International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL)

Volume 2, Issue 8, August 2014, PP 58-71

ISSN 2347-3126 (Print) & ISSN 2347-3134 (Online)
[Link]

The Effects of Cultural Familiarity on Reading Comprehension

of Iranian EFL Learners
Mohammad Davoudi
Assistant Professor.
Department of English Language and Literature.
Hakim Sabzevari University, Sabzevar, Iran.
davoudi2100@[Link]
Hoda Ramezani
MA student of Teaching English,
Hakim Sabzevari University, Sabzevar, Iran
Hoda_Ramezani_86@[Link]

Abstract: This study explores the role of cultural familiarity on reading comprehension of Iranian EFL
learners. On the basis of the Michigan test scores, 60 EFL (English as a Foreign Language) university
students were divided into two roughly equivalent groups who constituted two intact classes. Both the
experimental and the control groups received one of the three short stories, while the experimental group
also received the background knowledge passage of the administered short story. In order to assess reading
comprehension, they were asked to write freerecall protocols based on what they had read. Scoring of the
recall-protocols was based on propositional analysisaccording to which two stages of analysis, qualitative
and quantitative, were undertaken in this study. The results show that familiarity with culture of target
language facilitates reading comprehension significantly.
Keywords: cultural familiarity, cultural schemata, reading comprehension, background knowledge

1. INTRODUCTION
There are a number of definitions of reading in the literature. For Carrell (1988a), Grabe and
Stoller (2001), it is the most important academic language skill. Grabe and Stoller (2002, p. 9)
define reading as “... the ability to draw meaning from the printed page and interpret this
information appropriately”.
Widdowson's (as cited in Ajideh, 2003) view of how meanings can be negotiated in discourse is
consistent with Goodman‟s comments on the reading process. According to Widdowson (as cited
in Ajideh, 2003), recent studies of reading have represented it as a reasoning activity whereby the
reader creates meaning on the basis of textual clues. In his view, reading is regarded not as a
reaction to a text but as an interaction between the writer and the reader mediated through the text.
Kim (2010) argued, “a text by itself does not carry meaning, but rather guides readers in
retrieving meaning based on their own prior knowledge” (p. 36). Therefore, readers may differ in
the meaning that each associates with a given word. Although reading was once viewed simply as
series of skills that are sequential and hierarchical, with the widely accepted role of active readers,
they construct meaning by directing their own cognitive resources and prior knowledge to relate
to the text (Garner, 1987; Logie, 1995). Many researchers in the L2 field (Bernhardt, 2005;
Carrell, 1985; Grabe, 2009; Urquhart & Weir, 1998) acknowledge this interactive component of
the reading process. Moreover, research in this field is increasingly considering the variables of
each individual reader, such as gender (Brantmeier, 2005; Oxford, 1993), language proficiency
(Anderson, 1991; Huang, Chern, & Lin, 2006; Phakiti, 2003), and sociocultural background
(Singhal, 1998; Upton & Lee-Thompson, 2001).
Even though there are various kinds of definitions, Goodman (1967), as one of the most
prominent researchers in the field, defines reading as “a psycholinguistic guessing game” through

©ARC Page | 58
Mohammad Davoudi & Hoda Ramezani

which the reader is exposed to a reading text, makes hypothesis about upcoming ideas or facts
with the use of available minimal language cues, syntactic constraints and semantic constraints,
while sampling the text in order to confirm or reject the hypothesis.
Although the psycholinguistic model of reading is seen as an interaction of factors, it has
generally failed to give sufficient emphasis to the role of background knowledge. Recent studies
demonstrate that what the reader brings to the reading task is more pervasive and more powerful
than what the general psycholinguistic model suggests:
More information is contributed by the reader than by the print on the page. That is, readers
understand what they read because they are able to take the stimulus beyond its graphic
representation and assign it membership to an appropriate group of concepts already stored in
their memories . . . The reader brings to the task a formidable amount of information and ideas,
attitudes and beliefs. This knowledge, coupled with the ability to make linguistic predictions,
determines the expectations the reader will develop as he reads. Skill in reading depends on the
efficient interaction between linguistic knowledge and knowledge of the world. (Clarke and
Silberstein, 1977, pp. 136-137).
Widdowson (1983) defines schemas as “the cognitive constructs which allow for the organization
of information in long-term memory” (p. 34). Because schema allows the reader to relate new
information to the already existing one, Rumelhart (1980) calls it as “building blocks of
cognition”. Moreover, schemata “reflect the experiences, conceptual understanding, attitudes,
values, skills and strategies… (we) bring to a text situation” (Vocca and Vocca, 1999, p. 15).
To sum up, modern schema theorists state that schema is a data structure of general ideas stored in
memory which consists of variables and slots. According to such a principle, any text, either
spoken or written, does not, by itself, carry meaning but it only provides directions for listeners or
readers as to how they should retrieve or construct meaning from their own, previously acquired
knowledge. This previously acquired knowledge is called the reader‟s background knowledge,
and the previously acquired knowledge structures are called schemata (Bartlett, 1932; Adams and
Collins, 1979; Rumelhart, 1980).
In spite of different tendencies toward classification of schema by many reading researchers, most
of them make a distinction between formal and content schema in order to illustrate the impact of
background knowledge on reading comprehension (Carrell and Eisterhold, 1983; Carrell, 1987;
1988b; Alderson, 2000).
Formal schema, also called textual schema (Singhal, 1998), comprises the knowledge of language
and linguistic conventions: knowledge of how texts are organized and what the main features of a
particular genre of writing are (Carrell&Eisterhold, 1983; Carrell, 1987, 1988b; Alderson, 2000).
Content schema comprises background knowledge of the content area of the text that a reader
brings to a text (Carrell, 1983; Carrell and Eisterhold, 1983; Carrell, 1987; Alptekin, 1993, 2002,
2003; Singhal, 1998; Stott, 2001). It includes what we know about people, the world, culture, and
the universe (Brown, 2001). Carrell and Eisterhold (1983) propose that appropriate content
schema is accessed through textual cues.
One particular subclass of knowledge of the world (i.e., content schemata) is "cultural
knowledge". According to Alderson (2000), since the knowledge of the world refers to every
specific person's world, it is idiosyncratic. Each person‟s world is different from others because
every person has unique personal history, feelings, ideas, interests, and experiences not
necessarily experienced or possessed by others. However, we may share aspects of our
experiences, knowledge of the world, etc. with other people in our community and/or nation.
Although understanding a culture necessitates considering its language or languages, Kramsch
(1995) believes that understanding a language includes understanding a culture within which it is
used; that is, „„language and culture are not separate, but are acquired together, with each
providing support for the development of the other‟‟ (Mitchell and Myles, 2004, p. 235). "If
language is described as a mode of human behavior and culture as 'patterned behavior', it is
evident that language is a vital constituent of culture. You cannot learn a new language unless you
have a sympathetic understanding of the cultural setting of that language" (Trivedi, 1978, pp. 92-
93).

