System 91 (2020) 102250

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Incidental learning of a grammatical feature from reading by

Japanese learners of English as a foreign language
Natsuki Aka
Okinawa International University, 2-6-1 Ginowan, Ginowan City, Okinawa, 〒901-2701, Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study investigated the effects of incidental learning of one specific grammatical
Received 1 August 2019 feature through reading. A total of 157 Japanese high school learners of English as a foreign
Received in revised form 30 March 2020 language (EFL) participated in this study. During the intervention, the experimental group
Accepted 31 March 2020
(n ¼ 74) read five passages consisting of a total of 40 sentences that include to-infinitives
Available online 4 April 2020
used as nouns, whereas the participants in the control group (n ¼ 83) also read the same
number of reading passages, but with only 10 sentences consisting of to-infinitives used as
Keywords:
nouns. The participants took pre- and post-intervention grammar tests to measure the
Reading fluency
Incidental learning
effectiveness of the treatment. The results showed that the experimental group inciden-
Extensive reading tally noticed and learned about the use of to-infinitives as nouns through reading. The
High school learners findings indicated that learners pay attention to language forms even though their focus is
Grammar on reading comprehension. The study shows that frequent exposure to target grammar
English as a foreign language items repeatedly helps learners notice a grammatical rule, which, in turn, contributes
positively to incidental grammar acquisition.
© 2020 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC
BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction

Reading fluency is one of the most important skills that English learners in Japan need to acquire (Grabe, 2010; Kanatani,
2008; Takase, 2010). Researchers have explored various effective practices to promote reading fluency, such as extensive
reading (Beglar & Hunt, 2014; Pigada & Schmitt, 2006), repeated reading (Chang, 2012; Taguchi & Gorsuch, 2002; Webb &
Chang, 2012), narrow reading (Chang & Millett, 2017), and audio-assisted reading (Brown, Waring, & Dankaewbua 2008;
Teng, 2018). These teaching approaches differ, but all share the idea that learners should be exposed to a large quantity of
comprehensible input in order to enhance their reading fluency skills. Nation (2013) suggests approximately one quarter of
reading class time must be spent on such activities to achieve reading fluency. However, developing reading fluency skills
tends to be overlooked in the second language (L2) classroom, as compared to language-focused learning (Grabe & Stoller,
2002; Nation, 2013).
Extensive reading is one of the effective approaches to increasing learners’ exposure to English input. It enhances not only
learners’ reading abilities (Beglar & Hunt, 2014; Beglar, Hunt, & Kite, 2012; Bell, 2001; McLean & Rouault, 2017; Suk, 2017) and
vocabulary knowledge (Nation & Waring, 2020; Pigada & Schmitt, 2006; Rott, 1999; Waring & Takaki, 2003), but also their
overall English proficiency (Aka, 2019; Elley & Mangubhai, 1983). However, it takes time to see the effects of extensive
reading, as the process is said to be slow, fragile, and haphazard (Grabe, 2009; Kanatani, Nagata, Kimura, & Minai, 1991;
Nation, 2013; Pigada & Schmitt, 2006). Such factors may make it difficult for educators to implement extensive reading,
especially in English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts where teachers are often bound by government course guidelines

E-mail address: natsuki@okiu.ac.jp.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102250
0346-251X/© 2020 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.
0/).
2 N. Aka / System 91 (2020) 102250

and limited instructional hours (Chang & Renandya, 2017; Macalister, 2010; Robb, 2002). According to the questionnaire
survey conducted by Chang and Renandya (2017), EFL teachers in Asia believe that providing constant exposure to
comprehensible input is a good practice for improving learners’ reading fluency skills; however, only a few teachers
implement this in their curriculum.
The present study examines whether learners can learn one grammatical feature incidentally through repeated en-
counters of the same target grammar structure in reading passages. The reason for focusing on a single grammatical feature is
that there are few studies that have examined the incidental learning of one grammatical feature (Lee, Schallert, & Kim, 2015;
Shintani & Ellis, 2010; Song & Sardegna, 2014) as compared to incidental vocabulary learning (Brown, Waring, &
Donkaewbua, 2008; Pigada & Schmitt, 2006; Rott, 1999; Waring & Takaki, 2003; Webb & Chang, 2015). Additionally,
investigating the process of learning a specific grammar item through reading enables us to answer the following questions:
Are learners able to improve their grammatical knowledge incidentally, as can be done with incidental vocabulary learning? If
so, how many encounters are needed to affect the development of learners’ grammatical knowledge? Answering these
questions is the main purpose of this study. It also provides information that may be beneficial for language teachers,
especially in EFL or ESL settings.

2. Literature review

Research on incidental learning has shown that learners can develop their linguistic abilities in an incremental way
through constant exposure to comprehensible input (Horst & Meara, 1999; Pigada & Schmitt, 2006). One of the known
incidental learning methods is extensive reading, which has received attention as an effective method to facilitate learners’
language development. During extensive reading, the learners’ primary focus is not on intentionally learning L2 linguistic
features but on comprehension. Nevertheless, learners exhibit incidental gains in vocabulary development (Pigada & Schmitt,
2006; Rott, 1999; Waring & Takaki, 2003), reading speed and comprehension skills (Beglar et al., 2012; Beglar & Hunt, 2014;
Bell, 2001; McLean & Rouault, 2017; Suk, 2017), and grammatical competence (Elley & Mangubhai, 1983; Song & Sardegna,
2014) as by-products of extensive reading. The consensus of these studies is that learners’ linguistic knowledge develops
through receiving a large quantity of input within their linguistic abilities, even though their focus is mainly on
comprehension.
As indicated earlier, while incidental learning from extensive reading is effective, but researchers have also pointed out
that the effects of extensive reading are slow to appear and transfer to learners’ English proficiency (Grabe, 2009; Grabe &
Stoller, 2002; Nation, 2013; Pigada & Schmitt, 2006; Yamashita, 2008). For instance, Yamashita (2008) examined the ef-
fects of extensive reading on general reading ability and lower-level linguistic ability. The results showed that the effects of
extensive reading transferred quickly to general reading ability, but more slowly to linguistic ability. Based on this finding,
Yamashita concludes that linguistic forms may not be salient enough to capture learners’ attention. This also provides evi-
dence that it is difficult to see the benefits of extensive reading in a relatively short period of time.
While admitting that the process of extensive reading is slow, fragile, and haphazard compared to intentional vocabulary
learning (Horst, Cobb, & Meara, 1998; Nation, 2013), researchers have pointed out that many words cannot be learned solely
by means of explicit vocabulary instruction; rather, most words are learned in an incremental way through repeated en-
counters during extensive reading (Hulstijn, 2001; Krashen, 1989; Rott, 1999). Learners’ partial knowledge slowly but surely
improves through repeated exposure to i minus 1 reading materials (Day & Bamford, 1998), which strengthen learners’ form-
meaning connections and likewise increase their sight vocabulary. The important point is that learners need to keep reading
and encountering the partially-learned words to sufficiently reinforce them to be acquired (Nation, 2013; Nation & Waring,
2020). Time also plays an important factor for words to be acquired (Webb & Nation, 2017). If learners do not encounter target
words for a long period of time, the knowledge usually cannot be retained.
During extensive reading, learners receive a large amount of input within the range of their linguistic abilities, but do not
absorb all the data. According to Schmidt (1994), the incidental learning of linguistic forms can take place under any of the
following conditions:

(a) When the primary task requires that attention be allocated to language form;
(b) When the primary task does not deplete attentional resources and something about the relevant structure attracts a
learner’s attention; and/or
(c) When the primary task does not deplete all attentional resources, but unattended form nevertheless enters long-term
memory (p. 17).

Gass (1988) pointed out that only noticed information by learners will be acquired. Gass also mentioned that four factors
influence learners’ noticed input: (1) frequency, (2) affect, (3) association and prior knowledge, and (4) attention. These
factors integrate with each other and contribute more to learners’ apperceived input than individual factors alone. Among
these factors, frequency is essential (Gass, 1988; Hulstijn, 2003; Rott, 1999).
Research on incidental vocabulary learning suggest that when learners repeatedly receive the same vocabulary in reading
passages, they gradually acquire the target vocabulary (Pigada & Schmitt, 2006; Rott, 1999; Waring & Takaki, 2003; Webb,
2007). Rott (1999) investigated the effects of frequency and showed that two or four encounters of target words resulted
 N. Aka / System 91 (2020) 102250 3

in similar word gain, but six encounters yielded higher gains in vocabulary knowledge. Moreover, Webb (2007) verified the
effects of vocabulary repetition, demonstrating that learners need to encounter target words more than 10 times in context,
while the results of Waring and Takaki (2003) showed that target words must be encountered over 20 times for learners to
acquire them. Other similar studies have reported inconsistent findings concerning the required number of repetitions for
new vocabulary acquisitiondfrom six to over 20 encounters. Zahar, Cobb, and Spada (2001) acknowledged that frequency is
key to acquiring vocabulary, but is also related to learners’ English proficiency level. Rott (1999) also pointed out the
importance of learners’ ability to infer the meanings of target words based on their context. If there are sufficient contextual
clues surrounding target words, learners can guess the meaning of the words and acquire them more easily; otherwise, it is
difficult to infer their meaning (Webb, 2008).
There have been very few studies examining grammar acquisition through extensive reading (Nakanishi, 2015) as compared to
research on incidental vocabulary learning through extensive reading (Brown et al., 2008; Pigada & Schmitt, 2006; Rott, 1999;
Waring & Takaki, 2003; Webb & Chang, 2015). Nakanishi (2015) reported that the most frequently examined area of extensive
reading is its effects on reading comprehension, followed by reading speed and vocabulary acquisition, while grammar acquisition
through extensive reading is the least-studied area among them all. While some studies showed improvement in overall
grammatical competence through extensive reading (Elley & Mangubhai, 1983), almost none have focused on the acquisition of a
specific grammatical feature. Since these studies did not reveal the type of grammatical items learners encountered nor their
frequency, it remains unclear whether increasing the number of the same grammatical features in the written input enhances
learners’ grammatical knowledge. If frequency affects the incidental learning of grammatical features, the question is whether the
number of necessary encounters is similar to that of incidental vocabulary learning or whether more encounters are necessary for
acquisition. Research on the development of grammar knowledge may give us clues concerning the process of its acquisition. To
the best of the author’s knowledge, however, there is only one study (Song & Sardegna, 2014) investigating incidental grammar
acquisition with a specific focusdthe use of English prepositions.
Song and Sardegna (2014) examined the incidental acquisition of prepositions among 24 Korean EFL students aged 15e16
years over the course of one semester. There were two groups of participants in this study: (1) a control group that received
only regular instruction and (2) an experimental group that received regular instruction plus two classes of enhanced
extensive reading instruction (EERI) in an after-school program, which employed various output activities after extensive
reading (60 min of extensive reading and 30 min of output activities). Learning gain was measured by means of pre- and post-
achievement tests on prepositions consisting of three sections: section 1 (notice), section 2 (notice and know), and section 3
(notice and produce). The results of the experimental group (n ¼ 12) showed greater gains in all sections. However, the scores
obtained by the participants receiving solely regular instruction (n ¼ 12) only exhibited small gains in section 1 and no
improvement in sections 2 or 3. The findings indicated that frequent exposure to prepositions in a variety of contexts, as well
as participation in 30-min output activities, facilitated the learners’ acquisition of the target grammatical feature.
However, there were several methodological limitations in their study. First, it may be difficult to generalize to the larger
population of EFL learners due to the small number of experimental participants in the after-school program. Second, it
remains uncertain to what extent the result was because of extensive reading, as the EERI included output activities that may
have facilitated the acquisition of prepositions. Furthermore, Song and Sardegna (2014) did not provide the number and type
of prepositions the participants encountered during the treatment period. The information regarding how much learners had
read would be a great educational implication since it takes time to see the effects of extensive reading on learners’ English
proficiency.
Given this current background, it is important to increase the number of studies focusing on the development of one
specific grammatical item for two reasons. First, examining the learning process of a grammatical item would reveal if
learners are able to learn a grammar rule incidentally by reading and, if so, how many meetings are necessary to learn it. Ellis
(1993) suggested the importance of consciousness-raising activities that induce learners to notice and understand the
grammar rules in the input. Increasing the number of the same grammatical exemplars in reading passages would help
learners notice the use of a grammatical item, which would also lead them to confirm partially learned structures more
accurately (Ellis, 1999). Second, it is still unknown whether incidental learning of grammatical features is more difficult than
incidental learning of vocabulary items and whether the frequency of exposure is an important factor in boosting their
grammatical knowledge. Answering these questions would provide useful educational implications for language teachers.
Based on research conducted so far, the present study thus investigated the following research questions:

RQ1: Will learners be able to learn a specific grammatical feature incidentally by reading?
RQ2: Does language proficiency affect the acquisition of a target grammatical form?

