JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND INSTRUCTIONAL STUDIES

IN THE WORLD
November 2012, Volume: 2 Issue: 4 Article: 22 ISSN: 2146-7463

THE EFFECT OF BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE AND CULTURAL NATIVIZATION

ON READING COMPREHENSION AND VOCABULARY INFERENCE

Yusuf Demir
Selçuk Üniversitesi
Konya, TURKEY
yusufdemir@[Link]

Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the influence of background knowledge and cultural familiarity on reading
comprehension and vocabulary inference of Turkish 7th grade students in public primary schools in Turkey. For this
purpose; two texts, one of which was based on the authentic culture and the other one based on the nativized
version, a vocabulary test and parallel reading comprehension tests were developed by the researcher. To carry
out the research, experimental and control groups were arranged and reading comprehension texts & tests were
administered to the subjects in both groups. Additionally, experimental (EG) and control (CG) groups took a
multiple-choice vocabulary test. It was concluded that cultural nativization of the text and elements related with
background knowledge in the nativized text had a facilitative effect on comprehension of the short passages and
inferring the meaning of the unknown words by the students. It was observed that EG students, who read the
nativized version of the text got higher scores both in reading comprehension and vocabulary tests compared to
CG students who read the denativized(authenticated) version. The findings of the study are expected to bear some
implications for English material designers and EFL teachers.

Key Words: Cultural nativization, background knowledge, vocabulary inference.

INTRODUCTION

Culture is defined as the shared patterns of behaviors and interactions, cognitive constructs, and affective
understanding that are learned through a process of socialization. Culture is what shapes the lives of humanbeings
in a society. According to Peck (1998), culture is all the accepted and patterned ways of behavior of a given people.
Fairclough (1989) maintains that language and culture are from the start inseparably connected to each other and
language is not an ‘autonomous construct’ ; but social practice both creating and created by ‘the structures and
forces of the social institutions within which we live and function’ . Sapir (1970) supports this idea and mentions
that language does not exist apart from culture, that is, from the socially inherited assemblage of practices and
beliefs that determines the texture of our lives. Considering the notions above, here we should ask whether the
main language skills are the sole elements that lead to language learning or are all these accepted ways of
behavior of peoples of the target language a bridge to learning process as well ?. It is widely asserted that culture
is one of the most basic elements in language learning process. Being a competent, up-to-date speaker of a target
language and being able to communicate internationally necessitates , in a sense , being an intercultural speaker.
Since every language inherently creates its own culture, the learner and the teacher of the target languge
automatically have to be conscious of the cultural values and habits of that language. At this point, we should be
cognisant of the fact that ‘if we teach language without teaching at the same time the culture in which it operates,
we are teaching meaningless symbols or symbols to which the student attaches the wrong meaning…’ (Politzer,
1959). Here the key question should be ‘do the above suggestions apply to learning of all the languages ?’. Alptekin
(2002) proposes that if it were not English but any other language in the world, then it would be possible to teach
the culture with the language; but that is not the same for English as it is a global language. Also, English language
has more non-native speakers than native ones. That is, most languages belong to a certain group of people but

188
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND INSTRUCTIONAL STUDIES
IN THE WORLD
November 2012, Volume: 2 Issue: 4 Article: 22 ISSN: 2146-7463

that’s not the case for English language. For this reason, Alptekin (2002) infers that teaching English culture is not
possible since whose culture is going to be taught is not clear.

Hinkel (2001) states that the term culture includes speech acts, rhetorical structure of texts, socio-cultural
behaviours, and ways in which knowledge is transmitted and obtained. Hinkel further distinguishes between
visible and invisible culture. Visible culture, more readily apparent, includes style of dress, cuisine, festivals,
customs and other traditions. The far more complex invisible culture is shown through socio-cultural norms, world
views, beliefs, assumptions and values. In order to build the context in which knowledge is transmitted and
obtained by making use of the elements of visible culture, here we will consider nativizing texts, which proposes
the adaptation of cultural elements in an authentic text into the L2 learner’s own culture. In Alptekin’s (2006; cited
in Razı, 2009) study, the nativization provided students with a locality that they were culturally familiar with. By
nativizing texts or familiarizing learners with the cultural components, as Cakir (2006) states it is aimed to :

develop the communicative skills,

understand the linguistic and behavioral patterns both of the target and the native culture at a more
conscious level,

develop intercultural and international understanding,

adopt a wider perspective in the perception of the reality,

make teaching sessions more enjoyable to develop an awareness of the potential mistakes that might come
up in comprehension, interpretation, and translation and communication.