International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL) Page | 59

The Effects of Cultural Familiarity on Reading Comprehension of Iranian EFL Learners

In spite of the fact that „„being able to read and speak another language does not guarantee that
understanding will take place‟‟ (Morain, 1986, p. 64) and there are lots of differences between
cultures that makes it impossible to teach all the detailed differences that a learner encounter, it is
conceivable “to develop cultural sensitivity and perceptual skills in a student that will enable him
to be aware of cultural differences which, if undetected, could cause conflict" (Kelly, 1977, p.
203). This sensitivity of other cultures leads to facilitation of learning and communication among
people of different cultural backgrounds (Bedford, 1981; Johnson, 1982; Hendon, 1980; Kelly,
1977). According to Cakir (2006), „„an analytic look at the native culture is as important as the
learning of the target culture‟‟ (p. 155), because it helps in achieving cross-cultural awareness,
which involves paralinguistic aspects of behavior. Lado (1963) argues that foreign language
results in „„changing the learner‟s behavior and injecting a new way of life and new values of life
into his already settled behavior pattern‟‟ (p. 110). Therefore, “If one wants to be successful in
another social world, then one must learn the attitudes and behaviors of that other world but
without denying one's own social self and world" (Morrison and Stoltz, 1976, p. 5).
Although idiosyncrasy cannot be ignored, one‟s cultural orientation appears to be a dominant
force in shaping one‟s reading habits. In other words, since culture affects all aspects of life, it
certainly has a major impact on all elements of reading.
As a result, since cultural schema is independent of the surface forms used in the formation of the
text and involves more than a mere literal comprehension of the content of the text (Alptekin,
2006) a reader is most likely to fail if his/her cultural schema is different from the one proposed
by the text. According to Steffensen et al. (1979), "an individual who reads a story that
presupposes the schemata of a foreign culture will comprehend it quite differently from a native,
and probably will make what a native would classify as mistakes" (p. II).
Culturally familiar texts are then literary texts that depict aspects of the readers‟ culture such as
way of life, way of dressing, food, artifacts and others, which are unique to the readers‟ culture
and are familiar to them. Brock (1990) explains that culturally familiar texts or what he calls as “
localized literature” are texts that contain content, settings, cultural assumptions, situations,
characters, language, and historical references that are familiar to the second language reader” (p.
23).
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
There is a growing body of literature examining the role of cultural schema in second language
reading comprehension.
Bartlett‟s (1932) report is among the early studies of the influence of cultural schema. Kintsch and
Greene (1978), Steffensen, Joag-Dev and Anderson (1979), Taylor (1979), Reynolds, Taylor,
Steffensen, Shirey, and Anderson (1981), Carrell (1981), Johnson (1981, 1982), Markham and
Latham (1987), and Winfield and Barnes-Felfeli (1982) designed studies to indicate the effect of
using prior knowledge on reading familiar and unfamiliar texts. The interpreted results illustrated
the pervasive influence of schemata embodying knowledge of the content of a discourse on
comprehension and memory.
Kaplan (1966), Long (1989), and Nostrand (1989) also conducted an experiment to demonstrate
that culturally specific schema affects comprehension. For example, Nostrand indicated that
authentic texts from one culture may give a false impression of that culture to members of a
second culture. To avoid this false impression, such texts should be presented in authentic context
and students‟ appropriate schema should be activated. Kaplan asserts that cultural differences
result in different approaches to teaching reading to L1 speakers and L2 speakers.
Koh (1986) studied the effects of familiar context on student‟s reading comprehension. His
findings support the notion that one‟s comprehension of a text depends on how much relevant
prior knowledge the reader has about the subject matter of that particular text. He went further to
suggest that students must be made conscious of what is involved in successful reading. In other
words, they must activate their content schemata for the recreating of meaning from the text rather
than focus on the word-for-word deciphering which characterizes much ESL reading material.

