Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

(TESOL)

Schema Theory and ESL Reading Pedagogy

Author(s): Patricia L. Carrell and Joan C. Eisterhold
Reviewed work(s):
Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 4 (Dec., 1983), pp. 553-573
Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3586613 .
Accessed: 31/10/2012 16:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org
 TESOL QUARTERLY, Vol. 17, No. 4, December 1983

Schema Theoryand ESL Reading

Pedagogy
PATRICIA L. CARRELL
SouthernIllinois Universityat Carbondale

JOAN C. EISTERHOLD
NorthwesternUniversity

Thisarticlediscussestheimportantroleofbackground knowledgein
modelofEFL/ESL readingand demonstrates
a psycholinguistic the
relevanceof schema-theoretic views of readingto the teachingof
readingto EFL/ESL students. According to schematheory, reading
comprehension processbetweenthe textand the
is an interactive
reader's
priorbackground knowledge(AdamsandCollins1979,Rumel-
hart1980).Readingcomprehension involvesone'sknowledgeofthe
world,whichmaybe culturally basedandculturallybiased.Classroom
implicationsof theschema-theoreticview of readingforEFL/ESL
readingpedagogy are discussed,with techniquessuggestedfor
bringingaboutreader-centered EFL/ESL reading.

Every act ofcomprehensioninvolvesone's

knowledgeofthe world as well.
(Anderson,
Reynolds, and Goetz1977:369)
Schallert,

INTRODUCTION
The idea expressedby theabove quote is certainlynotnew, but itis
one worthremindingourselvesof when we considercomprehensionin
a second or foreignlanguage, and specificallyreadingcomprehension
in EFL/ESL. If, as Immanuel Kant claimed as long ago as 1781,new
information, new concepts, new ideas can have meaning only when
they can be related to somethingthe individualalready knows (Kant
1781/1963), thisapplies as muchto second language comprehensionas
it does to comprehensionin one's nativelanguage. Yet, traditionally
in
the studyof second language comprehension(as much as, ifnot more
so than,in the studyof firstlanguage comprehension),the emphasis
has been almostexclusivelyon thelanguage to be comprehendedand
noton thecomprehender(listeneror reader). In thisperspective,each
word, each well-formedsentence,and everywell-formedtextpassage

553
is said to "have" a meaning.Meaningis oftenconceived to be "in" the
utteranceor text,to have a separate,independentexistencefromboth
the speaker or writerand the listeneror reader. Also in this view,
failuresto comprehend a non-defectivecommunicationare always
attributedto language-specificdeficits-perhapsa word was notin the
reader'svocabulary,a rule of grammarwas misapplied,an anaphoric
cohesive tie was improperlycoordinated,and so on.
Recent empiricalresearchin the fieldwhichhas come to be known
as schema theory has demonstrated the truth of Kant's original
observationand of the opening quote fromAndersonet al. Schema
theoryresearchhas shown the importanceof backgroundknowledge
withina psycholinguistic model of reading.The purpose of thisarticle
is twofold.Our firstgoal is to give a briefoverview of schema theory
as part of a reader-centered,psycholinguisticprocessing model of
EFL/ESL reading.This goal is addressedin thefirstpartof thisarticle,
in which we discuss how EFL/ESL reading comprehensioninvolves
backgroundknowledge which goes farbeyond linguisticknowledge.
Our second purpose is to explore the relationshipof culture-specific
background knowledge and EFL/ESL reading methodologyand is
taken up in the second part of the article, where we review this
relationshipas it has been discussed in the extant methodology
literature.We illustratethis discussion of the culturallybased and
culturally biased natureof backgroundknowledgewithsamplereading
passages which have actually caused comprehensionproblems for
EFL/ESL students.Finally,we suggesta varietyof techniques and
classroomactivitiesforaccommodatingthisphenomenonin a reader-
centeredEFL/ESL readingprogram.

THE PSYCHOLINGUISTICMODEL OF READING

During the past decade, EFL/ESL reading theoryhas come under
the influenceof psycholinguistics and Goodman's (1967, 1971, 1973a)
psycholinguistic model of reading(see also Smith1971). Goodman has
described reading as a "psycholinguisticguessing game" (1967) in
whichthe"reader reconstructs, as best as he can, a message whichhas
been encoded by a writeras a graphicdisplay" (1971:135).Goodman
views this act of the constructionof meaning as being an ongoing,
cyclical process of sampling fromthe input text,predicting,testing
and confirming or revisingthosepredictions,and samplingfurther. In
thismodel, thereader need not (and the efficientreader does not) use
all of the textualcues. The betterthe reader is able to make correct
predictions,theless confirming via thetextis necessary,thatis,theless
visual perceptualinformation thereaderrequires:

554 TESOL QUARTERLY

 . thereaderdoes notuse all theinformation available to him.Reading is a
..
processinwhichthereaderpicksand chooses fromtheavailable information
onlyenough to select and predicta language structurewhichis decodable.
It is not in any sense a precise perceptualprocess (Goodman 1973b:164).
These views are by now generally well known and widely accepted in
our field.
Coady (1979) has elaborated on this basic psycholinguistic model
and has suggested a model in which the EFL/ESL reader's background
knowledge interacts with conceptual abilities and process strategies,
more or less successfully, to produce comprehension (see Figure 1).

FIGURE 1
Coady's (1979) Model oftheESL Reader

CONCEPTUAL ABILITIES ( BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE

PROCESS STRATEGIES

By conceptual ability,Coady means generalintellectualcapacity. By

processingstrategies,Coady meansvarioussubcomponentsof reading
ability, including many which are also more general language process-
ing skills which also apply to oral language (e.g., grapheme-morpho-
phoneme correspondences, syllable-morpheme information,syntactic
information [deep and surface], lexical meaning, and contextual
meaning). Coady says little more about the role of background
knowledgeotherthanto observe that
backgroundknowledgebecomes an importantvariable when we notice,as
many have, thatstudentswith a Westernbackground of some kind learn
English faster,on the average, than those without such a background
(Coady 1979:7).
Coady also suggests that background knowledge may be able to
compensate for certain syntactic deficiencies:
The subjectof readingmaterialsshouldbe ofhighinterestand relatewell to
the background of the reader, since strong semantic input can help
compensate when syntacticcontrolis weak. The interestand background
knowledge will enable the studentto comprehendat a reasonable rate and