Schema and Schema Theory

Different researchers use different labels for the concept of background knowledge; in addition to schemata, other
terms commonly used are frames (Fillmore, 1976), scripts (Schank & Abelson, 1977), event chains (Warren,
Nicholas & Trabasso, 1979), and expectations (Tannen, 1978). Carrell (1983) states that however much these
concepts aren’t all identical, they share some fundamental assumptions and yield some of the same important
insights into comprehension. The role of background knowledge, also called prior knowledge, in second language
comprehension have widely been discussed. Schemata are accepted as interlocking mental structures representing
readers’ knowledge (Perkins, 1983; cited in Razi, 2009) and researches clearly indicate that what we understand of
something is nothing but activating our past experiences. Rumelhart (1980) has illustrated schemata as "building
blocks of cognition" that are used in the process of understanding sensory data, in repossessing information from
memory, in organizing aims and sub-goals, in allocating resources, and in leading the flow of the processing
system.

In traditional classification of schema, formal and content schema are the most commonly adopted types. Formal
schema, often known as textual schema, is defined as knowledge of language and linguistic conventions,
containing knowledge of how texts are structured and what the key characteristics of a particular genre of writing
are (Alderson, 2000; Carrell, 1987; Carrell & Eisterhold, 1983). A person can use formal schematic representations
of a text to understand information in a new text. A study of formal schema proposes that “texts with familiar
rhetorical organization should be easier to read and comprehend than texts with unfamiliar rhetorical
organization” (Carrell, 1987; cited in Erten and Razi, 2009). Sharp (2002) assumes that formal schemata are part of
the macrostructure of a text and contain the logical organization of the text which the writer has used to represent
the intended meaning. Meyer and Freedle (1979; cited in Zhang, 2008) explored the effects of different formal
schemata on recall. The 4 types of formal schemata compared were: (1) contrastive schema; (2) cause-effect
schema; (3) problem-solution schema; and (4) collection–of–descriptions schema. The first three types of formal
schemata have “an extra link of relationship” over the descriptive schema. Results demonstrated that subjects who
were exposed to formal schemata 1 and 2 recalled more than formal schemata 3 and 4. The results can be
explained by schema theory. Based on this theory, recall of information relayed by the first three formal schemata,
which offer extra linkage, should be better than that of the descriptive schema. Meyer et al. (1980) conducted
another experiment to confirm that readers who adopted the strategy of identifying the author’s organization

189
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND INSTRUCTIONAL STUDIES
IN THE WORLD
November 2012, Volume: 2 Issue: 4 Article: 22 ISSN: 2146-7463

structure would be able to recall more information than students who did not. Results were consistent with the
predicted outcome.

On the other hand, content schema is background information that is essential for understanding a text (Martin,
1995; Carrell, 1982; Enkvist, 1987). Content schema refers to the familiarity of the subject matter of the text and
contains an understanding of the topic of the text and the cultural-specific constituents required to interpret it. It
also refers to a reader's background or world knowledge and provides readers with a foundation, a basis for
comparison (Carrell & Eisterhold, 1983; Carrell, Pharis, & Liberto, 1989).

