Contents

Introduction.

1. Ways of foreign language acquisition.

2. Intentional and incidental foreign language acquisition.
3. Effectiveness of intentional and incidental ways in foreign language
acquisition.

Conclusion.

References.
 Introduction.

There is a distinction between incidental and intentional vocabulary learning

by arguing that the vocabulary learned incidentally refers to all the words that have
been learned from a special context, while vocabulary that is learned intentionally
is learned in another way. Some considers the difference in the way in which the
vocabulary is acquired, but others state that there is a qualitative difference in what
the learner does with the word. Laufer explains this point by stating that one has to
differentiate between what is being done with the word, quality, and how often the
word is being met, quantity. It is out of the question that the amount of the
vocabulary learned incidentally through a particular context is smaller than the
vocabulary taught intentionally and this is a fact that all vocabulary specialists,
without any exception was the only researcher to observe the nature of incidental
vocabulary learning. Some elaborates on his research in the field and said that
explicit learning is “more conscious” than implicit learning. This does not mean
that incidental vocabulary learning is unconscious; on the other hand, incidental
learning is conscious especially when it comes to inferring meaning from a
particular context, such us when reading newspaper, participating in a
conversation, listening to the radio, or watching movies. They conclude that the
“distinction is not so easy to observe particularly if we consider the fact that all
learning involves some conscious attention”.

As Hulstijn points out, learning a second language can either mean months
and years of intentional study, by deliberately committing to memory thousands of
words along with grammatical words, or it can mean incidental learning by picking
up structures and lexicon of a language, through getting engaged in a variety of
communicative activities, namely reading and listening, while the learner's
attention is focused not on the form but on the meaning.
 Incidental and intentional learning mainly appear in the area of vocabulary.
This is because incidental learning can be applied to both abstract and factual
declarative knowledge, while intentional is only applicable to factual knowledge.
 Ways of foreign language acquisition.

Apart from everything else that we acquire in the course of our lives, we
learn how to express our thoughts and ideas in a verbal way – we acquire one or
more languages. Individual communities or ethnic groups which do not live in
their own country can have a language of their own.

Children start acquiring their first language shortly after birth. They are
surrounded by people speaking the language on an everyday basis and, step by
step, start to understand what is being said, use their first words, then combine
them to make short sentences, which, later, become more complex and meaningful.
Researchers in this field (Piaget, 1969; Chomsky, 1965) went to great lengths
trying to explain the processes involved in the acquisition of a first language.
Acquisition of another language requires a further and more detailed explanation,
as, when reading relevant literature and linguistic research studies, we find out that
more than one term is used to refer to similar notions. Thus, several important
ideas must be expressed to clarify the terminology in this treatise.

Babies, as soon as they are mature enough to do so, find out that to use
words like bottle or pee is more efficient in getting what they wish for than
inarticulate crying. This is a reason why they develop the need and competence to
express their thoughts and ideas via their first language. Throughout our lives, we
wish to articulate messages to provide and receive more information than just that
which concerns our primary needs. We communicate our feelings, ideas, opinions,
and also try to receive the same from other speakers of our native language.

People, however, try to acquire more languages than just their first. “Over a
billion people in the world speak more than one language fluently” (Dulay, Burt
and Krashen). Some of them have to acquire the language of another group of
people living in the same country as themselves, some have migrated to a different
country and, to succeed in dealing with challenges of everyday life, they must
become more or less fluent speakers of the language spoken in that country. Others
just wish to be able to use resources only available in a foreign language, make
themselves understood when they travel abroad or simply understand the culture of
other nation(s) better than is provided by a single language. These are some of the
reasons why people acquire a language other than their first. The following terms
refer to characteristics and conditions regarding ‘language two’ acquisition and are
explained in more detail below: second and foreign language, acquisition and
learning, competence, performance, natural environment and formal setting.
 A second language is acquired by people who:

1 live in a country where two or more languages are spoken. The language not
being their first language but necessary to be acquired in order to enable
communication with the rest of the population is considered a ‛second language’.

2 moved to a country where a language different from their first language is

spoken and they need to acquire the language of the target country.

A foreign language is also acquired after the first language; however, it is

one a person voluntarily chooses. It is not a vital means of communication with
other people living in their homeland or a country they moved to.

The most important difference between the abovementioned terms is that a

second language is usually acquired in the environment where it is actually spoken
on an everyday basis by a certain group of the population while a foreign language
is most often studied outside of the natural language environment. The example of
a Swiss native speaking German and learning French as a second language might
be used. A Slovak (living in Slovakia) learning English could serve as an example
of someone acquiring a foreign language.

