Iranian Male/Female Direction Givers; Similarities and Differences

Mearaj Mirshafiei

Abstract

Giving directions is a common conversational exchange in daily life. Communicatively competent learners need to know how to give directions in a target language in accordance with the target norms. Learners should know the structure (e.g., opening, pre-closing, and closing) as well as the content of direction-giving in the target language (e.g., direction-giving types, comprehension checks, and orientation checks). Furthermore, learners are required to have the ability to use linguistic devices according to addressee status, and to acquire cultural preference in perspective taking within the direction-giving. That is, learners are required to have socio-pragmatic knowledge to use appropriate utterances based on the understanding of social standards, and pragmalinguistic knowledge to produce utterances that convey the speaker’s intended illocutionary force. Given that learners need to pay attention to all the relevant linguistic and pragmatic choices, direction-giving in L2 is a complex task.

Keywords: Female dirction givers, Giving direction, Male dirction givers

1- Introduction

Direction-giving is not a new task in second language research. It has been used often in studies on task-based language learning (Ellis, 2003). A map task as a real world activity is favored because researchers can observe learners’ interactions. During their interactions, learners negotiate meanings, notice input, and produce linguistic output, which lead to language acquisition. When it comes to a natural setting- a commonplace activity of daily life situated in a very practical place, a direction giving request is far from simple too. On the part of direction givers, once committed they must draw highly developed cognitive and linguistic abilities to formulate an adequate response. Because of its importance the present study tries to investigate this typical speech event by male and female Iranian direction givers in a natural setting in which asking for direction can be a usual practice or not. The question or request for direction can be posed directly or indirectly leading to different outcomes in the part of direction givers. In this typical speech event the interlocutors are male and female requesting for directions. In this study targeting male and female Iranian direction givers an attempt is made to investigate the features used in their communications to manage the exchange while following the Interactional Scheme proposed by

Wunderlich and Reinelt (1982). On the other hand, the present study has been planned to evaluate how the physical context can influence the speech event and the possible conventionalized form of asking for direction proposed by Lee(1999) and Scotton and Bernsten (1988). So, who is talking to whom, where the conversation happens, and how relevant the involved groups are, make the main concerns of the study.

2. Previous research

In the field of cognitive psychology significant attention has been paid to the direction-giving exchange, drawing connection between cognitive and linguistic processes. Couclelis (1996) identified five stages in direction giving: initiation, representation, transformation, symbolization, and termination. Klein(1982) investigated the semantics and the use of deictic expressions in walking direction. Hund (2006) explored the influence of direction-receivers' perspectives on the directional exchange including the receivers' evaluations of the quality of the information provided. He also analyzed the effects of listeners' behavior (e.g. follow-up questions or nonverbal indications of confusion) on direction givers' redundancy, that is, their repetition of key directional information offered in response to listeners' behavior.

In a study conducted by Collett and O'Shea(1976) they indicated that in comparison to the English people Iranians were more likely to give direction to a fictional place. They postulated that this behavior was not due to any mischievousness on the parts of Iranians but rather to cultural differences in the participants' value system. On the same line of thinking Tylor-Hamilton (2004) investigated L1/L2 differences and confirmed that the direction giving exchange varies from language to language and culture to culture.

Some empirical studies grounded in investigation of linguistic features have also established a high degree of conventionalization or routinization in the direction-giving exchange(Lee, 1999 and Scotton and Bernsten 1988).

Wunderlich and Reinelt(1982) presented a four-phase classification of the "interactional scheme" during which the entire direction-giving exchange takes place: initiation( an introductory phase in which the exchange is requested and direction X is cognitively located in the mind of direction-giver), route- description( the phase in which the actual directions are provided to the recipient), securing( a phase in which both the direction-giver and the direction-receiver ensure understanding of the route description, ask confirmation

questions, and address additional route related details), and finally closure( the phase in which the direction receiver acknowledges understanding of the route description, and both interlocutors collaboratively end the exchange).