The place of schemata in reading comprehension is heavily scrutinized within schema theory. ‘‘This theory is
grounded on the belief that every act of understanding includes of one's knowledge of the world’’ (AL-Issa, 2006).
Jalilifar and Assi (2008) inform us that one of the most interesting and well-documented findings of schema-
theoretic studies, particularly in L2 reading, has been the significant role that cultural schemata or cultural
background knowledge plays in reading comprehension. It has been argued that non-native readers' failure to
activate appropriate cultural schemata during reading may result in various degrees of non-comprehension. The
reason is that while native readers, as Ketchum (2006) points out, already possess the necessary cultural
background knowledge when approaching a written text, non-native readers must overcome an added challenge
of cultural unfamiliarity when processing written communication. Carrell (1983) informs us that we comprehend
something only when we can relate it to something we already know – only when we can relate the new
experience to an existing knowledge structure. The process of interpretation, according to schema theory, is
guided by the principle that every input is mapped against existing schema and that all aspects of that schema
must be compatible with the input information. This principle results in two basic models of information
processing. Bottom-up processing is evoked by the incoming data; the features of the data enter the system
through the best-fitting bottom level or specific schemata. As these schemata converge into higher level, more
general schemata, these too are activated. Top-down processing occurs as the system searches the input for
confirmation of predictions made on the basis of higher order, general schemata.

METHODOLOGY

This applied research was conducted in four different public schools in Konya, Turkey during the fall semester of
2012-2013 academic year.

Participants
th
The participants, all of whom were at 7 grade of primary education, were divided into two groups, the
experimental group (EG) and the control group (CG). Each group consisted of two classes in two different primary
schools, four schools in total in Konya, Turkey, with a fair distribution of classes in terms of gender and level of
students to provide reliability for the study. 121 students participated in the study. There were 34 males and 31
females in EG and CG was comprised of 29 males and 27 females.

Materials
For the purpose of the study, two texts were prepared by the researcher (See Appendix A). The first text, which
was target-culturally loaded was about the ‘Independence Day’, a turning point of American political history. It
isn’t an authentic text, since it wasn’t prepared by a native speaker. However, it was authenticated by the
researcher, i.e. made up to be rich in target cultural content within the scope of the research. In the rest of the
study, it will therefore be referred to as ‘denativized’ or ‘authenticated’ text not as ‘authentic’ text. The second
text, also prepared by the researcher was about ‘Republic Day’, the most important event in the history of Turkish
Republic. It was loaded with the elements of Turkish history and culture, thus provided a schematic basis for the
students. In the rest of the paper, being culturally familiarized, it will be mentioned as ‘nativized’ text. Before the
implementation of the study, both texts were proofread by a native and a non-native speaker of English. The texts

190
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND INSTRUCTIONAL STUDIES
IN THE WORLD
November 2012, Volume: 2 Issue: 4 Article: 22 ISSN: 2146-7463

weren’t kept too long because the students could be classified in elementary level and it was aimed to avoid
negative effects of long stories during the students’ reading process. Both texts were one step beyond the
students’ current language ability, because this would stretch the boundaries of students’ knowledge and force
them to make an extra effort to provide a better understanding and as Krashen (1981) states, allow learners to
continue to progress with their language development.

In the nativization process, the name of the cities, countries, events and dates in the authenticated text were
transformed to Turkish equivalents to activate the schemata of the students in the experimental group about the
most important day of Turkish history, which Alptekin (2002) calls ‘Turkification’. All the elements used in nativized
text were elaborately selected for the EG students to visualize that national, historical day full of nationwide
celebrations held both in televisions and stadiums.

Table 1: Textual and Contextual Cues in the Two Versions of the Texts
Denativized ( Authenticated ) version Nativized (localized) version

