3.4.1 General claims of both sides
The main rationales, in support of unmodified texts, are:
the language contained in unmodified texts is a real language model (e.g., Berardo, 2006; Cowan 1974; Graesser, McNamara & Louwerse 2003; Honeyfield 1977; Johnson 1981; Swaffer 1985)
unmodified texts can be easier than modified texts due to their inherent linguistic characteristics such as redundancy and cohesiveness (e.g., Blau, 1982; Cowan 1974; Graesser, McNamara & Louwerse 2003; Honeyfield 1977; Johnson 1981; Long & Ross, 1993; Lotherington-Woloszyn 1993; Swaffer 1985)
unmodified texts are more motivating and interesting than modified texts (e.g., Allen, Bernhardt, Berry & Demel, 1988; Bacon & Finnemann, 1990; Berardo 2006; Nutall 1996; Peacock 1997; Swaffer, 1985)
unmodified texts often, though not always, present cultural information about the learners’ target cultures (e.g., Honeyghan, 2000; Kilickaya, 2004; Mikado, 1995; Moeller, 1997)
35
modified texts are more comprehensible, which makes L2 reading more accessible for learners (e.g., Crow, 1986; Everson & Kuriya, 1998; Gardner & Hansen, 2007; Lucas, 1991; Nation & Deweerdt, 2001; Richards, 2006; Salaberry, 1996; Schulz, 1981; Wallace, 1992)
modified texts reduce cognitive processing burden, which enables learners to use their attentional resources more effectively (e.g., Long, 2007;
McLaughlin, 1987; McLaughlin, Rossman & McLeod, 1983; Salaberry, 1996)
modified texts provide more ideal vocabulary learning opportunity and more useful fluency development input (e.g., Beglar, Hunt & Kite, 2011; Claridge, 2005; Nation & Deweerdt, 2001; Nation & Ming-Tzu,1999; Taguchi,
Takayasu-Maass & Gorsuch, 2004; Wodinsky & Nation, 1988)
modified texts can also be motivating (e.g., Bamford, 1984; Day, 2003; Day & Bamford, 1998; Hedge, 1985; Richards, 2006; West, 1950)
In sections 3.4.2, 3.4.3 and 3.4.4 below, some of the aforementioned points are reviewed in detail.
3.4.2 The language in unmodified/modified texts
The language contained in unmodified texts is indeed a real language model (e.g., Berardo, 2006; Cowan 1974; Graesser, McNamara & Louwerse 2003; Honeyfield 1977; Johnson 1981; Kilickaya, 2004; Swaffer 1985). However, does this imply that the language used in modified texts is not a real language model? To answer this question, I first refer to Honeyfield (1977, p. 431) who suggests that the English used in simplified teaching materials is significantly different from “normal English” in the following three aspects:
36
1. The information system in simplified passages is homogenized. (p. 434) 2. Reduction of syntax in simplified passages creates reduced cohesion. (p.
435)
3. In simplified passages “communicative structure” becomes obscure since simplifiers fail to notice and maintain discourse items which mark
communicative structure within the discourse. (p. 435, 436)
Secondly, Swaffer (1985) also makes a clear distinction between an authentic text and a non-authentic text. She claims that an authentic text has “an authentic communicative objective in mind” (p. 17). That is, in an authentic text the writer intends to communicate meaning with the reader. She argues, on the other hand, that the goal of a non-authentic text “is a pseudo intent to teach language per se rather than to communicate information” (p.17). This discourse nature of a non-authentic text is linguistically manifested as a lack of “repetition, redundancy, and discourse markers which confirm and elaborate on a particular authorial style or cultural pattern” (p.17). In summary, both Honeyfield and Swaffer claim that the language used in modified texts is an inherently inferior language example which lacks many important useful linguistic characteristics contained in unmodified texts.
Against this claim, a study by Claridge (2005) provides a different perspective. She suggests that “for a comparison [between modified and unmodified texts] to be a true one, such text characteristics as random distribution of high and low
frequency words, repetition and redundancy must be measured, not in absolute terms, but in terms of how they are likely to be perceived by their readers” (p.145). Her “comparison in audience-specific terms” (p. 145) between two novels in their unmodified form and their GR versions proves that “well-written graded readers can offer an authentic reading experience for learners, which will help prepare them for
37
reading unsimplified texts” (p. 157). In her study, two GRs demonstrate satisfactory word frequency distribution from the learners’ perspective, when analysed using the more L2 learner oriented word lists. In her study, Claridge used the Oxford
Bookworm Library lists4 to analyse the word frequency distribution of the two GRs. Also, linguistic devices to communicate messages – which include authorial cues, repetition, redundancy, and discourse markers – are detected in the two GR versions. Claridge’s findings are supported by the findings of a study by Allan (2009).
