A Comparison of Second Language
Listening and Reading Comprehension
RANDALL J. LUND
Germanic and Slavic Languages
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
AN INTERESTING PARADOX CONNECTS SEC-
ond language listening and reading: listening
has enjoyed a theoretically eminent, if not pre-
eminent, place in virtually all approaches to
language teaching since audiolingualism, but
research efforts have been devoted largely to
reading. It has been assumed that comprehen-
sion is a general construct that applies to both
modalities or even that the principles of reading
comprehension can be imported directly to lis-
tening. However, the last decade has brought
increasing awareness that listening is a set of
skills in its own right and that reading research
may not automatically transfer to listening.
Long discusses the reasons for this position and
documents the critical need for research on
listening. The nature of the relationship be-
tween the two modalities has yet to be estab-
lished empirically. Are reading and listening
comprehension the same, different, or a com-
bination of the two?
The question has a direct bearing on impor-
tant issues in language pedagogy. First,
teachers need a better understanding of what
listeners do, what they should be doing, and
how to teach them more effectively. The tech-
niques of reading and reading instruction may
not be applicable without some selection and
modification. Some differences in the process-
ing of acoustic and printed input are readily ap-
parent. For example, skimming is a good way
to get the main idea in reading, but in listen-
ing the complete text is not available for
perusal. Such obvious differences in the percep-
tion and decoding of texts may in turn cause
less apparent but more important differences
in the comprehension process itself. Second,
The Modcrn LanguageJoumnl, 75, ii (1991)
0026-7902/91/0002/196 $1.50/0
"1991 The Modrm Language Journal
even where skills are common to both modali-
ties, the question of transfer of training re-
mains. Can the skills and strategies learned in
one modality be applied in the other, or do they
need to be taught and practiced in each modali-
ty, perhaps with significant modifications?
Third, the evaluation of listening achievement
and proficiency will be more accurate if it is
based on a more specific understanding of the
modality.
RELATED RESEARCH
First-Language Models. In the first-language
context, researchers have long been interested
in the relationship between reading and listen-
ing, and a substantial research base on the issue
exists. Different viewpoints also exist on this
relationship. Danks summarizes the two tradi-
tional positions regarding listening and read-
ing. Both positions recognize that receptive
language processing consists of two aspects:
decoding and comprehension. Decoding is the
perception and processing of acoustic or printed
stimuli into basic language units. Comprehen-
sion is now generally defined as the construc-
tion of meaning using both the decoded
language and the comprehender's prior knowl-
edge. The two positions agree that decoding in
reading and in listening are obviously different.
The disagreement involves the nature of com-
prehension in the two modalities. The unitary
comprehension model holds that one compre-
hension process functions for both modalities.
In the dual model, there are important dif-
ferences as well as similarities. According to
Sticht and James, the unitary model has clearly
been the majority viewpoint.
Recently, several researchers have concluded
that, while the available comprehension pro-
cesses are the same, the strategies for their ap-
plication may vary significantly with the
Randall J. Lund
modality (6; 8; 10-12; 19-20; 23). These
strategic differences result as the comprehender
matches subprocesses of the comprehension
system with modality-specific constraints, the
person’s linguistic competence, and his or her
chosen listening function. The result, as Walker
observes, is that “the listener may know what
the speaker meant; but the reader better knows
what the author wrote” (p. 164). This position
differs enough from the unitary and dual
models to constitute a third alternative, ajexi-
ble model of comprehension.
The Recall Protocol. The effects of modality on
comprehension have been studied extensively
in the first language, often by comparing recall
of a text presented in both oral and written
modalities. In this method of assessing compre-
hension, subjects are asked to report, usually
in writing, the content of the text they have just
processed. The resulting protocols can be
scored for both quantitative and qualitative
aspects of comprehension by comparing them
with a content analysis of the original text.
Johnston summarizes the advantages and dis-
advantages of the free recall method, one of
which is the possible disparity between produc-
tion and comprehension abilities.
First-Language Research. Sticht and James
(followed by Horowitz and Samuels [S])sum-
marize the often contradictory results of the
first-language modality comparisons, in which
age proves to be a key variable. They conclude
that among children who are still learning to
read, listeners usually perform better. The
results are more balanced by grade seven, and
among adults, reading most frequently pro-
duces greater comprehensiqn.
