Similarities and Differences between First and Second Language

Reading Processes

by

Etsuo Taguchi

Japan College of. Foreign Languages

-91-

ABSTRACT

This study investigates similarities and differences between first

and second language readings as well as between high and low

proficiency readers. Twenty-four Japanese learners of English at

The Pennsylvania State University participated in this study. The

subjects were divided into high and low proficiency groups based on

their recent TOEFL scores. The subjects in each group were then

matched according to their scores and assigned either an English or

a Japanese passage. The subjects read one of the two passages and

indicated their agreement or disagreement with 28 statements

about reading processes on a five-point Likert Scale. After

statistical data analyses were conducted, significant differences

were found in the reading processes of sounding out unfamiliar

words and predicting the content of a passage between first and

second language readers. High and low proficiency readers differed

significantly in the reading processes of identifying familiar words

and reading forward for further clarification. The results of the

study suggest that automaticity of decoding should be developed to

enhance reading skills in a second language.

-92-

INTRODUCTION

It has been widely observed that readers in a second language (l.:)) if, I

a foreign language spend much more time than those in a first lanquaq«

(L1) to finish the same amount of reading. This slow speed of reading IL\";

been a major problem for international students who are struggling at

colleges or universities in which English is the medium of instruction.

They have to deal with a great amount of reading assignments to do tho

course work.

There have- been some studies which analyzed the similarities and

differences between L1 and L2 readers in the use of contextual cues and

reading strategies. However, few studies have tried to identify the

similarities and differences in the reading processes of L1 and L2 readers.

LITERATURE REVIEW OF RESEARCH ON THE SIMILARITIES AND

DIFFERENCES IN THE READING PROCESS IN FIRSTAND SECONDLANGUAGES

Research on second or foreign language reading has explored the

similarities and differences between reading in a first language and in a

second or a foreign language. One of the major questions which has guidod

the studies in this field is whether reading in a second language depends

upon the reading ability in the readers' first language or the readers'

proficiency in their second language. Some researchers, such as Jolly

(1978) and Coady (1979), suggest that proficient readers in a second

language have good reading skills in their first language. They also argue

-93-

that poor readers in a second language cannot transfer their good first

language reading skills to a second language or do not possess those

skills. According to these researchers, a high level of skill in the first

language helps compensate for the lack of linguistic skill in the second

language. Other researchers, such as Clarke (1979), Cziko (1980),

Cummins (1979), Devine (1987), and Macnamara (1970), argue that reading

in a second language depends heavily on the readers' proficiency in that

language. In other words, good readers in their first language need to

develop some minimal proficiency in their second language before they can

transfer their good reading 'skills from their first language. This view is

called the "short-circuit" hypothesis of L2 reading.

In order to investigate the accuracy of this view of L2 reading, a

number of studies have been conducted. Ulijn (1978), and Ulijn and

. Kempen (1976), for example, investigated syntactical analysis of

sentences of native French speakers and native Dutch' speakers who read in

French. These studies provided some evidence supporting the view that

reading in a second language is possible without the readers' depending

much on a syntactic analysis of the text sentences. The readers' schema

supposedly compensated for lack of linguistic knowledge about their

second language. In contrast with these studies, Clarke (1978)

investigated whether adult native speakers of Spanish who were learning

English as a second language would transfer their reading skills in Spanish

-94-

to English. Clarke found that reading strategies in the readers' first

language did not transfer to their second language, thus giving support for

the "short-circult hypothesis." As Alderson (1984) points out, both these

studies had some problems with their methodology. Ulijn and Kempen

failed to study the same subjects reading in both their first and second

languages, and Clarke failed to select subjects who had different levels of

proficiency in their second language. Carrell (1988) attempted to address

these problems by investigating native speakers of Spanish and English

who were foreign or second language learners of the other language; the

subjects had different levels of proficiency in their second language. Her

findings provided evidence for both views of L2 reading: reading in a

second language depends on both the reader's L1 reading ability and his or

her L2 proficiency. Thus, her findings can be summarized in the following

equation:

L2 Reading = L1 Reading + L2 Proficiency Level

Another problem concernlnq the similarities and differences between

L1 and L2 readings concerns the differences in the processes involved in

L1 and L2 readings which are related to contextual cues, such as

syntactic, semantic, and discourse constraints. According to Cziko

(1978), syntactic constraints are provided by the preceding words and the

syntactic rules of the language. For example, in English the word "a" will

most likely be followed by a noun. Semantic constraints are constraints

-95-

provided by the meaning and selection restrictions of the preceding words.

An example of this is that lIA dog" at the beginning of a sentence will

most likely be followed by a verb or a verb phrase describing something "a

dog" is likely to do. Discourse constraints are imposed by the topic of

the text. For example, the majority of the sentences under the topic

"American football" will be related to this topic. Studying the

simultaneous use of syntactic and semantic constraints of those reading

English as a first language and French as a second language, Macnamara,

Feltin, Hew, and Klein (1968) found that the readers were less able to use

these contextual clues when reading in their second language than in their

first language. Cziko (1978) investigated the use of syntactic, semantic,

and discourse constraints by readers of French either as a first language

or a second language. Three groups of seventh-grade readers of English as

a first language and French as a second language at different proficiency

levels, and another group of native speakers of French, read a French

passage manipulated to violate syntactic, semantic, and discourse

grammar rules. Cziko found that syntactic, semantic, and discourse

constraints were utilized by the fluent L1 readers to process information

in the passage, but not by the L2 readers. Cziko suggested that the

difficulty in L2 reading may be due to the lack of ability on the part of the

L2 readers to make full use of these contextual constraints.

In order to investigate the similarities and differences in the reading

-96-

-

processes of a first and a second language, some studies have focused on

the use of reading strategies. Cohen (1986) refers to these studies in his

discussion of mentalistic measures for reading strategy research. Nevo

(cited in Cohen, 1986) used the think-aloud and self-observation

techniques to obtain data on the reading strategies used by two readers of

Hebrew as a first language and French as a foreign language. She

categorized these strategies into first-language-only strategies, foreign-

language-only strateqles, and common strategies. She found that both of

the readers performed grammatical analysis only in their foreign

language. In addition, both readers used only one strategy exclusively in

their L1 reading: One reader asked himself questions about the. author's

intentions, and the other reader pronounced aloud unfamiliar words and

expressions.

Sarig (1987) conducted one of the most extensive studies on reading

strategies. Using the think-aloud technique, Sarig studied ten high-school

readers of Hebrew as a first tanquaqe and English as a foreign language.

The subjects read texts in both Hebrew and English. Both texts were

equated for difficulty based on an expert's judgment. The subjects

represented three levels of proficiency. Sarig identified four types of

reading "moves" or strategies from protocol analysis:· technical-aid

moves, clarification moves, coherence-detecting moves, and monitoring

moves.

-97-

The technical-aid moves are used to help the reader facilitate the

processing of the text. Skimming, marking key elements in the text, and

taking notes are examples of these strategies. The clarification and

simplification moves are used for clarifying and/ or simplifying the text.

They include increasing redundancy level by simplifying the text

syntactically, and using various types of paraphrases. The coherence­

detecting moves are types of strategies readers use to make the text

meaningful. The use of content schemata, ldentificatlon of key

information in the text, and the use of rhetorical structures are examples

of the strategies included in this category. Finally, the monitoring moves

are used to check comprehension and in the process of adoptin.g repair

strategies. These strategies include adjusting the reading rate to the

difficulty of the text, identification and correction of misunderstandings,

and ongoing self-evaluation.

As Cohen (1986) points out, a taxonomy of this kind may provide an

effective tool for classifying a variety of strategies obtained from

protocol analysis. Some researchers have found Sarig's taxonomy useful

for investigating the reading processes of proficient and non-proficient

readers in a second language. Zupnik (cited in Cohen, 1986) conducted a

study of two readers of English as a second language. She found that the

non-proficient reader used more moves than the proficient reader, but

with less success. Zupnik's findings contradict Olshavsky's (1976, 1977)

-98-

findings that the proficient reader used more strategies than the non­

proficient reader. However, when the use of reading strategies by the two

readers in Zupnik's study was closely examined by means of Sarig's

taxonomy, the difference between them was evident. The non-proficient

reader was focusing more on the clarification and simplification moves,

whereas the proficient reader mostly used the monitoring moves. In.-

addition, most of the strategies the non-proficient reader used had a

detrimental effect on reading comprehension, while the proficient

reader's strategies promoted comprehension.

Although the think-aloud technique can be used to conduct an in-depth

study of reading processes, the problem with the studies that used the

technique is the small number of readers monitored, as Carrell (1988)

points out. Through the use of this technique Nevo (cited in Cohen, 1986)

studied only two subjects, and Sarlq (1987) investigated ten subjects.

Therefore, it is possible that the results found were influenced by the

idiosyncrasies of the subjects.

In order to identify and study the similarities and differences

between the' processes of reading in first and second languages, while

avoiding some of the problems inherent in the think-aloud technique, the

research reported in this paper attempts to use the self-observation

technique. The reason for using self-observation is that more subjects

can be investigated by this technique. In addition, this study also uses a

-99-

psychological model of reading proposed by Gagne (1985) in order to

provide a framework for reading which enables us to understand the

reading processes of both first and second languages. (See Figure 1).

According to Gagne's model, reading consists of three major

components: word recognition, comprehension, and comprehension

monitoring. Word recognition is a reading process in which readers

activate word meanings in their long-term memory through the printed

word. If the printed word is directly associated with its meaning, it is

called matching. On the other hand, if the meaning of the printed word is

identified by sounding out the word, it is called recoding. Comprehension

is comprised of literal comprehension and inferential comprehension.

Literal comprehension is a reading process in which readers draw literal

meanings from print. Literal comprehension is subdivided into lexical

access and parsing. In lexical access, the meanings of words are

identified as the result of word recognition. This is based upon "the

notion that humans have mental dictionaries that are accessed" (Gagne,

1985, p. 168) during the process of comprehending language. In parsing,

various word meanings are incorporated into their relevant relationships.

For example, when people read the sentence "Janet kissed George," they

may decide the subject and the object of this sentence through cues from

English word order. They may identify the verb by cues from word endings.