Examining a graded corpus, Allan concludes that “graded readers may offer an acceptable balance of accessibility and authenticity” and “useful authentic chunks are present, and obviously learners will be exposed to them by simply reading the texts” (p. 23, 31).
The argument about whether or not the language used in modified texts is a real language model is inconclusive in this line of scholarship. However, this argument has started taking a more objective course with the advancement of computational tools such as Coh-Metrix5 used in studies by Crossley, Louwerse, McCarthy and McNamara (2007) and its replication study, Crossley and McNamara (2008). Their study confirms that there are linguistic differences between modified texts and unmodified texts, and the study further demonstrates that there are “unintended consequences to the natural structure of the discourse” caused by text modification measures (p. 426). Such “unintended consequences” detected by the computational tool should be investigated for their pedagogical justification, taking into consideration the learners’ perception proposed by Claridge (2005).
4 The Oxford Bookworm Library lists “are based on the headwords used in their readers at Level 1
(400 words), Level 2 (400-700 words), and Level 3 (700-1000 words)” (Claridge, 2005, p. 146).
5 “Coh-Metrix calculates the coherence of texts on a wide range of measures. It replaces common
readability formulas by applying the latest in computational linguistics and linking this to the latest research in psycholinguistics” (Department of Psychology, University of Memphis, n.d.).
38
3.4.3 Which are more comprehensible, unmodified texts or modified texts?
Unmodified texts are intuitively and commonly thought to be more difficult in terms of their complex syntax and lexical tendency as well as content, conceptual and cultural maturity (Guariento & Morley, 2001; McLaughlin, 1987; McLaughlin, Rossman & McLeod, 1983; Martinez, 2002; Ommagio, 2003; Richards, 2001; Shook, 1997; Young, 1999). However, scholarly discussions indicate that the reality is not so simplistic.
First, unmodified texts may be more comprehensible compared to modified texts against the intuition of many classroom teachers and despite their relatively high readability scores, because their underlining cohesiveness and natural
redundancy ease readers’ processing. In contrast, modified passages organized with many simplified short sentences lose original cohesiveness and redundancy which may play an important role for readers in understanding the meaning of the
discourse (e.g., Blau 1982; Cowan 1974; Graesser, McNamara & Louwerse 2003; Honeyfield 1977; Johnson 1981; Long & Ross, 1993; Lotherington-Woloszyn 1993; Swaffer 1985). Allen, Bernhardt, Berry and Demel (1988) point out that “lengthier texts may well be more cohesive and, hence, more interesting, for learners” (p.170). It has to be noted, however, that this argument cannot be applied to elaboratively modified texts, since elaborated texts are written in the way that original linguistic features are maintained and they even apply more redundancy to improve learners’ reading comprehension (Long, 2007; Long & Ross 1993; Lotherington-Woloszyn 1993; O’Donnell, 2009; Yano, Long, & Ross, 1994). The assertion by Allen et al. (1988) is a valid criticism only of ‘simplified texts,’ but not of ‘elaborated texts.’ Supporting modified texts in this respect of discussion, Day (2003, p. 23) claims that
39
“authentic materials can be poorly written, uninteresting, hard to read, and can lack normal text features such as redundancy and cohesion.”
Secondly, it is pertinent to compare lexical features in both unmodified and modified texts. It is argued that deletion of low frequency words often causes information homogenization (Honeyfield, 1977), which results in decreased
comprehensibility of modified texts. On the other hand, Wodinsky and Nation (1988, p. 159), analysing the word frequency data of two GRs and one unmodified story, conclude that to read a GR for pleasure, i.e., with less cognitive and affective demand, requires a much smaller vocabulary load than to do so with an unmodified text. Their study confirms the greater simplicity of GRs in lexical terms in
comparison with an unmodified story.
Thirdly, Shook (1997) asserts that cultural assumptions and linguistic conventions employed by native writers render unmodified literary texts more difficult for L2 learners. In the context of JSL, Nakamura (1981) enumerates various variables that make some unmodified texts with culturally specific themes
incomprehensible for learners of Japanese. She points out that culturally specific objects, events and concepts appearing in some unmodified texts are hard to
understand for learners. Of course, unmodified texts do not always convey culturally specific messages or information. However, when some unmodified texts do so, L2 learners with insufficient background knowledge may be disadvantaged in
comprehending such texts.
3.4.4 Are unmodified texts more motivating and interesting than modified
texts?