SCHEMA THEORY AND READING 555

 keephiminvolvedinthematerial inspiteofitssyntactic
difficulty
(Coady
1979:12).
It is thisthirdfactor,backgroundknowledge,thathas been themost
neglected in EFL/ESL reading. Even though the psycholinguistic
model of reading is seen as an interactionof factors,it has generally
failedto give sufficientemphasisto therole of backgroundknowledge.
Recent researchindicates thatwhat the reader bringsto the reading
task is more pervasive and more powerfulthan the general psycho-
linguisticmodel suggests:
Moreinformation is contributed
by thereaderthanby theprinton the
page. Thatis,readersunderstand whattheyreadbecausetheyare able to
takethestimulus beyonditsgraphic andassignitmembership
representation
to an appropriate groupof conceptsalreadystoredin theirmemories.
The readerbringsto the taska formidableamountof information and
ideas,attitudesand beliefs.Thisknowledge,coupledwiththeabilityto
make linguistic determines
predictions, the expectations
thereaderwill
developas he reads.Skillin readingdependson theefficient interaction
betweenlinguistic knowledge and knowledge of theworld (Clarkeand
Silberstein1977:136-137).

THE SCHEMA THEORY MODEL

The role of backgroundknowledge in language comprehensionhas
been formalized as schema theory (Bartlett 1932, Rumelhartand
Ortony 1977, Rumelhart1980), which has as one of its fundamental
tenetsthattext,any text,eitherspoken or written,does not by itself
carry meaning. Rather, according to schema theory,a text only
provides directionsfor listenersor readers as to how they should
retrieveor constructmeaning fromtheirown, previouslyacquired
knowledge. This previouslyacquired knowledgeis called thereader's
backgroundknowledge,and thepreviouslyacquired knowledgestruc-
tures are called schemata (Bartlett1932, Adams and Collins 1979,
Rumelhart1980).1Accordingto schema theory,comprehendinga text
is an interactiveprocess between the reader'sbackgroundknowledge
and the text.Efficientcomprehensionrequiresthe abilityto relatethe
1Othercloselyrelatedconcepts,whichare technicallydistinctfromschematabut whichmay be
thoughtof as partof thesame general,cognitiveapproach to textprocessing,are scripts,plans,
and goals (Schank and Abelson 1977), frames (Minsky 1975, Fillmore 1976, Tannen 1979),
expectations(Tannen 1978), and event chains (Warren,Nicholas, and Trabasso 1979). All of
these termsemanate frombasic researchat the intersectionof artificialintelligence,cognitive
psychology,and linguisticsin the new disciplinecalled cognitivescience. These termsare not
identicalor even interchangeable;however,theymay all be broadlycharacterizedas partof a
schema-theoretical orientationto textprocessing.
Carrell (1983a) gives an extensiveoverview of schema theoryand the relevanttheoretical
literatureas well as theempiricalresearchin firstlanguageprocessing(childrenand adults) and
second language processing(adults).

556 TESOL QUARTERLY

textual material to one's own knowledge. Comprehending words,
sentences,and entiretextsinvolves more than just relyingon one's
linguisticknowledge.As theopeningquote fromAndersonet al. points
out, "every act of comprehensioninvolves one's knowledge of the
world as well" (Andersonet al. 1977:369).
Accordingto schema theory,the process of interpretation is guided
by the principle that every input is mapped against some existing
schema and thatall aspects of thatschema mustbe compatible with
the input information.This principleresultsin two basic modes of
informationprocessing,called bottom-upand top-down processing.
Bottom-upprocessingis evoked by the incomingdata; the featuresof
the data enterthe systemthroughthe best fitting, bottom-levelsche-
mata. Schemata are hierarchicallyorganized,frommostgeneralat the
top to most specific at the bottom. As these bottom-levelschemata
convergeintohigherlevel, more generalschemata,thesetoo become
activated.Bottom-upprocessingis,therefore, called data-driven.Top-
down processing, on the other hand, occurs as the system makes
generalpredictionsbased on higherlevel, generalschemata and then
searches the inputforinformationto fitinto these partiallysatisfied,
higher order schemata. Top-down processing is, therefore,called
conceptually-driven.
An importantaspect of top-downand bottom-upprocessingis that
bothshouldbe occurringat all levels simultaneously(Rumelhart1980).
The data that are needed to instantiate,or fill out, the schemata
become available throughbottom-upprocessing;top-downprocessing
facilitatestheirassimilationiftheyare anticipatedby or consistentwith
the listener/reader'sconceptual expectations.Bottom-upprocessing
ensuresthatthelisteners/readers will be sensitiveto information thatis
novel or thatdoes notfittheirongoinghypothesesabout thecontentor
structureof the text;top-downprocessinghelps the listeners/readers
to resolveambiguitiesor to selectbetweenalternativepossibleinterpre-
tationsof the incomingdata.
To illustratethe effectsof backgroundknowledge,schematicinter-
pretation,and thesimultaneity of top-downand bottom-upprocessing,
considerthe followingmini-text(originallyfromCollins and Quillian
1972; discussed in Rumelhart1977:267):
The policemanheldup hishandand stoppedthecar.
In the process of tryingto understandthissentence,we tryto relateit
to somethingfamiliar,some schema which will account forthe event
described. There are many schemata possible, but perhaps the most
likelyis the one involvinga trafficcop who is signalingto a driverof a
car to stop. Notice thatwhen we interpretthismini-textagainstthat
schema, a numberof related concepts come to the forewhichare not

SCHEMA THEORY AND READING 557

literallymentionedin the text.In particular,we imagine thatthe car
has a driver and that the policeman got the car to stop through
signalingto thedriver,who thenput on thebrakesof thecar,which,in
turn,caused thecar to stop. The proximalcause of thecar's stoppingis,
in thisinterpretation, the operation of the car's brakes. Further,the
significance of the policeman'sholdingup hishand is thatof a signalto
the driverto stop. This fact is neitherstated in the sentencenor is it
even in the directvisual perceptionof such a situation,but is rathera
fact in our priorculturalknowledge about the way trafficpolice are
known to communicate with automobile drivers. Notice how the
interpretation of the textwould change if the policeman were known
to be Superman and the car were known to be withouta driver.A
completelydifferent schema would be requiredto understandthetext.
Notice how therelationshipof thepoliceman'sholdingup hishand and
thecar's stoppingtakeson an entirelydifferent when the
interpretation
textis interpretedagainstthe Supermanschema. Now, holdingup the
hand is not interpretedas a signalat all, but ratherthe directphysical
mechanism for stopping the car. In this interpretation,the hand
actuallycomes into physicalcontactwiththe car and is the proximal
physicalcause of the car's halting.The brakes of the car do not come
intoplay in thisschema.
Notice how sets of inferentialreading comprehensionquestions
would receive diametricallyopposed answersdependingupon which
of thetwo schematawas activatedin the mindof the reader:

QUESTION ANSWER
TrafficCop Superman
Schema Schema
a) Did thepoliceman'shandtouch
thecar? No Yes
b) Werethecar'sbrakesapplied? Yes No

Now let us considera slightlylongertextfromRumelhart:

Maryheardtheice creammancomingdownthestreet.She remembered
herbirthday moneyand rushedintothehouse. . . (1977:265)
Upon readingjust thesefew lines,mostreadersare able to constructa
rathercomplete interpretation of the text.Presumably,Maryis a little
girlwho heard theice cream man comingand wanted to buy some ice
cream fromthisice cream man. Buyingice cream costs money,so she
had to thinkquickly of a source of funds. She remembered some
money which she had been given for her birthday and which,
presumably,was in the house. So she hurriedinto the house to tryto

558 TESOL QUARTERLY

get the money before the ice cream man arrived.Of course,the text
does not say all of this;we readers are inferringa lot of thisin giving
the textan interpretation. Otherinterpretations are also possible. Yet,
mostreaderswill probably give thistextan interpretation quite similar
to the one suggestedhere, and most readers will retainthisinterpre-
tationunless some contradictoryinformationis encountered.Notice
what happens if the reader nextencountersthe phrase:
. . and locked the door.2
The reader is unable to fitthisnew piece of textualinputinformation
into the developing interpretation. The reader is forced to revise the
interpretationin such a to
way as makethisnew information compatible
withthepreviousinformation-tomake thewhole textcohere.If there
were no such thingas schemata guidingthe developinginterpretation
in a top-downprocessingmode, causingthereaderto make conceptual
predictionsabout themeaningof thetext,thenwhywould encounter-
ing theadded phrasecause thereactionit does in thereader?Whathas
happened, we claim,is thatas long as theincominginformation being
processed throughbottom-upprocessingand the conceptual predic-
tions being made throughtop-down processingare compatible, we
have a satisfactoryinterpretation of the text.When we encountera
mismatch between the top-down predictions and the bottom-up
information, we are forcedto revisetheinterpretation in such a way as
to make the two compatible once again. In this example, we must
revise our interpretationto accommodate the informationabout
Mary'slockingthedoor. Perhapswe inferthatforsome reasonMaryis
afraidthattheice cream man mightstealherbirthdaymoneyand that
she locks the door to protect it and herself.We believe these two
examplesvividlydemonstratetheexistenceand operationof schemata
in the process of textinterpretation.
Thus, it seems clear that readers activate an appropriate schema
againstwhichtheytryto give a texta consistentinterpretation. To the
extentthat they are successful,we may say thattheyhave compre-
hended the text.However, one potentialsource of readingdifficulties
maybe thatthereaderhas a consistentinterpretation forthetext,butit
may not be the one intended by the author. Nonetheless,the basic
pointis thatmuch of the meaningunderstoodfroma textis reallynot
actually in the text,per se, but in the reader, in the background or
schematicknowledgeof thereader.Whatis understoodfroma textis a
functionof the particular schema that is activated at the time of
processing(i.e., reading) the text.
2 This example was offered by Charles J. Fillmore in a class lecture at the Universityof
California,Berkeley,in 1980.

SCHEMA THEORY AND READING 559

 In seeking to understandthe role of background knowledge in
readingcomprehension,itis oftenusefulto draw a distinction between
formal schemata (background knowledge of the formal,rhetorical
organizational structuresof differenttypes of texts) and content
schemata (background knowledge of the content area of a text)
(Carrell 1983b). In otherwords,one typeof schema whichreadersare
said to possess is backgroundknowledge about, and expectationsof,
differencesamong rhetoricalstructures, such as differencesin genre,
differencesin the structureof fables, simple stories,scientifictexts,
newspaper articles, poetry, and so forth.Our schema for simple
stories,for example, includes the informationthat the storyshould
have, minimally,a setting,a beginning,a development,and an end-
ing. Also for simple stories,Mandler (1978) distinguishesbetween
schemata for causally connected and temporallyconnected stories.
For expositorytexts,Meyer and her colleagues (Meyer 1975, 1977,
1981; Meyer and Rice 1982; Meyer and Freedle, in press) recognize
five differenttypesof expositoryrhetoricalorganization:collection-
list, causation-cause and effect,response-problem and solution,
comparison-comparison and contrast,and description-attribution.
Each of thesetypes,theysay,representsa different abstractschema of
ways writersorganizeand readersunderstandtopics.
In schema theoryresearch,thistypeof formalschematicknowledge
is usually contrastedwith content schematic knowledge, which is
claimed to be backgroundknowledgeabout thecontentarea of a text,
such as a textabout washing clothes,celebratingNew Year's Eve in
Hawaii or Halloween in Carbondale, or about theeconomyof Mexico,
the historyof Canada, problems of nuclear breeder reactors,and so
forth.
A reader's failure to activate an appropriate schema (formal or
content) during reading resultsin various degrees of non-compre-
hension.This failureto activatean appropriateschema may eitherbe
due to the writer'snot havingprovided sufficientclues in the textfor
the reader to effectivelyutilize a bottom-up processing mode to
activateschematathereader may alreadypossess,or it may be due to
the fact that the reader does not possess the appropriate schema
anticipated by the author and thus fails to comprehend. In both
instancesthereis a mismatchbetween what the writeranticipatesthe
reader can do to extractmeaningfromthe textand what thereader is
actually able to to. The point is thatthe appropriateschemata must
existand mustbe activatedduringtextprocessing.
One of the most obvious reasons why a particularcontentschema
may failto existfora readeris thattheschema is culturallyspecificand
is not part of a particularreader's culturalbackground. Studies by

