depth involves three aspects: elaborated
meaning, morphology, and collocational use of words. Therefore, three meas-
ures (word definition, morphological awareness, and multiple-meaning tests)
were given to students to obtain a fuller assessment of vocabulary depth. In
addition, two reading comprehension measures were used to see whether
different reading comprehension measures depend upon different cognitive
skills (Cutting and Scarborough 2006; Keenan et al. 2008). One was a standar-
dized multiple-choice format reading comprehension test and the other was a
summary writing measure which required the students to write a text-absent
summary after reading a short passage. Differences in nonverbal intelligence
were controlled by a standardized nonverbal ability measure. Chinese reading
comprehension was used to control students’ L1 reading. The research ques-
tions in this study were (i) What is the relationship between breadth and depth
of vocabulary knowledge? (ii) What are the effects of breadth and depth of
vocabulary on L2 word reading? and (iii) What are the effects of breadth and
depth of vocabulary on L2 reading comprehension?
10 VOCABULARY IN ENGLISH READING

METHOD
Participants
The participants in the present study were English-immersion students in
China. English-immersion programs were first established in several major
cities in China in 1998, starting from kindergarten to Grade 6 (Qiang 2001).
Later, they were extended to junior middle school. The programs were set up
in light of the successful French immersion programs in Canada but have less
second language (L2) input than is typical in Canadian immersion programs.

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ of Southern California on April 4, 2014

Students in the English-immersion programs in junior middle school receive
30 per cent of the curriculum in English (L2), including English language arts
and social studies. The other 70 per cent is taught in Chinese, including key
subjects such as Chinese and mathematics. Students in the immersion program
have eight hours of English instruction per week that combines listening,
speaking, reading, and writing. Although immersion students’ English profi-
ciency is better than that of their nonimmersion peers, it is much lower than
that of native English-speaking students. Therefore, these immersion programs
have not borrowed the entire model of French immersion programs but have
adopted the concept underlying immersion programs to ensure that some
nonlanguage subjects are taught in the second language. Although the pro-
grams are more like ‘content-based language instruction’ (Brinton et al. 1989),
they are described as ‘English immersion programs’ in China.
The participants were 248 students from the four English-immersion classes
in Grade 8 from a middle school in Xi’an, China. All students agreed to par-
ticipate, and their parents signed the consent form. Two students who were
absent for several tests were excluded from the study. Of the total 246 partici-
pants, there were 69 boys and 177 girls. The gender imbalance may be due to
the better performance of girls on the English entrance exam that the school
uses to select students. The mean age of the participants was 13 years 5 months
(SD = 4 months).

Measures
Nonverbal ability
Raven’s Progressive Matrices (Raven et al. 1998) was administered in groups
to measure students’ nonverbal ability as a control measure. It comprises 60
items, divided into five sets of increasing complexity. Each item presents a
geometric design with a part missing, and students have to choose one of six
or eight alternatives to complete the pattern. The score was the number of
correct answers.

Chinese reading comprehension

The Gates-McGinitie Reading Comprehension Test (MacGinitie and
MacGinitie 1992) Level E administered in groups was translated into
 M. LI AND J. R. KIRBY 11

Chinese to measure students’ Chinese reading comprehension so that the

Chinese reading measure would be similar to the English reading measure.
The Chinese translation was also translated back into English to be compared
with the original English version to ensure the adequacy of the translation.
According to the manual, Level E is appropriate for Grade 7–9 English native-
speaking children. There were 48 items. The score was the number of correct
answers.

Word reading

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ of Southern California on April 4, 2014

The Test of Word Reading Efficiency (Torgesen et al. 1999) was adminis-
tered individually to assess children’s ability to pronounce isolated words ac-
curately and quickly. A reading fluency measure was used to measure
decoding, as Tumner and Greaney (2009) indicated that automaticity in
word recognition becomes essential at the advanced stage of reading develop-
ment. Students were asked to read as many of the 104 words as quickly and as
accurately as possible within 45 s. The score was the number of words read
correctly in 45 s.

Gates-MacGinitie vocabulary subtest (Level C, Grade 3)

Gates-MacGinitie Vocabulary Subtest (Level C, Grade 3) was given in groups to
the students to measure their vocabulary breadth. There are 45 items to be
completed within 20 min. Each of 45 items shows a target word in a phrase or
short sentence, and students have to choose which of four options is closest in
meaning. The score was the number of correct answers.

Word definitions
This task was based on Ouellette’s (2006) measure to assess students’ depth of
vocabulary and was administered individually. Twelve words, that is, bus,
hand, apple, cow, tree, noodle, shirt, farm, television, island, drum, and envelope
were chosen from the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (Dunn and Dunn
1997) because this test has covered a wide range of words. We selected con-
crete words, as abstract concepts may be too difficult for students to define. We
also consulted with the students’ English teacher to ensure the appropriateness
of the words. Students were presented each word in both written and spoken
form and were asked to provide definitions for the word. Students were
encouraged to say as much as they could about each word. Responses were
recorded by a digital recorder for later scoring.
Scoring was based on whether students’ definitions met four features of the
word: category, function, description, and value. Students were not told to
provide the four features of the target word but were given the examples of
how to define a word covering the four features in practice items, that is, book
and milk. For example, the definition of the word ‘apple’ could include infor-
mation about category, for example, fruit, function, for example, can be eaten,
12 VOCABULARY IN ENGLISH READING

description, for example, different colors, round shape, has skin and seeds, sour and
sweet, grows on tress, and value, for example, good for health, gives vitamin C. The
four features can be seen as the deep knowledge of vocabulary that students
should grasp. One point was given for each feature, to a maximum of 4 per
word; the maximum total score was 36.