Independence Day Republic Day

the United States Turkey
Washington Ankara
declaration of independence declaration of republic
July 4, 1776 October 29, 1923
American flag Turkish flag
Americans Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
th th
235 anniversary of the declaration of 88 anniversary of the declaration of
Independence Republic

especially in the streets especially in the stadiums

INSTRUMENTS & PROCEDURE

Nativized text was administered to experimental group and denativized text was given to control group. In the
beginning of the study, all the students were instructed in their mother tongue as to what to do after reading the
texts and both experimental and control groups were given thirty minutes to answer the questions. In order to
collect relevant data, firstly both groups were made to read a parallel text, same in content and design but
different in cultural/schematic elements. Then, a parallel true-false test was taken by both of the groups to
evaluate reading comprehension. Except for the above-cited cultural and historical, textual and contextual cues,
the rest of each sentence was the same in the whole body of parallel true/false tests (See Appendix B). By the way,
with the aim of minimizing the guessability of the T/F reading comprehension tests, target words and their Turkish
meanings were not included in T/F reading comprehension items. In order to provide reliability for the answers
and a full and flawless understanding of the questions, T/F items were given in Turkish to all of the participants, i.e.
in their mother tongue.

Secondly, with the aim of exploring to what extent both groups inferred correct meaning of the words in the texts,
a multiple-choice vocabulary test was administered to each of the groups (See Appendix C). The distractors in
multiple-choice test were chosen from different aspects of life in order not to create a historic,cultural atmosphere
in the minds of the students. This way, it was aimed to prevent the distractors from serving as reminders or cues to
the participants during the test. Contrary to the reading comprehension true-false test which had two versions
adapted to the two different cultures, there was only one type, standard vocabulary test, because the target
vocabulary that was aimed to be correctly inferred by the students was the same and these words were written in
bold in both of the texts to draw the attention of the students during reading process. For the same reasons as in

191
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND INSTRUCTIONAL STUDIES
IN THE WORLD
November 2012, Volume: 2 Issue: 4 Article: 22 ISSN: 2146-7463

reading comprehension test, choices in multiple-choice vocabulary test were written in Turkish. In other words,
the students were oriented to find the meaning of English words by choosing from the Turkish words. Before the
application of the test, it was made sure that all the students had no knowledge of what the target words mean. In
addition, to establish reliability, reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s α) were found as 0.653 for the vocabulary test,
which would let the researcher use the instruments in the study.

Data Analysis
After gathering data from the two instruments, in order to find out if there was a significant difference in the
answers of experimental and control groups to reading comprehension and vocabulary tests, independent samples
T-tests were conducted through SPSS program.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of this study are given in detail below. The research questions related with the research are firstly
brought in one by one and then the results are illustrated.

RQ1. Do background knowledge and nativization of the text facilitate reading comprehension ?
In order to understand if background knowledge and cultural familiarization of the text facilitate reading
comprehension, independent samples T-test was applied to compare the answers of EG and CG students to
reading comprehension true-false test.

Table 2: Independent Samples T-test Results comparing EG and CG’s Answers to Reading Comprehension Test
Group N Mean Sd. t df Sig.(2-tailed)

CG 56 5.6964 1.43868
-3.159 119 0.002
EG 65 6.4615 1.22573
p(=.002) is significant at the <0.01 level

The results of T-test above indicate that the difference between the answers of EG and CG students is statistically
significant (t= -3.159, p<0.05 ). The mean values of the groups ( EG = 6.4615 and CG=5,6964) also made clear
that the scores of experimental group were much higher than those of control group, which suggests that
background knowledge of the students existing in a text and familiarizing texts have a facilitative effect on
students’ reading comprehension.

RQ2. Do background knowledge and cultural familiarization of the text help to infer vocabulary ?
To determine whether background knowledge and nativization of the text also help to infer meaning of the target
words, another independent samples T-test was applied in order to compare the scores of EG and CG received
from multiple-choice vocabulary text. As shown in the table below, there is a significant difference between the
answers of experimental and control groups (t= -3.754, p<0.05 ).

192
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND INSTRUCTIONAL STUDIES
IN THE WORLD
November 2012, Volume: 2 Issue: 4 Article: 22 ISSN: 2146-7463

Table 3: Independent Samples T-test Results comparing EG and CG’s Answers to Vocabulary Test
Group N Mean Sd. t df
Sig.(2-tailed)

CG 56 5.9821 2.53335
-3.754 119 0.000
EG 65 7.8308 2.51624
p(=.000) is significant at the <0.01 level
It is also understood from the mean values of the groups ( EG = 7.8308 and CG=5.9821 ) that EG did much
better than CG during the vocabulary test. Based on these results, we can easily state that background knowledge
and nativizing texts have a positive effect on guessing the meaning of the words in the text.

