1. Second language readers’ memory for narrative texts: The effect of interest and causal reasoning Yukie Horiba & Keiko Fukaya (Kanda University of International Studies) (St. Luke‘s College of Nursing) Annual Meeting of the Society for Text & Discourse Chicago, IL. August 16-18, 2010

2. Research Questions Q1: Do L2 readers perceive the causal properties of a narrative text (causal chain and causal connectivity)? Q2: Does their level of interest affect the relevance of content information? Q3: How do interest and causal reasoning relate to the effect of language proficiency?

3. Background 1.Text comprehension involves: - the interaction between linguistic processing and conceptual processing - the construction of a representation of the text. ( Greasser, Gernsbacher, & Goldman, 2003; Kintsch, 1998; van Oostendorp & Goldman, 1999) 2. For a narrative text, an event’s causal-chain status and causal connectivity is important. (L1: Trabasso, Secco, & van den Broek 1984; L2: Horiba, 1996; Horiba, van den Broek, & Fletcher, 1993)

4. 3.Topic interest influences the relevance of content information, affecting comprehension and memory. (L1: Alexander, Jetton, & Kulikowich, 1996; Kaakinen & Hyona, 2005; McNamara, 2007; L2: Barry & Lazarte, 1998; Bugel & Buunk, 1996; Chen & Donin, 1997) 4.In L2 reading, level of language proficiency is a critical factor. (Horiba, 1996; Zwaan & Brown, 1996; Stevensen, Schoonen, & de Glopper, 2003 ) How do topic interest and causal reasoning affect L2 text comprehension?

5. Method Participants ： 145 college EFL students in Japan (70 Nursing majors & 75 Nonnursing majors) Materials ： Two short narrative texts about a patient’s medical case (425-427 words, 28 sentences, each) Procedure ： Participants read one text and recalled its content

6. The ‘Decision’ text “Who Decides the Treatment?” Michael Cantos, a 15-year-old who has recurrent metastatic Ewing sarcoma, has been hospitalized with fever and neutropenia, common complications of his recent chemotherapy. Michael lives with his parents, two younger siblings, and his paternal grandmother. His parents and grandmother were born in the Philippines and emigrated to the United States about 30 years ago; all three of the Cantos children were born in this country. When Michael was first diagnosed, he was told that this type of cancer was aggressive and had already spread from the primary site in his pelvis to his bronchi and parenchyma. Treatment consisted of surgical resection, a year of chemotherapy, and six weeks of radiation. During the past year, whenever Michael asked if the cancer was fatal and what was the mortality rate, the palliative team members have responded both with veracity and reassurance, declaring, � ”Some patients die, but we’re all fighting very hard to cure you.” � Michael hasn’t forgotten a word. On this admission, a routine chest X-ray reveals a large lesion in his right lung. Additional X-rays reveal multiple smaller lung lesions and a large pelvic neoplasm. Just two months earlier his routine surveillance scans were normal. Now, on learning the results of the chest X-ray, Michael asks if his mother can stay overnight in the hospital with him. Michael also tells his parents that he wants to hear his scan results and treatment options at the same time they do. His parents are shocked. They’d prefer withholding such � dismal news � from Michael, but they agree to honor his wishes. This decision deeply upsets Michael’s grandmother, however, and on their next visit Michael says, � ”Why does Grandmother always have to pray the rosary over me—doesn’t she know it doesn’t work? � ” In the team conference, a new registered nurse expresses frustration with the grandmother’s � constant interference � ; she says that by praying the rosary over him, the grandmother may be upsetting Michael further. The nurse says she can’t support the grandmother and the boy at the same time, and asks the team for help. The team decides to meet every two weeks, or more often if necessary. The team also schedules a meeting to discuss Michael’s prognosis and communication within the family. As usual, the patient and his parents are encouraged to bring anyone they want. Michael immediately says that he wants only his parents present, and his parents agree. At the meeting the pediatric oncologist initially presents information, with the palliative care nurse practitioner summarizing or restating important points to ensure that everyone understands. Decisions are made by consensus.

7. A sample list of events for the ‘Decision’ text (43 events in total) E1 ： Michael Cantos, a 15-year-old, E2 ： who has recurrent metastatic Ewing sarcoma, E3 ： has been hospitalized with fever and neutropenia, E4 ： common complications of his recent chemotheraphy. 43 42 41 40 39 3837 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 2928 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 2019 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 876 5 4 3 2 1 ∩ ∩ ∩ ∩ The causal network model for the ‘Decision’ text

8. A sample list of propositions for the ‘Decision’ text (209 props in total) S1 *P1: Hospitalize [$ MichaelC] P2: With [P1 P3] *P3: And [fever neutropenia] *P4: REF [P3 complication] *P5: Of [complication chemotherapy] *P6: MOD [complication common] *P7: POSSESS [MichaelC chemotherapy] *P8: TIME [chemotherapy recent] P9: REF [MichaelC 15-year-old] S2 P1: Live [Michael] P2: With [P1 P3] P3: And [parent sibling grandmother] P4: POSSESS [Michael parent] * Health care related proposition