Multiple-meaning vocabulary
This test was based on Qian’s (2002) DVK measure and Tannenbaum et al.’s

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ of Southern California on April 4, 2014

(2006) Multiple Meanings test. It was administered in groups to measure stu-
dents’ knowledge of polysemy in depth of vocabulary about the multiple
meanings words can have in different contexts. There were 15 target words,
and each word was presented in four different sentence contexts. Students
were asked to choose the sentences in which the target word was used cor-
rectly. For example, for the target word ‘rose’, the sentences were: (i) The rose
of the tree is very rough; (ii) He bought a dozen roses for his girlfriend; (iii) She
is sitting in a rose watching TV; and (iv) The sun rose over the mountains. The
correct answers are b and d. The number of correct sentences per word varied
from 0 to 4. The score was the number of correct answers selected and incor-
rect answers rejected, with a maximum score of 60.

Morphological awareness
The Base Identification task from Bowers and Kirby (2010) was adminis-
tered in groups to measure students’ depth of vocabulary knowledge
about their ability to identify the bases in multi-morphemic words presented
in written form. The students were asked to circle the smallest part, that is, the
base, which is related to the main word in meaning. The scoring was 2 for
circling the smallest base, 1 for circling any word which removed at least one
affix but did not identify the smallest base, and 0 for any other response.
For example, in the word scarred, 0 points were given for red which is not
a morpheme in scarred, 1 point for circling scarr because the student accur-
ately peeled off a suffix ed, and 2 points for circling scar which is the base of
scarred.

English reading comprehension

The Gates-MacGinitie Reading Comprehension Test (Level C, Grade 3)
(MacGinitie and MacGinitie 1992) was administered in groups to measure
students’ general reading comprehension. According to the test manual,
Level C is used for Grade 3 EL1 students; we selected this level after consulting
school staff members and carrying out a brief pilot study. Participants read 12
short passages and with the passages still in view answered multiple-choice
questions within the 35-min time limit. There were 48 items and the score was
the number of correct answers.
 M. LI AND J. R. KIRBY 13

Summary writing
This measures, based on Kirby and Pedwell’s (1991) and Stein and Kirby’s
(1992) summary and recall tasks, was administered in groups to measure stu-
dents’ depth of text understanding. Before it began, students were reminded
that a good summary gives the main ideas of the text, that it is shorter, and that
it is in one’s own words. The students were informed that the text and any
notes they took while reading the text would be collected before they wrote
their summaries. They were then given 15 min to read a 254-word expository
English passage entitled Cities that discussed the problems that cities faced in

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ of Southern California on April 4, 2014

the past. After a 5-min interval, in which the original text and notes taken by
the students were collected, they were given 10 min to write a text-absent
summary in English. The students’ summaries were scored for the number of
main ideas, that is, those which require the reader to integrate details included
in the text. The text was analyzed to have five main idea units. Twenty of the
summaries were selected randomly and scored by two raters; inter-rater reli-
ability was .92. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion, and the
remaining summaries were scored by the first author.

Procedure
All the tests took place in the students’ school in early November, at times
which were convenient to the school. There were four testers including the
first author, all graduate students in Psychology or Education and fluent in
English and Chinese. They were trained for three days in the administration of
all tests. Individual testing lasted about 50 min (one session) during which the
participant was tested by one tester in a quiet room. Group testing took ap-
proximately 200 min (spread over four sessions, spaced over several weeks),
with a classroom teacher and two testers present in the classroom. All testing
took place over one month.

RESULTS
Descriptive statistics
The means, standard deviations, and reliability coefficients of all predictor and
outcome measures are shown in Table 1. Measures whose skewness or kurtosis
values fell outside of the acceptable range (i.e. the absolute value of Skewness/
SE or Kurtosis/SE is more than 3.09) were transformed according to the guide-
lines of Tabachnick and Fidell (2007). Nonverbal Ability and Multiple-
meaning Vocabulary tests were negatively skewed. They were first reflected
and then a square root transformation was applied. They were then reflected
again so that high scores represented better performance. These transform-
ations eliminated the skewness problem but did not change their correlations
with other variables substantially; therefore, all following analyses were con-
ducted on the raw scores.
14 VOCABULARY IN ENGLISH READING

Table 1: Descriptive statistics for all measures

Vocabulary measures Minimum Maximum M SD Reliability

Nonverbal ability 26 59 50.60 4.78 0.79a

Chinese reading comprehension 19 42 36.88 3.31 0.61a
Word reading 46 83 67.07 6.32 0.93b
Gates-MacGinitie vocabulary 8 35 19.28 5.43 0.74a
Word definition 4 35 25.22 4.51 0.68a
0.68a

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ of Southern California on April 4, 2014

Multiple meaning 26 60 51.75 4.31
Morphological awareness 30 65 50.80 5.27 0.54a
Gates-MacGinitie reading 13 43 31.20 5.99 0.77a
comprehension
Summary writing 0 5 1.94 1.42 0.92c

N = 246.
a
Indicates Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities.
b
Indicates split-half reliabilities.
c
Indicates inter-rater reliabilities.