The use of the term acquisition was tackled above; yet, there are further
notions known in the area of foreign language research and need to be explained.
The Chomskyan notion of the difference between linguistic competence and
performance discriminates between mental representation of linguistic rules (an
internalized grammar) and comprehension and production of language. Chomsky
separates competence, an idealized capacity, from the production of actual
utterances, performance (Chomsky, 1965). In other words, what a learner has
knowledge of and is, in theory, able to use, is considered one’s linguistic
competence; what they actually produce is considered performance. This means
that competence and performance are closely interconnected. Competence is a vital
prerequisite for performance to occur; on the other hand, it is not sufficient as the
one and only triggers.
 SLA – second language acquisition

As mentioned above, in FLA research it is very difficult to actually observe

learners’ competence. What is happening in one’s head cannot be approached by
applying common research methods. That is why learners’ performance must be
taken into consideration. An underlying linguistic competence can account for the
performance which can actually be observed. The use of certain language
structures that a researcher wishes to observe can be encouraged and,
consequently, the performance in a given stretch of the language can be tested. By
means of further examination, learners’ competence, and, by implication,
acquisition, can be scrutinized (Chomsky, 1965).

Performance in a foreign language is triggered and influenced by certain

psychological processes. Various cognitive processes are applied in an effort to
produce the required utterance in a foreign language. “Competence consists of the
knowledge of language which the language user in principle has. Performance is
the result of the psychological process that employs this knowledge (in producing
or in interpreting language utterances)”.

Although the modern world already provides great opportunities for

immersion into language by means of satellite television, radio and the internet as
well as good access to other resources in the target language, learners of a foreign
language mostly have to rely on instruction given in the formal setting of a
classroom. The distinction between the above kinds of environment is lessened
when formal instruction is provided by a native speaker of the target language. In
this way, formal setting of the lessons is shifted towards natural environment. A
yet more desirable way of teaching can be pursued when students are provided
with an equal share of instruction by a native speaker of their first language and a
native speaker of the target language. Here, the first lecturer is able to clearly
explain rules in the target language using the students’ first language (if necessary),
while the latter can give a higher level of authenticity to the formal instruction
provided, in particular when focusing on communicative use of grammar.

Just like any other learning process, a foreign language is also acquired in a
setting, providing conditions of various standard. Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982)
identified a set of characteristics the language environment can have:

Naturalness of the environment

The authors claim that “those students who are exposed to natural language
perform better than those in a formal environment, where focus is on the conscious
acquisition of linguistic rules or the manipulation of linguistic forms”.
 The learner’s role in communication

When acquiring a second language, learners take an active part in

communication. This should also be guaranteed in the formal setting of a
classroom where formal instruction on a foreign language is given. Students should
be provided with enough opportunity to participate and, in this way, practice the
explained rules of the language.

Availability of concrete referents

A country where the target language is spoken on an everyday basis is the

best environment as far as natural input is concerned. Learners can see, hear and
feel the events happening around them, for which formal setting must substitute by
providing real like situations.

In classes taught by a non-native speaker of the target language, a lack of

real-life experience can occur in the area of insufficient discrimination between the
language taught and the language actually used on an everyday basis; in other
words, between the language which should be used according to the formal rules
occurring in books and the language which is used commonly by native speakers.
As a language model, a non-native teacher can lack the experience of language
structures used by native speakers and, thus, can hardly make the students aware of
possible shifts in meaning in any level of the language.

Target language models

This feature is of vital importance in the formal setting. Apart from original
resources that can (or rather should) be brought
 THE ROLE OF INPUT

For foreign language acquisition to take place, some data in the target
language must be available to the learner as input. “Input hypothesis postulates that
humans acquire language in only one way – by understanding messages or by
receiving comprehensible input”.

When studying the area of importance of the information that learners are
provided with, different approaches can be found:

• A behaviourist viewpoint considers the linguistic environment as the crucial

determining factor. In this model of learning, language input is made available in
the form of stimuli and feedback. This theory emphasizes the importance of stimuli
regulation, so that the input information available to learners is divided into steps
which mirror the immediate level of learners’ target language.

• A nativist viewpoint claims that exposure to language itself is not sufficient for
acquisition to take place. Input is only seen as a trigger for internal mechanisms.
This theory highlights the importance of internal processes in learners.

• An interactionist viewpoint, as could be expected, connects both above theories.

It considers the result of interaction between learners’ mental abilities and the
linguistic environment. It underlines the importance of both input factors and
innate mechanisms, an interplay between external and internal factors.