The route description phase has also received much attention (Hund, Haney, & Seanor,2008).In their study comparing two different strategies or perspectives-route perspective and survey perspective-using in giving direction they found significant differences between the two strategies. They stated that a route perspective involves adopting a first-person spatial perspective (e.g. assuming the perspective of the traveler) as the frame of reference. Route directions are like mental tours that include references to segments of the route, as a traveler would experience them during locomotion. In particular, they include left and right turns and landmark descriptions that provide a set of procedures for navigating through the environment (e.g. ‘Go left on Main, you’ll see the park on your right’). They found that when addressing someone driving in the town, people would use more left-right descriptors and landmarks. The findings also revealed significant differences between male and female direction givers. The cognitive mapping of direction giving exchange has also come under investigation. This type of investigation has offered sex related variables to the matter. Lawton (2001) found that females used more landmarks than did men in their directions but that men used more cardinal indicators( north, south, etc). Napoleon's (2007) study confirmed male participants' more frequent use of cardinal indicators and female participants' more frequent inclusion of buildings and topographical features.

And recently, Ewald (2010) investigated male and female direction giving significantly under-explored in linguistic research. Her study expanded current research confirming the conventionalized nature of direction giving exchange. The study contained 60 male and female participants giving direction in a natural setting (in a gas-station) in the US. She found an indirect request for giving direction is an effective communicative strategy for speakers approaching potential direction-givers. The study also emphasized the interrelatedness of the cognitive, linguistic, and interactional tasks involved in direction-giving.

A large body of research has documented significant differences between the communicative style of men and women, but Ewald found that male and female used directional indicators and the inclusion of landmarks equally.

Kirn and Hartmann (2002) in their Reading comprehension book(Interaction 1 Reading) have stated the story of telling directions through different cities around the world while focusing on the differences that can be observed in different locations.

Tourists are often confused in Japan. That's because most streets there don’t have names; outside big cities people most often use landmarks in their directions. For example, the Japanese might tell travelers something like this:"Go straight down to the corner. Turn left at the big hotel with the sushi bar and go past the fruit market. The post office is across from the bus stop-next to the fast-food fried chicken place."

In the US, people might give directions in different ways according to their region or community. As an example, in the countryside of the American Midwest, there are not usually landmarks. There are no mountains, so the land is very flat; in many places there are no towns or buildings for miles. Instead of landmarks, residents of the flatlands will tell you directions and distances…

On the other hand, people in Los Angeles, California, have no idea of directions or distance on the map. Residents of this Pacific Coast are almost always in their cars, so they measure distance in time."How far away is the post office" you ask. "oh", they might answer, " I guess it's about five minutes from here" You say, "Yes, but how many miles away is it- or how many kilometers or blocks?" They rarely know-or can seldom say.

Based on the available related literature no study has ever conducted to evaluate the matter on the part of Iranians which meticulously investigates different Iranian male and female direction givers. Related to the location of the practice, it is worth mentioning that asking for direction in megacities is more usual than small towns and cities. The present study will apply Wunderlich and Reinelt's (1982) interactional scheme to the Persian direction givers to evaluate whether the proposed scheme may enjoy universality or not. The study also takes linguistic and cognitive approach to the analysis.

3. The present study

The present study examines a natural context. In the study a male and female recipient are in the situation of getting lost in a big city in which asking for direction is a problem that anybody may face. Holding a hidden sound recorder, the recipients ask male and female passers-by for direction X. It is worth

mentioning that the exchanges are between male direction giver/ male recipient and female direction giver/female recipient to address the following issues:

a. Is there any conventionalized form of asking for direction in Iran?

b. Is/Are there any difference(s) between male and female direction givers?

c. If yes, what is/are the potential difference(s)?

3.1. Participants

The participants in the study comprise a male and a female direction receiver as well as 20 male and 20 female direction givers walking in a chosen street by the researcher in Isfahan.It has already been decided by the researcher and his assistant to choose the direction givers who are young-between 25 to 30 years of age to avoid some possible age-related problems in giving direction while communicating.

3.2. Instruments

Because of the nature of the research aiming at gathering data in a pure natural setting a hidden sound recorder under the male researcher's shirt and his assistant's was obligatory. The hidden unit for the purpose of recording the exchanges had been properly installed so that it did not get the direction givers attention.

