volume 3 issue 1 june 2021 - mjselt.com

Modern Journal of Studies in English Language Teaching and Literature Volume 1 December 2019.VOLUME 3 ISSUE 1 JUNE 2021
Modern Journal of Studies in English Language Teaching and Literature Vol. 3 Issue 1 June 2021
Volume 3 Issue 1 June 2021
Published by the Academics Education Journals
Modern Journal of Studies in English Language Teaching and Literature A Division of AJEE Philippines Cebu City, 6000, Philippines
ISSN 2718-9708 (online)
EDITORIAL BOARD
University of Hawaii Hawaii, USA
Distinguished and Honored Advisers
Dr. Z. N. Patil
http://www.englishscholarsbeyondborders.org
/members-profiles/roger-nunns-profile/
Literature
USA
[email protected]
[email protected]
Japan [email protected]
Associate Editors
Mixahl Tanangkingsing, Ph.D.
Taiwan
[email protected]
Philippines
[email protected]
[email protected]
Table of Contents
Conjunctions of Readers
George M. Jacobs
Philip Rentillo1 18
ASEAN Country– Thailand
Lexical Features of When in Manila Blogs: IPE Word-Formation Processes
and their Acceptability to ESL Teachers
Carlo B. Afable
The Use of Task-Based Activities in Improving Active Listening Comprehension
Skills of Grade 8 ESL Students
Renee Julia D. Blancaflor
Margarita Ines I. Mauleon
Jeanne F. Purpura 68
The Impact of Locally Written Authentic Material in the Teaching of Reading
for First-Year Students
of Mandaya Courtship and Marriage Rituals
Alfel E. Obguia 101
The Effect of Motivation on Reading Activity and Text Comprehension
of Adult Filipino Deaf Learners
Maria Hannah Martin
Kathleen Ronquillo 119
Reading and Writing Needs of Senior High School Students: The Case of Filipino Students in the Philippines Cielo May Urbano Ma. Angelica Gumangan Leah Gustilo, Ph.D. Ma. Pamela A. Capacete 140
1
Readers
[email protected]
[email protected]
Abstract
When most people picture reading, they picture someone sitting alone holding a book or a
screen of some type, such as a smartphone or tablet. In other words, reading is not seen as a
social activity. Just the opposite, reading can be seen as an anti-social act; instead of talking
with others, people go off alone to read, maybe even as a means of escape. However, reading
is inherently a social activity. It represents an interaction between writers and readers. Writers
attempt to put their ideas into words and maybe images, too. Readers develop their own
interpretations of what the writers wrote, and they connect these interpretations to their own
lives and thoughts. In this article, we propose that extensive reading, which involves students
doing large quantities of reading, be combined with cooperative learning as an important way
to strengthen the existing social nature of reading. We discuss supporting theories, research,
and principles of extensive reading and cooperative learning, before providing and illustrating
ideas on how to integrate extensive reading and cooperative learning in the classroom. We hope
that the examples provided, based on knowledge of principles from cooperative learning and
extensive reading, will inspire and sustain teachers’ efforts to strengthen the social element of
their students’ reading, thereby making reading a more beneficial and enjoyable activity for
their students that may continue for the rest of their lives.
Keywords: extensive reading; cooperative learning; reading as social activity; integrating
extensive reading and cooperative learning; Social Constructivism
Introduction
The present article focuses on one way to strengthen the existing social nature of reading. This
involves students of many ages coming together in groups of two to four members to encourage
each other to read and enjoy reading. The article breaks the previous sentence into two parts:
(1) how students come together (i.e., cooperative learning), and (2) programs to organize
students’ reading (i.e., extensive reading): __________________________ Corresponding Author: Meng Huat Chau
Author's Affiliation: Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Email Address: [email protected]
2
(1) Students can come together more fruitfully if they and their teachers take guidance
from the literature on cooperative learning. Thus, the first main section of this
article provides background on cooperative learning, including supporting theories,
research, and principles.
(2) The second main section of the article explains extensive reading, a methodology
that involves students in doing large quantities of reading. In contrast, too often, the reading
that too many students do is confined to reading short passages in textbooks. This section of
the article supplies background on extensive reading, including supporting theories, research,
and principles.
(Please note that with both cooperative learning and extensive reading, collegial
conflicts exist among practitioners, and different terms can be used to refer to the same
phenomena, and the same term can be used to refer to different phenomena.)
The third section of this article provides and illustrates ideas as to why to combine
cooperative learning and extensive reading. Last but not least, examples are given of how
teachers have used various cooperative learning techniques to support various ways of doing
extensive reading. The hope is that these examples, combined with knowledge of cooperative
learning and extensive reading principles from the earlier sections of the article, will inspire
and sustain teachers’ efforts to strengthen the social element of their students’ reading, thereby
making reading a more beneficial and enjoyable activity for their students, an activity that
students will continue the rest of their lives.
Cooperative Learning
Cooperative learning (CL) is also known by similar terms, such as collaborative learning
(Jacobs, 2014a), small group teaching, team learning, problem-based learning, and peer
learning, to give just a partial list. To understand what CL is, we must understand that CL is
much more than just students sitting in groups. Rather, teachers and students need to give
ongoing thought to what helps and hinders effective groups. Students and teachers regularly
take action so that the student groups can become increasingly more effective and their group
interaction can become increasingly more enjoyable.
“Enjoyable” does not mean free of conflict. Just the opposite; conflict introduces varied
perspectives and stimulates thinking. Francis Crick, who was co-winner of a Nobel Prize for
the discovery of DNA, was quoted (Jacobs, 2014b, p. 3) as saying:
Our … advantage was that we had evolved unstated but fruitful methods of
collaboration … If either of us suggested a new idea, the other, while taking it
seriously, would attempt to demolish it in a candid but non-hostile manner.
The key words here are “candid” and “non-hostile.” That is, groupmates need to be
honest with each other. At the same time, they need see each other as valuable allies with whom
they need to collaborate productively and skillfully.
Theoretical Origins of Cooperative Learning
Many overlapping theories in education and related fields, such as social-psychology, support
the use of CL and shape the ways it is used. This section discusses some of these.
3
Social Interdependence Theory
For the authors of the current article, the most important theory underpinning CL is Social
Interdependence Theory (Deutsch, 1949; Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Lewin, 1935). Social
Interdependence Theory borrows from Field Theory which makes an analogy between the
relations between magnets and relations between humans. Magnets can attract or repel each
other, or have no impact on each other.
With humans, we can feel that our outcomes are positively correlated, negatively
correlated, or that no correlation exists with others. Examples can be seen in sports. If two
people form a team to play doubles in badminton, what helps one team member helps the other,
and what hurts one team member hurts the other. If Esperanza improves her backhand, that
helps Marta, her partner, as now they both have a better chance of winning matches. Thus,
Marta may attempt to teach Esperanza how to hit better backhands. Conversely, if Marta twists
her ankle, that not only hurts her, it also hurts Esperanza, because now their team is weaker.
(Please recall that the relation between variables is still called a positive correlation when both
go down, because, although they both moved in a negative direction, they both moved in the
same direction.) The relationship between the two partners demonstrates what Social
Interdependence Theory terms positive interdependence because their outcomes are positively
correlated. For example, when Esperanza’s backhand improves, that helps Marta, too, and
when Marta hurts her ankle, that hurts Esperanza too.
Negative interdependence in Social Interdependence Theory results when the two
forces are perceived to be moving in opposite directions, just as when two magnets repel and
push each other away in opposite directions. In terms of correlation, negative correlation
describes the situation when one is seen as moving upward while the other is felt to be going
down. Returning to our badminton example, imagine that Esperanza and Marta, instead of
playing doubles together, are now playing singles against each other. Now, when Esperanza
improves her backhand, her outcomes go up, while Marta’s outcomes go down, and when
Marta twists her ankles, Esperanza’s success level will probably rise, while Marta’s fall.
A third possibility exists in terms of interdependence, that is, magnets neither attract
nor repel. Connecting this to the human realm, people may feel that their outcomes are not at
all correlated with those of certain other people. It seems to them that the outcomes of one have
no impact on the outcomes of the other. For example, because of her ankle problems, perhaps
Marta decides to spend more time playing chess. How well Marta does at a chess tournament
does not impact how well Esperanza does at a badminton tournament. In the parlance of Social
Interdependence Theory, this situation can be described as no interdependence.