However, even in studies that resulted in no
quantitative differences in comprehension, a
pattern of qualitative differences suggests that
listeners rely more on top-down, schema-based
processing than readers. Listeners produced
more idiosyncratic responses (15), less accurate
recall and more reporting of ideas not found
in the passage (23), and greater recognition of
central inferences (11- 12) than did readers. On
the other hand, researchers have also found no
difference between the modalities on the recall
of ideas at different levels of importance (21)
or from different structural parts of a story (15).
A further difference in the modalities might
be expected in regard to the benefits of repeated
exposure to the text. Hildyard and Olsen (1 1)
included task repetition in their study of lis-
teners’ and readers’ ability to recognize state-
197
ments of both central and peripheral importance
to the text. The initial differences between
modalities tended to disappear on the second
presentation of the text, primarily because the
listeners improved in their recognition of detail.
Readers continued to recognize correct details
more than central concepts and inferences.
Hypotheses. First-language research suggests
some hypotheses for the second-language con-
text. Since older learners have achieved literacy
in their first language, reading should continue
to produce equal or greater recall. However,
rather than being fluent processors in both
modalities, second-languagelearners encounter
unique decoding problems in each modality.
This condition offers an ideal opportunity to
evaluate a flexible model of comprehension in
which the nature of the medium affects the
comprehension process. According to this
model, listeners should recall more main ideas,
while readers should recall more details.
Listeners should also produce more idiosyn-
cratic responses, which would indicate a greater
reliance on the creative construction of mean-
ing. Repetition of the task should help listeners
more than readers by enabling listeners to add
detail to their central constructs of meaning.
These hypotheses were tested in a study com-
paring listening and reading recall among
beginning and intermediate college German
students.
METHOD
Subjects. All students in the first, second, and
third semester German courses at Brigham
Young University participated in the study.
These courses consisted of seven, five, and four
sections, respectively. Sixty students (thirty
readers and thirty listeners) from each course
were randomly selected for analysis. The num-
ber selected from each section varied from eight
(first semester) to eighteen (third semester),
depending on the number of sections and their
enrollments, but was always equal for readers
and listeners.
Text, Danks discusses the possible bias in-
herent in comparing modalities on the basis of
a text originating in one modality. However,
a comparison can be made only on the basis
of a common text. As a compromise, the 150-
word written text (Appendix A) does include
some features of an oral one. The passage is
a self-contained section of an article about jobs
young people have in Germany. The text in-
198 The Modem Language Journal 75 (1991)
cludes a background narration as well as some arguments were placed one level lower because
direct quotations from Vera, the subject of the an argument in a higher proposition often
text, in a form that suggests a dialogue. An formed in turn the predicate of a lower proposi-
audio version was recorded with two native tion. The last proposition is therefore found at
speakers, a male voice for the narration and a Height Six. The scoring procedure consisted
female voice for Vera’s lines. In its oral form, of crediting subjects for each reported proposi-
the text could just as well have been a segment tion and constituent lexical item (or appropriate
of a broadcast magazine program, representing paraphrase) in the recall protocols that match-
something between “prepared free speech” and ed the hierarchical model. Both grand totals
“oral presentation of written text” in Beile’s and subscores by height were calculated.
categorization (the English version is from Analysis. A two-between (course and modal-
Byrnes). ity), one-within (trial), repeated-measures anal-
Procedure. The experiment was conducted to ysis of variance was performed on the total
approximate an actual learning activity, with scores for lexical items and propositions. The
teachers conducting their normal activities effect of a proposition’s height in the logical
before and after the experiment. Each section structure on its recall was assessed using log-
met in a laboratory classroom, and subjects linear modeling (9), which is an application of
were randomly assigned to the two modalities. the chi-square test to data with multiple cate-
A carefully outlined prereadinglprelisteningac- gorical variables (course, modality, trial, and
tivity consisted of a discussion about students height).
