Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-h8lrw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-22T13:49:45.761Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Assumptions about Second Language Text Comprehension

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Dieter Wolff
Dieter Wolff
Affiliation:
Anglistisches Institut Universität Düsseldorf
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In an empirical investigation, the results of which are reported elsewhere in greater detail (Wolff, 1985), an attempt was made to discover more about the strategies and processes specific to second language (L2) comprehension. On the assumption that information processing is of a universal cognitive nature, no differences in the cognitive processes themselves involved in first language (L1) and L2 comprehension were expected. It was, however, expected that differences would emerge in the way common strategies and processes were applied in the decoding of texts and utterances. We assumed that the differences would be of degree and not of kind, and that the extent and exploitation of these processes in L2 comprehension could be distinguished from L1 comprehension. The experimental design closely followed that developed by L1 comprehension research. A text was presented to an informant followed by the instruction to recall it. We adopted this type of experiment for two reasons: (a) It has proved its reliability in L1 research, and (b) our results could be compared to those obtained in L1 research. The similarities and differences between L1 and L2 results were thus quite easy to analyze.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , October 1987 , pp. 307 - 326
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Ballstaedt, S. P., Mandl, H., Schnotz, W., & Tergan, S. O. (1981). Texte verstehen, Texte gestalten. München: Urban & Schwarzenberg.Google Scholar
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and special psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beaugrande, R. de. (1980). Text, discourse and process: Towards a multidisciplinary science of texts. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bobrow, D. G., & Norman, D. A. (1975). Some principles of memory schemata. In Bobrow, D. G. & Collins, A. (Eds.), Representation and understanding (pp. 131–149). New York: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bransford, J., & Johnson, M. (1973). Considerations of some problems of comprehension. In Chase, W. (Ed.), Visual information processing (pp. 383–438). New York: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrell, P. L. (1983). Three components of background knowledge in reading comprehension. Language Learning, 33, 183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H.H., & Clark, E.V. (1977). Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1983). Strategies in interlanguage communication. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Graesser, A.C. (1981). Prose comprehension beyond the word. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Hildyard, A., & Olson, D. R. (1978). Memory and inference in the comprehension of oral and written discourse. Discourse Processes, 1, 91–117.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (1984). Pragmatic comprehension in learner-native speaker discourse. Language Learning, 34, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 84, 363–394.Google Scholar
Kurcz, I. (1984). A model of language knowledge as related to knowledge of the world. In Lagerspetz, K. M. J. & Niemi, P. (Eds.), Psychology in the 1990's (pp. 133–161). North Holland: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Martindale, C. (1981). Cognition and consciousness. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.Google Scholar
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In Winston, P. H. (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Neisser, U. (1967). Cognition and reality. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In Spiro, R., Bruce, B., & Brewer, W. (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C. (1975). The structure of episodes in memory. In Bobrow, D. G. & Collins, A. (Eds.), Representation and understanding (pp. 237–272). New York: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Turner, A., & Greene, E. (1977). The construction and use of a prepositional text base (Technical Report 63). Boulder: Institute for the Study of Intellectual Behavior, University of Colorado.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Wolff, D. (1985). Verstehensprozesse in einer zweiten Sprache. Studium Linguistik, 17/18, 162–174.Google Scholar
Wolff, D. (1986). Überlegungen zum Hörverstehen in einer zweiten Sprache. Linguistische Berichte, 106, 445–455.Google Scholar