Table 2: Correlations between all measures

Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Nonverbal ability —
2. Chinese reading comprehension .34** —
3. Word reading .01 .04 —
4. Gates-MacGinitie vocabulary .20** .17** .20** —
5. Word definition .06 .05 .18** .08 —
6. Multiple meaning .39** .38** .23** .35** .24** —
7. Morphological awareness .09 .22** .15* .01 .21** .22** —
8. Gates-MacGinitie reading .34** .28** .22** .43** .18** .45** .22** —
comprehension
9. Summary writing .22** .35** .24** .17** .22** .35** .22** .37** —

N = 246.
*p < .05, **p < .01.

Correlations
The correlations of all measures are shown in Table 2. Nonverbal Ability is
correlated significantly with Chinese Reading Comprehension, Gates-
MacGinitie Vocabulary, Multiple-meaning Vocabulary, Gates-MacGinitie
 M. LI AND J. R. KIRBY 15

Table 3: Principal axis factor analysis with direct oblimin rotation of vo-
cabulary measures
Factors

1 2

Word definition .06 .40

Morphological awareness .07 .53
Multiple-meaning vocabulary .53 .35

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ of Southern California on April 4, 2014

Gates-MacGinitie vocabulary .63 .08

N = 246.
Factor loadings greater than 0.30 are shown in bold type. The correlation between factors was
.51 (p < .01).

Reading Comprehension, and Summary Writing. Chinese Reading

Comprehension is correlated with two reading comprehension measures and
all four vocabulary measures except Word Definition. Moreover, all four vo-
cabulary measures are correlated significantly with the two reading compre-
hension measures. Furthermore, the three vocabulary depth measures are
correlated with each other, but the Vocabulary Breadth measure is only related
to Multiple-meaning Vocabulary among the three vocabulary depth measures.
Finally, the two reading comprehension measures are correlated significantly.

Exploratory factor analysis

The three vocabulary depth measures in this study were designed to measure
precision of knowledge, polysemy, and word formation. Because there are no
standardized or well-established vocabulary depth measures and the three vo-
cabulary depth measures used in the present study were researcher-designed,
it was necessary to verify the constructs they measure. An exploratory princi-
pal axis factor analysis with oblique (direct oblimin) rotation was conducted.
Two factors were extracted after examining eigenvalues greater than 1.0, the
scree plot, and interpretability. These two factors explained 65.77 per cent of
the total variance and were correlated (r = .51, p < .01; see Table 3).
The three measures that were intended to measure vocabulary depth all
loaded on factor 2, and therefore, this factor was labeled as vocabulary depth.
The Gates-MacGinitie Vocabulary Test used to measure vocabulary breadth
loaded highly on factor 1. However, the Multiple-meaning Vocabulary meas-
ure which was intended to measure vocabulary depth also loaded on factor 1.
This suggests that Multiple-meaning Vocabulary assesses both vocabulary
depth and breadth; this makes sense because part of the Multiple-meaning
score involves knowing the most salient meaning of each word (i.e. breadth)
and part involves knowing alternative meanings (depth). Factor 1 is thus
16 VOCABULARY IN ENGLISH READING

Table 4: Hierarchical regression predicting English word reading

Models, predictors Word reading

b (step)
R2

1. Nonverbal Ability .00

Chinese reading comprehension .04 .00
2. Vocabulary breadth factor .30** .08**
3. Vocabulary depth factor .17* .02*

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ of Southern California on April 4, 2014

2A. Vocabulary depth factor .26** .06**
3A. Vocabulary breadth factor .23** .04**

N = 246.
*p < .05, **p < .01.
b is the standardized beta coefficient for the step at which the predictor first entered the model.

labeled as vocabulary breadth. Regression factor scores were calculated and used
in the subsequent analyses.