International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL) Page | 60

Mohammad Davoudi & Hoda Ramezani

Pritchard (1990) revealed a positive influence of cultural schemata on the processing strategies of
students and the level of comprehension they achieve.
In an experiment by Bedir (1992), it was indicated that helping students to build background
knowledge can improve their reading comprehension. The experimental group was trained
through television, role-play, pictures, simulation games and a native speaker while the control
group received their regular curriculum. According to the result of the post-test, the experimental
group performed much better than they did in pre-test. That might be because of the use of
cultural background. The subjects who were trained with cultural aspects were more successful
than the others who were traditionally trained. The result also showed that cultural schemata are
inevitable for successful reading comprehension.
In 1992, Kang discovered that L2 readers filter information through cultural background
knowledge (as cited in Singhal, 1998). In her study, she used Korean graduate students with
advanced English skills. This study was conducted solely on L2 adults. Several studies have also
reported positive effects of cultural familiarity on reading comprehension and vocabulary learning
(Pulido, 2003, 2004). Pulido (2004) examines the effects of cultural background knowledge on L2
incidental vocabulary acquisition through reading. The results indicated that there is a strong
support for the hypothesis that the rich do indeed get richer when considering the impact of
cultural familiarity on incidental vocabulary acquisition. She also finds that background
knowledge does not help students with weaker levels of L2 reading proficiency and limited
vocabulary knowledge.
Malik (1995) also conducted a study to show that helping readers build background knowledge
through pre-reading activities helps improve their reading comprehension.
Miltiadous and Ohstsuka (1996) and Brantmeier (2003), Webster (2001), Salmani-Nodoushan
(2003), Sharifian (2005) also conducted studiesto examine the effects of text familiarity.
While other studies used two texts of similar difficulty, Alptekin‟s (2006) made use of the same
text in his work. He attempted to modify to the original English text by using more culturally
familiar terms so that students can make better comprehension and inferences than when they read
the original but culturally-remote story. He called this process cultural nativization and defines it
as "sociological, semantic and pragmatic adaptation of the textual and contextual cues of the
original story into the learner's own culture, while keeping its linguistic and rhetorical content
essentially intact" (p. 499). Alptekin (2006) examined the role of culturally familiar background
knowledge in inferential and literal comprehension in L2 reading. The results showed that
readers‟ culturally bound background knowledge plays a facilitative role essentially in their
inferential comprehension of the text rather than reading as a whole, yet does not affect their
literal [Link] (2004), Bock (2006), Erten and Razi (2009), Sasaki (2000), Jalilifar
and Assi (2008), Rashidi and Soureshjani (2011), and Rokhsari (2012) investigated the effect of
text nativization on reading comprehension which were based on the concept of nativization
introduced by Alptekin (2002).
3. METHOD
3.1. Participants
A total of 65 EFL adult learners participated in the study. Participants, whose native language was
Persian, were BA students majoring in English literature at Hakim Sabzevari University in Iran.
The sample included both males and females whose age range ran between 19 and 21. To ensure
the homogeneity of the participants, a sample of Michigan proficiency test was administered. On
the basis of the Michigan test scores, five participants were excluded from the sample since their
test scores were extremely low or high. All of the participants were randomly assigned into two
groups, the experimental group and the control group. The data were collected during their
regularly scheduled class times.
International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL) Page | 61
The Effects of Cultural Familiarity on Reading Comprehension of Iranian EFL Learners

