Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-g8tfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T21:12:30.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

To Simplify or Not to Simplify

A Look at Intake

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Ronald P. Leow
Ronald P. Leow
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates the effects of simplification, type of linguistic item, and second language experience on learners' intake of linguistic items contained in written input. Learners at two levels of language experience were exposed to one of the following four conditions: a simplified or unsimplified reading passage with the present perfect tense form or a simplified or unsimplified reading passage with the present subjunctive form. To measure learners' intake, a repeated-measures analysis of variance was performed on the raw scores obtained on a task consisting of a pre- and posttest. The tests were a multiple-choice recognition assessment task. Significant main effects were found for type of passage and language experience, and there was a significant interaction between type of passage and task. Results suggest that simplification does not have a facilitating effect on learners' intake and that learners at different levels demonstrate a different pattern of performance while internalizing written input. Implications for pedagogical written materials and future research are also discussed.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , September 1993 , pp. 333 - 355
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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

Afflerbach, P. (1990). The influence of prior knowledge on expert readers' main idea construction strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alderson, J. (1984). Reading in a foreign language: A reading problem or a language problem? In Alderson, J. & Urquhart, A. (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language (pp. 1–27). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Anderson, N. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. Modern Language Journal, 75, 460–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, R., & Pearson, P. (1984). A schemata-theoretic view of basic processes in reading. In Pearson, P. (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255–291). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Barnett, M. (1988). Teaching reading strategies: How methodology affects language course articulation. Foreign Language Annals, 21, 109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernhardt, E. (1983). Testing foreign language reading comprehension: The immediate recall protocol. Die Unterrichtspraxis, 16, 27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernhardt, E. (1991). Reading development in a second language. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bransdorfer, R. L. (1991). Communicative value and linguistic knowledge in second language input processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google 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 Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrell, P. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern Language Journal, 73, 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrell, P., Pharis, B., & Liberto, J. (1989). Metacognitive strategy training for ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 647–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1983). Foreigner talk in the classroom–An aid to learning? In Seliger, H. & Long, M. (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 127–145). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1985). Intake: On models and methods for discovering learners' processing of input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, M. (1980). The short circuit hypothesis of ESL reading–Or when language competence interferes with reading performance. Modern Language Journal, 64, 203–209.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners' errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, A. (1984). Simple, simplified and simplification: What is authentic? In Alderson, J. & Urquhart, A. (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language (pp. 181–195). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Davis, J. (1989). Facilitating effects of marginal glosses on foreign language reading. Modern Language Journal, 73, 41–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1986). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1980). Process and strategies in foreign language learning and communication. The Interlanguage Studies Bulletin–Utrecht, 5(1), 47–118.Google Scholar
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1986). The role of comprehension in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 7, 258–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, D., Pisani, R., & Purves, R. (Eds.). (1978). Statistics. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L., Newport, E., & Gleitman, H. (1984). The current status of the motherese hypothesis. Journal of Child Language, 77, 43–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatch, E. (1983). Simplified input and second language acquisition. In Andersen, R. W. (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization as language acquisition (pp. 64–86). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Treisman, A. (1984). Changing views of attention and automaticity. In Parasuraman, R. & Davies, D. R. (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 29–61). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kelch, K. (1985). Modified talk in the classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 17, 159–165.Google Scholar
Kern, R. (1989). Second language reading instruction: Its effects on comprehension and word inference ability. Modern Language Journal, 73, 135–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, W. (1986). Second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koda, K. (1988). The cognitive process in second language reading: Transfer of L1 reading skills and strategies. Second Language Research, 4, 133–156.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language learning and second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 73, 440–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. (1983). The Natural Approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Lachman, R., Lachman, J. L., & Butterfield, E. C. (1979). Cognitive psychology and information processing: An introduction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Laufer, B., & Sim, D. (1985). Measuring and explaining the reading threshold needed for English for Academic Purposes Texts. Foreign Language Annals, 18, 405–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. (1986). On the use of the recall task to measure L2 reading comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 201–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J., & Musumeci, D. (1988). On hierarchies of text type and reading skills. Modern Language Journal, 72, 173–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1983a). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1983b). Native speakers/non-native speakers conversation in the second language classroom. In Clarke, M. & Handscombe, J. (Eds.), On TESOL '82: Pacific perspectives on language learning and teaching. Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. G. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377–393). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T., & McLeod, B. (1983). Second language learning and information processing perspective. Language Learning, 33, 135–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevo, N. (1989). Test-taking strategies on a multiple-choice test of reading comprehension. Language Testing, 6, 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, R. (1990). The effects of cultural schemata on reading processing strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 273–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic processing: Detection, search, and attention. Psychology Review, 84, 1–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (1986). Comprehension versus acquisition: Two ways of processing input. Applied Linguistics, 7, 239–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shohamy, E. (1984). Does the testing method make a difference? The case of reading comprehension. Language Testing, 7, 147–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. (1985). Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. In Slobin, D. (Ed.), The Crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Theoretical issues (Vol. 2 pp. 1157–1256). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Steffensen, M., & Joag-Dev, C. (1984). Cultural knowledge and reading. In Alderson, J. & Urquhart, A. (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language (pp. 48–61). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Terrell, T., Andrade, M., Egasse, J., & Muñoz, M. E. (1986). Dos mundos: A communicative approach. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1985). Communicative value and information processing in second language acquisition. In Larson, P., Judd, E., & Messerschmitt, D. (Eds.), On TESOL '84: A brave new world (pp. 89–100). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1987). Classroom learners' acquisition of ser and estar. Accounting for developmental patterns. In VanPatten, B., Dvorak, T. R., & Lee, J. F. (Eds.), Foreign language learning: A research perspective (pp. 61–75). New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input. An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1984). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the development of second-language competence. Applied Linguistics, 8, 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wickens, C. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In Parasuraman, R. & Davies, D. (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63–98). Orlando, FL.: Academic Press.Google Scholar