3.3. Data Collection Procedures

A famous shopping mall, named Mojtame Park-was chosen by the researcher and the female assistant in Isfahan. The roads, landmarks, the street names, the distance, and the traffic lights leading to the destination were completely known to the researcher and his assistant to judge on how the direction givers' information is relevant, in other words the accuracy . The researcher and the assistant stood a few kilometers away to the destination. The destination and the place of exchange for direction giving contained some turns to the left or right to avoid the phrase "go straight" by the direction givers. The researcher and the assistant randomly chose 20 male and 20 female passers-by and they initiated the conversation by "Excuse me, where is X?"{Bebakhshid, X kojast?}. The hidden sound recorders were on during the exchange. The chosen place by the researcher and the assistant was fix to avoid the possible mismatch in the nature of the derived data while remembering the meticulous

comparison of the data presented by the male and female passers-by is one of the goals of the research.

In accord with recent findings (Baker et al, 2008) suggesting the influence of the listeners' behavior on direction givers' interactions the researcher and the assistant provided conversationally-supportive back channeling during the interactions. For example, when direction givers needed the approval of the listeners 'understanding they nodded or when the direction givers asked a question, they responded affirmatively.

The recorded conversations were transferred on a piece of paper to be coded. In coding the obtained data the following linguistic devices in the direction givers' conversations were taken into consideration: Relative Indicators(left, right,…), Cardinal Indicator(south, north,…), Landmarks, Mileage, Time, Road name, Repetition( the name of the destination repeated by the direction givers after asking for direction), Extra Information( information offered by direction givers not helping to find the destination, but as a great help to get into the place easily), Giving Option( suggesting other routes leading to the destination by the direction givers), and finally No Relative Indicator( showing the relative indicator by gesturing). The components of Wounderlich and Reinelt's scheme were also coded.

3.4 Data Analysis Procedures

The present study has been planned to find answers to three questions:

a. Is there any conventionalized form of asking for direction in Iran?

b. Is/Are there any difference(s) between male and female direction givers?

c. If yes, what is/are the potential difference(s)?

To find answer to the first question the components of Wounderlich and Reinelt's (1982) scheme (initiation, route description, securing and closure) received different codes in female and male conversations and then the frequency of the offered components through the subjects was computed and compared using chi-square formula.

Having coded the above mentioned linguistic devices in male/female exchanges, the researcher counted and computed the frequency of the used

devices in giving direction by male and female exchanges individually using chi square formula in the present step of the research, as well.

As the last step in the data analysis procedure, a comparison of the linguistic device uses by male/female direction givers came under investigation. These findings were used to draw conclusion about the nature of giving direction exchange- the possible conventionalized form of exchange by Iranian direction givers and the possible difference(s) between Iranian male and female direction givers.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1 The Interactional Scheme

The proposed interactional scheme by Wunderlich and Reinelt (1982) was based on an study conducted in Germany. Since then, their work has been extended to the investigation of direction giving exchanges in other countries and languages other than German too (Couclelis,1996, Golding et el,1996, Allen,2000). Ewald (2010), directly applied their scheme to English direction giving in the US and took a linguistic approach to the analysis. The obtained results in Ewald's study proved the conventionalized form of the exchange in the English language as it was in German too.

As it was already indicated in Wunderlich and Reinelt scheme, during the initiation phase the direction requester(R) attracts the attention of direction giver (G) and makes the initial inquiry for directions to the destination. Following the inquiry, G may offer a route description initiating the next stage or ends the communication saying "sorry". In the route description phase the G may repeat the destination, remain silent and think, or talk to himself loud. In the present study 6 male G and 5 female G out of 40 repeated the destination while receiving the request.

R: [ Bebakhshid, Mojtame Park az kodom masir mire]{Sorry, how can I get to Mojtame Park shopping mall?

