Esp in Applied Linguistics [PDF]

Zitiervorschau

En&h jar S$~cihc Purposes, Vol. 6. pp. 23:%243. 1987 Pergamon Journals Ltd. Printed m the USA.

Discussions

0889-49+X/87 $3.00 + .I0 Copyright c 198i The Amencan University

and Research

Notes

ESP in Applied Linguistics: Refining Research Agenda Implications and Future Directions of Research on Second Language Reading Patricia L. Carrel1 Recent research has shown that effective second language reading, like effective first language reading, involves an interaction of the reader with the text (Rumelhart, 1977). The reader must engage in both top-down as well as bottom-up processing of the text, activating relevant background knowledge of schemata of various types (including, linguistic, rhetorical, and content schemata) against which to process the text - making appropriate predictions based on prior knowledge against which to selectively sample and test text segments, and, conversely, mapping sampled text segments against appropriately activated background knowledge. This interactive view of second language reading, being derived from more general perspectives on information processing regardless of media or mode, has relevance for other areas of second language processing. These areas include the other, so-called receptive, modes in the oral medium - namely, listening comprehension - as well as reading’s “productive” counterpart mode in the same medium - namely, writing. This view of second language reading also has implications for text processing of specialized texts in specialized situations, and, thus, for ESP. Rather than trying to suggest implicationsperse for listening comprehension, writing, and ESP from the perspective of second language reading research, I will briefly explore, from the reading perspective, some of the relationships between reading and writing, listening comprehension, and ESP, and try to identify some converging themes I detect between reading and these other subfields. I will conclude by mentioning what I believe will be some future directions for reading research.

Listening

Comprehension

One thing which both listening comprehension and reading have in common is that today both are being viewed not only as active processes, but also as interactive processes. No longer is reading viewed as a passive process, as it once was. Early work in reading, specifically in second language and ESL reading, assumed a rather passive, bottom-up decoding view of reading. Read-

Addresscorrespondence

to: Patricia

L. CarrelI.

Dept.

IL 62901.

233

of Linguistics,

Southern

Illinois

University,

Carbondale,

234

ENGLISHFORSPECIFICPURPOSES

ing was viewed primarily as a decoding process, a process of reconstructing the author’s intended meaning via recognizing the printed letters and words, and building up a meaning for a text from the smallest linguistic units at the bottom (letters, words), to larger and larger linguistic units at the top (phrases, clauses, intersentential linkages). Reading problems and reading comprehension were viewed as being essentially language decoding problems; anything other than the linguistic decoding skills of the reader went unrecognized. The impact of Goodman’s psycholinguistic model of reading was to make the reader an active participant in the reading process, to view the reader as actively engaging in the making and confirming of predictions, engaging in top-down processing, albeit in Goodman’s model still primarily from background knowledge of various linguistic levels (graphophonic, syntactic, and semantic). Yet more recently, a view of reading has emerged which makes it even more like listening comprehension - a view of reading as an interactive process. Not only is the reader viewed as an active participant in the reading process, making predictions and processing information, but everything in the reader’s prior experience or background knowledge is claimed to play a significant role in the process. In this schema-theoretic view of reading, not only is the reader’s prior linguistic knowledge (i.e., linguistic schemata) and level proficiency in the language important, but the reader’s prior background knowledge of the content area of the text (i.e., content schemata) and the reader’s prior background knowledge of the rhetorical structure of the text (i. e., formal schemata) are aiso important. The reader and the various kinds and levels of knowledge the reader possesses are viewed as interacting with specific features of a text, an artifact created by an absent author, much in the same way a listener is viewed as interacting with a speaker and an oral text. Another point of comparison between listening and reading is the matter of comprehension and comprehensibility, and the content and form of the input as these relate to the background knowledge (schemata) of the listener or reader. As just mentioned, reading research makes much of the role of the reader’s background knowledge of both the content and form of a text in the comprehensibility of that text for a reader and, thus, the reader’s comprehension of that text. Similarly, and obviously, the comprehensibility of an oral text for a listener, and thus, the listener’s comprehension of that oral text, are also a function of content and form of the input and the listener’s background knowledge of that content and form. Much of the early work in schema theory has actually been done with oral texts - especially narrative story telling, listening, and retelling (Bartlett, 1932; Mandler & Johnson, 1977; Mandler, 1978). Thus, for example, the same factors involved in a reader’s comprehension of a written academic text play a role in a listener’s comprehension of an oral academic lecture. A related, common theme in reading and listening is concern for the role of simplified or modified input in comprehension and acquisition. In Second Language Acquisition (SLA), from Krashen (1980), to Long (1981, 1985), Chaudron (1982,1983), Gass and Varonis (1985), and Pica (1986). to mention but a few, a well-developed body of research exists on the role of input, particularly