in the class who worked and what problems this
presented. The subjects received the appropri- RESULTS
ate packets and instructions. Listeners heard Analysis of kriance. The analysis of variance
the text over headphones, while readers were produced nearly identical results for recall of
asked to read the text once carefully at their propositions and recall of lexical items. In the
own speed without going back to study it. Sub- propositional data, significant main effects ex-
jects demonstrated comprehension of the text isted for modality, course, and trial. There was
using the recall procedure described earlier. also a significant interaction between modality
This tool has been applied effectively to second- and trial (Table I). The lexical data produced
language reading by Bernhardt (2; 3) and to the same results, except for an additional three-
listening by James (also 4), with one major ad- way interaction among course, modality, and
justment. While the text is in the target lan- trial which is discussed later. Where the effects
guage, the recall protocol is written in the are the same, the discussion will be based on
native language, which allows subjects to make the propositional data (group means are
the fullest possible report of their comprehen- reported in parentheses).
sion. Subjects were given five minutes to write In the total recall of propositions from the
as many main ideas and details as possible, text, Course Three (9.5) was superior to Course
after which they repeated the entire process
without having access to their first effort.
TABLE I
Scoring. The recall protocols were scored by ANOVA Table for Recall of Propositions
comparing them to a model representation of
the content of the text. By use of a procedure Sum of Mean
adapted from Meyer, the text was translated Source DF Souares Sauare F
into English and divided into twenty-nine prop-
Course (C) 1 1774.6722 887.3361 35.44’
ositions, each consisting of a predicate (nor- Modality (M) 1 2651.4694 2651.4694 105.92’
mally the verb) and one or more arguments CxM 2 37.6722 18.8361 0.75
(usually nouns and modifiers). The proposi- Error 174 4355.8833 25.0338 -
tions and their constituent lexical items were >ial (T) 1 765.6250 765.6250 211.90’
organized into a “tree structure” reflecting the CxT 2 19.1167 9.5583 2.65
logical organization, or hierarchy of ideas, in MxT 1 58.4028 58.4028 16.16.
the text. This procedure produced a variable, CxMxT 2 20.6722 10.3361 2.86”
height, with seven levels ranging from the most Error 174 628.6833 3.6131 -
important concepts (Height One) to the least Total 359 10312.1972
important (Height Seven). A predicate was ‘p c .0001.
given the same level as its proposition, but the “p<.06.
Randall J. Lund 199
Two (6.3), which was superior to Course One tions recalled. For example, readers outper-
(4.1). Reading (9.4) was superior to listening formed listeners even more on details than on
(3.9). In the second trial (9.4), subjects recalled main ideas. The same trend to greater recall
more propositions than in the first trial (3.9), of detail was found for Course Three compared
but repetition was more effective for the to Course Two compared to Course One, and
readers, who improved from 7.5 to 11.2 propo- for the second trial compared to the first trial
sitions, than for the listeners, who improved in both modalities.
from 2.9 to five propositions. There appeared The effect of a proposition's height on its
to be a difference, however, between Course recall is further clarified by comparing each
Three listeners and the beginning listeners in group's distribution of recalled propositions
Courses One and Two. In the propositional across the hierarchy. Table I1 gives the propor-
data, the interaction among course, modality, tion of propositions reported at each height
and trial was just short of significance (p < .06), level (Heights Five through Seven, which con-
but it was significant in the lexical data, F tained only three propositions, are collapsed
(2,174) = 4.062, p < .O 1. In the recall of lexical here) by group (modality by course by trial) as
items, Course One and Course Two listeners a percentage of the total propositions reported
improved only about one-half as much (mean by the group. The table also presents the overall
gain = 6.05) as the Course Three listeners and mean proportions for listening and reading, as
the readers in all courses (mean gain = 11.21) well as the actual proportions found in the
on the second attempt of the task. In other target text. These baseline values illustrate the
words, as far as the effect of repetition on recall basic dichotomy evident in the table. All sub-
is concerned, listening did not become like jects summarized the text, that is, they reported
reading until the intermediate level (Course proportionately more main ideas (Heights One
Three). and Two) and fewer details (Heights Three
Log-Linear Analysis. The log-linear procedure through Seven) than the original text values.
was used to determine whether the propositions The dichotomy holds for all groups in the
reported by groups were distributed differently study, but the values generally regress toward
across the various levels of the logical structure. the target text values as one group reports more
At the highest levels (Heights One and Two) total information than another, as indicated in
are propositions such as V e r a studies interior the analysis of variance. That is, the propor-
decorating" and "Vera must earn money tions at Heights One and Two decrease, while
herself" and the main ideas under each of these
concepts. At the lower levels are details such TABLE I1
Distribution of Propositions by Modality, Course, and Trial
as "Vera is on her feet until four in the after-
noon" (Height Three) and "There are twenty Height of Proposition
kinds of green and black olives" (Height Six).
