BIBLIOGRAPHY YOUNG MI JUNG, November 2006, Comprehension and...
BIBLIOGRAPHY
YOUNG MI JUNG, November 2006, Comprehension and Performance of
Korean College Students in Asking Questions. Benguet State University, La Trinidad,
Benguet.
Adviser: Dimas P. Wandit, M.A
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to determine the comprehension and performance in
asking questions among Korean College Students in Baguio City. Particularly, it
identified 1) the level of comprehension and performance of the subjects in asking
questions, 2) the common grammatical errors committed by the subjects, and 3) the
relationship of gender and length of stay in the Philippines to their comprehension and
performance.
The research used was the descriptive method. One hundred (100) Korean college
students enrolled in the different institutions in Baguio City during the first semester were
subjects of the study. Data were obtained through a teacher made and were treated
statistically using F-Test and Cochran Test.
The findings of the study revealed that the overall performance of the subjects in
asking questions is “very, good”. They were most competent in constructing WH-
questions followed by transforming declaratives to questions and comprehending
contextualized questions. Male and female subjects who stayed for 1-6 months (less than
a year) and more than 25 months (almost two years) do not differ significantly in their
level of comprehension and performance in asking questions. The common grammatical
errors committed are category of the auxiliary, position of the auxiliary, subject- auxiliary
agreement, tense of the auxiliary and punctuation. Variables like gender and length of
stay in the Philippines have no relation to the subjects’ comprehension and performance
in asking questions.
From these findings, the following conclusions are drawn. There are no differences in
the performance of the subjects in terms of gender and length of stay in the Philippines.
The incorrect use of auxiliary in asking questions is the most common error committed
by the subjects. Variables like gender and length of stay in the Philippines have no
relation to the subjects’ comprehension and performance in asking questions.
It is then suggested that learners should put emphasis in studying the English
auxiliary, negation, and question systems. Further studies on other aspects of
interrogatives and the discourse and communicative competence among Koreans should
also be undertaken. Lastly, Koreans staying in the Philippines for almost two years
should maintain English as a medium of conversation with fellow Korean and Filipino
friends.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography…………………………………………………….…….
i
Abstract….………………………………………………................. ….
i
Table of Contents………………………………………………………
iii
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study…………………………….………….. 1
Statement of the Problem……………………………………..…. 4
Objectives of the Study………………….…………..……... …….. 5
Importance of the Study………………………………................... 5
Scope and Delimitation of the Study………….............................. 6
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Second Language Acquisition…….…………………………….. 8
Interaction and Second Language Acquisition………………….. 15
Acquisition of Negation and Interrogation…………….……....... 16
English Modal Auxiliary Verbs…………………….……............ 22
Communicative Competence……………………………………… 24
Error Analysis…………………………………..…….........
27
Gender………………………................................................
32
Length of Stay ……………………………….……............
35
iii
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework……………….……
36
Definition of Terms………………………………………… 42
Hypotheses of the Study………….………................………
43
METHODOLOGY
Locale of the Study………………………………….………
44
Subjects of the Study…………………………………………
44
Instrumentation……………………………………………….
45
Data Gathering Procedure……………………………………
47
Statistical Treatment of Data…………………………………
47
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Subjects’ Level of Comprehension in
Contextualized Questions………………………….........
49
Subjects’ Level of Performance in transforming
Declaratives to Questions……………..………………… 50
Subjects’ Level of Performance in Constructing
WH- Questions………………………………………….. 51
Overall Performance of the Subjects’
in Asking Questions………………….…………………. 52
Grammatical Errors Committed by the
Subjects…………………………………………………….
54
Subjects’ Level of Comprehension in Contextualized
Questions as to Gender……………………………………….
58
Subjects’ Performance in Transforming Declarative to
Questions as to Gender……………………………………….
60
iv
Subjects’ Performance in Constructing WH-questions
As to Gender………………………………………………..
61
Subjects’ Level of Comprehension in Contextualized Questions
as to Length of Stay in the Philippines………………… 62
Subjects’ Level of Performance in Transforming Declaratives
to Questions as to Length of Stay in the Philippines………
65
Subjects’ Level of Performance in Constructing WH Questions
As to Length of Stay in the Philippines………………………
67
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary……..…………………………………………………… 70
Conclusions…………………………………………………….
71
Recommendations………………………………………………… 72
LITERATURE CITED…………………………………………………… 73
APPENDICES
A. Master’s Model of Errors in Constructing
Yes- No Questions……………………………….…………….. 79
B. Letter to Administer a Test………………………………….
80
C. Instrument……………………….…………………………..
81
D. Results of Item Analysis ……………………………………. 90
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH…………………………………………... 91
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
Page
v
1
Profiles of the Subjects……………………………..
45
2
Grammatical Errors Committed by the Subjects
of the Study………………………………………… 55
3
Subjects’ Level of Comprehension in Contextualized
Questions as to Gender……………………………. 59
4
Subjects’ Level of Performance in Transforming
Declaratives to Questions as to Gender…………….
61
5
Subjects’ Level of Performance in Constructing
WH – Questions as to Gender………………………
62
6
Subjects ‘ Level of Comprehension in Contextualized
Questions as to Length of Stay in the Philippines…….
64
7
Subjects’ Level of Performance in Transforming
Declaratives to Questions to Length of Stay
in the Philippines……………........................................... 66
8
Subjects’ Level of Performance in WH- Questions as to
Length of Stay in the Philippines……………………...... 68
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
No.
Page
vi
1. Steps for Making Yes- No questions
With and Without an Overt Auxiliary………………………….
20
2. Tree Diagram of Auxiliary Verbs……………………..……….. 25
3. The Deep Structure Diagram……………………………………
29
4. The Acquisition Hierarchy…………………………………….. 31
5. Paradigm of the Study…………………………………………… 41
6. Subjects’ Level of Comprehension in
Contextualized Questions………………………………………… 50
7. Subjects’ Level of Performance in Transforming
Declaratives to Questions……………………….……………… 51
8. Subjects’ Level of Performance in Constructing
WH- questions……………………….…………………………… 52
9. Overall Performance of the Subjects in
Asking Questions…………………………………………………… 53
vii
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
Language is one of the wonderful gifts given by God to humanity. It is
with the help of language that man is able to communicate and solve a number of
his problems and has been able to make a lot of achievements in life. If there has
been no language, it would have been difficult for man to communicate his views
to fellow human beings. There would be no educational activity into existence,
there would have been no law making, no preaching, no lecturing and nothing like
talking, singing, writing and exchanging views and there would have been no
book. That is why it is very essential for every man to learn and use a language.
However, it is not easy to learn a language. Every language is a complex
phenomenon, and one has to devote a number of years to learn a language even
though some are able to learn more than one language (Bose, 2005).
Every language has its own special way of making words. The ways in
which words behave in a particular language is called 'grammar.' When one is
speaking or writing in a foreign language or in one’s own language, the use of
words must obey grammatical rules of the language concerned. If it breaks down,
the sense conveyed through that language also breaks down. The term grammar
in its broadest sense refers to the statements about the regularities and the
irregularities of language. In every day usage, grammar evokes ideas about
“correctness” of language elements. This view of grammar involves many value
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
2
judgments about the acceptability of certain utterances. Grammar may all be
basically the same as suggested by the term universal grammar, since all
grammars must reflect the human minds, then one can assume that mind, always
and every where, has something common.
Language reflects cultures, and it helps man for communication and gives
a set of habits. Grammar can therefore be thought of as a codification of
observable characteristic of large body of speech (Bose, 2005). But knowing a
language involves not only knowledge of the formal properties of a language
system. More importantly, it involves knowledge and competence on the actual
use especially for communication and social interaction. As Kilgour (1999) puts
it, it is obviously a vital tool not only as a means of communicating thoughts and
ideas but it also forges friendships, cultural ties, and economic relationships.
Language also is knowledge and in the world today knowledge is one of
the key factors in competitiveness. Brains and knowledge are what create the
prosperity and growth that people tend to take for granted. In an advanced
industrial society in an increasingly independent world, the knowledge of other
languages becomes indispensable. Just think of how the advent of internet has
changed one’s life (Kilgour, 1999). Moreover, lack of language skills result to the
inability of the learners to speak for themselves, use sophisticated vocabulary,
formulate appropriate questions, or comprehend basic instructions (Levine, 2001).
Korea is one of these countries that wants to be communicatively
competent in the English language. Koreans readily admit that knowing how to
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
3
communicate in English is one of the most important qualifications. Many of
them give up their free time and hard- earned cash to improve their skill (Vorhess,
2001). They realize the significance of the English language for their studies,
jobs, business and personal development so English starts to be taught in the
middle school where children are at the age of eleven or twelve years old. Despite
of this, Koreans still find that they lack communicative competence. Such can be
attributed to certain factors such as low motivation, educational system, cultural
views and exposure to everyday conversations (Niederhauser, 2006).
Consequently, many students who further like to increase their competence attend
academies in their own country or go abroad. Philippines, particularly here in
Baguio City is one of the places that Koreans chose to develop their language
proficiency and communicative competence where they can use the English
language appropriately in real life situations. Besides, gaining good
communicative skills is always considered one of the most important factors in
settling down in a new society for the immigrants (Khan, 2005). As cited in
(www.plaza.ufl.edu ), the ultimate goal of learning a second language is the
attainment of communicative fluency. Second language researchers also argue
that willingness to communicate in the second language is one of the best
predictors in determining success in second language acquisition, in association
with the perspective that the more active second language learners are with
second language use, the greater possibility they have to develop second language
proficiency. It is important for Korean students then to understand what effects
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
4
willingness to communicate in English to enhance the possibility to acquire
English proficiency (Samimy, 2002). In order to communicate functionally,
patterns of questioning or interrogatives must be developed. Moreover, as Bose
(2005) puts it, in order to steer the language, one should internalize the
grammatical pattern existing in all linguistic levels of language. The
internalization of grammatical rules happens covertly if a language is acquired as
first language and it happens overtly if a language is learnt as second or foreign
language. However, the internalization of grammatical rule is an imperative
prerequisite for any language learning process.
Statement of the Problem
This study analyzed the comprehension and performance in asking
questions among Korean College students and identified the grammatical errors
committed among Korean college students. Specifically, it sought to answer the
following questions:
1. What is the subjects’ level of comprehension in asking questions?
2. What is the subjects’ level of performance in asking questions?
3. What are the grammatical errors committed mostly by the subject in
asking questions?
4. What effect do gender and length of stay in the Philippines have on the
subjects’ level of comprehension and performance in asking questions?
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
5
Objectives of the Study
This study determined the comprehension and performance in asking
questions among Korean College students and analyzed the common grammatical
errors that they committed. Specifically:
1. To determine the subjects’ level of comprehension in asking questions.
2. To determine the subjects’ level of performance in asking questions.
3. To identify the most common grammatical errors committed by the
subjects in asking questions.
4. To determine the effects of gender and length of stay in the Philippines
of the subjects on their level of comprehension and performance in asking
questions.
Importance of the Study
The findings of this study will be beneficial to various individuals.
To school and academy administrators, supervisors and curriculum
makers, the results will help them to design their course syllabus and materials
more appropriate and effectively for their clientele. Thus, learning the English
Language among Koreans will be easier and motivating.
To the subjects of the study, the results will identify their strengths and
weaknesses where they have rooms of improvement, thus achieving linguistic and
communicative competence.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
6
To teachers and tutors, this study will be an advantage for them since it
will give them an idea on how to improve instructional materials, implement
appropriate techniques and methods for effective teaching-learning process.
To future researchers, this study is an additional reference that will
contribute information in the auxiliary, negation and question systems of the
English language.
Finally, to the researcher herself, this undertaking will be an inspiration
and challenge to continue advancing her knowledge and skills in English.
Scope and Delimitation of the Study
This study was conducted to Korean college students who are studying in
the different institutions of Baguio City namely E- Maple Academy, Saint Louis
University, University of Baguio and University of Cordilleras during the first
semester of the school year 2005-2006.
It covered two aspects namely: 1) the evaluation of the level of comprehension
and performance of Korean college students in asking questions and 2) the
analysis of the grammatical errors that they committed in transforming
declaratives to questions. The comprehension level focused on choosing questions
from a given context and the performance level involved sentence transformation
to Yes- No questions and constructing WH- questions. The declaratives that were
transformed have either overt and buried auxiliaries while the WH- Questions
were direct and limited to Who, When, Where, Why and How questions.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
7
It also sought to find out the relationship of gender and length of stay in
the Philippines to the subjects’ comprehension and performance in asking
questions.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Second Language Acquisition
Krashen’s (1981) Monitor Model so far is the most comprehensive of
existing theories in second language acquisition. It consists of five central
hypotheses and makes reference to a number of factors which relate to these
hypotheses. The different hypotheses are:
1. The acquisition- learning hypotheses. It is applicable to the process
of internalizing new L2 knowledge, to storing this knowledge and to using it in
actual performance. Acquisition occurs subconsciously as a result of
participating in natural communication where the focus is on meaning. Learning
occurs as a result of conscious study of the formal properties of the language. In
storing the L2 knowledge, the acquired knowledge is located in the left
hemisphere of the brain in the language areas and is available for automatic
processing. Learnt knowledge is also stored in the left hemisphere of the brain
but not necessarily in the language areas and is available for controlled
processing. In language use, acquired knowledge serves as the major source for
initiating both the comprehension and production of utterances while learnt
knowledge is available for monitoring.
2. The natural order hypotheses. It indicates that learners may follow a
more or less invariant order in the acquisition of formal grammatical features. It
affirms that grammatical structures are acquired in a predictable order. Along
side with this hypothesis is the discussion on interlanguage theory. This term
was used by Selinker (1972) which Nemser (1971) also referred as
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
9
with this hypothesis is the discussion on interlanguage theory. This term was used
by Selinker (1972) which Nemser (1971) also referred as approximative systems
and Corder (1971) as idiosyncratic dialects and transitional competence.
Selinker (1972) suggested that five (5) principal processes operated in
interlanguage. These were 1) language transfer; 2) overgeneralization of target
language rules; 3) transfer of training; 4) strategies of L2 learning; 5) strategies of
L2 communication. These processes together constitute the ways in which the
learner tries to internalize the L2 system. They are the means by which the learner
tries to reduce the learning burden to manageable proportions which Widdowson
(1975) suggested that they can be subsumed under the general process of
“simplification”. Learners have limited processing space so they cannot cope with
the total complexity of a language system so they limit the number of hypotheses
which they test at any one point in time. Selinker (1972) noted that many L2
learners fail to reach the target competence and they stop learning when their
interlanguage contains some rules different from those of the target language
system. He referred to this as fossilization and it occurs mostly to language
learners and no amount of instruction can further remedy it. Fossilized structures
can be realized as errors or as a correct target language forms. When the learner
reached a stage of development in which feature x in his interlanguage has
assumed the same form as in the target language, then fossilization of the correct
form will occur. But if the learner has reached a stage in which feature y still does
not have the same form as the target language, then the fossilization will become
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
10
an error. Occasionally, the learners may succeed in producing the correct target
form but when the learner is focused on meaning especially if the subject matter is
difficult, he will backslide towards his true interlanguage norm. Selinker and
Lamendella (1978) reasoned out that fossilization occurs because the learner
believes that he does need to develop his interlanguage any further or it can occur
because of some changes in the neural system (Ellis, 1985).
The interlanguage theory further explained why adults successfully
achieved native speaker proficiency. They do so because of an acquisition device
which Lenneberg (1967) puts it as latent language structure. The successful adult
learner is able to transform the universal grammar into the structure of the
grammar in the target language by reactivating this latent language structure
(Ellis, 1985).
Apart from providing a framework of second language acquisition
Selinker (1972) also provided a framework for language-learner language. The
interlanguage has three (3) features. First, interlanguage is permeable. The rules
that constitute the learner’s knowledge at any one stage are not fixed, but open to
amendments. For example, in Chaucer’s English the standard negative
construction involved using “not” after the main verb until it evolved gradually to
the present day English pattern where “not” is positioned between the auxiliary
and the main verb. In a similar way, L2 learners of English pass through a stage
involving main verb negation before introducing an auxiliary into their
interlanguage system Secondly, interlanguage is dynamic. It is constantly
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
11
changing. The learner slowly revises the interim systems to accommodate new
hypotheses about the target language system. This takes place by the introduction
of a new rule, first in one context and then in another, and so on. Thus a new rule
spreads because its coverage extends over a range of linguistic contexts. For
example, early WH-questions are typically non- inverted (e.g. “What you want?”)
but when the learner acquires the subject- inversion rule, he does not apply it
immediately to all WH-questions. First, he restricts the rule to a limited number of
verbs and to particular WH-pronouns (e.g. “who and what”). Later, he extends the
rule by making it apply both to an increasing range of verbs and to other WH-
pronouns. This process of revision and extension of rules is a feature of the
instability of interlanguage and its built - in propensity for change. Lastly,
interlanguage is systematic. The L2 learner does not select haphazardly from his
store of interlanguage rules but in predictable ways. He bases his performance
plans on his existing rule system (Ellis, 1985).
3.The monitor hypothesis. The monitor is a device that learners use to edit
their language performance. It utilizes learnt knowledge by acting upon and
modifying utterances generated from acquired knowledge. This can occur either
before the utterance or after. There are three conditions for its use 1) there must be
sufficient time; 2) the focus must be on form not the meaning; 3) the user must
know the rule which is aided by formal instruction.
4. The input hypothesis. It states that acquisition takes place as result of
the learner having understood input that is a little beyond the current level of his
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
12
competence. Input that is comprehensible to the learner will be automatically be
at the right level. Input refers to the language that is addressed to the L2 learner
either by a native speaker or by another L2 learner. It is the result of interaction.
Not all input is processed by the learner, either because some of it is not
understood or because some of it is not attended to. The part then that is processed
is referred to as the intake. Three views on input accounts for second language
acquisition. First, the behaviorists view the learner as a language producing
machine. Here, the input is made available to the learner in form of stimuli and
also that which occurs as feedback. It emphasizes the need to regulate the stimuli
by grading the input into a series of steps so that each step constitutes the right
level of difficulty for the level that the learner has reached. On the other hand, the
feedback indicates when the L2 utterances produced by the learners are correct
and so reinforces them and it also indicates when the utterances are ill- formed by
correcting them. The regulation of the stimuli and the provision of feedback shape
the learning that takes place and lead to the formation of the habits. Second, the
nativists view the learner as grand initiator. They maintain that exposure to
language cannot account satisfactorily for acquisition. Input is seen only as a
trigger which activates the internal mechanisms. As a result of this view, there has
been a focus on the output of L2 learners particularly the errors they manifested in
speech and writing since it was believed that the output would reveal the nature of
the learning strategies involved. Third is the interactionist who views that the
acquisition of language is a result of an interaction between the learner’s mental
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
13
abilities and the linguistic environment. The important data are not just the
utterances produced by the learners, but the discourse which learner and caretaker
jointly construct.
5. The Affective Filter Hypotheses. This deals with how affective factors
affect second language acquisition. The filter controls how much input the learner
comes into contact with, and how much input is converted into intake. The factors
which determine its strength have to do with the learners’ motivation, self
confidence, or anxiety state. Learners with high motivation and self confidence
and low anxiety state have low filters and so obtain and let in plenty of input
while learners with low motivation and self confidence and have high anxiety
state have high filters and so receive little and let in less input.
On the other hand, Haynes (1990) states that all new learners of English
progress through the same stages to acquire language. However, the length of
time each student spends at a particular stage may vary greatly. These stages are:
First is the Pre-production stage which is the silent period. English language
learners may have up to 500 words in their receptive vocabulary but they are not
yet speaking. Some students will, however, repeat every thing one says. They are
not really producing language but are parroting. English language learners at this
stage will need much repetition of English. They will benefit from a “buddy” who
speaks their language. Second is the early production. This stage may last up to
six months and students will develop a receptive and active vocabulary of about
1,000 words. During this stage, students can usually speak in one- or two-word
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
14
phrases. They can use short language chunks that have been memorized although
these chunks may not always be used correctly. Third is the Speech emergence.
Students have developed a vocabulary of about 3,000 words and can
communicate with simple phrases and sentences. They will ask simple questions
that may or may not be grammatically correct, such as “May I go to bathroom?”
English Language Learners will also initiate short conversations with classmates.
They will understand easy stories read in class with the support of pictures. They
will also be able to do some content work with teacher support. Fourth stage is the
Intermediate fluency. They are beginning to use more complex sentences when
speaking and writing and are willing to express opinions and share their thoughts.
They will ask questions to clarify what they are learning in class. Student writing
at this stage will have many errors as English Language Learners try to master the
complexity of English grammar and sentence structure. Many students may be
translating written assignments from a native language. They should be expected
to synthesize what they have learned and to make inferences from that learning.
Finally, the advanced fluency stage that takes students from 4-10 years to
achieve cognitive academic language proficiency in a second language. Student at
this stage will be near-native in their ability to perform in content area learning.
Most English Language Learners at this stage have been exited from ESL and
other support programs.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
15
Interaction and Second Language Acquisition
Second language data are made available to the learner in the input he
receives. This input is not determined alone by the native speaker but also
determined by the learner himself. It is a joint work done by the native speaker
and the learner. The feedback he provides affects the nature of the subsequent
input from the native speaker (Ellis, 1985). As Smith (1981) notes, the learners’
output serves as an input to his own language processing mechanisms.
Investigating discourses may shed light on how second language learners learn.
As Hatch (1987) argues:
…it is not enough to look at input and to look at frequency; the important
thing is to look at the corpus as a whole and examine the interactions that
take place within conversations to see how interaction itself determines
frequency of forms and how it shows language functions evolving.
Another feature of conversations involving L2 learners is the negotiation
of meaning. It involves tactics, strategies and conversational devices such as
relinquishing topic control, selecting salient topics, and checking comprehension,
topic switching, clarifying, slow pace, repeating utterances and stressing key
points. The learner also needs to contribute to the negotiation of meaning by
giving clear signals when he/ she has understood or not understood. The result of
the negotiation of meaning is that particular types of input and interaction will
come out (Ellis, 1985). Aside from the natural settings, interaction is also done in
classroom settings. Mc Tear (1975) identifies four (4) types of language use in
classrooms. These are: 1) mechanical, where no exchange of meaning is involved;
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
16
2) meaningful, where language usage is contextualized but still no real
information is conveyed; 3) pseudo- communicative, where information is
exchanged, but in a way that would be unlikely to occur outside the classroom;
and 4) real communication, which consists of spontaneous natural speech.