3. Materials and method

3.1. Participants

A total of 157 Kosen students aged 15e16 years participated in this study. A Kosen is a specialized institution for early
engineering education in Japan, with a five-year educational program that is equivalent to a combination of high school and
4 N. Aka / System 91 (2020) 102250

junior college. The participants in this study were all first-year students at a Kosen, which is the equivalent of high school
freshmen. A Basic Assessment of Communicative English (BACE) test was assigned to the participants to check their English
proficiency levels. This test was developed by the English Language Proficiency Assessment (ELPA) institute. The participants
scored on average of 177 on the BACE test. When this is converted to Common European Framework of Reference for Lan-
guages (CEFR), their average English proficiency level is considered to be at the A1 level. These types of students are not
motivated to learn English (Nishizawa, Yoshioka, & Itoh, 2010) since they do not have to take university entrance exams like
other high school students. Generally, Japanese high school learners’ motivation to learn English is mostly to pass entrance
examinations (Koizumi & Matsuo, 1993; Takase, 2007); therefore, this can mean a further disincentive to learning English.
The students had three 90-min English classes once a week for seven weeks during the treatment period of this study: one
intensive reading class, one listening class, and one extensive reading class. The researcher taught all the participants in the
extensive reading class where this study was conducted. Two other English teachers taught the other two classes following
the same syllabus and using the same textbooks. As all participants took the same afore mentioned English classes, the
amount of English input the participants received was almost identical. Furthermore, the textbooks the participants used
during the treatment were also checked to confirm that there were no chapters dealing with to-infinitives. Therefore, the
researcher considered both groups of participants as identical.
The extensive reading class was conducted in the school library, where 3000 graded readers were available to students. In
the first half of the extensive reading class, the participants were encouraged to choose and read graded readers within their
linguistic ability according to their interests. In the second half of the extensive reading class, students were assigned to read
and answer questions on reading passages that the researcher had given them.
Four classes were randomly assigned either to a control group (n ¼ 74) or to an experimental group (n ¼ 83), to investigate
whether the participants in the experimental group would be better able to learn a specific grammar item through reading
controlled passages. The participants in the experimental group read five passages consisting of 40 sentences in total con-
taining a specific grammatical feature, to-infinitives used as nouns, whereas the participants in the control group read the
same number of reading passages but with only 10 sentences of to-infinitives used as nouns. The difference between the two
groups was the number of encounters that the target grammatical feature appeared in the reading passages.

3.2. Experimental materials

The present study employed a grammar test and 10 reading passages as experimental materials. Details about the
experimental materials and treatment procedure are provided in the following subsections below.

3.2.1. Grammar test

This study employed to-infinitives used as nouns as the target grammatical item. The test was developed by the author
based on what the participants had already learned in junior high school (Appendix). The grammar test consisted of two
sections as measures of acquisition of to-infinitives used as nouns (see Table 1 and Appendix). The first section measured
whether learners “notice” the appropriate grammatical form and fill in the correct choice. The second section is more
challenging because learners should not only “notice” the use of to-infinitives used as nouns, but also “manipulate” the
appropriate combination of words to form a correct sentence. Therefore, section 1 was labelled as “notice” and section 2 as
“notice and manipulate (N&M).” The use of two sections enabled the gradual progress of the learners’ grammatical acqui-
sition to be ascertained. Each section of the test comprised 30 question items: 10 to-infinitives used as nouns and 20 other
grammatical items (Table 1). The reason for the inclusion of a variety of grammar items is that the grammar test was used as
an indication of the learners’ overall grammatical knowledge. These items also function as distractors to prevent the learners
from noticing what was being measured before the treatment. The same grammar test was used before and after the
treatment; when conducting the post-test, the items within each section were shuffled to prevent the participants from
realizing that the two tests were practically the same.
The reliability of the overall grammar test (60 items) was calculated using SPSS and found to have a Cronbach’s alpha of
0.77. The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients for sections 1 and 2 were 0.49 and 0.54, respectively. These mediocre figures
were likely due to the small number of test items (10 items in each section). Therefore, the Spearman-Brown prophecy
formula for 30 items was applied to sections 1 and 2 to defend a low reliability coefficient. Since the original test had 10 test
items and 20 distractors in each section, the reliability was calculated including 20 test items instead of 20 distractors using
the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula (Table 1). Hence, distractors were considered as test items. If the above formula was
applied to each section of the test, Cronbach’s alpha estimated was found to be 0.74 and 0.78, respectively.

Table 1
Number of infinitives and distractors in the Grammar Test.

Notice Notice and manipulate Total

Infinitives 10 10 20
Distractors 20 20 40
Total 30 30 60

Note. “Infinitives” indicates the number of infinitives used as nouns.

 N. Aka / System 91 (2020) 102250 5

3.2.2. Target grammar items

To-infinitives used as nouns were the target grammar items in this study. The following sentences are all examples of to-
infinitives used as nouns employed in the experimental materials:

1. To sing this song is difficult.

2. He decided to go camping.
3. Mike’s hope is to become a doctor.
4. I want to study Japanese history.
5. It is dangerous to swim in the river.

There are several reasons why to-infinitives used as nouns were tested as the target grammar items. First, this grammar
item is frequently found in the reading materials used in the course. The participants had been taught three kinds of to-
infinitives in junior high school: (1) to-infinitives used as nouns (e.g., He likes to play soccer), (2) to-infinitives used as ad-
jectives (e.g., She has something to drink), and (3) to-infinitives used as adverbs (e.g., I was surprised to hear the news).
However, the reading materials used in this study included more to-infinitives used as nouns than the other uses of to-
infinitives. Considering that the reading materials contained many to-infinitives used as nouns, this grammatical feature is
one of the most meaningful grammatical items learners need to acquire for reading comprehension.
Another reason why the researcher chose the partially-learned item as target grammar was that the learners need to
become more familiar with its use while reading. In addition to three types of to-infinitives, the participants in this study were
also taught other uses of to, for instance, to as a preposition and to as a part of idioms. Hence, it is possible that some of the
learners still struggled to determine the meaning of to while reading, even though they were explicitly taught its different
forms in junior high school. To understand the variety of usages of to at the comprehension level, learners need to meet the
target item in different contexts through reading. Repeated encounters may incrementally enhance their grammar knowl-
edge. Therefore, the study selected to-infinitives used as nouns as a target grammatical item.

3.2.3. Reading materials

The present study adopted 10 passages from Reading for Speed and Fluency (1 and 2) by Nation and Malarcher (2007a,
2007b) for the experiment (Tables 2 and 3). They are made up of five pairs of passages from the five same categories. Each
passage consists of approximately 300 running words, followed by five multiple-choice comprehension questions. Each
question has three options, testing learners’ global understanding rather than an understanding of detailed information. For
more detailed text analysis, RANGE was used (Nation & Heatley, 2002), the results of which showed that each passage
contained high-frequency vocabulary, mostly from the first 1000-word list (see Tables 2 and 3). The experimental group read
five passages consisting of a total of 40 sentences with to-infinitives used as nouns, whereas the control group read the same
number of reading passages, but with only 10 sentences containing to-infinitives used as nouns (see Tables 2 and 3).

3.3. Procedure

As shown in Table 4, the present study was conducted over seven weeks during the first semester. On the first day, the
participants took a grammar test as a pre-test. From Week 2 onwards, they were given one passage each week for five weeks
(Table 4). At Week 7, one week after the last treatment, the participants took the same grammar test as a post-test, but with
the questions in a different order.

4. Results

4.1. Research question 1

Table 5 presents the results of the descriptive statistics for the experimental and the control groups, respectively. A mixed
between- and within-subjects repeated-measures ANOVA was performed to compare the grammar test results of both

Table 2
Results of the text analysis for the experimental group.

Title 1. Cats and Dogs 2. Learning to Play Music 3. Step by Step Learning 4. Marketing 5. Cars in America

tokens/% tokens/% tokens/% tokens/% tokens/%

1000 273/91.9 262/87.3 288/97.0 287/96.3 275/92.6
2000 16/5.4 19/6.3 9/3.0 6/2.0 7/2.4
3000 1/0.3 1/0.3 0/0.0 1/0.3 0/0.0
Not in the list 7/2.4 18/6.0 0/0.0 4/1.3 15/5.1
Word count 297 300 297 298 297
Infinitives 8 7 10 9 6

Note. “Infinitives” indicates the number of infinitives used as nouns.

6 N. Aka / System 91 (2020) 102250

Table 3
Results of the text analysis for the control group.

Title 1. Penguins 2. Everybody Loves Music 3. Learning and Unlearning Fear 4. Making Money 5. History of Flight

tokens/% tokens/% tokens/% tokens/% tokens/%

1000 249/81.9 265/88.0 261/87.9 266/91.1 260/87.5
2000 31/10.2 4/1.3 19/6.4 13/4.5 20/6.7
3000 2/0.7 2/0.7 2/0.7 7/2.4 2/0.7
Not in the list 22/7.2 30/10.0 15/5.1 6/2.1 15/5.1
Word count 304 301 297 292 297
Infinitives 1 2 3 2 2

Note. “Infinitives” indicates the number of infinitives used as nouns.

Table 4
Summary of the treatment procedure.

Experimental Group Control Group

Week 1 Pre-test Pre-test
Week 2 1. Cats and Dogs 1. Penguins
Week 3 2. Learning to Play Music 2. Everybody Loves Music
Week 4 3. Step by Step Learning 3. Learning and Unlearning Fear
Week 5 4. Marketing 4. Making Money
Week 6 5. Cars in America 5. History of Flight
Week 7 Post-test Post-test

sections 1 and 2 (see Tables 6 and 7). As shown in Table 6, for the “notice” section, only the main effect of time was statistically
significant with a small effect size (F (1, 155) ¼ 4.87, p < .05, eta squared ¼ 0.03). All others were insignificant (see details in
Tables 6 and 7). Since only time for the “notice” section was reported as significant (Table 6), a paired t-test was conducted to
explore which group of participants had a statistically significant score gain from pre-test to post-test. As shown in Table 5,
there was a statistically significant difference between the pre- and post-test scores of the experimental group for the “notice”
section (t (73) ¼ -2.25, p < .05, d ¼ 0.29), but not for the control group (t (82) ¼ -0.90, p > .05, d ¼ 0.12). This result indicated
that the experimental group benefitted from the treatment only at the “notice” and not at the “notice and manipulate (N&M)”
level.

4.2. Research question 2

To answer research question 2, the participants in both groups were divided into three different proficiency groups: high,
medium, and low (Table 8). The three groups were defined based on the overall grammar test scores (60 points), using the
following formula: mean scores ± 0.5 x 1SD (Mean scores ¼ 47.25, SD ¼ 5.67 were applied to this formula). The results of a
one-way ANOVA for the overall grammar test confirmed that the three proficiency groups in both the experimental and
control groups were statistically different (F (2, 71) ¼ 141.14, p < .00; F (2, 80) ¼ 167.43, p < .00 respectively). A post-hoc Tukey
test also showed statistical differences between each pair of the three groups on the grammar test, with a significance level of
5%. These results allowed the subsequent comparison of each group.
Tables 9 and 10 show the results of the descriptive statistics of the experimental and the control groups based on the
different proficiency groups respectively (Figs. 1 and 2). A mixed between- and within-subjects repeated-measures ANOVA
was performed to determine the effects of the treatment (see Tables 11 and 14). Regarding the “notice” section, Table 11 shows
that the main effect of time was statistically significant (F (1, 71) ¼ 7.46, p < .01, eta squared ¼ 0.10). Additionally, as described
in Table 12, there was a significant interaction between time and level for the “notice” section (F (2, 71) ¼ 3.49, p < .04, eta

Table 5
Descriptive Statistics and t-test Results for the Pre- and Post-Test Scores of the Experimental and Control Groups.

Pre-test (SD) Post-test (SD) t df p Cohen’s d

Experimental Group (n ¼ 74)
Notice 7.89 (1.65) 8.36 (1.70) 2.25 73 0.03* 0.29
N&M 7.69 (1.58) 7.69 (1.73) 0.00 73 1.00 1.00

Control Group (n ¼ 83)

Notice 7.66 (1.72) 7.86 (1.95) 0.90 82 0.37 0.12
N&M 7.66 (1.50) 7.51 (1.80) 1.12 82 0.27 0.10

Note. *p < .05. For Cohen’s d, an effect size of 0.2e0.3 is considered a small effect, around 0.5 a medium effect, and 0.8 and above a large effect. N&M indicates
“notice and manipulate”.
 N. Aka / System 91 (2020) 102250 7

Table 6
Summary of the repeated measures ANOVA of the notice section.

