Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T03:41:40.720Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE EFFECTS OF TOPIC FAMILIARITY, MODE, AND PAUSING ON SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS' COMPREHENSION AND FOCUS ON FORM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2004

Michael J. Leeser
Michael J. Leeser
Affiliation:
Florida State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research in first language and second language (L2) comprehension has demonstrated that both learner and input variables contribute to the ease with which a message is understood. Questions remain, however, as to how these variables affect the way L2 learners process linguistic form during comprehension. This study examines how one learner variable (topic familiarity) and two input variables (mode and pausing) affect learners' comprehension and their processing of a new morphological form (the Spanish future tense) in the input. Two hundred sixty-six participants in an accelerated beginning Spanish course either read or listened to a short narrative in Spanish on either a familiar topic or an unfamiliar one. Additionally, half of the listening groups encountered 3-second pauses between each sentence. After listening to or reading the passages, the participants performed two comprehension tasks (recall protocol and multiple-choice test) and two form-assessment tasks (form-recognition task and tense identification/translation). The results revealed that, although all three variables affected learners' comprehension, only mode affected learners' processing future tense morphology.An earlier version of this paper was presented at the conference Form-Meaning Connections in Second Language Acquisition held in Chicago in February, 2002. This paper is based on my doctoral dissertation completed at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. I am extremely grateful to Bill VanPatten for his guidance during the entire process of the research project as well as to James F. Lee, Diane Musumeci, Alice Omaggio Hadley, and Anna María Escobar for their feedback and encouragement. I also wish to thank the anonymous SSLA reviewers for their insightful and critical comments. All errors and omissions are, of course, my own.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , December 2004 , pp. 587 - 615
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. (1980). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Barnett, M. (1989). More than meets the eye: Foreign language reading, theory, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barry, S., & Lazarte, A. (1995). Embedded clause effects on recall: Does high prior knowledge of content domain overcome syntactic complexity in students of Spanish? Modern Language Journal, 79, 491–504.Google Scholar
Bensoussan, M., & Laufer, B. (1984). Lexical guessing in context in EFL reading comprehension. The Journal of Research in Reading, 7, 15–32.Google Scholar
Bernhardt, E. (1991). Reading development in a second language: Theoretical, empirical, and classroom perspectives. Westport, CT: Ablex.
Blau, E. K. (1990). The effect of syntax, speed, and pauses on listening comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 746–753.Google Scholar
Bower, G., Black, J., & Turner, T. (1979). Scripts in memory for text. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 177–220.Google Scholar
Bügel, K., & Buunk, B. (1996). Sex differences in foreign language text comprehension: The role of interests and prior knowledge. Modern Language Journal, 80, 15–31.Google Scholar
Carrell, P. (1983). Three components of background knowledge in reading comprehension. Language Learning, 33, 183–207.Google Scholar
Carrell, P., & Eisterhold, J. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 553–573.Google Scholar
Carrell, P., & Wise, T. (1998). The relationship between prior knowledge and topic interest in second language reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 285–309.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. E. (1999). Putting “input” in its proper place. Second Language Research, 15, 337–388.Google Scholar
Chaudron, C., & Richards, J. C. (1986). The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lectures. Applied Linguistics, 7, 113–127.Google Scholar
Chen, Q., & Donin, J. (1997). Discourse processing of first and second language biology texts: Effects of language proficiency and domain-specific knowledge. Modern Language Journal, 81, 209–227.Google Scholar
Chern, C. (1993). Chinese students' word-solving strategies in reading in English. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 67–82). Westport, CT: Ablex.
Chiang, C., & Dunkel, P. (1992). The effect of speech modification, prior knowledge, and listening proficiency on EFL lecture learning. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 345–374.Google Scholar
Danks, J. (1980). Comprehension in listening and reading: Same or different? In J. Danks & K. Pezdek (Eds.), Reading and understanding (pp. 1–39). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, N. C., & Sinclair, S. (1996). Working memory in the acquisition of vocabulary and syntax: Putting language in good order. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 234–250.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285–301.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of word meanings. Language Learning, 44, 449–491.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Anes, M. (1994). Why study spoken language? In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 33–56). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Graesser, A., & Nakamura, G. (1982). The impact of a schema on comprehension and memory. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 16, 59–109.Google Scholar
Greenslade, T., Bouden, L., & Sanz, C. (1999). Attending to form and content in processing reading texts. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 3, 65–90.Google Scholar
Griffiths, R. (1990). Speech rate and NNS comprehension: A preliminary study in time-benefit analysis. Language Learning, 40, 311–336.Google Scholar
Hammadou, J. (1991). Interrelationships among prior knowledge, inference, and language proficiency in foreign language reading. Modern Language Journal, 75, 27–38.Google Scholar
Harrington, M., & Sawyer, M. (1992). L2 working memory capacity and L2 reading skill. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 25–38.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. (1983). Simplified input and second language acquisition. In R. W. Andersen (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization as language acquisition (pp. 64–86). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Haynes, M. (1993). Patterns and perils of guessing in second language reading. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 46–64). Westport, CT: Ablex.
