1

ISLAMIC AZAD UNIVERSITY SCIENCE AND RESEARCH BRANCH

M.A. THESIS

ON

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IRANIAN EFL LEARNERS'

TOLERANCE OF AMBIGUITY AND GUESSING MEANING OF

UNKNOWN WORDS

ADVISOR

Dr. MANSSOR FAHIM

READER

Dr. MASOUD YAZDANI MOGHADAM

BY

SOHEILA MOALLEMI SHARABIANI

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR M. A. DEGREE IN TEFL

FEBRUARY 2011

7

Table of Contents

Title page .................................................................................................... II

Acknowledgements .................................................................................... V

Table of contents .......................................................................................VI

List of tables ...............................................................................................XI

List of figures .......................................................................................... XII

List of appendices ................................................................................... XIII

Abstract ........................................................................................................ 1

CHAPTER I: Background and purpose ....................................... 2

1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 3

1.2 Statement of the Problem ...................................................................... 4

1.3 Research Questions ............................................................................... 4

1.4 Statement of the Hypotheses .................................................................. 5

1.5 Definition of the Key Terms .................................................................. 6

1.6 Limitations and Delimitations of the Study ............................................ 8

1.7 Significance of the Study ...................................................................... 9

CHAPTER II: Review of the Related Literature ........................ 10

2.1 Guessing Word Meaning from Context Strategy ................................ 11

8

2.1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 11

2.1.2 The Importance of Vocabulary Knowledge in Reading

Comprehension ......................................................................................... 13

2.1.3 Learning Strategies ........................................................................... 17

2.1.4 Reading and Reading Strategies ....................................................... 18

2.1.5 Reactions of Students When Encountering with Unknown Words .. 20

2.1.6 Guessing Vocabulary Meaning Strategy .......................................... 23

2.1.7 Comparison of Dictionary Use and Guessing Strategy .................... 26

2.1.8 Factors Which Influence Guessing Strategy ..................................... 27

2.1.9 Knowledge Sources .......................................................................... 28

2.1.10 The Role of Context and Contextual Clues .................................... 29

2.1.11 Vocabulary Acquisition and Inferring Meaning from Context

Strategy .................................................................................................... 34

2.1.12 Advantages of Lexical Inferencing in Context ............................... 38

2.1.13 Should Teachers Encourage Guessing Strategy? ............................ 39

2.1.14 Steps to Guessing Meaning from Context and Model of Guessing 42

2.1.15 Guessing Strategy and Some Empirical Findings ........................... 47

2.2 Tolerance of Ambiguity ...................................................................... 51

2.2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 51

9

2.2.2 Tolerance of Ambiguity ................................................................... 52

2.2.3 Tolerance of Ambiguity as a Personality Style ................................ 56

2.2.4 Ambiguity Stimuli or 'Ambiguous Situations' .................................. 57

2.2.5 Tolerance of Ambiguity Levels ........................................................ 58

2.2.6 Advantages / Disadvantages of Tolerance/Intolerance of Ambiguity 59

2.2.7 Tolerance of Ambiguity Degrees and its Optimal Level .................. 60

2.2.8 Tolerance of Ambiguity and Second Language Learning ................ 62

2.2.9 Suggestions for Teachers and Instructors ......................................... 69

2.2.10 Measuring Tolerance of Ambiguity ................................................ 70

CHAPTER III: Method .............................................................. 71

3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 72

3.2 Participants .......................................................................................... 72

3.3 Instrumentation .................................................................................... 73

3.3.1 Language Proficiency Test ............................................................... 73

3.3.2 Tolerance of Ambiguity Questionnaire ............................................. 74

3.3.2.1 The Correction Procedure of Tolerance of Ambiguity Questionnaire 75

3.3.3 Pre-test: Vocabulary Checklist ......................................................... 76

3.3.4. Post-test: Final Test ......................................................................... 77

10

3.3.4.1 Final Test Item Validation ............................................................. 78

3.4 Data Analyses of Instruments .............................................................. 79

3.4.1 Reliability of Translated and Extended Version Tolerance of

Ambiguity ................................................................................................ 79

