The comprehension of logical relations in expository texts by students who study through the medium of ESL

Abstract Success at university depends to a large extent on students’ ability to read expository texts effectively in order to access and understand information, and study it for exam purposes. An important component of the comprehension process is the reader’s ability to connect current information with information mentioned previously. One aspect of this text connecting process involves logical connectives. These are text devices that explicitly signal how chunks of information in a text are related to one another in a specific logical semantic relationship. This paper reports on findings from a study that investigated ESL students’ ability to connect information linked by illustrative , causal and adversative logical connectives during the reading of expository texts. The comprehension of logical relations was examined in relation to the students’ academic performance and their language proficiency in English, the language of learning and teaching. The findings showed a robust relationship between the ability to comprehend logical relations in expository text on the one hand, and academic performance and ESL proficiency levels on the other hand. In particular, the academically poor performers found causal and adversative relations challenging. In discussing the results, the implications of these findings for reading comprehension in general and for academic support programmes for ESL students at tertiary level in particular are considered.

[1]  E. J. O'Brien,et al.  Sources of coherence in reading , 1995 .

[2]  B. Meyer.  Use of Top-Level Structure in Text: Key for Reading Comprehension of Ninth-Grade Students. , 1980 .

[3]  Ernest Hilton Hubbard.  Reference cohesion, conjunctive cohesion and relational coherence in student academic writing , 1989 .

[4]  L. Bloom,et al.  Complex sentences: acquisition of syntactic connectives and the semantic relations they encode , 1980, Journal of Child Language.

[5]  Given-New , 1988 .

[6]  Beverly E. Cox.  Good and Poor Elementary Readers' Use of Cohesion in Writing. , 1990 .

[7]  E. Scholnick,et al.  Children's comprehension of pragmatic concepts expressed in ‘because’, ‘although’, ‘if’ and ‘unless’ , 1981, Journal of Child Language.

[8]  William C. Mann,et al.  Relational propositions in discourse , 1986 .

[9]  Harumi Ito,et al.  Logical connectives as catalysts for interactive L2 reading , 2003 .

[10]  S. Duffy,et al.  Degree of causal relatedness and memory , 1987 .

[11]  Esther Geva,et al.  The Development of the Cohesive Use of Adversative Conjunctions in Discourse. , 1983 .

[12]  Manfred Thüring,et al.  Conjunctions and the recall of composite sentences , 1988 .

[13]  David A. Balota.  Comprehension Processes in Reading. , 1990 .

[14]  Michael Halliday,et al.  Cohesion in English , 1976 .

[15]  E. Pretorius.  A profile of causal development amongst ten-year-olds: Implications for reading and writing , 1996 .

[16]  John B. Black,et al.  Causal coherence and memory for events in narratives , 1981 .

[17]  Paul van den Broek,et al.  Discovering the cement of the universe: The development of event comprehension from childhood to adulthood. , 1997 .

[18]  Marja Vauras,et al.  Development of Text-Processing Skills in High-, Average-, and Low-Achieving Primary School Children , 1994 .

[19]  W. Grabe.  CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN SECOND LANGUAGE READING RESEARCH , 1991 .

[20]  Anita Brostoff,et al.  Coherence: "Next to" Is Not "Connected to" , 1981 .

[21]  C. Peterson,et al.  A naturalistic study of the production of causal connectives by children , 1985, Journal of Child Language.

[22]  Semantic and Lexical Coherence. , 1983 .

[23]  Jean-Pierre Rossi,et al.  Text and text processing , 1991 .

[24]  R. Beaugrande,et al.  Introduction to text linguistics , 1981 .

[25]  Bridget A. Franks,et al.  Reasoning in a reading context: Deductive inferences in basal reading series , 1997 .

[26]  Tom Trabasso,et al.  The Development of Coherence in Narratives by Understanding Intentional Action , 1991 .

[27]  Leo G. M. Noordman,et al.  Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations , 1992 .

[28]  Jenny S.L. Chung.  Signals and reading comprehension — theory and practice , 2000 .

[29]  Some coherence correlates in expository writing , 1993 .

[30]  M. Gettinger,et al.  FOSTERING READING COMPREHENSION IN COLLEGE STUDENTS , 1995 .

[31]  T. Trabasso,et al.  Logical necessity and transitivity of causal relations in stories , 1989 .

[32]  C. Peterson,et al.  The connective ‘and’: do older children use it less as they learn other connectives? , 1987, Journal of Child Language.