Many theorists and teachers stress that varied and frequent comprehensible
input is key to acquisition. It would make sense that the higher the number of
opportunities for the brain to store and reinforce patterns, accents, concepts, and
meanings of a language, the better this information would be stored and processed
also emphasizes the importance of input in language acquisition: “the cognitive
and information processing models generally claim that language learning is no
different from other types of learning, and is the result of the human brain building
up networks of associations. This means that an important part in the process of
FLA is played by the quality of the information that enters the learner’s brain and
that he/she can use for further processing. In order to get a positive effect, this
information must fulfill certain criteria. Students must be provided with “input that
has two basic characteristics. First, it must be comprehensible; so that learners can
understand the sentences they see or hear. Second, input must encode some
referential meaning to which learners can respond”. Good quality input can then
trigger intake2 and further processing that is responsible for developing a language
system in a learner and is used in the performance in the form of output.
Intake is the input information available for further mental processing of a
language.

Output is the language the learner produces (the outcome of the processed
language that has been taken in).

Processes in second-language acquisition

 THE ROLE OF THE FIRST LANGUAGE

Another possible influence in the process of foreign language acquisition is

knowledge of the learner’s first language. There are contradictory opinions on
whether acquisition of a first language and a foreign language involve the same or
distinct processes. It seems to be obvious that, whether or not we believe that a
foreign language is acquired in the same way as our first language, its existing
knowledge must be admitted and any further experience with another language is
based on and refers to it. According to Klein (1986: 39), acquisition of a foreign
language involves “the capacity to reorganize the language processor”, (which we
used and developed while acquiring our first language), “to cope with another
language”. Various opinions on whether this influence is positive or negative and
several views on whether acquisition of a first and second language are identical or
quite different processes can be found.

In this field, two controversial viewpoints appear:

• Identity Hypothesis, in its extreme form, declares that it does not matter whether
or not a learner acquired another language before the new target language. The
acquisition of first, second or any following language(s) is an identical process
controlled by the same rules.

• Contrastive Hypothesis claims that acquisition of a foreign language is to a

great extent influenced by the acquired first language. Those structures that are
similar (or identical) in both languages are easily acquired “as a result of ‘positive
transfer’”. Those forms that contrast with the newly-acquired in a foreign language
cause difficulties, produce errors “as a result of ‘negative transfer’, or
‘interference’ between the two contrasting languages” (Klein, 1986: 25).

As was the case so many times in the past, the opinion interconnecting all
views will probably be closest to reality. It seems to be natural that knowledge of a
language and its structures helps learners to realise that any other language must
also use some structures to express one’s ideas and that these structures more or
less resemble those in our first language. On the other hand, it must be admitted
that the level of difference between the first and second language has an influence
on the process of acquisition. The application of L1 rules to the foreign language
can be seen in its every level (see below). If two languages use different surface
structures to express same deep structure4, learners must “search” in their existing
knowledge of the first language.

According to Dulay, three major internal processes are in action in foreign

language acquisition:

1) Filter screens all incoming language and allows it (or not) to undergo further
processing. All this depends on learners’ “motives, attitudes, and emotional states”.

This is a part of the internal processing that subconsciously decides:

a which target language models the learner will select;

b which parts of the language will be attended to first;

c when language acquisition efforts should cease;

d how fast a learner can acquire the language.

This depends on students’ motivation and emotional states.

In my teaching practice, I have come across several students who (in their
own words) voluntarily “chose not to acquire” all the English verb forms because
they found it too confusing and, in their own words, “native speakers only
practically use three or four of them anyway”. One of the teacher’s tasks is to show
the learners that the use of language becomes considerably easier if they master the
rules of a foreign language’s grammar, as sufficient competence in it provides
them with certain freedom to concentrate on the contents of their utterances rather
than their form. 0
2) Organiser is responsible for the learner’s gradual organization of newly
presented language. “Its functioning is subconscious and is based on what
psychologists call ‘cognitive’ principles: analytical and logical criteria for the
organization of knowledge and behavior”. This mainly concerns the transitional
stages that will occur before the final correct form is acquired, the errors that
regularly occur in a learner’s speech and the order in which the new language
structures are acquired. A considerable amount of research has been carried out on
interlanguage5 and the order of acquisition, as well as the most frequently
occurring grammatical errors.

Interlanguage – an emerging linguistic system developed by a learner of a

foreign (second) language who has not become fully proficient and is
approximating the target language. The learner preserves some features of his/her
first language in speaking or writing in the target language.

UG – a linguistic theory postulating principles of grammar shared by all

languages. It attempts to explain language acquisition in general, not describe
specific languages. It proposes a set of rules that would explain how children
acquire their language(s), or how they construct valid sentences of their language.

The following examples of the use of learners’ interlanguage are directly related to
the research carried out in this treatise:

a) Omission of grammatical morphemes;

E.g.: I worklast night.

b) Regularisation of irregular rules;

E.g.: I buyeda new book.

c) Choosing the wrong alternative from a number of forms;

E.g.: too much people, too many breads

 Monitor is that part of learners’ internal processing, which “is responsible
for conscious linguistic processing”. Furthermore, claim; “Tasks which focus on
linguistic manipulation seem to encourage monitoring, while those which focus on
communication do not”. This means that correct use of grammar (applying rules to
morpheme and word manipulation), to a large extent, depends on the function of
the learner’s monitor. Knowledge of foreign language grammar is mainly based on
the formal instruction a learner is provided with. This, from the grammar
acquisition viewpoint, makes monitor the most important part of internal
processing.