560 TESOL QUARTERLY

Steffensen, Joag-dev,and Anderson(1979),Johnson(1981),and Carrell
(1981a) have shown that the implicit cultural content knowledge
presupposed by a textinteractswiththe reader's own culturalback-
groundknowledge of contentto make textswhose contentis based on
one's own cultureeasier to read and understandthansyntacticallyand
rhetoricallyequivalent texts based on a less familiar,more distant
culture.
Other researchhas shown general effectsof contentschemata on
EFL/ESL reading comprehension.Johnson(1982) has shown that a
texton a familiartopic is betterrecalled by ESL readersthana similar
texton an unfamiliartopic. Hudson (1982) reportsa studyshowingan
interactionbetween overalllinguisticproficiencyin ESL and content-
induced schematiceffectsin ESL readingcomprehension.Specifically,
thatstudy demonstratesthe facilitatingeffectson comprehensionof
explicitlyinducing contentschemata throughpre-readingactivities,
especially at the beginningand intermediateproficiencylevels, as
comparedto two othermethodsofinducingcontentschemata(through
vocabularyactivitiesand read-rereadactivities).Finally,Aldersonand
Urquhart (1983) have found a discipline-specificeffectof content
background knowledge in measuring reading comprehension in
ESP/EST.
Several recentstudieshave shown the effectsof formal,rhetorical
schemata in EFL/ESL. In a studyby Carrell (1981b), two groups of
university-bound, intermediate-levelESL subjectseach read a different
type of simple story-one type well structuredaccordingto a simple
storyschema structureand the othertype deliberatelyviolatingthe
storyschema structure.Resultsshowed thatwhen storiesviolatingthe
storyschema are processed by second language learners,both the
quantityof recall and thetemporalsequences of recall are affected.In
otherwords,when thecontentis kept constantbut therhetoricalstruc-
tureis varied,second language readingcomprehensionis affected.
Recentstudiesdone in thearea of contrastiverhetoric(Kaplan 1966)
also demonstratethe effectsof formalschemataon both the compre-
hensionand productionof writtentextsin a second language (Ostler
and Kaplan 1982). In particular,Hinds' research(1982,1983) shows the
contrastingeffectson differentgroups of readers of typicalJapanese
rhetoricalorganization and typical English rhetoricalorganization.
Burtoff(1983) has found differencesamong the typical rhetorical
patternsof expositoryprose produced by writerswithdifferent formal
schemata according to their native-language/native-culture back-
grounds.
Thus, a growingbody of empirical researchatteststo the role of
bothcontentand formalschematain EFL/ESL readingcomprehension

SCHEMA THEORY AND READING 561

and to the potentialculturalspecificityof both types of schemata. In
the followingsections,we focus on the implicationsof the cultural
specificityof contentschemata forEFL/ESL readers and EFL/ESL
readingmethodology.

IMPLICATIONSFOR EFL/ESLREADERS
Given therole of contentschematain readingcomprehension,there
are obvious implicationsfor the EFL/ESL reader. The background
knowledge that second language readers bring to a text is often
Hudson notesthat
culture-specific.
thereadingproblemsoftheL2readerarenotdue toan absenceofattempts
and providingspecificschemata. . . Rather,theproblemliesin
at fitting
projecting schemata(Hudson1982:9).
appropriate
Second language readers attemptto provide schemata to make sense
of texts,and theydo so persistently.However, theseeffortswill failif
the reader cannot access the appropriateexistingschemata,or if the
reader does not possess the appropriateschematanecessaryto under-
standa text.
Most commonly,accessing appropriatecontentschemata depends
initiallyon textualcues; the graphicdisplay mustbe somehow recon-
structedby the reader as meaningfullanguage. At thispoint,general
language processingskills are most important.For second language
readers, then, obviously some language proficiencyis required to
activate relevant schemata, and it is not surprisingthat failuresto
access appropriateschemata (i.e., comprehend)are ofteninterpreted
solelyas deficienciesin language processingskills.Consequently,poor
readers are encouraged to expand their vocabularies and to gain
greatercontrolover complex syntacticstructuresin orderto improve
readingcomprehension.Indeed, some readingproblemsare relatedto
such language skilldeficiencies.However, as we have noted,reading
comprehensiondepends cruciallyon the reader'sbeing able to relate
information fromthetextto alreadyexistingbackgroundknowledge.
In the EFL/ESL classroom, we must be particularlysensitiveto
reading problems that result from the implicitculturalknowledge
presupposed by a text. A review of the literaturein EFL/ESL
methodologyshows thatthe role of culturalknowledge as a factorin
reading comprehensionhas been an issue forsome time. Fries (1945,
1963) talked about meaning at the social-culturallevel-that is, the
meaning that transcendsthe language code and is related to the
backgroundknowledge of the native speakers of thatcode. Reading
comprehensionoccurs when the total meaningof a passage is fitted
into thisnetworkof informationorganized in ways meaningfulto a

562 TESOL QUARTERLY

society. The followingpassage froman ESL reading text3illustrates
Fries' concept of social-culturalmeaning:
Byvotingagainstmasstransportation, votershavechosento continueon a
roadto ruin.Ourinterstate highways, thosemuchpraisedgoldenavenues
builtto whisksuburbantravelers inand outofdowntown haveturnedinto
theworld'smostexpensiveparkinglots.Thatexpenseis notonlyecono-
mic-it is social. These highwayshave createdgreatwalls separating
neighborhood fromneighborhood, disruptingthecomplexsocialconnec-
tionsthathelpmakea citylivable(Baudoinetal. 1977:159).
In reading this passage, some ESL students fail to perceive the
connectionbetween mass transportation and highways.In the United
States,whereindividualownershipof carsresultsin an overabundance
of highwaysand a reduced need formass transportation, thispassage
makes sense. Sometimes,however, studentsperceive thathighways
are built for mass transportation, which renders this passage (and
especially the criticalreading questionwhichasks whetherthe author
supports the idea of mass transportation)at best illogical, at worst
incomprehensible.
The social-culturalmeaning in this passage relates to the culture-
specific schema of the cars/masstransportation opposition.Further-
more, comprehensioncan also be related to semantic associations
available when a schema is accessed. The notion of interstatehigh-
ways, here referredto narrowlyas those in urban areas, invitesthe
semanticassociationsof crowding,congestion,and rushhour traffic.
The meaningof the phrase the world's most expensiveparkinglots is
associated with,and can only be understoodwith referenceto, this
specificurbanhighwaysubschema.
Elsewhere in the EFL/ESL methodologyliterature,Rivers (1968)
recommendsthatthestrongbond between cultureand language must
be maintainedforthestudentto have a completeunderstandingof the
meaning of language. She believes that differencesin values and
attitudesare one of the main sources of problemsin foreignlanguage
learning.Culture-specificvalues can be a significantfactorin compre-
hensionif thevalues expressedby the textdifferfromthevalues held
by the reader. Devout Muslim students,for example, tend to have
problemswiththe followingpassage:
Thereis a questionabouttheextenttowhichanyoneofus can be freeofa
prejudicedviewintheareaofreligion(Baudoinetal. 1977:185).
The passages chosen to illustratereading problems related to culture-specificbackground
informationare all drawn from Reader's Choice (Baudoin, Bober, Clarke, Dobson, and
Silberstein1977), a widely used and widelyrespectedESL readingtext.The difficulties
noted
withthe passages fromthistextare in no way intendedas a criticismof the book, which we
consider an excellenttextbased on psycholinguisticprinciples.Rather,these passages were
chosen because theycaused actual classroomproblemsand because theyillustrateoftensubtle
or hidden problemswhichwe, as EFL/ESL teachers,may finddifficultto identify.