G:[ Mojtame Park?......] {Mojtame Park Shopping Mall…..?}

Table (1) Summary of linguistic devices used by male & female

Relative indicators

Cardinalindicators

landmarksMileageTime

Road name

X Repetition only

Extrainformation

Giving option

No relative

indicatorMales27015386310

females

19003055058

Table (2) Summary of linguistic devices used by male

Table (3) Summary of linguistic devices used by female

%Frequency

5027Relative Indicator

00Cardinal Indicator

1.8518521Landmarks

9.2592595Mileage

5.5555563Time

14.814818Roadname

11.111116Repetition

5.5555563Extra Information

1.8518521Giving Option

00No Relative Indicator

10054

%Frequency

0.365384619Relative Indicator

00Cardinal Indicator

00Landmarks

0.05769233Mileage

00Time

0.09615385Roadname

0.230769212Repetition

00Extra Information

0.09615385Giving Option

0.15384628No Relative

Indicator

10052

As Table (1) indicates 6 male G being equal to %11 repeated the destination upon hearing the offer by the R. The female G-12 participants –did the same thing bringing the percentile to 23.The total repetition of words or phrases signaling the second phase of scheme is %34 which is not significant. The existence and the nature of the third phase of the scheme can depend on R or G (Ewald,2010). Following the route description, R might state understanding the direction of the destination or G voluntarily secures R's understanding by repeating the address or asking confirmation. However, in this study only one male and one female followed the third phase of the scheme. Because of its rear happing the third phase was no included in the table. Nearly all the exchanges related to the third phase of Wunderlich and Reinelt scheme took the form of the following exchange.

R: [ Bebakhshid, Mojtame Park az kodom masir mire]{Sorry, how can I get to Mojtame Park shopping mall?

G: [ Mojtame Park?Mostaghim boro ta beresi be chahar rah, baad bepich samte chap, Mojtame hamin samte] {Mojtame Park Shopping Mall? Go straight to the cross road, turn left, the shopping mall locates on the same side.}

R: [mammon.]{Thank you.}(Check the appendix for farther examples.)

The last part of the offered scheme is closing. In all the exchanges in the study the direction receiver terminated the conversation by saying 'Thanks a lot', but it is worth mentioning that the female direction givers offered more deep gratitude to the receiver who was in the situation of getting lost in a big city than their male counterparts.

So, it can be concluded that the Iranian direction givers did not follow the steps offered in Wunderlich and Reinelt's scheme. What was mostly eye catching is the third phase of the scheme. The direction givers did not check the receivers' understandings to the destination in most cases.

4.2 Discourse Analysis of Male and Female Direction Givers

One of the purposes of the present study was to find answer to the question of similarities and differences between male and female discourse while giving directions. A glance through the following tables proves the significant difference between these two pieces of discourse. According to table (5) the observed P value is .005 and the critical P value is .05.Accordingly, the difference between the two groups-male and female direction givers-is

significant leading to the conclusion that male direction givers managed the exchange different from the female counterparts. The location of the difference is explained based on the obtained data having been summarized in the following tables. However, though the full analysis of these data within the Gricean framework falls outside the framework of this study, the validity of Grice's Cooperative Principles(1975) and its accompanying conversational maxims is once again supported by these data. The following parts, accompanied by the linguistic device tables elaborate on the location of the difference between the two groups.

Table (4) male/female-comparison

Count

27 1 5 3 8 6 3 1 0 5419 0 3 0 5 12 0 5 8 5246 1 8 3 13 18 3 6 8 106

MaleFemale

Gender

Total

RelativeIndicator Landmarks Mileage Time Road Name Repetition

ExtraInformation

GivingOptions

No RelativeIndicator

DirectionType

Total

Table (5) chi-square value

22.220a 8 .00528.309 8 .000

7.354 1 .007

106

Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood RatioLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases

Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

a.

4.2.1Use of Relative Indicator

One of the great advantages of the present study is its data, gathered in a pure naturalistic setting making it outstanding among several research which were based on route description on a map hanging on a wall. In this study as Table (4) and (1) indicate though 40 recorded conversations there exist 27 uses of relative indicators for male conversations and 19 for female which these values equal to %50 and about %35.5 for female. In the females' exchanges the females did not use relative indicators as the male did. The females did not include 'left or right' in their route description, instead they included 'on the

same side'. This claim can be further testified by checking the applications of 'No relative indicators' which is 8 cases for female and no occurrence for male ( Table 4). 15 percents of the females used gesture while giving direction. (See the table below). So, it can be concluded that male/female giving direction meets differences in case of using relative indicators while communicating.