Krashen distinguishes:

Over-users – those learners who use the monitor all the time (those more
concerned with accuracy than fluency);

Under-users – those learners who have not learned or who prefer not to use
their conscious knowledge (those more concerned with fluency rather than
accuracy);

Optimal users – those learners who use the monitor appropriately (those
who tend to be equally accurate and fluent) (Schütz, 2005).

To sum up, all three parts can (but need not) be involved in internal
processing of a language. It depends on factors like learner motivation whether the
presented language will undergo all of them.

I. Intentional and incidental foreign language acquisition.

Apart from those factors influencing learners of a foreign language in

general, there is a set of such influences that vary from one learner to another and
differ according to a learner’s inner characteristics. Sundry authors distinguish
various factors which, as they believe, influence second or foreign language
acquisition. Among these, individual learner characteristics play a central role.
Liao distinguishes the following cognitive factors of second language acquisition:
intelligence, language aptitude and language learning strategies. Lujan-Ortega
proposes age, aptitude/intelligence, motivation, learning/cognitive style and
personality. Bond, in her research on successful language learners, is more
accurate in stating the factors that may aid one’s language learning and draws more
detailed perspective. Her list comprises age, exposure to the foreign language in
infancy, immersion, intelligence, personality, attitude and motivation, relationship
between first and target language, sensory style, learning strategies and other
factors (such as mimicry or musical ability). The author of the article ‘Learner
characteristics: factors affecting the success of L2 acquisition’ summaries opinions
of several authors and concludes that the following factors affect the success of
foreign language acquisition: intelligence, language learning aptitude, personality,
motivation and attitude and the age of acquisition. It is also stated in the
aforementioned article that due to a lack of detailed research in the area, there is no
solid evidence for the effect of aptitude, personality and learner beliefs and
preferences. A similar approach can be found in Ellis who states that “there are
five general factors that contribute to individual learner differences in some depth:
age, aptitude, cognitive style, motivation and personality”.

The above theoretical analysis brought about some interesting questions

about factors that influence acquisition of a foreign language. To answer some of
these questions became an ambition of this treatise.

Hunt and Begla point out that many vocabularies are learned incidentally
through extensive reading and listening. Accordingly, motivating learners to read
and listen extensively can provide them with great opportunities to learn new
vocabularies. In terms of Huckin and Coad, too, except for the first few thousand
most common words, vocabulary learning predominantly occurs through extensive
reading with the learner guessing the meaning of unknown words. This process is
incidental learning of vocabulary for the acquisition of new words and is the by-
product of the reading (i.e., not the main focus of the cognitive activity, reading).
However, this process of incidental learning of vocabularies occurs gradually as
Anderson claims. The incidental vocabulary learning, as Hunt and Beglar point
out, can be a useful approach for all language learners at all levels.

Shmidth, also points out that incidental learning is definitely passive in that
it can happen when the focus of attention is on some relevant features of input.
However, he believes that since incidental learning is useful in task-based
language, pedagogy is still a fruitful area of investigation. He further notes that
there is an argument that maintains what is learned—whether incidentally or
intentionally—is what is noticed.

So far, many studies have been carried out in the field concerning
vocabulary learning/teaching approaches. For instance, Huckin and Coady
investigated the role of incidental and intentional vocabulary acquisition. They
conclude that incidental vocabulary learning is not entirely incidental in that
learners pay at least some attention to individual words. The other studies are
reviewed below.

Huckin and Coadymention the following advantages of incidental

vocabulary learning:

a. It is contextualized, giving the learner a rich sense of word use and meaning.

b. It is pedagogically efficient in that it yields two activities at the same time:

vocabulary acquisition and reading.

c. It is more learner-based, in that it is the learner who selects the reading

materials.
 It is worthy of notice that in a review of 114 studies, Krashen argued that
incidental vocabulary acquisition occurs through operation of his input hypothesis:
that reading provides comprehensible and necessary input that eventually leads to
acquisition. In addition, Krashen, points out that acquisition of vocabulary and
spelling is achieved through exposure to comprehensible input, in this case,
reading.

Wode in a study of incidental vocabulary acquisition in a foreign language

classroom, found that it is important to investigate in detail which properties of IM
teaching -late partial English immersion (IM) programs- are best suited to trigger
the incidental learning with respect to vocabulary (and other linguistic elements)

Ellis and He investigated the roles of modified input and output in the
incidental acquisition of word meaning. Their study proved that interactional
output which provides opportunities for learners to use new vocabularies
contributes to better incidental vocabulary acquisition.

