1887
Volume 22, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0155-0640
  • E-ISSN: 1833-7139
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

A number of researchers (Meyer 1975, 1977a, 1977b; Meyer, Brandt & Bluth 1980; Meyer & Freedle 1984; Carrell 1983; Connor 1984) have claimed that Collection is one of the most rudimentary of expository text configurations. They suggest that, unlike expository configurations such as Comparison, Causation and Problem/Solution, it possesses no top-level structure at all. In this paper, I will re-examine the structure of one type of Collection by building on a set of claims by Tadros (1994) which suggest, contra Meyer and others, a clear basic rhetorical make-up for Collection. I will closely examine a type of Collection referred to by Tadros as Enumeration, to argue that it possesses a well-defined constituent structure and set of interconstituent relationships. I will then analyse randomly selected samples from a body of twenty essays by Cantonese-speaking freshmen enrolled in the English department of a Hong Kong university, to support two claims: 1° the majority of these learners have considerable difficulty conforming to the interconstituent constraints on Enumeration; 2° as a group they show evidence of three developmentally differentiable levels of acquisition of the rhetorical structure of Enumeration. In a final section, I will consider the pedagogical implications of these findings.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/aral.22.2.07tic
1999-01-01
2019-10-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Beekman, J. and J. Callow
    (1974) Translating the Word of God. Michigan, Zon-dervan.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Carrell, Patricia L.
    (1983) Some issues in studying the role of schemata, or background knowledge, in second language comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language1, 2: 81–92.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Connor, Ulla
    (1984) Recall of text: differences between first and second language readers. TESOL Quarterly18, 2: 239–256. doi: 10.2307/3586692
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3586692 [Google Scholar]
  4. Fuller, D. P.
    (1959) The Inductive Method of Bible Study (3rd ed.). Pasadena, Fuller Theological Seminary (mimeo).
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Meyer, B. J.
    (1975) The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam, North Holland Publishing Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Meyer, Bonnie J. F.
    (1977a) The organization of prose: effects on learning and memory and implications for educational practice. In C. Richard , R. Anderson , J. Sapiro and William E. Montague (eds) Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge. Hillsdale, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (1977b) What is remembered from prose: a function of passage structure. In Roy O. Freedle (ed.) Discovery production and comprehension. Norwood, New Jersey, Ablex publishing Corporation.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Meyer, Bonnie J. F. , David M. Brandt and George J. Bluth
    (1980) Use of top-level structure in text: key for reading comprehension and ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly16, 1: 72–103. doi: 10.2307/747349
    https://doi.org/10.2307/747349 [Google Scholar]
  9. Meyer, Bonnie J. F. , and Roy O. Freedle
    (1984) Effects of discourse type on recall. American Educational Research Journal21, 1: 121–143. doi: 10.3102/00028312021001121
    https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312021001121 [Google Scholar]
  10. Tadros, A.
    (1994) Predictive categories in expository text. In M. Coulthard (ed.) Advances in Written Text Analysis. London, Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/aral.22.2.07tic
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error