235

ESP in Applied Linguistics

simplified or modified input, to listening comprehension and to second language acquisition in general. One strain of this research has pursued the distinction between simplified input, which has been shown to have less of a facilitating effect on listening comprehension and, presumably, acquisition, and simplified interaction, which has been shown to have a greater facilitating effect on listening comprehension and, again presumably, on acquisition (Long, 1981; Kelch, 1985). Related research with similar results has been done in ESL reading comprehension; Brown (1985) compared the comprehensibility of unmodified, modified input (i.e., simplified syntax and vocabulary), and modified interaction (i.e., elaboration, clarification, explanation) texts. A more familiar approach to simplified input in reading is examination of the effects of simplified syntax and vocabulary on reading comprehension. In fact, a common feature of most so-called readability formulas is that they measure aspects of word and sentence length and/or complexity. In an empirical study of the relationship between syntactic rewriting (simplification) and reading in English for Science and Technology, Strother and Ulijn (1987) interpret their results as suggesting that rather than syntactic simplification, concentrating on lexical skills and lexical rewriting may increase learning from texts and text readability, respectively.

Reading,

Writing,

and the Reading/Writing

Connection

Although writing itself is obviously a process and not a product, until recently the study of writing has primarily focused on the study of the products of writing and not on the process itself. Recent developments in the field of composition research have changed that, and today the focus is as much on the process as on the products (Connor, 1986). Similarly, reading itself is obviously a process and not a product. Until recently, the study of reading has focused on the products of reading, on the outcomes of reading in terms of static measures of comprehension - traditionally, answers to comprehension questions. Recently, however, focus has shifted in reading research to exploration of the process - including such on-line measures as oral miscue analysis in the sense of Goodman (1968), the eye movement research of Carpenter and Just (1983) and McConkie, Hogaboam, Wolverton, Zola and Lucas (19791, eye-voice span research (Levin, 1979) and think-aloud protocols (Bloch, 1986), and even oral and written recall protocols (Mandler & Johnson, 1977; Meyer, 1975). As with writing, where the focus is on the product, it is with the intention of analyzing the product for the inferences we can draw about the process. Approaches to text or discourse analysis which view texts in terms of social and psychological rather than strictly linguistic factors offer interesting insights in the writing/reading connection. One of these that I find insightful is the approach of de Beaugrande (1980) and de Beaugrande and Dressler (1981). de Beaugrande argues that in order to understand texts we must study them as they function in human interaction. A central notion of de Beaugrande’s work is that “textuality” - what makes a text a unified, meaningful, and whole rather than just a string of unrelated words and sentences, lies not in the text