Among the other factors, frequency of exposure to new vocabularies is

another determining factor in learning vocabulary. Rott studied the effect of
frequency with which words occur in a reading text and the role of reading as an
input resource in vocabulary acquisition. Her study examined whether intermediate
learners incidentally acquire and retain unknown vocabulary by reading a text. The
result of the study indicated that, regarding retention measures on productive
vocabulary knowledge, only half of the subjects displayed a significant rate of
retention, and on receptive knowledge, all but one experimental group retained
vocabularies over four weeks.

Hulstijn makes a distinction between intentional and incidental learning as

―Intentional learning refers to the learning mode in which participants are
informed, prior to their engagement in a learning task, that they will be tested
afterward on their retention of a particular type of information. Incidental learning
refers to the mode in which participants are not forewarned of an upcoming
retention test for a particular type of information.‖

Incidental learning has been defined differently by scholars in the field. For
instance, Schmidt three definitions are presented as follows:

- learning without the intent to learn

- the learning of one stimulus aspect while paying attention to another
stimulus aspect incidental learning is learning of one thing when the
learner's primary objective is to do something else.
- the learning of formal features through a focus of attention on semantic
features.

In spite of the fact that incidental and intentional learning might seem similar to
implicit and explicit learning, respectively, these two dichotomies are not identical.
As Paradis points out, since implicit competence is incidentally acquired, is stored
implicitly and is used automatically, it means more than incidental learning.
Therefore, while incidental vocabulary learning of vocabulary may be a useful way
of acquiring vocabularies for most advanced learners, intentional/explicit
instruction is essential for beginning learners whose reading ability is limited.

As for experimental operationalization of incidental and intentional learning, as

mentioned in Hulstijn‘s study, two experimental methods are employed usually.
The first one is type 1 design, or between group one, which was employed in
earlier studies aimed at demonstrating that while incidental learning exists,
intentional learning is superior to incidental learning. On the other hand, in within-
group type 2 design is within group, which has been used in later studies, is the one
employed in the present study. In this design type 2 some additional stimuli in
addition to some main stimuli are presented to learners. Retention of these
additional stimuli are also tested unexpectedly afterwards, while the students
expect to be tested on main materials.
 Methodologically, if learners are told in advance of the treatment that they will
be tested on the material this is intentional learning, whereas if they are not told,
those materials would be considered to be learned incidentally (Hulstijn, 2003).
This methodology was followed by the present study, so that the participants were
told that they will be tested only on their knowledge of bold type -intentional-
vocabularies. To their surprise, they were also tested on their knowledge of not
bold type-incidental- vocabularies appearing in the reading texts.

II. Effectiveness of intentional and incidental ways in foreign language

acquisition.
 The previous sections have taken a closer look at how various studies have
conceptualized and operationalized the construct of ‘incidental’ L2 vocabulary
acquisition. The three categories used—learner-oriented, method-oriented, and
pedagogy-oriented perspectives on incidental learning—were meant to underscore
the most significant similarities and differences among studies that all claim to
investigate incidental learning. While discussing these categories, it was shown
that a clear understanding of vocabulary acquisition requires an explicit teasing
apart of cognitive constructs that are often invoked when discussing incidental
learning.

These include consciousness, attention, awareness, noticing,

explicit/implicit learning, and explicit/implicit knowledge.

It seems that in current years, there has been a shift in thinking about
incidental vocabulary learning through reading. Studies like those reviewed above
confirmed Nagy et al.’s claim that incidental learning through reading was an
incremental process, but these studies also revealed that the process of incidental
learning through reading was slow, unpredictable, and error-prone, contrary to how
avid proponents of reading (Krashen, 1989) had first framed it. In fact, on the
surface-level, it may seem like there has been a reversal of perspectives about
incidental vs. intentional learning, with the popularity of the former being given
over to the latter in terms of pedagogical recommendations. Current views hold
that ‘intentional learning’ is a faster and more effective way of learning new words
in a short amount of time.

For example, in his recent review of instructed L2 vocabulary learning,

Schmitt contends that “intentional vocabulary learning… almost always leads to
greater and faster gains, with a better chance of retention and of reaching
productive levels of mastery”. While researchers may emphasize the effectiveness
of intentional learning tasks, however, their current stance reflects a more
sophisticated understanding of vocabulary learning rather than a strict adherence to
only one type of learning. That engagement is putatively the decisive factor and
that it is “impossible to say that any activity is better than any other activity in all
cases” are acknowledged; promoting intentional learning is therefore due to the
notion that explicit activities that draw attention to vocabulary form generally,
although not always, tend to promote more engagement. Intentionally learning is
especially recommended at the early stages of learning, while incidental learning is
recommended as a means of consolidating, enhancing, and strengthening partially
learned words

Much of this knowledge has been disseminated to realms of vocabulary

pedagogy. Many have pointed out that incidental and intentional learning of
vocabulary need not compete for the title of the one best method. Instead,
incidental and intentional learning should supplement each other. Nation and
Nation and Gu outline four learning strands—meaning-focused input, meaning-
focused output, language-focused learning, and fluency development—around
which a vocabulary syllabus can be built, integrating both incidental and
intentional learning.