Of course, humans are more complicated than magnets because humans have both an
objective reality, as do magnets, but unlike magnets, we also have a subjective reality. The
objective and subjective realities do not always match. In CL, we hope that students will feel
(feelings are subjective) positively interdependent with each other, as this will encourage them
to help each other. Indeed, the CL literature is replete with ideas for enhancing students’ mutual
feelings of positive interdependence, such as groups having common goals, each group
member having unique resources that must be shared to achieve the group’s goals, enjoying
rewards and/or celebrations if the goals are achieved, and establishing a common identity
among group members, just as sports teams have mascots, team names, colors, logos, and
songs.
4
Another theory that supports CL has various names, including Social Constructivist Theory.
Constructivism contrasts with what was the dominant view of learning in the West in the
middle of the 20th century. That earlier view saw learning being driven from outside of the
learners, with teachers and instructional materials pouring knowledge into students’ heads, just
like people pour water onto the soil surrounding a tree. In contrast, the constructivist paradigm
derives its name from a view of learning that prioritizes the internal, not the external. Learners
construct their own knowledge, based on their background, interests, and surroundings. It does
not matter how much water or what kind of fertilizer people pour onto a mango tree; it will still
be a mango tree, and will not grow papayas. People can be more flexible than trees, but
nonetheless, the internal remains the driving force in what is learned and how that learning is
applied.
The other term in Social Constructivism is social. Yes, people construct their own
learning, but they do it with others, including peers, teachers, and family members. One
mechanism used in this social construction is scaffolding. This means that people provide
support for each other as they learn. This support is gradually removed as people become able
to do the learned tasks on their own. The word “scaffolding” makes an analogy with what
happens when simple houses are being built. Metal or wooden scaffolds support the new
structures as they are being built, and as construction progresses toward completion, the
scaffolding is gradually removed.
A non-academic example of scaffolding can be seen when an older family member,
Joriz, scaffolds for a toddler, Kidlat, who is learning to walk. Joriz will wait until Kidlat shows
interest in walking. Then, Joriz will hold both of Kidlat’s hands. He will give instruction and
encouragement in a gentle voice. As Kidlat progresses, Joriz will only hold one hand. The next
step involves Kidlat walking on his own, but even then, Joriz is scaffolding in such ways as
making sure they are on a flat surface and a surface where Kidlat will not hurt himself when
he falls. When Kidlat does fall, Joriz will let him get back up by himself and try again, all the
while staying close to provide instruction, encouragement, and reassurance.
For an academic example of scaffolding, imagine that Joriz is now at school, in a group
in mathematics class, and he encounters difficulties. These difficulties often arise, as Joriz is,
for now, the weakest member of his group in mathematics class, although he is, for now, the
strongest in science class. Fortunately, just as Joriz scaffolded for Kidlat, so too will Joriz’s
groupmates scaffold for him. A bonus of this scaffolding lies in the fact that as the groupmates
try different ways to explain and demonstrate for Joriz, their own grasp of mathematics
improves (Webb et al., 2009).
Another concept from Social Constructivist Theory is the ZPD (zone of proximal
development) (Vygotsky, 1978). This term simply urges teachers to calibrate students’ current
level of knowledge and skill, and then to teach students accordingly. Tasks that are too easy
may not challenge students, while tasks that are too difficult may frustrate students. The social
element of CL speaks to the ZPD, as tasks that might not challenge one group member become
challenging when they need to explain to lower achieving partners, and tasks that would
otherwise be too difficult now fit into students’ ZPDs, because, as the saying goes, “Two heads
are better than one.”
5
Insights from Social Constructionist Theory have been supported by recent
developments in Neuropsychology, as scientists now can see our brains in action as we learn
(Cozolino, 2013; Willis, 2007). Murphey (2016) developed three social-oriented guidelines
based on these insights from Neuropsychology:
1. Mutual Concern: Environments where people demonstrate mutual concern prepare
students to learn by calming the fight, flight, or freeze response in the reptilian part
of our brains. Teachers alone cannot create such supportive environments.
Fortunately, CL promotes positive interdependence, an atmosphere in which
support prevails.
2. Buy-In to the Social: Teachers discuss with colleagues and students the evidence
from neuroscience, not to mention their own lives, that supports the use of CL.
Lieberman (2013) presented a TED Talk that combined such evidence from his
neuroscience research and his own life.
3. Learning Social Skills: Working well with others can be difficult, even when people
feel positively interdependent with each other. Therefore, class time is well-spent
facilitating students’ development and regular use of social skills.
Humanistic Theory
Another theory that deserves mention as providing strong support for the use of CL is
Humanistic Theory (Maslow, 1968; Rogers, 1969). Maslow’s well-known Hierarchy of Needs
explores five levels of needs starting with basic physiological needs, such as having clean food
and water and a place to sleep. Next are safety needs. Here, CL can be useful, such as by
protecting groupmates and others from bullying, both in-person and online. Belonging needs
come next in the hierarchy. Being a member of a CL group that uses social skills can enhance
students’ belief that they do indeed belong in school, that someone will miss them if they do
not come in or, worse, drop out of school entirely.
Next to the top of the hierarchy are esteem needs which involve self-esteem as well as
the esteem of others. A great deal of research across many countries, ages of students, and
subject areas supports the view that CL boosts student outcomes on a range of both cognitive
variables and affective variables, including self-esteem (for research reviews see Johnson et
al., 2000; Sharan, 1980). Research on CL continues unabated (e.g., Abramczyk & Jurkowski,
2020; Chen, 2021). As mentioned above, students are more successful when peer interaction
takes place. This higher level of success promises to lift the esteem in which students are held
by others as well as the esteem with which they view themselves.
Last but not least, at the top of Maslow’s Hierarchy stands the need for self-
actualization, that is, people realizing their full potential. This speaks to a common
misconception about CL. Most people believe CL is all about what groups can do by working
together, whereas the core of CL actually resides in what groups can empower individuals to
achieve. In this way, the group members, by working in their CL groups, play scaffolding roles
in each other’s development (see also Jacobs & Chau, 2021).
Dewey’s Ideas
What people do as they enjoy deploying their potential brings us to another famous thinker in
education, Dewey (1897; 1929), who inspired many CL pioneers, including Sharan (1980) and
Kilpatrick (1918). Dewey’s answer to how students should apply their talents was to see the
purpose of education, not mainly to enable students to prepare for their own personal success.
6
Instead, students need to prepare themselves for active citizenship in democratic societies.
From a CL perspective, inspired by Dewey, positive interdependence should be seen as not
only existing within small student groups. Instead, students and teachers need to recognize and
act on the existence of the positive correlations of the outcomes of everyone in their school, in
their town or city, in their country, and in the world (see, e.g., Chau & Kerry, 2008).
Cooperative Learning Principles
Returning to Lewin, whose ideas germinated to become CL, he is cited by Berkman and Wilson
(2021) as objecting to the commonly expressed idea that theory amounts to nothing more than
impractical concepts developed in ivory towers, and that these concepts are, therefore, largely
useless. Instead, Lewin proposed that from a single theory, myriad applications could flow.
Presented below are eight CL principles from which many, many CL techniques have been
developed, with each technique open to multiple variations.
1. Positive Interdependence. This principle has already been discussed extensively. In a
nutshell, positive interdependence provides the glue that holds groups together.
2. Individual Accountability. While positive interdependence provides support to all
group members, individual accountability provides the pressure. Everyone needs to do
their fair share in the group. They also need to let others know what they know and do
not know, what they can and cannot do.
3. Equal Opportunity to Participate. Individual accountability encourages everyone to
do their fair share, and equal opportunity to participate means that no one dominates
the group, impeding the participation of others. Instead, everyone has a chance.
However, equal opportunity to participate does not mean everyone must participate
equally. What it does mean is that everyone needs to be able to contribute according to
their comfort level.
4. Maximum Peer Interactions. This principle has two meanings. First, a large quantity
of peer interactions take place. For instance, not only do students work in small groups
of two-four members, but sometimes, after interacting with groupmates, instead of
reporting to the teacher and the entire class, groups report to other groups or individuals,
thereby laying the groundwork for many more simultaneous peer interactions. The
second meaning of “maximum” focuses on the quality of the peer interactions, that is,
to what extent students are using thinking skills and social skills.
5. Group Autonomy. This principle asks the question, “To whom do students look when
they need help: their groupmates or their teachers?” Teachers are still there to scaffold
for students, but the first option should be peers.