Source SS df MS F Sig. h2
Within-subjects effect
Time 8.67 1 8.67 4.87 0.03* 0.03
Time * group 1.54 1 1.54 0.86 0.35 0.01
Error (time) 275.68 155 1.78

Between-subjects effect
Group 10.67 1 10.67 2.40 0.12 0.02
Error (time) 689.42 155 4.45

Note. *p < .05.

squared ¼ 0.09). These results implied that the scores of the “notice” section changed over time between the pre- and post-
tests within subjects, but the three groups improved differently.
In the next step, a paired t-test was conducted within the experimental group to explore which group’s scores improved
from pre-test to post-test (Table 12). As illustrated in Table 12, there was a statistically significant improvement between the
pre- and post-test scores of the low-proficiency group for the “notice” section and the effect size (Cohen’s d) was medium (t
(18) ¼ -3.06, p < .05, d ¼ 0.58), but not for the high- and medium-proficiency groups (t (26) ¼ -0.14, p > .05, d ¼ 0.02; t (27) ¼ -
0.79, p > .05, d ¼ 0.13, respectively). On the other hand, as described in Table 13, a paired t-test result for the control group
confirmed that none of the three proficiency groups improved significantly (t (32) ¼ -0.50, p > .05, d ¼ 0.10; t (23) ¼ 0.00,
p > .05, d ¼ 0.09; t (25) ¼ -0.89, p > .05, d ¼ 0.34).
Subsequently, the “N&M” section was examined based on proficiency groups. As shown in Table 14, the main effect of time
for the “N&M” was not statistically significant (F (2, 71) ¼ 0.00, p > .05, eta squared ¼ 0.00) and no interaction effect was found
between time and group (F (2, 71) ¼ 0.03, p > .05, eta squared ¼ 0.00). Since all the results were insignificant, a further
comparison was not conducted for the “N&M” section.

5. Discussion

5.1. Research question 1

Research question 1 asked whether learners would be able to learn grammatical knowledge by exposure to simple English.
The findings of this study support the view that learners can learn a specific grammatical item incidentally by reading. In the
“notice” section, the scores of the experimental group increased, whereas no improvement was found for the “notice and
manipulate (N&M)” level, which indicates that the improvement was limited to the “notice” level. The learning gains
observed in the “notice” section for the experimental group likely resulted from reading passages that included repeated
encounters of the target grammar item. Since there was no difference between the two groups of participants’ instruction and
materials during the whole study, except for the five reading passages used in the treatment, the result was assumed to be
closely related to the effects of the five-week study.
The results of this study indicate that repeated encounters with the same target grammar gradually enhanced learners’
grammatical knowledge. In the present study, the participants in the experimental group encountered 40 sentences with to-
infinitives used as nouns, whereas the participants in the control group received only 10 sentences containing to-infinitives
used as nouns. The encounter rate, that is, how frequently the participants encountered the target grammar in the reading
passages, was also calculated. The parts constituting, to þ the base form of a verb (e.g., to go, to study, and to sing), which is a set
of to-infinitives used as nouns, were counted as one word in the reading passages. The participants in the experimental group
encountered one to-infinitive used as a noun once every 37 running words, which can be assumed to have helped them notice
the target grammatical form, ultimately improving their grammatical knowledge. On the other hand, the participants in the
control group encountered a to-infinitive used as a noun only once every 149 running words. We can surmise that these
encounters were insufficient for the learners to notice and learn the grammatical item incidentally. From this perspective,
repeated encounters through reading passages are effective in helping learners notice a target grammar rule.
The findings are consistent with the results of previous research on incidental vocabulary learning through reading,
specifically that frequency of exposure affects learners’ vocabulary knowledge. It is assumed that learners can also reinforce
grammar items that are explicitly taught, but not completely acquire them incidentally by reading. According to previous
research on incidental vocabulary acquisition, frequency of exposure affects learners’ vocabulary acquisition. The number of
required encounters in the literature ranges from six to 20 times (Rott, 1999; Waring & Takaki, 2003; Webb, 2007); thus,
learners can successfully acquire the meanings of new words incidentally by reading. Regarding grammar acquisition, the
findings of the present study revealed that 40 encounters enabled learners to notice the grammatical item and learned more
about it incrementally. However, 10 encounters of the same grammatical form did not affect learners’ grammatical knowl-
edge. Considering that the grammar test scores for the control group did not improve after the intervention of 10 encounters
even at the “notice” level, it could also be said that learning grammatical rules incidentally through reading is more chal-
lenging than learning vocabulary. There are several explanations for this. As explained in Section 3.2.2, the learners were
8 N. Aka / System 91 (2020) 102250

Table 7
Summary of the repeated measures ANOVA of the notice and manipulate section.

Source SS df MS F Sig. h2
Within-subjects effect
Time 0.48 1 0.48 0.57 0.45 0.00
Time * group 0.48 1 0.48 0.57 0.45
Error (time) 130.48 155 0.84

Between-subjects effect
Group 0.86 1 0.86 0.19 0.67 0.00
Error (time) 720.52 155 4.65

Note. *p < .05.

Table 8
Descriptive statistics of the overall grammar test scores for high-, medium-, and low-proficiency groups.

Proficiency Experimental Group Proficiency Control Group

M (SD) Min Max M (SD) Min Max

High (n ¼ 27) 52.62 (2.18) 50 57 High (n ¼ 33) 52.70 (2.19) 50 58
Medium (n ¼ 28) 47.29 (1.51) 45 49 Medium (n ¼ 24) 46.75 (1.48) 45 49
Low (n ¼ 19) 40.07 (3.71) 31 44 Low (n ¼ 26) 39.92 (3.70) 30 44

taught many usages of to in junior high school. For example, in I go to school, to is categorized as a preposition, and learners
were instructed to place a noun after to. Another example is the sentence he looks forward to seeing her, which students usually
learn as an example of an English idiom. Moreover, the learners had also been taught to-infinitives used as adjectives and
adverbs, in addition to to-infinitives used as nouns. Such wide variety of usages of to may confuse learners when noticing and
constructing the forms.
The present study revealed that the improvement was limited to the “notice” section. Both groups’ pre- and post-test
scores of the “notice and manipulate (N&M)” section did not increase significantly. One explanation for this may be that
the participants had enough knowledge of the target grammar item to enjoy reading the passages as they already scored over
70 percent on the pre-test of the “N&M” section. Another possibility is that it may be difficult for learners to enhance their
grammar knowledge at the “N&M” level by reading incidentally. In other words, it may not be easy to learn grammar rules
accurately by reading incidentally. If so, it could be argued that different approaches other than repetitionsdfor example, an
explicit explanation, an output activity, or an interactiondwould be necessary to help them acquire the use of the target
grammar item at the “N&M” level. In the next section, the analysis will involve dividing the participants into different
proficiency groups. This might reveal more clear implications for this study.