Table (6) Male/female use of relative indicators

Relative Indicators Frequency percentileMale 27 %50Female 19 %36.5Total 46 %86.5

4.2.2 Use of Landmarks

Based on the data revealed in Tables 1, 2, 3,4 and 7 below, the male and female direction givers did not include landmarks when they were asked for direction. Only one male included a landmark when he gave direction to the researcher. He told "There exists a gas station in front of the shopping mall."

Table (7) Male/female use of landmarks

Landmarks Frequency percentileMale 1 %1Female 0 %0Total 1 %1

Though some research found that men were less likely to landmark uses(Miller & Santoni,2001), the present study confirms the findings of Harrell et. al.(2000) who found no such differences. Table 7 indicates that in terms of using landmarks in female/male exchanges none of the two groups used landmarks significantly. It is the only similarity that male/female exchanges enjoy.

4.2.3 Use of mileage

Mileage is guesses of distance to the destination based on units of measure; mile or kilometer. In this study the direction givers used meter and the number of steps to the destination.

Example (1)

R: [ Bebakhshid, Mojtame Park az kodom masir mire]{Sorry, how can I get to Mojtame Park shopping mall?

G: [ Mojtame Park?Mostaghim boro ta beresi be chahar rah, baad bepich samte chap, Mojtame hamin samte, hohodan ye 100 metr bishtar nist] {Mojtame Park Shopping Mall? Go straight to the cross road, turn left, the shopping mall locates on the same side, about 100 meters.}

R: [mammon.]{Thank you.}(Check the appendix for farther examples.)

Example (2)

R: : [ Bebakhshid, Mojtame Park az kodom masir mire]{Sorry, how can I get to Mojtame Park shopping mall?

G:[hamintor ke mostaghim mired be chaharrah Nazar miresid. Bepichid samte chap, ye 100 ghadam ta mojtame-e] {As you go straight, you get to Nazar Cross road, it's about 100 steps to the mall.}

R: [mammon.]{Thank you.}

Table (8) Male/female use of Mileage

Frequency percentileMale 5 %9.25Female 3 %5.7Total 8 %15

The above two examples included two units of measure (the italicized words) available to Iranian direction givers speech are more frequently applied while giving directions in Iran. These two expressions of distance to an imaginary destination have their own interpretations. As it can be observed nearly half of the people are on foot touring around cities in Iran. So the number of steps or meter guess can be heard in their exchanges for dirctions. In the US as it has already discussed, the Americans, especially in Los Angeles, California, have no idea of directions or distance on the map. Residents of this Pacific Coast are almost always in their cars, so they measure distance in time."How far away is

the post office" you ask. "oh", they might answer, " I guess it's about five minutes from here" You say, "Yes, but how many miles away is it- or how many kilometers or blocks?" They rarely know-or can seldom say.

As it can be inferred only %9 percents of male applied mileage in their speech, whereas this value falls to %5 in case of females' speeches. The comparison makes a bit difference in the two groups while referring to mileage estimate.

4.2.4 Use of time

The use of time estimate in the 40 recorded conversations is less frequent-only 3 cases for men, bringing the percentile to %5.5 while the females did not offer time estimates in their discourses. As it can be inferred from Table (9) the two groups are different while relying on time estimate to the destination.

Table (9) Male/female use of time estimates

Time estimates Frequency percentileMale 3 %5.5Female 0 %0Total 3 %5.5

4.2.5 Road Name use

Table (10) Male/female use of road name

Road Names Frequency percentileMale 8 %14.81Female 5 %9.60Total 13 %24.40

While touring through the cities in Iran, a person can witness names and recently numbers assigned for streets, lanes, and highways. Now, the question is how far do these names attract the passers-by attention so that they can include them in giving directions? The study found that from the total number of the recorded exchanges-40 cases; 13 participants applied road names in their exchanges. A short glance at Table (10) discusses a significant difference between male and female exchanges, too. Male participants applied road names more than the females. In the female communications, they mostly indicated the number of cross roads or street which should be passed through to get to the destination. There were also some cases for female direction givers that they could not remember the street names, making pauses to remember but the

names did not come up, skipping the names and replacing the number of streets which should be driven or walked.