236

ENGLISHFORSPECIFICP~JRPOSES

per se as some independent artifactual object of study, but rather in the social and psychological activities human beings perform with it. Taking the position that real communicative behavior can be explained only if language is modeled as an interactive system, de Beaugrande proposes a procedural approach to the study of texts in communication. A text is viewed as the outcome of procedural operations, and as such, cannot be adequately described and explained in isolation from the procedures humans use to produce it and to receive it. This and other communicative, interactive approaches to text/discourse analysis and the reading/writing connection, viewing reading and writing as communicative acts affected by all sorts of social and psychological factors, has caused us to focus on “differences” in interacting via text. Virtually any differences in the social and cultural contexts of texts or in the cognitive, socio-psychological factors of writers and readers assumes potential significance. Reading research in particular has shown that, due to differences in the background knowledge of readers, texts may “mean” different things to different groups of readers, especially different cultural or discipline groups, or even to different individual readers. Also, texts with varying rhetorical structures, with or without the appropriate linguistic devices signaling those rhetorical structures, may be comprehended differently by subgroups of native or subgroups of nonnative readers (Meyer, 1979; Carrel], 1984). Focus on the differences in interacting with text and differences in constructing text meaning in either production or reception make it difficult to generalize from research results or to contemplate pedagogy which is generalizable. This is part of the dilemma about discourse communities which Johns (1986) addresses. There are a number of other ways to explore the reading/writing connection. One way is to consider the connection the way Krashen (1984) does, namely, to explore the effects of “uninstructed” reading on writing ability, the relationship between voluntary pleasure reading and writing ability. The evidence, as you are all no doubt well aware, suggests a high correlation between amount of reading and writing ability (causal connections are harder to come by). However, another way to think about the reading/writing connection is to consider the connection unidirectionally from each direction and to ask how recent research and pedagogy in the one domain has influenced or benefited research and pedagogy in the other. Reading research and pedagogy have taken from previous work on composition/writing, especially from research on the products of composition, more than they have been able to suggest applications to composition research and pedagogy, but this is changing. Meyer (1982) showed how a better explicit understanding of a reader’s mental representation of a text and how it forms and functions in long-term memory can help a writer plan texts which enable readers to create representations which better match the writer’s purpose in the communication. In other words, Meyer made a case for “instructed” reading benefiting “instructed” writing. Other reading researchers are showing how explicit instruction in the construction of text/semantic maps after reading can facilitate the planning of original discourse (Sinatra, Stahl-Gemake, & Morgan, 1986). In the area of second language, in a chapter I recently contributed to a book on writing, I attempted to point out some of the implications of Meyer’s ideas on native

237

ESP in Applied Linguistics

readingwriting 1987).

to ESL composition

and ESL composition

pedagogy

(Carrell,

ESP As previously mentioned, research on the social and psychological factors affecting the production and reception of texts has created a focus on differences both among readers and among types of texts. These differences may be brought down to the level of the individual (text or reader), in which case we have the dilemma Johns (1986) explores about transferability. However, the differences may also be explored in terms of subgroups of readers (by cultural and subcultural groups, or by disciplines and subdisciplines, those being science and technology, physics, chemistry, etc.) or in terms of subtypes of texts. Let us focus for a moment on the latter, that is subtypes of texts. The reading research I am most familiar with has focused generally on either narrative texts or expository texts, with the latter category rather generally and broadly defined. Without subscribing to any one particular taxonomy of text types, and there are many ways to categorize them (Kinneavy, 1970), there is no reason why the type of research I have conducted with broad categories of expository texts could not be conducted with even more differentiated categories of prose. For example, with virtually the same research methodology described in Carrel1 (1984), one could examine particular groups or subgroups of readers (whatever cultural-linguistic groups, or discipline groups are of interest) on whatever different subcategories of prose are of interest (business reports, abstracts, technical reports, laboratory reports, scientific journal articles). Depending upon the relevant similarities or differences among the subgroups of readers and the relevant similarities or differences among the subtypes of texts, not to mention specifics of the reading tasks involved, hypotheses would vary as to expected outcomes. In the area of reading English for Academic Purposes, Alderson and Urquhart (1985) have recently called into question the traditional position towards the selection of texts for testing purposes, namely the aim to select texts which are sufficiently “general” so as to avoid favoring any particular group of students. They point out that underlying this position is obviously a belief that certain texts will favor particular groups, presumably because of the background knowledge available to these groups. Further, they question two fundamental assumptions underlying the traditional position: Assumption 1: that it is possible to find truly “general” texts, that is, texts which are so neutral in content and cultural assumptions that they will not, in any significant way, favor any particular group; Assumption 2: that in EAP, at least performance on such texts can be used as predictive of the student’s performance on texts in his/her academic field. In an empirical test of these assumptions, they found (a) that students from a particular discipline performed better on tests based on texts taken from their own subject discipline than did students from other disciplines (that is, students appear to be advantaged by taking a test on a text in a familiar content area), (b) that students from certain disciplines found the so-called “general” texts easier than did students from other disciplines, and (c) that these texts underestimated the reading ability of science