Acquisition of Negation and Interrogation
Negation and interrogation are some indicators of the progression which,
according to interlanguage theory are the bases of second language acquisition.
They show that there is a clear developmental route. Initially, negative utterances
are characterized by external negation, that is, the negative particle (usually “no”)
is attached to a declarative nucleus: Example: No very good. No you playing here.
A little later internal negation develops; that is, the negative particle is moved
inside the utterance. This often coincides with the use of “not” and / or “don’t”,
which is used variably with ‘no’ as the negative particle. “Don’t” at this stage,
however is an unanalyzed unit and so cannot be described as ‘do + not’. Example:
Mariana not coming today. I no can swim. I don’t see nothing mop. A third step
involving negative attachment to modal verbs, although this may again occur in
unanalyzed units initially. Example: I can’t play this one. I won’t go. In the final
stage of negation the target language rule is reached. The learner develops an
auxiliary system and uses “not” regularly as the negative particle (that is, ‘no + V’
is eliminated). Negative utterances, like positive utterances, are marked for tense
and number, although not necessarily always correctly. Example: He doesn’t
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
17
know anything. I didn’t said it. She didn’t believe me. The way along this route is
a gradual one, which for some learners can take longer than two years (Ellis,
1985).
A number of different explanations have been offered in negative
utterances where the negator is external to the rest of the utterance: No speak
Portuguese. No finish book. No like beer. These are 1) Transfer strategy- Spanish
and Portuguese learners have pre- verbal negation in their first language which
also permit pronoun deletion. Therefore, when such learners produce utterances
displaying external negation, they may simply be using the negative patterns of
their L1s. 2) Production strategy - such utterances are the product of a general
process of simplification, which is evident in all L2 production. If the learner is
credited with knowing that negation in English is internal as in: I no speak
Portuguese, the occurrence of what is apparently external negation can be
explained as the result of a pro- drop rule, that is, production rule which states that
pronouns can be deleted from sentences. This strategy is evident in both positive
and negative utterances; 3) Acquisition strategy - ‘no X’ utterances reflect the
natural language processing mechanisms of the brain. In this view, external
negation is not the result of restrictive simplification , but of an acquisition
strategy which governs how learners handle negation in all languages; 4)
interactional strategy -‘no X’ is the result of an interactional strategy, that is, the
learner borrows a chunk from the previous discourse and then attaches the negator
to the front of it like A. Do you like beer? B. No like beer. The learner may then
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
18
memorize the pattern which he has constructed as a vertical structure and later
may use it to initiate his own negative utterances (Ellis, 1985).
On the other hand, there appears to be an early “non- communicative”
stage during which the learner is not able to produce spontaneous interrogatives,
but just repeats a question someone has asked him. The first productive questions
are utterances with declarative word order but spoken with a rising intonation. At
this stage there are also some WH -questions, but these appear to have been learnt
as ready made chunks. Example: I am coloring? Sir plays football today? I
writing on this book? What’s this? The next development sees the appearances of
productive WH- questions. There is no subject - verb inversion to start off with,
and the auxiliary verb is often omitted. Example: What are you doing? What
“tub” mean? What the time? Where you work? Later, inversion occurs in yes- no
questions and in WH questions. Inversion with “be” tends to occur before
inversion with “do”. Example: Are you a nurse? Where is the girl? Do you work
in the television? What is she’s doing here? Embedded are the last to develop.
When they first appear, they have a subject - verb inversion, as in ordinary WH-
questions: Example: I tell you what did happen. I don’t know where do you live.
Only later does the learner successfully differentiate the word order of ordinary
and embedded WH questions like I don’t what he had. As with the negatives,
development of the rules of interrogation is gradual, involving overlapping stages
and the slow replacement of transitional forms (Ellis, 1985).
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
19
In addition, Master (1996) talks about the question system that allows one
to transform statements into their corresponding question forms and that there are
four different types of questions in English: 1) Yes/No questions, 2) information
questions, 3) Tag questions, 4) Echo questions. Similarly, Bailey (1974)
introduced some kinds of questions in English as following: 1) Direct Yes–No
questions are formed by inverting the word order and inserting do where no other
auxiliary verb is present, example: “Have you finished your homework?” “Did
she go home?” 2) Direct WH-questions begin with a WH-pronoun (what, who,
which), WH-adjective (which) or WH-adverb (when, where, why, how), example:
“Who got my pen?” “How far is it? 3) Alternative questions the word order is
verb-subject order, example: “Are you coming?” “Are you sleeping? Indirect
questions have subject-verb word order: “He asked who ate the bread”. “They
asked where we went’. 4) Tag-questions and pseudo-tag-question; Genuine Tag-
questions reverse the negativity of the preceding main question and the word
order, example: “You love him, don’t you?”
Master (1996) discussed comprehensively the different steps for making
Yes- No Questions as shown in Fig. 3.
In a case study conducted by Curtiss (1989) and Yamada (1990) among
retarded children, they found out that two of their subjects produced well-formed
phonological and morphosyntactical appropriate with fully elaborated inflectional
and derivational bound morphology and free grammatical morphemes. It included
syntactic structures involving movement, embedding, and complementation. Their
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
20
production skills are excellent. In contrast, the subjects’ language was
semantically deficient. They often used words incorrectly and failed to grasp the
full meaning of their own and others’ utterances. They have poorly developed
topic maintenance skills; were only moderately sensitive to the interests of their
interlocutors; and apparently little concerned with the need to be relevant or
informative in conversation. On the other hand, one of the subjects’ receptive
performance was poor in syntax. She performed at or below the 2-year-old level
on most subtests, including the object manipulation version of various tasks (e.g.,
active and passive voice
Steps for Making a Yes - No Question Example: Maria can speak Swedish.
with an Overt Auxiliary
1. Find AUX
Maria can speak Swedish.
2. Move AUX in front of the Subject
Can Maria speak Swedish
3.Add a question mark.
Can Maria speak Swedish?
Steps for Making a Yes- No Question Example: The boy lives in Santiago.
with No Overt Auxiliary
1. Find AUX. (Dig it up if it is buried).
The boy (does) live in Santiago.
2. Move the AUX in front of the subject.
Does the boy live in Santiago.
3. Add a question mark.
Does the boy live in Santiago?
Figure. 1. Steps for Making Yes- No Questions with and Without an Overt
Auxiliary (Master, 1996)
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
21
word order, WH-questioning of grammatical subject and object in relativization
tests). In her spontaneous speech, she produced many of the structures that she
failed to understand on the comprehension tests. In the evaluation of her ability to
understand sentences of varying syntactic complexity, she scored below the mean
score of non retarded children aged 3 years 6 months. Her comprehension of
grammatical morphemes likewise was reduced. It is remarkable that she
spontaneously and correctly produced some of same forms that she could not
understand in controlled receptive tasks. In addition, O'Connor and Hermelin
(1991) found out that their subjects’ receptive and expressive command of
English is within normal range. This claim is based on the subjects’ performance
on a variety of structures including declaratives, passives, negatives,
interrogatives, relatives, and involving variations in agreement and word order.
Garzonio and Hermelin (2004) in a study among Tamil speakers to
translate Situ language to Italian interrogatives revealed that despite the
typological distance between Italian and Tamil, the acquisition of interrogatives
appears to be at first sight fast and correct. There is a first stage in which Tamil
speakers produce WH –questions in Situ structures. Very soon, they produce
questions with a WH-item at the beginning of the clause, usually written as only
one word with the verb: one can claim that these sentences are produced through a
reanalysis of WH-items as a sort of WH-agreement morpheme on the inflected
verb in a way parallel to the strategy used in Tamil for yes/no questions.
Similarly, in a comparative study conducted by Grebenyova (n.d.) among Russian
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
22
and English speaking children, they exhibit near perfect knowledge of syntax of
multiple interrogatives except for some lack of fronting of the lower WH- phrase
by Russian speaking children.
In a study conducted among Iranian EFL students on Preposition Piping
and Stranding in interrogatives and relative clauses, it was found out that they
omitted the prepositions in spite of the fact that they had already demonstrated
their knowledge of subcategorization requirements of the verbs for missing
prepositions (Sadighi, Parhizgar, Saadat, 2004). In an investigation to interpret bi-
clausal multiple WH - questions in English among Japanese who are highly
proficient speakers of English by Tsimpli (2003) to prove the hypothesis that
uninterpretable syntactic features that have not been selected during first language
acquisition will not be available for second language construction while
interpretable syntactic features remain available even those not selected by the
first language, it was concluded that a missing uninterpretable feature accounts.
English Modal Auxiliary Verbs
A sentence is not just a group of words, which gives meaning. It
consistsof certain elements, which follow each other in a sequence or
systematic order. Auxiliary verbs are precisely those verbs which function as
dependent in VP in the structure and in contrast with the main verbs such as be,
have and do. These belong to both of the classes. The verb may be preceded by up
to four auxiliaries. The modal auxiliaries are distinguished from other verbs both
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
23
main and auxiliaries and they have only tensed forms and do not occur in any
syntactic environment where a non-tensed form or a base form is required. Since
the position for the following modal is one where a non- tensed form, a base form
is required (She may be come). One cannot have non- coordinated sequences of
the modals, which come within a single VP like Soon he will can swim, I may
shall regret it. (Rodney and and Huddleston, 1978). Auxiliary also is used in the
grammatical description of the VP to refer to a set of verbs subordinate to the
main verb, which helps to make the distinction in mood, aspect and voice. They
also have the negative forms like isn't , hasn't , can't , wasn't and many more.
They can be used as a subjective inversion like is he ,does he , will they. There are
semi-auxiliaries, which have the verb that which display some but not all of the
properties of the auxiliary class like dare and need (Crystal,1988). The modal are
used to express various attitudes like possibility, ability, willingness, probability
obligation intention in the events and occurring in the actual happenings. The
modal auxiliaries have come from the main verb which consists of negation,
inversion, ellipsis, emphasis and clitic forms. They are also characterized as
affirmation , interrogative and emphatic.The derivation of surface sentence may
have more than one Auxiliary verb. The main verb has been marked as (-Aux) in
the lower embedded sentences. The Auxiliary verbs are marked by (+ Aux) in the
higher sentence. In order to rising of the predicate raising transformation is
necessary. It has given the sentence. He may have come (Bose, 2005).
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
24
Communicative Competence
The term communicative competence was coined by Hymes (1967), a
sociolinguist who was convinced that Chomsky’s (1965) notion of competence
was too limited. Chomsky’s “rule- governed creativity” that so aptly describes a
child’s beginning grammar at the age of 3 or 4 did not, according to Hymes
(1967), account sufficiently for the social and functional roles of the language.
Moreover, defining communicative competence was carried out by Canale and
Swain (1980) who gave out the different components of communicative
competence. Grammatical competence is the competence that we associate with
mastering the linguistic code of a language. The learner must attain as high a
degree as possible of linguistic competence. That is, he develop some skill in
manipulation the linguistic system to the point where he can used it spontaneously
and flexibly in order to express his intended message. The learner must
distinguish between the forms which he has mastered part of his linguistic
competence, and the communicative functions that they perform. In other words,
items mastered as part of a linguistic system must also be understood as part of a
communicative competence.
While grammatical competence focuses on sentence level grammar,
discourse competence, the second component is concerned with the inter-
sentential relationships which means’ that it is the ability to connects sentences to
form meaningful utterances. Thirdly, sociolinguistic competence is the knowledge
of the socio- cultural rules of language and discourse. Savignon (1967) defines
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
25
Verbs
Main
Auxiliary
Transitive
(Regular
Intransitive
Primary
Modal
and
Will, Can,
Be, Have,
May, Must, Would,
Do
Could, Need, Ought,
Figure 2. Tree Diagram of Auxiliary Verbs
(Chomsky,
1965).
this competence which requires the understanding of the roles of the participants,
the information they share, and the function of the interaction. The learner must
become aware of the social; meaning of language forms. For many learners, this
may not entail the ability to vary their own speech to suit different social
circumstances, but rather the ability to use generally accepted forms and avoid
potentially offensive ones. Canale and Swains’s (1980) sociolinguistic
competence is now broken down into two separate pragmatic categories:
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
26
functional aspects of language (illocutionary competence, or, pertaining to
sending and receiving intended meanings) and sociolinguistic aspects (which deal
with such considerations as politeness, formality, metaphor, register, and
culturally- related aspects of language).
Lastly, strategic competence is the verbal and nonverbal strategies to
compensate for breakdowns in communication. Savignon (1983) defines it as the
ability to make repairs, to cope with imperfect knowledge, and to sustain
communication through” paraphrase, circumlocution, repetition, hesitation,
avoidance, and guessing as well as shifts in register and style. The learner must
develop skills and strategy for using language to communicative meanings as
effectively as possible in concrete situations. He must learn to use feedback to
judge his success, and if necessary, remedy failure by using a different language.
This was also supported by Littlewood (1981) who posited that there are four
domains of skills, which make up a person’s communicative competence.
Over the years, Canale and Swain’s (1980) definition of communicative
competence has undergone modifications over the years. One of which is
Bachman’s (1990) schematization of what he simply calls Language Competence
(Fig.3). He places grammatical and discourse (renamed “ textual”) competence
under one node which he appropriately calls organizational competence: all those
rules and systems that dictate what we can do with the forms of language, whether
they be sentence- level of rules (grammar) or rules that govern a “ string”
sentences or together (discourse). Bachman (1990) adds strategic competence as
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
27
entirely separate element of communicative language ability. Strategic
competence almost serves an “executive” function of making the final decision
among many possible options, on wording, phrasing, and other productive and
receptive means in negotiating meaning.
From all of the views presented, one may say that communicative
competence is the over- all competence that enables us to convey, understand
messages interpersonally on specific situations.
Error Analysis
Corder (1974) spelled out the different procedures for Error Analysis. 1)
A corpus of language is selected. This involves deciding on the size of the sample,
the medium to be sampled, and the homogeneity of the sample. 2) The errors in
the corpus are identified. 3) The errors are classified which involves assigning a
grammatical description to each error. 4) The errors are explained. Attempts are
made to identify the psycholinguistic causes of errors. 5) The errors are evaluated.
This stage is necessary for pedagogical purposes. However, Corder (1971)
pointed out that errors must be distinguished from lapses. Lapses occur as a result
of processing limitations not because of lack of competence and errors occur due
to lack of competence. He further pointed out that sentences can be “overtly
idiosyncratic”, that is, they are ill- formed in terms of target language rules and
can be “covertly idiosyncratic” , that is, sentences are superficially well formed
but when their context of use is examined clearly it is ungrammatical. Error
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
28
Analysis provides two kinds of information about interlanguage.
For the first concerns the linguistic type of errors produced by L2 learners,
Richards (1974) provides a list of errors involving verbs (e.g. “be” + verb stem
instead of verb stem alone). Here Error Analysis presents an incomplete picture of
second language acquisition because it does not tell much about the sequence of
development in the learners. The second type of information is the
psycholinguistic type of errors produced by L2 learners.
A study of errors here reveals conclusively that there is no single or prime
cause of errors and provides clues about the kinds of strategies learners employ to
simplify the task of learning a second language. Richards (1974) identifies various
strategies associated with developmental or intralingual errors. These are: 1)
overgeneralization is used when the items do not carry any obvious contrast for
the learner; 2) ignorance of rule restrictions which occurs when rules are extended
to contexts where in target language usage are not applied; 3) incomplete
application of rules which involves a failure to learn the more complex types of
structure because the learner finds he can achieve effective communication by
using relatively simple rules; and 4) false concepts hypothesized refers to errors
derived from faulty understanding of target language distinctions.
Dulay and Burt (1973 and 1974)) claimed that the errors committed by the
learners were developmental, that is, not subjected to first language interference.
From several morpheme studies, they further proposed the acquisition hierarchy
(Fig.4) of grammatical features. Each box represents a group of morphemes
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
29
SO
NP
VP
SI
V
VP
Come
+ ve
+ Aux
+ Modal
NP
V
S2
Have
+ ve
+ Aux
+ aspect
Figure 3. The deep structure diagram (chomsky, 1965)
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
30
acquired concurrently. Thus, for example, the case distinction between subject
and object pronoun is acquired at the same time as basic subject- verb- object
word order and together they constitute the first stage of development.
Horner (1988) has suggested that there are three principles involved for
the correction of errors. They are 1)Correct the input or output of the students if it
appears to some effect ; 2)Do not try to correct everything. The students are
learning the language to be able to communicate with the outside world. So the
primary concern is with error, which renders the communication itself. There are
various types of errors, which have occurred in the student's
language as language as discussed by (Bose, 2005). These are 1) The pre-
systematic error - The learner does not know this existence of the particular rule.
The errors are random and a learner may occasionally produce the correct form ;
2)The systematic error The learner has made some discovery about a rule on
himself; 3)The post- systematic error - The learners produces correct forms but he
is not consistent in his performance the encouraging factors about the learner's
error is that the errors are transitional and dynamic in the process of acquiring the
systems of the target language and the errors will disappear when the learner are
exposed to the target language systems more ; 4) Interlingual error - are those
deviant forms, which are results of first languages interference ; 5) Intra lingual
errors - are caused as a result of interference from within the target language itself
for (e.g. use of ‘ is’ always after I. It will imitate as he, is, she, is and becomes I
is). These errors are independent of the mother tongue of the learner.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
31
Stage
CASE
WORD
ORDER
I
Nominative/ accusative
SINGULAR COPULA (‘s /is) SINGULAR AUXILIARY (‘s/ is)
PLURAL AUXILIARY (are)
PROGRESSIVE
(-ing)
II
PAST IRREGULAR
would
III.
POSSESSIVE (‘S)
LONG PLURAL
3RD PERSON SINGULAR ( s)
IV
have
-en
Figure 4. The acquisition hierarchy
(Dulay and Burt, 1975)
6) Developmental errors - are those which indicate the types of strategies by
which the learner acquires a language 7) Grammatical errors – show how the
learners have committed their mistakes and what type of the error has been
identified. Most of the mistakes are common to this category and may occur due
to tense forms, active and passive voices and word order. The autor futher
remarked that error analysis is one of the important aspects of applied linguistics
research because it needs considerable amount of influence over learning,
teaching, testing and evaluation in the material production.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
32
Gender
A difference is documented in neuroanatomy between human males and
females, concerning the corpus callosum, an array of neural fibers that connects
the two hemispheres of the cortex. According to a series of studies reviewed in
Holloway (1993), the corpus callosum of females are on average larger when
adjusted for total brain size, especially in the posterior portion known as the
splenium. Brain size tends to track body size, and so male brains are on average
larger. The average size of the corpus callosum in adult females is apparently
roughly the same as in males but it is larger in proportion to total brain size. Some
researchers have argued that the differences are not so much in size but in three-
dimensional tissue distribution, with the female splenium more bulbous and thus
more concentrated in the midline, where section areas may be most easily
compared. It is claimed by De Lacoste (1986) that human sex differences in the
corpus callosum appear by 26 weeks prenatal. The sexual dimorphism of the
corpus callosum is said to contrast with other aspects of brain anatomy, where
average sizes, corrected for overall brain size, show no significant differences
between males and females. Such differences suggest that interhemispheric
communication may differ between the sexes. Speech and language tend to be
localized on the left, or dominant, side of the brain ("lateralized") while some
other functions such as visuospatial integration and emotional appreciation of
context are lateralized on the opposite side. Several functional studies have found
sex differences in cerebral lateralization for language-related activities like in
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
33
analyzing the conversation between males and females, Masaitine (2004) found
out that there is difference in the amount of speech produced by the two
interactants. The man dominates the talk, producing many more clauses. Both
speakers produce a comparatively high percentage of declaratives, but the man’s
percentage is higher. This suggests that he gets to initiate exchanges by giving
information more often. The woman, on the other hand, produces more
interrogatives. This fact suggests that she is others-oriented since asking questions
is a way of giving up the turn. A comparatively high number of the woman’s
full WH-interrogatives shows that she engages her interactant in talk retaining
some status as an initiator for obtaining information and at the same time
reinforcing the centrality of the man’s contribution. Moreover, her analysis shows
that the man’s speech contains numerous incomplete clauses. This suggests that
he speaks casually and does not have to compete for the floor. The woman, on the
contrary, produces few incomplete clauses. Therefore, her speech appears to be
more careful and planned. An additional revealing feature of creating
interpersonal meaning is the subject choice. The subject in casual conversation is
overwhelmingly a personal pronoun (I or we) since casual talk is typically
egocentric. It appears that the man in the study is frequently the subject of his own
clauses and he never makes his interlocutor the subject of his clauses. What he
wants to talk about is himself. The woman does refer twice to herself as subject
but is oriented towards her partner as subject. Such choices are consistent with
general trends observed by numerous language and gender studies, which show
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
34
that men’s linguistic behavior in conversation is that of dominance. Women, on
the other hand are more likely to use careful speech, ask more questions and
express solidarity with other participants. Similarly, Shihamoto (2001) found out
that Japanese female speech has been characterized as more polite than male
speech. Cameron (1988) also looked at tag questions in a 45,000 word sample
from a British corpus of transcribed conversations. In this corpus, there were 60
tag questions used by men, and only 36 by women. In addition, Holmes (1984)
distinguishes two functions of tag questions: modal versus affective. Modal tags
request information or confirmation of information of which the speaker is
uncertain. He claims that men continue to use modal tags relatively more often
and affective tags relatively less often. It is only the people who are in charge of
the conversations, the "powerful" speakers who use affective tags.
In language proficiency, Nandakunar (1993) mentioned that in a study of
English Proficiency in China, the results indicate that the listening comprehension
skill favors females while bundles of grammar, vocabulary, and cloze slightly
favor males. Moreover, in an error analysis made by Chen (1996) among
Taiwanese in Business English Writing, the males commit 71.5% errors than
females whose errors are 28.5% higher. It tells then that the males commit less
errors than males. In local context, the findings of Cotiw-an (1987) showed that in
all components of grammar that they were tested on, the female gender is leading
than the males. This has been reflected also by the study of Lopez (1987) who
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
35
found out that in the test of English composition and grammar, the females
performed better. Similarly, Galangco’s (1988) study along proficiency in written
English revealed that females are more proficient in the five aspects of written
communication: general vocabulary, capitalization, grammar and sentence
structure, and punctuation. On the other hand, Magtales (1998) in her study along
listening, reading, grammar, and writing skills revealed that the female
respondents were better than the male respondents. Nevertheless, the study of
Bataclao (2003) on transitional markers among college freshman showed that
gender do not differ significantly. This is also affirmed by Bautista (1995) who
found out that gender did not affect the level of proficiency in written English of
her respondents. Furthermore, Dalay-on’s (1991) study showed that male and
females do not differ significantly in their level of comprehension.
