Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:20:45.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

English as a second language learner differences in anaphoric resolution: Reading to learn in the academic context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2005

ELIZABETH J. PRETORIUS
ELIZABETH J. PRETORIUS
Affiliation:
University of South Africa, Pretoria
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To succeed at a university, students need to read expository texts effectively and meaningfully to access and understand information, and internalize it for study purposes. An important component of the comprehension process is the reader's ability to integrate current information with information mentioned earlier in a text. One aspect of this integration process involves anaphoric resolution. This paper reports on findings from a study that investigated anaphoric resolution by first-year English as a second language students during the reading of expository texts. The relationship between skill in anaphoric resolution, academic performance, and language proficiency was examined. Linguistic and textual factors such as type and inference strength of anaphoric tie were also taken into account to examine differential resolution effects. The findings showed that students who were not performing well academically were not skilled at resolving anaphors. Anaphoric resolution was also affected by linguistic and textual differences. Differences in anaphoric resolution diminished as proficiency in English increased. Anaphoric resolution was also affected by the strength of the anaphoric tie; successful anaphoric resolution dropped when the anaphoric tie required greater inferential processing. This was particularly evident among the academically weaker students. The findings suggest that anaphoric resolution in expository texts plays an important role in reading to learn. The implications of these findings are briefly discussed for English as a second language students.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , October 2005 , pp. 521 - 539
Copyright
© 2005 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

Allen J. 1985. Inferential comprehension: The effects of text source, decoding ability, and mode. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 603– 615.Google Scholar
Cooper P. A. 1996. In search of sufficient vocabulary: Testing the vocabulary levels of undergraduate students. South African Journal of Linguistics, Supplement, 26, 25– 37.Google Scholar
Ehrlich M.-F., Remond M., & Tardieu H. 1999. Processing of anaphoric devices in young skilled and less skilled comprehenders: Differences in metacognitive monitoring. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 29– 63.Google Scholar
Elley W. B. 1991. Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effect of book-based programmes. Language Learning, 41, 375– 411.Google Scholar
Gallini J. K., & Spires H. A. 1992. The influence of anaphoric relations and departures from story grammar structure on text processing. Reading Psychology, 13, 107– 130.Google Scholar
Garrod S., & Sanford A. 1977. Interpreting anaphoric relations: The integration of semantic information while reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 77– 90.Google Scholar
Garrod S. C., & Sanford A. J. 1994. Resolving sentences in a discourse context. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 675– 698). New York: Academic Press.
Gernsbacher M. A. 1989. Mechanisms that improve referential access. Cognition, 32, 99– 156.Google Scholar
Gordon P. C., Grosz B. J., & Gilliom L. A. 1993. Pronouns, names and the centring of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17, 311– 347.Google Scholar
Grosz B. J., Joshi A. K., & Weinstein S. 1995. Centring: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21, 203– 225.Google Scholar
Grosz B. J., & Sidner C. L. 1985. Attention, intentions and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12, 175– 204.Google Scholar
Giddens A. 1993. Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Grabe W. 1991. Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 375– 406.Google Scholar
Halliday M. A. K., & Hasan R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Hoover M. L. 1997. Effects of textual and cohesive structure on discourse processing. Discourse Processes, 23, 193– 120.Google Scholar
Just M. A., & Carpenter P. A. 1987. The psychology of reading and language comprehension. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kennison S. M. & Gordon P. C. 1997. Comprehending referential expressions during reading: Evidence from eye tracking. Discourse Processes, 24, 229– 252.Google Scholar
Krashen S. 1993. The power of reading. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
McKoon G., & Ratcliff R. 1980. The comprehension process and memory structures involved in anaphoric reference. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 668– 682.Google Scholar
Nicaise M., & Gettinger M. 1995. Fostering reading comprehension in college students. Reading Psychology, 16, 283– 337.Google Scholar
Oakhill J., & Yuill N. 1986. Pronoun resolution in skilled and less-skilled comprehenders: Effects of memory load and inferential complexity. Language and Speech, 29, 25– 37.Google Scholar
O'Brien E. J., Raney G. E., Albrecht J. E., & Rayner K. 1997. Processes involved in the resolution of explicit anaphors. Discourse Processes, 23, 1– 24.Google Scholar
Packenham K. J. 1980. The resolution of lexically-reinforced anaphoric reference and its relation to reading in English as a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
Pearson P. D., & Fielding L. 1991. Comprehension instruction. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 815– 860). London: Longman.
Pretorius E. J. 1996. A profile of causal development amongst ten-year-olds: Implications for reading and writing. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8, 385– 406.Google Scholar
Stanovich K. E. 1986. Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360– 406.Google Scholar
Webber B. L. 1980. Syntax beyond the sentence: Anaphora. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 141– 164). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.