6. Heterogeneous Grouping. Classrooms are diverse in many ways, such as past
achievement, age, gender, social class, and ethnicity. The principle of heterogeneous
grouping suggests that groups usually should reflect the diversity of the class (e.g.,
relatively higher and lower achievers should be present in each group).
7. Teaching Social Skills. As noted above, the use of social skills enhances group
effectiveness, and students’ possession and use of these skills often need to be
encouraged. Examples of the many important social skills include thanking others,
praising others, giving reasons for responses, and disagreeing politely.
7
8. Cooperation as a Value. In keeping with the ideas of Dewey, the feeling of positive
interdependence should be constantly expanded to encompass an ever-larger portion of
the world’s population. An example can be seen with the COVID-19 pandemic. As
long as the virus survives anywhere in the world, the potential remains for it to resurface
all over the world. Thus, helping people in poor countries obtain vaccines also helps
people in the donor countries.
Later in the article, we will see how CL techniques incorporate the first four principles in the
above list.
Extensive Reading
What Is Extensive Reading?
Sometimes, a good way to understand a concept begins with understanding what that concept
is not. Extensive reading (ER) is not intensive reading (IR). IR has three main characteristics.
First, the texts are at students’ instructional reading level, which means that students can only
understand them with assistance, usually from teachers. The other two reading levels are (1)
frustrational, that is, even with teacher assistance, students will have difficulty understanding
the texts, and (2) independent, that is, students can understand the texts on their own, maybe
not every word, but the main ideas. A second characteristic of IR is that the reading texts used
are relatively short texts, texts that can be read and discussed in one class period. This gives
teachers time to explain vocabulary, grammar, and other features, such as text structure. A third
IR characteristic, which flows from the first two, is that IR fits with teacher-centered
instruction. That is, teachers are key, as they choose what is to be read, teachers are necessary
to students’ understanding of texts, and they decide what activities the class does before,
during, and after reading.
In contrast, ER fits, like CL, in the student-centered learning paradigm (to be explained
shortly). In ER, texts are at students’ independent reading level, thereby making teachers less
necessary, but still very useful. In ER, students are free to read anywhere, anytime, not just in
class during the class period. In this way, ER greatly expands the quantity of reading students
do. As a result, students obtain large quantities of what researchers call comprehensible input
(Extensive Reading Foundation, 2021; Krashen, 1985): input because it comes in to students’
brains through their eyes when students read ordinary books and through their ears when they
use audio books, and comprehensible because the books are at students’ independent reading
level (see also Renandya & Jacobs, 2016). Whereas with IR, the emphasis lies with conscious
learning of vocabulary or grammar taught by teachers, in ER, subconscious learning comes to
the fore. Because the reading is at students’ independent reading level, the large quantities of
comprehensible input power acquisition of vocabulary, grammar, spelling, and even text
structure (Krashen, 2011).
The above should not be seen as disparaging IR. IR can play an important role in
students’ reading development, as skills and knowledge learned during IR can be applied
during ER. The point being made is that IR should not dominate; ER should. To summarize,
ER has three main characteristics: the materials are not too difficult; students read a large
amount; the conscious focus is on meaning, not on learning the elements of language, although
that will happen subconsciously.
8
Theories
Many theories underpin the use of ER. However, this article focuses on Social Constructivist
Theory, as that theory links closely to student-centered learning, thereby highlighting
commonalities between ER and CL. Table 1 contrasts features of teacher-centered and student-
centered learning.
Table 1
Category Teacher-Centered
dispensed by teaching
disagree. Students and teachers share
the excitement of learning.
teachers.
interaction.
study.
and how they study.
selves, and their classes
lives.
Motivation Extrinsic motivation is key. Intrinsic motivation is key.
9
and Understanding questions.
in Bloom’s Taxonomy.
As noted previously, in Social Constructivist Theory, learners, not teachers, are core. At the
same time, teachers remain crucial, but take on more of a facilitation role. Actually, according
to the theory, whether to be teacher centered or student centered is not really a choice for
teachers, because the science tells us that learning takes place via student-centered
mechanisms, regardless of what teachers do. Thus, the decision for teachers lies in whether or
not they want to ignore reality or to work with it.
As can be seen in Table 1, CL resides very much in the student-centered camp, as via
CL students use peer power to learn, to decide what and how to learn, to do assessment, to do
higher order thinking, and to discuss feelings. ER resides in the same student-centered camp,
as students have more power over what they read, what they do after reading, and how they
think about what they read. Thus, CL and ER are best seen not as two separate, distinct
methods, but inhabiting the same student-centered space. Furthermore, both methods promote
intrinsic motivation (Dörnyei, 1997), although there can be a place for extrinsic motivation,
especially as a way to lead students toward intrinsic motivation. For example, some students
may initially be reluctant readers, who may only read for grades or other rewards. Teachers
hope that once they begin reading with books that match their interests and reading level, these
reluctant readers will enjoy that process so much that reading will become its own reward. That
is, the rewards serve as a form of scaffolding, which is gradually removed. As a saying in
education puts it, “Every student is a good reader when they have the right book.”
Principles of ER
Here are ten principles of ER. These principles include and expand on the three central
characteristics of ER explained earlier.
1. Comprehensible Input. Reading materials can be understood by the students reading
them. For example, some ER programs use “graded readers,” e.g., books originally
written to be at a particular graded reading level indicated on a book’s cover (e.g., Level
3 or Level 5). Other graded readers are modified versions of books written for more
proficient, more experienced readers of the same language.
2. Students Choose What To Read. This principle is sometimes violated when an entire
class reads the same book, but the standard mode of ER is for each student to choose
their own books, thereby matching their interests and reading level. Furthermore, even
when everyone reads the same book, students’ interests and reading levels are
considered. For instance, when one of the authors of the present article was 14 years
old, his class read a graded reader version of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, a play
in which the main characters were also teenagers.
3. Large Amounts of Reading Materials Are Available. If every student is to be able
to choose the right books for them, a large variety of books must be available.
Fortunately, the internet can help in this regard. For example, one of the authors of this
article was recently rereading one of his favorite books, Charlotte’s Web, online with a
nephew of his.
10
4. ER Is Great in Any Language. People who are enthusiastic and skilled readers in any
language are more likely to be enthusiastic, skilled readers in other languages (Droop
& Verhoeven, 2003). Also, a way to make a book in a second language more
understandable is to read it first in one’s first language.
5. The Focus of Reading Is Meaning. In this case, the primary purpose of reading is not
for learning a language; the primary purpose is to understand the world, to enjoy
reading, and to gain information.
6. Post-Reading Tasks Are Not Required. The stereotypical post-reading task was to do
a book report. Unfortunately, many students found this task so onerous that it
discouraged reading. Happily, many less onerous, perhaps even enjoyable, post-reading
tasks exist, or rather than doing any post-reading task, students can instead begin
reading another book or reread the book they just finished.
7. Reading Is Normally Silent. Reading aloud can be fun, and teachers can read aloud
excerpts from a book to “sell” students on reading the entire book silently. On the rare
occasions that students are asked to read aloud, they should be given time to prepare to
read aloud well.
8. Teachers Should Guide Reading. This guidance can consist of suggesting books that
suit particular students. Also, teachers can look out for students for whom ER does not
seem to be working and then intervene to help.
9. Teachers Are Role Models. Students should know that teachers are enthusiastic
readers, either of the same books students are reading or of books that fit each teacher’s
particular interests.
10. Peers Can Also Motivate Reading. As will be discussed in the next section of this
article, peers can motivate each other to do ER in such ways as offering reading
suggestions, enhancing comprehension, and providing a listening ear for sharing about
what students have read.
How Peers Support Individual Reading
This section of the article lists five ways in which peers can collaborate in CL groups to
encourage each other to read more and to gain more from their reading.
Peers as Motivators for ER. One slogan used in ER states that “A reading habit is caught, not
taught. Infect your students.” Principle 9 above about teachers as role models for ER reflects
this slogan. However, most classrooms have only one teacher. “Infections” can occur more
quickly if peers are also striving to infect each other. Fortunately, unlike COVID-19 infections,
infections with the joy of reading offer a lifetime of benefits to students.
Peers as Sources of Ideas on What to Read. Students often give each other recommendations
on a wide variety of topics, ranging from food to recreation to family relations. These
recommendations can cover what to do and what to avoid doing. In the same way, students can
advise each other on what to read and what to avoid reading. In a similar way, the internet is
full of ratings sites. Book advice can function somewhat like the “caught not taught” slogan
above; if peers are enthusiastic about a particular book, they can recommend it to their
classmates.