To sum up, analysis of the data collected from a reading comprehension multiple-choce and a vocabulary test
revealed that the text’s including elements supporting background knowledge of the students and its
familiarization to the history and culture of the EG students facilitated not only their reading comprehension, but
also inferring the correct meaning of the words.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The results of this study made clear that nativization of short stories from the target language culture into Turkish
culture facilitated Turkish EFL students’ comprehension of the stories and their inferring vocabulary existent in
nativized versions. This is possibly due to the fact that (1) culturally-familiarized texts enable readers to activate
their schemata more effectively than original versions do. (2) Settings, plots, events, characters and themes are
basic constituents of fiction and these are the differing parts between nativized and original versions. Taloon
(2006) suggests that the establishment of an identifiable setting is a strong psychological preference in most
readers. In their reading of narratives, readers like to know where they are, and look for ‘‘clear spatiotemporal
indications’’ of just where and when a thing happened (p.91). Accordingly, these indications, when visualized by
the reader, are assumed to ring a schematic bell in the minds of readers. In line with Taloon’s notions, for instance,
it is very likely that a young Turkish EFL learner has a schemata of celebrations of national holidays and in his/her
mind stadiums are the traditional settings to celebrate these national days. On the other hand, in the United
States, the central point of celebrations aren’t stadiums as in Turkey, activities mostly center around the streets,
which may not eventually be found so conversant by the Turkish readers of the original text. As Jallifar and Assi
(2008) state, readers’ familiarity with the setting can trigger activation of the schemata about the incidents taking
place in that setting.

Apart from the setting that functions as a leading element in the emergence of fiction, nativization of the
characters have also a significant effect on activating schemata. Jallifar and Asri (2008) assert that nativization
creates a sense of cultural intimacy between readers and their imagined persons because these persons seem
more compatible with the readers’ own culture. In the familiarized text used in this study, for example, while
Americans regarded Independence Day as the most important day in the history of the U.S. , Atatürk was the one
who did it. With reference to this fact, Turkish students have Atatürk schema in their minds as the national hero
and the founder of Turkish Republic. This schema is assumed to remind Turkish students of national holidays, one
of which was mentioned in the nativized text. To sum up, the more the reader empathize himself with the
character and identifies characters, the more inferences he/she is supposed to make from the stories.

The facilitative effect of background knowledge on vocabulary inference was already mentioned above. In his
study, Stanovich (2000) explored that the nativized group who read the stories which were more in line with their

193
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND INSTRUCTIONAL STUDIES
IN THE WORLD
November 2012, Volume: 2 Issue: 4 Article: 22 ISSN: 2146-7463

background knowledge could compensate for their possible vocabulary deficiencies by drawing on their
background knowledge in order to infer the meaning of the unknown words or phrases; as a result, the fact that
his surveyees’ comprehension of the stories was enhanced is an underpinning of the findings of current study.
Pulido (2004) moreover supports the idea that cultural background knowledge can facilitate lexical inferencing
during reading.

This study further shed light on the issue that culture and language are inseperably linked and connected. In their
study, Jalilifar and Assi (2008) found that nativization of short stories from the target language culture into Persian
culture facilitated Iranian EFL learners' comprehension of the stories. The results also illustrated that cultural
nativization enhanced the subjects' comprehension of the stories at the literal as well as the inferential level. While
Alptekin’s (2006) study made clear that nativization plays a facilitative role essentially in readers' inferential
comprehension rather than reading comprehension as a whole, Razi (2004) found that nativization of short stories
from target language culture into learner's own culture enhances their comprehension of the stories. Besides,
Chihara et al. (1989) and Sasaki (2000) have explored that adapting texts to conform to the learners' cultural
expectations makes them more comprehensible to the readers. Whether consciously or unconsciously, what EFL /
ESL teachers have taught so far is closely linked to culture in some points. And this study made clear that cultural
schemata can easily be activated through nativizing texts. Localizing classes, let’s say putting local and cultural
elements into the class during foreign language teaching may help to draw more interest assuming that L2 learners
will be surprised to see local contents embedded in stories written in the target language. From this point of view,
nativization technique can be utilized by EFL teachers and language material designers by tailoring stories & texts
according to the levels and ages of students. Rashidi and Soureshjani (2011) inferred from their experimental study
that teaching culturally-loaded texts also helped to increase motivation in EFL classes.