Length of Stay
Where success of Second Language Acquisition is concerned, the general
finding is that the longer the exposure to the second language, the ,more native
like second language becomes. Burstall (1975) after reviewing the results of the
NFER project on the teaching of French in the primary school, concludes that the
achievement of skill in a foreign language is primarily a function of the amount
of time spent studying that language. This is supported by Ekstrand (1975) who
found out that the length of residence of immigrants learning Swedish in Sweden
related to free oral production, but not to other aspects of proficiency. In contrast,
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
36
Hatch (1983) mentioned that the success attained due to years of exposure may be
restricted to overall communicative ability, rather than to grammatical or
phonological accuracy. Similarly, Krashen (1981) also posits that age affects
second language learning. Older learners are better suited to study language form
and also to use learnt knowledge in monitoring.
Theoretical Framework
Theories on Linguistics, Psycholinguistics, Sociolinguistics and tenets on
error analysis and language testing are gathered to elaborate the input of this
study.
Transformational Generative Grammar. As posited by Chomsky (1950), it
attempts to define rules that can generate the infinite number of grammatical
(well-formed) sentences possible in a language. It starts not from a behaviorist
analysis of minimal sounds but from a rationalist assumption that a deep structure
underlies a language, and that a similar deep structure underlies all languages.
Transformational grammar seeks to identify rules (transformations) that govern
relations between parts of a sentence, on the assumption that beneath such aspects
as word order a fundamental structure exists. It encompasses set of rules, such as
phrase structure rules and transformation rules that will produce or generate the
deep structure from the surface structure of a sentence or utterances. Chomsky
(1950) believed that there would be considerable similarities between the deep
structures of different languages, and that these structures would reveal
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
37
properties, common to all languages, which were concealed by their Surface
Structures.
Language Transfer. It refers to the influence of the mother tongue (L1) on
the learners’ performance in and/ or development of a given target language.
Language transfer is said to be facilitative if the first language (L1) has a positive
effect to the learning of the second language (L2) and debilitative if the first
language has a negative effect on the learning of the second language. Smith
(1994) broadened this concept as Crosslinguistic Influence since the direction of
transfer is not only from the mother tongue to the second language but may also
be reversed, that is, the previously learned language is changing under the
influence of new language learning. It covers all kinds of external linguistic
influence including situations where learners fight shy of making connections
between different languages they know because they feel such links to be unlikely
(Smith, 1994).
Processing Control and Mental Library. One may know something but he
or she is not very good at showing his or her new knowledge in actual language
use, especially when under pressure. Processing control refers to the productive
and receptive control possessed by the language user over the knowledge he or
she has of the various aspects of the linguistic system. It is also associated with
skill, degrees of fluency or automaticity. Hence, hesitant linguistic behavior may
be attributed to a lack of relevant knowledge but it also may be attributed to the
actual possession of the relevant knowledge without fluent control over that
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
38
knowledge (Smith, 1994).
Hatch’s Discourse Theory. It follows from a theory of language use, in
which communication is treated as the matrix of linguistic knowledge that
language development should be considered in terms of how the learner discovers
the meaning potential of language by participating in communication. Its principle
also includes that the conversational strategies used to negotiate meaning and the
resulting adjusted input, influence the rate and route of second language
acquisition. This was further supported by Halliday (1975) who concluded that
the development of the formal linguistic devices grew out of the interpersonal
uses to which language is put. Cherry (1979), also proposed that through
communication with other people, children accomplish actions in the world and
develop the rules of language structure and use.
Elicitation and Language Testing. If the teacher or a learner wants to find
out how close the learner’s knowledge and skill are to that of a comparable native
speaker of the language in question, then it becomes necessary to run a series of
tests on the learner. Many language testing techniques may be used when the
focus is not so much on the target norms as on the interlanguage system of the
learner. However, probing deeply into the properties of the learners’ current
linguistic system involves many more specialized instruments that are usually
used in language testing. Communicative language tests are intended to be a
measure of how the testees are able to use language in real life situations. In
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
39
testing productive skills, emphasis is placed on appropriateness rather than on
ability to form grammatically correct sentences. In testing receptive skills,
emphasis is placed on understanding the communicative intent of the speaker or
writer rather than on picking out specific details. And, in fact, the two are often
combined in communicative testing, so that the testee must both comprehend and
respond in real time because in real life, the different skills are not often used
entirely in isolation (Smith, 1994).
Error Analysis. In learning the second language, use of word or
grammatical features showing faculty or incomplete form may occur. Incomplete
knowledge is the main reason for the occurrences of such errors. The occurrences
of mistakes may be due to the lack of attention on the part of learner. Mistakes
are derivations due to performance factors such as memory limitations (eg.
mistakes in the sequence of tense and agreement in long sentences). They are
typically random and are readily corrected by the learner when his attention is
drawn to them. Errors, on the other hand are systematic, consistent deviances
characteristic of the learner's linguistic system at a given stage of
learning.Generally, unsystematic wrong items occurring sporadically in speaking
or writing may be called as mistake and systematic wrong items occurring
uniformly in all the context of speaking or writing may be called as errors. In
other words, mistake is connected with language competence or grammatical
competence. However, it is difficult to identify which one is an error and a
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
40
mistake. Errors are important sources of information to decide the learner's
strategy in learning and are found in the learner's output. The teachers come to
know the learners struggle to learn L2 while learning it for communicative
purposes. A look at the various kind of errors L2 learner made, will guide the
teacher not only to identify the problematic area of L2 learners, but also to spot
out areas for which remedial programmes and materials are needed. Error analysis
then does not only finds out and classifies the errors in L2 learners out put but
also tries to interpret the learning strategy of the learners. Error analysis also helps
in language teaching curriculum since it is used to (1)Error analysis is useful to
rectify the errors, to give remedial practice and prepare lessons keeping in mind
the nature of errors committed by the learner. (2)It helps to identify the level of
linguistic and communicative competence of the learner. (3)It helps to identify the
influence of L1 while learning L2. (4)It is also useful to deduct the amount of
interest learner show on L2 learning (Bose, 2005).In the output of this study, the
grammatical errors and level of performance of the subjects in asking questions
are identified. Relationship between the learner variables and their performance
level is addressed.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
41
INPUT
PROCESS
OUTPUT
INPUT PROCESS
A. Theories
Analysis of:
Identified:
OUTPUT
1. Linguistics
A.Comprehension
A. Comprehension and
2. Psycholinguistics
Test
performance level
of the subjects
3. Sociolinguistics
5- Excellent
B. Performance Test
4-Very Good
4. Language Testing
3-Good
and Elicitation
2-Fair
C.Grammatical
1-Poor
5. Error Analysis
Errors
B. Comprehension Test
C. Performance Test
D. Subjects’ Profile
B.Grammatical errors
1.Gender
of the subjects
2.Length of stay in the
Philippines
Figure 5. Paradigm of the study
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
42
Definition of Terms
The following terms are defined operationally in this study.
Comprehension Level. It is how well the subject of the study understand
the given situation. It is measured by 5- excellent, 4- very good, 3- good, 2- fair
and 1- poor.
Level of Performance. In this study, it is the proficiency of the subjects in
constructing interrogatives. It is measured by 5- excellent, 4- very good, 3- good,
2- fair and 1- poor.
Error Analysis . In this study, it is the identification and analysis of
errors students commit in constructing yes- no and WH- questions.
Grammatical Errors . In this study are the inconsistencies, irregularities
and incorrectness of grammar that the subjects commit in sentence
transformation.
Contextualized Questions. In this study are the questions that the subjects
construct from the given context.
Yes- No Questions. These are the questions that are answerable by yes or
no (Master, 1996).
WH- Questions. In this study are the questions that begin with who, what,
when, where and how.
Overt Auxiliaries. Auxiliaries such as is, are, can, have, was are found in
the sentences (Master, 1996).
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
43
Buried Auxiliaries. Auxiliaries such as is, are, can, has are not found in the
sentences (Master, 1996).
Hypotheses of the Study
The following hypotheses guided this study:
1. There is no significant difference in the level of comprehension and
performance of the subjects in asking questions.
2. The grammatical errors committed by the subjects do not differ
significantly.
3. There is no significant relationship that exists between gender and length of
stay in the Philippines to the subjects’ level of comprehension and performance in
asking questions.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
METHODOLOGY
Locale and Time of the Study
The study was conducted at the different institutions in Baguio like E-
Maple Academy, Saint Louis University, University of Baguio, University of
Cordilleras (BCF) during the School Year 2006 – 2007.
Subjects of the Study
The subjects of the study were the Korean College students studying in
Baguio City. Some of them were exchange students and others were regular
students enrolled in the different universities of Baguio City. There were one
hundred students with fifty- four males (54) and forty-six (46) females. There
were fifty- two (52) who stayed in Baguio City for 1-6 months (less than a year),
nineteen (19) of the subjects stayed for 7-12 months (almost one year), sixteen
(16) stayed for 13-18 months (one year and a half), seven (7) stayed for more than
twenty- five (25) months and six (6) stayed for 19-24 months (almost two years).
Profile of the Subjects
Table 1 presents the profile of the subjects of the study in terms of gender
and length of stay in the Philippines.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
45
Table 1. Profile of the subjects
BACKGROUND NUMBER PERCENT
Gender:
Male 54 54.0
Female 46 46.0
Total 100 100.0
Length of stay in the Philippines
1-6 months 52 52.0
7-12 months 19 19.0
13-18 months 16 16.0
19-24 months 6 6.0
More than 25 months 7 7.0
Total 100 100.0
Instrumentation
A test developed by the researcher was given to the subjects to identify
their performance level in asking questions. Part I of the test consisted of twenty
(25) multiple choice items where the subjects selected the correct question to
be asked in a given context .The second part dealt on sentence transformation
where the students converted ten (10) declarative sentences to Yes-No questions.
The third part was construction of three (3) WH- questions in each category
(Who, Where, When, Why and How). The grammatical errors were analyzed
using the suggested mode of Master,1996.
Before the test was administered to the subjects of the study, it underwent
item analysis. It used Lado’s formula for index of difficulty as follows:
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
46
RU+RL x100 = P (Difficulty Index)
N
Where:
RU is the correct responses in the upper group
RL is the correct responses in the lower group
N is the total number of students who will take the test
The results of the test were further evaluated on the following criteria:
Above 80% = reject
(very easy)
70% - 80% = acceptable
40%- 69% = ideal
30%-39% = acceptable (but difficult)
Below 30% = reject
(very difficult)
The test items were further analyzed using the formula for index of
discrimination as mentioned by Harris (1969).
HG-LG
= D
(Index of Discrimination)
N
Where:
HG is the number of correct responses in the upper 25% of the group
LG is the number of correct responses in the lower 25% of the group
N is the number of pupils in the upper and lower groups
The results of each item analysis for its index of discrimination were
further analyzed using the following criteria:
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
47
0.3+ = good and desirable
0.2+ = acceptable
Below 0.2 = analyze further and revise
0.0 = reject and discard
Data Gathering Procedure
To gather the data needed in this study, the researcher sought the
assistance of her research adviser to administer a pre- test for item analysis to the
Korean students enrolled under his English class in Benguet State University in
September 2006.
After the items were processed, a letter to the principal of E-Maple
Academy asking permission to administer the test to all Korean college students
who are officially enrolled in their school followed. As soon as the request was
granted, the researcher administered the test for the actual subjects. The test was
administered to the subjects of the study who are enrolled in the other institutions
during social gatherings like church services and meetings. Lastly, the test results
were subjected for statistical analysis.
Statistical Treatment of Data
To obtain the data needed, the test results were tallied and the weighted
mean and percentage were obtained.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
48
To find out the difference in the performance of the subjects in asking
questions considering their age and length of stay in the Philippines the Fisher
Exact Probability Test (F- test) was used. The formula runs:
P= (A+B) ! (C+D)! (A+C)! (B+D)!
N! A!B!C!D!
To find out the difference of the errors, the Cochran Test was employed.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter discusses the analysis of the results obtained and their
implications based on the objectives of the study: 1) to determine the subjects’
level of comprehension and performance in asking questions; 2) to identify the
most common grammatical errors committed by the subjects in asking questions;
3) to determine the effects of gender and length of stay in the Philippines on the
subjects’ level of performance in asking questions.
Subjects’ Level of Comprehension
in Contextualized Questions
Figure 6 presents the comprehension of the subjects in using questions
from the given context. It shows that 50% are very good, 27% are good, 12% are
excellent, 10% are fair and only 1% is poor. The level of comprehension is “very
good” with a mean of 65.12%. This means that the subjects of the study can
comprehend the situation and choose the appropriate question for each context
that includes buying in the market, eating in restaurants, meeting and getting
acquainted with new friends, classroom settings and casual conversations like
borrowing, lending, reporting for lost and found items, and requesting. These are
the contexts of which the subjects usually engage in everyday conversation, thus,
achieving a level of “very good” as stated by Ellis (1985) that the first structures
the learner acquires are those to which he is exposed most frequently. He further
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
50
0.5
0.45
0.4
poor - 1%
0.35
0.3
fair- 10%
0.25
good- 27%
0.2
very good- 50%
0.15
0.1
excellent- 12%
0.05
0
Meam = 65.12% - very good
Figure 6. Subjects’ level of comprehension in contextualized questions
added that exposure to a high quantity of directives and “extending utterances”
(requests for clarification and confirmation, paraphrases and expansions) and
opportunities for uninhibited practice are likely to facilitate rapid second language
development. This is also echoed by Seliger (1977) when he found out that there
is a significant correlation between quantity of interaction and achievement
scores.
Subjects’ Level of Performance in
Transforming Declaratives to Questions
Figure 7 presents the performance of the subjects in transforming declaratives to
questions. It reveals that 46% are excellent, 28% are very good, 14% are
good,7%are fair and 5% are poor. The level of performance is “very good “ with a
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
51
0.5
0.45
0.4
poor-5%
0.35
fair- 7%
0.3
0.25
good- 14%
0.2
very good- 28%
0.15
0.1
excellent- 46%
0.05
0
Mean = 76.30 – very good
Figure 7. Subjects’ level of performance in transforming declaratives to questions
mean of 76.30%. This shows that the subjects of the study are very good in
transforming sentences which involve grammar and syntax rules. This is
attributed to the grammar - oriented study that Koreans undergo at school.
Vorhess (2001) mentioned that the linguistic structures of Korean and English are
very different and so a keen understanding of grammar is thought necessary in
acquiring the English language, consequently, they develop a large English
vocabulary and deep grammatical knowledge.
Subjects’ Level of Performance in Constructing
WH- questions
Figure 8 presents the level of performance of the subjects in constructing
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
52
0.7
0.6
poor- 10%
0.5
fair- 1%
0.4
good- 5%
0.3
very good- 21%
0.2
excellent- 63%
0.1
0
Mean=79.22%-very good
Figure 8. Subjects’ level of performance in constructing WH-questions
WH- questions. It shows that 63% are excellent, 21% are very good, 10% are
poor, 5% are good and only 1% is fair. The level of performance is “very good”
With a mean is 79.22%. This means that the subjects of the study are very good in
constructing interrogatives that begin with WH- specifically who, when, where,
why, and how. These WH- questions are interrogatives where there is no subject -
verb inversion to start with. As compared to transforming declaratives to
questions, WH- questions are easier to construct. Thus, there is a greater
percentage of the subjects who got an excellent rating.
Subjects’ Overall Level of Performance
in Asking Questions
Figure 9 presents the overall performance of the subjects in asking
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
53
0.6
0.5
poor- 4%
0.4
fair- 8%
0.3
good- 6%
0.2
very good- 23%
excellent- 59%
0.1
0
Mean=77.96% - very good
Figure 9. Overall performance of the subjects in asking questions
questions. It shows that 59% are excellent, 23% are very good, 8% are fair,6% are
good and 4% are poor. This means that the subjects of the study are very good
in asking questions in the aspect that they are tested on. This finding is in
consonance with Garzonio and Hermelin (2004) in a study among Tamil speakers
to translate Situ language to Italian interrogatives revealed that despite the
typological distance between Italian and Tamil, the acquisition of interrogatives
appears to be at first sight fast and correct. Similar also with the results obtain by
Grebenyova among Russian and English speaking children who exhibit near
perfect knowledge of syntax of multiple interrogatives and to O'Connor and
Hermelin (1991) who claimed that their subject’s receptive and expressive
command of English is within normal range based on their subject's
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
54
performance on a variety of structures including declaratives, passives, negatives,
interrogatives, relatives, and involving variations in agreement and word order.
Grammatical Errors Committed by the Subjects
Table 2 presents the grammatical errors that the subjects of the study
commit in transforming declaratives to interrogatives. Using the Model of Errors
in constructing Yes- No questions provided by Master (1996), it shows that most
of the errors fall under the Category of Auxiliary with 52%.
These are the samples of errors that the learners committed under the
incorrect use of category of the auxiliary such as be, have, do or modal and its
negative counterpart. Examples of these errors in this category are:
Declarative: You love to stay in the Philippines.
Erroneous interrogatives: Are you love to stay in the Philippines?
Declarative:
He will come next week.
Erroneous interrogative: Is he will come next week?
Declarative:
The girl needs some help.
Erroneous interrogative: Is the girl needs some help?
Declarative:
The dog had died before you came.
Erroneous interrogative: Did the dog has die before you came?
Did the dog die before you came?
Did the dog have died before you came?
Did the dog had died before you came?
Declarative:
They have not been to London.
Erroneous interrogative: Do they have not been to London?
Have they been to London?
Have they been not to London?
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
55
Are they have not been to London?
Didn’t they have been to London?
Table2. Grammatical errors committed by the subjects
ERRORS Percentage
Position of Auxiliary 40%
Category of Auxiliary 49%
Subject- Auxiliary Agreement 27%
Tense of Auxiliary 24%
Punctuation 4.0%
Total 100%
Cochran’s Q 55.415a
Df = 4
Asymp. Sig. = .000
Legend: a= 0 is treated as a success
Negation is one of the indicators of the progression which, according to
interlanguage theory is the basis of second language acquisition. They show that
there is a clear developmental route. Initially, negative utterances are
characterized by external negation, that is, the negative particle (usually ‘no’) is
attached to a declarative nucleus. A little later internal negation develops; that is,
the negative particle is moved inside the utterance. This often coincides with the
use of “not” and / or “don’t”, which is used variably with “no” as the negative
particle. “Don’t” at this stage, however is an unanalyzed unit and so cannot be
described as “do + not”. A third step involves negative attachment to modal verbs,
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
56
although this may again occur in unanalyzed units initially. In the final stage of
negation the target language rule is reached. The learner develops an auxiliary
system and uses “not” regularly as the negative particle (that is, ‘no + V’ is
eliminated). Negative utterances, like positive utterances, are marked for tense
and number, although not necessarily always correctly. The way along this route
is a gradual one, which for some learners can take longer than two years (Ellis,
1985). In this study, the learners did not yet fully develop their target competence
in negation since common errors primarily fall on this category.
The second category of error that the learners commit is the Position of the
Auxiliary with 40%. In transforming a statement to an interrogative sentence, the
auxiliary should be transferred before the subject of the sentence but the learners
still place them after the subject. Some examples of these errors are:
Declarative:
He will come next week.
Erroneous interrogative: When he will come?
Do they have not been to London?
Does he will come next week?
Declarative: She will be leaving next week.
Erroneous interrogative: Does she will be leaving next week?
Will be she leaving next week?
Declarative: The
baby
did not sleep well.
Erroneous sentence: Why the baby did not sleep well?
The third category of error that the learners commonly committed is the
Subject-Auxiliary Agreement with 30%. They have failed to make the auxiliary
Agree with the subject. The number of the subject was disregarded in choosing
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
57
the correct auxiliary especially or sentences with buried auxiliaries. Some of the
errors reflecting this category are:
Declarative:
The girl needs some help.
Erroneous Interrogative: Do the girl needs some help? (Frequency of
this error is several).
Declarative: The visitor ate all the food.
Erroneous interrogative: Do the visitor ate all the food? (frequency of
this error is several).
Following closely is the Tense of the Tense of Auxiliary with 24%. They
put the wrong tense on the auxiliary which is illustrated by the following
examples:
Declarative: The visitor ate all the food.
Erroneous Interrogatives: Do the visitor ate all the food?
Does
the
visitor ate all the food?
Did the visitor ate all the food?
Declarative:
She will be leaving next week.
Erroneous interrogative: Does she will be leaving next week?
Finally, the least error commonly committed is Punctuation with 7%. The
learners put the period instead of the question mark. Some examples of these
errors are:
Erroneous Interrogatives: Will he come next week.
Does the girl need some help.
Why
are
you
crying.
Why are you dancing.
How can I tell her about you.
Similarly, interrogatives like negatives follow a gradual route if
development. The first productive questions are utterances with declarative word
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
58
order but spoken with a rising intonation. At this stage there are also some WH
questions, but these appear to have been learnt as ready made chunks. The next
development sees the appearances of productive WH- questions. There is no
subject - verb inversion to start off with, and the auxiliary verb is often omitted.
Later, inversion occurs in yes- no questions and in WH- questions. Inversion with
“be” tends to occur before inversion with “do”. Embedded are the last to develop.
When they first appear, they have a subject - verb inversion, as in ordinary WH-
questions: Example: I tell you what did happen. I don’t know where do you live.
Only later does the learner successfully differentiate the word order of ordinary
and embedded WH- questions like I don’t what he had. As with the negatives,
development of the rules of interrogation is gradual, involving overlapping stages
and the slow replacement of transitional forms (Ellis, 1985). The errors that were
committed by the subjects of the study suggest that they should work double time
in learning their English auxiliary system and syntactic rules specifically in
transforming declarative sentences with negatives.