Moreover, they stress that four learning partners—students, teachers,

materials writers, and researchers—must work together in order to foster an
optimal vocabulary learning environment.

In order to design a principled and long-term vocabulary learning program,

the foundational tenets of vocabulary research mentioned thus far in the present
paper need to be taken into account, namely, the (1) critical role of engagement in
learning, and the (2) incremental nature of vocabulary learning through repeated
exposures.

Future Directions
Ellis presents a comprehensive, although not exhaustive, list in which he identifies
four broad categories of factors that influence incidental L2 vocabulary
acquisition: (1) intrinsic word properties: pronounceability, part of speech,
distinctiveness of word form, length of word form, degree of correlation between
form and meaning, imageability, and polysemy, (2) input factors: frequency,
saliency through focus, contextual cues, and input complexity, (3) interactional
factors: more input and elaboration of input, and (4) learner factors: existing L2
knowledge, background knowledge, procedural knowledge, immediate
phonological memory, and learner’s L1. Of these four categories, it seems that the
most prolific areas have been in the second category of input factors. Both word
repetition (i.e., frequency of encounters) and task induced engagement, for
example, belong to this category.

Therefore, while the body of research in incidental vocabulary learning is

already substantial, there seems to still be prominent gaps with respect to several of
the factors that affect vocabulary learning. Furthermore, an overwhelming majority
of incidental vocabulary studies to date has focused on the medium of the written
text. Due to this, some researchers automatically associate “incidental learning”
with the learning of words during reading.

Research in incidental vocabulary learning from oral or mixed input has

been growing, but is still relatively few. Therefore, studying incidental learning
that occurs through listening, communicative interactions, and newer technologies
such as computer-mediated communicative portals, has a lot of potential for
deepening the current understanding of L2 incidental vocabulary acquisition.

A researcher embarking on an investigation in this area, however, should be

wary that he or she will confront multiple interpretations of the construct of
incidental learning. Each interpretation is related to the main focus of the research
question. The learner-oriented perspective, for example, focuses on the question of
what kind of learning can occur with minimal degrees of attention from the learner.
The method-oriented definition focuses on the differential effects of tasks, often
with the goal of finding out which tasks are pedagogically more effective. Finally
the pedagogy-oriented definition illuminates what kind of pedagogical contexts are
especially conducive to fostering incidental learning. Whichever approach one
takes,there is a need to explicitly state how the construct of “incidental learning” is
defined and operationalized in the context of his or her research, as to prevent
confusion and misinterpretation. Provided this, the study of incidental L2
vocabulary acquisition continues to have much to offer in uncovering,
incrementally from one study to the next, the fascinating process of second
language acquisition.

We trust that the compilation of studies in this paper constitutes a body of

important empirical evidence together with theoretical insights into the areas of
vocabulary acquisition, teaching and assessment. As Eysenck put it: “memory
performance is determined far more by the nature of the processing activities
engaged in by the learner than it is by the intention to learn per se”.

Learning, whether incidental or intentional, is mainly a matter of selective

attention and elaborated processing. The absence or presence of a learning
intention does not play a decisive role as vocabulary acquisition is first and
foremost determined by the nature and frequency of the processing of new words.

Incidental vocabulary learning is not necessarily more effective than

intentional learning, nor is intentional vocabulary learning necessarily more
effective than incidental learning.

There are two important factors concerning the role of language learning
strategy use and its applications in teaching and learning an L2, in light of which
the result pertaining to the relationship between the use of learning strategy and
proficiency may be discussed. One of these factors, as Griffiths points out, is that
language learning strategies cannot be observed directly, which is one of the
difficulties with researching this construct, in that they can only be inferred from
language learner behavior. Griffiths also points out that only a few language
learning strategies such as dictionary use are observable and can be directly
measured, and that the rest must be inferred from the behavior of language learner
is one of the difficulties in researching this construct. The use of vocabulary
learning strategy was more like the kinds of strategies that are not directly
observable. Perhaps the students‘reports on their use of vocabulary learning
strategy were not truly representative of how they learn vocabularies. Therefore, it
is suggested that instead of just measuring the participant‘s use of vocabulary
leaning strategy (and/or any other type of learning strategy) by asking them to fill
out the self-report questionnaire, one or more ways of measuring the use of this
construct be used, such as observations, interviews, and the like.