SCHEMA THEORY AND READING 563

While thissentenceis excellentfordeveloping criticalreading skills,
the mentionof religionin thiscontextdoes not coincide withIslamic
values. A subsequent exercise requires the student to analyze the
relationof theoriginaltextto thefollowingsentence:Because we can't
be free of prejudice in the area of religion,we should not practice a
religion. One studentrefused to even consider the premise of this
sentence;his onlycomment:"For me, it'sfalse."
More recently,Rivers and Temperley (1978) have emphasized the
importance of providing background information,explaininghigh-
frequencybut culturallyloaded terms,and using illustrationswith
readingpassages to provideadditionalmeaningto texts.The important
point is that problems with individual lexical items may not be as
pervasiveas problemsrelatedto theabsence ofappropriategeneralized
informationassumed by the writerand possessed by a reader sharing
thatwriter'sculturalbackground.
The relevanceof appropriategeneralized,underlyinginformation is
illustratedby the followingtext:
Althoughhousewivesstillmakeup themajorityofvolunteer groups,male
is
participation reportedon therisenationwideas traditional
distinctions
betweenmen'sworkand women'sworkbeginto fade (Baudoinet al.
1977:184).
The phrasevolunteergroupsrequiresappropriateunderlyinginforma-
tionbeforethissentencecan be understood.Althoughthelexicalitems
volunteerand groups were clearly understoodby one student,the
concept of volunteergroups (predominantlyfemale, unpaid social
workers) was clearly not understood since he wondered if these
women had volunteeredto be housewives.
Paulston and Bruder (1976) also discuss covert informationand
reading.Proficientreaders,theysay, mustdraw on theirown experi-
ence in order to supply a semantic component to a message. They
argue that texts with familiar settingsand even specialized low-
frequencyvocabulary are appropriate (even though the texts may
"feel" as if theyare not appropriate) because theyare relevantto the
students'world (and are, thus,easier to read). Robinett(1978) agrees
thatcovertculturalinformation is a factorin readingperformanceand
suggests that the teacher facilitate reading by providing specific
backgroundexperience.
When covert informationis assumed by the writer,it must be
supplied by thereader and is sometimesdone so erroneously.
I saw by theclockofthecityjail thatitwas pasteleven,so I decidedto go
to thenewspaperimmediately (Baudoinet al. 1977:83).

564 TESOL QUARTERLY

Afterreadingthissentence,one studentwas convincedthatthe writer
had been in jail at thetimebecause, as he said, "an outsideclock is only
on a church."He had concluded thatthe only place the writercould
have seen theclock of the cityjail was frominside thejail itself.If this
sentencemerely"setsthescene,"thenthismisinterpretation is insignifi-
cant. However, if the misreadingcauses the reader to considersuch a
scene significant(when it is not), or to dismissit as insignificant(when
it is not), thena seriouscomprehensionproblemhas resulted.
Finallyin themethodologyliterature, Marquardt'swork(1967,1969)
is representativeof the pedagogical approach thatholds thatreading
should be in theliteratureof thetargetcultureforthe expresspurpose
of teachingthatcultureto foreignstudents.Such literature,however,
mustbe chosencarefully.Considerthefollowingpassage fromCheaper
by the Dozen:
Motherthe psychologist and Dad the motionstudyman and general
contractordecided to look into the new field of the psychologyof
management, and theold fieldofpsychologically managinga housefulof
children.Theybelievedthatwhatwouldworkinthehomewouldworkin
thefactory,and whatwouldworkinthefactory wouldworkinthehome.
Dad putthetheory toa testshortlyafterwe movedtoMontclair. Thehouse
was too big forTom Grieves,thehandyman, and Mrs.Cunningham, the
to
cook, keep in order. Dad decided we were going to have to helpthem,
and he wantedus to offerthehelpwillingly. He had foundthatthebest
way to get cooperationout of employeesin a factorywas set up a joint
employer-employee board,whichwouldmakeworkassignments ona basis
of personalchoiceand aptitude.He and Mothersetup a FamilyCouncil,
patternedafteran employer-employee board. The Council met every
Sundayafternoon, immediately afterdinner(Baudoinet al. 1977:91).
This textwould require considerablebackgroundteachingbeforethe
textitselfcould teach anything(even if we consideredwhat it has to
teach to be culturallyrelevant).Using literatureto teach culturemay
be the most direct way to teach culture, but it certainlyimplies
thoroughbackground preparationand may, in fact,not be the best
way to teach language.
There is much in these methodsthatis of value, but in lightof the
broad message behind the schema-theoretic view of reading,are they
sufficientlysensitive to cross-cultural interference at all levels of
meaning? The factors noted above are important justto "ground"
not
words and phrases for the reader. Rather, notions such as social-
culturalmeaning,culture-specific values, and covertinformation refer
to differentaspects of the same problem, and that is how to deal with
reading difficultiescaused by themismatch of thebackground knowl-
edge presupposedby thetextand thebackgroundknowledgepossessed

SCHEMA THEORY AND READING 565

by the reader. A schema-theoreticview of reading suggests the
pervasive effectsof such a mismatchand requiresour being sensitive
to thesereadingdifficultieson a more global level.

CLASSROOMACTIVITIES
Our immediate goal as EFL/ESL reading teachersis to minimize
reading difficultiesand to maximize comprehensionby providing
culturallyrelevant information.Goodman puts the issue into focus
when he says that
evenhighly effectivereadersareseverelylimitedincomprehension oftexts
by whattheyalready know beforethey read.The authormay influence
the
comprehensibility ofa textparticularly audiences.But
forspecifictargeted
no authorcancompletely compensate inwritingfortherangeofdifferences
amongall potential readersofa giventext(Goodman1979:658).
Since no authorcan compensate for the individual variationamong
readers,especiallyreadersfromdifferent culturalbackgrounds,thisis
one of the roles of the teacherin the EFL/ESL readingclassroom.As
teacherswe can approach thisproblemby manipulatingeitherone of
thetwo variables:thetextand/orthereader.