Subjects’ Level of Comprehension in
Contextualized Questions as to Gender
Table 3 presents the difference in the level of comprehension of the males
and females in asking questions basing on a given contexts. The figure reveals
that the females perform better with 67.39% than the males who got a percentage
(%) of 63.19. This supports the conversation analysis of Masaitine (2002) who
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
59
Table 3. Subjects’ level of comprehension in contextualized questions as to
gender
GENDER LEVEL OF COMPREHENSION ADJECTIVAL
IN ASKING QUESTIONS RATING
Male 63.19a Very good
Female 67.39a Very good
Overall 65.12 Very good
F- Value 1.50ns
Probability 0.22
Legend: ns = not significant
Means with the same letter do not differ significantly (LSD)
found out that females produce more interrogatives which suggests that the
females are others-oriented. They express solidarity with other interactants since
asking questions is a way of giving up the turn. In contrast with the males who
produce more declaratives because they get to initiate exchanges by giving
information more often. Moreover, their subject in casual conversation is
overwhelmingly a personal pronoun (I/We). These linguistic behaviors among
males in conversation is that of dominance unlike the females whose speech is
carefully planned, ask more questions showing that she engages her interactant in
talk retaining some status as an initiator for obtaining information and at the same
time reinforcing the centrality of the man’s contribution.
However, with a computed F-value of 1.50 at .22 probability of error, the
difference of their performance is not significant. Hence, it accepts the hypothesis
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
60
that males and females have no significant performance in comprehending
contextualized questions.
Subjects’ Level of Performance in
Transforming Declaratives to
Questions as to Gender
Table 4 presents the performance of males and females in transforming
declaratives to interrogatives. This aspect of the test involves grammar and
syntactic rules. It shows that males perform better with 79.63% than the females
with 72.39%. This finding is in agreement with Nandakunar (1993) who
mentioned that in a study of English Proficiency in China, the results indicate that
the listening comprehension skill favors females while bundles of grammar,
vocabulary, and cloze slightly favor males. Moreover, in an error analysis made
by Chen (1996) among Taiwanese in Business English Writing, the males commit
71.5% errors than females whose errors are 28.5% higher. In contrast with the
study of Galangco (1998) who revealed that the females are more proficient in the
aspects of grammar and sentence structures and with Magtales ( 1998) who found
out that female subjectsts are better than males in grammar. Nonetheless, the table
further shows that with the computed F-value of 1.88 at .17 probability of error,
the difference in their performance is not significant. Thus, accepting the
hypothesis that no significant difference exists in the performance of males and
females in constructing Yes- No Questions. This is in consonance with the
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
61
findings of Bataclao ( 2003) and Dalay-on ( 1991) who both found out that gender
do not differ significantly in their linguistic proficiency.
Table 4. Subjects’ level of performance in transforming declaratives to questions
as to gender
GENDER LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE IN ADJECTIVAL
TRANSFORMING DECLARATIVES RATING
QUESTIONS
Male 79.63a
Very good
Female 72.39a Very good
Overall 76.30 Very good
F- Value 1.88ns
Probability 0.17
Legend: ns = not significant
Means with the same letter do not differ significantly (LSD)
Subjects’ Level of Performance in
Constructing WH-questions
As to Gender
Table 5 presents the performance of males and females in constructing
WH- Questions. The WH- questions in this study are direct with no subject to
start with and oftentimes the auxiliary is omitted (example: Where you going?)
and they appeared as a learnt memorized language chunks (Ellis, 1985). It
shows that the males perform better with 79.93% against the females with
75.65%. This suggests that man’s speech contains numerous incomplete clauses
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
62
as found out by Masaitine (2002) in his conversation analysis among males and
females and since WH- questions are information questions (Master, 1996), this
finding also suggests that the speech acts of male subjects in this study is
characterized by obtaining information.
Nevertheless, the table reveals that with the computed F-value of .10 at
.75 probability of error, the difference of their performance is not significant
hence, accepting the hypothesis that there is no significant difference in the
performance of males and females in constructing WH-questions.
Table 5. Subjects’ level of performance in constructing WH- questions as to
gender
GENDER LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE IN ADJECTIVAL
WH- QUESTIONS RATING
Male 80.09a Very good
Female 78.20a Very good
Overall 79.22 Very good
F- Value 0.10ns
Probability 0.75
Legend: ns = not significant
Means with the same letter do not differ significantly (LSD)
Subjects’ Level of Comprehension in Contextualized
Questions as to Length of Stay in the Philippines
Table 6 presents the comprehension of the subjects of study in
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
63
contextualized questions according to length of stay. It shows from the table that
the subjects who stay in the Philippines for 13- 18 months (one and a half year)
ranks first in their performance with 74. 75%. Following closely are the subjects
who stayed for 19-24 years (almost two years) with 74. 67%. Subtracting the
percentages of their scores, the difference is only .08% which means that their
performance does not differ significantly. It means then that staying in the
Philippines for a year and a half does not vary significantly with those subjects
who stay for almost two (2) years. Third in rank are the subjects who stay for 7-12
months (almost a year) with 69.89%. The table reveals that their difference with
those who stayed in the Philippines for 13-18 months (one year and a half) and
with the subjects who stayed in the Philippines for 19- 24 months (almost two
years) is not significant. Similarly, if they are to be compared with the subjects of
the study who stayed in the Philippines for only 1-6 months (less than a year) with
60%, their difference is not significant either. This means that the subjects of the
study who stayed in the Philippines for 7-12 months (almost a year) does not
differ significantly with those subjects who stayed for 19-24months (almost 2
years) and even with those subjects who stayed for 1- 6 months (less than a year)
in terms of their performance in constructing questions from given contexts.
Last in rank are the subjects who stay for only 1-6 months (less than a year) with
60%. Their difference with the subjects of the study who stayed in the Philippines
for 13-24 months (more than a year) is significant. This is in agreement with
Ekstrand (1975) who claims that years of exposure to second language leads to
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
64
Table 6. Subjects level of comprehension in contextualized questions as to length
of stay in the Philippines
LENGTH OF STAY IN LEVEL OF COMPREHENSION ADJECTIVAL
INTHE PHILIPPINES IN CONTEXTUALIZED RATING
QUESTIONS
1-6 months 60.00b Good
7-12 months 69.89ab Very good
13-18 months 74.75a Very good
19-24 months 74.67a Very good
More than 25 months 60.00b Good
Overall 65.12 Very good
F-Value 3.80**
Probability 0.01
Legend: ** = highly significant
Means with the same letter do not differ significantly (LSD)
greater success in overall communicative ability. In addition, Burstall (1975)
concludes that the achievement of skill in a foreign language is primarily a
function of the amount of time spent in studying that language. However, a
surprising result from the table shows that the subjects who stayed in the
Philippines for 25 months and above (more than two years) ranked last in their
performance. They obtained 60% exactly the same with the subjects who stayed
for only 1-6 months (less than a year). This finding about the subjects who stayed
for almost two years yields similar result with the findings of Hong and Jeon
(2000) among Koreans in the United States. They discussed that there is no
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
65
significant difference between L2 learners who have lived in the United States for
a short period and those who have lived for a long period in acquiring native
proficiency of the English Article System. In this study, the computed F- value
which is 3.80 at .01 probability of error means that there is a highly significant
difference in the performance of the subjects in terms of length of stay hence,
rejecting the hypothesis that there is no significant difference that exist between
performance and length of stay in the Philippines.
Subjects’ Level of Performance in
Transforming Declaratives to Questions
as to Length of Stay in the Philippines
Table 7 presents the performance of the subjects in transforming
declaratives to questions in terms of length of stay in the Philippines. The table
shows that the subjects who stayed for 7-12 months (almost a year) ranked first in
their performance with 85.26% followed closely by the subjects who stayed for
19-24 months (almost 2 years) with 85.00%. The results further reveal that if the
two percentages are subtracted there difference is not significant with only
.26%.Third in rank are the subjects who stayed for 13-18 months (one year and a
half) with 81.87%.
It shows from the table that their difference with the subjects who stayed
for 7-12 months (almost a year) and 19-24 months (almost two years) is not
significant. Likewise with the subjects who stay for 1-6 months (less than a year)
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
66
Table 7. Subjects’ level of performance in transforming declaratives to questions
as to length of stay in the Philippines
LENGTH OF STAY IN LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE ADJECTIVAL
INTHE PHILIPPINES IN TRANSFORMING RATING
DECLARATIVES TO
QUESTIONS
1-6 months 71.15b Very Good
7-12 months 85.26a Excellent
13-18 months 81.87ab Excellent
19-24 months 85.00 a Excellent
More than 25 months 70.00b Very Good
Overall 76.30 Very good
F-Value 1.51ns
Probability 0.20
Legend: ns = not significant
Means with the same letter do not differ significantly (LSD)
ab= the level of the performance fall between a and b
with 71.15%. This reveals that the subjects who stay for 13-18 months (a year and
a half) does not differ significantly with the subjects who stayed for 7-12 months
(almost a year) and with those 19-24 months (almost two years) length of stay.
This means then that the level of comprehension of the subjects staying in the
Philippines for almost a year to almost two (2) years is more or less the same.
Fourth in rank are the subjects who stayed for 1-6 months (less than a year) with
71.15 % and consistently last are the subjects who stayed in the Philippines for
more than 25 months (2 years and above) with 70 %. Their difference with the
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
67
subjects who stayed for 1- 6 months (less than a year) is more or less the same.
This result obtained is similar with the finding of Shin (2000) among Koreans
who revealed that the length of stay and the amount of formal instruction or
informal exposure to L2 were found to have little effect on ultimate proficiency
and that the relationship between the length of exposure to the L2 and proficiency
appears to be minimal beyond a five- year term of exposure in the L2
environment, a hard fact that confronts the TEFL situations in Korean school
systems. Nevertheless, the figures reveals further that with a computed F- value of
1.51 with.20 probability of error, it accepts the hypothesis that the performance of
the subjects in Yes- No interrogatives is not significant.
Subjects’ Level of Performance in
Constructing WH-questions as to
Length of Stay in the Philippines
Table 8 presents the performance of the subjects in direct WH- questions. It
shows that the subjects who stayed for 25 months and above (more than two
years) ranked first with 94.14 %. This is followed by the subjects who stayed for
7-12 months (almost a year) with 89.42%. This difference in the performance of
these two groups is significant. Third are the subjects who stayed for 13-18
months (one year and a half) with 85.44%. This result does not differ significantly
with the subjects who stay for 7-12 months (almost a year).It means therefore that
the subjects who stay for almost a year has the same performance with the
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
68
Table 8. Subjects’ level of performance in constructing WH-questions as to length
of stay in the Philippines
LENGTH OF STAY IN LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE ADJECTIVAL
IN THE PHILIPPINES IN WH- QUESTIONS RATING
1-6 months 72.50b Very Good
7-12 months 89.42ab Excellent
13-18 months 85.44ab Excellent
19-24 months 71.17b Very Good
More than 25 months 94.14a Excellent
Overall 79.22 Very good
F-Value 1.99ns
Probability 0.10
Legend: ns = not significant
Means with the same letter do not differ significantly (LSD)
subjects who stay for a year and a half. The 6 months difference in staying in the
Philippines has no significant effect to their performance. Fourth in rank are the
subjects who stay for 1- 6 months (less than a year) with 72.5%. Last are the
subjects who stay for 19-24 months (almost 2 years) with 71.17%. Their
difference with the subjects who stay in the Philippines for less than a year is not
significant. This shows that the performance of the subjects who have been
staying for almost two (2) years is more or less the same with the subjects who
have been staying for less than a half year. Overall, the computed F- value of 1.99
at .10 probability of error is not significant thus, accepting the hypothesis that
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
69
there is no significant difference in the performance of the subjects in constructing
WH- questions in terms of length of stay in the Philippines.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This section presents the summary, conclusions and recommendations of
the study.
Summary
This study identified the level of comprehension and performance of the
Korean college students in asking questions. It sought to answer the following
questions:
1. To determine the subjects’ level of comprehension and performance in
asking questions;
2. To identify the most common grammatical errors committed by the
subjects in asking questions;
3. To determine the effects of gender and length of stay in the Philippines
of the subjects on their level of comprehension and performance in asking
questions.
The salient findings are:
1. The level of comprehension of the subjects is “very good”.
2. The level of performance of the subjects in asking questions is “very
good”.
3. The subjects of the study perform best in using WH- questions,
followed by transforming declaratives to questions and comprehending
contextualized questions.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
71
4. The most common error committed by the subjects of the study is on
category of auxiliary, followed by position of the auxiliary, subject-auxiliary
agreement, tense of the auxiliary, and punctuation.
5. There is no significant difference in the performance of males and
females in asking questions.
6. There is no significant difference in the performance of the subjects
who stayed in the Philippines for less than a year with the subjects who stayed for
more than two (2) years.
7. Gender and length of stay in the Philippines have no correlation with
the subjects’ comprehension and performance in asking questions.
Conclusions
Based on the findings, the conclusions are drawn.
1. There are no differences in the comprehension and performance of the
subjects of the study in terms of gender and length of stay in the Philippines.
2. Distinguishing the Category of the Auxiliary (be, have, do or modal) to
be used in asking questions is the most common error among the subjects of the
study.
3. The comprehension and performance of the subjects has no relation to
gender and length of stay in the Philippines.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
72
Recommendations
On the basis of the findings and conclusions of the study, the following are
suggested:
1. Koreans studying in Baguio City should be encouraged to polish more
their skills in asking questions based on a certain context.
2. Other aspect of questions like tag questions have to be explored.
3. Intensive study on the English auxiliary and negation system must be
given emphasis for learners in order to construct questions correctly.
4. Further study on the communicative and discourse competence of the
Koreans should be undertaken.
5. Koreans staying in the Philippines for almost two years should maintain
English as a medium of conversation with fellow Koreans and Filipino friends.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
73
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
LITERATURE CITED
BAILEY, N. 1974.In Elllis, R.1985.Understanding Second Language
Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp.47-51, 155, 157, 165.
BATACLAO. R.C.2003.Transitional Markers in Written Composition Among
Freshaman College Students of Benguet State University. An
Analysis.
Unpublished
Thesis. Benguet State University, La
Trinidad,
Benguet
BAUTISTA. A. 1995. Motivations in English Proficiency of Student Teacher
Training Institutions in the Cordillera Administrative
Region.Unpublished Dissertation. University Of Baguio.
BERNHARDT 1991. Reading Matrix. Gender, Violence- Oriented Passage
Content and Second Language Reading Comprehension.
www.readingmatrix.com./pdf.
CAMERON, 1988. In
SADIGHI,
F.
M.R.
PARHIZGAR,
and
M.SAADAT.2004. Preposition Pied -Piping and Preposition Stranding
Constructions in the Interlanguage Grammar OF Iranian EFL Learners.
www.asian.efl.journal.com.
CANALE, M. AND M. SWAIN. 1980. Theoretical Bases of Communicative
Approach to Second Language Teaching and Testing. Applied
Linguistics.
Pp.
1-47.
CHERRY 1979. In HALLIDAY,M. A. and R. HASAN.1975. Cohesion in
English. Singapore: The Print house Ltd. P.12.
BOSE, A. C. 2005. The problems in Learning Model Auxiliary Verb in English at
High
school
Level.
www.language India.com/htm.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
74
BURSTALL. C. 1975. In ELLIS, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language
Acquisition. Oxford:Oxford University Press.P.106.
CHEN, J. 1996. Gender Differences in Taiwan Business Writing Errors.
www.iteslj.org/htm.
CHOMSKY, N. 1965. In Bose, A.C. 2005. The Problems in Learning Modal
Auxiliary Verbs in English
at High School Level. www.language
India.com/htm.
CORDER, S. 1974. In ELLIS, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language
Acquisition. Oxford:Oxford University Press. Pp. 51, 155,157,165.
CRYSTAL, D. 1988. In BOSE, A. C. 2005. The Problems in Learning Modal
Auxiliary Verbs in English at High school Level.
www.languageindia.com
CURTISS 1989 and YAMADA 1990. In RONDAL, J. 1995. Atypical Language
Development in Individual with Mental Retardation: Theoretical
Implications.www.vc.ehu.es/html.
COTIW-AN, LC. 1988. Weaknesses in English Grammar among Freshmen
High School Students of Benguet State University. Unpublished
Thesis.Baguio Central University. Baguio City.
DALAY-ON, M.C. 1991. Reading Competence of the Sophomore Students of
Gov. Bado Dangwa Agro Industrial School. Unpublished Thesis. Baguio
Central University. Pp. 56-57.
De LACOSTE. 1986. In PHILIPS.ed. Language Gender and Sex in Comparative
Perspective.www.ldc.upeen.edu.htm.
DULAY, H and M. BURT.1973. In ELLIS, R. 1985. Understanding Second
Language
Acquisition.
Oxford:Oxford University Press. Pp. 55,65-
67.
EKSTRAND, L. 1977. In ELLIS, R. 1985. Understanding Second
Language
Acquisition.
Oxford:Oxford University Press. P.107.
ELLIS, R.1985. Understanding Second Language
Acquisition.
Oxford:Oxford University Press. Pp.47-51, 155, 157, 165.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
75
GALANGCO, N.S. 1988. Proficiency in Written English of Teachers in the
Catholic Secondary Mission Schools of Mountain Province. Unpublished
Thesis. Saint Louis University. Baguio City.
GARZONIO, J. and S. GRACCI.2004. Italian Interrogatives. www.vc.ehu.es./htm
GREBENYOVA, L.(n.d.) Multiple Interrogatives in Child Language.
www.ling.umd.edu/grevenyova/pdf.
HALLIDAY,M. A. and R. HASAN.1975. Cohesion in English. Singapore:
The Printhouse Ltd. P.12.
HATCH, E. 1978. In ELLIS, R.1985. Understanding Second
Language
Acquisition. Oxford:Oxford University Press. P.167.
HAWKINS and H. HATTORI.Interpretation Of English Multiple WH- Questions
by Japanese Speakers; A Missing Uninterpretable Feature
Account.www.ex.ac.uk/ukorghawk/
Hawkins/htm.
HAYNES, 1990.The Essentials of Language Teaching, Teaching Goals and
Method Goals: Communicative Competence. www.
nclrc.org.essentials/goalsmethods/thml.
HONG, R.and S.JEON (2000) The L2 Acquisition of Articles in English: The
Effect of “Age Arrival and Length of Residency” in the United
States.www.hichumanities.org/htm.
HOLLOWAY. 1993. In PHILIPS.ed. Language Gender and Sex in
Comparative Perspective.www.ldc.upeen.edu.htm
HOLMES. 1984. In In PHILIPS.ed. Language Gender and Sex in
Comparative Perspective.www.ldc.upeen.edu.htm.
HORNER1988. In BOSE, A. C. 2005. The Problems in Learning Modal
Auxiliary
Verbs in English at High school Level.
www.language
India.com/htm.
KHAN, H. 2005. Speaking Strategies to Overcome Communication Difficulties
in the Target Language Situation- Bangladeshis in New Zealand.www.
Languageindia.com.htm
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
76
KRASHEN, S. 1981. In ELLIS, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language
Acquisition. Oxford:Oxford University Press.Pp.128 - 129, 261-263, 265.
KILGOUR, D. 1999. The Importance of Language. www.davidkilgour.com.htm.
LENNEBERG, E. 1967. In BROWN, D.H. Principles of Language Learning and
Teaching.
4th Ed. New York: Pearson Education Company. Pp. 54-55.
LEVINE, D.A. 2001. Health Literacy: Implications for Seniors Symposium
Proceedings.www.cal.org.caela/eslresources/digests/healthlit.html.
LITTLEWOOD, W. 1983. Communicative Language Teaching: An Introduction.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
LOPEZ, P.M. 1987. Competence in English Among Freshmen High School
Students of University Of Baguio. Baguio City. P. viii.
LYONS, J. 1986. ELLIS, R.1985. Understanding Second
Language
Acquisition. Oxford:Oxford University Press. P.167.
MAGTALES, F.A. 1998. English Proficiency of the Freshmen Students of the
Ramon Magsaysay Polytechnic College. Unpublished Thesis,
Baguio
Central University. Baguio City.
MASAITINE, D. 2002. Respectus Philologicus.http.filogija.vukhf.lt/htm.
MC TEAR, M.1975. ELLIS, R.1985. Understanding Second
Language
Acquisition.
Oxford:Oxford
University Press. Pp.147-148.
MASTER, P. 1996. Systems in English Grammar: An Introduction for Language
Teachers. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents. Pp.136-147.
NANDAKUNAR. 1993. In LIN, J. and F.WU. Differential Performance
by Gender in Foreign LanguageTesting.www.education.ualberta.com.
NEMSER, W. 1971. In ELLIS, R.1985. Understanding Second Language
Acquisition. Oxford:Oxford University Press. P.47.
NIEDERHAUSER J. (n.d.)
Motivating Learners at South Korean
Universities. http://exchanges. State.gov/forum/vols/vol35/no1/p8htm
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
77
O’CONNOR and HERMELIN .1991. In RONDAL, J. 1995. Atypical
Language Development in Individual with Mental Retardation:
Theoretical
Implications.www.vc.ehu.es/html.
RICHARDS, J. 1974. ed. In ELLIS, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language
Acquisition.
Oxford:Oxford
University Press. P. 53.
RODNEY and HUDDLESTON. 1978. . In BOSE, A. C. 2005. The Problems in
Learning Modal
Auxiliary Verbs in English at High school Level.
www.languageindia.com.
RONDAL, J. 1995. Atypical Language Development in Individual with Mental
Retardation:
Theoretical
Implications.www.vc.ehu.es/html.
SADIGHI, F. M.R. PARHIZGAR, and M.SAADAT.2004. Preposition Pied -
Piping and Preposition Stranding Constructions in the Interlanguage
Grammar OF Iranian EFL Learners.www.asian.efl.journal.com.
SAMIMY, K. 2002. Exploring Willingness to Communicate in English.
www.ohiolink.edu./htm.
SAVIGNON, S. J. 1972. Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom
Practice Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley Publishing Company. Pp.24-25.
SELIGER.H.1977. In Allwright and K. Bailey.1991. Focus on the Language
Classroom: An Introduction to Classroom Research for Language
Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 130-131.
SELINKER, L. 1972.In ELLIS, R.1985. Understanding Second Language
Acquisition.
Oxford:Oxford
University Press. Pp.47-49.
SELINKER, L and J. LAMENDELLA. 1978. In ELLIS, R.1985. Understanding
Second
Language
Acquisition. Oxford:Oxford
University
Press.
P.47.
SHIHAMOTO, J. 2001. The Womanly Woman. In PHILIPS.ed. Language
Gender and Sex in Comparative Perperctive.
www.ldc.upeen.edu.htm.