3.2. Instrumentation
3.2.1. Reading Materials
The materials employed in this study consisted of three non-simplified and unabridged short
stories: In Dreams Begin Responsibilities by Delmore Schwartz (1978), The Girls in Their
Summer Dresses by Irwin Shaw (1939), and The Piece of String by French writer, Guy de
Maupassant (1922). The rationale behind selecting non-simplified stories was that they were
supposed to be at the appropriate level of difficulty in terms of lexical and syntactic complexity
for participants.
Two important factors were taken into consideration in selecting the above short stories. First,
care was exercised to choose stories of manageable length to give the participants the chance of
reading them without being frustrated. Second, the extent to which the stories had cultural
elements, and therefore, could complicate the comprehension process was taken into account in
the selection process. In other words, every effort was made to select the stories which contained
more cultural cues, both textual and contextual.
3.2.2. Background Knowledge Passages
Three background knowledge passages were provided for the three short stories. These passages
began with the story‟s title, the author, and the year of publication. Next, a paragraph provided the
historical background of the time when the story took place as well as the necessary background
knowledge relevant to the story such as themes and particularly culture-specific information that
is needed to fully understand it. Then, the difficult words and phrases which had cultural load in
the story and might make the comprehension of the short stories difficult were explained in
details. These involved culture-specific customs, rituals, notions, structures, and values such as
religious conventions, courting patterns, social festivities, interpersonal relationships, and home
and family life. Settings and locations, characters and occupations were also included in these
passages. Moreover, conceptual and lexical discrepancy in several areas such as food, currency,
clothes, drinks, and institutions were also in these lists. The aim of providing these explanations
was for readers to help them construct the appropriate schema.
3.2.3. Michigan Proficiency Test
A sample of Michigan proficiency test was administered to assess the students‟ level of
proficiency in English. The intention was to ensure that the participants of the study were at the
same level of proficiency.
3.3. Data Collection Procedure
To ensure the homogeneity of the participants, all the participants of the study took a sample of
Michigan proficiency test. Equal numbers of students were then randomly assigned to one of the
experimental group or the control group. Care was also taken to put the same number of males or
females in each group.
In order to make the study manageable and avoid participant fatigue, each story was presented to
the groups in three consecutive weeks, and the order of the presentation of the stories was the
same for all groups.
Both the experimental and the control groups received one of the short stories, while the
experimental group also received the background knowledge passage of the administered short
story. Oral directions concerning the test were given to the students before they read the passages.
Students were asked to read the passages carefully. Then, the researcher collected the short story
from control groups and the short story and the background knowledge passage text from the
experimental groups, in order to end participant's access to them when they do the free recall test.
Participants were instructed to write down as much as they could remember from the short story
on a blank page for the free recall test. They had already been informed that there was no time
limit for their reading and writing in the instruction and also the grammatical and spelling

International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL) Page | 62

Mohammad Davoudi & Hoda Ramezani

mistakes in their recall protocols were going to be ignored, in order to minimize the effect of any
variation among the students‟ writing skills, as otherwise their writing skills would have been
assessed rather than their reading comprehension.
3.4. Design of the Study
The study was based on a quasi-experimental design. This research design does not requrie
random assignment and is used where true experimental designs are not feasible” (Ary, Jacobs
and Razavieh, 1996, p. 343).Since the students were grouped into two separate classes, it was not
possible to randomly assign each student to one of the two study conditions. Therefore, due to
using intact classes and not randomly choosing the students, the research design of the present
study was quasi-experimental.
3.5. Data Analysis
Scoring of the recall protocols was based on propositional analysis which many researchers on
prose comprehension have recently used for representing the content of prose materials. This
analytic technique was developed to represent meaning in texts, and the number of propositions
contained in a text has been shown by Kintsch (1974) to determine reading times and subsequent
comprehension. This method involves preparing a relatively formal representation of the semantic
content of the material, expressed in the form of a list of propositions. This representation can
then be used as a relatively rigorous characterization of the material, and so serves as a basis for
evaluating and analyzing readers' performance in comprehension experiments since it is a more
meaningful measure of recall than the number of words or sentences. A proposition (thought)
contains a predicate (verb) and one or more arguments (e.g., subject, objects, and adjectives).
Hence, each short story was divided into specified propositions which were validated by four
experts‟ opinions. A propositionis clause or phrase expressing an idea for the first time and has a
major role in the development of short story. Therefore, the first short story, “In Dreams Begin
Responsibilities” was portioned into a total of 30 propositions, while each of the two others short
stories was divided into 15 propositions.
The present study also examined the quantities and qualities of the participants‟ recalls of the
given short stories because these have been traditionally used as measures of reading
comprehension in both L1 and L2 literature (e.g. Steffensenet al., 1979; Johnson, 1981; Carrell,
1987; Floyd and Carrell, 1987; but see also McNamara et al., 1996 for arguing the limitation of
recalls as measures of text comprehension). For this purpose, each student's written recall protocol
was scored via prepositional analysis, and they were awarded a score when the gist of a
proposition was recalled. The total number of correct propositions represented the quantitative
measure for the short story.
Each subject's recall was also analyzed qualitatively. To this end, each written recall was read one
more time. The marking procedure in this phase was to reduce the distorted ideas or wrong order
of events provided by the participants from a quantitative mark. In other words, if there was a
distorted idea, an idea which deviated from the content of the given short story in some way, or if
the student did not follow the sequence of remained propositions, 1 score was subtracted from the
total of quantitative score. This procedure was used for the three short stories and 3 scores for
each participant were obtained. The marks given to the students‟ papers by the two independent
raters were analyzed through the Pearson Correlation Coefficient Test. A high correlation
coefficient was found between the two sets of marks, r = 89, p < .01, which was considered to be
consistent enough to proceed with further statistical analysis.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The findings of this study are presented in the context of this research question:
Does Iranian EFL learners’ familiarity with the cultural content of short stories affect their
comprehension?