Peers as Tutors. Yes, ER materials should be in students’ ZPDs, that is, not too difficult.
However, perhaps some students may be so keen on reading a particular book that they attempt
it even though it is above their current reading level. Peers can help here, and not just with
vocabulary, but also with background knowledge. For example, a book might be set in a
particular country that some peers know little about, certain scientific knowledge may be
11
important to a fuller understanding of the book, or maybe peers have seen the film version of
a book and can add information.
Peers as Creators of ER Materials. Students alone, in groups, or even as an entire class can
create books. Book creation works especially well with younger students who are reading
shorter books. In the case of older, more proficient students looking to read longer books,
students can combine to create anthologies, for example, of scary stories. ICT (Internet
Communication Technology) offers many tools for creating awesome looking books, and so
many ways, such as social media, exist for sharing books (Ivone et al., 2020). Students may be
especially interested to see what peers have created, and students can also share books with
family members.
Peers as Audiences for Sharing about Books. A Native American proverb states that, “To
have joy one must share it. Happiness was born a twin.” Reading becomes more engaging when
people have ways to share about what they have read. For example, people join book clubs and
literature circles (Shelton-Strong, 2012). Teachers can ask students about what they are
reading, but peers greatly outnumber teachers, and the hope is that book discussions begun as
a class activity will be continued after class, and that books and the ideas, events, and characters
in books of any language will generate ongoing discussions among students.
Ways to Combine CL and ER. CL techniques are generic. They can be used to teach any
subject and skill, from Chemistry to Chinese, from reading to beading, at any level. The
remainder of this article describes three CL techniques and gives examples of how to combine
the techniques with ER, as well as explaining how the techniques embody CL principles.
CL and ER When Students All Read the Same Book. One of our favorite CL techniques is
Everyone Can Explain. We like it because explanations play such an important role in learning,
and while explanations are important with all CL techniques, Everyone Can Explain puts
“explain” right in the name of the technique. Here are the steps in the technique, which can be
done in groups of 2, 3, or 4 members. In the example below, a group of four is used:
1. Students each have a number: 1, 2, 3, or 4.
2. Teachers ask a question, and students discuss, deciding on an answer and an
explanation of that answer.
3. The group checks that everyone in the group can give and explain their group’s
answer, or perhaps the group has multiple answers.
4. The teacher calls a number, 1, 2, 3, or 4, and the person with that number gives and
explains their group’s answer(s).
Examples of questions or tasks that could be used with Everyone Can Explain if the
entire class had read Romeo and Juliet include:
a. Make a plan for stopping the fighting between Juliet’s family and Romeo’s family.
b. Are Juliet and Romeo too young to fall in love? Instead, should they focus on their
studies, their hobbies, or doing projects to help people or others, such as nonhuman
animals, where they live?
c. If the play happened today, how would it be different?
d. Create your own question or task.
12
Table 2 looks at how the first four CL principles come to life in Everyone Can Explain.
Table 2
CL Principle The Principle in Everyone Can Explain
Maximum Peer Interactions Many peer interactions take place while
students discuss in their groups (quantity).
Students need to do higher order thinking to
respond to the questions/tasks (quality).
Equal Opportunity to Participate Students do not know who will be called;
so, they need to check everyone in their
group to see if they are ready to give and
explain answers/responses.
must answer. This contrasts with what often
happens in non-CL groups, where the star of
the group always answers.
Positive Interdependence If someone gives what is judged to be a
good answer and explanation, that person is
not praised; their partners are praised for
helping them prepare to give a good
answer/explanation. In other words, the
group sinks or swims together.
CL and ER When Students Each Read a Different Book
The standard practice in ER is for each student to read a different book, according to their
interests and reading level. In such cases, many CL techniques can be used. Here are two of
them: Circle of Speakers and Circle of Interviewers.
Circle of Speakers
Circle of Speakers is an easy-to-use CL technique that can be used in groups of 2, 3, or 4. Here,
it will be modified, as all CL techniques can be. The basic procedure for Circle of Speakers as
seen in a group of three is:
1. Everyone has a number: 1, 2, or 3.
2. Students take turns to speak. They can go around the circle multiple times.
3. The teacher calls a number, and the person with that number shares their partners’
answers.
13
An example of what students can talk about when doing Circle of Speakers after each reads
different books is that each student can make a bookmark to represent an important character,
event, idea, or place in the book they read. When it is their turn to speak, they stand, and show
and explain their bookmark. Groupmates ask questions. Teachers might want to demonstrate
this with two students to assist students in understanding how to do the bookmarks, the talk
based on the bookmarks, and the questions about their partners’ books. Table 3 looks at how
the first four CL principles come to life in Circle of Speakers.
Table 3
CL Principle The Principles in Circle of Speakers
Maximum Peer Interactions In a class of 48 students sitting in groups of
three, potentially 16 peer interactions are
happening at the same time (quantity). Tasks
can be designed so that student need to do
higher order thinking (quality).
Equal Opportunity to Participate Students take turns to speak, and everyone
has a turn.
Individual Accountability When it is someone’s turn, they face pressure
to speak, although if they are having trouble,
their groupmates can help them.
Positive Interdependence Students need their groupmates to say
something so that if they are called by the
teacher, they have something to share.
Circle of Interviewers
Circle of Interviewers demonstrates one way in which to mobilize the CL principle of
Maximum Peer Interactions by having groups report to other groups, instead of the usual
practice of groups reporting to the teacher and the rest of the class. Circle of Interviewers is
normally done in groups of four divided initially into groups of two. The basic procedure for
Circle of Interviewers is:
1. Students begin in pairs, with each person interviewing their partner.
2. Two pairs combine. Each student takes a turn to report to the other pair what they
learned about the book their partner read.
3. Students ask questions about the books the other pair read. They can also discuss
such matters as: (a) have they read the same book or a similar book?; (b) would they
like to read one of the books read by the other members of their foursome?; and (c) do
14
they have book recommendations for the other members of their foursome? Adding
“Why?” to any question provides a good way to raise questions’ thinking level.
Before doing the interviews, teachers might want to lead students to brainstorm possible
interview questions, although students should always have the flexibility to add, subtract, and
modify questions based on their own interests and the books read by their partners. Possible
interview questions include:
• Did you enjoy it? Why or Why not?
• To whom might you recommend this book?
• Which person in the book is least like you?
• Would the book be different if it happened in a different time or place, such as in the
present and in the place where we live?
• Would you like to change the ending of this book? What might happen in a sequel to
this book?
• What emotions did you experience while reading this book, such as fear, excitement,
boredom, happiness, regret, sadness, pessimism, optimism?
With Circle of Interviewers, it might be useful to give time limits to encourage all groups to
end at more or less the same time. Please remember that often the group that finishes last has
done the task the best, because they might have had the most in-depth discussions. Table 4
looks at how the first four CL principles come to life in Circle of Interviewers.
Table 4
CL Principle The Principles in Circle of Interviewers
Maximum Peer Interactions In a class of 48 students sitting in groups of
two, potentially 24 peer interactions are
happening at the same time (quantity).
Students need to do higher-order thinking to
answer most of the interview questions
(quality).
Equal Opportunity to Participate Everyone has an opportunity to do the three
roles of interviewer, interviewee, and
reporter of what they learned in their
interview.
Individual Accountability Students need to play all three roles, as well
as the role of the reader. If they do not play
those roles well, their partners can see. Thus,
students face pressure.
15
Positive Interdependence Each student is essential to the success of the
group. Each students’ experience is
diminished if their groupmates do not do the
tasks well. Therefore, students may want to
take steps to motivate and otherwise scaffold
for groupmates.
Conclusion: Facilitating Conjunctions of Readers
In this article, we have considered how ER offers an important means for students to be
independent learners. Our central argument is, however, that CL allows and encourages these
independent learners to work together. While reading is often seen as a solitary or even anti-
social act, we hope we have made clear how using CL principles and techniques in the
classroom helps to strengthen the social element of students’ reading. We have illustrated how
this can be done through three CL techniques, Everyone Can Explain, Circle of Speakers, and
Circle of Interviewers, and explained how these techniques embody CL principles.