This study had also some limitations in some aspects. First of all, however much this study, which was built upon
prepared nativized texts provided the results that were theorized in the very beginning, a longer text or a story
richer in cultural content could have helped to concretize the events more, but students’ being at elementary level
and long texts’ proven uselessness in reading comprehension (see Jalilehvand, 2012) stopped the researcher from
using a longer passage. The instrument used was the other limitation. As was stated before, considering their
levels, reading comprehension questions were asked in students’ mother tongue and as the most appropriate type
to facilitate understanding, true-false test was adopted. But this type of testing is questionable since there is a big
chance of success as a result of fifty percent of fallibility. Lastly, the study was carried out with a small sample of
students attending four different primary schools in Konya. Researches conducted in different schools and
institutions could yield different results.

Appendix A
Independence Day
Independence Day is a public holiday in the United States. Independence Day is the declaration of Independence
and celebrated every year on July 4, 1776. It is commonly associated with fireworks, parades, speeches and
ceremonies. Patriotic displays and events are organized throughout the United States with a large participation of
citizens, especially in the streets. Especially Washington, the capital of the United States, is the heart of
nationwide celebrations. Many people display the American flag outside their homes or buildings. Politicians
appear at public events to show their support for the history, heritage and people of their country. Above all,
people in the United States express and give thanks for the freedom and liberties fought by their ancestors. Public
administration buildings, schools, post offices and many small businesses are usually closed and very few people
th
have to work on that day. Last year, 235 anniversary of the declaration of Independence was celebrated
enthusiastically throughout the country. Independence Day occupies a big part of the political history of the
United States. Americans regard this day as the most important event in the history of the United States.

194
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND INSTRUCTIONAL STUDIES
IN THE WORLD
November 2012, Volume: 2 Issue: 4 Article: 22 ISSN: 2146-7463

Republic Day
Republic Day is a public holiday in Turkey. Republic Day is the declaration of Republic and celebrated every year on
October 29, 1923. It is commonly associated with fireworks, parades, speeches and ceremonies. Patriotic displays
and events are organized throughout Turkey with a large participation of citizens, especially in the stadiums.
Especially Ankara, the capital of Turkey, is the heart of nationwide celebrations. Many people display the Turkish
flag outside their homes or buildings. Politicians appear at public events to show their support for the history,
heritage and people of their country. Above all, people in Turkey express and give thanks for the freedom and
liberties fought by their ancestors. Public administration buildings, schools, post offices and many small
businesses are usually closed and very few people have to work on that day. Last year, 88th anniversary of the
declaration of Republic was celebrated enthusiastically throughout the country. Republic Day occupies a big part
of the political history of Turkey. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk regards this day as the most important event in the
history of Turkish Republic.

Appendix B
True-False test measuring Reading Comprehension of Control group
Independence Day, Amerika’da resmi tatildir. DOĞRU YANLIŞ
[ ] [ ]
Independence Day, dini bir gündür. DOĞRU YANLIŞ
[ ] [ ]
Independence Day ’ i insanlar aile fertleriyle beraber evlerinde geçirirler. DOĞRU YANLIŞ
[ ] [ ]
Independence Day, Amerika için büyük bir öneme sahiptir. DOĞRU YANLIŞ
[ ] [ ]
Independence Day, çeşitli törenlerle özdeşleşmiştir. DOĞRU YANLIŞ
[ ] [ ]
Independence Day esnasında insanlar binaların camlarına bayrak asarlar. DOĞRU YANLIŞ
[ ] [ ]
Independence Day esnasında resmi daireler, okullar açık değildir. DOĞRU YANLIŞ
[ ] [ ]
Independence Day esnasında devlet adamları halkla bütünleşir. DOĞRU YANLIŞ
[ ] [ ]