Huibregtse, I., Admiraal, W., & Meara, P. (2002). Scores on a yes-no vocabulary test: Correction for guessing and response style. Language Testing, 19, 227–245.Google Scholar
Johnson, P. (1982). Effects on reading comprehension of language complexity and cultural background of text. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 169–181.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. London: Pergamon.
Lee, J. F. (1986). Background knowledge and L2 reading. Modern Language Journal, 70, 350–354.Google Scholar
Lee, J. F. (1998). The relationship of verb morphology to second language reading comprehension and input processing. Modern Language Journal, 82, 33–48.Google Scholar
Lee, J. F. (2002). The incidental acquisition of Spanish future tense morphology through reading in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 55–80.Google Scholar
Lee, J. F., & Wolf, D. (1997). A quantitative and qualitative analysis of the word-meaning inferencing strategies of L1 and L2 readers. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 1, 24–64.Google Scholar
Leeser, M. J. (2003). Second language comprehension and processing grammatical form: The effects of topic familiarity, mode, and pausing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Leow, R. (1993). To simplify or not to simplify: A look at intake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 333–355.Google Scholar
Leow, R. (1995). Modality and intake in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 79–89.Google Scholar
Leow, R. (1997). The effects of input enhancement and text length on adult L2 readers' comprehension and intake in second language acquisition. Applied Language Learning, 8, 151–182.Google Scholar
Leow, R. (2000). Attention, awareness, and focus on form research: A critical overview. In J. F. Lee & A. Valdman (Eds.), Form and meaning: Multiple perspectives (pp. 69–96). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Leow, R. (2001). Do learners notice enhanced forms while interacting with the L2? An online and offline study of the role of written input enhancement in L2 reading. Hispania, 84, 496–509.Google Scholar
Long, D. (1990). What you don't know can't help you: An exploratory study of background knowledge and second language listening comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 65–80.Google Scholar
Lund, R. (1991). A comparison of second language listening and reading comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 75, 196–204.Google Scholar
Markham, P., & Latham, M. (1987). The influence of religion-specific background knowledge on the listening comprehension of adult second language students. Language Learning, 37, 157–170.Google Scholar
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. F. (1998). Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as “language aptitude.” In A. F. Healy & L. E. Bourne (Eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention (pp. 339–364). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Musumeci, D. (1989). The ability of second language learners to assign tense at the sentence level: A cross-linguistic study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Nassaji, H. (2002). Schema theory and knowledge-based processes in second language reading comprehension: A need for alternative perspectives. Language Learning, 52, 439–481.Google Scholar
Osaka, M., & Osaka, N. (1992). Language-independent working memory as measured by Japanese and English reading span tests. Bulletin of the Psychometric Society, 30, 287–289.Google Scholar
Peretz, A., & Shoham, M. (1990). Testing reading comprehension in LSP: Does topic familiarity affect assessed difficulty and actual performance? Reading in a Foreign Language, 7, 447–455.Google Scholar
Pulido, D. C. (2003). Modeling the role of second language proficiency and topic familiarity in second language incidental vocabulary acquisition through reading. Language Learning, 53, 233–284.Google Scholar
Rivers, W. (1980). Listening comprehension. In K. Croft (Ed.), Readings on English as a second language (pp. 265–277). Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
Rost, M. (1990). Listening in language learning. London: Longman.
Rost, M. (2002). Teaching and researching listening. London: Longman.
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, 589–619.Google Scholar
Rott, S., Williams, J., & Cameron, R. (2002). The effect of multiple-choice L1 glosses and input-output cycles on lexical acquisition and retention. Language Teaching Research, 6, 183–222.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. Attention and performance, 6, 573–603.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. Spiro, B. Bruce, & W. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 33–58). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sagarra, N. (1998). Effectiveness of rate-controlled speech and simplified syntax on listening comprehension in beginners. In A. Ortiz Provenzal (Ed.), Antología del 90 Encuentro Nacional de Profesores de Lenguas Extranjeras [Anthology of the 9th National Conference of Foreign Language Teachers] (pp. 313–322). Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Sawyer, M., & Ranta, L. (2001). Aptitude, individual differences, and instructional design. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 319–353). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in L2 learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1–63). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Schmidt-Rinehart, B. (1994). The effects of topic familiarity on second language listening comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 78, 179–189.Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (1986). Comprehension versus acquisition: Two ways of processing input. Applied Linguistics, 7, 239–274.Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 7, 118–132.Google Scholar
Shohamy, E. (1984). Does the testing method make a difference? The case of reading comprehension. Language Testing, 1, 147–170.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R., & Villa, H. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183–203.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and the content in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Westport, CT: Ablex.
VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in SLA. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5–31). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
VanPatten, B., Lee, J. F., & Ballman, T. (2000). ¿Sabías que…? Beginning Spanish. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wolf, D. (1993). A comparison of assessment tasks used to measure FL reading comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 77, 473–489.Google Scholar
Wong, W. (2001). Modality and attention to form and meaning in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 345–368.Google Scholar
Wong, W. (2003). The effects of textual enhancement and simplified input on L2 comprehension and acquisition of non-meaningful grammatical form. Applied Language Learning, 14, 109–132.Google Scholar