Second Language Readers' Memory for Narrative Texts: Evidence for Structure‐Preserving Top‐Down Processing

Abstract

This study assessed the role that structural properties of texts play in the mental representations of second-language (L2) readers. In particular, we investigated the extent to which 47 L2 readers of English used structural properties of a text (causal factors, story-grammar category, and hierarchical level) to "fill in" gaps in their mental representations. L2 readers' recall protocols of narrative texts were analyzed and compared with those of 72 L1 readers of English using two scoring criteria: meaning-preserving and structure-preserving. The first credits information that is either verbatim or a close paraphrase of the original textual information; the second credits information that fulfills the same structural function as the original text unit. We found that L2 readers'We thank Erik Arthur for his help in scoring the recall protocols; Hifumi Ito for her help with translation; and Hidetaka Tamai for data collection. We also acknowledge the students of Midorigaoka Senior High School for their participation. T w o anonymous reviewers made useful comments on an earlier version of this paper. Requests for reprints may be sent to Yukie Horiba, Department of Asian Languages, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003. Telephone: (413) 545-0886. Internet: yukieh@titan.ucc.umas.edu 345 346 Language Learning VOl. 43, No. 3structure-preserving recalls were substantially higher than were their meaning-preservingrecalls, and that the effects of particular structural properties (i.e., causal connections and story-grammar category) interacted with the scoring criterion. These results indicate that these L2 readers used topdown processing to preserve the structural integrity of a text.

Cross‐ and mono‐linguistic text processing in bilingual children

“…Our results are in accordance with those of Horiba et al (1993), who also observed more top-down processing in L2 English based on a sample of 17-and 18-year-old students. Their readers used more intrusions in L2, thus showing top-down elaborative processing that L2 readers use to deduce or approximate meaning.…”

“…Bilinguals may be more inclined to bottom-up processing than monolinguals, who may tend to utilise top-down processing. Horiba et al (1993) investigated intrusions that indicate the influence of schemata, scripts activated or gist formed during the comprehension stage on the reconstruction of the story in free recall; however, their argument is based on bilinguals' L2 usage. They contended that because bilinguals constantly deal with two language systems, they have to develop a focus on the linguistic surface structure of their verbal input.…”

“…Of course, we may not exclude that bilingual children use top-down processing as well; they only develop a habit of paying more attention to linguistic surface features than monolinguals, possibly -but not necessarily -at the expense of top-down processing. The question remains unanswered as to whether comprehension and production of texts in L1 will lead to the same preferences for either direction of text processing than processing in L2 (see Horiba et al, 1993).…”

“…Cross-language transfer for cognates was observed but depended on the bilinguals' skill in their second language, the direction of the transfer and whether the passages shared meaning. Horiba, van den Broek, and Fletcher (1993) found that L2 readers struggle with the surface structure of a text and, because this depletes part of their cognitive resources, the gist will be less well processed. To compensate, during comprehension and/or recall, background knowledge is activated to construct the situation model or gist of an L2 text.…”

The relation between time spent on the written recall task and the memory of L2 text

“…The examination of L2 reading studies that employed the recall assessment task revealed that research has varied in terms of the time allowed for doing the recall task. As seen in Table 1, while some researchers allowed the participants to read and recall at their own pace (e.g., Allen et al, 1988;Barry & Lazarte, 1995;Barry & Lazarte, 1998;Bernhardt, 1983;Chen & Donin, 1997;Connor, 1984;Donin & Silva, 1993;Horiba, 1996a, b;Horiba et al, 1993;Riley & Lee, 1996;Sadoski et al, 2000;Schraw, 1998;Stott, 2004;Young, 1999), others set a certain time limit and asked the participants to finish the task within the time limit (e.g., Baylor & McCormick, 2003;Chu et al, 2002;Davis et al, 1988;Ghaith & Harkouss, 2003;Kim, 1995;Sadoski et al, 1995).…”