Inferential comprehension involves understanding beyond the text. It is

-100-

subdivided into integration, summarization, and elaboration. In

integration, the reader incorporates the ideas in the text in order to make

the text meaningful. The process of integration is illustrated by the

following two sentences:

A pretty kitten came up to Karen.

She took it up in her arms and gave it a hug.

The relationship between the ideas in these two sentences are not

explicitly stated. However, a skilled reader assumes that the two ideas

are related to one another. Based on this assumption, he or she infers the

relationship between the ideas. Summarization is a reading process that

produces a mental outline, or what Kintsch and Van Dijk call, a

"macrostructure" (cited in Gagne,1978) of the main ideas in the text. In

elaboration, readers relate the ideas in the text to their prior knowledge.

This is illustrated by the following sentence:

A hedge is a row of bushes or small trees dividing one yard or field

from another.

While reading, a reader might add, IIThere is a hedge between Tom's house

and mine." This ~s an example of elaboration because the reader uses his

or her prior knowledge to add to the text. Finally, comprehension

monitoring is executive processing in which the reader checks whether his

or her goal is being achieved effectively. The processes involved in

comprehension monitoring are goal setting, strategy selection, goal

-101-

checking, and remediation. When the reader starts reading, he or she sets

a goal and selects appropriate reading strategies in order to achieve the

goal. While reading, the reader is constantly checking whether his or her

goal is met. Whenever comprehension fails, relevant strategies are

adopted to repair the breakdown in comprehension.

PURPOSE OF STUDY

It seems crucial to investigate the similarities and differences

between L1 and L2 reading. If the similarities and differences are

identified, more effective approaches to teaching reading in a second

language can be developed. The similarities found might lead researchers

of L2 reading to utilize the achievements in L1 reading research and

methodology in order to improve the education of L2 readers. At the same

time, they will also be able to focus their attention on the aspects' of

reading processes or strategies used that are particular to L2 reading.

No research has yet been done to investigate the reading processes of

Japanese learners of English. The purposes of this study were (1) to

investigate where similarities and differences lie between L1 and L2

readings, and (2) to determine where similarities and differences appear

between proficient. and non-proficient readers in a second language for

twenty-four native speakers of Japanese learning English as a second

language in the United States.

-102-

RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

The following hypotheses about reading processes are addressed:

1) There will be a significant difference in the reading processes of

Japanese readers of English and Japanese passages.

2) There will be a significant difference in the reading processes of

the high and low proficiency readers.

METHOD

Subjects

Twenty-four Japanese learners of English as a second language at

The Pennsylvania State University participated in this study. Although

they were paid a modest gratuity ($ 5.00), their participation was

voluntary. The subjects were both male [n=7] and female [n=17] and their

ages ranged from 19 to 38 years old. The subjects were categorized into

two groups based on their reported scores on their most recent TOEFL

tests: low English proficiency readers [n=12] and high English proficiency

readers [n=12].

The low English proficiency readers were non-degree students who

were studying English in the Intensive English Communication Program

(IECP). The IECP is a non-credit program designed to enhance the English

proficiency of international students who plan to do degree work at an

American college or university, or who are interested in improving their

communication skills in English. Their TOEFL test scores ranged between

-103-

430 and 530 with a mean score of 483.0 on the most recent TOEFL tests,

which were administered in December of 1989. They had studied in the

United States only three or four months when this study was conducted.

The subjects of the high English proficiency group were undergraduate

or graduate students whose majors included traditional liberal arts fields

such as comparative literature, speech communication, and education, as

well as business administration. Their reported TOEFL test scores ranged

from 560 to 627 with a mean score of 601.7. Their TOEFL test dates were

two to eight years prior to participating in this study. The length of their

study in the United States also varied from as long as eight years to as

little as three months.

The subjects in the high and low proficiency groups were then broken

into two subgroups: English-passage readers (n=12) and Japanese-passage

readers (n=12). For the low English proficiency group, the English- and

Japanese-passage readers were matched based on their most recent TOEFL

scores. For the high English proficiency group, the two groups of subjects

were matched based on the length of study in the United States as well as

their most recent TOEFL scores. Therefore, the English-passage readers

consisted of six subjects from the high English proficiency group and six

subjects from the low English proficiency group. The Japanese-passage

readers were also composed of six subjects from the high English.,.,

proficiency group and six subjects from the low English proficiency group.

-104-

The problem which should be addressed is with dividing the subjects

into the proficiency level groups. They were categorized into the high and

low proficiency groups by their TOEFL scores. TOEFL tests evaluate their

English language proficiency without considering their proficiency in

Japanese. However, a comprehension test was administered at the end of

the study in order to assess their level of comprehension of the passages.

The English-passage readers were given the test in English and the

Japanese-passage readers were tested in Japanese. According to their

scores on the test, the mean score of the high proficiency group was 7.50

out of 10. In contrast, that of the low proficiency group was 5.92.

Therefore, the high proficiency readers understood more than the low

proficiency readers when reading in English or in Japanese. It is true that

the use of the comprehension test scores might not be considered as

reliable as the use of the TOEFL scores. However, this gives some support

for categorizing the subjects into high and low proficiency groups.

Materials

A demographic questionnaire was developed which elicited

information about the subjects' age, gender, major field of study, current

level of study (i.e., undergraduate, M.A., Ph.D., non-degree student), score

on the most recent TOEFL test, and the number of years they had studied

English in the United States and! or in Japan. (See Appendix A).

A passage was selected from an introductory psychology textbook,

-105-

Basic Psychology (Munn, N., Fernald, L. Jr., and Fernald, P., 1972, pp. 381­

383), which was originally written in English. The English passage was

then translated into Japanese by the investigator. The investigator asked

two Japanese professors to check for any incorrect translation or

inappropriate Japanese expressions used in the translation into Japanese

and to revise if necessary. One of the professors, who specializes in

psychology, checked the accuracy of the psychology terms used, and the

translation. The other professor, whose .speciality is education, focused

on whether the translation was written in standard Japanese. In order to

concentrate on the appropriateness of the Japanese expressions, he did not

refer to the original English passage. In addition, both professors

evaluated the authenticity of the Japanese translation as a model of a

typical college text in terms of the degree of difficulty of the syntax and

the vocabulary of the passage.

The textbook passage described basic psychological defense

mechanisms. The organization of the passage was an explanation and

illustration of four types of defense mechanisms: repression,

rationalization, reaction formation, and projection. The length of the

English passage was 1,111 words. (See Appendix B and C).

The self-report of reading processes questionnaire was developed

to determine how Japanese learners of English read the academic passage

written in English or Japanese. Based on the. psychological model of

-106-

reading by Gagne (1985), the questionnaire categorized the twenty-six

items into four components of reading processes: word recognition, literal

comprehension, inferential comprehension, and monitoring. In the word

recognition category, two statements pertained to matching, whereas two

statements pertained to recoding. For literal comprehension, two

statements were about lexical access, and two about parsing. For

inferential comprehension, five statements pertained to integration, two

statements to summarization, and one statement to elaboration. The

comprehension monitoring category included five statements pertaining to

goal setting and strategy selection and five statements pertaining to goal

checking and remediation. The two statements concerning study skills

included marking key elements in the text and note-taking.

Using a five-point Likert Scale (1 -stronqly agree, 5=strongly

disagree), the subjects were asked to indicate the level of their

agreement or disagreement with each of the twenty-eight statements.

The questionnaire was developed in Japanese, the first language of

the subjects, in order to avoid ambiguities of language and to elicit

accurate responses from the subjects.

At the time of data analysis, the statements were arranged in such a

way that if subjects were proficient readers either in their first or

second language, they would indicate agreement with the statements (e.g.,

While reading, I often predicted what would come next). However, they

-107-

were not arranged so when the subjects reported their reading process.

They sometimes had to disagree .with the statements in order to prove

themselves good readers. In addition, the order of the statements was

random so that the subjects would not detect a pattern to the statements

and respond without carefully reading and considering the items. (See

Appendix 0 and Appendix E).

Ten multiple-choice questions were developed in order to check

the degree of comprehension of the passage. All the comprehension

questions were designed to elicit a deep level of text processing by the

subjects. In other words, the subjects had to draw inferences based on

careful reading and understanding of the passage in order to determine the

correct answers to the questions. The comprehension questions were

originally developed in Japanese and then translated into English. The

English-passage readers were given the comprehension questions in

English, whereas the Japanese-passage readers were given the questions

in Japanese. (See Appendix F and Appendix G).

Procedure

The investigator conducted a pilot study to assess how much time

would be necessary for the subjects, especially the subjects the low

English proficiency, to read and understand the English passage. One

Japanese learner of English in the IEGP who did not participate in this

study volunteered to be the subject in the pilot study. He was instructed

-108-

to read the English passage as he would read a textbook for a regular class

and measure the time he needed to read the passage twice. Since it took

thirty-five minutes for him to finish his second reading, the investigator

set the maximum amount of time for reading the English or the Japanese

passage at 40 minutes.

At the beginning of the study, the subjects were given explanations of

the purpose and procedure of the study. They asked the investigator

questions about what they were expected to do before and during the time

the study was being conducted. The subjects were then asked to fill in the

demographic information on the questionnaire first. Based on the above­

mentioned criteria, they were assigned to either the English passage or

the Japanese passage. They were instructed to read the given passage as

they would read a textbook in order to prepare for a regular class. In

addition, they were told that they could write any notes they wanted on or

beside the text. The subjects read the assigned passage for 40 minutes.

During that period, they were allowed to reread the passage as many times

as they wished. Then, the subjects filled in the questionnaire asking them

to indicate the level of their agreement or disagreement with 28

statements about their use of reading processes. Finally, the subjects

answered the ten multiple-choice comprehension questions. They were

not allowed to refer to the passage which they had read while they

answered the questions. Twenty minutes was allowed for completion of

-109-

the questions.

RESULTS

Statistical analyses were performed on an IBM mainframe computer

at The Pennsylvania State University at University Park using SPSS-X

package of statistical programs. An alpha level of .05 was established for

significance.

In order to conduct a Chi-square analysis of the readers' affirmative

or negative responses to the 28 statements (See Figure 2), responses on

the five-point Likert Scale were collapsed into three categories: "agree"

for the responses indicating 1(=strongly agree) and 2(=agree); "neutral"

for the responses indicating 3(=neutral); and "dlsaqrse" for those

indicating 4(=disagree) and 5(=strongly disagree). 2 (English- and

Japanese-passage readers) x 3 (agree, neutral, and disagree) Chi-square

analyses were performed. (See Table 1). In addition, 2 (high and low

proficiency readers) x 3 (agree, neutral, and disagree) Chi-square analyses

were conducted. (See Table 2).