Modality Course Trial 1 2 3 4 5-7
Alternate log-linear models which included dif-
ferent combinations of the independent vari- Listening 1 1 .21a,b .68 .08 .03 .OO
ables were compared for goodness-of-fit be- 2 .29" .59 .09 .04 .OO
tween observed and predicted scores. The most 2 1 .30b .50'.d .14 .05 .02
efficient model (best fit with fewest number of 2 .24 .53' . 1 7 .05 .01
terms) was obtained by including height and 3 1 .19 .53d .23 .05 .01
its interactions with course, modality, and trial, 2 .17 .47 .27 .09 .01
difference in chi-square = 13.44 (4, N = SO), Mean .21 .52 .20 .06 .01
pc.01. Reading 1 1 .24 .44 .21 . I 2 .OO
These effects are best understood in connec- 2 .16 .40 .26 .17 .02
tion with the analysis of variance. Wherever 2 1 .18 .45 .22 .15 .OO
one group was shown by the analysis of vari- 2 .15 .41 .24 .17 .03
ance to be superior to another group in total 3 1 .17 .40 .28 .13 .03
propositions recalled, that superiority was 2 .13 .35 .32 .16 .04
maintained at every level of the hierarchy.
Mean .14 .39 .28 . I 7 .03
However, the log-linear analysis showed that
the magnitude of the difference at each height Target Text .07 .31 .34 .17 .10
level was not constant. Generally, the lower the "~b~'~dPairs
diverge from pattern of regression toward target
height, the greater the advantage in proposi- text value by at least .03 in opposite direction.
200
the proportions at the lower heights increase.
Listening produced two sets of exceptions to
this trend involving a difference of .03 or more.
Course Two listeners reported a greater pro-
portion of Height One ideas (.30) than Course
One listeners reported (.2 1) on the first trial.
The Course One listeners also reported rela-
tively more ideas at Height One on their sec-
ond trial (.29) than on their first trial (.21). The
listeners at these beginning levels were still
clearly engaged in constructing an appropriate
schema for the text, without which details
would be superfluous. A similar pattern is
observed at Height Two, which is still at the
main idea level. In Course Two, Trial Two
(.53) increases in proportion over Trial One
(-50). Course Three (.53) also has a higher pro-
portion than Course Two (.50) on the first trial.
QualitativeAnalysis. The particular reliance of
listeners on top-down processing is also shown
by the misinterpretations made in individual
recall protocols. One example will be cited
here. The presence of two voices in the oral ver-
sion of the text presented a modality-specific
challenge to the listeners, who had to determine
what the relationship between the speakers was
from what they said. Many subjects naturally
assumed they were hearing a face-to-face con-
versation. This was not the case in the first
paragraph, but the assumption works prag-
matically at the end of the text, which closes
with a question-answer set. In the printed text
this aspect of the discourse, reflected in the use
of quotation marks and other conventions,
posed little difficulty for the readers. Table I11
shows the subjects’ final (second trial) inter-
pretations of the speakers’ roles. The listeners,
even in Course Three, struggled to come up
with the correct role assignments for the two
voices. Only one-fifth of Course One listeners
had established the correct framework even on
the second listening. Much of the erroneous
content reported by the subjects arose from
TABLE 111
Interpretations of the Situational Framework, Trial 2
Modalitv
Listening Reading
lnterpretation Course Course
The text is about: 1 2 3 1 2 3
Someone 4 5 4 1 0 0
A man 6 2 2 0 0 0
A m a n a n d a woman 14 9 7 0 0 0 and, in the face of greater uncertainty, were
Two women 0 1 0 0 0 0
A woman 6 8 17 29 30 30
The Modern Language Journal 75 (1991)
schema-based assumptions about what two
people might be doing in connection with words
about food, working, and studying-they were
eating breakfast together; they went shopping
for food; they were talking about their classes
or their work; the woman was buying a birth-
day present for the man; the man was going
to Italy, but the woman was not coming; it was
a job interview, etc. One assumes that readers
were also using top-down processing, but for
this aspect of the text, listeners were both more
reliant upon it for meaning and more vulner-
able to misinterpretation.