SHIN, J.S. (2000) Age Factor in Foreign Language
Acquisition.www.nt2primaire.org./articles/en/vo/9_6.pdf.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
78
SMITH, M.S. 1994. Second Language Acquisition: Theoretical
Foundations. New York: Longman Publishing. Pp.9-17
TSIMPLI, I. 2003. In HAWKINS and H. HATTORI.Interpretation Of English
Multiple WH- Questions by Japanese Speakers; A Missing
Uninterpretable
Feature
Account. www.ex.ac.uk/ukorghawk/
Hawkins/htm.
VORHESS, D. 2001. Issue to Studying English. Express Yourself 2. Korea: LIS
Korean Company. P.64.
WIDDOWSON,H. 1978. Teaching Language in Communication. Oxford. Oxford
University
Press.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
MASTER’S MODEL OF ERRORS IN CONSTRUCTING YES-
NO QUESTIONS
Position of Auxiliary
(before the subject)
Category of Auxiliary
(modal, be, have, do)
Subject- Auxiliary Agreement (singular, plural)
Tense of Auxiliary
(past, present)
Punctuation
(question mark)
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
80
Appendix 2
Letter to Administer a Test
The President
E-maple Academy
Green Valley,
Baguio City
September 18, 2006
Sir/Madam:
The researcher is conducting a study entitled “ Comprehension and
Performance of Korean Students in Asking Questions” as a requirement for the
degree, Master of Arts in English as a Second Language.
In this connection, the researcher would like to ask permission to
administer the questionnaires to some of your students.
Your approval will surely contribute to the success of the study. Rest
assured that whatever results obtained will be used solely for this study.
Respectfully yours,
(Sgd.) YOUNG MI JUNG
Researcher
Noted by:
(Sgd.) DIMAS WANDIT
Adviser
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
Appendix 3
Instrument
Name :(Optional)______________________________ Gender:______
Length of Stay in the Philippines:_______months/ year
Part I –Comprehension Questions
Read every situation carefully and select the best answer.
1. You are inside a restaurant and you want to ask the waitress if they serve
Korean food. What will you ask her?
a. What Korean food do you serve?
b. Can I order Korean food?
c. Do you serve Korean food here?
2. You met a person for the first time and you want to be friend him/her. What
will you ask?
a. What is your name?
b. Do you want to be my friend?
c. May we know each other?
3. You are in the wet market and looking for a Blue Marlin for sashimi. What
will you ask the fish vendor?
a. How much is the price of Blue Marlin?
b. Do you sell Blue Marlin?
c. Is Blue Marlin expensive or cheap?
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
82
4. You are inside the classroom. At the middle of the period you feel going
to the Comfort Room. What will you ask to the teacher?
a. Ma’am, may I please go out?
b. Ma’am, where is the way to the Comfort Room?
c. Ma’am, how far is the Comfort Room from our room?
5. Your ballpen ran out of ink. You want to borrow one from your seatmate.
How will you ask it?
A. Do you have an extra ballpen?
B. Can you give me a ballpen?
C. Will you please lend me extra ballpen?
6. In a narrow corridor, you want to pass in between two people talking to
each other. What will you ask?
A. Excuse me, may I pass?
B. Will you allow me to pass?
C. May I pass in between the two of you?
7. You forgot your watch and you want to know the time from somebody
else. What will you ask?
A. What is your time?
B. May I know what time is it?
C. Will you tell me the time?
8. In a party, you want to go home earlier than the rest. What will you ask to
them?
A. May I go home ahead of you?
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
83
B. Will you please allow me to go home now?
C. Can I go home now?
9. Your friend is angry at you for some reason you do not know. What will
you ask to him/her?
A. Why are you angry at me?
B. What is the reason you are angry at me?
C. May I know why you are angry at me?
10. You want to order something through your friend who is going
downtown. What will you ask him/her?
A. Will you please do me a favor?
B. Will you buy something for me?
C. Will you go to downtown and buy something for me?
11. You misplaced your eyeglasses and you could hardly find them, you want
your board mate’s to help you. What will you ask them?
A. Will you look for my eyeglasses?
B. Who took my glasses?
C. Anybody of you, who saw my eyeglasses?
12. You want to know the age of your friend. What question will you ask her?
A. What is your age?
B. How old are you?
C. How many years do you have?
13. You want to know where the boarding house your friend is. What will you
ask him/her?
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
84
A. Where do you stay?
B. How to go to your boarding house?
C. Where is your boarding house located?
14. Your friend is in tears and you want to find out why? What question will
you ask?
A. What is the matter with you?
B. What are you crying for?
C. Are you crying for me?
15. You found a lost wallet inside the classroom. How will you find the
owner?
A. Anybody among you who lost a wallet?
B. Who likes this wallet?
C. To whom will I give this wallet?
16. It is raining heavily and you want to go to the other building for your next
class. What will you ask to a classmate who has an umbrella?
A. May I borrow your umbrella?
B. May I use your umbrella?
C. Can you share your umbrella to me?
17. You are eating a bar of chocolate and you want to share it to your friend.
What will you ask?
A. Are you hungry?
B. Do you eat chocolate?
C. Do you mind to have a bit of my chocolate?
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
85
18. You want your classmate to help you in your assignment. What will you
ask him/her?
A. Can you do my assignment?
B. May I copy your assignment?
C. Will you please assist me do my assignment?
19. You cannot understand the explanation of the teacher about a new lesson.
What will you ask?
A. Ma’am, will you please explain further?
B. Ma’am, will you please talk louder?
C. Ma’am, will you please talk slower?
20. You want to buy an item but it’s quite expensive for you. How will you
ask for a bargain?
A. What is your best price?
B. Can you give me some discount?
C. Why is this item very expensive?
21. You want to inquire about the status of someone. How will you ask it?
A. When did you get married?
B. Is your spouse still alive?
C. Are you married or still single?
22. You are interested to find the number of children your friend has. What
question will you ask?
A. Are you interested in having children?
B. How many children do you have?
C. How many children do you plan to have?
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
86
23. You want to know the favorite type of literature your friend enjoys. What
will you ask him/her?
A. What type of literature do you like most?
B. How many times did you read this type of literature?
C. What do you enjoy reading this type of literature?
24. You want to know when your visitor is going to leave. What will you ask?
A. Do you want to know?
B. When is the right time for you to leave?
C. At what time do you intend to go?
25. You want to know the height of your friend. What will you ask?
A. What is your height?
B. How long are you?
C. How tall are you?
Part 2 – Performance Test
A. Transforming Declaratives to Questions
A. Transform the following statements into questions:
Example: There are many Korean students in Baguio.
Answer: Are there many Korean students in Baguio?
1. The girl need some help.
_______________________________
2. He will come next week.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
87
________________________________
3. They are reading in the library.
_________________________________
4. The visitor ate all the food.
________________________________
5. Winter is very cold in Korea.
____________________________________
6. You love to stay in the Philippines.
7. The baby did not sleep well.
____________________________________
8. They have not been to London.
_____________________________________
9. She will be leaving next week.
_____________________________________
10. The dog had died before you come.
B. Constructing WH- questions
B. Construct three (3) questions under each kind of WH-question.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
88
Example: Who is your friend?
When did you finish high school?
Where do you stay?
Why are you late?
How old are you?
1. Who
a.___________________________________________________
b.___________________________________________________
c. .___________________________________________________
2. When
a.___________________________________________________
b .___________________________________________________
c.___________________________________________________
3. Where
a.___________________________________________________
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
89
b.___________________________________________________
c .___________________________________________________
4.Why
a.___________________________________________________
b.___________________________________________________
c.___________________________________________________
5. How
a.___________________________________________________
b. .___________________________________________________
c.___________________________________________________
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
90
Thank You Very Much!!
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
90
Appendix 4
RESULT OF ITEM ANALYSIS
Action
Item Number
Index of
Index of
Taken
Difficulty %
Discrimination
1 80
.25
Retained
2 50
.20
Retained
3 80
.25
Retained
4 90
.20
Revised
5 50
.50
Retained
6 80
.25
Retained
7 90
.13
Revised
8 50
.50
Retained
9 40
.06
Retained
10 70
.33
Retained
11 60
.20
Retained
12 90
.13
Revised
13 60
.20
Retained
14 90
.13
Revised
15 80
.25
Retained
16 80
.25
Retained
17 70
.33
Retained
18 80
.25
Retained
19 70
.33
Retained
20 90
.13
Revised
21 90
.13
Revised
22 70
.13
Retained
23 80
.25
Retained
24 50
.20
Retained
25 60
.20
Retained
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Young mi Jung is the eldest among the five children of Mr.Jin il Jung and
Mrs. Kem ok Kang of Korea. She was born on July 11, 1968.
She completed her elementary education at Baek Su Elementary School
in Jeon Nam, Korea in 1980, her middle school education at Hwa Gok Middle
School (Seoul, Korea) in 1983 and her high school education at Deok Won High
School in Seoul, Korea in 1986.The researcher continued her university studies at
Chung Ang University in Seoul, Korea and was able to obtain the bachelors’
degree of English Language and Literature.
After graduating from the university, she started to teach English to high
school students in a private school, then went to Canada to improve her English in
an ESL Academy and studied TESL (Teaching English as a Second Language ) at
Western Town College in Toronto, Canada. To further enrich her field of
specialization, she pursued her graduate studies at the Benguet State University,
La Trinidad with the degree, Masters of Arts in English as a Second Language
(MA ESL).
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
YOUNG MI JUNG, November 2006, Comprehension and Performance of
Korean College Students in Asking Questions. Benguet State University, La Trinidad,
Benguet.
Adviser: Dimas P. Wandit, M.A
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to determine the comprehension and performance in
asking questions among Korean College Students in Baguio City. Particularly, it
identified 1) the level of comprehension and performance of the subjects in asking
questions, 2) the common grammatical errors committed by the subjects, and 3) the
relationship of gender and length of stay in the Philippines to their comprehension and
performance.
The research used was the descriptive method. One hundred (100) Korean college
students enrolled in the different institutions in Baguio City during the first semester were
subjects of the study. Data were obtained through a teacher made and were treated
statistically using F-Test and Cochran Test.
The findings of the study revealed that the overall performance of the subjects in
asking questions is “very, good”. They were most competent in constructing WH-
questions followed by transforming declaratives to questions and comprehending
contextualized questions. Male and female subjects who stayed for 1-6 months (less than
a year) and more than 25 months (almost two years) do not differ significantly in their
level of comprehension and performance in asking questions. The common grammatical
errors committed are category of the auxiliary, position of the auxiliary, subject- auxiliary
agreement, tense of the auxiliary and punctuation. Variables like gender and length of
stay in the Philippines have no relation to the subjects’ comprehension and performance
in asking questions.
From these findings, the following conclusions are drawn. There are no differences in
the performance of the subjects in terms of gender and length of stay in the Philippines.
The incorrect use of auxiliary in asking questions is the most common error committed
by the subjects. Variables like gender and length of stay in the Philippines have no
relation to the subjects’ comprehension and performance in asking questions.
It is then suggested that learners should put emphasis in studying the English
auxiliary, negation, and question systems. Further studies on other aspects of
interrogatives and the discourse and communicative competence among Koreans should
also be undertaken. Lastly, Koreans staying in the Philippines for almost two years
should maintain English as a medium of conversation with fellow Korean and Filipino
friends.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography…………………………………………………….…….
i
Abstract….………………………………………………................. ….
i
Table of Contents………………………………………………………
iii
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study…………………………….………….. 1
Statement of the Problem……………………………………..…. 4
Objectives of the Study………………….…………..……... …….. 5
Importance of the Study………………………………................... 5
Scope and Delimitation of the Study………….............................. 6
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Second Language Acquisition…….…………………………….. 8
Interaction and Second Language Acquisition………………….. 15
Acquisition of Negation and Interrogation…………….……....... 16
English Modal Auxiliary Verbs…………………….……............ 22
Communicative Competence……………………………………… 24
Error Analysis…………………………………..…….........
27
Gender………………………................................................
32
Length of Stay ……………………………….……............
35
iii
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework……………….……
36
Definition of Terms………………………………………… 42
Hypotheses of the Study………….………................………
43
METHODOLOGY
Locale of the Study………………………………….………
44
Subjects of the Study…………………………………………
44
Instrumentation……………………………………………….
45
Data Gathering Procedure……………………………………
47
Statistical Treatment of Data…………………………………
47
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Subjects’ Level of Comprehension in
Contextualized Questions………………………….........
49
Subjects’ Level of Performance in transforming
Declaratives to Questions……………..………………… 50
Subjects’ Level of Performance in Constructing
WH- Questions………………………………………….. 51
Overall Performance of the Subjects’
in Asking Questions………………….…………………. 52
Grammatical Errors Committed by the
Subjects…………………………………………………….
54
Subjects’ Level of Comprehension in Contextualized
Questions as to Gender……………………………………….
58
Subjects’ Performance in Transforming Declarative to
Questions as to Gender……………………………………….
60
iv
Subjects’ Performance in Constructing WH-questions
As to Gender………………………………………………..
61
Subjects’ Level of Comprehension in Contextualized Questions
as to Length of Stay in the Philippines………………… 62
Subjects’ Level of Performance in Transforming Declaratives
to Questions as to Length of Stay in the Philippines………
65
Subjects’ Level of Performance in Constructing WH Questions
As to Length of Stay in the Philippines………………………
67
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary……..…………………………………………………… 70
Conclusions…………………………………………………….
71
Recommendations………………………………………………… 72
LITERATURE CITED…………………………………………………… 73
APPENDICES
A. Master’s Model of Errors in Constructing
Yes- No Questions……………………………….…………….. 79
B. Letter to Administer a Test………………………………….
80
C. Instrument……………………….…………………………..
81
D. Results of Item Analysis ……………………………………. 90
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH…………………………………………... 91
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
Page
v
1
Profiles of the Subjects……………………………..
45
2
Grammatical Errors Committed by the Subjects
of the Study………………………………………… 55
3
Subjects’ Level of Comprehension in Contextualized
Questions as to Gender……………………………. 59
4
Subjects’ Level of Performance in Transforming
Declaratives to Questions as to Gender…………….
61
5
Subjects’ Level of Performance in Constructing
WH – Questions as to Gender………………………
62
6
Subjects ‘ Level of Comprehension in Contextualized
Questions as to Length of Stay in the Philippines…….
64
7
Subjects’ Level of Performance in Transforming
Declaratives to Questions to Length of Stay
in the Philippines……………........................................... 66
8
Subjects’ Level of Performance in WH- Questions as to
Length of Stay in the Philippines……………………...... 68
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
No.
Page
vi
1. Steps for Making Yes- No questions
With and Without an Overt Auxiliary………………………….
20
2. Tree Diagram of Auxiliary Verbs……………………..……….. 25
3. The Deep Structure Diagram……………………………………
29
4. The Acquisition Hierarchy…………………………………….. 31
5. Paradigm of the Study…………………………………………… 41
6. Subjects’ Level of Comprehension in
Contextualized Questions………………………………………… 50
7. Subjects’ Level of Performance in Transforming
Declaratives to Questions……………………….……………… 51
8. Subjects’ Level of Performance in Constructing
WH- questions……………………….…………………………… 52
9. Overall Performance of the Subjects in
Asking Questions…………………………………………………… 53
vii
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
Language is one of the wonderful gifts given by God to humanity. It is
with the help of language that man is able to communicate and solve a number of
his problems and has been able to make a lot of achievements in life. If there has
been no language, it would have been difficult for man to communicate his views
to fellow human beings. There would be no educational activity into existence,
there would have been no law making, no preaching, no lecturing and nothing like
talking, singing, writing and exchanging views and there would have been no
book. That is why it is very essential for every man to learn and use a language.
However, it is not easy to learn a language. Every language is a complex
phenomenon, and one has to devote a number of years to learn a language even
though some are able to learn more than one language (Bose, 2005).
Every language has its own special way of making words. The ways in
which words behave in a particular language is called 'grammar.' When one is
speaking or writing in a foreign language or in one’s own language, the use of
words must obey grammatical rules of the language concerned. If it breaks down,
the sense conveyed through that language also breaks down. The term grammar
in its broadest sense refers to the statements about the regularities and the
irregularities of language. In every day usage, grammar evokes ideas about
“correctness” of language elements. This view of grammar involves many value
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
2
judgments about the acceptability of certain utterances. Grammar may all be
basically the same as suggested by the term universal grammar, since all
grammars must reflect the human minds, then one can assume that mind, always
and every where, has something common.
Language reflects cultures, and it helps man for communication and gives
a set of habits. Grammar can therefore be thought of as a codification of
observable characteristic of large body of speech (Bose, 2005). But knowing a
language involves not only knowledge of the formal properties of a language
system. More importantly, it involves knowledge and competence on the actual
use especially for communication and social interaction. As Kilgour (1999) puts
it, it is obviously a vital tool not only as a means of communicating thoughts and
ideas but it also forges friendships, cultural ties, and economic relationships.
Language also is knowledge and in the world today knowledge is one of
the key factors in competitiveness. Brains and knowledge are what create the
prosperity and growth that people tend to take for granted. In an advanced
industrial society in an increasingly independent world, the knowledge of other
languages becomes indispensable. Just think of how the advent of internet has
changed one’s life (Kilgour, 1999). Moreover, lack of language skills result to the
inability of the learners to speak for themselves, use sophisticated vocabulary,
formulate appropriate questions, or comprehend basic instructions (Levine, 2001).
Korea is one of these countries that wants to be communicatively
competent in the English language. Koreans readily admit that knowing how to
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
3
communicate in English is one of the most important qualifications. Many of
them give up their free time and hard- earned cash to improve their skill (Vorhess,
2001). They realize the significance of the English language for their studies,
jobs, business and personal development so English starts to be taught in the
middle school where children are at the age of eleven or twelve years old. Despite
of this, Koreans still find that they lack communicative competence. Such can be
attributed to certain factors such as low motivation, educational system, cultural
views and exposure to everyday conversations (Niederhauser, 2006).
Consequently, many students who further like to increase their competence attend
academies in their own country or go abroad. Philippines, particularly here in
Baguio City is one of the places that Koreans chose to develop their language
proficiency and communicative competence where they can use the English
language appropriately in real life situations. Besides, gaining good
communicative skills is always considered one of the most important factors in
settling down in a new society for the immigrants (Khan, 2005). As cited in
(www.plaza.ufl.edu ), the ultimate goal of learning a second language is the
attainment of communicative fluency. Second language researchers also argue
that willingness to communicate in the second language is one of the best
predictors in determining success in second language acquisition, in association
with the perspective that the more active second language learners are with
second language use, the greater possibility they have to develop second language
proficiency. It is important for Korean students then to understand what effects
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
4
willingness to communicate in English to enhance the possibility to acquire
English proficiency (Samimy, 2002). In order to communicate functionally,
patterns of questioning or interrogatives must be developed. Moreover, as Bose
(2005) puts it, in order to steer the language, one should internalize the
grammatical pattern existing in all linguistic levels of language. The
internalization of grammatical rules happens covertly if a language is acquired as
first language and it happens overtly if a language is learnt as second or foreign
language. However, the internalization of grammatical rule is an imperative
prerequisite for any language learning process.
Statement of the Problem
This study analyzed the comprehension and performance in asking
questions among Korean College students and identified the grammatical errors
committed among Korean college students. Specifically, it sought to answer the
following questions:
1. What is the subjects’ level of comprehension in asking questions?
2. What is the subjects’ level of performance in asking questions?
3. What are the grammatical errors committed mostly by the subject in
asking questions?
4. What effect do gender and length of stay in the Philippines have on the
subjects’ level of comprehension and performance in asking questions?
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
5
Objectives of the Study
This study determined the comprehension and performance in asking
questions among Korean College students and analyzed the common grammatical
errors that they committed. Specifically:
1. To determine the subjects’ level of comprehension in asking questions.
2. To determine the subjects’ level of performance in asking questions.
3. To identify the most common grammatical errors committed by the
subjects in asking questions.
4. To determine the effects of gender and length of stay in the Philippines
of the subjects on their level of comprehension and performance in asking
questions.
Importance of the Study
The findings of this study will be beneficial to various individuals.
To school and academy administrators, supervisors and curriculum
makers, the results will help them to design their course syllabus and materials
more appropriate and effectively for their clientele. Thus, learning the English
Language among Koreans will be easier and motivating.
To the subjects of the study, the results will identify their strengths and
weaknesses where they have rooms of improvement, thus achieving linguistic and
communicative competence.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
6
To teachers and tutors, this study will be an advantage for them since it
will give them an idea on how to improve instructional materials, implement
appropriate techniques and methods for effective teaching-learning process.
To future researchers, this study is an additional reference that will
contribute information in the auxiliary, negation and question systems of the
English language.
Finally, to the researcher herself, this undertaking will be an inspiration
and challenge to continue advancing her knowledge and skills in English.
Scope and Delimitation of the Study
This study was conducted to Korean college students who are studying in
the different institutions of Baguio City namely E- Maple Academy, Saint Louis
University, University of Baguio and University of Cordilleras during the first
semester of the school year 2005-2006.
It covered two aspects namely: 1) the evaluation of the level of comprehension
and performance of Korean college students in asking questions and 2) the
analysis of the grammatical errors that they committed in transforming
declaratives to questions. The comprehension level focused on choosing questions
from a given context and the performance level involved sentence transformation
to Yes- No questions and constructing WH- questions. The declaratives that were
transformed have either overt and buried auxiliaries while the WH- Questions
were direct and limited to Who, When, Where, Why and How questions.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
7
It also sought to find out the relationship of gender and length of stay in
the Philippines to the subjects’ comprehension and performance in asking
questions.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Second Language Acquisition
Krashen’s (1981) Monitor Model so far is the most comprehensive of
existing theories in second language acquisition. It consists of five central
hypotheses and makes reference to a number of factors which relate to these
hypotheses. The different hypotheses are:
1. The acquisition- learning hypotheses. It is applicable to the process
of internalizing new L2 knowledge, to storing this knowledge and to using it in
actual performance. Acquisition occurs subconsciously as a result of
participating in natural communication where the focus is on meaning. Learning
occurs as a result of conscious study of the formal properties of the language. In
storing the L2 knowledge, the acquired knowledge is located in the left
hemisphere of the brain in the language areas and is available for automatic
processing. Learnt knowledge is also stored in the left hemisphere of the brain
but not necessarily in the language areas and is available for controlled
processing. In language use, acquired knowledge serves as the major source for
initiating both the comprehension and production of utterances while learnt
knowledge is available for monitoring.