Language (English- vs. Japanese-passage readers)

The analysis of the data indicated significant differences between

.English- and Japanese-passage readers' responses to two items on reading

process statements. (See Table 1).

Word recognition

Item 4: While reading, I often sounded out unfamiliar words in my

-110-

mind (sound out).

Inferential comprehension

Item 9: While reading, I often predicted what would come next

(prediction).

With regard to the "sound out" item, English-passage readers were

significantly more likely than Japanese-passage readers to sound out

unfamiliar words, K2(2, bI = 24) = 8.84, 1l<.05. Fifty percent of the English­

passage readers agreed, whereas less than ten percent of the Japanese­

passage readers agreed with the statement. Slightly over thirty percent

of the English-passage readers disagreed, while over ninety percent of

the Japanese-passage readers disagreed with the statement.

With regard to the prediction item, Japanese-passage readers were

significantly different from English-passage readers in predicting the

content of the passage, A 2(2, bJ = 24) = 13.54, .Q.<.01. Japanese-passage

readers were more likely than English-passage-readers to predict what

would come next in the passage. Less than ten percent of the English­

passage readers agreed, while seventy-five percent of the Japanese­

passage readers agreed with the statement. Almost sixty percent of the

English-passage readers. disagreed, whereas none of the Japanese-passage

readers indicated their disagreement with the statement.

-111-

Proficiency· (high vs. low proficiency readers)

The analysis of the data revealed a significant difference between

high and low proficiency readers for the following items (See Table 2):

Word. recognition

Item 2: I found many familiar words in this passage (familiarity).

Monitoring

Item 24: When I did not understand parts of the passage, I kept

reading and hoped for further clarification (clarification).

With respect to the familiarity item, high and low proficiency readers

differed significantly, K2(2, ~ = 24) = 6.09, 12<.05. High proficiency

readers were more likely to find familiar words than low proficiency

readers. Seventy-five percent of the high proficiency readers agreed,

while only twenty-five percent of the low proficiency readers agreed

with the statement. Almost fifteen percent of the high proficiency

readers disagreed, whereas slightly over forty percent of the low

proficiency readers disagreed with the statement.

As for the clarification item, one high proficiency reader who read

the Japanese passage reported that he understood the whole passage.

Therefore, he skipped the part of monitoring in the reading processes

questionnaire. The results of the study show that low proficiency readers

were significantly more likely than high proficiency readers to keep

reading and hope for further clarification when their comprehension

-112-

tailed. K2(2, t:I = 24) = 9.24, 12<.01. All of the low proficiency readers

indicated their agreement, while forty percent of the high proficiency

readers agreed with the statement. Thirty percent of the high proficiency

readers indicated their disagreement with the statement.

With regard to research hypothesis 1, differences between the

English- and the Japanese-passage readers were significant for sound out,

K2( 2, t:I = 24) = 8.84, Q.<.05; and prediction, K,2(2, t:I = 24) = 13.54, 12<.01.

Therefore, the research hypothesis was supported. As for research

hypothesis 2, differences between high and low proficiency readers were

significant for familiarity, K,2(2, ~ = 24) = 6.09, 12<.05; and clarification,

2K (2, bl= 24) = 9.24, Q < .01. The research hypothesis was also supported.

DISCUSSION

Reading in first and second languages

The results of this study revealed that L1 and L2 language readers

differ significantly in the reading processes of sounding out unfamiliar

words and predicting the content of passages. The study showed that

readers in a second language were more likely to use recoding in order to

understand the meanings of unfamiliar words. This contradicts Neva's

findings (cited in Cohen, 1986). Through the use of the think-aloud

technique, Neva noticed that one of the two readers of Hebrew as a first

language and French as a foreign lanquaqe. pronounced aloud unfamiliar

-113-

words and expressions exclusively in the reader's first language. Since

the sample size [~= 24] of this study is larger than that of Nevo ~ = 2],

findings here may allow us to generalize more confidently about the L2

readers' tendency to recognize the meanings of unfamiliar words through

recoding.

The results of this study also show that readers in a second language

are more likely to have difficulty in predicting what might come next

while reading. Gagne's (1985) model of reading suggests that the reader

makes a prediction about the content of a passage by integrating previous

information whether he or she is reading in a first or second language.

According to Gagne, high levels of comprehension such as inteqratlon,

summarization, and elaboration require that the reader's working memory

capacity is not overloaded. If much of the working memory capacity is

being used for reading processes other than integration, the reader is less

likely to integrate the information in a passage. He or she will then have

difficulty in predicting the content of the passage. This view was

supported by some studies, such as that of Curtis (1980), which have

found a strong relationship between decoding and reading comprehension.

It is true that correlations are not necessarily related to causality.

However, Gagne suggests one plausible explanation of the relationship, and .

the correlations have not been proved to contradict her explanation.

Perhaps the slow decoding of the L2 readers in this study resulted in a

-114-

working memory deficit that. interfered with prediction.

High and low .proficiency·· readers

~ .

As the results of this study revealed, the differences between high

and low proficiency readers were significant in the processes of the

readers' being familiar with many of the printed words and reading

forward for clarification. This study showed that high proficiency

readers were more likely than low proficiency readers to find many

familiar words in the passages. The reader's familiarity with the printed

words is related to the decoding process in which words are identified so

as to activate their meanings in the reader's long-term memory. High

proficiency readers could decode the printed words more effectively than

low proficiency readers, Decoding therefore characterizes the difference

between high and low proficiency readers as well as that between L1 and

L2 readers.

With regard to the process of monitoring, it is interesting to find that

low proficiency readers were more likely than high proficiency readers to

keep reading and hope for further clarification. As Zupnik (cited in Cohen,

1986) points out,' to tolerate ambiguity and continue reading for further

clarification has been considered one of the effective strategies of

monitoring, which high proficiency readers are expected to use more

frequently. However, the mean scores on the comprehension test were

-115-

5.92 for the low proficiency group and 7.50 for the high proficiency group.

This indicates that this "repair strategy" did not work effectively for the

low proficiency group. One explanation for this phenomenon might be that

the low proficiency readers had no choice but to keep reading and hope to

understand later. Prior to the study, they had been told that they would

take a comprehension test after they read the passages. Therefore, it was

unlikely for them to stop and give up reading even if their comprehension

failed.

IMPLICATIONS

This study indicated that L1 and L2 readers differed significantly in

the processes of sounding out unfamiliar words (recoding) and predicting

the content of a passage. Recoding characterized L2 reading in that

readers' in a second language were significantly more likely to recode in

'order to activate meanings of unfamiliar words. The result sheds light on

the importance of developing readers' word recognition skills.

With regard to the reader's prediction of the content of a passage,

Gagne (1985) provides a psychological perspective on the role of working

memory capacity in reading. This view describes the relationship between

automaticity of decoding and reading comprehension. In light of research

findings, developing the decoding skills of L2 readers should help to

improve their reading comprehension.

This study also indicated that the differences between high and low

-116-

proficiency readers were significant in the process of. the reader's being

familiar with many. of the printed words, as well. as that of reading

forward to compensate for comprehension breakdown.

If Gagne's (1985) psychological perspective is true, one major

implication of this study is the importance of automaticity of decoding.

Second language readers, as well as those with low proficiency in English,

should develop automaticity of decoding to prevent a detrimental effect

on their comprehension due to a working memory deficit.

According to Laberge and Samuels (1974), practice and feedback

enhance automaticity of decoding. Decoding skills are also developed

through a great amount of reading experience. In addition, the use of

microcomputers has shown promise as one method of developing

automaticity of word recognition. There are presently several software

programs (e.g., Frederiksen, J. R., 1983) designed to improve this skill.

Since the sample size of this study was small with only twenty-four

subjects, future research is needed to confirm or refute the results.

-117-

-118-

Table 1 (continued)

English-passage readers Japanese-passage readers

Item AgreeNeutral Disag. Agree Neutral Disag. K2 Sig.-----------------------------------------------------------.17 8 2 2 8 3 1

66.7% 16.70/0 16.7% 66.7% 25.0% 8.3% 0.53 ns18 4 2 6 6 3 3

33.30/0 16.70/0 50.0% 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 1.60 ns1 9 8 1 3 7 2 3

66.70/0 8.3% 25.0% 58.3% 16.7% 25.0% 0.40 ns20 4 2 6 3 1 8

33.3% 16.7% 50.0% 25.00/0 8.30/0 66.7% 0.76 ns21 6 6 6 2 4

50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 16.7% 33.30/0 2.40 ns22 1 1 1 10 1 1

91.7% 8.3% 83.30/0 8.3% 8.3% 1.05 ns23 1 1 1 8 3 1

91.7% 8.30/0 66.7% 25.0% 8.3% 3.47 ns24 3 2 2 7 1 1

66.70/0 16.70/0 16.7% 77.8% 11.1% 11.1% 0.31 ns25 3 4 6 1 2

66.7% 33.3% 66.7% 11.10/0 22.2% 1.56 ns26 10 2 8 1

83.30/0 16.70/0 88.9% 11.1% 0.12 ns27 7 5 5 1 6

58.3% 41..7% 41.7% 8.3% 50.0% 1.42 ns28 1 2 9 3 9

8.3% 16.7% 75.0% 25.0% 75.0%' 3.00 ns------------------------------------------------------ ---.'--* g,<.05. **g,<.01.