Secondly, as asserted by Griffiths, in addition to strategies, many other

learner variables can potentially affect the outcome of language learning efforts,
such as aptitude, learning style, motivation, age, belief, culture, gender,
personality, metacognition or autonomy.

She also states that learning variables, too, can affect the final efforts of
language learning, namely vocabularies, grammar, pronunciation, function, skill,
teaching/learning methods, strategy instruction, error correction, or task. Taking all
of the factors affecting the outcome of language learning mentioned by Griffiths
into account, it might be concluded that the learners might have used those
strategies as they reported on the questionnaire, but these underlying factors have
been influential and have rendered the results unpredictable.

The other finding of the study is that there is a significant relationship

between students‘ use of vocabulary strategy use and reading strategy use. This is a
logical finding due to the fact that many students prefer to use learning strategies in
every aspect of the task of learning a language, perhaps because they are "good
language learners" who have found it a fruitful and constructive activity.
 It has been also found that it is the participants‘ knowledge of meaning-
based intentionally learned vocabularies that mostly influences how well they will
perform on the vocabulary test. It might be due to the fact that the number of TWs
falling in each category (i.e., incidental, etymology-based intentional and meaning-
based intentional) was only four. To confirm this finding it is suggested that more
research be done involving many more TWs.

Regarding the nature of the vocabularies which are supposed to be acquired

incidentally, in further research, it is suggested that vocabularies which cannot be
divided into prefix and root and suffix be selected; otherwise, the students will get
used to analyzing them as they do so when it comes to learning etymology-based
intentional vocabularies.

It is one of the influential limitations of the study that no control group was
involved. Further research is needed including a control group studying the impact
of incidental and intentional learning on acquisition of vocabulary items.

Last, but not least, as Griffiths (2003) points out, studies exploring language
learning strategies with regard to sex are not common. The current study also, due
to the fact that the proportions of males and females were not the same, has not
investigated the role of gender. It is suggested that further research be done taking
into account the effect of sex on the use of language learning strategy use.
 Conclusion

After reviewing the findings of this literature review, there is strong evidence
that supports the occurrence of incidental vocabulary learning through reading for
meaning comprehension. As pointed out by Ahmad, an incidental vocabulary
technique is enhanced by reading in highly informative contexts. Not only does
extensive reading appear to be the main feature for incidental learning. This type of
learning is the result of a number of factors that correlate among each other to
ensure its success. Research shows that learners must be able to recognize a great
percentage of the surrounding words in order to correctly infer the meaning of a
word in context. This amount of previous knowledge ranges from 95% to 98% for
general and full textual comprehension. This knowledge could be fostered first
through initial stages of intentional learning that allow following up on incidental
acquisition of L2 vocabulary gains. As suggested by Zandieh, both types of
vocabulary learning could be bolstered if they are combined jointly in “a virtual
learning environment in order to improve comprehension and vocabulary
retention”. Moreover, texts of personal interest to learners promote motivation
resulting in more guided attention to lexical items at the word-sentence grammar
level. Accordingly, exposure of unknown words should be included in meaningful
contextual cues, which would allow high percentages of correct lexical inference
activity.

The effectiveness of reading for incidental learning is also discussed. Reading

boosts sub-conscious acquisition of lexical items. However, it also depends on the
type of learner it is aimed at. Pilot research suggests that reading is more beneficial
for low and intermediate learners, as it allows them to increase vocabulary gains
and further retention of lexical items. In contrast, listening was found to be of
improvement for vocabulary retention in advanced L2 learners. Clearly, further
research should focus on the relationship of reading and listening in high-
proficiency learners.
 Strategies and tasks for promoting incidental vocabulary learning have also
been the focus of research. Several empirical studies suggest that incidental
vocabulary learning can be improved through marginal glosses. At the same time,
marginal glosses and still images as multimodal annotations appear to be even
more effective for incidental learning. Such results advocate for the positive use of
multimodal strategies, such as multiple types of glosses and even video captioning
in CALL settings for vocabulary learning. Moreover, other strategies that focus
lexical items as the goals of different tasks showed positive impact in several
studies. These researches showed that the repeated occurrence of words in highly
informative contexts conducive for learners to infer meaning of unknown words
provide greater incidental vocabulary gains. In turn, such strategies embedded in
tasks that encourage lexical items to become the focus of goal-directed activities
could enhance learning and retention of vocabulary.

