Strategy 9: Identification of words (Lexical strategy)

Lexical Strategy

Cubo de Severino et al. (2008) start their analysis of these strategies by claiming that expert readers build up the meaning of the text offering their knowledge of the world, not only the one referred to content but also the grammatical and textual ones, regulating their cognitive processes. The acquisition of the written code allows readers to decode words and symbols as well as textual and paratextual elements in order to obtain coherence in the text. Van Dijk and Kintsch model distinguishes different levels within a text: morphological, syntactical, semantic, pragmatic and lexical (pp. 212-213).

 

The latter consists of a linguistic system in the readers’ mind which contains the lexicon, a phonological component dealing with the sounds and a semantic component dealing with the meanings. Emmorey and Fromkin (as cited in Cubo de Severino et al. 2008) support this idea by stating that the mental lexicon is the grammatical component which carries all the information about the words or morphemes: phonological, morphological, semantic and syntactic information about words (p. 224).

 

Cubo de Severino et al. (2008) distinguish two types of words: the lexemes, and the grammatical words. The former are units of lexical meaning such as nouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs. They can also have attached morphemes which are the minimum units which carry lexical or grammatical meaning through suffixes and prefixes. The latter are considered independent and empty words which lack a lexical meaning. They are also called functional words (p. 216).

 

Following these ideas, Cubo de Severino et al. (2008) assure that the previous knowledge of the topic and the understanding of key words in texts optimize the comprehension of the reading process. That is the reason why understanding how the mental lexicon operates is crucial in comprehension. The authors highlight a number of lexical strategies which aid in the development of metacognitive capacities. They are classified into five groups:

• Use of semantic characteristics: design of semantic maps, charts in order to integrate the new word with the stored information in the readers’ mind.
• Use of context: search of semantic elements in the text which are equivalent, complementary or descriptive in relation to the given unknown word.
• Analysis of word components: associations of lexical items using family of words, suffixes and prefixes among others.
• Recognition of words: use of a phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic or pragmatic processing to decode the word.
• Use of reference material: search of conceptual information which cannot be given by the text or mental lexicon in dictionaries, encyclopedias and text books.

Lewis (1997) claims that language consists of lexical chunks which can produce continuous coherent texts when combined together (p. 7). The author explains that an elemental lexicon consisting of individual words is not adequate to make readers functionally effective to tackle texts. He supports the idea that accurate

noticing of lexical chunks, grammatical and phonological patters “all help convert input into intake, and provide the central strategy of the Lexical Approach” (p. 53). Consequently, a sixth classification needs to be added: recognition of lexical chunks. McCarthy (as cited in Lewis, 1997) expresses that “Over-concentration on learning single words may hinder the development of the L2 phrasal lexicon and deny the opportunities this gives for rapid retrieval and fluent connections” (p. 56). Likewise, the development of foreign language vocabulary might be affected negatively by overconcentration on learning lexical items in isolation.

 

Oxford (Oxford, 1990) acknowledges that research has shifted from what students learn to how the process of learning occurs. That is the reason why it may be crucial to focus teachers’ attention on the training of the aforementioned reading strategies to acquire reading skills in ELT.

 

Strategy 8: Identification of propositions: structure analysis (Propositional strategies)

Propositional Strategies

Readers employ propositional strategies to reconstruct the text base by means of the propositions established in the sentences of the text. Cubo de Severino et al. (2008) define a proposition as the meaning of a sentence which represents events that happen in any possible world. A sentence can have more than one preposition, i.e. it may refer to more than one event (p. 186).

 

Propositions are units which can be analyzed in terms of a predicate, which is syntactically represented by a verb; and one or more arguments, syntactically represented by nouns or noun phrases (Cubo de Severino et al., 2008, p. 187). Besides, propositions can be compound and complex in the same way sentences are compound when they contain one or more clauses; or complex when they have at least one subordinate clause (Cubo de Severino et al., 2008, pp. 191-192). These clauses may express different degrees of proximities among the events they relate to:

 

• O – No relation: it is characterized by lists of words or incoherent discourse.
• Indirect coherence: the events belong to the same episode in the possible world sharing a setting, plot and meaning. They are expressed by sentences which are not included one after the other.
• Direct coherence: the events are described in linear clauses or sentences and the relation is expressed by connectors such as then, as a result, thus, so, therefore, etc.
• Coordinated connection: the events are related as cause and consequence, forming a single event as unity. Frequently, they form a compound sentence joined by explicit coordinating connectors.
• Subordinated connection: events are not organized as a sequence but in a hierarchical order, since one event is presented as the specification of the other.
• Integration: one event determines on aspect of the other event. They are typically expressed by relative clauses.
• Reduction: the event is reduced to one of its properties, expressing it through adjectivization.