International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL) Page | 63

The Effects of Cultural Familiarity on Reading Comprehension of Iranian EFL Learners

This research question was transformed into the following null hypothesis to ensure its testability
through the data acquired from the participants of the study.
H0: Iranian EFL learners’ familiarity with the cultural content of short stories does not affect
their comprehension.
Independent-sample t test was used to examine the differences between experimental and control
groups regarding their familiarity with the cultural content of short stories. The mean scores of the
experimental and control groups in text 1, text 2, text 3, and the total text are given in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1. Group Statistics for Text 1, Text 2, Text 3, and Total Text
[Link] N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
text1 experimental 30 18.8000 5.10848 .93268
control 30 11.8000 4.80230 .87678
text2 experimental 30 9.4333 3.04770 .55643
control 30 6.4000 2.31338 .42236
text3 experimental 30 8.8333 2.92532 .53409
control 30 5.8667 1.90703 .34818
[Link] experimental 30 36.7333 8.20401 1.49784
control 30 24.0667 6.64329 1.21289

Note: N = Total number in a sample. Std = standard

Levene‟s test was used first to check for the homogeneity of the variances, and based on it,
appropriate t was selected. Results of t-test showed that students differ significantly in text 1 (t =
5.46, df = 58, p < .000), text 2 (t = 4.34, df = 54.08, p < .000), text 3 (t = 4.65, df = 49.87, p <
.000), and total text (t = 6.57, df = 58, p < .000).
This shows that the experimental group had a higher mean score than control group regarding text
1 (experimental mean = 18.88, control mean = 11.80), text 2 (experimental mean = 9.43, control
mean = 6.40), text 3 (experimental mean = 8.83, control mean = 5.86), and total text
(experimental mean = 36.73, control mean = 24.06). This result provides an affirmative answer to
the research question; therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. Figure 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 show
the graphs based on the results from Table 3.1.

Figure 3.1. Mean Differences for Text 1 in Experimental and Control Groups

International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL) Page | 64

Mohammad Davoudi & Hoda Ramezani

Figure 3.2. Mean Differences for Text 2 in Experimental and Control Groups

Figure 3.3 Mean Differences for Text 3 in Experimental and Control Groups

Figure 3.4. Mean Differences for Total Text in Experimental and Control Groups

International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL) Page | 65

The Effects of Cultural Familiarity on Reading Comprehension of Iranian EFL Learners

The present study aimed at examining the effect of cultural familiarity on reading comprehension
of Iranian EFL students. In general, the results point to the notion that readers‟ culture-bound
background knowledge plays a facilitative role in their comprehension of short stories. Readers
are expected to achieve the writer‟s intended meaning by combining existing information with
what they read (Alderson, 2000; Anderson, 1999; Chastain, 1988; Eskey, 1988; Grabe and Stoller,
2002; Nassaji, 2002; Nuttall, 1998; Wallace, 2001). The results of current study revealed similar
findings to the ones in the study of Alderson (2000), Alptekin (2006), Ketchum (2006), Oller
(1995), Pulido (2003), and Steffensen et al. (1979) who highlighted that background knowledge
has positive effect on reading comprehension. The difference between the experimental and
control groups‟ performances in comprehension suggested a strong possibility that the students
who read the background knowledge passages of the stories possessed relevant cultural
background knowledge which reduced the cognitive load imposed by the complex reading
procedures (Perfetti, 1985) on the memory system (Baddeley, 1997; Ellis, 2001; Kintsch, 1998;
McLaughlin et al., 1983), as opposed to the students who had to deal with unfamiliar cultural
content and visualize the script in their minds. The findings can be supported on the basis of the
following reasoning.
One reason could be that the background knowledge passages of short stories enable experimental
group readers to activate their appropriate schemata more efficiently than the control group
readers. In other words, the pariticipants of the experimental group could activate their schemata
regarding the content of the stories more successfully compared to the control group because the
culture-specific textual and contextual cues which reflected the culture in the short stories were
explained in the background knowledge passages received by experimental groups and
consequently resulted in better comprehension of the stories.
Another support for the results of the study comes from Stanovich's (2000) interactive
compensatory model. It is likely that the experimental group who read the short stories and
background knowledge passages 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, their comprehension of the stories was enhanced and they could remember
more propositional units in written recall protocols, compared to the control groups who were at a
disadvantage because they read the short stories which took for granted the cultural assumptions
of native speakers of English. This argument is supported by empirical research of Pulido (2004,
2007) who indicated that readers' background knowledge, and more specifically, their cultural
background knowledge, can facilitate lexical inferencing during reading.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The study was, in fact, an attempt to shed light on whether cultural familiarity bears any
significant impact on Iranian EFL learners‟ reading comprehension. In conclusion, the results
from the present study elucidate the nature of the impact of a type of background knowledge, that
of cultural familiarity, on L2 reading comprehension. The participants in the experimental group,
who were made more familiar with the cultures of short stories, scored significantly higher than
the control groups. The findings were in accordance with the idea presented in the literature
review, since the majority of the research existing in the field of reading and cultural familiarity
suggests a positive relationship between reading comprehension and a student‟s cultural
knowledge. The results also support the schema theory of reading, and research on L2 reading
(Carrell, 1991; Hudson, 1982; Levin and Haus, 1985) which demonstrated that reading
comprehension can be facilitate by knowledge of text content. By providing a knowledge
structure during the encoding/decoding process, readers can compare and fit pieces of incoming
information; therefore, making it possible to assimilate text information without the need to
consider all the words and phrases in the text.
Some pedagogical implications can be drawn here. Probably the most noticeable finding of the
study is that the background knowledge which the second language readers bring to a text is often
culture-specific. According to Hudson (1982), “the reading problems of the L2 reader are not due
to an absence of attempts at fitting and providing specific schemata . . . Rather, the problem lies in
projecting appropriate schemata” (p. 9). In order to make sense of texts, second language reader
attempts to provide schemata persistently and if the reader cannot access the appropriate existing
schemata, or if the reader does not possess the appropriate schemata necessary to understand a
International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL) Page | 66
Mohammad Davoudi & Hoda Ramezani