238

ENGLISH FOR SPKWK

PURPOSES

and engineering students when compared to their reading ability on texts in their disciplines. The concluded that, rather paradoxically in the EFL context, it is the more specialized (not generalized) texts that may elicit the best tests of a reader’s EFL reading ability. For second language readers, many of whom have much more limited skills for extracting information from texts, and whose skills were developed in specific contexts, inability to perform successfully on so-called “general” texts may not be indicative of their abilities on texts in their own specialities. As Widdowson (1979) has observed different disciplines such as physics constitute subcultures of their own. The texts and the modes of communicating via texts in each discipline-subculture may vary. One interesting way to explore the discourse structures in various disciplines is to examine their publication manuals. (cf. Bazerman [1984] on the APA Publication Manual [1983] as codification and reflection of much of the discourse, not only in experimental psychology, but in all the social sciences, including sociology and political science.) In this context it is rather interesting to note that the TESOL Quarterly has just recently adopted theAPA Publication Manual as its style guide. In considering differences among disciplines as discourse communities, it is worth noting that a number of studies have begun to examine scientific texts and writing/writers (Bazerman, 1983; Herrington, 1985). Much less frequent are investigations of scientific texts and reading/readers. In this context one study I am aware of is another article by Bazerman (19851, this one entitled “Physicists Reading Physics: Schema-laden Purposes and Purpose-laden Schema” which appeared in Written Communication in 1985. In this report on the reading processes of seven research physicists, based on data gathered from interviews and observations, Bazerman develops two themes related to the reader’s purpose and schema of background knowledge. They are: (1) that the researcher’s own need to carry on research and his/her own understanding of the field clearly shape the reading process and the meaning carried away from the professional literature; and (b) that moreover, purpose and schema are intertwined, so that the reader’s schema incorporates active purpose (to carry on his/her own research), and purpose is framed by the schema. This doubly dynamic schema (a vision of a field in the process of trying to solve problems as seen through the individual’s own research interests) provides the framework against which the reader comes to understand an article. The reader processes information that has significance for the existing schema and will view that information from the perspective of the schema. Thus, the way one reads is a strategic consequence of what one is trying to accomplish. How to read turns out to be as fundamental a decision as what to read. Bazerman further explores how these physicists read as a function of their purpose-laden schema, and schema-laden purposes. Much more of this kind of research needs to go on in reading for special purposes.

Future Directions I would now like to venture second language reading.