-119-

Table 2

High proficiency, readers. Low' ., proficiency readers

Item AgreeNeutral Disag. Agree Neutral Disag.. x2 Sig.-------------------------------------------------------------1 8 1 3 3 3 6

66.7% 8.3% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 4.27 ns2 9 1 2 3 4 5

75.00/0 8.3% 16.7% 25.0% 33.3% 41.70/0 6.09 *3 9 2 1 9 2 1

75.00/0 16.7% 8.3% 75.0% 1607% 8.3% 0.00 ns4 3 1 8 4 1 7

25.0% 8.30/0 66.7% 33.3% 8.30/0 58.3% 0.21 ns5 12 1 0 2

100.0% 83.3% 16.70/0 0.55 -ns6 9 1 8 2 2

90.00/0 10.00/0, 66.7% 16.7% 16.70/0 2.23 ns7 5 3 4 8 1 3

41.70/0 25.00/0 33.3% 66.70/0 8.3%~ 25.0% 1;84 ns8 3 3 6 2 1 9

25.0% 25.0%' 50.0% 16.7% 8.3% 75.0% 1.80 ns9 5 4 3 5 3 4

41.70/0 33.3% 25.0% 41.7% 25.0% 33.3% 0.29 ns1 0 1 1 1 9 2 1

91.7% 8.3% 75.0% 16.7% 8.3% 1.53 ns1 1 1 1 1 10 1 1

91.7% 8.3% 83.3% 8.3% 8.3% 1.05 ns1 2 1 1 1 9 1 2

91.7% 8.30/0. 75.0% 8.3% 16.70/0 2.20 ns1 3 1 1 1 9 1 2

91.7% 8.3% 75.0% 8.3% 16.7% 2.20 ns14 7 2 3 8 2 2

58.30/0 16.7% 25.00/0 66.7% 16.70/0 16.70/0 0.27 ns1 5 9 1 2 8 3 1

75.0% 8.3% 16.7% 66.70/0 25.0% 8.3% 1.39 ns16 1 1 1 1 0 1 1

91.7% 8.3% 83.30/0 8.3% 8.3% 1.05 ns

-120-

Table 2 (continued)

High proficiency readers Low proficiency readers

Item AgreeNeutralDisag. AgreeNeutralDisag. 2 Sig.K-------------------------------------------------------------17 9 2 1 7 3 2

75.0% 16.7% 8.3% 58.3% 25.0% 16.7% 0.78 ns18 3 3 6 7 2 3

25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 58.3% 16.7% 25.0% 2.80 ns1 9 8 2 2 7 1 4

66.70/0 16.7% 16.7% 58.3% 8.3% 33. 30/0 1.07 ns

20 3 3 6 4 825.0% 25.0% 50.0% 33.3% 66.70/0 3.43 ns

21 5 1 6 7 1 441.7% 8.3% 50.0% 58.3% 8.3%, 33.30/0 0.73 ns

22 1 1 1 1 0 1 191.7% 8.3% 83.30/0 8.30/0 8.30/0 1.05 ns

23 8 2 2 1 1 166.7% 16.7% 16.7% 91.7% 8.30/0 2.81 ns

24 4 3 3 1 140.0% 30.00/0 30.0% 100.00/0 9.24 * *

25 8 1 1 6 580.00/0 10.0% 10.00/0 54.5% 45.5% 3.91 ns

26 8 2 10 180.0% 20.00/0 90.9% 9.1% 0.00 ns

27 7 1 4 5 758.30/0 8.3% 33.3% 41.7% 58.3% 2.15 ns

28 3 2 7 1 1 125.0% 16.7% 58.30/0 8.3% 91.7% 3.89 ns

-------------------------------------------------------------* p,<.05. **p,<.01.

-121-

word---wrecognition

lexical access

elaboration

integration

parsing

inferential K..-__., summarizationcomprehension

literalcomprehension

---. monitoring

strategyselection

----. goal checking

remediation

FIGURE 1Gagne's Model of Reading

-122-

FIGURE 2

WORD RECOGNITION

MATCHING

1 While· reading, I could identify the words in the passage at a glance.

2 I found many familiar words in this passage.

RECODING

3 While reading, I mentally sounded out all the words.

4 While reading, I often sounded out unfamiliar words in my mind.

LITERAL COMPREHENSION

LEXICAL ACCESS

5 While reading, I often tried to understand more what the entire sentence

or passage meant than what individual words meant.

6 I tried to learn the meanings of unfamiliar words from the context.

PARSING

7 While reading, I often analyzed the grammatical structure of the

sentences that were difficult to understand or I failed to understand.

8 I did not have to concentrate much on reading the passage to understand

its meanings.

INFERENTIAL COMPREHENSION

INTEGRATION

9 While reading, I often predicted what would come next.

10 While reading, I think the headings of paragraphs helped me to

understand the passage.

11 While reading, I was aware what concept each example illustrated.

-123-

12 While reading, I related the information which I was reading to

previous information in the passage.

13 While reading each paragraph, I paid special attention to the sentence

that described the main idea.

SUMMARIZATION

14 While reading, I mentally summarized from time to time what I had

read in the passage.

15 While reading, I was aware that the organization of the passage was a

collection and description of certain ideas.

ELABORATION

16 While reading, I related information in the passage to what I already

knew about the topic.

COMPREHENSION MONITORING

GOALSETIING ANDSTRATEGY SELECTION

17 Before I read the passage closely, I decided how well I should

understand the passage.

18 Before I read the passage .closely, I made sure whether I knew

something about the topic of the passage.

19 Before I read the passage closely, I read it through once and decided

what part would be difficult to understand.

20 Before I read the passage closely, I skimmed it for the main ideas.

21 After I read the passage, I tried to summarize what it meant in my

mind.

-124-

GOALCHECKING AND REMEDIATION

22 While reading, I discerned what I already knew about the topic from

what I would learn in the passage.

23 While reading, I distinguished between" when I understood what parts of

the passage meant from when I did not.

If you did not understand parts of the passage, please answer the

following questions.

24 When I did not understand parts of the passage, I kept reading and

hoped for further clarification.

25 When I did not understand parts of the passage, I reread those parts.

26 When I did not understand parts of the passage, I tried to learn their

meaning from the context.

STUDY SKILLS

27 While reading, often underlined or marked the key sections of the

passage.

28 While reading, I often took notes.

-125-

References

Alderson, J. C. (1984). Reading in a foreign language: A reading problem

or a language problem? In J. C. Alderson and A. H. Urguhart (Eds.),

Reading in a foreign language (pp. 2-24). London: Longman.

Carrell, P. L. (1988, March). Second language reading: Beading. language,

and metacognition. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the TESOL,

Chicago, IL.

Carrell, P. L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language

reading. Modern Language Journal, .~ 121-134.

Clarke, M. A. (1979). Reading in Spanish and English: Evidence from

adult ESL students. Language Learning, 2..9., 121-150.

Coady, J. (1979). A psycholinguistic model of the ESL reader. In R.

Mackay, B. Barkman, & R. R. Jordan (Eds.), Reading in a second

language, (pp. 5-12). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Cohen, A. (1986). Mentalistic measures in reading strategy research:

Some recent findings. English for Specific Purposes,~, 131-145.

Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/ academic language proficiency,

linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other

matters. Working Papers in Bilingualism. til, 197-205.

Curtis, E. M. (1980). Development of components of reading skill. Journal

of Educational Psychology. 72, 656-669.

Cziko, G. A. (1978). Differences in first- and second-language reading:

-126-

The use of syntactic, semantic and discourse constraints. Canadian

Modern Language Reyjew,~, 473-489.

Cziko, G. A. (1980). Language competence and reading strategies: A

comparison of first- and second-language oral reading errors. Language

Learn jng,.ao., 101-114.

Devine, J. (1987). General language competence and adult second

language reading. In J. Devine, P. L. Carrell, and D. E. Eskey (Eds.),

Research in reading in English as a second language ( pp. 73-86).

Washington, DC: TESOL.

Frederiksen, J. R.,· Weaver, A. P., Warren, M. 8., GilloUe, J. H. P.,

Rosebery, S. A., Freeman 8., & Goodman L. (1983). A componential

approach to training reading skills. (Report No. 5295). Cambridge,

Mass.: Bolt Beranek and Newman.

Gagne, E. D. (1985). The cognitive psychology of school leamlns, MA:

Little, Brown and Company.

Jolly, D. (1978, October). The establishment of a self-access scheme

for intensive reading. Paper presented at the Goethe Institute, British

Council Colloquium on Reading, Paris. October, 1978).

Kintsch, W., and T. A. van Dijk (1978). Toward a model of text

comprehension and production. Psychological ReYiew, ~ 363-394.

Macnamara, J. (1970). Comparative studies of reading and problem

solving in two languages. TESOL Quarterly, 4., 107~116.

-127-

Macnamara, J., Feltin, M., and Klein, M. (1968). An analytic comparison

of reading in two languages. Irish Journal of Education, 2., 41-53.

McNeil, J. D. (1987). Reading comprehension. (2nd ed.) Glenville, IL:

Scott, Foresman.

Munn, L. N., Fernald D. L., Jr., & Fernald S. P. (1972). ful.slQ

Psychology (3rd ed.): Houghton Mifflin Company.

Olshavsky, J. E. (1976/ 77). Reading as problem solving: An

investigation of strategies. Reading Research Quarterly. 12, .4, 654­

674.

Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading

Teacher,.3..2, 403-08.

Sarig, G. (1987). High-level reading in the first and in the foreign

language: Some comparative process data. In J~ Devine, P. L. Carrell,

and D. E. Eskey (eds.), Research in reading in English as a second

language. (pp. 107-120). Washington, DC: TESOL.

-128-

APPENDIX A

. Demographic Questionnaire

Please fill in the blanks.

1 Age:. _

2Sex: _

3 Major: _

4 Please circle one.

Level of study: Non-degree Undergraduate M.A. Ph.D.

S The score and date of TOEFL test which you took most recently

Score Date _

6 Number of years studying English'

In the U.S.A. years

In Japan years.

-129-

APPENDIXB

Defenses

In response to stress, individuals react not only in subdued, aggressive,and repetitive ways, but also in ways unknown to them. Actually, it is notquite correct to say that the behaviors to which we now turn are unknownto the individual producing them, but at least the reasons for the behaviorare presumably unknown. Such reactions are called defense mechanisms,a term used by Freud to describe the unconscious process by which anindividual protects himself from anxiety.

Repression. Repression refers to the exclusion of unpleasant experiencesfrom awareness; they are somehow forgotten. Earlier, we discussedrepression in connection with memory and noted several examples,including the frustrated suitor who constantly forgot the name of hisrival. Charles Darwin was so aware of the tendency to forget theunpleasant and so intellectually honest that he made a point of jottingdown immediately any observation which failed to support his views.Observations confirming them needed no special attention.

Repression was considered by Freud to be the primary defensemechanism. In fact, he viewed repression of hostile and sexual impulsesas virtually universal in nineteenth-century Western society. Equallyimportant, repression presumably serves as a basis for other defensemechanisms.

