Schema in L2 Reading

Reading in a second language is a topic often treated as “a slower, bastardized version of doing the same task in the native language” (Bernhardt, 1991, p. 2). For this reason, there is comparatively little research on the subject, but at least most of the findings in this area are in agreement. The purpose of this essay is to describe the ways in which schema theory is relevant in L2 reading, and it will also touch upon individual beliefs and affect for contrast.

There are two very basic concepts that concerning L2 reading. One of them schema theory. Schemata are basically a framework (or multiple frameworks) built of our impressions of the outside world, “stored in our memory in units of stereotypic knowledge” (Kormos & Csolle, 2004, p. 72). These frameworks assist comprehension in a similar fashion as a ladder: if a single crosspiece is missing, it becomes very difficult (if not impossible) to get to the top. In L1 reading, the reader has already acquired most of these “crosspieces” through life experience and education. However, if a reader tries to climb the ladder of a second language, that is, reading a text in a non-native language, he might have to face a number of gaps that prevent him from complete comprehension.

Such a linear way of representing the comprehension process has a number of drawbacks, as well as a number of advantages. The first steps of the ladder are essential. In this model, these steps represent linguistic competence.  Low competence in L2 will ultimately result in a “short-circuit”, as proposed by Clarke (1980, p. 203). If the reader does not have an adequate command of the L2, he is forced to take the bottom-up approach in interpreting the text. This means that first he has to decipher the grammar and the respective meanings of the words in isolation, and then he can proceed to a top-down interpretation.

Top-down interpretation makes use of sociolinguistic competence and pragmatics in interpreting a text. Sociolinguistic competence, as defined by Bachman & Palmer (1996) is the “knowledge of how utterances or sentences are related to the features of the language use setting” (p. 68). These are the higher crosspieces of the ladder, the schemata of stereotypic knowledge. Recognizing the syntactic structure within that sentence or understanding what the words in a sentence mean respectively excludes contextual meaning. A typical example might be boat christening. Even if the reader knows both words, the combination of the two is not going to make sense unless the reader has the necessary background knowledge.

Reading is far more than this bidirectional model, however. As mentioned earlier, a linear representation of reading comprehension has some disadvantages. Reading is not a precise process that can be described as simply as climbing a ladder. Goodman (1967) offers a very convincing definition:

Reading is a selective process. It involves partial use of available minimal language cues selected from perceptual input on the basis of the reader’s expectation. As this partial information is processed, tentative decisions are made to be confirmed, rejected, or refined as reading progresses. More simply stated, reading is a psycholinguistic guessing game. (p. 126)

These “minimal language cues” are triggers of both top-down and bottom-up interpretation. In the first case, the cues point to specific schemata. In the previous example of boat christening, the word boat activates a part of a schema that includes “boat” (probably not the word but the notion), and if the person who encounters this phrase has seen a boat christening of some sort, he will be able to deduce the meaning from the right schema. If a section (or crosspiece) of the schema is missing, the deduction inevitably fails.

Reading, as a macro-process, involves numerous micro-processes like the one just described. While reading, the reader keeps making the necessary connections between the cues and the schemata, and between the schemata themselves. Also, the reader is able to build and readjust his schemata during the process.

The second concept that affects L2 reading comes into play taking individual beliefs and emotions into consideration. These are factors that are quite elusive and difficult to research empirically, and thus they are often neglected. Knowing the language and the culture sustaining it is no guarantee of comprehension. Let’s take a student of English who has a fairly strong command of his L2 and has acquired the essential schemata. He is assigned a long and tedious text to read. He understands the words and what the text is about, but he is not drawn into the text. He constantly has to go back a few sentences because he has difficulty in making the necessary connections. He finishes reading the text with a rather superficial understanding and little recall, even though he spent more time with it than usual. The next day, he sits down again in a more positive attitude, and literally devours the text, and he is able to recall the slightest detail. This situation, however unscientific, certainly exists, but it has more to do with an idea that Krashen called the affective filter (1982, p. 31).

References:

Clarke, M. A. (1980). The Short Circuit Hypothesis of ESL Reading – or When Language Competence Interferes with Reading Performance. The Modern Language Journal, 64(2), 203-209.

Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (1996). Language Testing in Practice. Oxford: OUP.

Bernhardt, E. B. (1991). Reading Development in a Second Language: Theoretical, Empirical and Classroom Perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Goodman, K.S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist, 6(4), 126-135.

Kormos, J., & Csolle, A. (2004). Topics In Applied Linguistics. Budapest: ELTE.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.