DOES MODALITY MATTER? AURAL AND WRITTEN VOCABULARY IN SECOND LANGUAGE LISTENING AND READING COMPREHENSION

Abstract

This study examined the significance of the mode of delivery—aural versus written—in second language (L2) vocabulary knowledge and L2 comprehension skills. One of the unique aspects of listening comprehension that sets it apart from reading comprehension is the mode of delivery—language input is delivered not visually but aurally. Somewhat surprisingly, however, this difference has not always been considered, and in fact L2 listening studies are more often accompanied by written tests (of, e.g., vocabulary knowledge) than by aural tests. Few studies have systematically examined the impact of modality on comprehension skills and linguistic variables such as vocabulary either, despite the long-standing view of language skills being multimodal. In this study, therefore, I first examined the degree to which aural and written vocabulary is separate constructs. Then I examined how each of those constructs explains listening and reading comprehension skills differently. By using latent variable modeling, I also addressed limitations in previous studies, including undue influence from measurement error and unique characteristics of particular tests.One hundred eighty-five adult Japanese learners of English took four aural and four written English vocabulary tests, with parallel test formats across the modalities to allow for comparison. The effect of words was averaged out by counterbalancing eight property-matched sets of words. The participants also took listening and reading comprehension tests. The dimensionality of vocabulary knowledge was examined by comparing one-factor and multi-factor models. The unique contribution of aural and written vocabulary knowledge to listening and reading comprehension was evaluated by latent variable path analysis. The difference in the sizes of aural and written vocabulary knowledge was examined by latent means modeling. The results of the study were nuanced. Modality effects were observed in the sense that (1) a two-factor model of vocabulary knowledge with aural and written vocabulary had a significantly better fit to the data than a one-factor model, (2) aural vocabulary knowledge uniquely explained some variance in listening comprehension skills, and (3) the participants’ aural vocabulary size was significantly smaller than their written vocabulary size. However, the effects of modality were limited in the sense that (1) the aural and written vocabulary knowledge factors were very highly correlated and (2) the common part of the two factors—general vocabulary knowledge—explained much more variance in each of listening and reading comprehension skills than modality-specific knowledge. These results suggest that, although aural versus written test modality effects do seem to exist in L2 vocabulary knowledge and comprehension skills, its practical impact is small compared with that of general vocabulary knowledge at least in the context where words are presented in isolation as in the present study.