for Reading Research

a few predictions

about future

research

in

ESP in Applied Linguistics

239

heart of language acquisition/learning). Correlations between knowledge of word meanings and ability to comprehend passages containing those words are all high and well-established in the first language reading studies (Anderson & Freebody, 1979). Such evidence, of course, fails to establish knowledge of word meanings as a cause of comprehension. Direct support for a causal relationship is found in several instructional studies which have investigated knowledge of cognition, and (b) regulation of cognition (Flavell, 1978). In the former are included the reader’s knowledge about his or her own cognitive resources, and the compatability between the reader and the reading situation. If a reader is aware of what is needed to perform effectively, then it is possible for him or her to take steps to meet the demands of a reading situation more adequately. If, however, the reader is not aware of his or her own limitations as a reader or the complexity of the task at hand, then the reader can hardly be expected to take preventive actions in order to anticipate or recover from problems. Related to this aspect of metacognition is the reader’s conceptualization of the reading process; how the reader conceptualizes what he/she is doing in reading. We do not know whether a second language reader conceptualizes what he/she is doing when reading in the second language in the same way he/she does when reading in the first language. In the second dimension of metacognition are included the self-regulatory mechanisms used by a reader to solve problems, monitoring the effectiveness of such attempts, testing, revising, and evaluating one’s strategies for reading. Effective monitoring of reading is essential; failure to monitor can lead to serious reading problems. Related to the latter aspect of metacognition is the development and use of compensatory strategies. Some of the metacognitive skills involved in reading are: (a) clarifying the purposes of reading, that is, understanding both the explicit and implicit task demands; (b) identifying the important aspects of a message; (c) focusing attention on the major content rather than trivia; (d) monitoring ongoing activities to determine whether comprehension is occurring; (e) engaging in self-questioning to determine whether goals are being achieved; and (f) taking corrective action when failures in comprehension are detected (Brown, 1980). We know woefully little about metacognitive factors in second language reading, although Bloch (1986) includes some comprehension-monitoring strategies. A second area for future research in second language reading is on the relationships among different types of background knowledge or schemata, specfically among linguistic knowledge/schemata, content schemata, and formal/rhetorical schemata. That is, we know that one’s overall proficiency in the language of the text, one’s background knowledge of the content area of a text, and one’s background knowledge of the formal/rhetorical structure of the text can all affect reading comprehension. What we need to know is the degree to which such schemata make separate contributions to reading comprehension, or the degree to which they function together (the degree to which there is an interaction among language, form and content). Of relevance here is the observation that text form and content tend to be related. A third area for future research in second language reading is vocabulary acquisition. Obviously vocabularly is at the heart of reading comprehension. (Some, like Schumann [1987] might even argue that lexical acquistion is the

240

ENGLISHFORSPECIFJC PURPOSES

One area in which research is sorely needed is the area of metacognition, and metacognitive factors involved in second language reading. In first language reading Brown and her collaborators (Baker & Brown, 1984) have investigated several different aspects of the relationship between metacognitive skills and effective reading. Little if any of this research has been done in second language reading. Two dimensions of metacognitive ability are (a) the effect on passage comprehension of preteaching vocabulary. Unfortunately, comprehension studies in both first and second language reading employing prereading instruction in word meanings have been both successful and unsuccessful in accomplishing a significant effect. In first language reading, a meta-analysis of studies concerned with effects of vocabulary instruction on comprehension (Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986) has revealed a number of factors which distinguish the successful studies from the unsuccessful studies. In second language reading most of the studies involving preteaching vocabulary have been unsuccessful in obtaining significant facilitating effects on reading comprehension (Hudson, 1982; Johnson, 1982), probably because they have not had the characteristics identified with the successful first language studies. We need research on effective ways of explicitly preteaching vocabulary for second language reading comprehension and lexical acquisition. We also need research on the role of incidental exposure to vocabulary (through reading as well as through oral channels) to vocabulary acquisition and to reading comprehension. Although it seems obvious that both first and second language learners acquire vocabulary through incidental exposure, such as through reading, and without explicit instruction on each new word acquired, we know very little about such acquisition. Nagy and Herman, in a series of studies between 1984 and 1986 (Nagy, Herman, Anderson, & Pearson, 1984; Nagy & Herman, 1984; Herman, Anderson, Pearson, & Nagy, 1985; Nagy, Herman, & Anderson, 1985; Nagy, Anderson, & Herman, 1986) claimed to have found and measured statistically significant effects of incidental vocabulary learning from reading in context by L-primary school children. However, in a paper at the 1986 TESOL convention, Grabe and Zukowski/ Faust (1986) reported a second language study similar to the Nagy and Herman first language studies, designed to address the question of incidental acquisition of vocabulary from context, but they ended up questioning the extent of such acquisition, or at least questioning the magnitude of the effect and our ability to measure it in controlled settings. Thus, we are left with methodological concerns about how to go about measuring incidental acquisition, as well as questions about the conditions under which it may or does occur. Conclusion In the foregoing, I have explored the relevance of recent research in second language reading, and of the emerging view of second language reading as an interaction between text and reader, for several other areas of second language processing. These other areas have included listening comprehension, writing, and English for Specific Purposes (ESP). In this exploration, I have concentrated on identifying converging themes and areas of mutual research