3.4.2 Reliability of the First Reading ........................................................ 81

3.4.3 Reliability of the Second Reading .................................................... 82

3.5 Procedure ............................................................................................. 84

3.6 Design .................................................................................................. 85

CHAPTER IV: Data Analysis and Discussion ........................... 87

4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 88

4.2 Descriptive Data .................................................................................. 90

4.2.1 Descriptive Data of Language Proficiency Test ............................... 90

4.2.2 Descriptive Data of Tolerance Ambiguity Questionnaire ................. 92

4.2.3 Descriptive Data of the First Reading .............................................. 95

4.2.4 Descriptive Data of the Second Reading .......................................... 95

4.2.5 Descriptive Data of Average of Both Readings ................................ 96

4.3 Testing the Hypotheses ....................................................................... 98

4.3.1 Testing the First Hypothesis ............................................................. 99

11

4.3.2 Testing the Second Hypothesis ...................................................... 100

4.3.3 Testing the Third Hypothesis ......................................................... 101

4.3.4 Testing the Fourth Hypothesis ........................................................ 102

CHAPTER V: Summery and Pedagogical Implications ........... 109

5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 110

5.2 Restatement of the Problem................................................................ 110

5.3 Research Questions and the Relevant Null Hypotheses ..................... 111

5.4 Procedures and Summery of Findings ............................................... 113

5.5 Pedagogical Implications ................................................................... 115

5.6 Suggestions for Further Research ...................................................... 117

REFERENCES ........................................................................................ 120

APPENDICES ......................................................................................... 139

Persian Abstract………………………………………………………….185

12

List of Tables

Table 1. Characteristics of the Selected Passages ...................................... 78

Table 2. Reliability Analysis of Tolerance of Ambiguity Scale ................ 80

Table 3. Reliability Analysis of First Reading .......................................... 81

Table 4. Reliability Analysis of Second Reading ...................................... 83

Table 5. Descriptive Statistics of Michigan Language Proficiency Test ... 91

Table 6. Descriptive Statistics of Tolerance of Ambiguity Questionnaire 93

Table 7. Descriptive Statistics of First Reading ........................................ 95

Table 8. Descriptive Statistics of Second Reading .................................... 96

Table 9. Descriptive Statistics of Both Readings ...................................... 97

Table 10. Correlation between Tolerance of Ambiguity and the Guessing

Word Meaning .......................................................................................... 99

Table 11. Correlation between high level of Tolerance of Ambiguity and the

Guessing Word Meaning ......................................................................... 100

Table 12. Correlation between intermediate level of Tolerance of Ambiguity

and the Guessing Word Meaning ............................................................ 101

Table 13. Correlation between low level of Tolerance of Ambiguity and the

Guessing Word Meaning ......................................................................... 103

13

List of Figures

Figure 1. Graph Showing the Score Distribution of Language Proficiency Test

................................................................................................................... 92

Figure 2. Graph showing the score Distribution of Tolerance of Ambiguity 94

Figure 3. Graph Showing the Score Distribution of Both Readings .......... 98

Figure 4. Scattergram Showing the Correlation between Tolerance of

Ambiguity and Guessing Ability ............................................................. 104

Figure 5. Scattergram Showing the Correlation between high level of

Tolerance of Ambiguity and Guessing Ability ........................................ 105

Figure 6. Scattergram Showing the Correlation between intermediate level of

Tolerance of Ambiguity and Guessing Ability ........................................ 106

Figure 7. Scattergram Showing the Correlation between low level of

Tolerance of Ambiguity and Guessing Ability ........................................ 107

14

List of Appendices

Appendix A. Michigan Proficiency Test ................................................. 140

Appendix B. Tolerance of Ambiguity Scale ........................................... 148

Appendix C: Vocabulary Checklist ......................................................... 152

Appendix D: Selected Vocabulary Checklist .......................................... 159

Appendix E: Readings and Multiple Choice Questions .......................... 163