2. The natural order hypotheses. It indicates that learners may follow a
more or less invariant order in the acquisition of formal grammatical features. It
affirms that grammatical structures are acquired in a predictable order. Along
side with this hypothesis is the discussion on interlanguage theory. This term
was used by Selinker (1972) which Nemser (1971) also referred as
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
9
with this hypothesis is the discussion on interlanguage theory. This term was used
by Selinker (1972) which Nemser (1971) also referred as approximative systems
and Corder (1971) as idiosyncratic dialects and transitional competence.
Selinker (1972) suggested that five (5) principal processes operated in
interlanguage. These were 1) language transfer; 2) overgeneralization of target
language rules; 3) transfer of training; 4) strategies of L2 learning; 5) strategies of
L2 communication. These processes together constitute the ways in which the
learner tries to internalize the L2 system. They are the means by which the learner
tries to reduce the learning burden to manageable proportions which Widdowson
(1975) suggested that they can be subsumed under the general process of
“simplification”. Learners have limited processing space so they cannot cope with
the total complexity of a language system so they limit the number of hypotheses
which they test at any one point in time. Selinker (1972) noted that many L2
learners fail to reach the target competence and they stop learning when their
interlanguage contains some rules different from those of the target language
system. He referred to this as fossilization and it occurs mostly to language
learners and no amount of instruction can further remedy it. Fossilized structures
can be realized as errors or as a correct target language forms. When the learner
reached a stage of development in which feature x in his interlanguage has
assumed the same form as in the target language, then fossilization of the correct
form will occur. But if the learner has reached a stage in which feature y still does
not have the same form as the target language, then the fossilization will become
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
10
an error. Occasionally, the learners may succeed in producing the correct target
form but when the learner is focused on meaning especially if the subject matter is
difficult, he will backslide towards his true interlanguage norm. Selinker and
Lamendella (1978) reasoned out that fossilization occurs because the learner
believes that he does need to develop his interlanguage any further or it can occur
because of some changes in the neural system (Ellis, 1985).
The interlanguage theory further explained why adults successfully
achieved native speaker proficiency. They do so because of an acquisition device
which Lenneberg (1967) puts it as latent language structure. The successful adult
learner is able to transform the universal grammar into the structure of the
grammar in the target language by reactivating this latent language structure
(Ellis, 1985).
Apart from providing a framework of second language acquisition
Selinker (1972) also provided a framework for language-learner language. The
interlanguage has three (3) features. First, interlanguage is permeable. The rules
that constitute the learner’s knowledge at any one stage are not fixed, but open to
amendments. For example, in Chaucer’s English the standard negative
construction involved using “not” after the main verb until it evolved gradually to
the present day English pattern where “not” is positioned between the auxiliary
and the main verb. In a similar way, L2 learners of English pass through a stage
involving main verb negation before introducing an auxiliary into their
interlanguage system Secondly, interlanguage is dynamic. It is constantly
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
11
changing. The learner slowly revises the interim systems to accommodate new
hypotheses about the target language system. This takes place by the introduction
of a new rule, first in one context and then in another, and so on. Thus a new rule
spreads because its coverage extends over a range of linguistic contexts. For
example, early WH-questions are typically non- inverted (e.g. “What you want?”)
but when the learner acquires the subject- inversion rule, he does not apply it
immediately to all WH-questions. First, he restricts the rule to a limited number of
verbs and to particular WH-pronouns (e.g. “who and what”). Later, he extends the
rule by making it apply both to an increasing range of verbs and to other WH-
pronouns. This process of revision and extension of rules is a feature of the
instability of interlanguage and its built - in propensity for change. Lastly,
interlanguage is systematic. The L2 learner does not select haphazardly from his
store of interlanguage rules but in predictable ways. He bases his performance
plans on his existing rule system (Ellis, 1985).
3.The monitor hypothesis. The monitor is a device that learners use to edit
their language performance. It utilizes learnt knowledge by acting upon and
modifying utterances generated from acquired knowledge. This can occur either
before the utterance or after. There are three conditions for its use 1) there must be
sufficient time; 2) the focus must be on form not the meaning; 3) the user must
know the rule which is aided by formal instruction.
4. The input hypothesis. It states that acquisition takes place as result of
the learner having understood input that is a little beyond the current level of his
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
12
competence. Input that is comprehensible to the learner will be automatically be
at the right level. Input refers to the language that is addressed to the L2 learner
either by a native speaker or by another L2 learner. It is the result of interaction.
Not all input is processed by the learner, either because some of it is not
understood or because some of it is not attended to. The part then that is processed
is referred to as the intake. Three views on input accounts for second language
acquisition. First, the behaviorists view the learner as a language producing
machine. Here, the input is made available to the learner in form of stimuli and
also that which occurs as feedback. It emphasizes the need to regulate the stimuli
by grading the input into a series of steps so that each step constitutes the right
level of difficulty for the level that the learner has reached. On the other hand, the
feedback indicates when the L2 utterances produced by the learners are correct
and so reinforces them and it also indicates when the utterances are ill- formed by
correcting them. The regulation of the stimuli and the provision of feedback shape
the learning that takes place and lead to the formation of the habits. Second, the
nativists view the learner as grand initiator. They maintain that exposure to
language cannot account satisfactorily for acquisition. Input is seen only as a
trigger which activates the internal mechanisms. As a result of this view, there has
been a focus on the output of L2 learners particularly the errors they manifested in
speech and writing since it was believed that the output would reveal the nature of
the learning strategies involved. Third is the interactionist who views that the
acquisition of language is a result of an interaction between the learner’s mental
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
13
abilities and the linguistic environment. The important data are not just the
utterances produced by the learners, but the discourse which learner and caretaker
jointly construct.
5. The Affective Filter Hypotheses. This deals with how affective factors
affect second language acquisition. The filter controls how much input the learner
comes into contact with, and how much input is converted into intake. The factors
which determine its strength have to do with the learners’ motivation, self
confidence, or anxiety state. Learners with high motivation and self confidence
and low anxiety state have low filters and so obtain and let in plenty of input
while learners with low motivation and self confidence and have high anxiety
state have high filters and so receive little and let in less input.
On the other hand, Haynes (1990) states that all new learners of English
progress through the same stages to acquire language. However, the length of
time each student spends at a particular stage may vary greatly. These stages are:
First is the Pre-production stage which is the silent period. English language
learners may have up to 500 words in their receptive vocabulary but they are not
yet speaking. Some students will, however, repeat every thing one says. They are
not really producing language but are parroting. English language learners at this
stage will need much repetition of English. They will benefit from a “buddy” who
speaks their language. Second is the early production. This stage may last up to
six months and students will develop a receptive and active vocabulary of about
1,000 words. During this stage, students can usually speak in one- or two-word
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
14
phrases. They can use short language chunks that have been memorized although
these chunks may not always be used correctly. Third is the Speech emergence.
Students have developed a vocabulary of about 3,000 words and can
communicate with simple phrases and sentences. They will ask simple questions
that may or may not be grammatically correct, such as “May I go to bathroom?”
English Language Learners will also initiate short conversations with classmates.
They will understand easy stories read in class with the support of pictures. They
will also be able to do some content work with teacher support. Fourth stage is the
Intermediate fluency. They are beginning to use more complex sentences when
speaking and writing and are willing to express opinions and share their thoughts.
They will ask questions to clarify what they are learning in class. Student writing
at this stage will have many errors as English Language Learners try to master the
complexity of English grammar and sentence structure. Many students may be
translating written assignments from a native language. They should be expected
to synthesize what they have learned and to make inferences from that learning.
Finally, the advanced fluency stage that takes students from 4-10 years to
achieve cognitive academic language proficiency in a second language. Student at
this stage will be near-native in their ability to perform in content area learning.
Most English Language Learners at this stage have been exited from ESL and
other support programs.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
15
Interaction and Second Language Acquisition
Second language data are made available to the learner in the input he
receives. This input is not determined alone by the native speaker but also
determined by the learner himself. It is a joint work done by the native speaker
and the learner. The feedback he provides affects the nature of the subsequent
input from the native speaker (Ellis, 1985). As Smith (1981) notes, the learners’
output serves as an input to his own language processing mechanisms.
Investigating discourses may shed light on how second language learners learn.
As Hatch (1987) argues:
…it is not enough to look at input and to look at frequency; the important
thing is to look at the corpus as a whole and examine the interactions that
take place within conversations to see how interaction itself determines
frequency of forms and how it shows language functions evolving.
Another feature of conversations involving L2 learners is the negotiation
of meaning. It involves tactics, strategies and conversational devices such as
relinquishing topic control, selecting salient topics, and checking comprehension,
topic switching, clarifying, slow pace, repeating utterances and stressing key
points. The learner also needs to contribute to the negotiation of meaning by
giving clear signals when he/ she has understood or not understood. The result of
the negotiation of meaning is that particular types of input and interaction will
come out (Ellis, 1985). Aside from the natural settings, interaction is also done in
classroom settings. Mc Tear (1975) identifies four (4) types of language use in
classrooms. These are: 1) mechanical, where no exchange of meaning is involved;
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
16
2) meaningful, where language usage is contextualized but still no real
information is conveyed; 3) pseudo- communicative, where information is
exchanged, but in a way that would be unlikely to occur outside the classroom;
and 4) real communication, which consists of spontaneous natural speech.
Acquisition of Negation and Interrogation
Negation and interrogation are some indicators of the progression which,
according to interlanguage theory are the bases of second language acquisition.
They show that there is a clear developmental route. Initially, negative utterances
are characterized by external negation, that is, the negative particle (usually “no”)
is attached to a declarative nucleus: Example: No very good. No you playing here.
A little later internal negation develops; that is, the negative particle is moved
inside the utterance. This often coincides with the use of “not” and / or “don’t”,
which is used variably with ‘no’ as the negative particle. “Don’t” at this stage,
however is an unanalyzed unit and so cannot be described as ‘do + not’. Example:
Mariana not coming today. I no can swim. I don’t see nothing mop. A third step
involving negative attachment to modal verbs, although this may again occur in
unanalyzed units initially. Example: I can’t play this one. I won’t go. In the final
stage of negation the target language rule is reached. The learner develops an
auxiliary system and uses “not” regularly as the negative particle (that is, ‘no + V’
is eliminated). Negative utterances, like positive utterances, are marked for tense
and number, although not necessarily always correctly. Example: He doesn’t
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
17
know anything. I didn’t said it. She didn’t believe me. The way along this route is
a gradual one, which for some learners can take longer than two years (Ellis,
1985).
A number of different explanations have been offered in negative
utterances where the negator is external to the rest of the utterance: No speak
Portuguese. No finish book. No like beer. These are 1) Transfer strategy- Spanish
and Portuguese learners have pre- verbal negation in their first language which
also permit pronoun deletion. Therefore, when such learners produce utterances
displaying external negation, they may simply be using the negative patterns of
their L1s. 2) Production strategy - such utterances are the product of a general
process of simplification, which is evident in all L2 production. If the learner is
credited with knowing that negation in English is internal as in: I no speak
Portuguese, the occurrence of what is apparently external negation can be
explained as the result of a pro- drop rule, that is, production rule which states that
pronouns can be deleted from sentences. This strategy is evident in both positive
and negative utterances; 3) Acquisition strategy - ‘no X’ utterances reflect the
natural language processing mechanisms of the brain. In this view, external
negation is not the result of restrictive simplification , but of an acquisition
strategy which governs how learners handle negation in all languages; 4)
interactional strategy -‘no X’ is the result of an interactional strategy, that is, the
learner borrows a chunk from the previous discourse and then attaches the negator
to the front of it like A. Do you like beer? B. No like beer. The learner may then
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
18
memorize the pattern which he has constructed as a vertical structure and later
may use it to initiate his own negative utterances (Ellis, 1985).
On the other hand, there appears to be an early “non- communicative”
stage during which the learner is not able to produce spontaneous interrogatives,
but just repeats a question someone has asked him. The first productive questions
are utterances with declarative word order but spoken with a rising intonation. At
this stage there are also some WH -questions, but these appear to have been learnt
as ready made chunks. Example: I am coloring? Sir plays football today? I
writing on this book? What’s this? The next development sees the appearances of
productive WH- questions. There is no subject - verb inversion to start off with,
and the auxiliary verb is often omitted. Example: What are you doing? What
“tub” mean? What the time? Where you work? Later, inversion occurs in yes- no
questions and in WH questions. Inversion with “be” tends to occur before
inversion with “do”. Example: Are you a nurse? Where is the girl? Do you work
in the television? What is she’s doing here? Embedded are the last to develop.
When they first appear, they have a subject - verb inversion, as in ordinary WH-
questions: Example: I tell you what did happen. I don’t know where do you live.
Only later does the learner successfully differentiate the word order of ordinary
and embedded WH questions like I don’t what he had. As with the negatives,
development of the rules of interrogation is gradual, involving overlapping stages
and the slow replacement of transitional forms (Ellis, 1985).
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
19
In addition, Master (1996) talks about the question system that allows one
to transform statements into their corresponding question forms and that there are
four different types of questions in English: 1) Yes/No questions, 2) information
questions, 3) Tag questions, 4) Echo questions. Similarly, Bailey (1974)
introduced some kinds of questions in English as following: 1) Direct Yes–No
questions are formed by inverting the word order and inserting do where no other
auxiliary verb is present, example: “Have you finished your homework?” “Did
she go home?” 2) Direct WH-questions begin with a WH-pronoun (what, who,
which), WH-adjective (which) or WH-adverb (when, where, why, how), example:
“Who got my pen?” “How far is it? 3) Alternative questions the word order is
verb-subject order, example: “Are you coming?” “Are you sleeping? Indirect
questions have subject-verb word order: “He asked who ate the bread”. “They
asked where we went’. 4) Tag-questions and pseudo-tag-question; Genuine Tag-
questions reverse the negativity of the preceding main question and the word
order, example: “You love him, don’t you?”
Master (1996) discussed comprehensively the different steps for making
Yes- No Questions as shown in Fig. 3.
In a case study conducted by Curtiss (1989) and Yamada (1990) among
retarded children, they found out that two of their subjects produced well-formed
phonological and morphosyntactical appropriate with fully elaborated inflectional
and derivational bound morphology and free grammatical morphemes. It included
syntactic structures involving movement, embedding, and complementation. Their
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
20
production skills are excellent. In contrast, the subjects’ language was
semantically deficient. They often used words incorrectly and failed to grasp the
full meaning of their own and others’ utterances. They have poorly developed
topic maintenance skills; were only moderately sensitive to the interests of their
interlocutors; and apparently little concerned with the need to be relevant or
informative in conversation. On the other hand, one of the subjects’ receptive
performance was poor in syntax. She performed at or below the 2-year-old level
on most subtests, including the object manipulation version of various tasks (e.g.,
active and passive voice
Steps for Making a Yes - No Question Example: Maria can speak Swedish.
with an Overt Auxiliary
1. Find AUX
Maria can speak Swedish.
2. Move AUX in front of the Subject
Can Maria speak Swedish
3.Add a question mark.
Can Maria speak Swedish?
Steps for Making a Yes- No Question Example: The boy lives in Santiago.
with No Overt Auxiliary
1. Find AUX. (Dig it up if it is buried).
The boy (does) live in Santiago.
2. Move the AUX in front of the subject.
Does the boy live in Santiago.
3. Add a question mark.
Does the boy live in Santiago?
Figure. 1. Steps for Making Yes- No Questions with and Without an Overt
Auxiliary (Master, 1996)
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
21
word order, WH-questioning of grammatical subject and object in relativization
tests). In her spontaneous speech, she produced many of the structures that she
failed to understand on the comprehension tests. In the evaluation of her ability to
understand sentences of varying syntactic complexity, she scored below the mean
score of non retarded children aged 3 years 6 months. Her comprehension of
grammatical morphemes likewise was reduced. It is remarkable that she
spontaneously and correctly produced some of same forms that she could not
understand in controlled receptive tasks. In addition, O'Connor and Hermelin
(1991) found out that their subjects’ receptive and expressive command of
English is within normal range. This claim is based on the subjects’ performance
on a variety of structures including declaratives, passives, negatives,
interrogatives, relatives, and involving variations in agreement and word order.
Garzonio and Hermelin (2004) in a study among Tamil speakers to
translate Situ language to Italian interrogatives revealed that despite the
typological distance between Italian and Tamil, the acquisition of interrogatives
appears to be at first sight fast and correct. There is a first stage in which Tamil
speakers produce WH –questions in Situ structures. Very soon, they produce
questions with a WH-item at the beginning of the clause, usually written as only
one word with the verb: one can claim that these sentences are produced through a
reanalysis of WH-items as a sort of WH-agreement morpheme on the inflected
verb in a way parallel to the strategy used in Tamil for yes/no questions.
Similarly, in a comparative study conducted by Grebenyova (n.d.) among Russian
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
22
and English speaking children, they exhibit near perfect knowledge of syntax of
multiple interrogatives except for some lack of fronting of the lower WH- phrase
by Russian speaking children.
In a study conducted among Iranian EFL students on Preposition Piping
and Stranding in interrogatives and relative clauses, it was found out that they
omitted the prepositions in spite of the fact that they had already demonstrated
their knowledge of subcategorization requirements of the verbs for missing
prepositions (Sadighi, Parhizgar, Saadat, 2004). In an investigation to interpret bi-
clausal multiple WH - questions in English among Japanese who are highly
proficient speakers of English by Tsimpli (2003) to prove the hypothesis that
uninterpretable syntactic features that have not been selected during first language
acquisition will not be available for second language construction while
interpretable syntactic features remain available even those not selected by the
first language, it was concluded that a missing uninterpretable feature accounts.
English Modal Auxiliary Verbs
A sentence is not just a group of words, which gives meaning. It
consistsof certain elements, which follow each other in a sequence or
systematic order. Auxiliary verbs are precisely those verbs which function as
dependent in VP in the structure and in contrast with the main verbs such as be,
have and do. These belong to both of the classes. The verb may be preceded by up
to four auxiliaries. The modal auxiliaries are distinguished from other verbs both
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
23
main and auxiliaries and they have only tensed forms and do not occur in any
syntactic environment where a non-tensed form or a base form is required. Since
the position for the following modal is one where a non- tensed form, a base form
is required (She may be come). One cannot have non- coordinated sequences of
the modals, which come within a single VP like Soon he will can swim, I may
shall regret it. (Rodney and and Huddleston, 1978). Auxiliary also is used in the
grammatical description of the VP to refer to a set of verbs subordinate to the
main verb, which helps to make the distinction in mood, aspect and voice. They
also have the negative forms like isn't , hasn't , can't , wasn't and many more.
They can be used as a subjective inversion like is he ,does he , will they. There are
semi-auxiliaries, which have the verb that which display some but not all of the
properties of the auxiliary class like dare and need (Crystal,1988). The modal are
used to express various attitudes like possibility, ability, willingness, probability
obligation intention in the events and occurring in the actual happenings. The
modal auxiliaries have come from the main verb which consists of negation,
inversion, ellipsis, emphasis and clitic forms. They are also characterized as
affirmation , interrogative and emphatic.The derivation of surface sentence may
have more than one Auxiliary verb. The main verb has been marked as (-Aux) in
the lower embedded sentences. The Auxiliary verbs are marked by (+ Aux) in the
higher sentence. In order to rising of the predicate raising transformation is
necessary. It has given the sentence. He may have come (Bose, 2005).
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
24
Communicative Competence
The term communicative competence was coined by Hymes (1967), a
sociolinguist who was convinced that Chomsky’s (1965) notion of competence
was too limited. Chomsky’s “rule- governed creativity” that so aptly describes a
child’s beginning grammar at the age of 3 or 4 did not, according to Hymes
(1967), account sufficiently for the social and functional roles of the language.
Moreover, defining communicative competence was carried out by Canale and
Swain (1980) who gave out the different components of communicative
competence. Grammatical competence is the competence that we associate with
mastering the linguistic code of a language. The learner must attain as high a
degree as possible of linguistic competence. That is, he develop some skill in
manipulation the linguistic system to the point where he can used it spontaneously
and flexibly in order to express his intended message. The learner must
distinguish between the forms which he has mastered part of his linguistic
competence, and the communicative functions that they perform. In other words,
items mastered as part of a linguistic system must also be understood as part of a
communicative competence.
While grammatical competence focuses on sentence level grammar,
discourse competence, the second component is concerned with the inter-
sentential relationships which means’ that it is the ability to connects sentences to
form meaningful utterances. Thirdly, sociolinguistic competence is the knowledge
of the socio- cultural rules of language and discourse. Savignon (1967) defines
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
25
Verbs
Main
Auxiliary
Transitive
(Regular
Intransitive
Primary
Modal
and
Will, Can,
Be, Have,
May, Must, Would,
Do
Could, Need, Ought,
Figure 2. Tree Diagram of Auxiliary Verbs
(Chomsky,
1965).
this competence which requires the understanding of the roles of the participants,
the information they share, and the function of the interaction. The learner must
become aware of the social; meaning of language forms. For many learners, this
may not entail the ability to vary their own speech to suit different social
circumstances, but rather the ability to use generally accepted forms and avoid
potentially offensive ones. Canale and Swains’s (1980) sociolinguistic
competence is now broken down into two separate pragmatic categories:
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
26
functional aspects of language (illocutionary competence, or, pertaining to
sending and receiving intended meanings) and sociolinguistic aspects (which deal
with such considerations as politeness, formality, metaphor, register, and
culturally- related aspects of language).
Lastly, strategic competence is the verbal and nonverbal strategies to
compensate for breakdowns in communication. Savignon (1983) defines it as the
ability to make repairs, to cope with imperfect knowledge, and to sustain
communication through” paraphrase, circumlocution, repetition, hesitation,
avoidance, and guessing as well as shifts in register and style. The learner must
develop skills and strategy for using language to communicative meanings as
effectively as possible in concrete situations. He must learn to use feedback to
judge his success, and if necessary, remedy failure by using a different language.
This was also supported by Littlewood (1981) who posited that there are four
domains of skills, which make up a person’s communicative competence.
Over the years, Canale and Swain’s (1980) definition of communicative
competence has undergone modifications over the years. One of which is
Bachman’s (1990) schematization of what he simply calls Language Competence
(Fig.3). He places grammatical and discourse (renamed “ textual”) competence
under one node which he appropriately calls organizational competence: all those
rules and systems that dictate what we can do with the forms of language, whether
they be sentence- level of rules (grammar) or rules that govern a “ string”
sentences or together (discourse). Bachman (1990) adds strategic competence as
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
27
entirely separate element of communicative language ability. Strategic
competence almost serves an “executive” function of making the final decision
among many possible options, on wording, phrasing, and other productive and
receptive means in negotiating meaning.