In summary, beginning and intermediate
readers of German, as expected, had the advan-
tage over listeners in quantity of recall. Con-
trary to expectations, repetition helped the
readers more than the listeners, although by
Course Three, listeners and readers showed
equal gains on the second trial as well as the
same relative focus on adding detail. In regard
to the quality of recall as measured by the
height of propositions in the logical structure
of the text, the results were mixed. Readers
recalled more propositions at every level of the
height variable. O n the other hand, listeners
recalled a greater proportion of higher order
ideas. Also, they produced more erroneous, but
also idiosyncratic, creative constructs for the
text; this result indicates a greater reliance on
active top-down processing.
DISCUSSION
Comprehension in Reading and Listening. The
subjects of this study can be assumed to have
good first-language listening and reading skills,
while their knowledge of the second language
is incomplete and varies across groups. The dif-
ference in their knowledge of German syntax,
morphology, phonology, and vocabulary cer-
tainly accounts for much of the observed dif-
ference in comprehension between the courses.
However, the clear differences between readers
and listeners within each course can be ac-
counted for only by modality-specific effects.
Both quantitative and qualitative differences
existed between readers and listeners. Readers
recalled more propositions at all levels, but they
also recalled comparatively more detail than did
listeners. Listeners, on the other hand, recalled
proportionally more main ideas than readers
observed to imagine or invent a plausible con-
text for the conversation to a greater degree
Randall J. Lund
than did readers. This evidence supports a flex-
ible model of comprehension in which the
nature of the modality causes listeners and
readers to approach a comprehension task
differently.
The unique character of an oral text lies prin-
cipally in two areas. First, it exists in time,
rather than space-it is ephemeral in nature.
It must be perceived as it is uttered, and the
listener, who generally cannot control the pace,
is forced to comprehend at the same time new
material is being perceived. Second, the sound
system of the second language poses a signifi-
cant problem. Listeners often appeared literally
to be grasping at words. While some subjects
reported only words, most listeners tried to con-
struct a sensible context to organize what little
they were able to perceive and decode. Readers
showed evidence of the same schema-based
processing but were able to decode more words.
There are several possible reasons for this ef-
fect. Cognates that are identical in print may
have phonetic differences that are harder to
perceive. A reader can pause over new words,
while a listener who attends to a single word
will miss the following parts of the message. A
reader can look around in the text for contex-
tual cues that a listener might well miss. In the
jigsaw-puzzle metaphor for text comprehension
(4; IS), the readers may begin the puzzle with
more pieces 'face up" in the sense that the
meaning is more readily apparent to them.
In spite of the differences between reading
and listening, the general processes do seem to
be similar. Once listeners were able to identify
sufficient main ideas, proficient listeners dif-
fered from less proficient listeners in the same
ways that readers differed. The second trial
benefited readers and listeners in the same
ways, if not to the same degree. Atcordingly,
the flexible model of comprehension provides
for the same processes in each modality but
allows for strategic differences in the use of
these processes.
Developmrmtal Diffc~~ent~s.
The research in first-
language comprehension suggests an initial ad-
vantage for listening during the period when
literacy is being developed. It appears that the
opposite may be true for adult second-language
learning. Literacy is not being developed;
knowledge of the new code is. There may be
in many situations an initial advantage to
readers for unfamiliar and authentic texts, but
this conclusion may not hold for noncognate
languages or where diverse writing systems are
201
involved. The reading advantage appeared to
diminish at Course Three. The greatest dif-
ference between groups occurred in listening
between Courses Two and Three. Further-
more, only Course Three listeners profited
from the second trial in the same degree as the
readers at all three levels. How much this gap
between modalities closes as proficiency ap-
proaches native-speaker levels remains to be
seen. If the first-language literature is con-
sidered, comprehension in the two modalities
should eventually become more comparable,
provided that learners have adequate ex-
perience with both modalities.