ESP in Applied Linguistics

241

and pedagogical interest. Finally, I have also ventured a few predictions about the future directions of research in second language reading, or, to be more accurate, I have identified several areas which, in my opinion, are in need of such research. These include research on metacognition (the reader’s knowledge and regulation of reading processes), on the relationship between the content and form of texts and readers’ content and formal schemata in effective reading, and on the roles of tutored and incidental acquisition of vocabulary in reading comprehension. As research in all of these areas - second language reading, writing, listening comprehension, and ESP - advances and matures, not only will we learn more about each of these areas separately, but that research should continue to prove mutually enhancing and should contribute to our general understanding of second language processing and second language acquisition. (Received May 1987)

REFERENCES Alderson, J. C., & Urquhart, A. (1985). This test is unfair, I’m not an economist. In P. Hauttman, R. LeBlanc, & M. Bingham Wesche (Eds.), Second language performance testing. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. American Psychological Association. (1983). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1979). Vocabulary knowledge (Tech. Rep. No. 136). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading. Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research. New York: Longman. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study of experimental and socialpsychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bazerman, C. (1983). Scientific writing as a social act: A review of the literature of the sociology of science. In P. Anderson, R. Brockman, & C. Miller (Eds.), New essays in technical writing and communication. Farmingdale, NY: Baywood. Bazerman, C. (1984). Codifying and social scientific style: The APA publication manual as a behaviorist rhetoric. Paper presented at the University of Iowa Symposium on the Rhetoric of the Human Sciences. Bazerman, C. (1985). Physicists reading physics: Schema-laden purposes and purpose-laden schema. Written Communication, 2, 3-23. de Beaugrande, R. (1980). Text, discourse, and process. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. de Beaugrande, R., & Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman. Bloch, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 463-494. Brown, A. L. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In R. J. Spiro, D. C. Bruce, W. F. Brewer, (Eds.) Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 453-481). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

242

ENGLISHFOR SPECIFICPURPOSES

Brown, L. (1985). A comparison of the comprehensibility of modified and unmodified ESL reading materials. Unpublished M. A. thesis, University of Hawaii. Carpenter, P. A., &Just; MI A. (1983). What your eyes do while your mind is reading. In K. Rayner (Ed.), Eye movements in reading: Percetual and language processes. New York: Academic Press. Carrell, P. L. (1984). The effects of rhetorical organization on ESL readers. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 441-469. Carrell, P. L. (1987). Text as interaction: Some implications of text analysis and reading research for ESL composition. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across lan~ages: Analysis of L2 text. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Chaudron, C. (1982). Vocabulary elaboration in teachers’ speech to L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4, 170-180. Chaudron, C. (1983). Simplification of input: Topic reinstatements and their effects on L2 learners’ recognition and recall. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 437458. Connor, U. (1986). Research frontiers in writing analysis. Paper presented in the Research Interest Section State of the -Art Colloquium: Writing Process, Product and Pedagogy, 1986 TESOL Convention, Anaheim, CA. Flavell, J. H. (1978). Metacognitive development. In J. M. Scandura & C. J. Brainerd (Eds.), St~uctu7aL/p~ocess theories of complex hurn~?~ behavi~. Alphen a. d. Rijn, The Netherlands: Sijthoff & Noordhoff. Gass, S., & Varonis, E. M. (1985). Variation in native speaker speech modifications to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 37-57. Goodman, K. S. (1968). The psycholinguistic nature of the reading process. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Grabe, W., Zukowski/Faust, J. (1986). On the acquisition of vocabulary from leading. Paper presented at the Colloquium on Research in Reading in a Second Language, 1986 TESOL Convention, Anaheim, CA. Herman, P. A., Anderson, R. C., Pearson, P. D., & Nagy, W. E. (1985). incidental acquisition of word meanirtgs from expositions that systematically vary te~t~~eatuyes (Tech. Rep. No. 364). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading. Herrington, A. J. (1985). Writing in academic settings: A study of the contexts of writing in two college chemical engineering courses. Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 331- 361. Hudson, T. (1982). The effects of induced schemata on the “short circuit” in L2 reading: Non-decoding factors in L2 reading performance. LanGgage Learning, 32, l- 31. Johns, A. M. (1986). The d~s~ouyse comr~u~zities dilemma: ~de~t~ing transferable skills for the academic milieu. Paper presented at the 1986 AAAL Annual Meeting, New York. Johnson, P. (1982). Effects on reading comprehension of building background knowledge. TESOL Quayte~~y, 16, 503-516. Kelch, K. (1985). Modified input as an aid to comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 81-90.