Important pedagogical implications stem from the results of this literature

review. For example, teachers should consider the role of the type of text that best
suits the interest of learners, and the quality of contextual hints that allow
subconscious acquisition of vocabulary. Therefore, I draw attention to the
importance of selecting authentic texts with highly informative contextual cues
manageable for the level of proficiency of learners, and the importance of selecting
tasks that allow learners to focus attention at the word level (syntactical level) and
global text comprehension. Such activities, would not only boost comprehension
and syntactic lexical knowledge, but would also allow the learner to use the newly
acquired vocabulary in real-world speech events. Material developers also need to
consider how texts will affect vocabulary learning. If the context surrounding the
vocabulary is not useful for learners to correctly infer the meaning of words,
multimodal glosses are likely to be necessary for learners to gain knowledge of
meaning and focus attention at the word level in meaningful and authentic texts.
 In addition, the frequency of occurrence of the target vocabulary has a
significant effect on the retention and recall of lexical items. As a consequence,
such effect is enhanced when complemented with additional aids, including
learner’s access to knowledge of words and awareness of vocabulary learning
strategies. In other words, the perfect amount of intentional and incidental learning
that improves L2 vocabulary learning. Likewise, the use of multimodal texts,
including video captioning, enhances comprehension and gives the learner
additional support to associate correctly a lexical item with its meaning. In this
sense, the inclusion of new technologies in the L2 class enhances the incidental
acquisition of vocabulary and it could help us to improve current reading strategies
and tasks in our learning environment. Beginners and advance learners can benefit
from reading and listening activities correspondingly that include multimodal e-
learning technologies, even perhaps for the incidental acquisition of multi-word
phrases and collocations. If further research focuses on how we can implement
effectively Web 2.0 tools in tasks that improve retention and recall of basic and
complex lexical items at the meaning and form level, we can build on our current
literature and gain a deeper insight into the acquisition of L2 vocabulary in the 21st
century.
 References

Ahmad, J. (2011). Intentional vs. incidental vocabulary learning.

Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(5), 67-75.

Alcón, E. (2007). Incidental focus on form, noticing and vocabulary learning in

the EFL classroom. International Journal of English Studies, 7(2), 41-60.

Azizollah, D., & Marzieh, R. (2012). Incidental vocabulary learning and the
development of receptive and productive vocabulary: How gloss types work.
Suvremena Lingvistika, 38(74), 175-187.

Barcroft, J. (2009). Effects of synonym generation on incidental and intentional

L2 vocabulary learning during reading. TESOL Quaterly, 43(1), 79-103.

Ellis, R. (1994). Factors in the incidental acquisition of second language

vocabulary from oral input: A review essay. Applied Language Learning, 5(1), 1-
32.

Gass, S. (1999). Discussion: Incidental vocabulary learning. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 21(2), 319-333.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199002090.

Huckin, T., & Coady, J. (1999). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second

language: A review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(2), 181-193.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199002028.

Hulstijn, J. H., Hollander, M., & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary

learning by advanced foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses,
dictionary use, and recurrence of unknown words. The Modern Language Journal,
80(3), 327-339. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1996.tb01614.x.

Jenkins, J. R., Stein, M. L., & Wysocki, K. (1984). Learning vocabulary

through reading. American Educational Research Journal, 21(4), 767-787.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312021004767.

Krashen, S. D. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading:

Additional evidence for the Input Hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal,
73(4), 440-464. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb05325.x.

McCafferty, S. G., Roebuck, R. F., & Wayland, R. P. (2001). Activity theory

and the incidental learning of second-language vocabulary. Language Awareness,
10(4), 289-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410108667040.

Montero, M., Peters, E., Clarebout, G., & Desmet, P. (2014). Effects of
captioning on video comprehension and incidental vocabulary. Language,
Learning & Technology, 18(1), 118-141.

Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1999). Reading and “incidental” L2

vocabulary acquisition: An introspective study of lexical inferencing. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 21(2), 195-224.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226319900203X.

Ponniah, R. J. (2011). Incidental acquisition of vocabulary by reading. The

Reading Matrix, 11(2), 135-139.

Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D. (1995). Vocabulary notebooks: Theoretical

underpinnings and practical suggestions. ELT Journal, 49(2), 133-143.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/49.2.133.
 Shahrokni, S. A. (2009). Second language incidental vocabulary learning: The
effect of online textual, pictorial, and textual pictorial glosses. The Electronic
Journal for English as a Second Language, 13(3), 1-17.

Vidal, K. (2011). A comparison of the effects of reading and listening on

incidental vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 61(1), 219-258.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00593.x.

Webb, S. (2008). The effects of context on incidental vocabulary learning.

Reading in a Foreign Language, 20(2), 232-245.

Xu, X. (2010). An empirical study on the effect of task on L2 incidental

vocabulary acquisition through reading. Asian Social Science, 6(7), 126-131.

Yoshii, M. (2006). L1 and L2 glosses: Their effects on incidental vocabulary

learning. Language, Learning & Technology, 10(3), 85-101.

Zandieh, Z. (2012). The effects of hypertext gloss on comprehension and

vocabulary retention under incidental and intentional learning conditions. English
Language Teaching, 5(6), 60-71.