Prediction of reading
To answer the second research question about the contributions of breadth
and depth of vocabulary on L2 word reading, two hierarchical regression ana-
lyses were conducted with word reading as the outcome measure. Nonverbal
Ability and Chinese Reading Comprehension were entered in step 1 to control
differences in nonverbal intelligence and L1 reading, and Vocabulary Breadth
and Depth were entered in steps 2 and 3. Then, in the second analysis, this
order was reversed in steps 2A and 3A to determine the unique contribution of
each vocabulary dimension. The results, shown in Table 4, indicate that the
control variables did not account for a significant amount of variance in Word
Reading. Vocabulary Breadth and Depth each predicted Word Reading, with
Breadth being slightly stronger.
To answer the third research question about the effects of breadth and depth
of vocabulary on L2 reading comprehension, another series of hierarchical
regression analysis was conducted with the Gates-McGinitie Reading
Comprehension and Summary Writing as the outcome measures. The same
control variables (Nonverbal Ability and Chinese Reading Comprehension)
used in the first set of regression analysis were used here in step 1, but another
control variable (Word Reading) was added in step 2 because word reading has
proven to contribute to reading comprehension. We were interested in the
contributions of vocabulary breadth and depth to reading comprehension
after removing effects explained by other factors. Vocabulary Breadth and
Depth were entered in steps 3 and 4, and in the opposite order in steps 3A
 M. LI AND J. R. KIRBY 17

Table 5: Hierarchical regression predicting English reading comprehension

Models, predictors Gates-MacGinitie Summary

b (step)
R2 b (step)
R2

1. Nonverbal ability .27** .11*

Chinese reading comprehension .19** .15** .31** .13**
2. Word reading .21** .05** .23** .05**
3. Vocabulary breadth factor .41** .13** .16* .02*

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ of Southern California on April 4, 2014

4. Vocabulary depth factor .11 .01 .23** .04**
3A. Vocabulary depth factor .24** .05** .25** .05**
4A. Vocabulary breadth factor .37** .09** .07 .00

*p < .05, **p < .01.

b is the standardized beta coefficient for the step at which the predictor first entered the model.

and 4A, to determine their unique contributions. The results, shown in

Table 5, indicate that at steps 1 and 2, all control variables significantly pre-
dicted both forms of reading comprehension. The important results for the
present purpose are in steps 4 and 4A: only Vocabulary Breadth predicts
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Comprehension significantly over and above
Vocabulary Depth, whereas only Vocabulary Depth predicts Summary
Writing after controlling Breadth.

DISCUSSION
The relationship between breadth and depth of vocabulary
knowledge
It is important to consider the relationship between breadth and depth of vo-
cabulary and whether they form one construct or are separate. In this study,
the correlation between vocabulary breadth and depth was .51 (p < .01),
which, although not as high as the .8 or .9 reported in some studies (Qian
1999; Vermeer 2001), demonstrates that there is substantial overlap between
these two constructs. It seems reasonable that students with deeper word
knowledge would learn more words through linkages between lexical items
and that as they expand the number of words known, they are more likely to
develop more extensive lexical networks to increase their vocabulary depth.
For example, students who know the word design will increase the depth of
that knowledge by recognizing the morpheme sign, but that depth will help
them see the relationship with words such as signature and assign, and help
them learn the meanings of those words. Breadth could lead to depth if words
18 VOCABULARY IN ENGLISH READING

such as graph, graphic, and photograph are known and students recognize the
common morpheme graph.
We employed a measure of morphological awareness as one characteristic of
vocabulary depth, as had been done previously by Qian (1999), and this meas-
ure was the strongest indicator of vocabulary depth in our factor analysis (see
Table 3). This suggests that morphological knowledge is a key contributor to
vocabulary depth. Distinct morphemes, whether bases or affixes, could consti-
tute separate lexical entities, and thus be one index of vocabulary breadth, but
when these morphemes are combined to form many more related words, the

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ of Southern California on April 4, 2014

morphological networks so formed would constitute and contribute to vocabu-
lary depth.
Thus, it is more productive to see breadth and depth of vocabulary as inter-
connected dimensions of vocabulary knowledge which facilitate each other.
When language development begins, a small number of words can be recog-
nized and known in terms of basic meanings. Knowledge of more and more
words accumulates, constituting breadth of vocabulary. With increased experi-
ence, these words can be defined in greater detail and are associated with other
words in different contexts, supporting the learning of these new words.
Therefore, depth contributes to breadth and vice versa (r = .51). Both are
acquired by extensive exposure to language. These two dimensions are inter-
dependent, developing together, and are influenced by extensive exposure to
language. Further longitudinal research is required to test the relationship
between breadth and depth of vocabulary.

What are the effects of breadth and depth of vocabulary on

English word reading?
The second research question, about the effects of breadth and depth of vo-
cabulary on word reading, has been examined in EL1 reading, but not in ESL
reading. Both vocabulary breadth and depth contributed to word reading, but
breadth explained more variance in word reading after controlling for depth
than vice versa (see Table 4). This is somewhat inconsistent with Ouellette’s
(2006) L1 finding that vocabulary breadth predicted word reading significantly
after controlling vocabulary depth but depth did not make a significant con-
tribution after controlling breadth. The difference may be due to the measures
and participants involved. Ouellette (2006) used word definition as the vo-
cabulary depth measure, but we also used multiple-meaning and morpho-
logical awareness tests to measure vocabulary depth. Ouellette’s participants
were Grade 4 English-speaking children, but our participants were Grade 8
Chinese ESL children. Ouellette and Beers (2010) found that vocabulary depth
predicted word reading significantly after controlling vocabulary breadth in
Grade 1 but not in Grade 6 EL1 children. They suggested that vocabulary
depth may be the more sensitive predictor for younger children who may
tend to store new words rapidly without a full and deep meaning of each
word. Although our participants were older, as ESL students, they may still
 M. LI AND J. R. KIRBY 19

be less able to learn many new words with deep understanding because of
their reduced exposure to English. Perhaps as a result, vocabulary depth was a
significant predictor of word reading for Grade 8 ESL students. There has been
no previous research examining the effects of vocabulary breadth and depth
on word reading in ESL students. As far as we know, this study is the first to
investigate the effects of vocabulary breadth and depth on word reading in L2
learners.