Pedagogical Implications. Care should be exer-
cised in applying the results of this study to in-
struction in reading and listening. The fact that
reading seems to result in greater comprehen-
sion for beginners does not suggest that cur-
rent comprehension-based approaches should
give less emphasis to oral input. One might as
easily conclude that listening needs even more
emphasis. The important conclusion is that
reading and listening are indeed distinct
modalities that develop on different schedules
and require differentiated instructional
techniques.
Recursive Use of Tcxts. The second pass with
the text produced significant benefits for all
three courses in both reading and listening
without any outside intervention. Of course,
some of the improvement on the second trial
can be attributed to the first written recall ex-
ercise, which encouraged subjects to form an
explicit representation of the text. Such a con-
ceptual structure is useful in several ways. It
provides a context that will open up the mean-
ing of additional vocabulary. It provides a test
structure of meaning to be fit to the text on the
next repetition. Finally, it makes clear to the
subject where the gaps and uncertainties are
located and where resources can be concen-
trated on the second processing of the text.
However, while the recall activity can increase
the potential for comprehension, it is the re-
processing itself that converts this potential into
actual gains in understanding.
The recall-reprocess combination was less
fruitful for the beginning (Courses One and
Two) listeners. In terms of Lund's taxonomy
of listening tasks, a less favorable match existed
between their proficiency level, the text, and
the listening function they were asked to per-
form. The task called for full Comprehension,
but these listeners functioned at the only levels
202
they could: orientation andlor comprehension
of main ideas. Recursive processing may be
most effective when each pass with the text
focuses on an appropriate function with appro-
priate feedback. The effect of functionally
differentiated tasks on both immediate compre-
hension of specific texts and long-term growth
in listening proficiency is a matter for further
research.
Combining Listening and Reading. A particular
form of recursive processing not addressed in
this study involves the use of written scripts for
oral texts. Yet the study clearly indicates that
for beginners, reading will provide more infor-
mation than listening and relistening. There-
fore, a combination of listening and reading
might be more beneficial to this group. The in-
termediate listeners, on the other hand, gained
as much by relistening as the readers did by
rereading, although the listeners’ overall level
of recall was still lower.
One should use caution in combining listen-
ing and reading. If the goal is merely to com-
prehend specific texts, students can read
everything and listen to nothing. If the goal is
growth in listening proficiency, then listening
should probably be the first and last modality
used in the recursive cycle. Listening must be
first because learners must learn to cope with
the unknown. Where there is failure, feedback
and training will help listeners realize the
unique nature of listening and how they can
be more effective. Following an initial listen-
ing experience, written scripts may be appro-
priate in certain situations because scripts can
boost listeners to a point where they can prac-
tice listening at a higher level, that is, with a
more advanced function or greater accuracy.
For example, the Course One listeners were
stuck on the orientation function (17)- they
were trying to determine who was talking to
whom about what. While they need to prac-
tice this aspect of listening, a reading of the text
could enable them also to listen with more ad-
vanced functions, such as comprehending main
ideas and details. Listening should conclude the
cycle because listening after reading helps
learners recognize acoustically what they can
already comprehend in print and instills satis-
faction and confidence in listening.
The danger in combining reading and listen-
ing is that the students will ignore listening and
rely on reading, which in this study was found
to be consistently more efficient. This possibil-
ity is especially strong when students are allowed
The Modern Language Journal 75 (1991)
to listen and read simultaneously. Certainly the
two modalities should be exercised independ-
ently much of the time. When the text and
assigned listening function match the profi-
ciency level, reading may not be helpful or
necessary. Optimal forms of combining the
modalities is an important topic for future
research.
Prelistening/Prereading. The use of prelistening
and prereading activities is a well-documented
principle. This study suggests that some differ-
entiation in the nature of the preprocessing ac-
tivities may be in order. With this particular
text, listeners were often at a loss as to who the
speakers were, what their roles where, and how
they interacted. Much of the listeners’ effort was
spent in sorting out this relationship. This in-
formation was purposely not addressed in the
preprocessing activity of the study, so that the
natural differences between the modalities
would surface.