15

Abstract

The problem under investigation was the relationship between Iranian EFL

learners' tolerance of ambiguity and their ability to guess the meaning of

unknown words from context. One hundred and sixty intermediate students

studying English at Simin Language Learning Institute were selected in this

research. First of all, the researcher used a Michigan Proficiency Test in order

to make sure that the subjects were all homogeneous in terms of their

language proficiency. Also, the subjects were given tolerance of ambiguity

questionnaire. Then homogeneous participants were chosen and were given a

pre-test which contained 200 words to see whether they were familiar with the

words or not. Afterwards, the researcher practiced guessing strategies with

students by giving them four reading passages during four sessions and asking

them to guess the meaning of the new words in each text. In the post-test, the

students took a test which contained two passages with underlined unknown

words which were selected from those words which were unfamiliar for all

participants in the pre-test, and the participants were asked to guess the

meaning of those unknown words. The researcher used Pearson Product

Moment correlation for the objectives of this study. The results of this

analyses showed that the major hypothesis as well as minor hypotheses were

rejected. So it can be said that the levels of tolerance of ambiguity have a

relationship with the participants' guessability.

134

REFERENCES

Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In J. T.

Guthrie (Eds.), Comprehension and Teaching: Research Review (pp. 71-

117). Newyork, Del.: International Reading Association.

Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1983). Reading comprehension and the

assessment and acquisition of word knowledge. In B. Hutson (Eds.),

Advances in Reading/Language Research (pp.231-256). Greenwich, CT:

J. A. I. Press.

Asadi, A. (2004). Guessing word meaning with regard to word class

differences and field dependence/independence cognitive styles.

Unpublished master’s thesis, Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran, Iran.

Bagherpour, N. (2007). The relationship between creativity and guessing

word meaning of Iranian EFL learners. Unpublished master’s thesis,

Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Campus, Tehran, Iran.

135

Bensoussan, M., & Laufer, B. (1984). Lexical guessing in context in EFL

reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 7 (1), 15-32.

Brown, H. D. (1972). Cognitive pruning and second language acquisition.

The Modern Language Journal, 56 (4), 218-227.

Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching.

New York: Longman.

Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable.

Journal of Personality, 30, 29-50.

Cain, K., Lemmon, K., & Oakhill, L. (2004). Individual differences in the

inference of word meaning from context: The influence of reading

comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, and memory capacity. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 96, 671-681.

136

Carine, D., Kameenui, E. J., & Coyle, G. (1984). Utilization of contextual

information in determining the meaning of unfamiliar words. Reading

Research Quarterly, 19 (2), 188-204.

Chapelle, C., & Roberts, C. (1986). Ambiguity tolerance and field

independence as predictors of proficiency in English as a second

language. Language Learning, 36 (1), 27-45.

Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second-language skills. Harcourt Brace

Javanovich: United States.

Chern, C-L. (1993). Chinese students word solving strategies in reading in

English. In Huckin, T., Haynes, M., & Coady, J. (1993) eds. Second

Language Reading and Vocabulary Learning. Ablex Publishing

Corporation, Nor-wood, New Jersey: pp67-85.

137

Coady, J. (1993). Research on ESL/EFL vocabulary acquisition: Putting it in

context. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J.Coady (Eds.), Second language

reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 217-228). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Dacey, J. S. (1989). Fundamentals of creative thinking. Lexington, MA:

Lexington Books.

Davis, F.B. (1968). Research in comprehension in reading. Reading Research

Quarterly, 3, 499-545.

Dycus, D. (1997). Guessing word meaning from context: Should we

encourage it? Retrieved April 27, 2009, from http: www2.

Aasa.ac.jp/~dcdycus/LACp7/guessing.htm.

138

Edalati, S. (2002). The effect of contextual clues awareness on the guessing

process of the students at the intermediate level of language proficiency.

Unpublished M. A. thesis,Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran

Branch,Tehran, Iran.

Ehrman, M. (1993). Ego boundaries revisited: Toward a model of personality

and learning. In J. E. Alatis (Eds.), Strategic interaction and language

acquisition: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 330-362). Washington,

DC: Georgetow University Press.

