A Study on the Effectiveness of Lexical Inferencing Strategy Instruction for Chinese EFL Learners

doi:10.12002/j.bisu.602

Abstract

Abstract:

Lexical inferencing strategies play a significant role in second language (L2) lexical development and discourse meaning construction. The present study explored an effective and appropriate mode for delivering lexical inferencing strategy instruction to Chinese EFL learners. Sixty-one undergraduates majoring in English were recruited, with 30 assigned to an experimental group that received a year-long strategy instruction and 31 to a control group that received no specific strategy instruction. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were performed to compare the lexical inferencing performances of both groups prior to and after the instruction period. The results showed that: (1) there was no significant within- or between-group difference in terms of the types and percentages of knowledge sources used, indicating that the instruction had no significant effect on these variables; and (2) there was a significant increase in the post-test lexical inferencing success rate in the experimental group alone, suggesting that the instruction significantly promotes the learners’ lexical inferencing competence. These results, to some extent, confirm the effectiveness of long-term L2 lexical inferencing strategies instruction in the classroom.

Keywords: lexical inferencing; strategy instruction; knowledge source; inferencing success rate; text comprehension

摘要：

词汇推理策略对二语词汇发展和语篇意义理解具有重要意义。本研究对某高校英语专业本科生进行了为期1年的二语词汇推理策略训练，以探索适合中国英语学习者的词汇推理策略训练模式。对实验班和对照班受试的前测、后测结果分别进行定性和定量分析，结果发现：（1）2组受试组内和组间在知识源使用的类型及其使用率方面均无显著差异，表明词汇推理策略训练未对学生知识源使用的类型及其使用率产生显著影响；（2）实验班经过训练后词汇推理正确率显著提高，对照班2次测试结果无显著差异，表明词汇推理策略训练促进了学生词汇推理能力的发展。本研究结果在一定程度上证实了在课堂教学实践过程中进行长期二语词汇推理策略训练的有效性和必要性。

关键词: 词汇推理, 策略训练, 知识源, 推理正确率, 语篇理解

CLC Number:

H319.3

Wang Zhen, Wei Rong. A Study on the Effectiveness of Lexical Inferencing Strategy Instruction for Chinese EFL Learners[J]. Journal of Beijing International Studies University, 2025, 47(4): 136-151.

王震, 魏蓉. 中国英语学习者词汇推理策略训练效果研究[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2025, 47(4): 136-151.

