Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:59:13.949Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SLA and Classroom Instruction: Reading

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2008

Patricia L. Carrell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Theories and models of seond language acquisition have tended to focus on the role of oral language. While some acknowledgement is given to the role of reading (andwriting) in SLA (e.g., by Krashen 1984; 1985), the relative inattention given to reading in SLA had resulted in a dearth to reading research which is explicitly tied to the most popular theories and models of SLA or which is expressly designed to deal with issues commonly addressed in SLA. Although there is no simple explanation as to why SLAresearch has focused almost exclusively on oral language, to the neglect of written language, it is interesting to speculate about why the “canonical” theories of SLA do not to any significant extent deal with reading and writing, especially when there seems to be broad consensus that language has to be considered from a textual point of view, and when written as well as oral language may be a substantial source of language input. One possibility is that SLA, while in some sense part of the backlash against the structuralism of the audiolingual approach, has nonetheless simply maintained the focus on oral-aural language of audiolingualism (which itself originated as a reaction against earlier grammartranslation models relying heavily on reading and writing).

Type
Sla and Classroom Instruction
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 9 , March 1988 , pp. 223 - 242
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alderson, J. C. 1979. The cloze procedure and proficiency in English as a foreign language. TESOL quarterly 13.2.219–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, E. D. et al. , 1988 Comperhension and text genre: An analysis secondary school foreign language readers. Modern language journal. 72.2.163–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allerson, S. and Grabe, W.. 1986. Reading assessment. In Dubin, F., Eskey, D. E., and Grabe, W. (eds.) Teaching second language reading for academic purposes. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. 161–181.Google Scholar
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language. 1986. ACTFL proficiency quidelines. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: ACTEL.Google Scholar
Andersen, R. (ed.) 1983. Pidginization and creolization as language acquisistion. Rewley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. C. and Pearson, P. D.. 1984. A schema theoretic view of basic processes in reading comperhension. In Pearson, P. D. (ed.) Bandbook of reading research. New York: Longman. 255–291.Google Scholar
[Reprinted in Carrell, P. L., Devine, J. and Eskey, D. E. (eds.) Interacive approaches to second language reading. New York: Cambridge University Press. 37–55].Google Scholar
Baker, L. and Brown, A. L.. 1984. Metacognitive skills and reading. In Pearson, P. D. (ed.) Hand book of reading reseacrch. New York: Longman. 333–394.Google Scholar
Bamett, M. A. 1986. Synatactic and lexical/semantic skill in foreign language reading: Importance and interaction. Modern language journal. 70.4.343–349.Google Scholar
Baenett, M. A. 1988. Reading through context: How real and perceived strategy use affects L2 comprehension. Modern language journal. 72.2.150–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bendetto, R. A. 1984. A psycholinguistic invesigation of the use of top-level organizational strategies in first and second language reading: Five case studies. New York: New York University. Ph. D. diss.Google Scholar
Bensoussan, M. and Ramraz, R.. 1984. Testing EFL reading comprehension using a multiplechoice rational cloze. Modern language journal. 68.3. 230–239.Google Scholar
Blau, E. K. 1982. The effect of syntax on readbility for ESL students in Puerto Rico. TESOL quarterly. 16.4.517–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. D. 1984. A cloze is a cloze is a cloze? In Handscombe, J., Orem, R. A., and Taylor, B. P. (eds.) On TESOL '83. Washington, DC: TESOL. 109–119.Google Scholar
Cabello, B. 1984. Cultural interference in reading comprehension: An alternative explanation. Bilingual review. 11.1.12–20.Google Scholar
Carrell, P. L. 1984a. Evidence of a formal schema in second language comprehension. Language learning. 34.2.87–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrell, P. L. 1984b. Schema theory and ESL reading: Classroom implications and applications. Modern language journal. 68.4.332–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrell, P. L. 1984c. The effects of rhetorical organization on ESL readers. TESOL quarterly. 18.3.441–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrell, P. L. 1987b. Readability in ESL. Reading in a foreign language. 4.1.21–40.Google Scholar
Carrell, P. L. and Eisterhold, J. C.. 1983. Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL quarterly. 17.4.553–573.Google Scholar
[Reprinted in Carrell, P. L., Devine, J., and Eskey, D. E. (eds.) Interactive approaches to second language reading. New York: Cambridge University Press. 73–92].Google Scholar
Casanave, C. P. 1988. Comprehension monitoring in ESL reading: A neglected essential. TESOL quarterly. 22.2.283–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.. 1980. On cognitive structures and their development: A reply to Piaget. In Piatelli-Palmarini, M. (ed.) Language and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 35–54.Google Scholar