 

These different propositional relationships are expressed in the surface structure of the sentence by using specific connectors, as well as other factors such as context and reader´s knowledge of the world. (Cubo de Severino et al., 2008)

 

When readers make use of these propositional strategies, they represent a possible world, its settings and other circumstances in which those events described in the text may take place. Then, they build the representation of the objects or persons which are included and participate as well as other events

within the situation. After that, the individuals obtain their roles in relation to those events such as agent, object, and instrument. This strategic interpretation aids the reader to build the propositional scheme in order to comprehend the sentences and text. Word order, morphological structure, and syntactic categories at the surface structure of the text help readers build the propositional scheme (Cubo de Severino et al., 2008).

Strategy 6: Identification of local coherence: meaning relation of sentences & Strategy 7: Identification of local coherence: referential relation of sentences – Cohesion

Microstructural Strategies

 

Readers employ microstructural strategies to relate pieces of a new sentence with the previously processed ones in their intention to obtain local coherence. This term is defined as the semantic relations that exist among the sentences included in a text. Readers make use of mental processes in order to comprehend the semantic associations between two sentences which appear one after the other in a text. (Cubo de Severino et al., 2008, p. 152)

The relations between sentences can be of two types: based on meaning or based on reference. The first group is also called intentional relations since the associations are based on the concepts that are expressed. These relations are functional and they are established when a sentence specifies, explains or exemplifies the other. Hence, they give coherence to the text. The second group is also referred to as extensional relations since the associations are based on the objects that are denoted. These objects are called cohesive devices and they can be of three types: grammatical, lexical and rhetorical devices. The first group includes reference, ellipsis, substitution, conjunctions, comparatives and tenses. The second group includes reiteration, collocation, substitution and ellipsis. The third group contains questions and parallelism. The typical linguistic elements that establish referential relations are pronouns. Words can also maintain semantic relations such as synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, and others (Cubo de Severino et al., 2008, pp.153-154).

Readers make use of their knowledge of the word to establish local coherence. Yet, this is not an isolated phenomenon which occurs on its own, but it is related and also included in the global coherence of the text. Thus, local coherence strategies are unconscious mixed cognitive processes which can be combined with global coherence strategies, use of previous knowledge strategies, pragmatic and communicative strategies (Cubo de Severino et al., 2008, p.157).

Strategy 4: Detection of global coherence (Semantic Level) & Strategy 5: Identification of author´s intention (Pragmatic Level)

Macrostructural strategies

Readers employ macrostructural strategies to summarize the global information contained in the text. Cubo de Severino et al. (2008) distinguish two types of macrostructure: the semantic and the pragmatic. The former deals with the main idea of the text or topic whereas the latter deals with the global speech act or general intention (pp. 130-131).

The semantic macrostructure is the abstract representation of the global structure of the meaning of the text and it is formed by the main ideas which are explicitly or implicitly included in it. Readers cannot possibly remember all the details so they combine the textual information with the context and their schemata in order to construct the semantic macrostructure or main idea. The pragmatic macrostructure is the author’s intention to write the text as well as the purpose he/she has in mind: to inform, to entertain, to ask, to give advice, to argue among others. Readers use both macrostructures to reconstruct the global meaning of the text (Cubo de Severino et al., 2008, 130-131).

Van Dijk and Kintsch (as cited in Cubo de Severino) recognize two types of macrostructures: contextual and textual. Contextual macrostructural strategies are based on the reader’s knowledge of the world, which proves useful to predict situations; as well as the reader’s knowledge of the contents in the different types of texts, which aid the readers in the predictions of possible topics included. Textual macrostructures are based on the syntactic and semantic structures of the text and its markers which aid the readers in making discursive inferences (p. 132).