From all of the views presented, one may say that communicative
competence is the over- all competence that enables us to convey, understand
messages interpersonally on specific situations.
Error Analysis
Corder (1974) spelled out the different procedures for Error Analysis. 1)
A corpus of language is selected. This involves deciding on the size of the sample,
the medium to be sampled, and the homogeneity of the sample. 2) The errors in
the corpus are identified. 3) The errors are classified which involves assigning a
grammatical description to each error. 4) The errors are explained. Attempts are
made to identify the psycholinguistic causes of errors. 5) The errors are evaluated.
This stage is necessary for pedagogical purposes. However, Corder (1971)
pointed out that errors must be distinguished from lapses. Lapses occur as a result
of processing limitations not because of lack of competence and errors occur due
to lack of competence. He further pointed out that sentences can be “overtly
idiosyncratic”, that is, they are ill- formed in terms of target language rules and
can be “covertly idiosyncratic” , that is, sentences are superficially well formed
but when their context of use is examined clearly it is ungrammatical. Error
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
28
Analysis provides two kinds of information about interlanguage.
For the first concerns the linguistic type of errors produced by L2 learners,
Richards (1974) provides a list of errors involving verbs (e.g. “be” + verb stem
instead of verb stem alone). Here Error Analysis presents an incomplete picture of
second language acquisition because it does not tell much about the sequence of
development in the learners. The second type of information is the
psycholinguistic type of errors produced by L2 learners.
A study of errors here reveals conclusively that there is no single or prime
cause of errors and provides clues about the kinds of strategies learners employ to
simplify the task of learning a second language. Richards (1974) identifies various
strategies associated with developmental or intralingual errors. These are: 1)
overgeneralization is used when the items do not carry any obvious contrast for
the learner; 2) ignorance of rule restrictions which occurs when rules are extended
to contexts where in target language usage are not applied; 3) incomplete
application of rules which involves a failure to learn the more complex types of
structure because the learner finds he can achieve effective communication by
using relatively simple rules; and 4) false concepts hypothesized refers to errors
derived from faulty understanding of target language distinctions.
Dulay and Burt (1973 and 1974)) claimed that the errors committed by the
learners were developmental, that is, not subjected to first language interference.
From several morpheme studies, they further proposed the acquisition hierarchy
(Fig.4) of grammatical features. Each box represents a group of morphemes
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
29
SO
NP
VP
SI
V
VP
Come
+ ve
+ Aux
+ Modal
NP
V
S2
Have
+ ve
+ Aux
+ aspect
Figure 3. The deep structure diagram (chomsky, 1965)
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
30
acquired concurrently. Thus, for example, the case distinction between subject
and object pronoun is acquired at the same time as basic subject- verb- object
word order and together they constitute the first stage of development.
Horner (1988) has suggested that there are three principles involved for
the correction of errors. They are 1)Correct the input or output of the students if it
appears to some effect ; 2)Do not try to correct everything. The students are
learning the language to be able to communicate with the outside world. So the
primary concern is with error, which renders the communication itself. There are
various types of errors, which have occurred in the student's
language as language as discussed by (Bose, 2005). These are 1) The pre-
systematic error - The learner does not know this existence of the particular rule.
The errors are random and a learner may occasionally produce the correct form ;
2)The systematic error The learner has made some discovery about a rule on
himself; 3)The post- systematic error - The learners produces correct forms but he
is not consistent in his performance the encouraging factors about the learner's
error is that the errors are transitional and dynamic in the process of acquiring the
systems of the target language and the errors will disappear when the learner are
exposed to the target language systems more ; 4) Interlingual error - are those
deviant forms, which are results of first languages interference ; 5) Intra lingual
errors - are caused as a result of interference from within the target language itself
for (e.g. use of ‘ is’ always after I. It will imitate as he, is, she, is and becomes I
is). These errors are independent of the mother tongue of the learner.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
31
Stage
CASE
WORD
ORDER
I
Nominative/ accusative
SINGULAR COPULA (‘s /is) SINGULAR AUXILIARY (‘s/ is)
PLURAL AUXILIARY (are)
PROGRESSIVE
(-ing)
II
PAST IRREGULAR
would
III.
POSSESSIVE (‘S)
LONG PLURAL
3RD PERSON SINGULAR ( s)
IV
have
-en
Figure 4. The acquisition hierarchy
(Dulay and Burt, 1975)
6) Developmental errors - are those which indicate the types of strategies by
which the learner acquires a language 7) Grammatical errors – show how the
learners have committed their mistakes and what type of the error has been
identified. Most of the mistakes are common to this category and may occur due
to tense forms, active and passive voices and word order. The autor futher
remarked that error analysis is one of the important aspects of applied linguistics
research because it needs considerable amount of influence over learning,
teaching, testing and evaluation in the material production.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
32
Gender
A difference is documented in neuroanatomy between human males and
females, concerning the corpus callosum, an array of neural fibers that connects
the two hemispheres of the cortex. According to a series of studies reviewed in
Holloway (1993), the corpus callosum of females are on average larger when
adjusted for total brain size, especially in the posterior portion known as the
splenium. Brain size tends to track body size, and so male brains are on average
larger. The average size of the corpus callosum in adult females is apparently
roughly the same as in males but it is larger in proportion to total brain size. Some
researchers have argued that the differences are not so much in size but in three-
dimensional tissue distribution, with the female splenium more bulbous and thus
more concentrated in the midline, where section areas may be most easily
compared. It is claimed by De Lacoste (1986) that human sex differences in the
corpus callosum appear by 26 weeks prenatal. The sexual dimorphism of the
corpus callosum is said to contrast with other aspects of brain anatomy, where
average sizes, corrected for overall brain size, show no significant differences
between males and females. Such differences suggest that interhemispheric
communication may differ between the sexes. Speech and language tend to be
localized on the left, or dominant, side of the brain ("lateralized") while some
other functions such as visuospatial integration and emotional appreciation of
context are lateralized on the opposite side. Several functional studies have found
sex differences in cerebral lateralization for language-related activities like in
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
33
analyzing the conversation between males and females, Masaitine (2004) found
out that there is difference in the amount of speech produced by the two
interactants. The man dominates the talk, producing many more clauses. Both
speakers produce a comparatively high percentage of declaratives, but the man’s
percentage is higher. This suggests that he gets to initiate exchanges by giving
information more often. The woman, on the other hand, produces more
interrogatives. This fact suggests that she is others-oriented since asking questions
is a way of giving up the turn. A comparatively high number of the woman’s
full WH-interrogatives shows that she engages her interactant in talk retaining
some status as an initiator for obtaining information and at the same time
reinforcing the centrality of the man’s contribution. Moreover, her analysis shows
that the man’s speech contains numerous incomplete clauses. This suggests that
he speaks casually and does not have to compete for the floor. The woman, on the
contrary, produces few incomplete clauses. Therefore, her speech appears to be
more careful and planned. An additional revealing feature of creating
interpersonal meaning is the subject choice. The subject in casual conversation is
overwhelmingly a personal pronoun (I or we) since casual talk is typically
egocentric. It appears that the man in the study is frequently the subject of his own
clauses and he never makes his interlocutor the subject of his clauses. What he
wants to talk about is himself. The woman does refer twice to herself as subject
but is oriented towards her partner as subject. Such choices are consistent with
general trends observed by numerous language and gender studies, which show
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
34
that men’s linguistic behavior in conversation is that of dominance. Women, on
the other hand are more likely to use careful speech, ask more questions and
express solidarity with other participants. Similarly, Shihamoto (2001) found out
that Japanese female speech has been characterized as more polite than male
speech. Cameron (1988) also looked at tag questions in a 45,000 word sample
from a British corpus of transcribed conversations. In this corpus, there were 60
tag questions used by men, and only 36 by women. In addition, Holmes (1984)
distinguishes two functions of tag questions: modal versus affective. Modal tags
request information or confirmation of information of which the speaker is
uncertain. He claims that men continue to use modal tags relatively more often
and affective tags relatively less often. It is only the people who are in charge of
the conversations, the "powerful" speakers who use affective tags.
In language proficiency, Nandakunar (1993) mentioned that in a study of
English Proficiency in China, the results indicate that the listening comprehension
skill favors females while bundles of grammar, vocabulary, and cloze slightly
favor males. Moreover, in an error analysis made by Chen (1996) among
Taiwanese in Business English Writing, the males commit 71.5% errors than
females whose errors are 28.5% higher. It tells then that the males commit less
errors than males. In local context, the findings of Cotiw-an (1987) showed that in
all components of grammar that they were tested on, the female gender is leading
than the males. This has been reflected also by the study of Lopez (1987) who
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
35
found out that in the test of English composition and grammar, the females
performed better. Similarly, Galangco’s (1988) study along proficiency in written
English revealed that females are more proficient in the five aspects of written
communication: general vocabulary, capitalization, grammar and sentence
structure, and punctuation. On the other hand, Magtales (1998) in her study along
listening, reading, grammar, and writing skills revealed that the female
respondents were better than the male respondents. Nevertheless, the study of
Bataclao (2003) on transitional markers among college freshman showed that
gender do not differ significantly. This is also affirmed by Bautista (1995) who
found out that gender did not affect the level of proficiency in written English of
her respondents. Furthermore, Dalay-on’s (1991) study showed that male and
females do not differ significantly in their level of comprehension.
Length of Stay
Where success of Second Language Acquisition is concerned, the general
finding is that the longer the exposure to the second language, the ,more native
like second language becomes. Burstall (1975) after reviewing the results of the
NFER project on the teaching of French in the primary school, concludes that the
achievement of skill in a foreign language is primarily a function of the amount
of time spent studying that language. This is supported by Ekstrand (1975) who
found out that the length of residence of immigrants learning Swedish in Sweden
related to free oral production, but not to other aspects of proficiency. In contrast,
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
36
Hatch (1983) mentioned that the success attained due to years of exposure may be
restricted to overall communicative ability, rather than to grammatical or
phonological accuracy. Similarly, Krashen (1981) also posits that age affects
second language learning. Older learners are better suited to study language form
and also to use learnt knowledge in monitoring.
Theoretical Framework
Theories on Linguistics, Psycholinguistics, Sociolinguistics and tenets on
error analysis and language testing are gathered to elaborate the input of this
study.
Transformational Generative Grammar. As posited by Chomsky (1950), it
attempts to define rules that can generate the infinite number of grammatical
(well-formed) sentences possible in a language. It starts not from a behaviorist
analysis of minimal sounds but from a rationalist assumption that a deep structure
underlies a language, and that a similar deep structure underlies all languages.
Transformational grammar seeks to identify rules (transformations) that govern
relations between parts of a sentence, on the assumption that beneath such aspects
as word order a fundamental structure exists. It encompasses set of rules, such as
phrase structure rules and transformation rules that will produce or generate the
deep structure from the surface structure of a sentence or utterances. Chomsky
(1950) believed that there would be considerable similarities between the deep
structures of different languages, and that these structures would reveal
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
37
properties, common to all languages, which were concealed by their Surface
Structures.
Language Transfer. It refers to the influence of the mother tongue (L1) on
the learners’ performance in and/ or development of a given target language.
Language transfer is said to be facilitative if the first language (L1) has a positive
effect to the learning of the second language (L2) and debilitative if the first
language has a negative effect on the learning of the second language. Smith
(1994) broadened this concept as Crosslinguistic Influence since the direction of
transfer is not only from the mother tongue to the second language but may also
be reversed, that is, the previously learned language is changing under the
influence of new language learning. It covers all kinds of external linguistic
influence including situations where learners fight shy of making connections
between different languages they know because they feel such links to be unlikely
(Smith, 1994).
Processing Control and Mental Library. One may know something but he
or she is not very good at showing his or her new knowledge in actual language
use, especially when under pressure. Processing control refers to the productive
and receptive control possessed by the language user over the knowledge he or
she has of the various aspects of the linguistic system. It is also associated with
skill, degrees of fluency or automaticity. Hence, hesitant linguistic behavior may
be attributed to a lack of relevant knowledge but it also may be attributed to the
actual possession of the relevant knowledge without fluent control over that
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
38
knowledge (Smith, 1994).
Hatch’s Discourse Theory. It follows from a theory of language use, in
which communication is treated as the matrix of linguistic knowledge that
language development should be considered in terms of how the learner discovers
the meaning potential of language by participating in communication. Its principle
also includes that the conversational strategies used to negotiate meaning and the
resulting adjusted input, influence the rate and route of second language
acquisition. This was further supported by Halliday (1975) who concluded that
the development of the formal linguistic devices grew out of the interpersonal
uses to which language is put. Cherry (1979), also proposed that through
communication with other people, children accomplish actions in the world and
develop the rules of language structure and use.
Elicitation and Language Testing. If the teacher or a learner wants to find
out how close the learner’s knowledge and skill are to that of a comparable native
speaker of the language in question, then it becomes necessary to run a series of
tests on the learner. Many language testing techniques may be used when the
focus is not so much on the target norms as on the interlanguage system of the
learner. However, probing deeply into the properties of the learners’ current
linguistic system involves many more specialized instruments that are usually
used in language testing. Communicative language tests are intended to be a
measure of how the testees are able to use language in real life situations. In
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
39
testing productive skills, emphasis is placed on appropriateness rather than on
ability to form grammatically correct sentences. In testing receptive skills,
emphasis is placed on understanding the communicative intent of the speaker or
writer rather than on picking out specific details. And, in fact, the two are often
combined in communicative testing, so that the testee must both comprehend and
respond in real time because in real life, the different skills are not often used
entirely in isolation (Smith, 1994).
Error Analysis. In learning the second language, use of word or
grammatical features showing faculty or incomplete form may occur. Incomplete
knowledge is the main reason for the occurrences of such errors. The occurrences
of mistakes may be due to the lack of attention on the part of learner. Mistakes
are derivations due to performance factors such as memory limitations (eg.
mistakes in the sequence of tense and agreement in long sentences). They are
typically random and are readily corrected by the learner when his attention is
drawn to them. Errors, on the other hand are systematic, consistent deviances
characteristic of the learner's linguistic system at a given stage of
learning.Generally, unsystematic wrong items occurring sporadically in speaking
or writing may be called as mistake and systematic wrong items occurring
uniformly in all the context of speaking or writing may be called as errors. In
other words, mistake is connected with language competence or grammatical
competence. However, it is difficult to identify which one is an error and a
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
40
mistake. Errors are important sources of information to decide the learner's
strategy in learning and are found in the learner's output. The teachers come to
know the learners struggle to learn L2 while learning it for communicative
purposes. A look at the various kind of errors L2 learner made, will guide the
teacher not only to identify the problematic area of L2 learners, but also to spot
out areas for which remedial programmes and materials are needed. Error analysis
then does not only finds out and classifies the errors in L2 learners out put but
also tries to interpret the learning strategy of the learners. Error analysis also helps
in language teaching curriculum since it is used to (1)Error analysis is useful to
rectify the errors, to give remedial practice and prepare lessons keeping in mind
the nature of errors committed by the learner. (2)It helps to identify the level of
linguistic and communicative competence of the learner. (3)It helps to identify the
influence of L1 while learning L2. (4)It is also useful to deduct the amount of
interest learner show on L2 learning (Bose, 2005).In the output of this study, the
grammatical errors and level of performance of the subjects in asking questions
are identified. Relationship between the learner variables and their performance
level is addressed.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
41
INPUT
PROCESS
OUTPUT
INPUT PROCESS
A. Theories
Analysis of:
Identified:
OUTPUT
1. Linguistics
A.Comprehension
A. Comprehension and
2. Psycholinguistics
Test
performance level
of the subjects
3. Sociolinguistics
5- Excellent
B. Performance Test
4-Very Good
4. Language Testing
3-Good
and Elicitation
2-Fair
C.Grammatical
1-Poor
5. Error Analysis
Errors
B. Comprehension Test
C. Performance Test
D. Subjects’ Profile
B.Grammatical errors
1.Gender
of the subjects
2.Length of stay in the
Philippines
Figure 5. Paradigm of the study
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
42
Definition of Terms
The following terms are defined operationally in this study.
Comprehension Level. It is how well the subject of the study understand
the given situation. It is measured by 5- excellent, 4- very good, 3- good, 2- fair
and 1- poor.
Level of Performance. In this study, it is the proficiency of the subjects in
constructing interrogatives. It is measured by 5- excellent, 4- very good, 3- good,
2- fair and 1- poor.
Error Analysis . In this study, it is the identification and analysis of
errors students commit in constructing yes- no and WH- questions.
Grammatical Errors . In this study are the inconsistencies, irregularities
and incorrectness of grammar that the subjects commit in sentence
transformation.
Contextualized Questions. In this study are the questions that the subjects
construct from the given context.
Yes- No Questions. These are the questions that are answerable by yes or
no (Master, 1996).
WH- Questions. In this study are the questions that begin with who, what,
when, where and how.
Overt Auxiliaries. Auxiliaries such as is, are, can, have, was are found in
the sentences (Master, 1996).
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
43
Buried Auxiliaries. Auxiliaries such as is, are, can, has are not found in the
sentences (Master, 1996).
Hypotheses of the Study
The following hypotheses guided this study:
1. There is no significant difference in the level of comprehension and
performance of the subjects in asking questions.
2. The grammatical errors committed by the subjects do not differ
significantly.
3. There is no significant relationship that exists between gender and length of
stay in the Philippines to the subjects’ level of comprehension and performance in
asking questions.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
METHODOLOGY
Locale and Time of the Study
The study was conducted at the different institutions in Baguio like E-
Maple Academy, Saint Louis University, University of Baguio, University of
Cordilleras (BCF) during the School Year 2006 – 2007.
Subjects of the Study
The subjects of the study were the Korean College students studying in
Baguio City. Some of them were exchange students and others were regular
students enrolled in the different universities of Baguio City. There were one
hundred students with fifty- four males (54) and forty-six (46) females. There
were fifty- two (52) who stayed in Baguio City for 1-6 months (less than a year),
nineteen (19) of the subjects stayed for 7-12 months (almost one year), sixteen
(16) stayed for 13-18 months (one year and a half), seven (7) stayed for more than
twenty- five (25) months and six (6) stayed for 19-24 months (almost two years).
Profile of the Subjects
Table 1 presents the profile of the subjects of the study in terms of gender
and length of stay in the Philippines.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
45
Table 1. Profile of the subjects
BACKGROUND NUMBER PERCENT
Gender:
Male 54 54.0
Female 46 46.0
Total 100 100.0
Length of stay in the Philippines
1-6 months 52 52.0
7-12 months 19 19.0
13-18 months 16 16.0
19-24 months 6 6.0
More than 25 months 7 7.0
Total 100 100.0
Instrumentation
A test developed by the researcher was given to the subjects to identify
their performance level in asking questions. Part I of the test consisted of twenty
(25) multiple choice items where the subjects selected the correct question to
be asked in a given context .The second part dealt on sentence transformation
where the students converted ten (10) declarative sentences to Yes-No questions.
The third part was construction of three (3) WH- questions in each category
(Who, Where, When, Why and How). The grammatical errors were analyzed
using the suggested mode of Master,1996.
Before the test was administered to the subjects of the study, it underwent
item analysis. It used Lado’s formula for index of difficulty as follows:
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
46
RU+RL x100 = P (Difficulty Index)
N
Where:
RU is the correct responses in the upper group
RL is the correct responses in the lower group
N is the total number of students who will take the test
The results of the test were further evaluated on the following criteria:
Above 80% = reject
(very easy)
70% - 80% = acceptable
40%- 69% = ideal
30%-39% = acceptable (but difficult)
Below 30% = reject
(very difficult)
The test items were further analyzed using the formula for index of
discrimination as mentioned by Harris (1969).
HG-LG
= D
(Index of Discrimination)
N
Where:
HG is the number of correct responses in the upper 25% of the group
LG is the number of correct responses in the lower 25% of the group
N is the number of pupils in the upper and lower groups
The results of each item analysis for its index of discrimination were
further analyzed using the following criteria:
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
47
0.3+ = good and desirable
0.2+ = acceptable
Below 0.2 = analyze further and revise
0.0 = reject and discard
Data Gathering Procedure
To gather the data needed in this study, the researcher sought the
assistance of her research adviser to administer a pre- test for item analysis to the
Korean students enrolled under his English class in Benguet State University in
September 2006.
After the items were processed, a letter to the principal of E-Maple
Academy asking permission to administer the test to all Korean college students
who are officially enrolled in their school followed. As soon as the request was
granted, the researcher administered the test for the actual subjects. The test was
administered to the subjects of the study who are enrolled in the other institutions
during social gatherings like church services and meetings. Lastly, the test results
were subjected for statistical analysis.
Statistical Treatment of Data
To obtain the data needed, the test results were tallied and the weighted
mean and percentage were obtained.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
48
To find out the difference in the performance of the subjects in asking
questions considering their age and length of stay in the Philippines the Fisher
Exact Probability Test (F- test) was used. The formula runs:
P= (A+B) ! (C+D)! (A+C)! (B+D)!
N! A!B!C!D!
To find out the difference of the errors, the Cochran Test was employed.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter discusses the analysis of the results obtained and their
implications based on the objectives of the study: 1) to determine the subjects’
level of comprehension and performance in asking questions; 2) to identify the
most common grammatical errors committed by the subjects in asking questions;
3) to determine the effects of gender and length of stay in the Philippines on the
subjects’ level of performance in asking questions.
Subjects’ Level of Comprehension
in Contextualized Questions
Figure 6 presents the comprehension of the subjects in using questions
from the given context. It shows that 50% are very good, 27% are good, 12% are
excellent, 10% are fair and only 1% is poor. The level of comprehension is “very
good” with a mean of 65.12%. This means that the subjects of the study can
comprehend the situation and choose the appropriate question for each context
that includes buying in the market, eating in restaurants, meeting and getting
acquainted with new friends, classroom settings and casual conversations like
borrowing, lending, reporting for lost and found items, and requesting. These are
the contexts of which the subjects usually engage in everyday conversation, thus,
achieving a level of “very good” as stated by Ellis (1985) that the first structures
the learner acquires are those to which he is exposed most frequently. He further
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
50
0.5
0.45
0.4
poor - 1%
0.35
0.3
fair- 10%
0.25
good- 27%
0.2
very good- 50%
0.15
0.1
excellent- 12%
0.05
0
Meam = 65.12% - very good
Figure 6. Subjects’ level of comprehension in contextualized questions
added that exposure to a high quantity of directives and “extending utterances”
(requests for clarification and confirmation, paraphrases and expansions) and
opportunities for uninhibited practice are likely to facilitate rapid second language
development. This is also echoed by Seliger (1977) when he found out that there
is a significant correlation between quantity of interaction and achievement
scores.