What are the effects of breadth and depth of vocabulary on

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ of Southern California on April 4, 2014

English reading comprehension?
Both breadth and depth of vocabulary predicted reading comprehension,
which supports Anderson and Freebody’s (1981) instrumentalist hypothesis
and Perfetti’s (1985, 2007) lexical quality hypothesis. However, these two di-
mensions contributed differently to the two reading comprehension measures.
Breadth was more related to the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Comprehension
test, which poses multiple choice questions after short passages. The relation-
ship may be due to the relatively constrained nature of the Gates-MacGinitie;
even though inferential questions are involved, the passages are relatively brief
and remain in sight while the questions are answered. Thus, participants
may use pragmatic test-taking strategies, such as reading the questions first
and then searching the passage for key words, to avoid creating a situation
model or even much of a macrostructural hierarchy of propositions as
described by Kintsch (1998). Some inferences are tested and some overview
is required by some questions (for instance to indicate what the best title
would be), but any question may be omitted.
On the other hand, vocabulary depth was the stronger predictor of summary
writing. The vocabulary depth measures required students to provide defin-
itions of words, choose correct usages, and identify the morphological bases of
words, none of which could be done if they did not know the words well.
Because the summary was written without the text present, the students were
reliant upon their long-term memories, and fragmented or disorganized mem-
ories would yield poor recall. Integrated and well-structured memories, tied in
with prior knowledge, are the essence of a good situation model (Kintsch
1998) and represent deeper processing in reading comprehension (Kirby
et al. 2012). It makes sense that understanding more about words is helpful
in extracting meaning from text and then constructing a summary with evi-
dence for main ideas. Superficial knowledge of words, which may suffice on a
vocabulary breadth test and for lower-level comprehension items, would not
be adequate for comprehending more complicated texts and constructing inte-
grated long-term memory structures. The multiple-choice format with pas-
sages visible of the standardized reading comprehension test may not put as
much stress on the richness of vocabulary knowledge as a summary-writing
task in which words must be found to explain one’s situation model.
Vocabulary breadth is more important for tests such as the Gates-MacGinitie
20 VOCABULARY IN ENGLISH READING

Reading Comprehension test, which measure general understanding of the

texts and many more specific details. The Summary Writing measure, which
represents deeper processing in reading comprehension, may demand deeper
vocabulary knowledge. Different reading comprehension measures rely on
different skills, as has been shown by Cutting and Scarborough (2006) and
Keenan et al. (2008); the present results show that breadth and depth of vo-
cabulary knowledge are among the skills that have differential effects. When
researchers choose reading comprehension measures, they should pay atten-
tion to what skills they are measuring because different reading comprehen-

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ of Southern California on April 4, 2014

sion tests measure and depend upon different skills. This also needs to be
confirmed with further studies and different samples, and possibly with meas-
ures that are in between Gates-MacGinitie Reading Comprehension test and
summary writing task.

LIMITATIONS
Several limitations should be noted in this study. First, the three vocabulary
depth measures were researcher-designed measures. There is a need to de-
velop standardized measures of vocabulary depth based on large normative
samples and on clear and comprehensive definitions of the construct. Given
the complexity and multi-faceted nature of vocabulary depth, future research
should include multiple and more extensive measures to assess depth of vo-
cabulary. Secondly, the only L1 measure we administered was Chinese reading
comprehension measure. It would be interesting in future studies to also
examine the relationships between L1 and L2 vocabulary breadth and depth
knowledge. Thirdly, only word reading fluency was used to measure word
reading in the present study. Other measures such as word reading accuracy
and pseudoword reading should be given to provide a full range of word read-
ing skills.

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION

The two dimensions of vocabulary knowledge, breadth and depth, are corre-
lated with and predict different aspects of reading (Qian 1999, 2002; Qian and
Schedl 2004; Ouellette 2006; Tannenbaum et al. 2006; Proctor et al. 2009).
These two dimensions provide a framework within which to consider vocabu-
lary instruction. Biemiller and colleagues (Biemiller and Slonim 2001;
Biemiller 2007) suggested teaching words that are known by 40–80 per cent
of children, without being too specific about their meaning. This is a wide but
shallow approach to vocabulary instruction, favoring direct teaching of many
words without targeting deeper knowledge, and has yielded considerable vo-
cabulary gains (Biemiller and Boote 2006). In contrast, Beck and colleagues
(Beck and McKeown 1983; Beck et al. 2002) suggested that vocabulary instruc-
tion must go beyond establishing simple definitions for words; it must develop
complex, in-depth knowledge about the words being taught, which is a deep
 M. LI AND J. R. KIRBY 21

but narrow approach. Studies that provided such rich vocabulary instruction
showed gains in both accuracy of word knowledge and comprehension of text
containing the taught words in L1 and L2, and the effect was even more ef-
fective for L2 learners (Blachowicz and Fisher 2000; Carlo et al. 2004). Bowers
and Kirby (2010) proposed a deep and wide approach to vocabulary instruc-
tion by teaching morphology. They found that instruction about morpho-
logical word structure had a significant effect on vocabulary knowledge,
both for words that had been taught and for novel words whose bases had
been covered in the intervention. Depth need not be contrary to breadth; as