Rationalization. Aesop's fable, "The Fox and the Grapes," is a frequentlyquoted illustration of rationalization. When the fox couldn't obtain somedelicious-looking grapes, he decided that they were sour anyway. Inrationalization, "good" but false reasons are substituted for real reasons.Hence, we hear the expression "sour grapes."

A three-year-old child did not want a neighborhood boy to visit himbecause this child monopolized his toy fire engine. When told he mustinvite the other child to have 'a ride, he said that the other boy might behaving his nap. When told that the other boy was up. he said the sky lookedas if it might rain. When he was told it would not rain, he said that theboy's mother might not want him 1'0. come. The same boy, in conflictbetween his desire to take his teddy bear to school, on the one hand, andbeing thought of as a "big boy" on the other, finally decided not to take the

-130-

bear.. His, reason was that the bear might catch a cold.In our society j which places much value on rational thought, it is often

difficult to, determine whether or not someone is rationalizing. Thedistinction sometimes: can be made by observing the individual'swillingness to, examine his thinking. If he becomes upset, perhaps thereal reasons are, not being acknowledged and he becomes anxious becausethey may be brought closer to his awareness.

Reaction formation. A bombardier reported that he was eaqer to return tocombat after a narrow escape from death during one .ot his missions, buthe fainted following each of his next two missions. During an interviewhe laughed at the interviewer's questions, stated he never experiencedfear while flying, and declared that in fact ,he, had never feared anything.Later, tollowinq administration of,sodium pentothal.va drug thatinfluences recall of underlyinq feelings, he declared: u •.. the plane suddenlyshook ...down we felL.. I was scared. Me scared! ' I didn't think I'd ever bescared---didn't think any man could scare me.;." (White, 1964; p. 64).

Apparently the flyer adopted the attitude of bravado and, jocularity as ameans of coping with the unwanted thought. Reaction formation involvesrepression and the adoption of conscious attitudes and behavior exactlyopposite of those' judged unacceptable. The latter, it is hypothesized,serve to aid repression.

Parental overprotection perhaps is a form of reaction formation. Thefather or mother may feel that he should love the child but finds childrearing a burdensome task. Hence, he may try to conceal his resentment,even from himself, by being overly solicitous of the child's welfare.Persons who crusade against the use of alcohol in any form whatsoever oragainst any form of sexual expression perhaps are struggling to controltheir own desires for engaging in such activities. An overly "sweet"woman indicated what she did when she became angry with other people:"l kill 'ern with kindness."

Projection. In a general sense, whenever an individual inaccuratelyattributes his own personal feelings or characteristics to others, he isprojecting. Children frequently project their thoughts and feelings,believing that others feel just as they feel. When a child is sad, he maysay that his friend is sad too. In the present context, however, projectionhas a more restricted meaning. It refers to unknowingly attributing one'sunwanted traits to others. Again, there are two aspects: repression ofthe unacceptable thoughts and ascribing them to others.

-131-

In a study of projection, college men fated themselves and each otheron four socially undesirable traits: stinginess, obstinacy, disorderliness,and bashfulness. Some subjects demonstrated an awareness of theirundesirable traits by giving themselves high ratings where they alsoreceived high ratings from their friends. Others gave themselves lowratings on traits for which they received high ratings by others, thusdemonstrating little recognition of their undesirable traits. Furthermore,they rated others higher on these same traits than did the rest of thegroup: They apparently lacked insight into their own undesirable traitsand projected them onto others (Sears, 1936).

Projection also may involve wish fulfillment. A girl who becomesfrustrated in attracting the interest of men may imagine that men have aspecial interest in her. A woman known to one of the writers complainedthat men chased her through a park, but investigation revealed that nosuch events had occurred. An extreme reaction of this type isdramatically depicted in Faulkner's short story "Dry September" (1950).

The reactions we have just considered do not represent a complete listof defense mechanisms; our aim has been to illustrate their generalnature.

-132-

APPENDIX C

IlJj t!fj t! mlJ

A l· V.A ~;:M L- -C, @] It )dj: e B ~ f!lJm1jl t: t) ',; Jj(~ a~~;: 'J:' ~ t~ o, ~ t, c:: t ~ a t) ~T t.!. a 't:~ <;.. 'J:' if -t- j T ~ C1) 7P*A~;: b :b 7P t;,'~ ~ '\"('oc J;5 T ~ 0 fL. t: 1? '/)~ c:: it 1.P t;,m '3rr ih ~j: ~ C1)*.AJ;: b :b 7P t;, 'J:' ~'\ t ~'\ '3 C1) ~j: ~ ~, £. it lblE L <~ ~'\ '/)~, 1r' 'J:' <-C b 'J:' if-t- '3T QC1) i,i1 ~:h'- :bip t;,~ ~ '\ t.!. 0 '30 -t- C1) J:'3 'J:' t:r' I1J tj: 11J.Hffi fJ! mlj t lJi}q;I'it, -t- C1) ffl ~g ~j: ~

'!J(7'P t;, e B·~ ~ Q'~~~ C1)J&J~ ~ ~Tt~ ~~;: 70 -1 }- '/)~ ffl ~'\ t: b'C1)"('~ .Q' ..

f!lJ EE ,f!lJ EE ~j: ~~ '/)1 t;,~~~~M~ ~ <c:: t "('~.Qo "? ~ t), c'3~;: '/)1 l-C $ it ~ .Q c::t "('~ .Q olJij~;: f!lJ EE ~ ~c 11 t rm~~ it -C ~ t, t: '/)~" ~ '\ "? b :71 r\)v C1) -tt lJij ~ ~ it -C L ~ '3~*~~ C1)*j~~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~ '\ <"? '/)1'C1) (7IJ'~ Jt.-C ~'t~ 07- ~ - iv;( = ~' - '? -1 >' ~j:~ tR 'J:' c::t ~j: ~it'/)~ 1? "('~ .Q c:: t ~;: ~ "? ~ '\"( 8 t).. ~ t:~ rm~;:M L~~ t.!. ~ t: C1) -C'.. e 7J'- C1) Jt. A¥ ~;:

oc T Q c:: t ~ IJt~T .Q t T (' -t- it ~ • ~ t ~ ~ c:: t ~;: L "( ~ '\ r: 0 e 7J'- C1) Jt.A¥ ~ III ·,::nt.Q J:'3 'J:' IJt~ ~;: ~j:'~ 51lj a:~ ~. f~ '3, £.~ 'j: 'J:' '/)1 ~ t: C1) "(' ~ .Q 0

7 01 }- ~j: f!lJ EE ~ ~~ 'J:' IlJj 1fIj ff! 1M t ~ ;( "( ~ '\t~ 0 :$~, ~ 'j:l 9 i!t ~e C1) [ill ~¥:t± ~ "('~Mfl11b t 11 1fj I1J '/)~ ~ )j a~ ~ b C1) -C' ~ Q t ~ ;( "( \- '\t~ 0 ~ t~ ~ UH;: 1t~ ~ c::t 'j:.. i11J EE 'j: ~7J'-ft!! (1) IlJj t!fj tI mlj (1)~* t 'J:'Q t ~;( t;,tL"( ~ '\ Q c:: t -C' ~ .Q 0

.g. fj {~ 1 Y 'y 7"~ 5g C1) r:f \/ ;;f' t ~ ~ ':r ~ '\ iii tij C1)~ J 'j:.g.fj {~ (1) (7IJ t l -C J: <ijIffl ~it .Q 0 :f \/ ;;f' '/)~ ~ \liK l -t- '3, 'J:' iii tij ~ =F ~;: ~ '\ it t;,it 'J:' '/)1 ~ t~ t ~ ~;:, -t- it 'j: c '3 it9 ~ ,:r ~ '\(1) t.!. t iR~ "? ~t -C l ~. ~ t~ 0 .g. fj {~ "(' 'j:, " b ~ t b t;, l ~ ,\" ~t it C b ~t) (1) fj m'/)~.. *~ (1) fj m~;:8 ~ '/)1;( t;,it Q 0 c:: '3 l., "( , fL. t~'1? 'j:" jt ~t fff l rio" t ~ '\ '3 ~lJl~ If:~;: T Q c::t ~;: ~ Q 0 =:~ (1).:r~ 'j:, )ff J9T (1)~ (1).:r '/)~ e7J'- (1) 8b i? ~ (1) if!! IlJj if! ~ ~!h t) ~ ~ l-C l ~ '37)1 t;,m7.f ~;:*-C ~ l <'J:' ~ '\ t ,~ ~ t.::. 0 -t- (1).:r ~ ~~ ~ -C if!! IlJj if! ~;: ~ it -C ~ '7 'J: ~ ~ '\ t ~:b it.Q t, -t- C1) =:~ (1) .:f~ 'j:.. ~ C1) .:r 'j: -G~ ~ l -C ~ '\Q '/)1 b l tL 'J:' ~ '\ t ~ ~ t.::. 0 -t- (1)~ (1) .:r 'j:Jt9 ~ -C ~ '\ .Q t ~ :b tL Q t, f:f:J '/)~ ~ t) -t- '3 to!. t ~ ~ t.::. 0 m'J:'~ '/)1~ t;, 'J:' ~ '\ t -g:b it.Q t, -t­C1) .:r C1) 8 -£J: ~ ~ '/)~ -t- (1) .:r ~* ~ it t~ <~ ~ '\ '/)1 b l it 'J:' ~ '\ t ~ ~ t~ 0 -t- (1)~ t, =:~ C1) -r'j: ~tQ ~;: m ~ '\ <' Qrio ~ #f~ -C rr ~ t~ ~ '\ t ,~ '3 oc ITfi, " * ~ 'J:' jffi 1? ~ ~" t ,~. :b it Q7P b l it~~ '\ t ~ '\ '3 c:: t ~;::Ii Jii l, ~ J~H1t \- '\ <' Q rio 'j:~ ~ -C tT '/)1 ~ ~ '\ c:: t ~;: l t.::. 0 -t- (1) -r 'j:m~ '\ <' .Qrio '/)~ m$ ~ '(}<'/)1 b lit 'J:' ~'\ t fj m"? ~t t.::. 0 *1.. t.::. i? (1):t±~ "(' 'j:.g. fj a~ ,~.~ ~ m:mT Q t.::.~ ...g. fj {~ l -C \- '\ Q '/)1 C '3 '/)1 *,J ltJi T Q C1) '/)~ ft l ~ '\ c:: t '/)~ J: <~ .Q 0 -t- (1) A '/)qJ ti a~ ~;: e 7J'- (1)~

i.. ~ 1ft~ l -C ~ '\ .Q '/)1 C '3 '/)1 ~ IJt~T it kI', .-t- it t;, ~ IX 51lj T Q c:: t '/)~ "(' ~ Q 0 b l.. -t- C1) '(}t '/)~ ~ t t) fI ti a~ "(' 'J:' ,t it tr, ~:h'-*~ (1) fj m'j: i~ ~ ~ it -C 8 t.> -r, -t- it '/)~ 'j: ~ ~ t) ~~~ it -C l t '3 '/)1 b l· tL 'J:' ~ '\ t l~. ~ "( , ~ !J( ~;: 'J:' Q 0

