Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T14:57:27.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing L2 reading texts at the intermediate level: An approximate replication of Crossley, Louwerse, McCarthy & McNamara (2007)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2008

Scott A. Crossley  and
Danielle S. McNamara
Scott A. Crossley
Affiliation:
Mississippi State University, USAscrossley@mail.psyc.memphis.edu
Danielle S. McNamara
Affiliation:
University of Memphis, USAd.mcnamara@mail.psyc.memphis.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper follows up on the work of Crossley, Louwerse, McCarthy & McNamara (2007), who conducted an exploratory study of the linguistic differences of simplified and authentic texts found in beginner level English as a Second Language (ESL) textbooks using the computational tool Coh-Metrix. The purpose of this study is to provide a more comprehensive study of second language (L2) reading texts than that provided by Crossley et al. (2007) by investigating the differences between the linguistic structures of a larger and more selective corpus of intermediate reading texts. This study is important because advocates of both approaches to ESL text construction cite linguistic features, syntax, and discourse structures as essential elements of text readability, but only the Crossley et al. (2007) study has measured the differences between these text types and their implications for L2 learners. This research replicates the methods of the earlier study. The findings of this study provide a more thorough understanding of the linguistic features that construct simplified and authentic texts. This work will enable material developers, publishers, and reading researchers to more accurately judge the values of simplified and authentic L2 texts as well as improve measures for matching readers to text.

Type
Replication Studies
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , July 2008 , pp. 409 - 429
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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