4.2.6 No relative indicators

In this study, the researcher's intention of assigning 'No Relative Indicators' does not mean that the participants did not used relative indicators, but instead of using the words' left or right' as relative indicators the direction givers used gesture referring to left or right or the phrases ' on this side or on the other side' while turning or swinging their hands to the same verbal indications.

Table (11) Male/female use of no relative indicators

No Relative Indicators Frequency percentileMale 0 %0Female 8 %15.38Total 8 %15.38

As Table (11) shows no male direction givers used gesture to communicate their minds to the direction receivers, while the frequency of occurrence has gone up for the females leading to the sharp significant difference between males and females. Another advantage of the present study is the inclusion of gesture while giving direction which no study has ever explored this point. So, frankly speaking, and as the last difference between male and female exchange in managing the discourse of giving direction creeps into using gesture in direction giving by female only.

Two points need discussion in this phase of the study. The first point is that the researcher has not provided explanations on Extra information, Giving options, and repetition cells included in tables 1,2,,3, and 4 here because these factors were directly related to Wunderlich and Reinelt scheme to be compared with Iranians direction givers. The next point is related to the third research question. The second question of the present research is the exploration of the possible difference between male and female direction givers. According to the above mentioned points in 4.2 it can be concluded that there are differences between male and female direction givers in on hand and on the other hand, the precise locations of the differences are in terms of relative /no relative indicators, mileage, time and road names.

5. Conclusion and Implications

The present study attempted to find answers to three questions: Is there any conventionalized form of asking for direction in Iran? Is/Are there any difference(s) between male and female direction givers?, and If yes, what is/are the potential difference(s)? The study found that the scheme proposed by Wunderlich and Reinelt (1982) is not completely applicable in Eastern culture, especially in Iran. The four components of the scheme-opening, route description, securing, and closure were not completely followed by Iranian direction givers. According to the scheme, what lacks by Iranians is the third phase; the securing phase in which the direction givers did not check the receivers' understanding or misunderstanding. The direction givers provided the required information, but they left the receivers unchecked.

The next conclusion which the present study touched is affirmation and contradiction of some past research in the application of linguistic devices in male and female discourses. Some studies reported no male/female difference in giving direction while some more reported significant differences between them. But, the present study made males distinct from females in terms of using relative and no relative indicators, mileage, time, and road names.

According to Coulmas (1981), Bernsten (1988), and Taylor-Hamilton (2004) the frequency of routines in daily conversations should have an influence on teachers and textbook publishers, particularly with regards to the developments of pedagogical materials and use of class time. So, language students should be exposed circumstances that can be found in real world so that they can perform different functions.

Reference

Baddeley, A. (1997). Human memory: Theory and practice. Hove: Psychology Press.

Barcroft, J. (2009). Effects of synonym generation on incidental and intentional L2 vocabulary learning during reading. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 79–103.

Barcroft, J. & Sommers, M.S. (2005). Effects of acoustic variability on second language vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 387–414.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213–38.

Craik, F. & Lockhart, R. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–84.

Ellis, N. & Beaton, A. (1993). Psycholinguistic determinants of foreign language vocabulary learning. Language Learning, 43, 559–617.

Ellis, R. & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and modified output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285–301.

Folse, K.S. (2006). The effect of type of written exercise on L2 vocabulary retention. TESOLQuarterly,40,273–93.

Gass, S. (1999). Incidental vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 319–33.

Han, Z., Park, E., & Combs, C. (2008). Textual enhancement of input: Issues and possibilities.Applied Linguistics, 29, 597–618.

Hill, M.M. & Laufer, B. (2003). Type of task, time-on-task and electronic dictionaries in incidental vocabulary acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 41, 81–106.