text, his or her efforts will fail. Therefore, one of the problems in the EFL/ESL reading
classrooms is the implicit cultural knowledge presupposed by a text. As a result, teaching cultural
materials and texts provide learners with `insights' and a meaningful comprehension of how a
language functions. Moreover, understanding a foreign culture can lead learners to have positive
attitudes towards the language of that culture which results in more motivation in order to perform
better on the receptive skills.
The results of this study have another important pedagogical implication with regard to cultural
factors in the text selection for the EFL classroom. The criteria for selection depend largely on
what we want to achieve from teaching culture in the foreign language classroom. Reichmann
(1970, p. 69) states three important ends to be accounted for “in the selection of `cultural studies'
material: (1) the student must gain an understanding of the nature of culture; (2) his cultural
bondage must be reduced; (3) he must achieve a fuller understanding of his own cultural
background”.
Suggestions for Further Research
No study is without its limitations. Future research may wish to consider the following proposals
in an attempt to improve the effects of cultural familiarity on reading comprehension. The present
study may be replicated or extended in different contexts and settings to include the effect of
cultural familiarity on components of reading comprehension such as the speed of reading, reader
perspective, critical thinking, main idea construction processes as well as other reading processes.
The groups of participants in the present study represented only adults EFL learners. Future
research should include children and young learners of several proficiency levels to allow for
cross-sectional generalizations.
Also, the role of cultural familiarity can be further explored by studying its effect on listening,
speaking, and writing in English.
Finally, the study should be replicated and the results should be confirmed by other studies with
different types of texts and learners. If possible, the present study should be replicated in different
cultural contexts and consequently with different learners‟ cultural backgrounds in order to
investigate how difference of learners‟ culture from the target culture has effects on learners‟
reading comprehension.
REFERENCES
Adams, M. J., & Collins, A. (1979).A schema theoretic view of reading. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.),
New directions in discourse processing (pp. 1-22). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Ajideh, P. (2003). Schema theory-based pre-reading tasks: A neglected essential in the ESL
reading class. The Reading Matrix, 3(1), 1-14.
Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing [Link]: Cambridge University Press.
Alptekin, C. (1993). Target-language culture in EFL [Link] Language Teaching
Journal, 47(2), 136-143.
Alptekin, C. (2002, Jun.). The effects of cultural knowledge on EFL reading comprehension.
Paper presented at International Balkan ELT Conference, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey.
Alptekin, C. (2003, May). The role of cultural nativization in L2 reading: The case of inferential
and literal comprehension. Unpublished opening plenary speech at The Third International
ELT Research Conference, ÇanakkaleOnsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale, Turkey.
Alptekin, C. (2006). Cultural familiarity in inferential and literal comprehension in L2
[Link], 34(4), 494-508.
Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and
[Link] Modern Language Journal, 75(4), 460-472.
Anderson, N. J. (1999). Exploring second language reading: Issues and [Link], MA:
Heinle&Heinle.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., &Razavies, A. (1996).Introduction to educational research. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.

International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL) Page | 67

The Effects of Cultural Familiarity on Reading Comprehension of Iranian EFL Learners

Baddeley, A. D. (1997). Human memory: Theory and Practice (Rev. ed.). Hove, UK: Psychology
Press.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social [Link]:
Cambridge University Press.
Bedir, H. (1992). Cultural significance in foreign language learning and teaching with special
emphasis on reading comprehension through cultural schema (Unpublished master's
thesis).Çukurova University, Adana.
Bernhardt, E. B. (2005). Progress and procrastination in second language [Link] Review
of Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 133-150.
Bock, T. (2006). A consideration of culture in moral theme comprehension: Comparing native
and European American students. Journal of Moral Education, 35(1), 71-87.
Brantmeier, C. (2003). Does gender make a difference? Passage content and comprehension in
second language [Link] in A foreign Language, 15(1), 1-27.
Brantmeier, C. (2005). Effects of reader‟s knowledge, text type, and test type on L1 and L2
reading comprehension. TheModern Language Journal, 89(1), 37-53.
Brock, M. N. (1990).The case for localized literature in the ESL [Link] Teaching
Forum, 28(3), 22-25.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Cognitive science concepts and technology teacher [Link] Journal
of Technology Studies, 27(1), 33-42.
Cakir, I. (2006). Developing cultural awareness in foreign language [Link] Online
Journal of Distance Education, 7(3), 154–161.
Carrell, P. L. (1981).Culture-specific schemata in L2 comprehension. In R. Orem, & J. Haskell
(Eds.), Selected papers from the Ninth Illinois TESOL/BE Annual Convention, First
Midwest TESOL Conference (pp. 123-132). Chicago: Illinois.
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(2), 81-92.
Carrell, P. L. (1985).Facilitating ESL reading by teaching text [Link] Quarterly,
19(4),727-752.
Carrell, P. L. (1987).Content and formal schemata in ESL [Link] Quarterly, 21(3), 461-
481.
Carrell, P. L. (1988a). Introduction:Interactive approaches to second language reading. In P. L.
Carrell, J. Devine, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading
(pp. 1-7). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Carrell, P. L. (1988b). Some causes of text-boundedness and schema interference in ESL reading.
In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language
reading (pp. 101-113). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Carrell, P. L. (1991). Second language reading: Reading ability or language proficiency? Applied
Linguistics, 12(2), 159-179.
Carrell, P. L., &Eisterhold, J. C. (1983).Schema theory and ESL reading [Link]
Quarterly, 17(4), 553-573.
Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second language skills: Theory and practice. New York, NY:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Clarke, M. A., & Silberstein, S. (1977). Toward a realization of psycholinguistic principles in the
ESL reading [Link] Learning, 27(1), 135-154.
De Maupassant, G. (n. d.). The Piece of String. Retrieved from [Link]
[Link]/351/352
Ellis, N. C. (2001). Memory for [Link] P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language
instruction (pp. 33-68).Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Erten, I. H., &Razi, S. (2009). The effects of cultural familiarity on reading
[Link] in a Foreign Language, 21(1), 60-77.
Eskey, D. E. (1988).Holding in the bottom: An interactive approach to the language problems of
second language readers. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive
International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL) Page | 68
Mohammad Davoudi & Hoda Ramezani

