Paraphrasing Techniques: Applied to "Top-Down Listening"

Top Down?

Or Bottom Up?

(Image from Wikipedia)

I'm once again preparing materials to teach Korean students how to paraphrase. Though I'm still making use of the rather mechanical method called "paraphrasing techniques" that I was using several days ago, I'm also continuing the strategy of "Thorough Rewriting," aided in this by cutting away words -- a lot of words -- as you'll see in this lesson plan:

Top-Down Listening (Processing): Original Passage:

The top-down facet of listening involves the listener's ability to bring prior information to bear on the task of understanding the "heard" language. This internal resource includes a bank of prior knowledge and global expectations about language and the world. It is used by the listener to make predictions about what the incoming message is expected to be at any point, and how the pieces fit into the whole. Chaudron and Richards (1986) note, "Top-down processing involves prediction and inferencing on the basis of hierarchies of facts, propositions, and expectations, and it enables the listener or the reader to bypass some aspects of bottom-up processing." (pp. 114-115) [105 words]

Note the long-quote (block-quote) form of the above quote, and in what follows, note the special indentation [not visible on Blogspot] for "References":

Chaudron, C., & Richards, J. C. (1986). The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lecture. Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 112-127.

Morley, J. (2001). Aural comprehension instruction: Principles and practices. In M. Celce-Muricia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp.69-85). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Before we start paraphrasing this time, let's see if we can first delete anything, for we then will have less to paraphrase. If we read closely to understand the passage, we find that much can be cut [as shown by the brackets]:

[The] top-down [facet of] listening involves the [listener's] ability to bring prior information to [bear on the task of] understanding the "heard" language. This [internal resource] includes [a bank of prior knowledge and global] expectations about language and the world. It is used by the listener to make predictions about [what] the incoming message [is expected to be at any point,] and how the pieces fit [into the whole]. Chaudron and Richards (1986) note, "Top-down processing involves [prediction and] inferencing on the basis of hierarchies of facts, propositions, and expectations, and [it] enables [the listener or the reader] to bypass some [aspects of] bottom-up processing." (pp. 114-115)

How did I do this? Let's look:

[The] top-down [facet of] listening involves the [listener's] ability to bring prior information to [bear on the task of] understanding the "heard" language.

The word "facet" adds almost nothing to the meaning of "top-down . . . listening," so we can delete it, and this deletion takes along "The" and "of" since "of" belongs to "facet" and "The" is required by "of." The possessive "istener's" is implied in "top-down . . . listening," so let's cut it. The words "bear on the task of" also add little. They mean something like "use in," and what's the difference between saying "to bring prior information to bear on the task of understanding" and "to bring prior information to use in understanding"? There’s not much difference, and there's likewise little difference between "to bring prior information to use in understanding" and "to bring prior information to understanding." We can therefore cut "bear on the task of."

What about the next sentence:

This [internal resource] includes [a bank of prior knowledge and global] expectations about language and the world.

These deletions are not so hard to understand. We know from the previous sentence that prior information must be internal since it contributes to understanding, so we can cut "internal," and since prior information is also the resource, we can cut "resource." Similarly, prior information implies "a bank of prior knowledge," so we can cut that as well. Since "global" means "general" and since "expectations about language and the world" must be rather general, we can cut "global."

And what of the next sentence:

It is used by the listener to make predictions about [what] the incoming message [is expected to be at any point,] and how the pieces fit [into the whole].

Since "predictions" are always about what is expected, then we can surely cut "what . . . is expected to be," and since "predictions" is plural, we can assume that one prediction follows another, so we can also cut "at any point." Similarly, since "pieces" make up a "whole," we can cut "into the whole."

But what can we do with the quote? We can also trim it:

Chaudron and Richards (1986) note, "Top-down processing involves [prediction and] inferencing on the basis of hierarchies of facts, propositions, and expectations, and [it] enables [the listener or the reader] to bypass some [aspects of] bottom-up processing."

Since "prediction" and "inferencing" are nearly identical, we can cut one. Let's cut "prediction" since "inferencing" sounds more rational. The pronoun "it" is easy to cut, for it clearly changes nothing, simply referring back to "Top-down processing." As for "the listener or the reader," this can be assumed in the context of the passage, for we have been explicitly speaking of top-down listening and top-down processing. And "aspects of" adds very little to the expression "some . . . bottom-up processing."

Let's look at the result:

Top-down . . . listening involves the . . . ability to bring prior information to . . . understanding the "heard" language. This . . . includes . . . expectations about language and the world. It is used by the listener to make predictions about . . . the incoming message . . . and how the pieces fit . . . . Chaudron and Richards (1986) note, "Top-down processing involves . . . inferencing on the basis of hierarchies of facts, propositions, and expectations, and . . . enables . . . to bypass some . . . bottom-up processing." (pp. 114-115)

Note that this would still be a block quote, for we've changed no words, but merely deleted them. Note the ellipses (three dots). These indicate missing words. Note the one-time use of four dots. The extra dot indicates that two sentences have been combined by deleting words or that the beginning of a sentence has been cut (and possibly the end of a sentence as well).

We can now begin to paraphrase. Take the first sentence:

Top-down . . . listening involves the . . . ability to bring prior information to . . . understanding the "heard" language.