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ of Southern California on April 4, 2014

Bowers and Kirby showed, once bases are known, vocabulary knowledge can
grow around these kernels productively. As some words come to be known
more deeply, they may, particularly through morphology, trigger investigation
of new words, supporting further breadth. Learners clearly need to begin with
relatively superficial knowledge about new words (breadth), but the sooner
depth can be added the better. Developing depth may be more challenging in
L2 learners because of their lack of exposure to the second language. This is a
challenge that educators need to accept and address.
This study has addressed the importance of vocabulary knowledge in L2
reading development. Both breadth and depth of vocabulary are required for
adequate L2 word reading and reading comprehension. The contributions of
breadth and depth of vocabulary to L2 reading comprehension differ depend-
ing on the type of reading comprehension required. Deeper processing of text
was shown to require vocabulary depth; other reading comprehension meas-
ures which assess general understanding of the text only required breadth of
vocabulary. Educators must target both breadth and depth of vocabulary to
completely and successfully facilitate the development of reading.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank Prof. Wei Zhao and Mengmeng Liu for their assistance with data collection and
the principal, teachers, and students of the school for their support and participation in this study.
We also thank Profs Liying Cheng and Lesly Wade-Woolley for their contributions to a previous
version of this article.

REFERENCES
Adams, M. J. 1990. Beginning to Read: Thinking
and Learning about Print. MIT Press.
Anderson, R. C. and P. Freebody. 1981.
‘Vocabulary knowledge’ in J. T. Guthrie (ed.):
Comprehension and Teaching: Research Reviews.
International Reading Association, pp. 77–117.
Beck, I. L. and M. G. McKeown. 1983.
‘Learning words well—a program to enhance
vocabulary and comprehension,’ The Reading
Teacher 36: 622–25.
Beck, I. L., M. G. McKeown, and L. Kucan.
2002. Bringing Words to Life: Robust Vocabulary
Instruction. Guilford Press.
Biemiller, A. 2007. ‘The influence of vocabulary
instruction on reading,’ Canadian Language and
Literacy Research Network, available at http://
www.literacyencyclopedia.ca/.
Biemiller, A. and C. Boote. 2006. ‘An effective
method for building vocabulary in primary
grades,’ Journal of Educational Psychology 98: 44–62.
22 VOCABULARY IN ENGLISH READING
Biemiller, A. and N. Slonim. 2001. ‘Estimating
root word vocabulary growth in normative and
advantaged populations: Evidence for a
common sequence of vocabulary acquisition,’
Journal of Educational Psychology 93: 498–520.
Blachowicz, C. and P. Fisher. 2000. ‘Teaching
vocabulary’ in M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P.
D. Pearson, and R. Barr (eds): Handbook of
Reading Research. Erlbaum, pp. 503–23.
Bowers, P. N. and J. R. Kirby. 2010. ‘Effects of
morphological instruction on vocabulary ac-
quisition,’ Reading and Writing 23: 515–37.
Brinton, D. M., M. A. Snow, and M.
B. Wesche. 1989. Content-Based Second
Language Instruction. Newbury House.
Carlisle, J. F. and M. M. Beeman. 2001. ‘The
effects of language of instruction on the read-
ing and writing achievement of first-grade
Hispanic children,’ Scientific Studies of Reading
4: 331–53.
Carlo, M. S., D. August, B. McLaughlin, C.
E. Snow, C. Dressler, D. Lippman,
T. Lively, and C. White. 2004. ‘Closing the
gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of
English language learners in bilingual and
mainstream classrooms,’ Reading Research
Quarterly 39: 188–215.
Cronbach, L. J. 1942. ‘An analysis of techniques
for diagnostic vocabulary testing,’ Journal of
Educational Research 36: 206–17.
Cutting, L. E. and H. S. Scarborough. 2006.
‘Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative
contributions of word recognition, language
proficiency, and other cognitive skills can
depend on how comprehension is measured,’
Scientific Studies of Reading 10: 277–300.
Dunn, L. M. and L. M. Dunn. 2007. Peabody
Picture Vocabulary Test, 4th edn. American
Guidance Service.
Farnia, F. and E. Geva. 2011. ‘Cognitive correl-
ates of vocabulary growth in English language
learners,’ Applied Psycholinguistics 32: 711–38.
Geva, E., Y. Z. Zadeh, and B. Schuster. 2000.
‘Understanding individual differences in word
recognition skills of ESL children,’ Annals of
Dyslexia 50: 123–54.
Gottardo, A. and J. Mueller. 2009. ‘Are first-
and Second-language factors related in predict-
ing second-language reading comprehension?
A study of Spanish-speaking children acquiring
English as a second language from first to
second grade,’ Journal of Educational Psychology
101: 330–44.
Haastrup, K. and B. Henriksen. 2000.
‘Vocabulary acquisition: Acquiring depth of
knowledge through network building,’
International Journal of Applied Linguistics 10:
221–40.
Henriksen, B. 1999. ‘Three dimensions of vo-
cabulary development,’ Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 21: 303–17.
Keenan, J. M., R. S. Betjemann, and R.
K. Olson. 2008. ‘Reading comprehen-
sion tests vary in the skills they assess:
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ of Southern California on April 4, 2014
Differential dependence on decoding and oral
comprehension,’ Scientific Studies of Reading 12:
281–300.
Kieffer, M. J. and N. K. Lesaux. 2008. ‘The
role of derivational morphology in the reading
comprehension of Spanish-speaking English
language learners,’ Reading and Writing 21:
783–804.
Kintsch, W. 1998. Comprehension: A Paradigm for
Cognition. Cambridge University Press.
Kirby, J. R. and D. Pedwell. 1991. ‘Students’
approaches to summarization,’ Educational
Psychology 11: 297–307.
Kirby, J. R., K. Cain, and B. White. 2012.
‘Deeper learning in reading comprehension’
in J. R. Kirby and M. J. Lawson (eds):
Enhancing the Quality of Learning: Dispositions,
Instruction, and Learning Processes. Cambridge
University Press, pp. 315–38.
Koda, K. 2005. Insights into Second Language
Reading: A Cross-Linguistic Approach. Cambridge
University Press.
Laufer, B. 1992. ‘How much lexis is necessary
for reading comprehension?’ in H. Béjoint
and P. Arnaud (eds): Vocabulary and Applied
Linguistics, MacMillan, pp. 126–32.
Ma, Q. 2009. Second Language Vocabulary
Acquisition. Peter Lang.
MacGinitie, W. H. and R. K. MacGinitie. 1992.
Gates–MacGinitie Reading Tests, 2nd Canadian
edn. Nelson.
McBride-Chang, C. and R. Kail. 2002. ‘Cross-
cultural similarities in the predictors of reading
acquisition,’ Child Development 73: 1392–407.
McBride-Chang, C., H. Cheung, B. W.-
Y. Chow, C. S.-L. Chow, and L. Choi.
2006. ‘Metalinguistic skills and vocabulary
knowledge in Chinese (L1) and English (L2),’
Reading and Writing 19: 695–716.
Meara, P. 1996. ‘The dimensions of lexical com-
petence’ in G. Brown, K. Malmkjaer and
J. Williams (eds): Performance and Competence