In a learning situation, the instructor can
provide this kind of situational information to
enable listeners to concentrate on the actual
content of the text. The situational framework
is critical to all oral texts. Indeed, many in-
terpersonal conversations contain only “new in-
formation” and are somewhat impenetrable
without the shared information available only
in the situational framework of the conversa-
tion. Yet much classroom listening is based on
“eavesdropping” on such conversations and
dialogues. Teachers should not expect more of
their students than the original participants ex-
pect of each other. Prelistening activities should
provide the situational information that is
assumed in the conversation. The visual aspect
of videos provides more, but not necessarily all,
of the relevant context. James discusses pre-
listening as well as other considerations in
applying the recall protocol to listening instruc-
tion.
Optimal Use of Processing Strategies. The con-
struction of inappropriate contexts and schema
seriously interferes with comprehension of the
actual text. These contexts are constructed
creatively with top-down processes but need to
be confirmed by attention to the words of the
text through the bottom-up decoding process.
The nature of the oral modality prevented
listeners from doing this as well as the readers
did. Listeners may need extra training in how
to use their inferencing ability appropriately,
and in how to look for evidence in the text to
confirm or to modify their assumptions.
Randall J. Lund
What has been learned about comprehension
from first-language research and from second-
language reading research applies to second-
language listening. However, listening presents
somewhat different challenges than does read-
ing, at least at lower levels of proficiency.
Listeners appear to respond to these challenges
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1, Beile, Werner. “Methodische Uberlegungen zur Ent-
wicklung der Horverstehensf&igkeit.” Zielspruche
Datsch 2 (1980): 7-15.
2 . Bernhardt, Elizabeth 8 . “Reading in the Foreign
Language.” Listening, Reading, and Writing: Analysis
and Application. Ed. Barbara Wing. Middlebury,
VT: Northeast Conference, 1986: 93-1 15.
3. - . “Testing Foreign Language Reading Com-
prehension: The Immediate Recall Protocol.” Unter-
richfrprris 16 (1983): 27-33.
4. -&CharlesJ .James. “The Teaching and Testing
of Comprehension in Foreign Language Learning.”
ProJciency, Policy, and Professionalism in Foret’‘
Language Education. Ed. Diane W. Birckbichler. Lin-
colnwood, IL: National Textbook, 1987: 65-81.
5 . Byrnes, Heidi. T h e Role of Listening Comprehension:
A Theoretical Base.” Foreign Language Annals 17
(1984): 317-29.
6. Comprehending Oral and Written Language. Ed. Rosalind
Horwitz & S. Jay Samuels. San Diego: Academic,
1987.
7. Danks, Joseph H. “Comprehension in Listening and
Reading: Same or Different?”Reading and Unhstan-
ding. Ed. Joseph H. Danks & Kathy Pezdek.
Newark, DE: International Reading Assn., 1980:
1-39.
8 . -& Laurel J . End. “Processing Strategies for
Reading and Listening.”Cmprehcnding oraland Wni-
ten Language. Ed. Rosalind Horowitz & S. Jay
Samuels. San Diego: Academic, 1987: 271-94.
9. Everitt, B. S. T71t-Aw&~LfContingmcy Tabla. New York:
Wiley, 1977.
10. Halliday, M. A. K. “Spoken and Written Modes of
Meaning.” Comprehending Oral and Written Language.
Ed. Rosalind Horowitz & S. Jay Samuels. San
Diego: Academic, 1987: 55-82.
1 1 . Hildyard, Angela & David R. Olsen. “Memory and
Inference in the Comprehension of Oral and Writ-
APPENDIX A
Text
Darfs etwas mehr sein?
Dreimal in der W e mu5 Vera (24) um fiinf Uhr morgens
aufstehen, denn dreimal in der Woche ist Markttag in
203
by emphasizing different aspects of the com-
prehension process. Much more work is need-
ed to identify the options available in a flexible
model of comprehension and to determine how
those options are affected by combinations of
text type and modality.
ten Discourse.”Discourse Processes 1 (1978): 91-117.
12. - . “On the Comprehension and Memory of Oral
vs. Written Discourse.” Spoken and Written Discourse:
Exploring Orali!y and Literacy. Ed. D. Tannen. Ad-
vances in Discourse Processes 9. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex, 1982: 19-34.
3. James, Charles J. “Listening and Learning: Protocols
and Processes.“ Sctond Language Acquisition: Prepar-
ins f w Tomorrow.Ed. Barbara Snyder. Lincolnwood,
IL: National Textbook, 1986: 38-48.