approaches to second language reading (pp. 93-100). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Floyd, P.,&Carrell, P. L. (1987).Effects on ESL reading of teaching cultural content
[Link] Learning, 37(1), 89-108.
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading [Link], NJ: Ablex.
Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading
Specialist 6(1), 126-135.
Grabe, W. (2009).Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Grabe, W., &Stoller. F. L. (2001). Reading for academic purposes: Guidelines for the ESL/EFL
teacher. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.,
pp. 187-203). Boston, MA: Heinle&Heinle.
Grabe, W., &Stoller, F. L. (2002).Teaching and researching reading. Harlow, UK: Pearson
Education.
Huang, H. C., Chern, C. I., & Lin, C. C. (2006). EFL learners‟ online reading strategies: A
comparison between high and low EFL proficient readers. English Teaching & Learning,
30(4S), 1-22.
Hudson, T. (1982). The effects of induced schemata on the 'short circuit' in L2 reading: Non-
decoding factors in L2 reading performance. Language Learning, 32(1), 1-31.
Jalilifar, A. R., &Assi, R. (2008).The role of cultural nativization in comprehension of short
stories in EFL reading [Link] International Journal of Language, Society and Culture,
26, 62-79.
Johnson, P. (1981). Effects on reading comprehension of language complexity and cultural
background of a [Link] Quarterly, 15(2),169-181.
Johnson, P. (1982). Effects on reading comprehension of building background knowledge.
TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 503-516.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning,
16(1),1-20.
Kelly, C. M. (1977).Developing cultural perception of students who will be involved in a
multicultural [Link] Horizons, 33, 201-204.
Ketchum, E. M. (2006). The cultural baggage of second language reading: An approach to
understanding the practices and perspectives of a nonnative product. Foreign Language
Annals, 39(1), 22-42.
Kim, M. (2010).Adult ESL Korean reader‟s responses about their reading in L1 Korean and L2
English (Doctoral dissertation).Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
(UMI No. 3402930)
Kintsch, W. (1974).The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kintsch, W., & Greene, E. (1978).The role of culture-specific schemata in the comprehension and
recall of [Link] Processes, 1(1), 1-13.
Koh, M. Y. (1986). The role of prior knowledge in reading [Link] in a Foreign
Language, 3(1), 375-380.
Kramsch, C. (1995). The cultural component of language [Link], Culture and
Curriculum, 8(12), 83-92.
Lado, R. (1963). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor:
The University of Michigan Press.
Levin, M. G., &Haus, G. J. (1985).The effect of background knowledge on the reading
comprehension of second language [Link] Language Annals, 18(5), 391-397.
Logie, M. (1995).An examination of comprehension processes used by readers as they complete
multiple-choice tests (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington.
Long, D. R. (1989). Second language listening comprehension: A schema-theoretic perspective.
The Modern Language Journal, 73(1), 32-40.

International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL) Page | 69

The Effects of Cultural Familiarity on Reading Comprehension of Iranian EFL Learners