in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge
University Press, pp. 35–53.
Meara, P. and G. Jones. 1990. Eurocentres
Vocabulary Size Test 10KA. Eurocentres
Learning Service.
Muter, V., C. Hulme, M. J. Snowling, and
J. Stevenson. 2004. ‘Phonemes, rimes, vo-
cabulary, and grammatical skills as foundations
of early reading development: Evidence from a
longitudinal study,’ Developmental Psychology 40:
665–81.
Nagy, W. E. and P. Herman. 1987. ‘Breadth and
depth of vocabulary knowledge: Implications
for acquisition and instruction’ in M.
G. McKeown and M. Curtis (eds): The Nature
of Vocabulary Acquisition. Erlbaum, pp. 19–36.
Nagy, W. E. and J. A. Scott. 2000. ‘Vocabulary pro-
cesses’ in M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson,
and R. Barr (eds): Handbook of Reading Research.
Erlbaum, pp. 269–84.
Nation, I. S. P. 2001. Learning Vocabulary in
Another Language. Cambridge University Press.
Nation, K. 2008. ‘Learning to read words,’
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 61:
1121–33.
Nation, K. and M. J. Snowling. 1998.
‘Semantic processing and the development of
word recognition skills: Evidence from children
with reading comprehension difficulties,’
Journal of Memory and Language 39: 85–101.
Nation, K. and M. J. Snowling. 2004. ‘Beyond
phonological skills: Broader language skills
contribute to the development of reading,’
Journal of Research in Reading 27: 342–56.
Nurweni, A. and J. Read. 1999. ‘The English
vocabulary knowledge of Indonesian univer-
sity students,’ English for Specific Purposes 18:
161–75.
Ouellette, G. P. 2006. ‘What’s meaning got to
do with it: The role of vocabulary in word
reading and reading comprehension,’ Journal
of Educational Psychology 98: 554–66.
Ouellette, G. and A. Beers. 2010. ‘A not-so-
simple view of reading: How oral vocabulary
and visual-word recognition complicate the
story,’ Reading and Writing 23: 189–208.
Paribakht, T. S. and M. Wesche. 1993.
‘Reading comprehension and second language
development in a comprehension-based ESL
program,’ TESL Canada Journal 11: 9–29.
Paris S. G. and S. A. Stahl (eds). 2005.
Children’s Reading Comprehension and
Assessment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
M. LI AND J. R. KIRBY 23
Perfetti, C. A. 1985. Reading Ability. Oxford
University Press.
Perfetti, C. A. 2007. ‘Reading ability: Lexical
quality to comprehension,’ Scientific Studies of
Reading 11: 357–83.
Plaut, D. C., J. L. McClelland, M.
S. Seidenberg, and K. Patterson. 1996.
‘Understanding normal and impaired word
reading: Computational principles in quasi-
regular domains,’ Psychological Review 103:
56–115.
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ of Southern California on April 4, 2014
Proctor, C. P., M. Carlo, D. August, and
C. Snow. 2005. ‘Native Spanish-speaking
children reading in English: Toward a model
of comprehension,’ Journal of Educational
Psychology97: 246–56.
Proctor, C. P., P. Uccelli, B. Dalton, and C.
E. Snow. 2009. ‘Understanding depth of
vocabulary online with bilingual and monolin-
gual children,’ Reading & Writing Quarterly 25:
311–33.
Qian, D. D. 1999. ‘Assessing the roles of depth
and breadth of vocabulary knowledge in read-
ing comprehension,’ Canadian Modern Language
Review 56: 282–308.
Qian, D. D. 2002. ‘Investigating the relation-
ship between vocabulary knowledge and
academic reading performance: An assess-
ment perspective,’ Language Learning 52:
513–36.