& I1J mP.X; 11~ tI (1) J'\ l' 0 "/ }- '/)~ 5g Q t c:: 0 ~;: J: .Q t.. ~ 'j: a:~~ tT rf:t, :h~ ~;: -1: ~~~ t.::. fit.. N 7.f ti ~IJ ~;:1l ~fJ T .Q c:: t ~ 5~ <"fl1.~ "(' ~ '\t.::. '/)~, -t- (1) 1ft=J.t (1) a:~ "('~ f$ l -C l ~

~ t.::. 0 1 >' ~ c ;1.. - ~ '3 ~t Q t, fJt 'j: 1 >' ~ c ;z. 7 - C1) Wrm ~ ~ ~ '\ t tr l, e 7J'- 'j: JR rr rf:t- J.t b ~~ ttii ~ ~~ l t.::. c:: t 'j: 'J:' ~ '\ l, ~~ fnJ b tffi l ~ '\ t 'j: ,w. :b 'J:' '/)1 ~ t.::. t -g ~ '\ -fJJ ~ t.::. 0 -t­(1)~ .. ~~T.Q~m~J:7.f8C::T~fflC1)~Q~YY;z.'?k ~>,~~-)v~~~~ .. ~c1)

J: '3 ~;: Mi ~t.::. 0 r, .. .. t! 1* '/)~ ~ ~;: ~ t;, ~ '\t.!... .. , ffi 11 'j:~ 1? Q, .. .. f~ 0 l ~ '\ 0 ffi '/)'( ffii'/)~ .Q 'J:'~ -C ! 1fi '/)~ tffi '/)~Q t 'j:,~;b ~ '/)1 ~ t.::., .. .. ~ b 1fi ~ f~ it ~ it Q c:: t 'J:' c "(' ~ 'j: T ~

~ '\ t ,~. ~ -C ~ '\t.::., , , 0 J (*? 1 }-, 1 9 6 4, p. 6 4 )fIll t.> '/)1 ~;: J'\ 1 0 'Y }-,j:"fl1. ~ l <'J:' ~ '\~ ;( ~;: M~T Q t.::.~ ~;: ~m.£:.£: t l -C, ~~ 'J:' 1m J.t ~t ~ t.::. 0 &l1Jm p.x; 'j: .. 1fIJEE t, ~ ~t ~it t.> it 'J:' ~'\ t Jt.'J:' ~ it QfrnJ.t ~tT I1J t 'j: lE&M (1)1iJ

J.t c rr ih ~ ~~ (J~ ~;: t .Q c:: t ~ 1!;~ -C' ~ '\ .Q 0 Ut~ 'j: 1fIJ EE ~ (@)it ~ it Q t 11i 5:E ~ it -C ~ '\ Q •m(1)J&J~~ 'j: 8 -t-t.> <- fm C1) &l1Jm p.x; "('~ 0 '3 0 ~~~ Q ~'\ 'j: fE;~ '/)~ -r~ ~ ~T~ ~ t.:.

t }§. '3 -1] "('T11-C ~ m{JH;:~ t, Q '/)1 b lit 'J:' ~'\ 0 c:: '3 l-C, -t- (1)~ ,j:-r~ (1)$§ ~ ti~

-133-

""( %i <~ fll T .t> ~ t ~;: J: "? ""(.. EJ 7J' EJ J;f 1J~ f:,~ i.... ~ t) ~ ~ ~ ? t T .t> 1J~ b L- h. 'J: \.' 0 CIv 'J:m""(~ <7) 7 }v:1 - }vMf-l~11:~}JH;:M L.""( b ~M ~ ~ i.. .t> A /{ ~i 8 ~ t:> <.. ~ <7) J: ? 'i'tr ltJ ~ L. t: \.' t \.' ? EJ 7J' EJ J;f C1) atfll ~ :1 /' l- 0 - }v L. J: ? t ti "? ""( \."\ .t> <7)""(~ ~ ~ ? 0 " ~

~ t) ~;: b (I L. \.," fl:.. tl: ~i.. ~ C1)~ J.l C1) (f L. ~ C1) t:f:t ~;: .. r ;fJ,. ~i ~ C1) A ~ ~ m-l;7J ""(~ ~~ T V 0 Jt \.' oJ.. fl!!.A~;: M L.~ "? t: t ts ~;: }~, V of~ ill L.""( L. ~ ? J: ? 'J:~m~ ~ L. b "? ""( \.' .t> 1J~ bL.h.'J:\.'o

j~ Jj - ~ a~ 'J:~ '* .-r:~ ~i.. ~.t> @).A1J~ EJ 7J' EJ J;fC1) @) A a~ 'J:~ fW~ tl:m~ :;p ~ ~;: fl!! .A~;: ~$~

~ it.t> t s, ~ <7) A ~i j~ ~ L. ""( \.' .t> 0 =f~ ~i fiB A b EJ * t ~ t.::, J: oJ ~;: ~ t.::, .t> t }~, \.'.. EJ *C1)::JJ i: ~~#i~ ~ j~ ~T {, ~ t 1J~ ~ \. '0 ~ {, =f~ 1J~ ~ L. \.' t ~.. ~ C1) =f ~i ii:.~ b ~ L. \.' t-g ? 1J~ b L. h. 'J: \. '0 L. 1J~ L. ~ z: -r:~ ~i.. j~ Jj ~i b "? t 1m 5E a~ 'J:~ '* ~*"? 0 ~ h. ~i ijt 't ?§ h.1J~ t: \.'~ tt ~ ~~~ ~;: @ A ~;: ~w ~ ~ it {, ~ t -r:- ~ .t> 0 ~ ~ -(' b ~ t: : j~ Jj ~i ijt ,t ?§ h. 1J~ t.:\. '::JJ i.. ~ f!P 1±T .t> ~ t t.. ~ it ~ {~A ~;: ~w ~ ~ it {, ~ t C1)="? C1) O{1j ffii ~*"? 0

j~ ~ C1) liJf~ -r:-.. *~ 1:. i;{ :t±~ a~ ~;: ~ ~ L. <'i' \. , ~ "? C1)~ tl:.. 7"1-.. jjJi li'!I.. t.!. f:, L- 'J: ~ ..I*J~ ~;: rm L-""(.. EJ 7J' EJ J;f t :t:> B. \. , ~ ~ 5E L- t.: 0 ~{, ~~ :1i t.: ~ ~i.. ~ <7)~ ~ L- <'J: \. ,~ tt~;: rm L.""( .. 1( A 1J~ f:,~ \.,~ 5E ~ b f:, ? -11.. *A b EJ 7.J' ~;: r$ \.,~ 5E ~ ~ t.: i.. ""( 8 t).. ofh.~;: ~ --? \. "\ ""( \.' {, i t ~ ~ L. t.: 0 {~C1) ;&:~ :1i t.: ~ ~i.. 11:. A 1J~ f:, r$ \. ,~ 5E ~ b f:, oJ -11 -r:~.. EJ* EJ Jt ~;: ~i m; \. , ff 5E ~ L.""( 8 t).. *.A1J~ ~ C1) fll ~ L. <'J: \. ,~ tl: ~;: ~--? \. , ""( \.' 'J: \.' ~ t ~ ~

L. t.: 0 ~ f:, ~;: fJ.t t:> ~i.. ~ h. f:, C1) fll ~ L. <'J: \."\~ 11: ~;: "? \."\ ""( @ =fj ~;:.. ~l1J~ C1)~ 1:. t.: ~ J: t) b~ \. , ff 5E ~ L.""( \.' t.: 0 fJ.t f:, 1J{ EJ 7J' EJ J;f C1) fll ~ L. <'J: \. , *l tl: ~;: MT {, ~~ ~ X ~.. ~ h. ~ @A ~;: j~ Jj L. t.: <7) ~i flJ) B -r:- ~ .t> 0 (.-e i - :;(.. 1 9 3 6 )

j~ Jj ~i.. ~ t.: Jm flL7'c JEt 'i' {, ~ t b ~ {, 0 JJ 11: C1) tl:~ ~ "lj ,t of ~;: at*:;pm~;: ~"? t.: :t= \.'fl:.. tl: ~i.. JJ tl: 1J~ fJ.t fl:.. ~;: *l ZIJ 'J:' rm Ie., ~ ~ "? ""( \.' {, t ;m MT {, 1J~ b L. h. 'i' \.' 0 tb.t> i'F~ C1)~ "?""( \."\ .t> fl:.. tt ~i.. JJ~ 1J{~ lj) -C' fJ.t fl:.. ~ ~ \. "\ 1J~ ,t @] L. t.: t \.' ? 1J{.. iJij,,""( 1-}..t> t ~ <7) J: ? 'J:~~ ~i 'i' 1J~ "? t.: 0 ~ <7) fI C1)~~ 'i' ~J 1J{ 7 ~ - :7-r- C1) m~ r ~~ C1) :h. fJ J (1 9 5 a ) ~;: Jilla~ ~;: ftit 1J~ h. -c \.' {, 0

~ h. ~-r:~;fJ,. t.: ~ 1J{ ::JJ~ L. ""( ~ t.:·~ Bt];D ~i IfJj tti t1.t ftjlJ ~ mmL. -c ~i \. , 'i' \. "\ 1J~.. *=- <7) § a~ ~i

~<7)-~~'i'tl:W~~~T{,~t~~"?ko

-134-

APPENDIX D

'THE QUESTIONNAIRE ABOUT READING PROCESS

1 2 3 4 5

!Mi<-f'3 -f'3 c~f:, -f '3 ~j: 1 '? t: <m ... m .. t'b ~ i.. I~,h~~) -f':) ~j:Ie.' ? Ie., ?