Ehrman, M.E. (1999). Ego boundaries and tolerance of ambiguity in second

language learning. In Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language learning (pp. 68-

86). Boston: Longman.

139

El-Koumy, A. S. (2000). Differences in FL reading comprehension among

high-, middle-, and low-ambiguity tolerance students. Paper presented at

the National Symposium on English Language Teaching in Egypt: Ain

Shams University.

Ely, C. M. (1989). Tolerance of ambiguity and use of second language

learning strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 22, 437-445.

Ely, C. M. (1995). Tolerance of ambiguity and the teaching of ESL. In Reid

(Ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 87-95). Boston:

Heinle & Heinle.

Farhady, H., Jafarpoor, A., & Birjandi, P. (1994). Testing language skills,

from theory to practice. Tehran, SAMT Publication.

Farhady, H. (1995). Research methods in applied linguistics. Tehran: Payame

Noor University Press.

140

Frantzen, D. (2003). Factors affecting how second language Spanish students

deriving meaning from context. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 168–

199.

Frenkel-Brunswik, E. (1948). Tolerance of ambiguity as an emotional and

perceptual personality variable. Journal of Personality, 18, 108-143.

Furnham, A., & Ribchester, T. (1995). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of

the concept, its measurement and applications. Current Psychology,

14(3), 179-199.

Grace, C. (1997). Personality type, tolerance of ambiguity, and vocabulary

retention in CALL. CALICO Journal, 15, 19-46.

Gu, P.Y. (2003). Vocabulary learning in a second language: Person, task,

context and strategies. TESL-EJ, 7(2), 1-25.

Gu, Y., & Johnson, R. K. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and

language learning outcomes. Language Learning, 46, 643-679.

141

Haastrup, K. (1987). Using thinking aloud and retrospection to uncover

learners’ lexical inferencing procedures. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.),

Introspection in second language research (pp. 197-212). Clevedon, UK:

Multilingual Matters.

Haastrup, K. (1991). Lexical inferencing procedures or talking about words.

Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.

Hatch, E., & Farhady, H. (1982). Research design and statistics for applied

linguistics. Rowely, Massachusetts: Newbury House.

Hirsh, D., &Nation, I.S. P. (1992). What vocabulary size is needed to read

unsimplified texts for pleasure? Reading in a Foreign Language, 8 (2),

689-696.

142

Hulstijn, J. H. (1993). When so foreign-language readers look up the meaning

of unfamiliar words? Modern Language Journal, 77, 139-147.

Hulstijn, J. H., 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 (3), 327-338.

Hunt, A. (1996). Constraints on inferring word meaning from context.

Journal of Inquiry and Research, 63, 239-249.

Hwang, K., & Nation, I. S. P. (1995). Where would general service

vocabulary stop and special purposes vocabulary begin? System, 23 (1),

35-41.

İstifçi, I. (2009). Lexical Inferencing Strategies of Turkish EFL Learners.

Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 5 (1), 97-109.

143

Kazamia, V. (1998). How tolerant are Greek EFL learners of foreign

language ambiguities? Department of Linguistic and Phonetics.

University of Leeds.

Kelly, P. (1990). Guessing: No substitute for systematic learning of lexis.

System, 18 (2), 199-207.

Khajeh, A. (2002). Relationship between tolerance of ambiguity, gender,

level of proficiency and use of second language learning strategies.

Unpublished master’s thesis, Tarbiat Modarres University,Tehran, Iran.

Knight, S. (1994). Dictionary use while reading: The effects on

comprehension and vocabulary acquisition for students of different

verbal abilities. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 285-299.

Larson-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An Introduction to Second

Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman.

144

Laufer, B. (1990). Ease and difficulty in vocabulary learning: Some teaching

implications. Foreign Language Annals, 23 (2), 147-155.

Laufer, B. (1991). Some properties of the foreign language learner’s lexicon

as evidenced by lexical confusions. International Review of Applied

Linguistics in Language Teaching, 29 (4), 317-330.