The focus of ER is on the unconscious acquisition of vocabulary, grammar, and other
language elements. IR can supplement ER via teacher instruction and conscious learning, for
example, of the names of parts of speech, including noun, verb, and conjunction. In this article,
we have focused on another meaning of conjunction, not as a part of speech, but as a part of
life, as a way to bolster the social element of reading and other activities. Reading, as many of
us agree, is like an infectious disease: it is caught from others, not taught by others. Just as
happiness was born a twin, we believe combining CL and ER makes the whole process more
creative, engaging, and enjoyable.
2. Reading in a Foreign Language (journal): https://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/
References
Abramczyk, A., & Jurkowski, S. (2020). Cooperative learning as an evidence-based teaching
strategy: What teachers know, believe, and how they use it. Journal of Education for
Teaching, 46(3), 296-308.
Berkman, E. T., & Wilson, S. M. (2021). So useful as a good theory? The practicality crisis
in (social) psychological theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620969650
Chau, M. H., & Kerry, T. (Eds.). (2008). International perspectives on education.
Bloomsbury Publishing.
Chen, R. (2021). A review of cooperative learning in EFL Classroom. Asian
Pendidikan, 1(1), 1-9.
Cozolino, L. (2013). The social neuroscience of education: Optimizing attachment &
learning in the classroom. W.W. Norton.
Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129–152.
16
Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. The School Journal, 54, 77–80.
Dewey, J. (1929). Democracy and education. Macmillan.
Dörnyei, Z. (1997). Psychological processes in cooperative language learning: Group
dynamics and motivation. Modern Language Journal, 81, 482–493.
Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2003). Language proficiency and reading ability in firstand
secondlanguage learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(1), 78-103.
Extensive Reading Foundation. (2021). Guide to extensive reading.
https://erfoundation.org/guide/ERF_Guide.pdf
Ivone, F. M., Jacobs, G. M., & Santosa, M. H. (2020). Information and Communication
Technology to help students create their own books the dialogic way. Beyond
Words, 8(2), 78-91.
Jacobs, G. M. (2014a). Collaborative learning or cooperative learning? The name is not
important; Flexibility is. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED574149
Jacobs, G. M. (2014b). Quotes on cooperative learning and education generally.
http://www.academia.edu/3460176/Quotes_about_cooperative_learning_and_education
_generally
Jacobs, G. M., & Chau, M. H. (2021). Two approaches for promoting student centered
language learning: Cooperative learning and positive psychology. Beyond Words, 9(1),
1-15. https://doi.org/10.33508/bw.v9i1.3042
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A
meta-analysis. University of Minnesota.
Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman.
Krashen, S.D. (2011). Free voluntary reading. ABC-CLIO.
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. McGraw Hill.
Lieberman, M. (2013, October). https://erfoundation.org/guide/ERF_Guide.pdf [Video].
TED Conferences.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNhk3owF7RQ&ab_channel=TEDxTalks
Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. D. Van Nostrand Company.
Murphey, T. (2016). Four social neuroscience on-going requisites for effective collaborative
learning and the altruistic turn. TESL-EJ, 19(4). http://www.tesl-
ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume19/ej76/ej76a4
Renandya, W. A., & Jacobs, G. M. (2016). Extensive reading and listening in the L2
classroom. In W. A. Renandya, & P. Handoyo (Eds.), English language teaching today
(pp. 97-110). Routledge.
Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to learn. Merrill.
Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on
achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research, 50(2),
241-271.
Shelton-Strong, S. J. (2012). Literature circles in ELT. ELT Journal, 66(2), 214-223.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Ed. by M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E.
Souberman). Harvard University Press.
Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., De, T., Chan, A. G., Freund, D., Shein, P., & Melkonian, D. K.
(2009). ‘Explain to your partner’: Teachers' instructional practices and students'
dialogue in small groups. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 49-70. DOI:
10.1080/03057640802701986
Willis, J. (2007). Cooperative learning is a brain turn-on. Middle School Journal, 38(4), 4-13.
17
About the Authors
Dr. George M. JACOBS has published and taught widely on student-centered learning,
environmental education, the shift toward a post-positivist paradigm, and activism for animals.
Currently, he is co-editing Being a Community Engaged Educator for Springer. He has served
on the boards of local and international organizations in the Education and Charity sectors,
including Extensive Reading Foundation, International Association for the Study of
Cooperation in Education, International Ecolinguistics Association, International Vegetarian
Union, Centre for a Responsible Future, and Kampung Senang Charity and Education
Foundation. George’s current research and publication projects involve B12 fortification of
foods, memoir writing by seniors, the role of English as a Foreign Language in meritocracy,
the use of the relative pronoun “who” to refer to nonhuman animals, conservation of aquatic
animals, and community gardens.
(email: [email protected])
Dr. Meng Huat CHAU is Senior Lecturer at Universiti Malaya (UM), where he teaches and
mentors students conducting research in Applied Linguistics. Before joining UM to take up a
fellowship in 2010, he spent over ten years working with students, teachers, and teacher
educators from primary and secondary schools as well as from other universities. He is
currently Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Modern Languages (see https://jml.um.edu.my/).
He also holds adjunct and visiting appointments at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies
and De La Salle University-Dasmariñas. Meng Huat’s main areas of research are corpus
linguistics and educational linguistics, spanning learner corpus research, Second Language
Acquisition, Global Englishes, multilingualism, and language education with a focus on
agency, feedback, and student engagement. His more recent research and writing consider the
contribution of Applied Linguistics to a better, more sustainable world.
(email: [email protected])
Acknowledgments
This article is based on a workshop on extensive reading and cooperative learning given at the
3rd Linguistic Society of the Philippines International Conference (LSPIC2021) held on March
11-13, 2021. We wish to thank the participants for their enthusiasm and feedback.
Declaration of Possible Conflict of Interest
18
Philip Rentillo1
[email protected]
Abstract
Syntactic ambiguity resolution is a cognitive mechanism that interacts with a range of linguistic
skills vital to comprehension. Research in this area has, for most of the time, involved European
languages. Meanwhile, there is scant literature on a vast range of languages that possess distinct
typological features that may hold an important role in unique and underexplored syntactic
processes. Basing upon the Garden-Path Model, this study identifies attachment preference in
two less explored languages, Tagalog and Kinaray-a, and in L2 English through relative clause
parsing experiments. This also attempts to determine whether adjectival modification of noun
phrases has a relationship with attachment preference scores. Chi-square tests of independence
were conducted on experimental data and revealed a minimal relationship between select types
of relative clauses according to adjectival modification and attachment preference. Data show
contrasting patterns between Tagalog and Kinaray-a groups, where the former marginally lean
towards low attachment (N2) and the latter towards high attachment (N1). Similar to Kinaray-
a L2 English attachment preference takes the N1 path, a contradiction to past findings on L1
English.
preferences
Introduction
Sentence comprehension is one of the main concerns in L1 and L2 language processing since
it involves a complex process of grammatico-semantic decoding. This requires not just word
order and grammatical harmony but also word meaning (Carreiras & Clifton, 1999). Such an
issue has been found to be ubiquitous in natural language. Experimental research has already
investigated several areas within syntactic processing, such as noun phrase-complement
relationship, prepositional phrases, and verb attachment. Some of these studies have attempted
to resolve issues in structural ambiguity, particularly of complex noun phrases (NP) with
prepositional phrases (PP). A notable example would be:
(1) I saw the man with the telescope.
It is explained by Hindle and Rooth (1991) that the PP with the telescope could be
interpreted to be either (a) that the man was seen through the telescope, or (b) that the man has
a telescope with him. Several proposals have been forwarded in order to resolve this ambiguity.
Among them is a discourse model used to understand discourse context (Altmann & Steedman,
1988). A challenge with context interpretation is the difficulty in developing computational
Corresponding Author: Philip Rentillo Author’s Affiliation: De La Salle University
2401 Taft Avenue, Manila, Philippines
Email Address: [email protected]
19
models which can easily analyze semantic and pragmatic elements within and across sentences.
Another proposal that is much simpler but less explanatory is a structure-based framework,
which looks at constituency attachments. Two notable suggestions within this vein are
Kimball’s (1973) right association model, which predicts noun attachment, and Frazier’s
(1978) minimal attachment model, which predicts verb attachment (Frazier, 1987; Rayner et
al., 1983). However, the weakness in these structural models is that they do not at all provide
a description of human behavior within discourse, which the equally problematic context
framework aims to resolve.