Figures/Tables 5

References 44

[1]	AGHAIE R & ZHANG Lawrence Jun. Effects of explicit instruction in cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies on Iranian EFL students’ reading performance and strategy transfer[J]. Instructional Science, 2012(6):1063-1081.
[2]	AMIRIANY S M R & NOUGHABI M A. The effect of teaching vocabulary learning strategies on Iranian EFL learners’ receptive and productive vocabulary size[J]. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 2018(4):2435-2452.
[3]	COHEN A D. Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language[M]. 2^nd Ed. London: Routledge, 2014.
[4]	DAVOUDI M, MOGHADAMY R G & NAFCHI A M. The effect of lexical inferencing on the vocabulary learning and reading comprehension of Iranian intermediate EFL learners[J]. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 2016(3):176-184.
[5]	DIAZ I. Training in metacognitive strategies for students’ vocabulary improvement by using learning journals[J]. Profile Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 2015(1):87-102.
[6]	GRAVES M F, SCHNEIDERY S & RINGSTAFF C. Empowering students with word-learning strategies: Teach a child to fish[J]. The Reading Teacher, 2018(5):533-543.
[7]	HAASTRUP K. Lexical Inferencing Procedures, or, Talking About Words: Receptive Procedures in Foreign Language Learning with Special Reference to English[M]. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 1991.
[8]	HASSANZADEH Z, TAMJIDY N H & AHANGARI S. The effect of lexical inference strategy instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ vocabulary depth and breadth[J/OL]. Cogent Education, 2019(1):1614750[2025-07-25]. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1614750#abstract.
[9]	HAYNES M. Patterns and perils of guessing in second language reading[C]//HUCKIN T,HAYNES M & COADY J. Second Language Reading and Vocabulary Learning. Westport: Ablex, 1993:46-64.
[10]	HUY H-C M & NASSAJI H. Lexical inferencing strategies: The case of successful versus less successful inferencers[J]. System, 2014,45:27-38.
[11]	KAIVANPANAHY S & ALAVI S M. The role of linguistic knowledge in word-meaning inferencing[J]. System, 2008(2):172-195.
[12]	KAIVANPANAHY S & MOGHADDAM M S. Knowledge sources in EFL learners’ lexical inferencing across reading proficiency levels[J]. RELC Journal, 2012(3):373-391.
[13]	KOMACHALIY M E & KHODAREZA M. The effect of using vocabulary flash card on Iranian pre-university students’ vocabulary knowledge[J]. International Education Studies, 2012(3):134-147.
[14]	KULAÇY D & WALTERS J. The effect of contextual inferencing strategies on EFL learners’ attitudes towards reading[J]. Procedia — Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2016,232:486-493.
[15]	LIUY Na & NATION I S P. Factors affecting guessing vocabulary in context[J]. RELC Journal, 1985(1):33-42.
[16]	LUBLINERY S & SMETANA L. The effects of comprehensive vocabulary instruction on Title I students’ metacognitive word-learning skills and reading comprehension[J]. Journal of Literacy Research, 2005(2):163-200.
[17]	MARZBANY A & AMOLI F A. The effect of mnemonic strategies instruction on the immediate and delayed information retrieval of vocabulary learning in EFL elementary learners[J]. Procedia — Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2012,46:4957-4961.
[18]	MARZBANY A & HADIPOUR R. Depth versus breadth of vocabulary knowledge: Assessing their roles in Iranian intermediate EFL students’ lexical inferencing success through reading[J]. Procedia — Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2012,46:5296-5300.
[19]	MIZUMOTOY A & TAKEUCHI O. Examining the effectiveness of explicit instruction of vocabulary learning strategies with Japanese EFL university students[J]. Language Teaching Research, 2009(4):425-449.
[20]	NAKATA T. Does repeated practice make perfect? The effects of within-session repeated retrieval on second language vocabulary learning[J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2017(4):653-679.
[21]	NASSAJI H. The relationship between depth of vocabulary knowledge and L2 learners’ lexical inferencing strategy use and success[J]. The Modern Language Journal, 2006(3):387-401.
[22]	NATIONY P & BEGLAR D. A vocabulary size test[J]. The Language Teacher, 2007(7):9-13.
[23]	NGUYENY L T C & NATION P. A bilingual vocabulary size test of English for Vietnamese learners[J]. RELC Journal, 2011(1):86-99.
[24]	O’MALLEYY J M & CHAMOT A U. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
[25]	OXFORD R, CROOKALL D, COHEN A, et al. Strategy training for language learners: Six situational case studies and a training model[J]. Foreign Language Annals, 1990(3):197-216.
[26]	RIAZIY A & BABAEI N. Iranian EFL female students’ lexical inferencing and its relationship to their L2 proficiency and reading skill[J]. The Reading Matrix, 2008(1):186-195.
[27]	SABBAH M. Assessing two strategies for learning vocabulary[C]//HIDRI S. Revisiting the Assessment of Second Language Abilities: From Theory to Practice. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018:241-264.
[28]	SAMIYANY L V & KHORASANI S R. The comparison between contextual guessing strategies vs. memorizing a list of isolated words in vocabulary learning regarding long term memory[J]. International Journal of Science Culture and Sport, 2014(1):12-18.
[29]	SARDROUD S J E H. Impact of training deep vocabulary learning strategies on vocabulary retention of Iranian EFL learners[J]. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 2013(3):75-82.
[30]	SCHMITTY N & MCCARTHY M. Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
[31]	SHEN Ming-yueh. The role of text type and strategy use in L2 lexical inferencing[J]. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 2017(2):231-252.
[32]	TAVAKOLIY M & HAYATI S. The relationship between lexical inferencing strategies and L2 proficiency of Iranian EFL learners[J]. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2011(6):1227-1237.
[33]	WALTERS J. Methods of teaching inferring meaning from context[J]. RELC Journal, 2006(2):176-190.
[34]	WESCHEY M B & PARIBAKHT T S. Lexical Inferencing in a First and Second Language: Cross-Linguistic Dimensions[M]. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 2009.
[35]	ZAHEDI Y & ABDI M. The effect of semantic mapping strategy on EFL learners’ vocabulary learning[J]. Procedia — Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2012,69:2273-2280.
[36]	范琳, 何漂飘, 魏泓. 中国学生汉英跨语言词汇推理发展研究[J]. 外语研究, 2015(4):51-56.
[37]	范琳, 刘振前, 李旭奎. 非英语专业学生词汇记忆策略训练研究[J]. 外语教学, 2008(1):33-40.
[38]	范琳, 王庆华. 英语词汇学习中的分类组织策略实验研究[J]. 外语教学与研究, 2002(3):209-212.
[39]	范琳, 魏蓉, 夏思. 语言水平对中国英语学习者词汇推理加工过程的影响研究[J]. 外语教学, 2017(4):51-55.
[40]	付玉萍, 刘振前. 英汉版和英语版词汇量测试异同及效度比较[J]. 西安外国语大学学报, 2018(1):64-69.
[41]	何静. 对非英语专业学生进行英语阅读元认知策略训练的研究[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2010(12):14,70-75.
[42]	楼捷, 俞晓强. 二语词汇广度、词频与接受性搭配知识的相关研究[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2024(5):131-143.
[43]	王震, 魏蓉, 孙月明. 语言水平和性别对二语词汇推理加工的影响[J]. 现代外语, 2017(5):664-673.
[44]	王震, 郑志恒. 国内外词汇推理研究统计与分析[J]. 外语研究, 2016(3):38-44.