True-False test measuring Reading Comprehension of Experimental group

Republic Day, dini bir gündür. DOĞRU YANLIŞ
[ ] [ ]
Republic Day ’ i insanlar aile fertleriyle beraber evlerinde geçirirler. DOĞRU YANLIŞ
[ ] [ ]
Republic Day, Türkiye için büyük bir öneme sahiptir. DOĞRU YANLIŞ
[ ] [ ]
Republic Day, çeşitli törenlerle özdeşleşmiştir. DOĞRU YANLIŞ
[ ] [ ]
Republic Day esnasında insanlar binaların camlarına bayrak asarlar. DOĞRU YANLIŞ
[ ] [ ]
Republic Day esnasında resmi daireler, okullar açık değildir. DOĞRU YANLIŞ
[ ] [ ]
Republic Day, Türkiye’de resmi tatildir. DOĞRU YANLIŞ
[ ] [ ]
Republic Day esnasında devlet adamları halkla bütünleşir. DOĞRU YANLIŞ
[ ] [ ]

195
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND INSTRUCTIONAL STUDIES
IN THE WORLD
November 2012, Volume: 2 Issue: 4 Article: 22 ISSN: 2146-7463

Appendix C c. heves
Multiple-choice questions measuring vocabulary d. ekip
inference of Experimental and Control groups
8. administration
1. declaration a. eğilim
b. yönetim
a. hatırlama c. süreç
b. değişim d. işletme
c. sunum
d. ilan etme 9. enthusiastically
a. sınırlı bir şekilde
2. celebrate b. kapsamlı bir şekilde
c. coşkulu bir şekilde
a. hazırlamak d. tedbirsizce
b. kutlamak
c. bağışlamak 10. event
d. üretmek a. olay
b. konu
3. parade c. etki
d. biçim
a. misafirhane
b. geçit töreni 11. support
c. bağışıklık a. telafi
d. sosyal fobi b. görüşme
c. destek
4. patriotic d. adalet
a. karşıt
b. yurtsever 12. regard
c. dostane
d. hayâli a. saymak, olarak görmek

5. heritage b. üstüne basmak, çiğnemek

c. ayrıştırmak, uzaklaştırmak
a. miras d. örtbas etmek, üstünü örtmek
b. unsur
c. lezzet 13. citizen
d. seyahat
a. gösterici
6. liberty b. vatandaş
c. katılımcı
a. aşılama d. eylemci
b. özellik
c. numune 14. capital
d. özgürlük
a. büyükşehir
7. ancestor b. başkent
a. ecdat c. megakent
b. durak d. vilayet

196
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND INSTRUCTIONAL STUDIES
IN THE WORLD
November 2012, Volume: 2 Issue: 4 Article: 01 ISSN: 2146-7463

WJEIS’s Note: This article was presented at World Conference on Educational and Instructional Studies -
WCEIS, 07- 09 November, 2012, Antalya-Turkey and was selected for publication for Volume 2 Number 4 of
WJEIS 2012 by WJEIS Scientific Committee.

REFERENCES

Al-Issa, A. (2006). Schema Theory and L2 reading comprehension: implication for teaching. Journal of College
Teaching & Learning, 3, 7, 41-48.

Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Alptekin, C. (2002).The effects of cultural knowledge on EFL reading comprehension. Opening plenary speech at
International Balkan ELT Conference. Edirne, Trakya University.

Alptekin, C. (2006). Cultural familiarity in inferential and literal comprehension in L2 reading. System, 34, 494–
508.

Bartlett, F. (1932). Remembering: A Study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.

Cakir. I. (2006). Developing Cultural Awareness In Foreign Language Teaching. Turkish Online Journal of
Distance Education, 7, 154-161.

