Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T11:25:33.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discourse Processing Effort and Perceptions of Comprehensibility in Nonnative Discourse

The Effect of Ordering and Interpretive Cues Revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Andrea Tyler  and
John Bro
Andrea Tyler
Affiliation:
Program in Linguistics, University of Florida
John Bro
Affiliation:
Program in Linguistics, University of Florida
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The study reported here extends Tyler and Bro's (1992) investigation of the sources of native speakers' perceptions of incoherence in English text produced by nonnative speakers. Using paper-and-pencil tasks, the original study examined two competing hypotheses: (a) The primary source of interference was the order in which the ideas were presented versus (b) the primary source of interference was mismatches in discourse structuring cues. They found no effect for order of ideas but a strong effect of discourse structuring cues. In the present study, 80 subjects were tested on the same texts as those used in Tyler and Bro (1992) but using microcomputers. Subjects rated the text for comprehensibility and answered three questions concerning the propositional content. The computer format represented a more sensitive measure of subjects' reactions to the text because it did not allow looking back and because it provided information concerning differences in reading time for each manipulation. Once again, the results of the comprehensibility ratings showed a strong effect for miscues and no significant effect for order of ideas. Results of the true/false questions indicated that presence of miscues affected subjects' comprehension of the propositional content but that order of ideas had no discernible effect. Finally, reading time results also showed a strong effect for miscues and a mixed effect for order of ideas, suggesting that order of ideas does make a minor contribution to comprehensibility.

Type
Replication Study
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , December 1993 , pp. 505 - 522
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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

Akinnaso, F. (1982). On the differences between spoken and written language, Language and Speech, 25 (2), 97–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaman, K. (1984). Coordination and subordination revisited: Syntactic complexity in spoken and written narrative discourse. In Tannen, D. (Ed.), Advances in discourse processes (Vol. 21, pp. 45–81). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bever, T., Lackner, J., & Kirk, R. (1969). The underlying structures of sentences are the primary units of immediate speech processing. Perception & Psychophysics, 5, 225–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. (1982). Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In Tannen, D. (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp. 35–53). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Cruttenden, A. (1986). Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Danielowicz, J. (1984). The integration between text and context: A study of how adults and children use spoken and written language in four contexts. In Pelligrini, A. & Yawkey, T. (Eds.), The development of oral and written language in social contexts (pp. 243–260). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Davison, A., & Kantor, R. (1982). On the failure of readability formulas to define readable texts: A case study from adaptations. Reading Research Quarterly, 2, 187–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davison, A., & Lutz, R. (1981). Measurement of syntactic complexity relative to context (Tech. Rep. No. 371). Urbana: Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Durrell, D. (1969). Listening comprehension vs. reading comprehension. Journal of Reading, 12, 455–460.Google Scholar
Fox, B. (1987). Discourse structure and anaphora: Written and conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, G. (1989). Pragmatics and natural language understanding. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Green, T. (1979). The necessity of syntactic markers: Two experiments with artificial languages. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 481–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. (1987). Spoken and written modes of meaning. In Horowitz, R. & Samuels, S. (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 55–82). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Johns-Lewis, C. (Ed.). (1986). Intonation in discourse. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, R. (1972). The anatomy of rhetoric: Prolegomena to a functional theory of rhetoric. Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. (1987). Cultural thought patterns revisited. In Connor, U. & Kaplan, R. (Eds.), Writing across languages (pp. 9–22). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W., & Kosinsky, E. (1977). Summarizing stories after reading and listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 491–499.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. R. (1980). The structure of intonational meaning. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1984). The pragmatics of subordination. In Brugman, C. & Macauley, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 472–480). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C., & Goldman, S. (1976). Discourse memory and reading comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, J. (1987). Factors that influence listening and reading comprehension. In Horowitz, R. & Samuels, S. (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 295–325). London: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, P. (1973). Focus and relativization. Language, 49, 19–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stitch, T. (1972). Learning by listening. In Carroll, J. & Freedle, R. (Eds.), Language comprehension and the acquisition of language. New York: V. H. Winston.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (Ed.). (1986). Discourse in cross-cultural communication [Special Issue]. Text, 6 (2). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Townsend, D., Carrithers, C., & Bever, T. (1987). Listening and reading processes in college- and middle school-age readers. In Horowitz, R. & Samuels, S. (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 217–241). London: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A. (1992). Discourse structure and the perception of incoherence in international teaching assistants' spoken discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 713–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A., & Bro, J. (1992). Discourse structure in nonnative English discourse: The effect of ordering and interpretive cues. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, L. (1982). Inscrutability revisited. In Gumperz, J. (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 72–85). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar