Analysis on Text-level Reading

nwsy@overseaen.comISSN 100- -5039hp://ww.overcaen.comOverseas English 圃圖圓霜Tel:+86- 551 -5690811 5690812Analysis on Text -level Reading佘桂婷(中山大學(xué)新華學(xué)院外語(yǔ)系,廣東廣州510520)Abstract: Reading, especially reading at text Level, is 2 proces of continuously repeating, consolidating and undersanding words, phrases,and sentences. However, from the perspective of psycholinguistics, the compariosn and contrast of empirical data from experiments and re-searches would be evidences to support the idea that reading at text level is mainly infuenced by readers' ability of identfying a text's co-hesion and coherence, balancing the activation and supession of background knowledge, as well as readers' utilization of working memo-ry. Readers can make good use of these three aspects in order to advance their understanding of reading at text level.Key words: text level reading; cohesion; coherence; background knowledge; working memory中圈分類(lèi)號:H319文獻標識碼:A文章編號 :1009 -5039(2010)07- -0238 021 IntroductionIt is not the combination of isolated words and sentences. Read-ers have to associate diferent parts of the text to search for itsinner connection and to combine them with background knowl-prehension of a whole reading text quite often poses dficulitesedge to construct the whole meaning (Koda, 2005). As text com-for readers. While having text level reading, readers need to en-dow themselves with the familarity of words and phrases, the un-prehension is rather complex and flexible, it involves the com-pleted match of both local and global coherence for the underly-derstanding of sentences' structure and meaning, and the abilitying meaning. One of the most important features of a text may beto make some inferences and to accumulate abundant informa-coherence and cohesion. It is the cohesive devices that connecttion. Kintsch's construction -integration model (Kintsch, 1988)the new inhformation with given information to be coherent as aseems to be a promising model of text reading because it explainswhole and form an integrated meaning of the text. Readers makehow a text is represented in menory as well as how the text isgreat eforts to decode coherence and cohesion while reading.integrated with readers' general knowledge beyond the text. InMaintaining coherence of a text requires making inference be-the early construction stage, readers activate the words' meaningyond the literal meaning of a text to enter higher level informa-and make inference. Then in the integration stage, it is time to(Harley, 2001). Oakhill and Gamham (1988) suggest thatintegrate the related network to gain a global coherence and sta-poor readers have problems, especially dificulty of making a setble structure (Harley, 2001). It is atempted to combine this con-of inferences. Some readers have better ability to detect and no-stnuction -integration model with some psycholinguistic theories,tice the inconsistency of comprehension that ffect them to con-researches and experiments to analyze readens' diferences fromtinue reading and they know when to reread and what should bethe fllowing three factors, aiming to come up with hints forreaders to figure out their weakness and facilitate themselves toreread to solve the problems. However, poor readers may havefailure to do such prompt monitoring (Rayner, Foorman, Perfetti,make improvements.Pesetsky, and Seidenberg, 2001).2 Text Level ReadingOne method of achieving text coherence is the use ofBecause text is associated with coherence as its inner fea-anaphora and its antecedent. As Hist and Brill (Field, 2003)ture to maintain meaning, whether readers can seize the deep co-suggest, text comprehension is directed by anaphor, The ties be-herence of the text itself is critical for text comprehension, in thistween anaphor and its antecedents may be diverse and looselysense, pursuing this may explain the difterences of readers abili-distributed in a text. They may have certain distances elsewherety. Moreover, readers' individual operation of working memoryin a text. One of the important higher level skillsl of reading is tovaries much during text comprebension. Therefore, in many p8y-process anaphors correctly. Readers have to find out the cohesivecholinguisic researches, working memory is often perceived todevices and extract the correct matching of the anaphor and itsanalyze readers' reading ability. Finally, readers' activation andrelated antecedent. Whether readers can easily resolve thesuppression of background knowledge and the use of them toanaphor with its antecedent or not distinguishes good readers andbenefit their readings also differ from each other. It seems con-poor readers because it really needs extensive coping strategiesvincing to take these factors into consideration in order to explain(Harley, 2001). As Haviland and Clark state (Whitney, 1998), thediferent readers' reading at text level.anaphoric reference requires readers to connect the information2.1 Coberence and cohesionappropriately using a bridging inference that retrieves informnationfrom the memory to ease the connection. According to HarleyText is undoubtedly endowed with coherence to make sense.中國煤化工YHCNMHG收稿日期:2010-04-24修回日期:2010-05-02作者簡(jiǎn)介:余桂婷(1982-),助教,碩士研究生,主要研究方向為語(yǔ)言學(xué),應用語(yǔ)言學(xué)及英語(yǔ)教學(xué)法。238順D 美麗剪本欄目責任編舞:謝嬡嬡2010年7月Overseas English 海外 美語(yǔ)(2001), it is the bridging inference that try to connect the newers' working memory is overloaded by the decoding processingand given information in a text to link the ideas and achieve co-which therefore results in litle psbility to use working memoryherence.to construct meaning. In addition, because their decoding is quiteslow, every time the working memory can just receive a smallseem to have problems of accurately resolving anaphors and theirpart of information that is much less than enough for the workingantecedents. Those readers are argued to be less able to retrievememory to begin the global level meaning building but just staythe referent accurately from the preceding part of the text. Somein a lower level processing.studies demonstrate that as distance increases, it becomes moreAlthough working memory is quite limited, researches showdificulh for anaphors to match antecedents. I is expected thatthal readers are able to combine specific information into severalpoor readers may be in an inferior position when the distance oflarger units which is also named chunking. A chunk is a unit ofthe anaphors and antecedents become more remote. They may behampered from linking different parts of the text which thereforememory retention. Through chunking, good readers can managemake them poorer to understand a text with coherence usingto use the limited working memory as much as possible (arroll,complex cohesive devices, and such linkage make them con-2004), (Smith, 1985), Although good readers' decoding is stronglyfused.automatic, anticipating the lext may require a lot of working2.2 Working memorymemory. Many psycholinguists (Field, 2003) believe that goodreaders would use working memory to integrate both new and oldText comprehension requires great working memory. Duringinformation instead of just saving decoding efort.reading, working memory is crucial for the maintenance of the-matic concepts achieved from the processing of coherence.2.3 Activation and suppression of background knowledgeWorking menory holds the informnation of a current situation forext comprehension demands readers to have clear andpresent use. It is so limited and temporary, and it may be easilyclose connection to a meaning entity. Reading text would be aoverwhelmed. Wurking memory's processing is such a short pro-tough task because readers not only base mainly on the informa-cedure that readers sometimes struggle about what information totion of the text, but also have to activate extensive backgroundbe held. What make is limitation worse is the conflict betweenknowledge for asance.its own functions of processing and storage.Studies suggest that general knowledge helps readers to establish coherence and facilitate the whole text processing. Thememory limitation is one of the factors that diferentiate readers'Cconstructivist view', supported also by Bransford and Johnsonreading ability (Rayner, Fooman, Perfetti, Pesetsky, and Seiden-(Whitney,1998: 237) claims that the information stored in read-berg, 2001). According to Budd, Whitney and Turley (Whitney,en' mind. are mainly based on readers general knowledge rather1998), if readers read with a purpose for specific details for cer-than the text itself, and therefore text comprehension demands atain questions, readers with lower working memory capacity aregreat amount of top down processing to bring in many back-just able to focus on processing certain details while readers withground knowledge.higher capacity can both cover the details and the whole thematicThe term 'schemata” is referred to readers' backgroundconstruction. The reason why poor readers have deficit in theirknowledge of the world. Readers take account of schemata whenworking memory capacity is because it is over occupied for lowerthey are reading (Field, 2003). No proper schemata for the text orlevel access or is stored with too much irelevant information. Itfailure to activate or detemnine the appropriate schemata both re-is readens' 'activation, maintenance and suppression' (Whitney,sult in poor comprehension. It helps readers to retrieve and sum-1998: 267) of information in memory that makes the dfference.marize the details that are read. Studies of schemata effect onAs Field (2003) suggests, there are lower level and highertext comprehension provide evidence to insist their signifcant ef-evel processing in reading. It appears that good readers can au-fect on recall (Carroll, 2004). It may be the readers' prerioustonmatically process the lower level information very quickly andknowledge rtrieved from long tem memory, it may be the read-leave more working memory space for higher level processng.ers' prompt knowledge assimilated from the text. No matter whatThis is limited by readers' working memory but sill quite underkind of background knowledge it might be, they all serve to helpcontrol of the readers to some degree. Therefore, due to this lim-readers to anticipate the text and support the comprehensionited working memory (Whitney, 1998), poor readers' inferior in(Field, 2003).the lower level processing of lexical meaning or phonologicalSuch activation of background knowledge also distinguishcoding may leave less working memory for higher level proce8s-different readers. It is not because poor readers can not activateing of the whole text.adequate background knowledge to assist the comprehension, buStanovich (Field, 2003) points out that readers' workingbecause they are poorer to handle the knowledge that is activat-memory difference affects their purpose of using context. This ised. Sometimes too much knowledge is collected to influence andsupported by evidence that poor readers are characterized to usedisnupt their comprehension. As Gersbacher states (Harley,context as supplemnental information to replenish the text's partial2001), good readers are better to suppress such inappropriate in-information. They have to fall back strongly to the informationformation and inhibit them from activation. They are better toprovided by context for the purpose of supplementing their poorhandle and reduce the interference. However, poor readers aredecoding sill. Nevertheless, good readers are supposed to usemuch less capable of doing this.context to enrich their understanding. The reason for this is ex-中國煤化工itegraion model (Ko-plicitly explained by their diference in working memory. BecausedaCrasonable explanation ofgood readers' reading processing is relatively automatic, there iswhyfYHC N M H Gasily inluenced or moremore space left in working memory capacity for them to considerreliable on their incomplete or inaccurate understanding becausecontextual information for higher level undernstanding. Poor read-(下轉第243頁(yè))本欄目責任編巽:謝嬡娩239.2010年7月Overseas Engish藩外英誨換,然而惟有這句廣告詞最為經(jīng)典,最能代表可口可樂(lè )的精神意圖與交際意圖的關(guān)聯(lián)廣告話(huà)語(yǔ)與受眾的關(guān)聯(lián)、廣告語(yǔ)言與內涵,很好地詮釋了該企業(yè)的核心價(jià)值。語(yǔ)境的關(guān)聯(lián),并會(huì )選擇恰當的關(guān)聯(lián)方式，或明說(shuō)或隱含,從而2)隱含充分制造廣告和受眾的互動(dòng)。在實(shí)現勸說(shuō)或者影響功能的時(shí)候，廣告主會(huì )遇到諸多相廣告語(yǔ)言,作為一種語(yǔ)言藝術(shù),在實(shí)現其-般語(yǔ)言功能的互牽扯的難題，因而廣告需要運用“隱蔽交際策略"。他們希望.同時(shí),具有很強的實(shí)用性和特殊性,對于人們的學(xué)習、生產(chǎn)和避免廣告的某些方面產(chǎn)生負面的社會(huì )反響,比如對性、虛榮等生活都產(chǎn)生了重大而深刻的影響。對于廣告語(yǔ)言的解讀,關(guān)聯(lián)方面的涉及,但這些又顯得有助于廣告的效果。因而- -方面要理論具有很強的解釋功能。本文運用關(guān)聯(lián)理論分析廣告語(yǔ)言,繼續對這些方面加以利用，同時(shí)另一方面得避免對此承擔任希望拋磚引玉,以期引起大家對廣告語(yǔ)言更多的關(guān)注和研究,何的責任。使其更好地服務(wù)于我們的社會(huì )。例11.沒(méi)有不做的小生意，沒(méi)有解決不了的大向題(No參考文獻:business too small,no problem to~ big)(IBM公司)M作為世界薯名的電器業(yè)巨頭,IBM公司的廣告語(yǔ)顯得樸[1]何兆熊.新編語(yǔ)用學(xué)概要[M].上海:上海外語(yǔ)教育出版社，2000.實(shí)無(wú)華,為客戶(hù)解決問(wèn)題,而且甘愿做-些小生意。然而,這其[2]黃國文.語(yǔ)篇分析的理論與實(shí)踐一廣 告語(yǔ)篇研究[M]上中透漏出的經(jīng)營(yíng)理念則讓人仰慕,其一,胸懷寬廣:眾所周知，海:上海外語(yǔ)教育出版社,2001.“不積跬步,無(wú)以至千里;不積小流,無(wú)以成江海。"任何大事業(yè)[3]趙艷芳.認知語(yǔ)言學(xué)概論[M].上海:上海外語(yǔ)教育出版社,都要從小做起,IBM公司的胸襟可見(jiàn)一斑;其二,對自己公司的專(zhuān)業(yè)水平信心十足,讓客戶(hù)沒(méi)有任何的后顧之憂(yōu),也使得一[4]牛汝辰,魏燕云.廣告詞寫(xiě)作技巧與優(yōu)秀范例大觀(guān)[M].北京:般的客戶(hù)也感覺(jué)到了IBM公司的親和力。中央民族大學(xué)出版社,1994.3結束語(yǔ)[S]中國新聞網(wǎng)[E/:/tp:pw/wchinanews com.cn/gn/news/從關(guān)聯(lián)理論的觀(guān)點(diǎn)來(lái)看，結合本文上面的分析，可以看2010/03- -04/2152614.shtml.出,成功的廣告語(yǔ)言在制造廣告效應的時(shí)候,會(huì )充分考慮信息(上接第239頁(yè))they are not sficient enough to be well constraint by the text. readers have a more dynamic mechanism for the activation andand abandon the irelevant information from disupting. It is quitesuppression of background knowledge. In a word, text level read-a tough lask for readers to balance the adoptability of text infor-ing is much more complicated that it demands nore challengingmation and background knowledge. If readers engage in the topand influential work, especially, readers' extensive reading input.down processing too much, namely, strongly depend on back-With the emphasizing of the above three remarkable and agreeground knowledge, it may decrease their interest to focus on theable factors respectively, readers with lower ability can adoptoriginal text (Koda, 2005). According to this approach that goodthem a guidance and hints to carry out more purpose -builtreaders have more fficient suppression mechanism, they can se-reading activities and tackle the problems of text undertanding.lect the useful information and suppress the irrelevant ones moreReferences:quickly, whereas poor readers seem to have deficiency in such[1] Cartol D W.Psychology of LanguageMlLondonThomson.2004.kind of sppression Rayner, Foormnan, Peretti, Pesetsky, and[2] Field J.Pesychlnguistics:A resource book to students[M].Lon-Seidenberg, 2001).don:Routledge,2003.Gernsbacher's comprehension view of 'structure building[3] Harley T.The Peychology of Languge:rom data to theory[M.framework' (Whitney, 1998: 265) can explain the diference be-Hove:Psychology Press,2001.tween good readers and poor readers as well. It argues that poor[4] Kintsch W.The Role of Knowledge in Discourse Comprehen-readers may develop too many substructures when they read ev-sion:A Construction -Integration Model []Psychological Re-ery part of the inonation which therefore confuse and distractview,1988(95):163-182.them from selecting the crrelated ones to combine an integrated[5] Koda K.Insight into Second Language Reading:a cross -lin-representation. Indeed, Gernsbacher (Whitney, 1998) asserts thatguistic approach [M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,poor readers are less able to suppress the irelevant infomnation2005.that is activated. Gemsbacher points out that if tbhe irelevant in[6] Oakhill J,Gamham A.Becoming a Skilled Reader [M].Newformation remains to exert interfering inluence, it is probablyYork:Bsil Blackwell,1988.that real accurate integration can not be achieved. Too many[切] Rayner KFoorman BR.Perferti CA.Pesetsky D,Seidenberg MS.substructures may lead to the failure of the overall structure ofHow psychological science inorms the teaching of reading[].the text. Germsbacher's study shows that poor readers can notPsychological Science in the Public Interest,2001,2(2):31-74.well prevent themselves from activating the other irelevant infor-mation.中國煤化IeCambidge Univenity3 Conclusion[9]YHC N M H Gge[M].Boston:HoughtonTo sum up, good readers frstly seem to have priority inMiflin Company,1998.achieving text coherence and cohesion, and they are advocated to本欄目貴任輸輯:岢嬡蟬243