5.2. Research question 2

For research question 2, the learning gains between pre- and post-test scores of three proficiency groups were investigated
to see which group of participants improved their grammatical knowledge the most. There was a statistically significant
difference between the pre- and post-test scores of the experimental group’s low-proficiency group for the “notice” section,
but not for the high- and medium-proficiency groups. Moreover, no improvements were found between the pre-and post-test
scores for the “N&M” section for all three proficiency groups, which implies that improvements were limited to the “notice”
level.
The findings of the study indicate that a low-proficiency group of learners could improve their ambiguous grammar
knowledge by reading within their linguistic abilities. In this study, they read approximately 1500 words in five reading
passages, but they unconsciously accumulated the knowledge of to-infinitives used as nouns by meeting them in a variety of
contexts. Their partially-learned grammar knowledge improved, but was limited to the “notice” level. In the current study, we
focused on only a single grammar item, to-infinitives used as nouns, for the sake of the experiment. Therefore, it is difficult to
generalize the findings from this study to other grammar items. The encounter rates to be noticed by learners may be different
depending on the complexity of grammatical items. Nevertheless, it could be said that continuous reading practices within
their linguistic abilities may likewise help learners notice other ambiguous grammar items scattered throughout reading
passages. This, in turn, contributes positively and incrementally to their partially-acquired grammar knowledge. Aka (2019)
also reported the improvement of the linguistic ability by a low-proficiency group, showing that the learning gains of that
group was higher than the other high- and medium-proficiency groups. This was in line with the present study, implying that
the repeated encounters within their linguistic ability facilitate the acquisition of learners’ partially-learned knowledge even
though their proficiency level is low.
As for the “N&M” section, however, none of the three proficiency groups’ knowledge increased statistically between the
pre-and post-tests. From this perspective, it could be assumed that the learners may not be able to enhance their grammar
 N. Aka / System 91 (2020) 102250 9

Table 9
Descriptive statistics of the notice and N&M scores for experimental group for the three proficiency groups.

Experimental Notice N&M

Group
Pre-test (SD) Post-test (SD) Pre-test (SD) Post-test (SD)
High (n ¼ 27) 8.93 (1.04) 8.96 (1.16) 8.89 (0.89) 8.85 (0.94)
Medium (n ¼ 28) 8.07 (1.33) 8.36 (1.81) 7.82 (0.98) 7.82 (1.44)
Low (n ¼ 19) 6.16 (1.42) 7.53 (1.90) 5.79 (1.27) 5.84 (1.42)

Table 10
Descriptive statistics of the control group for the three proficiency groups.

Control Notice N&M

Group
Pre-test (SD) Post-test (SD) Pre-test (SD) Post-test (SD)
High (n ¼ 33) 8.61 (0.98) 8.76 (1.74) 8.76 (0.85) 8.94 (1.13)
Medium (n ¼ 24) 8.08 (1.15) 8.08 (1.66) 7.42 (1.22) 7.08 (1.41)
Low (n ¼ 26) 6.08 (1.75) 6.50 (1.65) 6.50 (1.37) 6.08 (1.38)

Fig. 1. Comparison of the experimental group on the “notice” section.

knowledge with ease at the “N&M” level through repeated encounters by reading. As mentioned in Section 5.1, increasing
constant exposure to a target grammar item through reading is important, but approaches other than repetitions, such as an
output activity or an interaction, would be more effective in enhancing their more accurate grammar knowledge. This was
also supported by Yamashita (2008) that reading within their linguistic ability may not be as effective as explicit instructions
to improve learners’ linguistic knowledge.
In Japan, reading fluency activities are usually neglected, as high school teachers usually follow the government course
guidelines over limited hours of English classes. While learners in this study received comprehensible input only once per
week, it still reinforced learners’ grammar knowledge, especially those in the low-proficiency group. It is implicitly under-
stood that learning new grammar items and new vocabulary explicitly is important, but learners also need to reinforce what
they have learned through comprehensible input.
10 N. Aka / System 91 (2020) 102250

Fig. 2. Comparison of the control group on the “notice” section.

Table 11
Summary of the repeated measures ANOVA of the notice section for high-, medium-, and low-proficiency groups of the experimental group.

Source SS df MS F Sig. h2
Within-subjects effect
Time 11.41 1 11.41 7.46 0.01* 0.10
Time * level 10.67 2 5.34 3.49 0.04* 0.09
Error (time) 108.55 71 1.53

Between-subjects effect
Level 99.25 2 49.62 18.37 0.00 0.34
Error (time) 191.82 71 2.70

Note. *p < .05.

Table 12
Notice section T-Test results for the pre- and post-test scores of the experimental group.

Group Pre-test Post-test t df P Cohen’s d

High (n ¼ 27) 8.93 (1.04) 8.96 (1.16) -.14 26 0.89 .02
Medium (n ¼ 28) 8.07 (1.33) 8.36 (1.81) -.79 27 0.44 .13
Low (n ¼ 19) 6.16 (1.42) 7.53 (1.90) 3.06 18 0.01* .58

Note. *p < .05. For Cohen’s d, an effect size of 0.2e0.3 is considered a small effect, around 0.5 a medium effect, and 0.8 and above a large effect.

Table 13
Notice section T-Test results for the pre- and post-test scores of the control group.

Group Pre-test Post-test t df P Cohen’s d

High (n ¼ 33) 8.61 (0.98) 8.76 (1.74) -.50 32 .62 .10
Medium (n ¼ 24) 8.08 (1.15) 8.08 (1.66) .00 23 1.00 .00
Low (n ¼ 26) 6.08 (1.75) 6.50 (1.65) -.89 25 .38 .25

Note. *p < .05. For Cohen’s d, an effect size of 0.2e0.3 is considered a small effect, around 0.5 a medium effect, and 0.8 and above a large effect.
 N. Aka / System 91 (2020) 102250 11

Table 14
Summary of the repeated measures ANOVA of the notice section for high-, medium-, and low-proficiency groups of the control group.

Source SS df MS F Sig. h2
Within-subjects effect
Time 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.00
Time * level 0.05 2 0.02 0.03 0.98 0.00
Error (time) 63.96 71 0.90

Between-subjects effect
Level 209.69 2 104.84 58.15 0.00 0.62
Error (time) 128.02 71 1.80

Note. *p < .05.