4. Johnston, Peter H. Reading Comprehtnsion Assessmnt: A
Cognitiuc Bmis. Newark, DE: International Reading
Assn., 1983.
15. Kintsch, Walter & Ely Kozminsky. “Summarizing
Stories after Reading and Listening.” Journal of
Educational Psychology 69 1977: 491-99.
16. Long, Donna. “Second Language Listening Com-
prehension: A Schema-Theoretic Perspective.”
Modern Language Journal 73 (1989): 32-40.
1 7 . Lund, Randall J. “A Taxonomy for Teaching Second
Language Listening.” Foreign Language Annals 23
(1990): 105-15.
18. Meyer, Bonnie F. J. The Organization ofProse and Its Ef-
fccts on Memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1975.
19. Pearson, P. David & Linda Fielding. “Research Up-
date: Listening Comprehension.” Language Arts 59
(1982): 617-29.
20. Simpson, Michele L. & Keith J . Thomas. “A Com-
parison of Oral and Written Text: A New Perspec-
tive.” Reading Psychology 5 (1984): 253-66.
21. Smiley, Sandra S. et al. “Recall of Thematically Rele-
vant Material by Adolescent Good and Poor
Readers as a Function of Written versus Oral
Presentation.” Journal of Educational Psychology 69
(1977): 381-87.
22. Sticht, Thomas G. &James H . James. “Listening and
Reading.” Handbook of Reading Research. Ed. P. David
Pearson. New York: Longman, 1984: 293-317.
23. Walker, Laurence. “Comprehending Writing and Spon-
taneous Speech.” Rmding Research Qmrlnly 11 (1976):
144-67.
Mainz. Bis um vier Uhr nachmittags ist Vera dann auf
den Beinen und verkauft griechische und italienische
Spezialitaten. Vor allem Oliven. Zwanzig Sorten schwarze
204
APPENDIX A (continued)
und griine Olfriichte verbreiten ihren delikaten Duft. “Um
die Mittagszeit geht’s rund. Da komme ich mit dem Be-
dienen kaum nach. Aber sonst ist auch mal Zeit fur ein
Schwatzchen mit den Kunden.”
Vera studiert Innenarchitektur und mu8 selbst ihr Geld ver-
dienen. Sie hat ihre Eltem friih verloren und bekommt auch
keine staatliche Forderung. So arbeitet sie manchmd auch
APPENDIX B
Proposition List with Height Level
Height Proposition
3 1 . Vera has to get up three times a week at 5
o’clock in the morning.
4 2. Vera is twenty-four.
4 3. Three times a week it is market day in
Mainz.
3 4. On these days Vera is on her feet until 4 in
the afternoon.
2 5. Vera sells specialties.
3 6. Greek and Italian specialties
4 7. Especially olives
5 8. Olives spread their aroma.
6 9. Twenty kinds of black and green olives
6 10. Delicate aroma
3 1 1 . It gets busy around noon.
4 12. Vera can hardly keep up with the demand.
3 13. Otherwise there is time for a chat with the
customers.
1 14. Vera studies interior decorating.
The Modern Language Journal 75 (1991)
noch abends im Theater in der Kiinstlergarderobe.
Wihrend der Vorstellung mu8 sie den Schauspielern beim
An- und Ausziehen der Kostume helfen. Zwei Jobs an
einem Tag. Kann man da auch noch studieren? “Ich liege
vielleicht ein Semester zuriick. Aber das muB man in Kauf
nehmen. Anders geht’s nicht.“ (“Zehn Mark die Stunde,”
Jugmdscala [December 19871: 7 . )
Height Proposition
__..
1 15. Vera must earn money herself.
2 16. Her money
2 11. Vera lost parents early.
3 18. her parents
2 19. Vera gets no assistance.
3 20. government assistance
2 21. So Vera also works sometimes in the even-
ing at the theater.
3 22. In the dressing room
3 23. Vera must help the actors during the
performance.
4 24. (Actors get) in and out of costumes.
2 25. Vera has two jobs in one day.
2 26. Can (Vera) study as well?
2 27. (Vera) is about a semester behind.
2 28. (Vera) has to accept it.
3 29. There’s nothing else one can do.