'J:~ ) I~,h~~)

1. in At "'(' ~) Q t ~ ,:... tI l,"'( .. 1 2 3 4 5Jtt ~~ ~ - § J! "'( ~ ZIJ "'(' ~ t: 0

2 h 7)1 t) ,:. < 7)1 '? t: t).. h 1.P 1 2 3· 4 5f:,~ " ) Jt iJ~ "'('"'( ~ t: C: ~ ,:. ..-f c1)Jt c1)Jt~ :tit~ ~ -n' tfi L ..~~ ~ h iJ~ ~ '3 T Q ~ C: iJ~

~ iJ~ '? t: 0

3 in At ""(' ~) Q C: ~ ,:... (j: ,:. {IlJ iJ~ 1 2 3 4 5• ")"'( 11 Q iJ~ ~ -=f 3t!J L~ iJ~ f:,in t1~ C: iJ{ t: v: t: v: 11 '? t: 0

4 ~ c1)Jt. ~ in t1 C: ~ ,:... cit 1 2 3 4 5t.!. ,t -f c1)r*J '?(J. ~ J! A; T it 'i J:" '\iJ~ ~ ¥'J It1i L t: 0

5 .Vi At "'(' "'\Q C: ~ ,:... -f c1) l' t." 1 2 3 4 5"/ ? ,:. '? " '\"'(.. EJ -it iJ{ ~ it1"'(' ,:.1<1 '? "'( ,,'\ Q~~ C:.. .trueAt "'(' iii t, <~ At t.!. ~ C: ~ ¥'J ZIJl, ~ iJ{ f:, in At t.!. 0

6 in At "'(' ,,'\ Q C: ~ ,:... II~ flj JiJf 1 2 3 4 5,:. 7 ~ :1' - '7'{ ~ ~ '(} ~ '\t: t) ..Ell ~ '? ,t t.::. t) T Q ~ C: iJ~ ~ iJ~

'? i: 0

-135-

2

7 fft A, -C' \.'LQ t ~ ~;:, ~ ~ V') ;b 1 2 3 4 5'/p~ 'i' \- )1t!~ ~ Je., V') r:p "C~ ifL -C rl Q ~ t '/la '$'/p '? t: 0

8 fftA, -C' \-) Q t ~ ~;:, Jt~Jt~ 1 2 3 4 5~1*V')~~ckDb,@I~V')1t!

~V')~~ ~ JjR; lck '3 t l-C\0)Q ~ t 'IP '$'/p '? r: 0

9 :g. f~ m: V') J! te L ~ ~ V') Jt~ V') 1 2 3 4 5ft4 fit~ ~ Q V') ~;: fij ffl l t: 0

1 0 fft A, -C' \- ) Q t ~ ~;:, ofV') fig 1 2 3 4 5~~, f3 * '/)tfa ~;: ~ '? -C \-) Q~ t ~;: rm il":nt 'i' iJt ~ in A, t~ 0

1 1 ~ V')Jt. ~ fffftT Q jj1j~;:, 1 2 3 4 5t: V') l-- ~ 'y ? ~;: "? \-) -C f3:n" '/)"afa~;:~ '? -C \o)Q ~ t iJt~ Q '/)1C '3 '/)1 iii i~ l t.:. 0

1 2 11e A, -C' \0 ) Q t ~ t;:, fig~ ~ 1 2 ,3 4 5Jj ft; L t: t ~ t, of '3 -C' 'i' \0 )

. t ~ ~ ~~ L 'i' '/)~ ~ fft A, t~ 0

1 3 fft A, -C' \0)Q t ~~;:, ck <.J 1 2 3 4 5- l-- ~ t '? t.:. 0

1 4 in A, -C' \0)Q t ~ t;:, T r«; -C 1 2 3 4 51t! ~! ~ Je., (J) r:p -C'~ if l 'i' '/)t ~11e A, t.: 0

1 5 ~~ V') ;b '/)1 .~ 'i' \0 ) 1t! ~! ~j: , 1 2 3 4 5Jt JlrR '/)1 ~ ofV')~~ ~miJJ L t: 0

1 6 11e A, -C' \o)Q t ~ t;:, Jt 1* (jlJ 1 2 3 4 5'/)~ C A, 'i'tJ!l~.~ ~.l-C \0)Q '/)1

~ ~~ L "'(mA,t~ 0

1 7 ~ V') Jt ~ ~ ff ~T Q jj1j ~;: , 1 2 3 4 5- J1t 1JJ (i) '/)1 ~ ~;b t) ~ -C')Hi~l"'(, C V') t!iPJi '/)"a ft L \0)'/)1 ¥'JltJj L r: 0

1 8 Jt V')~~ ~ Jj R; T Q t: (i) ~;: , 1 2 3 4 5V- t;, J: '3 ~;: a:~ ~ ~ r:p L "'( ~~ 'i' ,t tl ~i 'i' ~. 'i' '/)1 '? t: 0

-136-

3

1 9 c: (/)Jt* ~j:~~ (J) b 7Jl ~ ~ 1 2 3 4 5\. '\ Jf!~ 7J~ ~ 7Jl '? t: 0

20 in A., "(~ v'\ Q t ~ ,:.. -t it ~ 1 2 3 4 5""C' ,: in A., t.!.1*J '4J. t rm ii "1,t 'i'7J~ ~ in A., t.!. 0

2 1 c: (/) Jt. a- tf in T Q 1Jtr ,: 1 2 3 4 5j:~~~x.(;(1/ 7177) a- ~~ Q t:~ ,: 1€i v'\ Vi fi a-L. t: 0

22 ~ fi ti a- in ti t ~ ,:.. -t (J) 1 2 3 4 5j:~'i'~x.(~1/ 7177) a- ~T Jt ,: tl:~ L. t.::. 0

23 Vi A., "(~ \.'\ Q t ~ ,:.. Ie,(J) J:P 1 2 3 4 5"(~.. Jt • (/) I*J '4J. a- fiiJ .fft 7Jl~~L. 'i' 7J~ ~ Vi A., t.!. 0

24 c: (J) Jt • (J) ft4 fiX; 7J~ 7 1 7 7 1 2 3 4 5(J) 1"IJ qfi t. -t (J) fat 1;.7Jl ~ fiX; t] s:'? "( \.'\Q c: t a-~~ L. 'i'7J" ~Vi A., t.!. 0

2 5 c: (J) Jt=- a- Vi fi~ X. t: fit .. 1 2 3 '4 5II) (/) J:P "(~.. Vi A., t.!.1*J '4J. a- ~~L. t: 0

Jt Iii J:P ,:lj ft¥ "(~ ~ 'i' \. '\ f!j jiJf 7J~ 1J t] ~ L. r: ~.. ~ (/) 1i m1 ,: t:3~ X. """F ~ \.'\ 0

2 6 lj ft¥ "(~ ~ 'i' 7Jl '? t: t ~ ~j: .. 1 2 3 4 5;t a- fftt1 a- b 7Jl Q t l~, \. '\.. -t(J) ~ ~ infi~fHtt.::. 0

27 lj ft¥ "(~ ~ 'i' 7Jl '? t: t ~ ~j: .. 1 2 3 4 5-t (J) f!j Wi a- fiiJ .fft b in 1-1-~ L. t: 0

28 JJl! ft¥ "(~ ~ 'i' 7Jl '? t.::. t ~ ~j: .. 1 2 3 4 5Jt JDR 7Jl ~ -t (/)~~ a- m3{Ij L.J: ? t L. t: 0

-137-

APPENDIX E

(English Translation)

THE QUESTIONNAIRE ABOUT READING PROCESS

In the actual questionnaire, these items are randomized inorder.

Please indicate the level of your agreement or disagreement with eachstatement by circling the appropriate number.

1 2 3 4 5

strong Iy agreeagree

neutral disagree . stronglydisagree

(*) Indicates that the marked statements are' different from the rest ofthe statements in that high proficiency readers in both languages are'expected to indicate their disagreement for these statements, whereasthey will indicate their agreement to the rest of the' statements.

WORD RECOGNITION

MATCHING

1 While reading, I could identify the words 1 2 3 4 5in the passage at a glance.

2 I found many unfamiliar words in 1 2 3 4 5this passaqe, (*)

RECODING

3 While reading, I mentally sounded 1 2 3 4 5out all the words. (*)

-138-

4 While reading, I often sounded outunfamiliar words in mind.

LITERAL COMPREHENSION

LEXICAL ACCESS

1 2 3 4 5

5 While reading, I often tried to 1 2 3 4 5understand more what individualwords meant than what the entiresentence or passage meant. (*)

6 I tried to learn the meanings of 1 2 3 4 5unfamiliar words from the context.

PARSING

7 While reading, I often analyzed 1 2 3 4 5the grammatical structure of thesentences that were difficult tounderstand or I failed to understand.

S I had to concentrate much on 1 2 3 4 5reading the passage to understand

its meaning. (*)

INFERENTIAL COMPREHENSION

INTEGRATION

9 While reading, I often predicted whatwould come next.

-139-

1 2 3 4 5

10 While reading, I think the headings 1 2 3 4 5of paragraphs helped me tounderstand the passage.

11 While reading, I was aware what 1 2 3 4 5concept each example illustrated.

12 While reading, I related the information 1 2 3 4 5which I was reading to previousinformation in the passage.

13 While reading each paragraph, I paid 1 2' 3 4 5special attention to the sentence thatdescribed the main idea.

SUMMARIZATION

14 While reading, I mentally summarized 1 2 3 4 5from time to time what I had read inthe passage.

15 While reading, I was aware that 1 2 3 4 5the organization of the passagewas collection and description ofcertain ideas.

ELABORATION

16 While reading, I related informationin the passage to what I alreadyknew about the topic.

-140-

1 2 3 4 5

COMPREHENSION MONITORING

GOAL SETTING AND STRATEGY SELECTION

17 Before J read the passage closely, I 1 2 3 4 5decided how well I should understandthe passage.

18 Before I read the passaqe closely, I 1 2 3 4 5made sure whether I knew somethingabout the topic of the passage.

19 Before I read the passage closely, 1 2 3 4 5read it through once and decidedwhat part would be difficult to understand.