Language users are also said to employ ambiguity resolution via lexical preference
(Hindle & Rooth, 1991; Taraban & McClelland, 1988). Hindle and Rooth (1991) cited the
potential of prepositional attachments based on textual distribution. In their paper, it was
suggested that the use of concurrence of prepositions with other grammatical units (e.g., to PP
is frequently attached to send NP; from PP to withdrawal VP) could be used to identify whether
an association source is used to relate to a complement or a modifier among other types.
Two primary competing models have emerged in an attempt to explain syntactic
ambiguity resolution through parsing mechanisms. These are the Garden-Path Model (GPM)
and the Constraint-Based Model (CBM). GPM argues that misanalysis occurs because
linguistic processing is reliant upon universal principles favoring the attachment of segments
to the most immediate structure. Meanwhile, CBM argues that lexical units employ certain
constraints as manifested in verb bias and thematic plausibility. A strong version claims that
parsing is not structurally defined but rather lexical.
Nonetheless, there remains little consensus on which models provide better
explanations for such parsing processes (Marefat & Nushi, 2005). While parsing preferences
could be affected by linguistic structural complexity, it is agreed that larger governing
components are domain general mechanisms such as locality. The influence of locality is not
syntactically biased as what GPM initially presents. Instead of language-specific structural
motivations, it is rather cognitive or “reflective of a domain-general principle applicable to any
serialized information processing” (Grodner et al., 2002, p. 269).
One of the most extensively explored areas of syntactic processing regarding ambiguity
resolution is relative clause (RC) parsing. Recent studies have determined that L1 parsing
preferences vary depending on the language. Among them are Greek, French, German, Dutch,
and Spanish groups who have a higher propensity to favor early closure/high attachment (N1).
This is compared to English (Dussias, 2003, 2004), Brazilian, Portuguese, and Norwegian
speakers (Dussias & Guzzardo Tamargo, 2012), who lean towards late closure/low attachment
(N2). To elaborate on this, take for example the English sentence:
(2) Peter fell in love with the daughter of the psychologist who studied in California.
The question here is how an L1 speaker would parse the RC who studied in California. Based
on the theories on parser preference, the said clause would either be associated to N1
attachment or it was the daughter who studied in California, or to N2 attachment or it was the
psychologist who did. As such, this matter of scrutiny would be the focus of this paper as
further inquiry truly is needed to fully understand the nature of syntactic processing as
demonstrated through sentence parsing.
Another proposal to explain attachment preference is through adjectival modification.
Gilboy et al. (1995) argue that adjective modification of an NP creates an emphasizing effect
20
of the N’ node, which is processed to be the dominant referent of the RC. This can be explained
via the minimal attachment principle wherein the X-bar schema opens once an adjective is
attached to an NP node. This effect has been previously seen by Rodriguez (2004) among
native speakers of Spanish and L2 learners of Spanish. Since the L2 group’s L1 is English
which prefers an N2 bias, it was found that modification depending on the NP relates to higher
attachment preference.
The Present Study
Using Frazier and Clifton’s (1996) Construal Hypothesis, this study attempted to provide a
descriptive investigation of Tagalog, Kinaray-a, and English sentence parsing among bilingual
Filipinos. Based on the said hypothesis, an offshoot of the earlier Garden Path Model (Frazier,
1978 as cited in Dussias, 2004), two principles guide syntactic analysis: these are the minimal
attachment and late closure. While minimal attachment signifies how the parser seeks to
achieve the economy of syntactic nodes, late closure pertains to how immediate the structural
connections are to each other to create new structures. Thus, both components are essential in
efficient syntactic processing.
The Construal Hypothesis (not to be confused with Constraint-Based Model) argues
that the parser should be able to distinguish two syntactic components: [a] the primary and [b]
the nonprimary structures. The former refers to the relationship between the agency (verb) and
the core argument; primary structures are analyzed in accordance with universal parsing
mechanisms such as the concept of late closure. Meanwhile, the latter refers to peripheral
components such as adjuncts and modifiers. Analysis of such nonprimary phrases relies upon
thematic associations (Frazier & Clifton, 1996). Applying these concepts to RC parsing, the
analysis of components would be anchored upon the Referentiality Principle. This principle,
as believed to be a universal phenomenon, argues that there would be a higher tendency for N1
or high attachment since the core argument (i.e., the daughter) serves as the head of the
complex NP (i.e., the daughter of the psychologist). However, this is not the case in English as
parser tendency follows N2 attachment. This is then justified through the interpretative
principle of the Gricean maxims, whereby English is said to grammaticize certain thematic or
semantic intentions. Typical in English RCs is the attachment of either the so-called Saxon
genitive (‘s possessive) and the Norman genitive (of possessive). Applying English-specific
maxims, the Saxon structure would likely be used if the intention is to emphasize the noun
most immediate to the RC (e.g., the psychologist’s daughter who…). On the other hand, N2
preference is explained by the use of the Norman structure (e.g., the daughter of the
psychologist), which provides emphasis to the NP (i.e., the psychologist), which is nearer to
the RC.
There is scant literature exploring the mechanisms of L2 parsing. It is said that various
factors such as proficiency and length of exposure to the target language are predictive of
parsing behavior which at times could result in native-like parsing tendencies (Dussias, 2003).
In some cases, L2 learners do demonstrate L1-like processing. For instance, it was found that
post-puberty L2 learners of French (Frenck-Mestre & Pynte, 1997) and highly proficient
speakers of L2 French (Hoover & Dwivedi, 1998) exhibited syntactic analysis patterns akin to
their L1 peers. However, Papadopoulou and Clahsen (2003) found contradicting patterns
among Spanish, German, and Russian L2 learners of Greek (Papadopoulou & Clahsen, 2003).
Meanwhile, Marefat and Nushi (2005) found that Korean L2 speakers of English were
unaffected by verb-specific information in ambiguity resolution tasks. Instead, they took longer
to process sentence complements and that-complements more than NP complements. This
21
suggests that resolution processes may not be predicted by linguistic constraints, and thus could
be governed by garden-path mechanisms.
Based on the discussion above, much more empirical efforts are needed to expand our
understanding of ambiguity resolution from a cross-linguistic perspective. The majority of
literature on parsing preferences has been concentrated on Indo-European languages, which
could be said to have similar or related syntactic structures and semantic paradigms. This
warrants further investigation on typologically different families such as Austronesian, which
features SVO and VSO languages with unique morphosyntactic structures and focus systems
not found in languages that are well-represented in the existing literature. Hence, this study
attempts to answer the following questions:
a) Which attachment is more preferred during syntactic ambiguity resolution tasks in L1
Tagalog, L1 Kinaray-a, and L2 English?
b) Is there a significant relationship between attachment preference and adjectival
modification of relative clause noun phrases in L1 Tagalog and L1 Kinaray-a parsing
tasks?
c) Is there a significant relationship between attachment preference and adjectival
modification of relative clause noun phrases in L2 English parsing tasks?
Methods
Participants
A primary goal of this paper is to investigate syntactic ambiguity resolution in less tested
languages. I looked into two closely related Austronesian languages, namely Tagalog (ISO
639-3: TAG) and Kinaray-a (ISO 639-3: KRJ), apart from L2 English parsing. This study thus
involved a total of one twenty-eight (128) respondents. Sixty-eight were students from a
university in Manila, with 34 of which underwent a Tagalog RC ambiguity resolution test
(TAG) and another 34 an English text (ENG). Another group of 60 students came from a
university in San Jose Buenavista in Antique, Philippines. All of them undertook a Kinaray-a
test (KRJ). All participants had no background in linguistics and were not taking a language or
linguistics-related program before and during the course of this study.
Instruments and Procedures
This study made use of a pen-and-paper task; this contained thirty-five (35) items. This task
was produced in Tagalog, Kinaray-a, and English versions. The first two versions are
translations of the original English instrument. Each test contained a total of eighteen (18)
target sentences and seventeen (17) distractor sentences. The target sentences were structured
according to three relative clauses (RC) types, namely unmodified noun phrases (UNP), first
RC noun phrase modified with an adjective (MNP1), and second RC noun phrase modified
with an adjective (MNP2) with six items each. Table 1 below presents examples in Tagalog,
Kinaray-a, and English for each RC type sans distraction items.
22
TAG
UNP Pinakasalan ni Peter ang anak ng doktor na nag-aral sa California.
MNP1 Binitbit ni Tony ang payat na anak ng tatay na may sakit.