Text
What can we do withtextsto minimizeculturalconflictsand inter-
ferenceand to maximize comprehension?For the beginningreader,
the Language Experience Approach (LEA) (Rigg 1981) is an excellent
waytocontrolvocabulary, The basicLEA technique
and content.
structure,
uses thestudents'ideas and thestudents'own words in thepreparation
of beginningreadingmaterials.The studentsdecide whattheywantto
say and how to say it, and thendictate to the teacher,who acts as a
scribe. LEA works when the students'beginningreading materials,
developed by themwiththe teacher'shelp, have the students'ideas in
theirown words. LEA worksbecause studentstendto be able to read
what theyhave justsaid. The students,in effect,writetheirown texts,
neutralizingproblemsof unfamiliarcontent.
Anotherway to minimizeinterference fromthetextis to encourage
narrow reading, as suggested by Krashen (1981). Narrow reading
refersto reading thatis confinedto a singletopic or to the textsof a
single author. Krashen suggests that "narrow reading, and perhaps
narrowinputin general,is moreefficientforsecond language acquisi-
tion" (Krashen 1981:23). Reading teachersusually provide shortand
varied selectionswhich never allow studentsto adjust to an author's
style,to become familiarwiththe specialized vocabularyof the topic,

566 TESOL QUARTERLY

or to develop enoughcontextto facilitatecomprehension.Rather,such
selectionsforcestudentsto move fromfrustration to frustration.
However, studentswho read eithera singletopic or a singleauthor
find that the textbecomes easier to comprehend afterthe firstfew
pages. Readers adjust eitherto therepeated vocabularyof a particular
topic or to the particularstyleof a writer.Furthermore, repetitionsof
vocabulary and structuremean thatreview is built into the reading.
The significantadvantage fromthe schema-theoreticpointof view is
that schemata are repeatedly accessed and furtherexpanded and
refined,resultingin increasedcomprehension.
The thirdpossibilityof textfacilitationis to develop materialsalong
thelinesof thoseproposed by Paulstonand Bruder(1976). As we have
noted,theysuggestusingtextswithlocal settingsand specialized low-
frequency vocabulary. These materials might be student or local
newspapers,pamphlets,brochures,or booklets about local places of
interest.English travel guides or National Geographic-typearticles
from the students' own countries are also good sources for the
EFL/ESL reader.
Finally,Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) is an excellentactivityfor
ESL readers. Through silentreading of texts,studentsbecome self-
directed agents seeking meaning.To be effective,however, an SSR
programmustbe based on student-selectedtextsso thatthe students
will be interestedin what theyare reading.Studentsselect theirown
reading textswith respect to content,level of difficulty, and length.
What is important,fromour point of view, is thatreaders tend to be
interestedin reading textsthatare relevantto theirown experiences.
Studentswho choose theirown textsare, in effect,also providingtheir
own appropriatebackgroundknowledgeforunderstandingthe text.

Reader
Instead of, or in addition to, textcontrol,we also need to consider
whatwe cando withthereadersthemselves. Providingbackground informa-
tion and previewing content for the reader seem to be the most
obvious strategiesforthe language teacher.We want to avoid having
studentsread material"cold." Askingstudentsto manipulateboth the
and culturalcodes (sometimeslinguistically
linguistic easy butculturally
and vice versa) is askingtoo much.
difficult,
Providingbackgroundinformation and previewingare particularly
importantforthe less proficientlanguage student(see the findingsof
Hudson 1982). These readers are more word-bound, and meaning
tends to break down at the word level. Thus, less proficientstudents
tend to have vocabulary acquisition emphasized and, as such, are
encouraged to do a lot of specific (and less efficient)word-by-word

SCHEMA THEORY AND READING 567

processingexclusivelyin a bottom-upprocessingmode. Readers who
are more proficientin a language tend to receive contentpreviews
because theyare no longeras susceptibleto vocabulary and structure
difficultiesin reading. As a result,these more proficientstudentsare
encouragedto do moreglobal,predictive(and moreefficient)process-
ing in the top-down processingmode. One thingwe surelywant to
remindourselvesof,however,is thatless proficientreadersalso need
familiarcontentselectionsand/orcontentpreview as much as, if not
more than,more proficientreaders. Illustrationsmay be particularly
appropriatefor studentswith minimallanguage skills.Providingthe
semanticcontentcomponent for low-level readers will free them to
focuson vocabularyand structureexpressiveof thatcontent.
Previewingis an importantactivityin thereadingclassroom,but itis
not necessarilya process of simplyprovidinga preliminaryoutlineof
what is to be read. Sometimes,it involves teaching a key concept
which is culturallyloaded, such as the one in the short story The
Lottery(Baudoin et al. 1977:140-145).If one does not understandthe
process or purpose of a lottery,thenthisshortstoryabout one woman
who "wins" and is then killed by her neighbors will be totally
incomprehensible. In thiscase, a discussionoflotteriesbeforeassigning
thereadingwould be absolutelynecessary.
Previewingcan also include presentingspecialized vocabulary and
structuresthatthe teacherpredictswill cause difficulties.In the mass
transportation passage cited earlier,studentswho could not come up
withthe appropriatebackgroundinformation also had difficultywith
the phrase road to ruin(a road forruining,as in an apple to eat?) and
expensiveparkinglots (parkingwill be expensive?). Even a sentence
that supposedly contains within it enough experientialcontext to
explain the word mildew is oftenincomprehensibleto manystudents
from arid regions: What could John expect? He had left his wet
swimmingtrunksin the dark closet for over a week. Of course they
had begun to mildew (Baudoin et al. 1977:5).
Finally, by carefullylisteningto what our studentssay about the
textstheyare asked to read, we can become further sensitizedto their
hidden comprehensionproblems.As teachers,we should not respond
to whatthereader does (right/wrong) as muchas to what thereaderis
tryingto do. Given thatthe reader is tryingto make sense of the text
(constructmeaning),a teacherwho listenscarefullyand respondsto a
student'sefforts willbecome aware ofboththebackgroundknowledge
and theculturalproblemsthatstudentsthemselvesbringto thetext.In
any case, the mostvaluable information is in our students'perceptions
and not our own. This is the type of informationthat is gleaned
throughaskingopen-ended questions,probingforinferencesfromthe
text,and asking studentsto justifyanswers to more directquestions

568 TESOL QUARTERLY

(for example, "Why do you thinkso?"). In addition,having students
provide oral or written summaries will help teachers to discern
problem areas in comprehension.