Horst, M. (2005). Learning L2 vocabulary through extensive reading: A measurement study.Canadian Modern Language Review, 61, 355–82.

Hulstijn, J. (2001). Intentional and incidental second language vocabulary learning: A reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal, and automaticity. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 258–86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hulstijn, J. (2003). Incidental and intentional word learning. In M. Long & C. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 349–81). Oxford: Blackwell.

Hulstijn, J. & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 539–58.

Hulstijn, J., Hollander, M., & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and reoccurrence of unknown words. Modern Language Journal, 80, 327–39.

Hummel, K. (2010). Translation and vocabulary retention. Language Teaching Research, 14, 61–74.

Hunt, A. & Beglar, D. (2005). A framework for developing EFL reading vocabulary. Reading in a Foreign Language, 17, 23–59.

Joe, A. (1998). What effect do text-based tasks promoting generation have on incidental vocabulary acquisition? Applied Linguistics, 19, 357–77.

Keating, G. (2008). Task effectiveness and word learning in a second language: The involvement load hypothesis on trial. Language Teaching Research, 12, 365–86.

Kim, Y. (2008). The role of task-induced involvement and learner proficiency in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 58, 285–325.

Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Krashen, S.D. (1993). The power of reading: Insights from research. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Laufer, B. (1990). Why are some words more difficult than others? Some intralexical factors that affect the learning of words. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 28,293–307.

Laufer, B. (2001). Word focused activities and incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Prospect,44–54.

Laufer, B. (2005). Focus on form in second language vocabulary learning. EUROSLA Yearbook,5,223–50.

Laufer, B. (2009). Second language vocabulary acquisition from language input and from formfocused activities. Language Teaching, 42, 341–54.

Laufer, B. & Girsai, N. (2008). Form focused instruction in second language vocabulary learning: A case for contrastive analysis and translation. Applied Linguistics, 29, 694–716.

Laufer, B. & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22, 1–26.

Laufer, B. & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16, 307–22.

Laufer, B., Elder, C., Hill, K., & Congdon, P. (2004). Size and strength: Do we need both to measure vocabulary knowledge? Language Testing, 21, 202–27.

Lockhart, R. & Craik, F. (1990). Levels of processing: A retrospective commentary on a framework for memory research. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 44, 87–112.Longman Online Dictionary of Contemporary English. (2008). Retrieved from: http://www.ldoceonline.com (January 2012).

Ludwig, J. (1984). Vocabulary acquisition as a function of word characteristics. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 40, 552–62.

Mason, B. & Krashen, S. (2004). Is form-focused vocabulary acquisition worthwhile? RELC Journal,35,179–85.

Meara, P. & Buxton, B. (1987). An alternative to multiple choice vocabulary tests. Language Testing,4, 142–51.

Min, H.T. (2008). EFL vocabulary acquisition and retention: Reading plus vocabulary enhancement activities and narrow reading. Language Learning, 58, 73–115.

Nagy, W., Anderson, R., & Herman, P. (1987). Learning word meanings from context duringnormal reading. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 263–82.

Nassaji, H. (2006). The relationship between depth of vocabulary knowledge and L2 learners’lexical inferencing strategy use and success. Modern Language Journal, 90, 387–401.

Nation, P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.

Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge

UniversityPress.Nation, P. (2006a). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 59–82.

Nation, P. (2006b). Fundamental issues in modeling and assessing vocabulary knowledge.InH. Daller, J. Milton, & J. Treffers-Daller (Eds.), Modeling and assessing vocabulary knowledge (pp. 35–43). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nation, P. & Wang, K. (1999). Graded readers and vocabulary. Reading in a Foreign Language,12,355–80.

Nesi, H. (2008) BAWE: An introduction to a new resource. In A. Frankenberg-Garcia, T.Rkibi,M. Braga da Cruz Carvalho, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Teaching and LanguageCorpora Conference (pp. 239–46). Lisbon: ISLA.

Paribakht, T. & Wesche, M. (1999). Reading and ‘incidental’ L2 vocabulary acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 195–224.