6. Conclusion

The findings of this study revealed that repeated encounters of a target grammar item through reading over a short period
of time improved learners’ grammatical knowledge. They read one passage once per week, but continuous reading practices
within their linguistic abilities gradually reinforced understanding of the partially-learned grammatical item. The findings
also showed that incidental grammar learning is more complicated than incidental vocabulary learning. The study revealed
that learning a grammatical item consists not only of learning a grammar rule, but also understanding its usage through a
variety of sentences, including the target grammar item.
English teachers in Japan might recognize that constant exposure to English input is necessary for students to enhance
their English skills, but they are restricted in that they must follow the government course guidelines in their English classes.
However, as this study implies, reading one short passage once per week within learners’ linguistic abilities will still reinforce
the grammar item they have learned in their classroom. While this study focused on a particular grammar item, it is possible
that other grammar items scattered throughout reading passages may also be reinforced by reading.
However, there are several study limitations in this study. First, the study’s findings showed that 40 encounters of the
target form affected learners’ grammatical knowledge at the “notice” level, but testing of other grammar items and with
different proficiency groups might result in different outcomes. Another limitation is that a delayed posttest was not given to
the participants for educational and ethical reasons. The study was conducted in a high school EFL classroom; therefore, all
the learners were expected to receive identical instruction. After the treatment, both groups of learners read the materials
they had not read during the treatment; that is, the experimental group participants read the five reading passages corre-
sponding to the control group and vice versa. Therefore, it was impossible to conduct a delayed-post-test in this experiment.
Future research should further examine incidental grammar acquisition by revising the experimental design, for example, by
increasing the number of test items, creating a test that is more appropriate for the participants or employing another
grammar item. Discovering more about the mechanisms of incidental learning by reading with a focus on the acquisition of
another grammar item would make the results of this study more generalizable. Nevertheless, considering that there have
been few studies so far that cover incidental grammatical acquisition by reading, the present study still provides valuable
information for language teachers.

Funding

This study was supported by JSPS KAKENHI [grant number JP18K13188].

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr. Tadamitsu Kamimoto of Kumamoto Gakuen University for his insightful suggestions on this study.
His detailed advice helped improved not only the ideas in this article but also research method. I am also grateful to the
anonymous reviewers for their specific suggestions. Their precise comments also helped improved my research knowledge as
well.

Appendix. Grammar Test

Section 1 (notice): Choose one correct answer among the four choices.

1. John (1. and 2. but 3. or 4. because) I are good friends.

2. I want (1. study 2. studying 3. to studying 4. to study) Japanese history.
3. The woman (1. talking 2. talked 3. has talked 4. talks) with Kate is my mother.
4. He is looking forward (1. to see 2. seeing 3. to seeing 4. seen) you.
5. (1. Sing 2. To singing 3. To sing 4. The singing) this song is difficult.
12 N. Aka / System 91 (2020) 102250

6. My bag is (1. expensive 2. more expensive 3. expensiver 4. most expensive) than yours.
7. We found it hard (1. solving 2. to solving 3. to solve 4. solved) the problem.
8. This robot (1. is 2. are 3. am 4. to be) able to clean the room.
9. How about (1. play 2. playing 3. played 4. to play) beach volleyball?
10. I enjoyed (1. swim 2. swimming 3. to swim 4. swam) in the lake last Sunday.
11. (1. Save 2. To save 3. Saved 4. To saving) money is not easy.
12. She is collecting dolls (1. made 2. making 3. to make 4. make) in Japan.
13. We have never (1. be 2. been 3. being 4. to be) to Paris.
14. It is difficult (1. write 2. to writing 3. to write 4. wrote) a long letter in English.
15. I cannot understand (1. who 2. which 3. what 4. whose) you are saying.
16. I am (1. old 2. older 3. more old 4. oldest) than your sister.
17. He is good at (1. play 2. played 3. playing 4. to play) tennis.
18. Mike’s hope is (1. to become 2. becoming 3. become 4. became) a doctor.
19. Tom (1. is loving 2. is loved 3. love 4. loves) Jane, but she does not like him.
20. I (1. am finishing 2. finished 3. finish 4. was finishing) my homework yesterday.
21. It is dangerous (1. swim 2. to swimming 3. to swim 4. swam) in the river.
22. I found it interesting (1. studying 2. to studying 3. to study 4. studied) Chinese.
23. Thank you for (1. call 2. calling 3. called 4. to call) me.
24. Kate cannot run as (1. fast 2. faster 3. more faster 4. fastest) as Anne.
25. Look at the boy (1. who 2. which 3. what 4. whose) hair is long.
26. He decided (1. go 2. going 3. to go 4. gone) camping.
27. She has (1. visiting 2. visited 3. visit 4. to visit) the town once.
28. He did not like (1. play 2. to play 3. plays 4. played) soccer.
29. Look at the picture (1. painting 2. painted 3. paint 4. was painted) by Tom.
30. I received a letter (1. writing 2. written 3. wrote 4. write) in English from Cathy.

Section 2 (notice and manipulate): Rearrange the words into the correct order.

1. How (you/do/name/your/spell)?
2. Please (on/put/picture/this) the wall.
3. His (to/dream/is/be) a movie star in Hollywood.
4. Are (buy/you/to/going/clothes) today?
5. (he/us/some/showed) pictures.
6. (is/book/on/there/a) the table.
7. (want/study/English/I/to).
8. Her wish (the girl/is/meet/to) again someday.
9. I (during/summer/my aunt/visited/the) vacation.
10. (New York/for/left/they) this afternoon.
11. Mrs. Smith’s hobby (to/flowers/grow/is) in the garden.
12. (nine/begins/school/in/at) the morning.
13. (wait/we/for/should/him) until noon.
14. (catch/you/many/can/fish/in) this lake?
15. (to/is/study/it/important) English every day.
16. My (has/come/brother/just/home).
17. (my/soccer/favorite/is) sport.
18. I (who/have/son/a/is) a scientist.
19. (to/the/in/sea/swim) is sometimes dangerous.
20. Math (more/English/difficult/is/than) for me.
21. (the moon/go/to/to/was) our dream for a long time.
22. (most/is/the/she/famous/singer) in this country.
23. (pictures/these/taken/were) in Paris.
24. My (the garden/to/is/clean/job).
25. (this/the movie/which/is/won) the prize.
26. Are you (take/a/going/to/bus) to the airport tomorrow?
27. Did (that TV show/you/last night/see) ?
28. I (easy/answer/found/it/to/the question).
29. (eat/shall/lunch/we) together?
30. Mr. King (drink/likes/coffee/to).
 N. Aka / System 91 (2020) 102250 13