CONCLUSION
Thus, in achieving our immediate goals in the EFL/ESL reading
classroom, we must strive for an optimum balance between the
background knowledge presupposed by the textsour studentsread
and the background knowledge our studentspossess. As we have
shownby means of the foregoingclassroomactivitiesand techniques,
thisbalance may be achieved by manipulatingeitherthe textand/or
thereader variable.
Of course, our long-rangegoal as reading teachers is to develop
independentreaders outside the EFL/ESL classroom,readers whose
purpose in learningto read in Englishas a foreignor second language
is to learn fromthe textstheyread.4But there,too, as Andersonnotes,
"withoutsome schema intowhichit can be assimilated,an experience
is incomprehensible,and therefore,little can be learned from it"
(Anderson 1977:429; emphasis added). What makes the classroom
activities and other techniques we have described valid is their
applicabilityto the "real" world beyond the EFL/ESL reading class-
room. Every culture-specificinterferenceproblem dealt with in the
classroompresentsan opportunityto build new culture-specific sche-
mata that will be available to the EFL/ESL student outside the
classroom. In addition,however, and possiblymore importantly, the
process of identifyingand dealingwithculturalinterference in reading
shouldmake ourEFL/ESL studentsmoresensitiveto suchinterference
when theyread on theirown. By using the classroom activitiesand
techniqueswe have described, our EFL/ESL readers should become
more aware that reading is a highly interactiveprocess between
themselvesand theirpriorbackgroundknowledge,on the one hand,
and thetextitself,on the other.
U

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This articlegrew out of the authors'portionsof a workshopentitled"Reading in ESL:
Insightsand Applications from Research," presented at the 16th Annual TESOL
Conventionin Honolulu,Hawaii, May 1, 1982.

4We use thephrase"readingto learnfromtexts"

in thebroadestsense,including
readingfor
academic purposes,reading forsurvivalpurposes or forpurposes of functioning
in societyat
variouslevels,and even readingforrecreationor entertainment.

SCHEMA THEORY AND READING 569

THE AUTHORS

PatriciaCarrellis Professorof Linguisticsand EFL/ESL at SouthernIllinoisUniversity

at Carbondale. Her currentresearchinterestsinclude the role of backgroundknowl-
edge and the interactionof text and reader variables in text comprehension.Her
research in this area has appeared in the TESOL Quarterly,Language Learning,
Language Learningand Communication,and On TESOL '82.
Joan C. Eisterhold is a doctoral studentat NorthwesternUniversityand a former
instructor
of ESL at theUniversityof Tennessee at Martin.She holds an M.A. in TEFL
fromSouthernIllinoisUniversityat Carbondale.

REFERENCES
Adams, Marilyn J., and Allan Collins. 1979. A schema-theoreticview of
reading. In New directionsin discourseprocessing,Roy O. Freedle (Ed.),
1-22.Norwood, New Jersey:Ablex PublishingCorporation.
Alderson,J.Charles, and AlexanderUrquhart.1983. "This testis unfair:I'm
notan economist."Paper presentedat the17thAnnualTESOL Convention,
Toronto,Canada, March,1983.
Anderson,Richard C. 1977. The notion of schemata and the educational
enterprise:general discussion of the conference. In Schooling and the
acquisitionof knowledge,RichardC. Anderson,Rand J.Spiro,and William
E. Montague (Eds.), 415-431. Hillsdale, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Anderson,Richard C., Ralph E. Reynolds,Diane L. Schallert,and ErnestT.
Goetz. 1977. Frameworksforcomprehendingdiscourse.AmericanEduca-
tionalResearchJournal14(4): 367-381.
Bartlett,Frederic C. 1932. Remembering:a studyin experimentaland social
psychology.Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Baudoin, E. Margaret,Ellen S. Bober, Mark A. Clarke, Barbara K. Dobson,
and Sandra Silberstein.1977. Reader's choice: a readingskillstextbookfor
students of English as a second language. Ann Arbor: Universityof
MichiganPress.
Burtoff,Michele. 1983. Organizationalpatternsof expositoryprose: a com-
parative study of native Arabic, Japanese and English speakers. Paper
presented at the 17th Annual TESOL Convention, Toronto, Canada,
March,1983.
Carrell,PatriciaL. 1981a. Culture-specificschematain L2 comprehension.In
Selected papers fromthe ninthIllinois TESOL/BE annual convention,the
firstmidwestTESOL conference,RichardOrem and JohnHaskell (Eds.),
123-132.Chicago: IllinoisTESOL/BE.
Carrell,PatriciaL. 1981b. The role of schematain L2 comprehension.Paper
presented at the 15th Annual TESOL Convention, Detroit, Michigan,
March,1981.
Carrell,PatriciaL. 1983a.Backgroundknowledgein second languagecompre-
hension.Language Learningand Communication2(1):25-34.