Laufer, B. (1992). Reading in a foreign language: How does L2 lexical

knowledge interact with the reader’s general academic ability? Journal of

Research in Reading, 15 (2), 95-103.

Laufer, B. (1997). The lexical plight in second language reading: Words you

do not know, words you think you know and words you can not guess. In

Coady, J. & Huckin, T. (Eds.), Second Language Vocabulary

Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Li, X. (1988). Effects of contextual cues on inferring and remembering

meanings of new words. Applied Linguistics, 9 (4), 402-413.

145

Matsuoka, W., & Hirsh, D. (2010). Vocabulary learning through reading:

Does an ELT course book provide good opportunities? Reading in a

Foreign Language, 22 (1), 56-70.

McLain, D. L. (1993). The MSTAT-I: Anew measure of an individual

tolerance for ambiguity. Educational and Psychological Measurement,

53, 183-189.

Mezynski, K. (1983). Issues concerning the acquisition of knowledge: Effects

of vocabulary training on reading comprehension. Review of Educational

Research, 53, 253-279.

Mirhassani, A., & Farhady, H. (Eds.). (2001). Reading through interaction.

Book two. Tehran: Zabankadeh Publications.

Mirzaie, Z. (2008). The relationship between critical thinking and lexical

inferencing of Iranian EFL learners. Unpublished master’s thesis,

Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Campus, Tehran, Iran.

146

Mondria, J., & Wit-de Boer, M. (1991). The effects of contextual richness on

the guessability and the retention of words in a foreign language. Applied

Linguistics, 12, 249-267.

Na, L., & Nation, I.S.P. (1985). Factors affecting guessing vocabulary in

context. RELC Journal, 16, 33-42.

Nagy, W. (1997). On the role of context in first- and second- language

vocabulary learning. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), vocabulary:

description, acquisition and pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Nagy, W., & Herman, P.A. (1987). Breadth and depth of vocabulary

knowledge: implications for acquisition and instruction. In M. G.

McKeown & M.E.Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition

(pp. 19-35). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

147

Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good second

language learner. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Nassaji, H. (2004). The relationship between depths of vocabulary knowledge

and L2 learners' lexical inferencing strategy use and success. Canadian

Modern Language Review, 61(1), 107-134.

Nassaji, H. (2006). The relationship between depth of vocabulary knowledge

and L2 learners’ lexical inferencing strategy use and success. The Modern

Language Journal, 90, 387-401.

Nation, I. S. P. (1982). Beginning to learn foreign vocabulary: A review of the

research, RELC Journal, 13 (1), 14-36.

Nation, I.S.P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York:

Newbury House.

148

Nation, I.S.P. (1993). Vocabulary size, growth, and use. In R. Schreuder & B.

Weltens (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon (pp. 115-134). Philadelphia: John

Benjamins.

Nation, P., & Coady, J. (1988). Vocabulary and reading. In R. Carter & M.

McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching (pp. 96-111).

London: Longman.

Nattinger, J. (1988). Some current trends in vocabulary teaching. In R. Carter

& M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching. Harlow:

Longman.

Norton, R. W. (1975). Measurement of ambiguity tolerance. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 39, 607-619.

Oxford, R. (1989). The use of language learning strategies: A synthesis of

studies with implications for strategy training. System, 12 (2), 235-247.

149

Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should

know. New York: Newbury House.

Oxford, R. (1992/1993). Language learning strategies in a nutshell: Updated

and ESL suggestions. Tesol Journal, 2 (2), 18-22.

Oxford, R. L. (2002). Language learning strategies in a nutshell: Update and

ESL suggestions. In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.),

Methodology in language teaching an anthology of current practice (pp.

124-132). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities

and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary acquisition. In J.

Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A

rationale for pedagogy (pp. 174–200). New York: Cambridge University

Press.

150

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

vocabulary acquisition: An introspective study of lexical inferencing.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 195-218.

Peng, L. H. (1990). Ambiguity and ESL students: A pilot experiment.

IRAL, 28 (3), 248-256.