References

Aka, N. (2019). Reading performance of Japanese high school learners following a one-year extensive reading program. Reading in a Foreign Language, 31,
1e18.
Beglar, D., & Hunt, A. (2014). Pleasure reading and reading rate gains. Reading in a Foreign Language, 26, 29e48.
Beglar, D., Hunt, A., & Kite, Y. (2012). The effect of pleasure reading on Japanese University EFL learners’ reading rates. Language Learning, 62, 665e703.
https://doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00651.x.
Bell, T. (2001). Extensive reading: Speed and comprehension. The Reading Matrix, 1(1). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi¼10.1.1.466.
3793&amp;rep¼rep1&amp;type¼pdf.
Brown, R., Waring, R., & Donkaewbua, R. (2008). Incidental vocabulary acquisition from reading, reading-while-listening, and listening to stories. Reading in
a Foreign Language, 20, 136e163.
Chang, A. C.-S. (2012). Improving reading rate activities for EFL students: Timed reading and repeated oral reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 24, 56e83.
Chang, A. C.-S., & Millett, S. (2017). Narrow reading: Effects on EFL learners’ reading speed, comprehension, and perceptions. Reading in a Foreign Language,
29, 1e19.
Chang, A. C.-S., & Renandya, W. A. (2017). Current practice of extensive reading in Asia: Teachers’ perceptions. The Reading Matrix, 17, 40e58.
Day, R. R., & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive reading in the second language classroom. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Elley, W. B., & Mangubhai, F. (1983). The impact of reading on second language learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 53e67. https://doi.org/10.2307/
747337.
Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and second language acquisition. Tesol Quarterly, 27, 91e113. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586953.
Ellis, R. (1999). Input-based approaches to teaching grammar: A review of classroom-oriented research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 64e80.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190599190044.
Gass, S. M. (1988). Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics, 9, 198e217. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/9.2.
198.
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Grabe, W. (2010). Fluency in readingeThirty-five years later. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(1), 71e83.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. London: Pearson Education Longman.
Horst, M., Cobb, T., & Meara, P. (1998). Beyond a clockwork orange: Acquiring second language vocabulary through reading. Reading in a Foreign Language,
11, 207e223.
Horst, M., & Meara, P. (1999). Test of a model for predicting second language lexical growth through reading. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56,
308e328. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.56.2.308.
Hulstijn, J. H. (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. 258e286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2003). Incidental and intentional learning. In C. J. Doughty, & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 349e381).
Oxford: Blackwell.
Kanatani, K. (2008). Eigo kyouiku netu kanetu sinri wo jousiki de samasu [English education fever: Removing overheating rumors by indubitable truth]. Tokyo,
Japan: Kenkyusha.
Kanatani, K., Nagata, M., Kimura, T., & Minai, Y. (1991). Koukou ni okeru tadoku puroguramu [Extensive reading program in senior high school]. KATE
Bulletin, 5, 19e26.
Koizumi, R., & Matsuo, K. (1993). A longitudinal study of attitudes and motivation in learning English among Japanese seventh-grade students. Japanese
Psychological Research, 35(1), 1e11.
Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 440e464.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb05325.x.
Lee, J., Schallert, D. L., & Kim, E. (2015). Effects of extensive reading and translation activities on grammar knowledge and attitudes for EFL adolescents.
System, 52, 38e50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.04.016.
Macalister, J. (2010). Investigating teacher attitudes to reading practices in higher education: Why isn’t everyone doing it? RELC Journal, 41, 59e75. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0033688210362609.
McLean, S., & Rouault, G. (2017). The effectiveness and efficiency of extensive reading at developing reading rates. System, 70, 92e106. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.system.2017.09.003.
Nakanishi, T. (2015). A meta-analysis of extensive reading research. Tesol Quarterly, 49, 6e37. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.157.
Nation, I. S. P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nation, I. S. P., & Heatley, A. (2002). Range: A program for the analysis of vocabulary in texts [software] https://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/about/staff/paul-
nation.
Nation, I. S. P., & Malarcher, C. (2007). Reading for speed and fluency 1. Seoul, Korea: Compass Publishing.
Nation, I. S. P., & Malarcher, C. (2007). Reading for speed and fluency 2. Seoul, Korea: Compass Publishing.
Nation, I. S. P., & Waring, R. (2020). Teaching extensive reading in another language. New York: Routledge.
Nishizawa, H., Yoshioka, T., & Itoh, K. (2010). Kougyoukei gakusei no nigate isiki wo kokuhuku si jiritu gakushuu e michibiku eigo tadoku jugyou [An
extensive reading program that changes reluctant engineering students into autonomous learners of English]. Journal of JSEE, 58, 12e17. https://doi.org/
10.1541/ieejfms.126.556.
Pigada, M., & Schmitt, N. (2006). Vocabulary acquisition from extensive reading: A case study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 18, 1e28.
Robb, T. (2002). Extensive reading in an Asia context - an alternative view. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14, 146e147.
Rott, S. (1999). The effect of exposure frequency on intermediate language learners’ incidental vocabulary acquisition and retention through reading. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 589e619. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199004039.
Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness: In search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11e26. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.
152.
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2010). The incidental acquisition of English plural -s by Japanese children in comprehension-based and production-based lessons.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 607e637. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311000028.
Song, J., & Sardegna, V. G. (2014). EFL learners’ incidental acquisition of English prepositions through enhanced extensive reading instruction. RELC Journal,
45, 67e84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688214522623.
Suk, N. (2017). The effects of extensive reading on reading comprehension, reading rate, and vocabulary acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 52, 73e89.
https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.152.
Taguchi, E., & Gorsuch, G. J. (2002). Transfer effects of repeated EFL reading on reading new passages: A preliminary investigation. Reading in a Foreign
Language, 14, 43e65.
Takase, A. (2007). Japanese high school students’ motivation for extensive L2 reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 19(1), 1e18.
Takase, A. (2010). Eigo tadoku tachou sidou manyuaru [Manual of instruction in English extensive reading and extensive listening]. Tokyo, Japan: Taishuukan.
Teng, F. (2018). Incidental vocabulary acquisition from reading-only and reading-while-listening: A multidimensional approach. Innovation in Language
Learning and Teaching, 12, 274e288. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2016.1203328.
Waring, R., & Takaki, M. (2003). At what rate do learners learn and retain new vocabulary from reading a graded reader? Reading in a Foreign Language, 15,
130e163.
Webb, S. (2007). The effects of repetition on vocabulary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 28, 46e65. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/am1048.
14 N. Aka / System 91 (2020) 102250

Webb, S. (2008). The effects of context on incidental vocabulary learning. Reading in a Foreign Language, 20, 232e245.
Webb, S., & Chang, A. C.-S. (2012). Vocabulary learning through assisted and unassisted repeated reading. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 68,
267e290. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.1204.1.
Webb, S., & Chang, C.-S. A. (2015). How does prior word knowledge affect vocabulary learning progress in an extensive reading program? Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 37, 651e675. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263114000606.
Webb, S., & Nation, P. (2017). How vocabulary is learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yamashita. (2008). Extensive reading and development of different aspects of L2 proficiency. System, 36, 661e672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.04.
003.
Zahar, R., Cobb, T., & Spada, N. (2001). Acquiring vocabulary through reading: Effects of frequency and contextual richness. The Canadian Modern Language
Review, 57, 541e572. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.57.4.541.