Malik, A. A. (1995). A psycholinguistic analysis of the reading behavior of EFL-proficient

readers using culturally familiar and culturally nonfamiliar expository [Link]
Educational Research Journal, 27(1), 205-223.
Markham, P., & Latham, M. (1987).The influence of religion-specific background knowledge on
the listening comprehension of adult second-language [Link] Learning, 37(2),
157-170.
McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T., & McLeod, B. (1983). Second language learning: An information-
processing perspective. Language Learning, 33(2), 135-158.
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., &Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better?
Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in
learning from [Link] and Instruction, 14(1), 1-43.
Miltiadous, M., &Ohtsuka, K. (1996, Nov.).The impact of cultural education on adolescents and
their comprehension of culture-specific reading [Link] presented at the Educational
Research Association (Singapore)/Australian Association for Research in Education Joint
Annual Conference, Singapore.
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004).Second language learning theories (2nd ed.). London: Edward
Arnold.
Morain, G. G. (1986). Kinesics and cultural understanding. In J. M. Valdes (Ed.), Culture bound:
Bridging the cultural gap in language teaching (pp 64–76). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Morrison, J. L., &Stoltz, R. (1976).The role of oral communication for the culturally different
college [Link] Student Journal, 10(spring), 4-7.
Nassaji, H. (2002). Schema theory and knowledge-based processes in second language reading
comprehension: A need for alternative perspectives. Language Learning, 52(2), 439-481.
Nostrand, H. L. (1989). Authentic texts and cultural authenticity: An editorial. The Modern
Language Journal, 73(1), 49-52.
Nuttall, C. (1998). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.
Oller, J. W. (1995). Adding abstract to formal and content schemata: Results of recent work in
Peircean semiotics. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 273-306.
Oxford, R. L. (1993). Research on second language learning [Link] Review of Applied
Linguistics, 13, 175-187.
Perfetti, C. (1985). Reading [Link] York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to
EFL reading achievement test [Link] Testing, 20(1), 26-56.
Pritchard, R. H. (1990). The effects of cultural schemata on reading processing [Link]
Research Quarterly, 25(4), 273-295.
Pulido, D. (2003). Modeling the role of second language proficiency and topic familiarity in
second language incidental vocabulary acquisition through [Link] Learning, 53(2),
233-284.
Pulido, D. (2004). The effects of cultural familiarity on incidental vocabulary acquisition through
reading. The Reading Matrix, 4(2), 20-53.
Pulido, D. (2007). The effects of topic familiarity and passage sight vocabulary on L2 lexical
inferencing and retention through reading. Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 66-86.
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
[Link] of Languages and Culture, 2(8), 141-147.
Razi, S. (2004).The effects of cultural schema and reading activities on reading
[Link] Reading Matrix, 5(1). Retrieved from
[Link]
Reichmann, E. (1970). The teaching of German problems and methods. Philadelphia: National
Carl Schurz Association.

International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL) Page | 70

Mohammad Davoudi & Hoda Ramezani

Reynolds, R. E., Taylor, M. A., Steffensen M. S., Shirley L. L., & Anderson R. C. (1982).Cultural
schemata and reading [Link] Research Quarterly, 17(3), 353-366.
Rokhsari, S. (2012).The effect of text nativization and schema-based pre-reading activities on
reading comprehension of EFL [Link] of Academic and Applied Studies, 2(5), 45-
75.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce,
& W. E. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension: Perspectives from
cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and education (pp. 33-58). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Salmani-Nodoushan, M. A. (2003). Text familiarity, reading tasks, and ESP test performance: A
study on Iranian LEP and non- LEP university students, The Reading Matrix, 3(1), 1-14.
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.
Schwartz, D. (1978). In dreams begin responsibilities. In J. Atlas (Ed.), In dreams begin
responsibilities and other stories (pp. 1-9). New York, NY: New Directions.
Sharifian, F. (2005). Cultural conceptualisations in English words: A study of aboriginal children
in Perth. language and Education, 19(1), 74-88.
Shaw, I. (2000). The girls in their summer dresses. In I. Shaw (Ed.), Short stories: Five decades
(pp. 62-68). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Singhal, M. (1998). A comparison of L1 and L2 reading: Cultural differences and schema. The
Internet TESL Journal, 4(10). Retrieved from [Link]
[Link]
Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new
frontiers. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Steffensen, M. S., Joag-Dev, C., & Anderson, R. C. (1979).A cross-cultural perspective on
reading [Link] Research Quarterly, 15(1), 10-29.
Stott, N. (2001). Helping ESL students become better readers: Schema theory applications and
[Link] Internet TESL Journal, 7(11). Retrieved from [Link]
[Link]
Taylor, B. M. (1979). Good and poor readers' recall of familiar and unfamiliar text. Journal of
Reading Behavior, 11(4), 375-380.
Trivedi, H. C. (1978). Culture in language [Link] Language Teaching Journal, 32(2),
92-97.
Upton, T. A., & Lee-Thompson, L. C. (2001).The role of the first language in second language
[Link] in Second Language Acquisition, 23(4), 469-495.
Urquhart, S., & Weir, C. (1998).Reading in a second language: Process, product and practice.
New York, NY: Longman.
Vocca, R. T., &Vocca, J. L. (1999).Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the
curriculum (6th ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
Wallace, C. (2001). Reading. In R. Carter, & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching
English to speakers of other languages (pp. 21-27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Webster, J. W. (2001). Effects of ninth graders‟ culture-specific schemata on responses to
multicultural [Link] Journal of Educational Research, 95(1), 12-25.
Widdowson, H. G. (1983). Learning purpose and language use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Winfield, F. E., & Barnes-Felfeli, P. (1982).The effects of familiar and unfamiliar cultural context
on foreign language [Link] Modern Language Journal, 66(4), 373-378.

International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL) Page | 71