570 TESOL QUARTERLY

Carrell,Patricia L. 1983b. Some issues in studyingthe role of schemata,or
background knowledge, in second language comprehension.Paper pre-
sented at the 17thAnnual TESOL Convention,Toronto, Canada, March,
1983.
Clarke, Mark A., and Sandra Silberstein.1977. Toward a realization of
psycholinguisticprinciplesin the ESL reading class. Language Learning
27(1):135-154.
Coady, James.1979. A psycholinguistic model of theESL reader.In Reading
in a second language, Ronald Mackay, Bruce Barkman,and R. R. Jordan
(Eds.), 5-12. Rowley, Massachusetts:NewburyHouse Publishers.
Collins, Allan M., and M. Ross Quillian. 1972. How to make a language user.
In Organizationof memory,Endel Tulvingand Wayne Donaldson (Eds.),
310-351.New York: Academic Press.
Fillmore,CharlesJ.1976.The need fora framesemanticswithinlinguistics.In
Statisticalmethodsin linguistics,
5-29. Stockholm:SprakforlagetSkriptor.
Fries, Charles C. 1945. Teaching and learningEnglishas a foreignlanguage.
AnnArbor:Universityof MichiganPress.
Fries,Charles C. 1963.Linguisticsand reading.New York:Holt,Rinehartand
Winston.
Goodman, Kenneth S. 1967. Reading: a psycholinguisticguessing game.
Journalofthe Reading Specialist6(1):126-135.
Goodman, KennethS. 1971.Psycholinguistic universalsin thereadingprocess.
In The psychologyof second languagelearning,Paul Pimsleurand Terence
Quinn (Eds.), 135-142.Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Goodman, Kenneth S. 1973a. On the psycholinguisticmethod of teaching
reading.In Psycholinguistics and reading,FrankSmith(Ed.), 177-182.New
York:Holt, Rinehartand Winston.
Goodman, Kenneth S. 1973b. Analysis of oral reading miscues: applied
psycholinguistics. In Psycholinguistics
and reading,FrankSmith(Ed.), 158-
176. New York: Holt, Rinehartand Winston.
Goodman, KennethS. 1979. The know-moreand the know-nothingmove-
mentsin reading:a personalresponse.Language Arts55(6):657-663.
Hinds,John.1982.Contrastiverhetoric:Japaneseand English.Paper presented
at the 16thAnnualTESOL Convention,Honolulu,Hawaii, May, 1982.
Hinds, John. 1983. Retention of informationusing a Japanese style of
presentation.Paper presented at the 17th Annual TESOL Convention,
Toronto,Canada, March,1983.
Hudson, Thom. 1982. The effectsof induced schemataon the"shortcircuit"
in L2 reading:non-decodingfactorsin L2 readingperformance.Language
Learning32(1):1-31.
Johnson,Patricia. 1981. Effects on reading comprehension of language
complexityand culturalbackgroundof a text.TESOL Quarterly15(2):169-
181.
Johnson,Patricia.1982. Effectson readingcomprehensionof buildingback-
groundknowledge. TESOL Quarterly16(4):503-516.
Kant,Immanuel.1963. Critiqueof pure reason. (1sted. 1781,2nd ed. 1787,N.
Kemp Smith,translator.)London: MacMillan PublishingCo.

SCHEMA THEORY AND READING 571

Kaplan, Robert B. 1966. Culturalthoughtpatternsin inter-cultural education.
Language Learning16(1-2):1-20.
Krashen,Stephen D. 1981. The case fornarrowreading. TESOL Newsletter
15(6):23.
Mandler, Jean M. 1978. A code in the node: the use of a storyschema in
retrieval.Discourse Processes 1(1):14-35.
Marquardt,William F. 1967. Literatureand cross-culturecommunicationin
the course in English for internationalstudents. The Florida Foreign
Language Reporter5(1):9-10.
Marquardt,William F. 1969. Creating empathythroughliteraturebetween
members of the mainstreamculture and disadvantaged learners of the
minoritycultures.The Florida Foreign Language Reporter7(1):133-141,
157.
Meyer, Bonnie J. F. 1975. The organizationof prose and its effectson
memory.Amsterdam:North-HollandPublishingCo.
Meyer, Bonnie J. F. 1977. The structureof prose: effectson learningand
memoryand implicationsfor educational practice. In Schooling and the
acquisitionof knowledge,RichardC. Anderson,Rand J.Spiro,and William
E. Montague (Eds.), 179-208.Hillsdale, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Meyer,Bonnie J.F. 1981. Basic researchon prose comprehension:a critical
review. In Comprehensionand the competentreader: inter-specialty per-
spectives,Dennis F. Fisher and Charles W. Peters (Eds.), 8-35. New York:
Praeger.
Meyer, Bonnie J.F., and Roy O. Freedle. In press. The effectsof different
discoursetypeson recall. AmericanEducational ResearchJournal.
Meyer,Bonnie J.F., and G. Elizabeth Rice. 1982. The interactionof reader
strategiesand the organizationof text.Text 2(1-3):155-192.
Minsky,Marvin. 1975. A frameworkfor representingknowledge. In The
psychologyof computervision,PatrickHenryWinston(Ed.), 211-277.New
York: McGraw-HillPublishingCo.
Ostler,ShirleyE., and RobertB. Kaplan. 1982. Contrastiverhetoricrevisited.
Paper presentedat the 16thAnnualTESOL Convention,Honolulu,Hawaii,
May, 1982.
Paulston,ChristinaBratt,and Mary N. Bruder. 1976. Teaching English as a
second language: techniquesand procedures.Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Winthrop.
Rigg, Pat. 1981. Beginningto read in English the LEA way. In Reading
English as a second language: moving from theory,C. W. Twyford,
WilliamDiehl, and Karen Feathers(Eds.), 81-90.Monographsin Language
and Reading Studies4. Bloomington,Indiana: Indiana University.
Rivers,Wilga M. 1968. Teaching foreignlanguage skills.Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Rivers,Wilga M., and Mary S. Temperley. 1978. A practical guide to the
teaching of English as a second or foreignlanguage. New York: Oxford
UniversityPress.
Robinett,BettyWallace. 1978. Teaching English to speakers of other lan-
guages. New York: McGraw-Hill.

572 TESOL QUARTERLY

Rumelhart,David E. 1977. Understandingand summarizingbriefstories.In
Basic processes in reading:perceptionand comprehension,David LaBerge
and S. Jay Samuels (Eds.), 265-303. Hillsdale, New Jersey:Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Rumelhart,David E. 1980. Schemata: the building blocks of cognition.In
Theoretical issues in reading comprehension,Rand J. Spiro, BertramC.
Bruce,and WilliamE. Brewer(Eds.), 33-58.Hillsdale,New Jersey:Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Rumelhart,David E., and Andrew Ortony. 1977. The representationof
knowledge in memory.In Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge,
Richard C. Anderson,Rand J. Spiro, and William E. Montague (Eds.),
99-135.Hillsdale, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schank, Roger C., and Robert P. Abelson. 1977. Scripts,plans, goals and
understanding. Hillsdale, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Smith,Frank. 1971. Understandingreading: a psycholinguisticanalysis of
readingand learningto read. New York:Holt, Rinehartand Winston.
Steffensen,MargaretS., ChitraJoag-dev,and RichardC. Anderson.1979. A
cross-culturalperspective on reading comprehension.Reading Research
Quarterly15(1):10-29.
Tannen,Deborah. 1978.The effectof expectationson conversation.Discourse
Processes 1(2):203-209.
Tannen, Deborah. 1979. What'sin a frame?Surfaceevidence forunderlying
expectations.In New directionsin discourse processing,Roy O. Freedle
(Ed.), 137-181.Norwood, New Jersey:Ablex PublishingCorporation.
Warren,William H., David W. Nicholas, and Tom Trabasso. 1979. Event
chains and inferencesin understandingnarratives.In New directionsin
discourseprocessing,Roy O. Freedle (Ed.), 23-52.Norwood, New Jersey:
Ablex PublishingCorporation.

SCHEMA THEORY AND READING 573