知识源			实验班				对照班
			前测		后测		前测		后测
			次数	%	次数	%	次数	%	次数	%
语言知识源	词汇层面	词法	59	11.11	66	12.74	57	9.00	72	11.92
		词汇重复	15	2.82	17	3.28	26	4.11	33	5.46
		词汇搭配	33	6.22	42	8.11	43	6.79	36	5.96
		词汇联想	62	11.68	62	11.97	76	12.01	63	10.43
	句子层面	句子语法	5	0.94	3	0.58	17	2.69	10	1.66
	句子层面	句子意义	273	51.41	258	49.81	326	51.50	299	49.50
	语篇层面	语篇意义	74	13.94	56	10.81	76	12.01	73	12.09
非语言知识源		世界知识	10	1.88	14	2.70	12	1.89	18	2.98
合计			531	100	518	100	633	100	604	100

知识源			实验班				对照班
			前测		后测		前测		后测
			次数	%	次数	%	次数	%	次数	%
语言知识源	词汇层面	词法	59	11.11	66	12.74	57	9.00	72	11.92
		词汇重复	15	2.82	17	3.28	26	4.11	33	5.46
		词汇搭配	33	6.22	42	8.11	43	6.79	36	5.96
		词汇联想	62	11.68	62	11.97	76	12.01	63	10.43
	句子层面	句子语法	5	0.94	3	0.58	17	2.69	10	1.66
	句子层面	句子意义	273	51.41	258	49.81	326	51.50	299	49.50
	语篇层面	语篇意义	74	13.94	56	10.81	76	12.01	73	12.09
非语言知识源		世界知识	10	1.88	14	2.70	12	1.89	18	2.98
合计			531	100	518	100	633	100	604	100

组别	实验班				对照班
	前测		后测		前测		后测
	次数	%	次数	%	次数	%	次数	%
正确推理	136	24.29	207	36.96	167	27.83	189	31.50
部分正确推理	99	17.68	92	16.43	118	19.67	123	20.50
错误推理	325	58.03	261	46.61	315	52.50	288	48.00
合计	560	100	560	100	600	100	600	100

组别	实验班				对照班
	前测		后测		前测		后测
	次数	%	次数	%	次数	%	次数	%
正确推理	136	24.29	207	36.96	167	27.83	189	31.50
部分正确推理	99	17.68	92	16.43	118	19.67	123	20.50
错误推理	325	58.03	261	46.61	315	52.50	288	48.00
合计	560	100	560	100	600	100	600	100