Reading medical English abstracts: a genre study of the interaction between structural variables and the reader's linguistico‐conceptual competence (L2)

Abstract

Study Objective:To investigate how structural variables influence readers' construction of meaning from short-text samples of expository prose across different levels of background knowledge, text familiarity and L2 competence.Subjects: 36 Spanish-speaking medical graduates of different L2 proficiency -18 High Intermediate (HI) and 18 Advanced subjects (AD)were randomly divided into 2 sub-groups of 9 subjects. Design: Rhetorical manipulations were performed on the published versions of three semantically different medical English abstracts (familiar and relatively unfamiliar topics). Each sub-group received one of either version and completed a reading test. A questionnaire elicited background information on the subjects. Self-generated comments on the abstracts were optional. Statktical Treatment of Data:The number of correct answers for each abstract was recorded. Between-group one-and two-way ANOVAs were applied. The questionnaires and self-generated comments were both qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed. Results: Both groups differed in their background knowledge and in their intensity of English reading. The AD subjects outperformed the HI ones in reading performance for all three abstracts together, and for the two relatively unfamiliar abstracts only. No difference was observed for the familiar abstract. In the well structured but relatively unfamiliar abstract, only L2 competence affected reading performance. In the relatively unfamiliar and poorly structured abstract, text structure, L2 competence and the interaction between both variables affected reading comprehension.Conclusions: Textual variables operate differently depending on the extent of the readers' background knowledge and linguistic competence. Variables such as exposure to reading materials (in L1 and L2), background knowledge and L2 competence seem to outweigh the importance of structural variables. Abstract # 1 (relatively unfamiliar topic) Abstract # 2 (familiar topic) Abstract # 3 (relatively unfamiliar topic) STR (192 words): original version CON (196 words): published work DEF* (198 words) ~ ~~ ~ TEST BOOKLET B (given t o 18 randomly chosen Ss.: 9 HI and 9 AD) Abstract # 1 (relatively unfamiliar topic) Abstract # 2 (familiar topic) Abstract # 3 (relatively unfamiliar topic) CON* (193 words) DEF* (198 words) STR (199 words): original work Abbreviafions used STR Structured CON Conventional DEF AD Advanced group HI High Intermediate group Deficient (illogicalhnnatural order in move presentation) * Rhetorical manipulations performed for the experiment.

The role of interest and text structure in professional reading

“…If the hypothesis is correct, the structure effects reported by Sanders would disappear if the texts were made more interesting. That other factors can outweigh texural variables has been shown by Salager-Meyer (1994). In her research, conducted within a second language setting, variables such as exposure to reading materials, background knowledge and L2 competence seem to outweigh the importance of structural variables.…”

Common weaknesses in traditional abstracts in the social sciences

“…It is commonly stated that abstracts are difficult to write but it is also argued that they should be easy to understand for both native and non‐native speakers of English (APA, 2001, pp. 12–15; Salager‐Meyer, 1994). Furthermore, it is sometimes argued that abstracts should communicate to non‐specialists as well as to the experts in their respective fields.…”

IS THERE ANY INTERACTION BETWEEN BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE AND LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY THAT AFFECTS TOEFL IBT® READING PERFORMANCE?

“…The question of what role DDS background knowledge plays in academic reading has interested many researchers in reading comprehension and practitioners in the field of language testing (Alderson & Urquhart, 1985a, 1985bBrown, 1984;Chen & Donin, 1997;Clapham, 1996;Erickson & Molloy, 1983;Hale, 1988;Hock, 1990;Park, 2004;Peretz & Shoham, 1990;Salager-Meyeer, 1994;Usó-Juan, 2006). Very often researchers have found the effect of DDS knowledge to be significant, and when such an effect has been identified, it has been found to facilitate reading comprehension (Alderson & Urquhart, 1985b;Chen & Donin, 1997;Clapham, 1996;Hale, 1988;Hock, 1990;Peretz & Shoham, 1990;Salager-Meyeer, 1994;Usó-Juan, 2006).…”

“…Very often researchers have found the effect of DDS knowledge to be significant, and when such an effect has been identified, it has been found to facilitate reading comprehension (Alderson & Urquhart, 1985b;Chen & Donin, 1997;Clapham, 1996;Hale, 1988;Hock, 1990;Peretz & Shoham, 1990;Salager-Meyeer, 1994;Usó-Juan, 2006). …”

“…Many researchers have also directly investigated the effect of language proficiency, or linguistic competence, along with the effect of background knowledge on reading comprehension (Brown, 1984;Chen & Donin, 1997;Clapham, 1996;Erickson & Molloy, 1983;Hock, 1990;Park, 2004;Salager-Meyeer, 1994;Usó-Juan, 2006), or indirectly examined the effect of language proficiency when they studied the effect of background knowledge on academic reading comprehension (e.g., Alderson & Urquhart, 1985b;Peretz & Shoham, 1990). Among these studies, the ones that had relatively large sample sizes (e.g., Brown, 1984;Clapham, 1996;Erickson & Molloy, 1983;Hock, 1990;Park, 2004;Usó-Juan, 2006) found that language proficiency exerted a much greater effect than DDS background knowledge on reading comprehension.…”