Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 290

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Effects on Reading Comprehension of Language Complexity and Cultural Background of a Text

Johnson, Patricia·1981·TESOL Quarterly

Abstract

complexity of the text and the cultural origin of the story affected comprehension. The native language readers were better able to understand unadapted English and the story based on American folklore. Implications of this study for teaching and for materials selection and design are discussed. The effects of the language complexity and the culturally determined background of a text on reading comprehension have always been recognized as elements of concern in the selection of reading materials for foreign language learners and in the evaluation of their reading comprehension. Research with native language readers has shown that the amount of language complexity has less effect on reading comprehension than the organization of ideas in the passage. Schlesinger (1968) found that the length and structure of English sentences had no effect on comprehension of readers who tended to use lexical meanings to understand the sentences. Meyer's work (1975) showed that organization in English prose influenced what idea units were recalled from a passage by native language readers, but there were no significant differences between recall of units with and without the presence of linguistic cues. In their discussions of the problems in reading comprehension of ESL

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/3586408

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Johnson, P.
Venue
TESOL Quarterly
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1981-06
Volume
15
Issue
2
Pages
169
ISSN
0039-8322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2026840525
Cited by
290
References
0
FWCI
6.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.