ESP in Applied Linguistics

Kinneavy, Hall.

J. L. (1970). A theory of discourse.

Krashen, S. D. (1980). The input hypothesis. issues in bilingual education. Washington, Press.

Englewood

243 Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Current DC: Georgetown University

Krashen, S. D. (1984). Writing: Research, theory, and applications. Oxford: Pergamon Institute of English. Levin, H. (1979). The eye-voice span. Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press. Long, M. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition, Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 379, 259- 278. Long, M. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquistion. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Mandler, J. M. (1978). A code in the node: The use of a story schema in retrieval. Discourse Processes, 1, 14- 35. Mandler, J. M., &Johnson, N. S. (1977). Remembrance of things passed: Story structure. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 111-151. McConkie, G. W., Hogaboam, T. W., Wolverton, G. S., Zola, D., & Lucas, P. A. (1979). Toward the use of eye movements in the study of language processing (Tech. Rep. No. 134). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading. Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effect on memory. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Co. Meyer, B. J. F. (1979). Organizational patterns in prose and their use in reading. In M. L. Kamil & A. J. Moe (Eds.), Reading research: Studies and applications. Clemson, SC: National Reading Conference. Meyer, B. J. F. (1982). Reading research and the composition teacher: The importance of plans. College Composition and Communication, 33, 37-49. Nagy, W. E., Anderson R. C., & Herman, P. A. (1986). The influence of word and textproPerties on learningfrom context (Tech. Rep. No. 369). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading. Nagy, W. E., & Herman, P. A. (1984). Limitations of vocabulary instruction (Tech. Rep. No. 326). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading. Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning word meanings from context: How broadly generalizable? (Tech. Rep. No. 347). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading. Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). Learning words from context (Tech. Rep. No. 319). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading. Pica, T. (1986). Negotiated interaction as an aid to second language production. Paper presented at the 1986 AAAL Annual Meeting, New York. Rumelhart, D. E. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance, Volume VI. New York: Academic Press. Schumann, J. (1987). A lexical method for language learning. Paper presented at the 1987 TESOL Convention, Miami, FL. Sinatra, R., Stahl-Gemake, J., & Morgan, N. W. (1986). Using semantic map-

244

ENGLISHFORSPECIFICPURPOSES

ping after reading to organize and write original discourse. Journal of Reading, 30, 4-13. Stahl, S. A., & Fairbanks, M. M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: a model-based meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56, 72-110. Strother, J. B., & Ulijn, J. (1987). Does syntactic rewriting affect EST (English for Science and Technology) text comprehension? In J. Devine, P. L. Carrell, D. Eskey (Eds.), Research in reading in English as a second language. Washington, DC: TESOL. Widdowson, II. G. (1979). Explorations in applied linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Patricia Carrel1 is a Professor of Linguistics at Southern Illinois University. She has written numerous articles on the relationship of schema theory to reading.