situations. Because words convey different meanings in different contexts, word meaning retrieval must include the selection of the sense that best fits the context in which the word appears. Anderson and Nagy (1991) underscore the importance of flexibility in meaning sense selection during text comprehension. They contend that “really knowing a word… always means being able to apply it flexibly but accurately in a range of new contexts and situations” (p. 721).
In recent years, academic vocabulary has attracted considerable attention. The central concern of this research is how instruction can foster the genre‐specific vocabulary knowledge. Using the metaphor of “words as tools,” Nagy and Townsend (2012) argue that knowing words implies the ability to use the knowledge as tools for communicating and thinking about disciplinary contents. Because academic language competence differs across disciplines, it is essential that vocabulary instruction take into account the genre‐specific purposes for which words are used, so as to provide the learner with opportunities to use academic words for those discipline‐specific purposes.
Syntactic Knowledge
Sentence comprehension entails the incremental integration of word meanings in such a way that an integrated “chunk” reflects the overall meaning of larger text units, such as phrase and clause. The integration process, often referred to as “syntactic parsing,” involves two major operations: phrase construction through word meaning integration and case assignments to the constructed phrases. To illustrate, the sentence “Nancy tapped the man with the cane” allows two interpretations regarding the cane holder. If the phrase “with the cane” is taken as a modifier of the verb “tapped,” Nancy is the cane holder. If, on the other hand, the phrase is interpreted to modify “the man,” the cane should be in his hand. Hence, decisions regarding phrase attachment have major semantic consequences, and syntactic knowledge is integral to this process.
Because syntactic structures vary from one language to another, the learner must understand how phrases are constructed, and cases are assigned to the phrases in a new language. It has been reported that syntactic knowledge significantly contributes to reading performance among school‐age second language learners (e.g., Nagy, McClure, & Mir, 1997; Verhoeven, 2000). Second language reading studies have shown that syntactic knowledge is an equal, if not better, predictor of reading comprehension than vocabulary knowledge among college language learners (Jeon, 2011; Shin & Kim, 2012; Kim & Cho, 2015).
Discourse Knowledge
To build coherent text representations, readers must integrate local text meanings across sentences and paragraphs. A text's surface structure offers a variety of reliable clues signaling coherence relations among text elements. As a case in point, significant information is often placed in prominent text locations that highlight its relative weight (e.g., at the beginning of a text) and connection with other text segments (e.g., at the end of a paragraph) (Goldman & Rakestraw, 2000). Linguistic devices, such as connectives and co‐references, are also used to achieve text coherence. Studies have demonstrated that knowledge of coherence devices differs considerably among native English‐speaking children (e.g., Garner et al., 1986); that explicit training on coherence awareness tends to improve text comprehension and memory (e.g., Pearson & Fielding, 1991); that explicit demonstrations of text organization generally improve text comprehension (e.g., Buss, Ratliff, & Irion, 1985; Baumann & Bergeron, 1993); and that efforts to increase the structural salience of a text facilitate comprehension (e.g., Anderson & Davison, 1988; Beck & Dole, 1992). It is important to note, however, that knowledge of discourse structure and coherence devices promotes global text comprehension, but, at the same time, the acquisition of this knowledge occurs only through substantial reading experience.
To sum up, the process of building text meanings entails a large number of diverse skills, each necessitating a distinct facet of linguistic knowledge. Without sufficient knowledge of the language, it is simply impossible to build accurate and coherent text representations. However, the reverse is also true—that is, linguistic knowledge is augmented and refined through the autonomous use of this knowledge for constructing and analyzing content meanings during reading. Reading ability and linguistic knowledge are thus developmentally reciprocal, mutually enhancing their acquisition and refinement.
Reading Ability in a Second Language
The study of second language reading encompasses a broad range of learners, including those of different ages, with diverse linguistic backgrounds, and with varying educational experiences. This entry focuses on cognitively mature readers who have completed formal literacy education in their first language when they begin to receive reading instruction in a second language. The basic assumption underlying the investigation of reading development in these learners is that second language reading ability evolves through complex crosslinguistic interaction between well‐established cognitive and conceptual resources in the first language and emerging knowledge of the target language (Koda, 2007). Under this assumption, three factors have been identified as the key determinants that explain individual differences in reading development in a second language (Koda, 2016, 2017). These include first language reading ability, linguistic distance between two languages, and second language linguistic knowledge.
The contributions of first language reading ability have been examined in crosslinguistic transfer studies (Reddy & Koda, 2012; Zhang & Koda, 2013; Ke & Koda, 2019). By isolating word meaning retrieval subskills, results from those studies have shown (a) that first language morphological awareness makes a unique contribution to word meaning inference in a second language (Zhang & Koda, 2013); (b) that variations in word form analysis are systematically related to distinct first language orthographic properties (Zhang & Koda, 2017; Ke & Koda, 2019); and (c) that higher proficiency learners draw on their first language resources, such as prior knowledge and metalinguistic awareness, to a greater extent than their lower proficiency counterparts, during reading (Koda & Ke, 2018; Koda & Miller, 2018). Collectively, these findings provide solid evidence suggesting that first language reading subskills are used in second language reading; that transferred subskills differentially affect distinct reading operations among linguistically diverse learners; and that insufficient linguistic knowledge constrains the learner's access to the resources available in her first language.
Linguistic distance is another factor uniquely associated with second language reading, in general, and word meaning retrieval, in particular (Muljani, Koda, & Moates, 1998; Koda, 2007; Hamada & Koda, 2010). Linguistic distance refers to the degree of structural similarity between two languages. Given the significant role that orthographic knowledge plays in word meaning retrieval, we can predict that the degree of similarity between two writing systems directly affects the ease with which the graphic form of a word is segmented into its phonological and morphological constituents. When the two writing systems are closely related, first language word form analysis skills function in the new language without any modifications. Conversely, when the two systems are typologically diverse, transferred skills must undergo substantial refinement through repeated exposure and experience with the printed form of specific words in the target language. Although all subskills, in principle, are transferrable from one language to another (Koda, 2007), facilitation benefits bought about through first language subskills vary across learner groups with diverse first language backgrounds.
Insufficient linguistic knowledge also generates unique variance in second language reading. Besides its obvious contributions to word meaning retrieval and word meaning integration, linguistic knowledge plays a role in the process of personalizing text meanings for deeper text understanding. Although personalization in itself does not entail linguistic information processing, sufficient linguistic knowledge is necessary for gaining access to nonlanguage‐specific information acquired through real‐life experiences. As Clarke (1980) put it almost four decades ago, “limited control over the language ‘short circuits’ the good reader's system causing him/her to revert to poor reader strategies when confronted with