Reid, J. M. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL

QUARTERLY, 21 (1), 87-103.

Reid, J. (1995). Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Boston: Heinle

& Heinle.

Riazi, A., & Babaei, N. (2008). Iranian EFL female students' lexical

inferencing and its relationship to their L2 proficiency and reading

skill. The Reading Matrix, 8 (1), 186-195.

151

Richards, J. C., Platt, H., & Platt, J. (Eds.). (1992). Longman dictionary of

language teaching and applied linguistics (2nd ed.). London: Longman

Group UK Limited.

Sharifi, R. (2006). Differences between monolingual, successive and

simultaneous bilingual learners in language learning strategies and

tolerance of ambiguity. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tarbiat Modarres

University,Tehran, Iran.

Shefelbine, J. (1990). Student factors related to variability in learning word

meanings in context. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22, 71.

Soria, J. (2001). A study of Ilokano learners’ lexical inferencing procedures

through think-aloud. Second Language Studies, 19(2), 77-112.

Sternberg, R.J. (1987). Most vocabulary is learned from context. In M. G.

McKeown, & M.E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition

(Pp.89- 105). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

152

Ying, Y. SH. (2001). Acquiring vocabulary through a context-based

approach. Language Teaching Forum, 39 (1), 20-33.

Zaid, M. A. (2009). A comparison of inferencing and meaning-guessing of

new lexicon in context versus non-context vocabulary presentation. The

Reading Matrix, 9 (1), 56-66.

Zhihong, Y. (2000). Learning words. English Teaching Forum, 38 (3).

Retrieved January 13, 2011, from

http://exchanges.state.gov/englishteaching/forum/archives/2000/00-38-

3.html

199

چكيده

با حدس معنايتحمل ابهام زبان آموزان ايراني توانرابطه بين هدف از اين تحقيق بررسي

در حال مطالعه كهزبان آموز 160بدين منظور در اين تحقيق ابتدا به . بوده است كلمات ناآشنا

تا بودند يك آزمون تست زبان ميشيگان داده شد انگليسي در مؤسسه يادگيري زبان سيمين زبان

توان همچنين اين شركت كنندگان پرسشنامه .شودافراد مشابهي براي ادامه اين تحقيق انتخاب

سپس به افراد منتخب يك آزمون لغات ارائه . تحمل ابهام را به منظور تعيين سطح انجام دادند

ن متن انگليسي به زبا 4در مرحله بعد .گرديد تا نا آشنا بودن كلمات براي محقق محرز گرديد

آموزان ارائه گرديد و از آنها خواسته شد تا معناي كلمات نا آشنا را حدس بزنند و بدينوسيله

در مرحله نهايي دو متن كه شامل تعدادي . محقق آنها را با استراتژي هاي حدس زدن آشنا كرد

كلمات نا آشنا براي زبان آموزان بود ارائه گرديد و از زبان اموزان خواسته شد كه معناي

.كلمات را حدس بزنند

پس از تصحيح آزمون ها رابطه بين توان تحمل ابهام فراگيران با عملكرد آنها در حدس معناي

-نظريه به همراهصلي نتايج اين تحليل نشان داد كه نظريه ا. كلمات نا آشنا در متن بررسي گرديد

زبان آموزان و توانايي آنها بين توان تحمل ابهام بنابراين مي توان گفت كه . فرعي رد شدندهاي

. در حدس معناي كلمات ناآشنا ي انگليسي رابطه معنا داري وجود دارد

201

زاد ا���� �� دا�

وا�� ���م و ������ت

).M. A(ارش� رش&� ��زش ز$�ن ا����#� "�ی�ن ���� ��رش����

��*�ع

$/ر�� را$3� $�2 ��ان ��+1 ا$0�م ز$�ن ��زان ای/ا�� $� ��س �-��, ��+�ت

ا�&�د راه�+�

د�&/ ���7ر 5�06

ا�&�د � �ور د�&/ �#-�د ی8دا�� ���م

���ر�� ���0 �-�+� ش/$����

��ل �����7

١٣٨٩-١٣٩٠