Another widely claimed view of the value of unmodified materials is that they are more interesting and motivating than pedagogically modified materials (e.g.,
40
Allen, Bernhardt, Berry & Demel, 1988; Bacon & Finnemann, 1990; Berardo, 2006; Kilickaya, 2004; Martinez, 2002; Nutall 1996; Peacock 1997; Swaffer, 1985). The theoretical foundation of such a view is that in unmodified materials authors have genuine communicative motivation to convey their unique message to readers, while in modified texts writers tend to have the pedagogical intention of teaching certain linguistic features. A sense of achievement gained when learners accomplish reading unmodified materials is mentioned as another advantageous affective aspect of using unmodified materials (Berardo, 2006; Martinez, 2002). Bacon and
Finneman (1990) report students’ positive perceived effect on their comprehension and satisfaction in the case of being exposed to unmodified input.
On the other hand, some authors assert the opposite. West (1950) claims that simplified/abridged reading materials can be very motivating to L2 learners:
Few things are more encouraging to a child who knows some (say) 1, 500 words of English than to pick up a book written within that vocabulary, and find that he is actually able to read it and enjoy a story which is (at least) an enthralling approximation of the original. (p. 48)
Vincent (1986) similarly places a favourable motivational factor as the prime virtue that simplified literature can offer. She portrays the dispiriting effect when L2 learners try to read unmodified literary works before their developmental stage has reached the right level: “a painstaking process far removed from genuine reading with response” (ibid., p. 209). What Vincent illustrates here is very convincing. When the linguistic levels of unmodified texts are too far above those of students, such unmodified texts are unlikely to be regarded as motivating or interesting texts by those students. What Vincent suggests remains generally true despite recent claims about the motivating effects of unmodified Harry Potter stories on language learners (Hedstrom, 2005, this issue is discussed below in this section). Similarly,
41
Day (2003, p. 23) asserts that “the use of authentic materials can hurt student motivation and attitude. Nothing is more discouraging for students than using materials that are much too difficult.”
This leads to the essential issue of whether or not the two attributes, ‘motivating’ and ‘interesting,’ can be discussed together. Importantly, Peacock’s (1997) study draws distinctions between these two attributes:
The finding in this study was that, overall, learners reported authentic materials to be significantly less interesting than artificial materials. This stands in direct contrast to the large number of assertions listed above to the effect that authentic materials are more motivating because they are
intrinsically more interesting. These findings are a preliminary indication that this is not the case; learners were more motivated by authentic materials, but not because they were more interesting. (p.152)
What Peacock implies is that texts may possibly motivate L2 learners because they are original, but the contents of such original unmodified texts are not necessarily interesting for those learners.
Gilmore (2007) points out that there is a scarcity of empirical studies which investigate the effects of unmodified texts on learners’ motivation so as to support or disprove the often claimed assertion that unmodified texts are more motivating compared to modified texts. In his paper, only three such studies are mentioned, one of which is the study by Peacock (1997) outlined above. While Peacock’s study shows positive results of the effects of unmodified texts on students’ overall
motivation, the other two studies by Kienbaum, Russell and Welty (cited in Gilmore, 2007, p. 108)andGonzález (1990) fail to present convincing empirical findings due to their instrumental shortcomings.
The world-wide phenomenon of the popularity of the Harry Potter series may support that some unmodified texts are indeed more motivating and interesting,
42
compared to modified texts. Hedstrom (2005) demonstrates that a Venezuelan school boy with little experience of ESL learning developed his English proficiency at a remarkable pace by reading the Harry Potter series when his then-existing proficiency was below that required to understand it. The boy, Roberto Ortega, read the series simply because he liked the story and the author’s style despite its
linguistic difficulty.
Nevertheless, the possibility that eased difficulty renders modified texts interesting and motivating cannot be denied. Wade, Buxton & Kelly’s (1999, p. 210) study “confirms and helps to explain why ease of comprehension is a critical
element of reader-text interaction. Texts that are too difficult and require too much effort are likely to be considered less interesting than ones that are more accessible.” They “concluded that ease of comprehension is a necessary condition that tends to be mentioned mostly when it is a problem” (ibid., p. 210). Some L2 learners may find a text more interesting simply because they can understand it. An L2 Japanese learner who participated in an extensive reading project under the guidance of the current researcher experienced a positive feeling while she was reading relatively easy modified and/or specially written texts. She called it “a eureka feeling” or “mental note”-taking (Tabata-Sandom & Macalister, 2009, p. 51). She claimed that this eureka feeling occurred when she came to understand sentence patterns or previously unknown words, and felt like being able to use them herself. She
explained that it was not a demanding text but a more comprehensible modified text that created this positive ‘eureka feeling.’
43