Allen, J. & Widdowson, H. G. (1979). Teaching the communicative use of English. In Brumfit, C. & Johnson, K. (eds.), The communicative approach to language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 124–142.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R. & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX Lexical Database (Release 2) [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania [Distributor].Google Scholar
Bacon, S. & Finnemann, M. (1990). A study of the attitudes, motives, and strategies of university foreign language students and their disposition to authentic oral and written input. The Modern Language Journal 74, 459–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brill, E. (1995). Transformation-based error-driven learning and natural language processing: A case study in part of speech Tagging. Computational Linguistics 21, 543–565.Google Scholar
Carrell, P. & Grabe, W. (2002). Reading. In Schmitt, N. (ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press, 233–250.Google Scholar
Collins, T. (2004). Access reading 2: Reading in the real world. Boston, MA: Thomson Heinle.Google Scholar
Collins, T. (2005). Access reading 3: Reading in the real world. Boston, MA: Thomson Heinle.Google Scholar
Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC Psycholinguistic Database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 33.A, 497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costerman, J. & Fayol, M. (1997). Processing interclausal relationships: Studies in production and comprehension of text. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Cowan, J. R. (1976). Reading, perceptual strategies, and contrastive analysis. Language Learning 26, 5–109.Google Scholar
Crandall, J. (1995). The why, what, and how of ESL reading instruction: Guidelines for writers of ESL reading textbooks. In Byrd, P. (ed.), Material writer's guide. New York: Heinle & Heinle Publishers, 79–94.Google Scholar
Cripwell, K. & Foley, J. (1984). The grading of extensive readers. World Language English 3, 168–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M. & McNamara, D. S. (2007). A linguistic analysis of simplified and authentic texts. Modern Language Journal 91.2, 15–30.Google Scholar
Davies, A. & Widdowson, H. (1974). Reading and writing. In Allen, J. P. & Corder, S. P., (eds.), Techniques in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 155–201.Google Scholar
Day, R. R. & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive reading in the L2 classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deerwester, S., Dumais, S. T., Furnas, G. W., Landauer, T. K. & Harshman, R. (1990). Indexing by latent semantic analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 41, 391–407.Google Scholar
Fellag, L. R. (2000). Tapestry reading 3. Boston, MA: Thomson Heinle.Google Scholar
Fellbaum, C. (1998). WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilhooly, K. J. & Logie, R. H. (1980). Age of acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity and ambiguity measures for 1944 words. Behaviour Research Methods and Instrumentation 12, 395–427.Google Scholar
Goodman, K. (1986). What's whole in whole language. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.Google Scholar
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S. & Louwerse, M. M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text? In Sweet, A. P. & Snow, C. E. (eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension. New York: Guilford Press, 82–98.Google Scholar
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M. & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 36, 193–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haber, R. N. & Haber, L. R. (1981). Visual components of the reading process. Visible Language 15, 147–182.Google Scholar
Haberlandt, K. F. & Graesser, A. C. (1985). Component processes in text comprehension and some of their interactions. Journal of Experiment Psychology: General 114, 357–374.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. Baltimore, MD: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Johnson, P. (1981). Effects of reading comprehension of language complexity and cultural background. TESOL Quarterly 15, 169–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just, M. A. & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review 87, 329–354.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review 85, 363–394.Google Scholar
Kuo, C. (1993). Problematic issues in EST materials development. English for Specific Purposes 12, 171–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landauer, T. K. & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of the acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review 104, 211–240.Google Scholar
Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W. & Laham, D. (1998). Introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes 25, 259–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, W. Y. (1995). Authenticity revisited: Text authenticity and learner authenticity. ELT Journal 49, 323–328.Google Scholar
Long, M. & Ross, S. (1993). Modifications that preserve language and content. In Tickoo, M. L. (ed.), Simplification: Theory and application. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Center, 29–52.Google Scholar
Mackay, R. (1979). Teaching the information gathering skills. In Barkman, R. B. & Jordan, R. R. (eds.), Reading in a L2. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 254–267.Google Scholar
Malarcher, C. (2004a). Reading advantage 2. Boston, MA: Thomson Heinle.Google Scholar
Malarcher, C. (2004b). Reading advantage 3. Boston, MA: Thomson Heinle.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of L2 learning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T. & McLeod, B. (1983). L2 learning and information processing perspective. Language Learning 33, 135–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G., Beckwith, A., Fellbaum, R., Gross, C. & Miller, K. J. (1990). Introduction to WordNet: An on-line lexical database. International Journal of Lexicography 3, 235–244.Google Scholar
Nuttall, C. (2005). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. Oxford: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Paivio, A. (1965). Abstractness, imagery, and meaningfulness in paired-associate learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 4, 32–38.Google Scholar
Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C. & Madigan, S. (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph Supplement 76, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearson, P. D. (1974–75). The effects of grammatical complexity on children's comprehension, recall, and conception of certain semantic relationships. Reading Research Quarterly 10, 155–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickett, W. P. (1991). At home in two lands: Intermediate reading and word study. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Pimsleur, B. (1995). Counterparts: An intermediate reading program. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Ryall, M. (2000). Tapestry reading 2. Boston, MA: Thomson Heinle.Google Scholar
Shook, D. (1997). Identifying and overcoming possible mismatches in the beginning reader-literary text interaction. Hispania 80, 234–243.Google Scholar
Simensen, A. M. (1987). Adapted readers: How are they adapted? Reading in a Foreign Language 4, 41–57.Google Scholar
Smith, C. L. & Mare, N. N. (2004). Issues for today. Boston, MA: Thomson Heinle.Google Scholar
Smith, F. (1988). Understanding reading (4th edn.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Sokolik, M. E. (1999). Rethinking America. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Swaffar, J. K. (1981). Reading in the foreign language classroom: Focus on process. Die Unterrichtspraxis 14, 174–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swaffar, J. K. (1985). Reading authentic texts in a foreign language: A cognitive model. The Modern Language Journal 69, 15–34.Google Scholar
Toglia, M. P. & Battig, W. R. (1978). Handbook of semantic word norms. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Tomlinson, B., Dat, B., Masuhara, H. & Rubdy, R. (2001). EFL Courses of Adults. ELT Journal 55, 80–101.Google Scholar
Woodinsky, M. & Nation, P. (1988). Learning from graded readers. Reading in Foreign Languages 5, 155–161.Google Scholar
Young, D. J. (1999). Linguistic simplification of SL reading material: Effective instructional practice? The Modern Language Journal 83, 350–366.Google Scholar
Zipf, G. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Zukowski/Faust, J. (2002). Steps to academic reading: Across the board. Boston, MA: Thomson Heinle.Google Scholar