9. Results L2 proficiency and vocabulary knowledge Nurse group scored significantly poorer than Nonnurse group on TOEFL (F[1,133] = 25.7; p <.0001) and VLT (F[1,133] = 16.5; p <.0001). Groupn TOEFLVLT MSDM Nurse7065.77.667.515.0 Nonnurse7572.17.477.013.1

10. Recall (%) of events and propositions Nurse group and Nonnurse group recalled similar amount of content information in terms of events (group, F[1,191]=.03, n.s.; text, F[1,191]=11.48, p <.001) and propositions (group, F[1,815] =.32; n.s.; text, F[1.815]=2.38, n.s.). GroupTextnEventsPropositions Nurse Decision3340.7 25.0 Hope3730.8 22.7 Nonnurse Decision3742.024.1 Hope3828.622.0

11. Event recall (%) by causal-chain status n OnOff MSDM Nurse7038.625.823.213.9 Nonnurse7538.225.522.014.8 Events of the causal chain were more memorable than dead-ends for each group (Nurse: F[1,96]=7.18, p=.009; Nonnurse: F[1,96]=8.01, p=.006).

12. 12345 Nurse 33.0 (24.9) 30.5 (23.3) 38.7 (25.9) 41.6 (20.7) 53.2 (25.7) Nonnurse 30.8 (23.1) 29.4 (23.1) 37.6 (25.6) 50.7 (24.3) 51.8 (22.0) Event recall (%) by no. of causal connections Events with more connections were more memorable than events with fewer connections for each group (Nurse: F[1,96]=4.31, p=.04; Nonnurse: F[1,96]=6.75, p=.01).

13. Proposition recall (%) by type of content Health-care information was as memorable as general information for Nurse group, but not for Nonnurse group (Nurse: F[1,408]=1.776, p=.18; Nonnurse: F[1,408]= 6.24, p=.01 ). n Health-careGeneral MSDM Nurse70 21.821.324.719.8 Nonnurse75 19.318.324.720.7

14. Discussion 1. Despite lower level of L2 proficiency, Nurse group recalled texts as well as Nonnurse group.  Nurse group had high interest and engaged in more active processing. 2. For both groups, recall showed sensitivity to the event’s causal-chain status and causal connectivity. => They perceived the antecedent-consequence relations between events, constructing text memory accordingly.

15. 3. Nurse group recalled health-care information as well as general information, while Nonnurse group did not.  Nurse group found health-care information “relevant” to their interest and encoded it deeply into text memory.  Nonnurse group did not find it relevant and did not encode it into text memory.

16. Conclusion 1.L2 readers are sensitive to the causal properties of a narrative text. 2.Topic interest affects L2 text processing and recall. 3.Language proficiency intervenes the effect of causal reasoning and interest on text comprehension. Thank you.! Send all correspondence to horiba@kanda.kuis.ac.jp

17. References Alexander, P. A., Jetton, T. L., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1996). Interrelationships of knowledge, interest, and recall: Assessing a model of domain learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 559-575. Bovair, S., & Kieras, D. E. (1985). A guide to propositional analysis for research on technical prose. In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text (pp. 315-362). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bugel, K., & Buunk, B. P. (1996). Sex differences in foreign language text comprehension: The role of interests and prior knowledge. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 15-31. Chen, Q., & Donin, J. (1997). Discourse processing of first and second language biology texts: Effects of language proficiency and domain-specific knowledge. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 209-227. Greasser, A. C., Gernsbacher, A., & Goldman, S. R. (2003). Handbook of discourse processes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Horiba, Y. (1996). Comprehension processes in L2 reading: Language competence, textual coherence, and inferences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 433-473. Horiba, Y., van den Broek, P., & Fletcher, C. R. (1993). Second language readers’ memory for narrative texts: Evidence for structure- preserving top-down processing. Language Learning, 43, 345-372. Kaakinen, J. K., & Hyona, J. (2005). Perspective effects on expository text comprehension: Evidence from think-aloud protocols, eyetracking, and recall. Discourse Processes, 40, 239-257. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. McNamara, D. S. (2007). Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum. McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., & Kambo, G. (2005). The effect of relevance instructions on reading time and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 88-102. Stevensen, M., Schoonen, R., & de Glopper, K. (2003). Inhibition or compensation? A multi-dimensional comparison of reading processes in Dutch and English. Language Learning, 53, 765-815. Trabasso, T., Secco, T., & van den Broek, P. (1984). Causal cohesion and story coherence. In H. Mandl, N. L. Stein, & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and comprehension of text (pp. 83-111). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. van Oostendorp, H., & Goldman, S. R. (Eds.). (1999). The construction of mental representations during reading. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Zwaan, R. A., & Brown, C. M. (1996). The influence of language proficiency and comprehension skill on situation model construction. Discourse Processes, 21, 289-327. Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162-185. Acknowledgement ： This research was supported in part by grants-in-aid for scientific research B2-15320071 and B2- 20320073 from Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.