20 Before I read the passage closely, I 2 3 4 5skimmed it for the main ideas.

21 After I read the passage, I tried tosummarize what it meant in my mind.

1 2 3 4 5

GOAL CHECKING AND REMEDIATION

22 While reading, I discerned what I already 2 3 4 5knew about the topic from what I wouldlearn in the passage.

23 While reading, I distinguished between 1 2 3 4 5when I understood what parts of thepassage meant from when I did not.

-141-

If you did not understand parts of the passage, please answer thefollowing questions.

24 When I did not understand parts of thepassage, I kept reading and hoped

for further clarification.

1 2 5

25 When I did not understand parts of the 1 2 3 4 5passage, I reread those parts.

26 When I did not understand parts of the 1 2 3 4 5passage, I tried to learn their meaningfrom the context

STUDY SKILLS

27 While reading, I often underlined 1 2 3 4 5or marked the key sections ofthe passage.

28 While reading, I often took notes. 1 2 3 4 5

-142-

APPENDIX F

COMPREHENSION QUESTIONS

Fill in the blanks or answer the questions by choosing the mostappropriate word(s) or sentence. Please answer by marking the letterwhich represents the best answer to the questions.

1 In summary, this passage discusses _a. a method for identifying defense mechanisms.b. four types of. common defense mechanisms.c. the sequence for studying defense mechanism.d. the reasons that people need defense mechanisms.

2 A grocer failed in business because he did not have good business sense,but he claimed that he failed because of unfair competition. The grocerused the defense mechanism of _

a. projectionb. repressionc. rationalizationd. reaction formation

3 According to Sigmund Freud, the defense mechanism that is the basis forall the others is _

a. repressionb. projectionc. ratlonalization .d. reaction formation

4 A woman who feels threatened by an impulse to steal items from storesmay attribute the same impulse to others and begin to fear that her pursewill be stolen and that the clerks will shortchange her. The woman usesthe defense mechanism of _

a. repressionb. projectionc. rationalizationd. reaction formation

-143-

5 A man who really wants to start fires may become a firefighter andspend his time putting them out. He uses the defense mechanisms of

a. repressionb. projectionc. regressiond. rationalization

7 According to the author, it is often difficult to decide whether people'are rationalizing or not _

a. because they will not acknowledge real reasonsb. because they are not willing to examine their thinkingc. because they are being rational hi order to be respectedd. because our society places' much value on rational thoughts

8 Which statement is true?a. Charles Darwin made a point of writing down anyobservation which supported his views.b. Charles Darwin was very aware of our tendency toforget unless we take notes.c. Charles Darwin viewed repression of hostile and sexualimpulses as universal in nineteenth-century Western society.d. Charles Darwin noted that we tend to forget unpleasantthings.

9 Which statement is true?a. In repression; we tend to forget unhappy experiences.b. In projection, "good" but false reasons are substituted forreal reasons.

-144-

c. In rationalization, we refuse to recognize a threateningsource of anxiety.d. In reaction formation, we returns to an earlier stage ofdevelopment in response to some perceived threat.

10 According to the author, parental overprotection may be a form ofreaction formation, because the parent _

a. loves the child so deeply he spoils the childb. expresses anger toward the task of child rearingc. conceals his eagerness to a desire for the child's welfared. may shower the child with expressions of love, instead ofacknowledging that she dislikes her child.

-"-145-

APPENDIX G

COMPREHENTION QUESTIONS

Jt -= (7) f*J W. ~;: "? \., "'( (J) fllm ~;: m1 t.x . b.., t b)iti ~ t I~' :b it Q ~ i.. (J) ~2 ~ ~.. 0 En"'(' f!fl ,{,"c'r~ v-,

1 ~~~rt Q e . .:: (J) Jt • ~<~~ "'( \.' Q .:: t 'j: <X (J) cit "C' T ~) .

a. Wftlfj tI mlJ ~ ¥iJ 7JIJ T Q1i~b. - ma9 'J:-~ fI (J) fI}jtIfj tI mlJ (J) ~2~

c. fI}jtIfj tI mlJ ~ IDtd~ Q =F Jqf{d. fI}jtIfj tI mlJ ~< &,~ t~ it Q JJI! It

4 nijl ~ ~ L t.: \.'.t \.' '3 ffjltJ ~ fij..,"'( \.' Q.k '3 'J:-:9:tl:'j: .. fflA b ~ t,ffjlfJ ~ t!i..,"'( \.' Q (J)

"C' 'j:~ \. ,~) t l~, \.'.. EI 7J'- (J) M:(fi~< ~ ~ it 'j:T ~ \.'~).. ~ t: i- Y (J) liS~ ~< :f:) "? t) ~~' 'J:- <~L 'j: L~ \t' ipc Ie, P2 ~;: 'J:- Q. .:: (7):9: tl: (J) ffl \.' "'( \.' Q fI}jtIfj tJ! mlJ 'j:<X (7) c tt "C' T ~) •

a.JPEEb. t~~

c . fiJ.m{td.&ItJWrot

5 ~ Y< L t: \t' t \.' '3 ~m \. , JfJtf~ ~ t!i .-j A 1;<.. i~ fI}j ± ~;: 'J:- .., "'( i~ Y< ~;: ~Wi T Q .:: t ~< ~ Q. f&:(7)m\., "'( \.' Q fI}jtIfj tI mlJ 'j:<X (7) c it "C'T ~) .

a.JPEEb. t~~

c. ll!fTd.&ItJWrot

-146-

2

6 jc~ $ "('.. tJ~ tI 0) ) '\ l' 0 "/ ~ 1;~ ~m.£: ~ t L. ~.. ~~ 'i' 1m~ a- t '? t~ 0) 'j 'i' if "'(~ T 1;l •

a. ~ a- m~ 0) ii' ttii ~ \ t ~ \ ? m~ i? a- !!P J± L. J: ? t T Q t: (i)b. ~ a- ~~ 0) 1;{tfti \.\ c \. \ ? ~~ i? a- ~~ 0) J: ~ t ~~ ~ ~;: t:> ~ 1;l 7... ~ t: (i)c. ~ ~m~ 0) 1;{ttii \. \ t ~ \ ?~~ i? a- 1m -f ? t T ~ t: (i)d. ~~ ~;: ~ Jif/£: ~ t L."'( ~m~;: jN~ _ ? .:: t "('.. ~~ 0) 1;{tfti v\ t It\ ? m~ i? a­~ <t~(i)

7 ~~ ~;: J: ~ t.. A 1;{.g.flI! 1~ L. "'( ~ \ Q 1;l e ? 1;l¥'J lt1i T ~ (!) 1;~ ~ L. It\.:: t 1;{J: <1.> ~. -f tt'j <X (!) e (!) ffl! EtJ t» f:, "C~ T 1;l 0

a. *~ 0) Jj EtJ a- ~2 (i) J: ? t L. 'i' \. \ t» f:,b. 13 *(!) I~ jj ~ ~ ~ L t: 1;{ f:, 'i' It\ 1;l f:,c .•• ~ttJ:?tL"C .. .g.Jj~"{'~~?tTQ~f:,d. fA t~ i? 0) 11:~ "'(' ';1.. .g.1I A~ }~t ~ 1;{11m~ tt ~ It\ ~ i» f:,

8 <X (!) jc. (!) ? i?.. 1£ L. It\ b (!) ';1 e tt "C~ T 1;l 0

a. 1-~ - }v ;( = :¥ - ? -1 /' 'j.. 13:n'- (!) J! A; ~ m11 ,., ~ rm~ ~ T ~ t.. -f tt ~ it~ t ~ ~ .:: t ,;: L. ~ \. \ t: 0

b. 1- -v - Iv;( = :7" - ? -1 /' 'j.. .J - l- ~n f:, 'i' It\ t ;E.; tt '"( L. i It\ 1;{i? "C' iYJ ~ .::t ~;: ~ w'J It\ ~ It\ t~ 0

c. 1-~ - iv;( = :7" - ? -1 /' ';1.. 1 9 "ill: ~c (!) fm ~¥ =tt~ "C~ itlt M~ J:fJ t 1"£~ fJJ (!) !!P EE';11t3ft A~ ~ b (!) "(,1.> Q t J! 'i' L ~ It\ t~ 0

d. 1-~ - Iv;( = :7" - ? l' /' ';1.. ~~ 'i'':: t ';1;E.; tl 1;~ i? "C~ iYJ ~ .:: t ~;:.. ~ -? \- \ ~\-\ t.:. 0

9 <x(!)jc~(!)? i? .. 1E L \.\ b 0)';1 ett "C~T1;l 0

a. j!JJ EE ,;: J: '? ~ .. fA t~ i? 'j~~ 'i'~~ ~ $ tt J: ? t T Q 0

b. 19; ¥a "C' ';1.. " b '? t b f:, L. \- \" 1;q~ t) (!) JH! EtJ 1;{.. *~ 0) Jm EE ~;: t:> ~ 1;l .t f:, ttQo \

c. ~ II 1~ ,;:J: '? '""( .. ~~ 0) )](~ ~ ;tj. t ~ J: ? t t.,~ \. '\ 0 "

d.&~~~~J:'?"C ...~i~tQt .. ~~~~(!)n(!)~m~~~t)TQo

1 a :g~ ,;: J: Q t .."~ 0) 3&11*~ b - flI! (!)& JW~ fiX; t ~ tl ~ '/){.. -f tl 'j~ if "'(~ T '/)l 0

a. m'/)~ T ~ ~ ifl~ L. ~ L. ~ ? '/)l f:,b. ml 'IJ{ T ~ "C ,;: MT ~ nJI t~ t.,~ ~ ~ -f ? t T ~ 'lJl f:,c. ml iJ~ T ~ ~ ~ '? ~ ~ \ ~ 0) a-.. 13:n'- "'(~ i~ (i) J: ? t L. 'i' \- '\ '"(~.. T ~ ~;: ~ tiT ~ ~ -t­

? (t T Q '/)l f:,d. m'IJ{ T ~ 0) "*m~.. ~ Ie., ,: Wit '? "C It'\ Q .:: t ~ 1t1-t- '3 t T Q 'lJl f:,

-147-