Qian, D. D. and M. Schedl. 2004. ‘Evaluation of
an in-depth vocabulary knowledge measure
for assessing reading performance,’ Language
Testing 21: 28–52.
Raven, J., J. C. Raven, and J. H. Court. 1998.
Raven Manual: Section 3. Standard Progressive
Matrices. Oxford Psychologists Press.
Read, J. 1993. ‘The development of a new meas-
ure of L2 vocabulary knowledge,’ Language
Testing 10: 355–71.
Read, J. 2000. Assessing Vocabulary. Cambridge
University Press.
Read, J. 2004. ‘Plumbing the depth: How should
the construct of vocabulary knowledge be
defined?’ in P. Bogaards and B. Laufer (eds):
Vocabulary in a Second Language. John
Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 209–27.
Ricketts, J., K. Nation, and D. V. M. Bishop.
2007. ‘Vocabulary is important for some, but
not all reading skills,’ Scientific Studies of Reading
11: 235–57.
Seidenberg, M. and J. McClelland. 1989.
‘A distributed developmental model of word
24 VOCABULARY IN ENGLISH READING
recognition and naming,’ Psychological Review
96: 523–68.
Snow, C. E. 2002. Reading for Understanding:
Toward an R&D Program in Reading
Comprehension. National Book Network.
Stahl, S. A. and M. M. Fairbanks. 1986. ‘The
effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-
based meta-analysis.’ Review of Educational
Research 56: 72–110.
Stein, B. L. and J. R. Kirby. 1992. ‘The effects
of text absent and text present conditions on
summarization and recall of text,’ Journal of
Reading Behavior 24: 217–32.
Tabachnick, B. G. and L. S. Fidell. 2007. Using
Multivariate Statistics. Allyn and Bacon.
Tannenbaum, K., J. K. Torgesen, and R.
K. Wagner. 2006. ‘Relationships between
word knowledge and reading comprehension
in third-grade children,’ Scientific Studies of
Reading 10: 381–98.
Torgesen, J. K., R. K. Wagner, and C.
A. Rashotte. 1999. Test of Word Reading
Efficiency. Pro-Ed.
Vellutino, F. R., D. M. Scanlon, and
D. Spearing. 1995. ‘Semantic and phono-
logical coding in poor and normal readers,’
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 59:
76–123.
Verhoeven, L. and J. Van Leeuwe. 2008.
‘Prediction of the development of reading com-
prehension: A longitudinal study Applied
Cognitive Psychology 22: 407–23.
Vermeer, A. 2001. ‘Breadth and depth of vo-
cabulary in relation to L1/L2 acquisition and
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ of Southern California on April 4, 2014
frequency of input,’ Applied Psycholinguistics
22: 217–34.
Wesche, M. and T. S. Paribakht. 1996.
‘Assessing second language vocabulary know-
ledge: Depth versus breadth,’ The Canadian
Modern Language Review 53: 13–40.
Woodcock, R. W. 1991. Woodcock Language
Proficiency Battery-Revised. American Guidance
Services.
 M. LI AND J. R. KIRBY 25

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTOR
Miao Li is a postdoctoral fellow at University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. She is inter-
ested in the cognitive processes of reading development in bilingual children. Address for
correspondence: Miao Li, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of
Toronto, ONM5S 1V6, Canada. <miaomiao.li@utoronto.ca>

John R. Kirby is a professor of Education and Psychology at Queen’s University in

Kingston, Ontario, Canada. His research interests include the cognitive processes
underlying the development of word reading and reading comprehension.

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ of Southern California on April 4, 2014

<John.Kirby@queensu.ca>