Top-down listening is the concept under consideration, so we can simply drop the ellipses there. Let's find a synonym for "involves." We have, for instance: includes, contains, embraces, covers, incorporates, and comprises. The word "contains" doesn't work because "listening" is not a container. Nor does "incorporates" work, for the listener is not incorporating an ability, but using an ability already present. Nor -- for similar reasons -- is the listener covering an ability. The remaining three could work: includes, embraces, or comprises. But "embraces" sounds a bit too 'emotional'. Of the remaining two, "comprises" works somewhat better than "includes" because top-down listening means the ability to use prior information, and "comprises" suggests equivalence, whereas "includes" suggests one of several. We could do much the same with "ability": capability, power, potential, facility, capacity, qualification, competence, proficiency, competency, or potentiality. Of these, all work except for "qualification," which sounds as if one must 'qualify', and "proficiency," which sounds as if one must be especially skilled to have the ability. Of the remaining synonyms, let's use the simplest since simpler is often more clear: "power." By a similar process and a bit of imagination, we could replace "bring" with "use," "prior" with "previous," "information" with "knowledge," and "understanding" with "interpret." This process results in the following:

Top-down listening comprises the power to use previous knowledge to interpret the "heard" language.

But if we use our imagination, we can simplify this:

Top-down listening uses previous knowledge to interpret "heard" language.

What about the next sentence:

This . . . includes . . . expectations about language and the world.

We've already seen that "includes" is a synonym for "involves." If we looked for synonyms of "expectations," we could come to use "anticipation" (the singular form, since the word is usually noncount). We might note that "the world" could be replaced by "everything." The result:

This involves anticipation about language and everything.

As for the next sentence:

It is used by the listener to make predictions about . . . the incoming message . . . and how the pieces fit . . . .

The pronoun "It" refers back to "anticipation about language and everything," so if we cut it, we can combine what remains with the previous sentence in this way:

This involves anticipation about language and everything, used by the listener to make predictions about . . . the incoming message . . . and how the pieces fit . . . .

We can cut "by the listener" since this is surely understood. We can change the form of "make predictions about" to "predict," and we can rearrange "the incoming message . . . and how the pieces fit" as follows: "how the pieces of the incoming message fit." The result:

This involves anticipation about language and everything, used to predict how the pieces of the incoming message fit.

Let's quickly alter the last sentence, the quote from Chaudron and Richards:

Chaudron and Richards (1986) note that it uses inferencing based on "hierarchies of facts, propositions, and expectations" enabling one to avoid some bottom-up processing (pp. 114-115).

We've kept part of the quote, at least for now, and we don't need to use quotes on "bottom-up processing" since it's a well-known concept. And incidentally, since the top-down concept is broader than just top-down listening, let's use top-down processing, and let's also exchange "received" for "heard." Finally, let's smooth out the passage by using "which is" between "everything" and "used" and also rearrange the last sentence. Here's the entire rewritten passage:

Top-down processing comprises the power to use previous knowledge to interpret the received language. This involves anticipation about language and everything, which is used to predict how the pieces of the incoming message fit. Chaudron and Richards (1986) note that it avoids some bottom-up processing by using inferencing based on "hierarchies of facts, propositions, and expectations" (pp. 114-115).

But we still have one more thing to do. We must adjust the citation:

Top-down processing comprises the power to use previous knowledge to interpret the received language. This involves anticipation about language and everything, which is used to predict how the pieces of the incoming message fit. Chaudron and Richards (1986) note that it avoids some bottom-up processing by using inferencing based on "hierarchies of facts, propositions, and expectations" (pp. 114-115) (Morley, 2001, p. ?). [55 words]

Note that "pp. 114-115" is the citation for Chaudron and Richards, which is necessary because their words "hierarchies of facts, propositions, and expectations" are quoted. Note also that Morley is cited for the larger paraphrase, but the specific page is not known (and one would need to find this information before publication of one's article). Note the period. Compare to the original, taking note of the word counts (105 to 55):

The top-down facet of listening involves the listener's ability to bring prior information to bear on the task of understanding the "heard" language. This internal resource includes a bank of prior knowledge and global expectations about language and the world. It is used by the listener to make predictions about what the incoming message is expected to be at any point, and how the pieces fit into the whole. Chaudron and Richards (1986) note, "Top-down processing involves prediction and inferencing on the basis of hierarchies of facts, propositions, and expectations, and it enables the listener or the reader to bypass some aspects of bottom-up processing." (pp. 114-115) [105 words]

Note the period in this block quote. Here are the two references for the paraphrased version [though note that Blogspot does not allow for proper formatting]:

References

Chaudron, C., & Richards, J. C. (1986). The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lecture. Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 112-127.

Morley, J. (2001). Aural comprehension instruction: Principles and practices. In M. Celce-Muricia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp.69-85). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

And that's the way that it's done . . .

I have to admit to a bit of irony in this, given my remarks yesterday on how a good scholar goes about paraphrasing, for I then emphasized that no good scholar paraphrases in this manner. What I should note here is that I'm gradually moving my students toward the method of summarizing.

But they also need to know how to replace words with synonyms and restructure to avoid parallels that are too close.