Two types of input modification and EFL reading comprehension: Simplification versus elaboration

TESOL Quarterly

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 69-96

  Oh, Sun Young ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33745728930     PISSN: 00398322     EISSN: 15457249     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/3587860     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Aebersold, J. A., & Field, M. L. (1997). From reader to reading teacher: Issues and strategies for second language classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
2. Alexander, L. G. (1967a). Developing skills. Essex, England: Longman.
3. Alexander, L. G. (1967b). Fluency in English. Essex, England: Longman.
4. Blau, E. K. (1982). The effect of syntax on readability for ESL students in Puerto Rico. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 517-526.
5. Brown, R. (1987). A comparison of the comprehensibility of modified and unmodified reading materials for ESL. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, 6, 49-79.
6. Carroll, S. E. (1999). Putting "input" in its proper place. Second Language Research, 15, 337-388.
7. Cervantes, R. (1983). Say it again Sam: The effect of exact repetition on listening comprehension. ESL 670 term paper, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
8. Chaudron, C. (1983). Simplification of input: Topic reinstatements and their effects on L2 learners' recognition and recall. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 437-458.
9. Chiang, C. S. (1990). Effects of speech modification, prior knowledge, and listening proficiency on the lecture listening comprehension of Chinese EFL students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, State College.
10. Chiang, C. S., & Dunkel, P. (1992). The effect of speech modification, prior knowledge, and listening proficiency on EFL lecture learning. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 345-374.
11. Choi, Y.-H. (1994). Interactive model of listening and Korean college students' listening comprehension of English dialogues and monologues. English Teaching [Korea Association of Teachers of English], 49, 311-340.
12. Choi, Y.J. (1996). A study on the relation of cultural schema and linguistic complexity to the learners'reading comprehension in EFL. Unpublished master's thesis, Seoul National University, Korea.
13. Dubin, F. (1986). Dealing with texts. In F. Dubin, D. E. Eskey, & W. Grabe (Eds.), Teaching second language reading for academic purposes (pp. 127-160). New York: Addison-Wesley.
14. Ellis, R. (1981). The role of input in language acquisition: Some implications for second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 2, 70-82.
15. Ellis, R. (1995). Modified oral input and the acquisition of word meanings. Applied Linguistics, 16, 409-441.
16. Fujimoto, D., Lubin, J., Sasaki, Y., & Long, M. (1986). The effect of linguistic and conversational adjustments on the comprehensibility of spoken second language discourse. Unpublished manuscript, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
17. Gaies, S. (1979). Linguistic input in formal second language learning: The issue of syntactic gradation and readability in ESL materials. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 41-50.
18. Hatch, E. (1983). Simplified input and second language acquisition. In R. W. Andersen (Ed.), Pidginization and (realization as language acquisition (pp. 64-86). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
19. Honeyfield, J. (1977). Simplification. TESOL Quarterly, 11, 431-440.
20. Jeong, Y.-K. (1987). The effect of syntactic simplification on Korean students'English reading comprehension. Unpublished master's thesis, Seoul National University, Korea.
21. Johnson, P. (1981). Effects on reading comprehension of language complexity and cultural background of a text. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 169-181.
22. Kelch, K. (1985). Modified input as an aid to comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 81-90.
23. Kim, Y.-J. (1985). Variables in reading comprehension. Unpublished master's thesis, Seoul National University, Korea.
24. Krashen, S. D. (1980). The input hypothesis. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics: Current issues in bilingual education (pp. 144-158). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
25. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.
26. Krashen, S. D. (1991). The input hypothesis: An update. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics: Language pedagogy: The state of the art (pp. 409-431). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
27. Krashen, S. (1993). Some unexpected consequence's of the input hypothesis. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics: Strategic interaction and language acquisition: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 6-21). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
28. Krashen, S. (1997). The comprehension hypothesis: Recent evidence. English Teachers' Journal, 51, 17-29.
29. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1983). The importance of input in second language acquisition. In R. W. Andersen (Ed.), Pidginization and (realization as language acquisition (pp. 64-86).
30. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1985). State of the art on input in second language acquisition. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 433-444). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
31. Lee, J.-H. (1986). A study on the influence of vocabulary, syntax, and discourse structure upon reading comprehension. Unpublished master's thesis, Seoul National University, Korea.
32. Leow, R. P. (1993). To simplify or not to simplify: A look at intake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 333-355.
33. Long, M. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition (pp. 259-278). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
34. Long, M. H. (1983). Foreigner talk in the classroom - an aid to learning? In H. W. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 127-145). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
35. Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377-393). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
36. Loschky, L. (1994). Comprehensible input and second language acquisition: What is the relationship? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 303-323.
37. Nuttall, C. (1996). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. Chicago: Heinemann English Language Teaching.
38. Olaofe, I. A. (1995). Increasing comprehensible input of EAP learners through insignts from SLA theories. UNESCO ALSED-LSP Newsletter, 18(1), 4-19.
39. Parker, K., & Chaudron, C. (1987). The effects of linguistic simplification and elaborative modifications on L2 comprehension. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, 6, 107-133.
40. Pica, T. (1991). Input as a theoretical and research construct: From Corder's original definition to current views. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 29, 185-196.
41. Prabhu, N. S. (1997). Acquisition through comprehension: Three procedures. In R. Singh (Ed.), Grammar, language, and society: Contemporary Indian contributions (pp. 343-356). New Delhi, India: Sage.
42. Salaberry, M. R. (1996). The pedagogical value of simplified written input in L2 acquisition. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics, 14, 125-150.
43. Saleemi, A. (1989). Inputs for L2 acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 27, 173-191.
44. SAS: Statistical Analysis Software (Version 6) [Computer software]. (1985). Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
45. Smith, M. S. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165-179.
46. Snow, C. E. (1993). Learning from input in L1 and L2. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics: Strategic interaction and language acquisition: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 23-35). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
47. Sole, Y. (1994). The input hypothesis and the bilingual learner. Bilingual Review, 19(2), 99-110.
48. Strother, J., & Ulijn, J. (1987). Does syntactic rewriting affect English for science and technology text comprehension? In J. Devine, P. L. Carrell, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Research in reading in English as a second language (pp. 89-103). Washington, DC: TESOL.
49. Tsang, W. K. (1987). Text modifications in ESL reading comprehension. Unpublished manuscript, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
50. Van Patten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287-301.
51. Wagner-Gough, J. (1975). The importance of input data in second language acquisition studies. Language Learning, 25, 297-308.
52. Yano, Y., Long, M. H., & Ross, S. (1994). The effects of simplified and elaborated texts on foreign language reading comprehension. Language Learning, 44, 189-219.
53. Yi, W.-S. (1994). A study on the effect of listener's cultural background knowledge and redundant information on EFL listening. Unpublished master's thesis, Ewha Women's University, Seoul, Korea.