Though experienced English academic writers are capable of writing with multiple sources, novice EFL/ESL writers have a difficult time with it.
The present study investigates whether Japanese intermediate EFL writers would be able to summarize and integrate source texts without being heavily dependent on them if they are encouraged to use inferential thought processes. Students engaged in two summary writing tasks, each task requiring integration of two media sources on the same topic. One task involved more inferential process than the other. The results show that task requiring greater degree of inference helped writers generate information which are more independent of the source texts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BBC Six O'Clock News. 2000, April 10. London , UK: British Broadcasting Corporation. (Aired on Japan Broadcasting Corporation's satellite channel 7.)
2.
Brown, A.L. & Day, J.D.1983. Macrorules for summarizing texts: the development of expertise . Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior22, 1-14.
3.
Campbell, C.Writing with others' words: Using background reading text in academic compositions . In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
Carson, J.G.1993. Reading for writing: cognitive perspectives. In J. G. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
5.
CNN Headline News. 1999, Nov. 18. Atlanta, GA : CNN Headline News. (Aired on Japan Broadcasting Corporation's satellite channel 7)
6.
Connor, U. & McCagg, P.1983. Cross-cultural differences and perceived quality in written paraphrases of English prose. Applied Linguistics , 4(3), 259-268.
7.
Corbett, A.T. & Dosher, B.A.1978. Instrument inferences in sentence encoding. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior17, 479-491.
8.
Divorcee ordered to pay ex $ 1.3 mil.won in lottery. 1999, November 19. The Daily Yomiuri., p. 5.
9.
GM fish destroying nature balance. 2000, April 18The Daily Yomiuri, p10.
10.
Hidi, S. & Anderson, V.1986. Producing written summaries: task demands, cognitive operations, and implications for instruction. Review of Educational Research56(4), 473-493.
11.
Hoey, M.1983. On the surface of discourse. London : George Allen & Unwin.
12.
Hoey, M.1991. Patterns of lexis in text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13.
Hoey, M.1994. Signalling in discourse: a functional analysis of a common discourse pattern in written and spoken English. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis. London: Routledge.
14.
Inghilleri, M.1989. Learning to mean as a symbolic and social process: the story of ESL writers. Discourse Processes12, 391-411.
15.
Kirkland, M. & Saunders, M.A.1991. Maximizing student performance in summary writing: managing cognitive load. TESOL Quarterly25(1), 105-121.
16.
Leki, I.1993. Reciprocal themes in ESL reading and writing. In J. G. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
17.
Leki, I. & Carson, J.G.1994. Students' perceptions of EAP writing instruction and writing needs across the disciplines. TESOL Quarterly28(1), 81-101.
18.
Leki, I. & Carson, J.G.1997. "Completely different worlds": EAP and the writing experiences of ESL students in university courses. TESOL Quarterly31(1), 39-69.
19.
LoCastro, V. & Masuko, M.1997, March. Plagiarism and Academic Writing of NNS Learners . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Orlando, FL.
20.
Lucas, M.M., Tanenhaus, M.K., & Carlson, G.N.1990. Levels of representation in the interpretation of anaphoric reference and instrument inference. Memory & Cognition18(6), 611-631.
21.
Matsui, T.1997. Assessing a scenario-based account of bridging reference assignment. In R. Carston & S. Uchida (Ed.), Relevance theory: applications and implications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Company
22.
McCarthy, M.1991. Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Schmitt, N. & Carter, R.2000. The lexical advantages of narrow reading for second language learners. TESOL Journal9(1), 4-9.
24.
Spatt, B.1999. Writing from sources. (5th ed.). Boston: Bedford/St.Martin .
25.
Spack, R.1997. The acquisition of academic literacy in a second language . Written Communication (14)1, 3-62.
26.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D.1995. Relevance: communication and cognition (second edition)Oxford: Blackwell.
27.
Spivey, N.N.1983. Discourse synthesis: constructing texts in reading and writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, Texas.
28.
Walker, C.H. & Meyer, B.J.F.1980. Integrating information from text: an evaluation of current theories. Review of educational research50(3), 421-437.
29.
Wolf, A.J.E.1999. Context and Relevance theory in language teaching: an exploratory approach. IRAL, 37(2), 95-109.
30.
Yamada, K.2000. Helping Novice EFL/ESL Academic Writers Appreciate English Textual Patterns through Summary Writing. JALT Journal , 22(1), 105-121.