MNP2 Kinawayan ng alkalde ang kawani ng matabang gobernador na may dalang maleta.
KRJ
UNP Nagpakasal si Peter sa bata ka doktor nga nag-eskwela sa California.
MNP1 Gindara ni Tony ang niwang nga bata ka ana tatay nga may sakit.
MNP2 Namaypay ang mayor sa opisyal ka tambok nga gobernadora nga nagadara ka
bagahe.
ENG
UNP Peter married the daughter of the doctor who studied in California.
MNP1 Tony carried the thin child of the father who is sick.
MNP2 The mayor waved at the officer of the fat governor who carried a luggage.
All tests were divided into four subgroups wherein each had their item sequences
randomized (n = 8 subgroups). Response patterns were likewise randomized wherein N1, and
N2 answers did not consistently appear on the first and second choices, correspondingly. All
subgroups were made sure to contain all 18 target sentences. Upon screening, participants were
asked to take the relative clause parsing task altogether in a classroom. All of them were
informed that the task is a memorization and logic test. Some examples in Tagalog, Kinaray-
a, and English are indicated in (3), (4), and (5), respectively:
(3) Binaril ng lalaki ang nanay ng aktres na diborsyada.
Question: Sino ang diborsyada?
Choice 1: Ang aktres ang diborsyada.
Choice 2: Ang nanay ang diborsyada.
(4) Gintiro ka laki ang nanay ka artista nga ginbulagan ka ana bana.
Question: Sin-o ang ginbulagan ka ana bana?
Choice 1: Ang artista ang ginbulagan ka ana bana.
Choice 2: Ang nanay ang ginbulagan ka ana bana.
(5) A man shot the mother of the actress who was divorced.
Question: Who was divorced?
Choice 1: The actress was divorced.
Choice 2: The mother was divorced.
The said test was answered by shading a circle corresponding to each question under each
sentence.
Data Analyses
Data were transcribed on Microsoft Excel with a sheet dedicated for each language data. The
x-axis represented each participant and the y-axis for each item. Data were then reorganized
and grouped into three main clusters of columns according to RC type, namely UNP, MNP1,
and MNP2. A and B responses were coded into “1” and “2,” respectively. This was necessary
since the data was run in SPSS v. 26.0.0. Since my experiment involves categorical
dichotomous data, I decided to employ a chi-square test of independence to identify differences
in N1 and N2 responses between RC types within TAG, KRJ, and ENG datasets.
23
Results and Discussion
I now present attachment preference data across the three constructions based on adjectival
modification of NPs within the relative clause, namely unmodified RC NPs (UNP), first RC
NP modified with an adjective (MNP1), and second RC NP modified with an adjective
(MNP2). For every language, the first part illustrates the overall frequencies and proportions
of N1 and N2 responses. These are followed by chi-square tests of independence to identify
significant differences across RC types.
TAG Attachment Preferences
Table 2 below presents the overall frequencies of N1 and N2 responses for the L1 Tagalog
(TAG) group. This includes the breakdown per RC Type, namely UNP, MNP1, and MNP2.
Table 2
TAG UNP TAG
N1 81 96 75 252 41.18
N2 123 108 129 360 58.82
A total of 252 N1 and 360 N2 responses were produced from a total of 612 responses
from 32 respondents answering a 35-item test. There is a marginally greater tendency for lower
attachment (N2) in Tagalog (58.82%) from face value. The chi-square test in Table 3 identifies
significant differences to further elaborate on the frequencies and possible differences.
Table 3
Variables χ2 p-value Decision on H0 Inference
TAG UNP x TAG
TAG UNP x TAG
TAG MNP1 x TAG
Note. * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01
As shown in the table above, TAG respondents have little consistency in choosing
between N1 and N2 in UNP and MNP1 items. Only attachment preferences between MNP1
and MNP2 have a significant relationship, χ2(1, N = 204) = 6.42, p = 0.011. While it seems that
N1 preference is slightly greater than N2 among the Tagalog participants, adjectival
modification of the second NP may have an impact on their answers for MNP2 items.
Nonetheless, going back to the overall frequencies, there is a consistently greater N2 preference
in this group. See Figure 1 for added visualization.
24
KRJ Attachment Preferences
Tables 4 and 5 now present findings from the L1 Kinaray-a (KRJ) group. A total of 741 N1
and 339 N2 responses were produced out of 1,080 responses from 128 participants. Frequency
proportions show an overall preference for N1 attachment (68.61%). This contrasts with
Tagalog despite that both are genetically related and typologically similar languages.
Table 4
KRJ UNP KRJ
MNP1 KRJ MNP2 Total KRJ f %
N1 262 267 212 741 68.61
N2 98 93 148 339 31.38
Table 5 below shows no significant differences between those who answered either N1
or N2 in any item category based on RC type. This may imply that while there is a significantly
greater preference for N1 in Kinaray-a relative clause parsing, NP modification (MNP1,
MNP2) may have no impact in this group regarding this type of ambiguity resolution.
Table 5
KRJ UNP x
KRJ UNP x
KRJ MNP1 x
Note. * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
N1
N2
25
ENG Attachment Preferences
Lastly, tables 6 and 7 present findings from the L2 English (ENG) group. 422 N1 and 190 N2
responses were produced out of a total of 612. Similar to the KRJ group, there is a greater
overall preference (68.95%) for N1 attachment based on the frequency proportions.
Table 6
ENG UNP ENG
MNP1 ENG MNP2 Total ENG f %
N1 143 149 130 422 68.95
N2 61 55 74 190 31.05
The chi-square tests in Table 7 show a huge difference in scores between the UNP and
MNP2 items, χ2(1, N = 204) = 11,959, p = 0.001. Two observations can be drawn from this.
First, the high N1 scores in UNP items could be due to a generally greater preference for high
attachment in sentence parsing to resolve syntactic ambiguity of English RCs among this L2
group. This could explain the second observation, which is the consistently greater N1
preference even for RCs with modified second NPs (MNP2). Refer as well to Figure 2 to see
the difference in N1 and N2 scores in both RC types.
Table 7
ENG UNP x ENG
ENG UNP x ENG
ENG MNP1 x ENG
Note. * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01
Figure 2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
N1
N2
26
Discussion
From the results, it can be presumed that there is a slight preference for low attachment (N2)
in Tagalog and a greater preference for high attachment (N1) in Kinaray-a and English. As far
as English is concerned, this is contradictory to past findings (Dussias, 2003, 2004), which
reveal English-speaking subjects exhibiting a greater preference for N2 attachment. However,
it should also be noted that previous studies have involved L1 speakers of English while this
study had L2 subjects. Therefore, it might be tempting to assume a transfer effect of the L1
into L2 parsing, but foremost, findings in the Tagalog data should be considered preliminary.
To address the second and third research questions, chi-square tests revealed a
significant relationship between attachment preference scores on relative clauses where an
adjective modifies the first noun phrases (TAG MNP1) and the second noun phrases (TAG
MNP2) in Tagalog and between scores on unmodified noun phrases (ENG UNP) and clauses
with an adjective modifying second noun phrases (ENG MNP2) in English. Recall Gilboy et
al.’s (1995) and Rodriguez’s (2004) findings where adjectival modification should draw
attachment preference to whichever NP it modifies. So far, only the findings on Tagalog MNP1
and MNP2 corroborate this. Although the Tagalog dataset shows slightly greater N2 preference
across all RC types, the N2 frequencies increased in items with MNP2. This is opposite to
Kinaray-a and English data, where N2 responses remained lower even in MNP2 items. These
RC type findings could be more of a garden-path type of effect (Marefat & Nushi, 2005), and
that linguistic constraints shared by a similar typological structure of Tagalog and Kinaray-a
may not be a factor. Nonetheless, these assumptions should be treated with grave caution since
the datasets in this study, all nominal in nature, were only quantified for relationships, not for
significant differences and effects.
Conclusion
The findings of this study in totality provide a degree of perspective with regard to L1 Tagalog,
L1 Kinaray-a, and L2 English relative clause parsing. A much more empirical basis must be
allocated to establish a firm conclusion as regards ambiguity resolution mechanisms in non-
Indo-European, non-SVO/SOV languages like Tagalog and Kinaray-a; a similar framing can
be adopted in expanding our understanding of L2 (and L3) resolution. As mentioned earlier,
the findings in Tagalog (including Kinaray-a) should be considered exploratory as there is
much need for non-categorical data to further quantify syntactic ambiguity resolution in said
language and other non-Indo-European languages. This, therefore, calls for more sophisticated
methodologies such as online experiments involving physio-cognitive indicators from eye
movement, pupil dilation, and response time during forced-choice tests or reading tasks.