Clarke, M. A. 1980. The short circuit hypothesis of ESL reading—or when language competence interferes with reading performance. Modern language jouranl. 64.2.203–209.Google Scholar
[Reprinted in Carrell, P. L., Devine, J., and Eskey, D. E. (eds.) Interactive approaches to second language reading. New York: Cambridge University Press. 114–124.]Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D. 1986. Mentalistic measures in reading strategy research: Some recent findings. English for specific purposes. 5.2.131–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A. D. and Hosenfeld, C.. 1981. Some uses of mentalistic data in recent second language research. Language learning. 31.2.285–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U., Connor 1984. Recall of text: Differences between first and second language readers. TESOL quarterly. 18.2.239–256.Google Scholar
U., Connor 1987. The eclectic synergy of methods of reading research. In Devine, J., Carrell, P. L. and Eskey, D. E. (eds.) Research in reading in English as a second language. Washington, DC: TESOL. 9–20.Google Scholar
V., Cook 1985. Universal grammar and second language. Applied linguistics. 6. 1.2–18.Google Scholar
J., Cummins 1979. Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic inter-dependence, the optimal age question and some other matters. Working papers on bilingualism. 19.197–205.Google Scholar
A., Davies 1984. Simple, simplified and simplification: What is authentic? In Alderson, J. C. and Urquhart, A.H. (eds.) Reading in a foreign language. London: Longman.181–195.Google Scholar
J., Devine 1987. General language competence and adult second language reading. In Devine, J., Carrell, P. L., and Eskey, D.E. (eds.) Research in reading in English as a second language. Washington, DC: TESOL. 73–86.Google Scholar
H., Dulay and Burt, M.. 1974. Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language learning. 24.1.37–53.Google Scholar
R., Ellis 1984. Classroom second language development. Oxford: Oxford Pergamon.Google Scholar
R., Ellis 1986. Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford:Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Flavell, J.H. 1978. Metacognitive development.In Scandura, J. M. and Brainerd, C. J. (eds.) Struturallprocess models of complex human behavior. Alphen a. d. Rijn, The Netherlands: Sijthoff and Noordhoff. 213–245.Google Scholar
R., Garner 1987. Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
S., Gass 1983. The development of L2 intuitions. TESOL quarterly. 17.2.273–291.Google Scholar
H., Giles and Byrne, J.. 1982. An intergroup approach to second language acquisition. Journal of multilingual and multicultural development. 3.1.17–40.Google Scholar
W., Grabe and Zukowski/Faust, J.. 1986. On the acquisition of vocabulary from reading. Paper presented at the 1986 TESOL Convention, Anaheim, CA. 03.Google Scholar
S.A., Hague 1987. Vocabulary instruction: What L2 can Learn from L1. Foreign language annals. 20. 3.217–225.Google Scholar
E., Hatch 1978. Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In Hatch, E.(ed.) Second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 401–435.Google Scholar
Haus, G. L. and Leving, M. G.. 1985.The effect of background knowledge on the reading comprehension of second language learners. Foreign language annals. 18.5.391–397.Google Scholar
G., Henning 1984. Advantages of latent trait measurement in language testing. Language testing. 1.2.123–133.Google Scholar
Herman, P. A. et al. , 1987. Incidental acquisition of word meaning from expositions with varied text features. Reading research quarterly. 22.3.263–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
T., Hundson 1982. The effects of induced schemata on the “short circuit” in L2 reading: Non decoding factors in L2 reading performance. Language learning. 32.1. 1–31.Google Scholar
James, M. O. 1987. ESL reading pedagogy: Implications of schema-theoretical reserch. In Deving, J.. Carrell, P. L., and Eskey, D. E. (eds.) Research in reading in English as a second language. Washington, DC: TESOL. 175–188.Google Scholar
P., Johnson 1981. Effects on reading comprehension of language complexity and cultural background of a text. TESOL quarterly. 15.2.169–181.Google Scholar
P., Johnson 1982. Effect on reading comprehension of building background knowledge. TESOL quarterly. 16.4. 503–516.Google Scholar
Johnston, P. H. 1983. Reading comprehension assessment: A cognitive basis. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
W., Klein 1987. Second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
S., Krashen 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
S., Krashen 1984. Writing: Research, theory, and application.Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. 1985. The input hypothesis:Issues and implications. London: Longman.Google Scholar
S., Krashen and Terrell, T.. 1983. The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
J., Lamendella 1979. The neurofunctional basis of pattern practice. TESOL quarterly. 13.1.5–19.Google Scholar
Lee, J. F. 1986a. The effect of three components of backgrount knowledge on L2 reading. Modern language journal. 70.4.350–354.Google Scholar
Lee, J. F. and Musumeci, D.. 1988. On hierarchies of reading and text types. Modern language journal. 72. 2.173–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
E., Levenston, Nir, R., and Blum-Kulka, S.. 1984. Discourse analysis and the testing of reating comprehension by cloze techinques. in Pugh, A. K. and Ulijn, J. M. (eds.) Reading for professional purposes. London: Heinemann. 202–212.Google Scholar