Carrell, P. L. (1983). Some issues in studying the role of schemata, or background knowledge, in second
language comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 1, 81–92.

Carrell, P. L. & Eisterhold, J. C. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 553–573.

Chihara, T., Sakurai, T., & Oller J. W. (1989). Background and culture as factors in EFL reading comprehension.
Language Testing 6(2), 143-151.

Erten I.H. & Razi S. (2009). The effects of cultural familiarity on reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign
Language, 21, 60-77.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London, England: Longman.

Fillmore, C.J. (1980). The need for a frame Semantics within linguistics. In Statistical Methods in Linguistics.
Stockholm: Skriptor.

Hinkel, E. (2001). Building Awareness and Practical Skills to Facilitate Cross-Cultural Communication. In Celce-
Murcia, M. (Ed.) Teaching English as Second or Foreign Language (3rd edition). USA: Heinle and Heinle.
Jalilehvand, M. (2012). The Effects of Text Length and Picture on Reading Comprehension of Iranian EFL
Students. Asian Social Science Journal, 8, 329-337.

Jalilifar A. R. & Assi R. (2008). The Role of Cultural Nativization in Comprehension of Short Stories in EFL Reading
Contexts. The International Journal of Language Society and Culture, 26, 62-79.

Ketchum, E. M. (2006). The cultural baggage of second language reading: An approach to understanding.
Foreign Language Annals, 39, 22–42.

Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt D. & Bluth G. (1980). Use of Top-Level Structure in Text: Key for Reading Comprehension
of Ninth-grade Students. Reading Research Quarterly, 15(1), 72-102.

COPYRIGHT @ JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND INSTRUCTIONAL STUDIES IN THE WORLD 198

 JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND INSTRUCTIONAL STUDIES
IN THE WORLD
November 2012, Volume: 2 Issue: 4 Article: 01 ISSN: 2146-7463

Peck, D. (1998). Teaching Culture: Beyond Language. Yale: New Haven Teachers Institute.

Politzer, R. (1959). Developing Cultural Understanding through Foreign Language Study. Report of the Fifth
Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Teaching, Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University
Press.

Pulido, D. (2004). The effect of cultural familiarity on incidental vocabulary acquisition through reading, The
Reading Matrix, 4(2), 20-53.

Rashidi. N. & Soureshjani K.H. (2011). The effect of teaching culturally-based texts on the Persian English as a
foreign language (EFL) learners’ motivation and reading performance. Journal of Languages and Culture, 2, 141-
147.

Razi, S. (2004). The effects of cultural schema and reading activities on reading comprehension. In M. Singhal
(Ed.) Proceedings of the 1st international online conference on second and foreign language teaching and
research, (pp. 276-293). USA: The Reading Matrix. Retrieved September 13, 2007 from
[Link]

Rumelhart, D.E. (1980). Schemata: the building blocks of cognition. In R.J. Spiro, B.C. Bruce, W.E. Brewer (eds.)
Theoritical Issues in Reading Comprehension. Hillsdale: NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sapir, E. (1970). Language. An Introduction to the Study of Speech. London: Rupert Hart-Davis.

Sasaki, M. (2000). Effects of cultural schemata on students’ test taking processes for cloze tests: A multiple data
source approach. Language Testing, 17(1), 85-114.

Schankd, R.C. & Abelson R.P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale: NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Sharp, A. (2002). Chinese L1 Schoolchildren Reading in English: The Effects of Rhetorical Patterns. Reading in a
Foreign Language, 14 (2), 1-20.

Stanovich, K. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York:
The Guilford Press.

Taloon, M. (2006). Narrative: A critical linguistic introduction (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Tannen D. (1978). The effects of expectations on conversation. Discourse Processes,1(2), 203-209.

Zhang. X. (2008). The Effects of Formal Schema on Reading Comprehension—An Experiment with Chinese EFL
Readers. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 13, 197-214.

COPYRIGHT @ JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND INSTRUCTIONAL STUDIES IN THE WORLD 198