Instrument construction could also benefit from the guidance of linguistic typology as the likes
of Tagalog, and many undertested languages have diverse morphosyntactic alignment systems
and information structures that may likewise affect relative clause construction and processing
(cf. Aldridge, 2017). These underexplored features might help us further understand syntactic
ambiguity resolution and determine unique patterns and mechanisms.
With the emergence and growing importance of mother tongue-based education, it is
much more imperative for many other languages to be represented in the research endeavors
of psycholinguistics. Although still preliminary, this may hopefully spur interest in
contributing more empirical understanding of less-studied languages in the greater goal of
building a stronger knowledge base on both the human linguistic faculty and the general human
cognitive facilities. These in the future may likewise provide additional support to various areas
of language education and research, such as materials development and instructional methods.
27
References
Aldridge, E. (2017). Internally and externally headed relative clauses in Tagalog. Glossa: a
journal of general linguistics, 2(1), 41. doi:10.5334/gjgl.175
Altmann, G., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence
processing. Cognition, 30(3), 191-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(88)90020-0
Carreiras, M., & Clifton, C. (1999). Another word on parsing relative clauses: Eyetracking
evidence from Spanish and English. Memory and Cognition, 27(5), 826-833.
Dussias, P. E. (2003). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in L2 learners: Some effects of
bilinguality on L1 and L2 processing strategies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
25, 529-557. https://doi.org/10.1017.S0272263103000238
Dussias, P. E. (2004). Parsing a first language like a second: The erosion of L1 parsing
strategies in Spanish-English bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism, 8(3) 355-
371.
Dussias, P. E., & Guzzardo Tamargo, R. E. (2012). Parsing sentences. In P. Robinson (Ed.),
Routledge Encyclopedia of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 475-479). Routledge.
Hindle, D., & Rooth, M. (1991). Structural ambiguity and lexical relations. Journal of
Computational Linguistics, 19(1), 103-120.
dissertation, University of Connecticut].
https://opencommons.uconn.edu/dissertations/AAI7914150/
Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and
Performance XII: The Psychology of Reading (pp. 559-586). Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Frenck-Mestre, C., & Pynte, J. (1997). Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in second
and native languages. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 119-148.
Gilboy, E., Sapena, J., Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (1995). Argument structure and association
preferences in Spanish and English compound NPs. Cognition, 54, 131-167.
Grodner, D., Gibson, E., & Tunstall, S. (2002). Syntactic complexity in ambiguity resolution.
Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 267-295. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2808
Hoover, M., & Dwivedi, V. (1998). Syntactic processing by skilled bilinguals. Language
Learning, 48, 1-29.
Kimball, J. (1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition,
2(1), 15-47.
Marefat, H., & Nushi, M. (2005). Syntactic ambiguity resolution: A case of L2 learners.
Journal of Cognitive Science, 6, 55-71.
Papadopoulou, D., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence parsing: A
study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
25(4), 501-528.
Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during
sentence processing: Eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 358-374.
Rodriguez, G. (2004). Relative clause attachment preferences in second language learners’
parsing preferences. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 10.1,
157-169.
Taraban, R., & McClelland, J. L. (1988). Constituent attachment and thematic role assignment
in sentence processing: Influences of content-based expectations. Journal of Memory
and Language, 27, 597-632.
28
Appendix
6 Tagalog conditions with unmodified NP
Pinakasalan ni Peter ang anak ng doktor na nag-aral sa California.
Binaril ng lalaki ang nanay ng aktres na diborsyada.
Binenta ng magsasaka ang bigas sa kapatid ng mangangalakal na mula Maynila.
Kinausap ni Julia ang sekretarya ng abogadong nasa bakasyon.
Hinintay ko ang ina ng paseyenteng tumira sa Tsina nang limang taon.
Binati ng pangulo ang maybahay ng punong ministrong nahuli ng dating.
6 Tagalog conditions with modified NP1
Binitbit ni Tony ang payat na anak ng tatay na may sakit.
Tinawagan ni Andres ang nagdiriwang na kapatid ni Oryang na nagtungong Antipolo.
Niyakap ni Mary ang nagluluksang kapatid ni Miguel na nakatanggap ng regalo.
Nakilala ni Charles ang Koreanong asawa ng kaniyang kababatang naghahapunan.
Nakipaglaro ang bata sa bulag na pamangkin ng mananahing nagpapahinga.
Pinagalitan ng lolo ang naguguluhang kapatid ng kaniyang asawang lumipad pa-Singapore.
6 pure Tagalog conditions with modified NP2
Hinarap ng kaklase ko ang tiyahin ng bastos na mag-aaral na nakapula.
Ipinagdasal ng pari ang asawa ng nabaliw na kapitbahay na dating naglilingkod sa taumbayan.
Kinawayan ng alkalde ang kawani ng matabang gobernador na may dalang maleta.
Pinuri ng kaniyang amo ang kasamahan ng Hapones na empleyadong natapos ang gawain.
Hindi pinansin ni Sandra ang kaibigan ng batang Amerikanong bumaba sa tren.
Inimbestigahan ng mamamahayag ang ate ng Arabong negosyenteng sangkot sa eskandalong pulitikal.
17 Tagalog distraction sentences
Kinagat ng aso ang bayaw ng mananaliksik na nakatira sa Chile kasama ng kaniyang asawa.
Nakatingin ang doktor sa nars habang tumitingin-tingin sa internet.
Nagpadala ang anak ng sekretarya ng prutas sa aming kapitbahay.
Tinunaw ng kusinero ang tsokolate sa tinapay na inihanda ni Annie sa mga panauhin.
Nahuli ang isda ng batang nakatayo banda sa punong may nakasabit na gulong.
Inabot ni Rita ang liham sa karterong napadaan sa sasakyan.
Nalaglag ang paso ng matandang babae sa kabilang bahay na dating pagmamay-ari ni G. Reyes.
Binigay ang mga damit niya sa kaniyang kapatid na mas bata nang dalawang taon.
Bumagsak si Billy sa pagsusulit na ibinigay ng guro ng kaniyang kapatid.
Nagtungo ang tiyo ko sa palengke kasama ang aming kasambahay na may bayong na pinadala ni lola.
Binilog niya ang papel at ibinato ito sa bag ng bata.
Nahuli ni Andrew ang platong nalaglag sa mesa.
Lumukso ang mga bata sa bakod na itinayo ni Gng. Chua na naninirahan sa Marikina kasama ang
kaniyang pamilya at mga alaga.
Ang limang batang nagmula sa iba’t ibang bayang napuntahan ng pinsan ko ay pumunta sa paaralan
ko.
Ang Maynila ay pinaninirahan na ng mga anak ng mga nagmula sa kanayunan.
Gumapang ang sanggol ko sa kaniyang kuyang nakikipaglaro ng video games sa kaniyang mga
kaibigan.
Itinayo ni Manuel ang kaniyang negosyo sa New York sa tulong ng kaniyang mga kaibigang lumaki
sa kahirapan sa mga barumbarong ng Mexico City.
KRJ GRoup
6 Kinaray-a conditions with unmodified NP
29
Nagpakasal si Peter sa bata ka doktor nga nag-eskwela sa California.
Gintiro ka laki ang nanay ka artista nga ginbulagan ka ana bana.
Ginbaligya ka mangunguma ang bugas sa bugto ka negosyante nga taga-Manila.
Gin-istorya ni Julia ang sekretarya ka abogado nga nagbakasyon.
Ginhulat ko ang nanay ka paseyente nga nag-istar ka lima ka tuig sa China.
Gintamyaw ka president ang sawa ka punong ministro nga urihi abot.
6 Tagalog conditions with modified NP1
Gindara ni Tony ang niwang nga bata ka ana tatay nga may sakit.
Gintawag ni Andres ang masinadyahon nga bugto ni Oryang nga nagpa-Antipolo.
Ginkup-an ni Mary ang napatyan nga bugto ni Miguel nga nakabaton ka regalo.
Nakipagkita si Charles sa Koreano nga bana ka ana abyan halin pagkabata

volume 3 issue 1 june 2021 - mjselt.com

Documents