Loew, H. A. 1984. Developing strategic reading skills. Foreign language annals 17.4.301–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. 1981. Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In Winitz, H. (ed.) Native language and foreign language acquisition. New York: New York Academy of Sciences. 259–278. [Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, No. 379.]Google Scholar
Long, M. H. 1984. Using rational cloze for diagnostic testing in L1 and L2 reading. TESL Canada journal. 2.1. 53–63.Google Scholar
M., MacLean and d'Anglejan, A.. 1986. Rational cloze and retrospection: Insights into and second language reading comprehension. Canadian modern language review. 42.4. 814–826.Google Scholar
A., Martin 1980. Proficiency of university level advanced ESL students and native speakers of English in processing hierarchical information in context. Los Angeles: University of Southern Califoenia. Ph.D.diss.Google Scholar
M., McGroarty 1988. Second language acquisition theory relevant to language minorities: Cummins, Krashen, and Schumann. In McKay, S. L and Wong, S.-L. C. (eds.) Language diversity: Problems or resource? Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 295–337.Google Scholar
B., McLaughlin 1987. Theories of second language learning. London: Edward Aenold.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L. and Rumelhart, D. E. (eds.) 1986. Parallel distributed processing: Explorations it the microstrucure of congnition. Vol. 2: Psychological and biologocal models.Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, B. L. F. 1975. The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Mohammed, M. A. H. and Swales, J. M.. 1984. Factors affecting the successful reading of teachincal instructions. Reading in a foreign language. 20.2.206–217.Google Scholar
Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A. and Anderson, R. C.. 1985. Learning words from context. Reading research quarterly. 20.2.233–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U. and Walker, C.. 1987 Some applications of cognitive theroy to secont language acquisition. Studies in second language acquisition. 9.5.287–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omaggio, A. C. 1984. Making reading comprehensible. Foreign language annals. 17.4.305–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
K., Perkins and Miller, L. D.. 1984. Comparative analyses of English as a second language reading comprehesion data: Classical test theory and latent trait measurement. Language antesting. 1.1.21–32.Google Scholar
J.K., Phillips 1984. Practical implications of recent reserch in reading. Foreign language annals. 17.4.285–296.Google Scholar
Rankin, J. M. 1988. Designing think-aloud studies in ESL reading. Reading in a foreign language. 4. 2. 119–132.Google Scholar
D.E., Rumelhart 1980. Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In Spiro, R. J., Bruce, B. C., and Brewer, W. F. (eds.) Theortical issuse in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 33–58.Google Scholar
Samuels, S. J. and Kamil, M. L.. 1984. Models of the reading process. In Pearson, P. D. (ed.) Handbook of reading research. New York: Longaman. 185–224.Google Scholar
[Reprinted in Carrell, P. L., Devine, J., and Eskey, D.E. (eds.) Interactive approaches to second language reading. New York: Cambridge University Press. 22–36.]Google Scholar
Schulz, R. A. 1984. Second language reading research: From theory to practice. Foreign language annals. 17.4. 309–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
J., Schumann 1978. The acculturation model for second language acquisition. In Gingras, R. (ed.) Second language acquisition and foreign language teaching. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics. 27–50.Google Scholar
L., Selinker 1972. Interlanguage. International review of applied linguistics. 10.209–230.Google Scholar
L., Selinker and Douglas, D.. 1987. LSP and interlanguage: Some empirical studies. English for specific purposes.6.2.75–85.Google Scholar
Stahl, S. A. and Fairbanks, M. M. 1986. The effect of vocabulary instruction: Amodel-based meta-analysis. Revies of educational research. 56.1.72–110.Google Scholar
K., Stanovich 1980. Toward an interactive-compensatory model od individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading research quarterly. 16.1.32–71.Google Scholar
Stother, J. B. and Ulijn, J. M.. 1987. Does syntactic rewriting affect English for science and technology text comprehension? In Devine, J., Carrell, P. L. and Easkey, D. E. (eds.) Research in reading in English as a second language. Washington, DC: TESOL. 89–101.Google Scholar
Swaffar, J. K. 1988. Readers, texts, and second languages: the interactive processes. Modern language journal. 72.2.123–149.Google Scholar
Urquhart, A. H. 1984. The effect of rhetorical ordering on readbility.In Alderson, J. C. and Urquhart, A. H.(eds.) Reading in a foreign language. London: Longman. 160–175.Google Scholar
Wells, D. R. 1986. The assessment of foreign language reading comprehension: Refining the task. Unterrichtspraxis.19.2.174–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D., Wolff 1987. Some assumptions about second language text comprehension. Studies in second language acquisition. 9. 3.307–326.Google Scholar
L., Woytak 1984. Reading proficiency and a psycholinguistic approach to second language reading. Foreign language annals. 17.5.509–517.Google Scholar
M., Zvetina 1987. From research to pedagogy: What do L2 reading studies suggest? Foreign language annals. 20. 3.233–238.Google Scholar