Subjects’ Level of Performance in
Transforming Declaratives to Questions
Figure 7 presents the performance of the subjects in transforming declaratives to
questions. It reveals that 46% are excellent, 28% are very good, 14% are
good,7%are fair and 5% are poor. The level of performance is “very good “ with a
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
51
0.5
0.45
0.4
poor-5%
0.35
fair- 7%
0.3
0.25
good- 14%
0.2
very good- 28%
0.15
0.1
excellent- 46%
0.05
0
Mean = 76.30 – very good
Figure 7. Subjects’ level of performance in transforming declaratives to questions
mean of 76.30%. This shows that the subjects of the study are very good in
transforming sentences which involve grammar and syntax rules. This is
attributed to the grammar - oriented study that Koreans undergo at school.
Vorhess (2001) mentioned that the linguistic structures of Korean and English are
very different and so a keen understanding of grammar is thought necessary in
acquiring the English language, consequently, they develop a large English
vocabulary and deep grammatical knowledge.
Subjects’ Level of Performance in Constructing
WH- questions
Figure 8 presents the level of performance of the subjects in constructing
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
52
0.7
0.6
poor- 10%
0.5
fair- 1%
0.4
good- 5%
0.3
very good- 21%
0.2
excellent- 63%
0.1
0
Mean=79.22%-very good
Figure 8. Subjects’ level of performance in constructing WH-questions
WH- questions. It shows that 63% are excellent, 21% are very good, 10% are
poor, 5% are good and only 1% is fair. The level of performance is “very good”
With a mean is 79.22%. This means that the subjects of the study are very good in
constructing interrogatives that begin with WH- specifically who, when, where,
why, and how. These WH- questions are interrogatives where there is no subject -
verb inversion to start with. As compared to transforming declaratives to
questions, WH- questions are easier to construct. Thus, there is a greater
percentage of the subjects who got an excellent rating.
Subjects’ Overall Level of Performance
in Asking Questions
Figure 9 presents the overall performance of the subjects in asking
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
53
0.6
0.5
poor- 4%
0.4
fair- 8%
0.3
good- 6%
0.2
very good- 23%
excellent- 59%
0.1
0
Mean=77.96% - very good
Figure 9. Overall performance of the subjects in asking questions
questions. It shows that 59% are excellent, 23% are very good, 8% are fair,6% are
good and 4% are poor. This means that the subjects of the study are very good
in asking questions in the aspect that they are tested on. This finding is in
consonance with Garzonio and Hermelin (2004) in a study among Tamil speakers
to translate Situ language to Italian interrogatives revealed that despite the
typological distance between Italian and Tamil, the acquisition of interrogatives
appears to be at first sight fast and correct. Similar also with the results obtain by
Grebenyova among Russian and English speaking children who exhibit near
perfect knowledge of syntax of multiple interrogatives and to O'Connor and
Hermelin (1991) who claimed that their subject’s receptive and expressive
command of English is within normal range based on their subject's
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
54
performance on a variety of structures including declaratives, passives, negatives,
interrogatives, relatives, and involving variations in agreement and word order.
Grammatical Errors Committed by the Subjects
Table 2 presents the grammatical errors that the subjects of the study
commit in transforming declaratives to interrogatives. Using the Model of Errors
in constructing Yes- No questions provided by Master (1996), it shows that most
of the errors fall under the Category of Auxiliary with 52%.
These are the samples of errors that the learners committed under the
incorrect use of category of the auxiliary such as be, have, do or modal and its
negative counterpart. Examples of these errors in this category are:
Declarative: You love to stay in the Philippines.
Erroneous interrogatives: Are you love to stay in the Philippines?
Declarative:
He will come next week.
Erroneous interrogative: Is he will come next week?
Declarative:
The girl needs some help.
Erroneous interrogative: Is the girl needs some help?
Declarative:
The dog had died before you came.
Erroneous interrogative: Did the dog has die before you came?
Did the dog die before you came?
Did the dog have died before you came?
Did the dog had died before you came?
Declarative:
They have not been to London.
Erroneous interrogative: Do they have not been to London?
Have they been to London?
Have they been not to London?
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
55
Are they have not been to London?
Didn’t they have been to London?
Table2. Grammatical errors committed by the subjects
ERRORS Percentage
Position of Auxiliary 40%
Category of Auxiliary 49%
Subject- Auxiliary Agreement 27%
Tense of Auxiliary 24%
Punctuation 4.0%
Total 100%
Cochran’s Q 55.415a
Df = 4
Asymp. Sig. = .000
Legend: a= 0 is treated as a success
Negation is one of the indicators of the progression which, according to
interlanguage theory is the basis of second language acquisition. They show that
there is a clear developmental route. Initially, negative utterances are
characterized by external negation, that is, the negative particle (usually ‘no’) is
attached to a declarative nucleus. A little later internal negation develops; that is,
the negative particle is moved inside the utterance. This often coincides with the
use of “not” and / or “don’t”, which is used variably with “no” as the negative
particle. “Don’t” at this stage, however is an unanalyzed unit and so cannot be
described as “do + not”. A third step involves negative attachment to modal verbs,
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
56
although this may again occur in unanalyzed units initially. In the final stage of
negation the target language rule is reached. The learner develops an auxiliary
system and uses “not” regularly as the negative particle (that is, ‘no + V’ is
eliminated). Negative utterances, like positive utterances, are marked for tense
and number, although not necessarily always correctly. The way along this route
is a gradual one, which for some learners can take longer than two years (Ellis,
1985). In this study, the learners did not yet fully develop their target competence
in negation since common errors primarily fall on this category.
The second category of error that the learners commit is the Position of the
Auxiliary with 40%. In transforming a statement to an interrogative sentence, the
auxiliary should be transferred before the subject of the sentence but the learners
still place them after the subject. Some examples of these errors are:
Declarative:
He will come next week.
Erroneous interrogative: When he will come?
Do they have not been to London?
Does he will come next week?
Declarative: She will be leaving next week.
Erroneous interrogative: Does she will be leaving next week?
Will be she leaving next week?
Declarative: The
baby
did not sleep well.
Erroneous sentence: Why the baby did not sleep well?
The third category of error that the learners commonly committed is the
Subject-Auxiliary Agreement with 30%. They have failed to make the auxiliary
Agree with the subject. The number of the subject was disregarded in choosing
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
57
the correct auxiliary especially or sentences with buried auxiliaries. Some of the
errors reflecting this category are:
Declarative:
The girl needs some help.
Erroneous Interrogative: Do the girl needs some help? (Frequency of
this error is several).
Declarative: The visitor ate all the food.
Erroneous interrogative: Do the visitor ate all the food? (frequency of
this error is several).
Following closely is the Tense of the Tense of Auxiliary with 24%. They
put the wrong tense on the auxiliary which is illustrated by the following
examples:
Declarative: The visitor ate all the food.
Erroneous Interrogatives: Do the visitor ate all the food?
Does
the
visitor ate all the food?
Did the visitor ate all the food?
Declarative:
She will be leaving next week.
Erroneous interrogative: Does she will be leaving next week?
Finally, the least error commonly committed is Punctuation with 7%. The
learners put the period instead of the question mark. Some examples of these
errors are:
Erroneous Interrogatives: Will he come next week.
Does the girl need some help.
Why
are
you
crying.
Why are you dancing.
How can I tell her about you.
Similarly, interrogatives like negatives follow a gradual route if
development. The first productive questions are utterances with declarative word
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
58
order but spoken with a rising intonation. At this stage there are also some WH
questions, but these appear to have been learnt as ready made chunks. The next
development sees the appearances of productive WH- questions. There is no
subject - verb inversion to start off with, and the auxiliary verb is often omitted.
Later, inversion occurs in yes- no questions and in WH- questions. Inversion with
“be” tends to occur before inversion with “do”. Embedded are the last to develop.
When they first appear, they have a subject - verb inversion, as in ordinary WH-
questions: Example: I tell you what did happen. I don’t know where do you live.
Only later does the learner successfully differentiate the word order of ordinary
and embedded WH- questions like I don’t what he had. As with the negatives,
development of the rules of interrogation is gradual, involving overlapping stages
and the slow replacement of transitional forms (Ellis, 1985). The errors that were
committed by the subjects of the study suggest that they should work double time
in learning their English auxiliary system and syntactic rules specifically in
transforming declarative sentences with negatives.
Subjects’ Level of Comprehension in
Contextualized Questions as to Gender
Table 3 presents the difference in the level of comprehension of the males
and females in asking questions basing on a given contexts. The figure reveals
that the females perform better with 67.39% than the males who got a percentage
(%) of 63.19. This supports the conversation analysis of Masaitine (2002) who
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
59
Table 3. Subjects’ level of comprehension in contextualized questions as to
gender
GENDER LEVEL OF COMPREHENSION ADJECTIVAL
IN ASKING QUESTIONS RATING
Male 63.19a Very good
Female 67.39a Very good
Overall 65.12 Very good
F- Value 1.50ns
Probability 0.22
Legend: ns = not significant
Means with the same letter do not differ significantly (LSD)
found out that females produce more interrogatives which suggests that the
females are others-oriented. They express solidarity with other interactants since
asking questions is a way of giving up the turn. In contrast with the males who
produce more declaratives because they get to initiate exchanges by giving
information more often. Moreover, their subject in casual conversation is
overwhelmingly a personal pronoun (I/We). These linguistic behaviors among
males in conversation is that of dominance unlike the females whose speech is
carefully planned, ask more questions showing that she engages her interactant in
talk retaining some status as an initiator for obtaining information and at the same
time reinforcing the centrality of the man’s contribution.
However, with a computed F-value of 1.50 at .22 probability of error, the
difference of their performance is not significant. Hence, it accepts the hypothesis
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
60
that males and females have no significant performance in comprehending
contextualized questions.
Subjects’ Level of Performance in
Transforming Declaratives to
Questions as to Gender
Table 4 presents the performance of males and females in transforming
declaratives to interrogatives. This aspect of the test involves grammar and
syntactic rules. It shows that males perform better with 79.63% than the females
with 72.39%. This finding is in agreement with Nandakunar (1993) who
mentioned that in a study of English Proficiency in China, the results indicate that
the listening comprehension skill favors females while bundles of grammar,
vocabulary, and cloze slightly favor males. Moreover, in an error analysis made
by Chen (1996) among Taiwanese in Business English Writing, the males commit
71.5% errors than females whose errors are 28.5% higher. In contrast with the
study of Galangco (1998) who revealed that the females are more proficient in the
aspects of grammar and sentence structures and with Magtales ( 1998) who found
out that female subjectsts are better than males in grammar. Nonetheless, the table
further shows that with the computed F-value of 1.88 at .17 probability of error,
the difference in their performance is not significant. Thus, accepting the
hypothesis that no significant difference exists in the performance of males and
females in constructing Yes- No Questions. This is in consonance with the
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
61
findings of Bataclao ( 2003) and Dalay-on ( 1991) who both found out that gender
do not differ significantly in their linguistic proficiency.
Table 4. Subjects’ level of performance in transforming declaratives to questions
as to gender
GENDER LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE IN ADJECTIVAL
TRANSFORMING DECLARATIVES RATING
QUESTIONS
Male 79.63a
Very good
Female 72.39a Very good
Overall 76.30 Very good
F- Value 1.88ns
Probability 0.17
Legend: ns = not significant
Means with the same letter do not differ significantly (LSD)
Subjects’ Level of Performance in
Constructing WH-questions
As to Gender
Table 5 presents the performance of males and females in constructing
WH- Questions. The WH- questions in this study are direct with no subject to
start with and oftentimes the auxiliary is omitted (example: Where you going?)
and they appeared as a learnt memorized language chunks (Ellis, 1985). It
shows that the males perform better with 79.93% against the females with
75.65%. This suggests that man’s speech contains numerous incomplete clauses
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
62
as found out by Masaitine (2002) in his conversation analysis among males and
females and since WH- questions are information questions (Master, 1996), this
finding also suggests that the speech acts of male subjects in this study is
characterized by obtaining information.
Nevertheless, the table reveals that with the computed F-value of .10 at
.75 probability of error, the difference of their performance is not significant
hence, accepting the hypothesis that there is no significant difference in the
performance of males and females in constructing WH-questions.
Table 5. Subjects’ level of performance in constructing WH- questions as to
gender
GENDER LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE IN ADJECTIVAL
WH- QUESTIONS RATING
Male 80.09a Very good
Female 78.20a Very good
Overall 79.22 Very good
F- Value 0.10ns
Probability 0.75
Legend: ns = not significant
Means with the same letter do not differ significantly (LSD)
Subjects’ Level of Comprehension in Contextualized
Questions as to Length of Stay in the Philippines
Table 6 presents the comprehension of the subjects of study in
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
63
contextualized questions according to length of stay. It shows from the table that
the subjects who stay in the Philippines for 13- 18 months (one and a half year)
ranks first in their performance with 74. 75%. Following closely are the subjects
who stayed for 19-24 years (almost two years) with 74. 67%. Subtracting the
percentages of their scores, the difference is only .08% which means that their
performance does not differ significantly. It means then that staying in the
Philippines for a year and a half does not vary significantly with those subjects
who stay for almost two (2) years. Third in rank are the subjects who stay for 7-12
months (almost a year) with 69.89%. The table reveals that their difference with
those who stayed in the Philippines for 13-18 months (one year and a half) and
with the subjects who stayed in the Philippines for 19- 24 months (almost two
years) is not significant. Similarly, if they are to be compared with the subjects of
the study who stayed in the Philippines for only 1-6 months (less than a year) with
60%, their difference is not significant either. This means that the subjects of the
study who stayed in the Philippines for 7-12 months (almost a year) does not
differ significantly with those subjects who stayed for 19-24months (almost 2
years) and even with those subjects who stayed for 1- 6 months (less than a year)
in terms of their performance in constructing questions from given contexts.
Last in rank are the subjects who stay for only 1-6 months (less than a year) with
60%. Their difference with the subjects of the study who stayed in the Philippines
for 13-24 months (more than a year) is significant. This is in agreement with
Ekstrand (1975) who claims that years of exposure to second language leads to
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
64
Table 6. Subjects level of comprehension in contextualized questions as to length
of stay in the Philippines
LENGTH OF STAY IN LEVEL OF COMPREHENSION ADJECTIVAL
INTHE PHILIPPINES IN CONTEXTUALIZED RATING
QUESTIONS
1-6 months 60.00b Good
7-12 months 69.89ab Very good
13-18 months 74.75a Very good
19-24 months 74.67a Very good
More than 25 months 60.00b Good
Overall 65.12 Very good
F-Value 3.80**
Probability 0.01
Legend: ** = highly significant
Means with the same letter do not differ significantly (LSD)
greater success in overall communicative ability. In addition, Burstall (1975)
concludes that the achievement of skill in a foreign language is primarily a
function of the amount of time spent in studying that language. However, a
surprising result from the table shows that the subjects who stayed in the
Philippines for 25 months and above (more than two years) ranked last in their
performance. They obtained 60% exactly the same with the subjects who stayed
for only 1-6 months (less than a year). This finding about the subjects who stayed
for almost two years yields similar result with the findings of Hong and Jeon
(2000) among Koreans in the United States. They discussed that there is no
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
65
significant difference between L2 learners who have lived in the United States for
a short period and those who have lived for a long period in acquiring native
proficiency of the English Article System. In this study, the computed F- value
which is 3.80 at .01 probability of error means that there is a highly significant
difference in the performance of the subjects in terms of length of stay hence,
rejecting the hypothesis that there is no significant difference that exist between
performance and length of stay in the Philippines.
Subjects’ Level of Performance in
Transforming Declaratives to Questions
as to Length of Stay in the Philippines
Table 7 presents the performance of the subjects in transforming
declaratives to questions in terms of length of stay in the Philippines. The table
shows that the subjects who stayed for 7-12 months (almost a year) ranked first in
their performance with 85.26% followed closely by the subjects who stayed for
19-24 months (almost 2 years) with 85.00%. The results further reveal that if the
two percentages are subtracted there difference is not significant with only
.26%.Third in rank are the subjects who stayed for 13-18 months (one year and a
half) with 81.87%.
It shows from the table that their difference with the subjects who stayed
for 7-12 months (almost a year) and 19-24 months (almost two years) is not
significant. Likewise with the subjects who stay for 1-6 months (less than a year)
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
66
Table 7. Subjects’ level of performance in transforming declaratives to questions
as to length of stay in the Philippines
LENGTH OF STAY IN LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE ADJECTIVAL
INTHE PHILIPPINES IN TRANSFORMING RATING
DECLARATIVES TO
QUESTIONS
1-6 months 71.15b Very Good
7-12 months 85.26a Excellent
13-18 months 81.87ab Excellent
19-24 months 85.00 a Excellent
More than 25 months 70.00b Very Good
Overall 76.30 Very good
F-Value 1.51ns
Probability 0.20
Legend: ns = not significant
Means with the same letter do not differ significantly (LSD)
ab= the level of the performance fall between a and b
with 71.15%. This reveals that the subjects who stay for 13-18 months (a year and
a half) does not differ significantly with the subjects who stayed for 7-12 months
(almost a year) and with those 19-24 months (almost two years) length of stay.
This means then that the level of comprehension of the subjects staying in the
Philippines for almost a year to almost two (2) years is more or less the same.
Fourth in rank are the subjects who stayed for 1-6 months (less than a year) with
71.15 % and consistently last are the subjects who stayed in the Philippines for
more than 25 months (2 years and above) with 70 %. Their difference with the
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
67
subjects who stayed for 1- 6 months (less than a year) is more or less the same.
This result obtained is similar with the finding of Shin (2000) among Koreans
who revealed that the length of stay and the amount of formal instruction or
informal exposure to L2 were found to have little effect on ultimate proficiency
and that the relationship between the length of exposure to the L2 and proficiency
appears to be minimal beyond a five- year term of exposure in the L2
environment, a hard fact that confronts the TEFL situations in Korean school
systems. Nevertheless, the figures reveals further that with a computed F- value of
1.51 with.20 probability of error, it accepts the hypothesis that the performance of
the subjects in Yes- No interrogatives is not significant.
Subjects’ Level of Performance in
Constructing WH-questions as to
Length of Stay in the Philippines
Table 8 presents the performance of the subjects in direct WH- questions. It
shows that the subjects who stayed for 25 months and above (more than two
years) ranked first with 94.14 %. This is followed by the subjects who stayed for
7-12 months (almost a year) with 89.42%. This difference in the performance of
these two groups is significant. Third are the subjects who stayed for 13-18
months (one year and a half) with 85.44%. This result does not differ significantly
with the subjects who stay for 7-12 months (almost a year).It means therefore that
the subjects who stay for almost a year has the same performance with the
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
68
Table 8. Subjects’ level of performance in constructing WH-questions as to length
of stay in the Philippines
LENGTH OF STAY IN LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE ADJECTIVAL
IN THE PHILIPPINES IN WH- QUESTIONS RATING
1-6 months 72.50b Very Good
7-12 months 89.42ab Excellent
13-18 months 85.44ab Excellent
19-24 months 71.17b Very Good
More than 25 months 94.14a Excellent
Overall 79.22 Very good
F-Value 1.99ns
Probability 0.10
Legend: ns = not significant
Means with the same letter do not differ significantly (LSD)
subjects who stay for a year and a half. The 6 months difference in staying in the
Philippines has no significant effect to their performance. Fourth in rank are the
subjects who stay for 1- 6 months (less than a year) with 72.5%. Last are the
subjects who stay for 19-24 months (almost 2 years) with 71.17%. Their
difference with the subjects who stay in the Philippines for less than a year is not
significant. This shows that the performance of the subjects who have been
staying for almost two (2) years is more or less the same with the subjects who
have been staying for less than a half year. Overall, the computed F- value of 1.99
at .10 probability of error is not significant thus, accepting the hypothesis that
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
69
there is no significant difference in the performance of the subjects in constructing
WH- questions in terms of length of stay in the Philippines.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This section presents the summary, conclusions and recommendations of
the study.
Summary
This study identified the level of comprehension and performance of the
Korean college students in asking questions. It sought to answer the following
questions:
1. To determine the subjects’ level of comprehension and performance in
asking questions;
2. To identify the most common grammatical errors committed by the
subjects in asking questions;
3. To determine the effects of gender and length of stay in the Philippines
of the subjects on their level of comprehension and performance in asking
questions.
The salient findings are:
1. The level of comprehension of the subjects is “very good”.
2. The level of performance of the subjects in asking questions is “very
good”.
3. The subjects of the study perform best in using WH- questions,
followed by transforming declaratives to questions and comprehending
contextualized questions.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
71
4. The most common error committed by the subjects of the study is on
category of auxiliary, followed by position of the auxiliary, subject-auxiliary
agreement, tense of the auxiliary, and punctuation.
5. There is no significant difference in the performance of males and
females in asking questions.
6. There is no significant difference in the performance of the subjects
who stayed in the Philippines for less than a year with the subjects who stayed for
more than two (2) years.
7. Gender and length of stay in the Philippines have no correlation with
the subjects’ comprehension and performance in asking questions.
Conclusions
Based on the findings, the conclusions are drawn.
1. There are no differences in the comprehension and performance of the
subjects of the study in terms of gender and length of stay in the Philippines.
2. Distinguishing the Category of the Auxiliary (be, have, do or modal) to
be used in asking questions is the most common error among the subjects of the
study.
3. The comprehension and performance of the subjects has no relation to
gender and length of stay in the Philippines.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
72
Recommendations
On the basis of the findings and conclusions of the study, the following are
suggested:
1. Koreans studying in Baguio City should be encouraged to polish more
their skills in asking questions based on a certain context.
2. Other aspect of questions like tag questions have to be explored.
3. Intensive study on the English auxiliary and negation system must be
given emphasis for learners in order to construct questions correctly.
4. Further study on the communicative and discourse competence of the
Koreans should be undertaken.
5. Koreans staying in the Philippines for almost two years should maintain
English as a medium of conversation with fellow Koreans and Filipino friends.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
73
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
LITERATURE CITED
BAILEY, N. 1974.In Elllis, R.1985.Understanding Second Language
Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp.47-51, 155, 157, 165.
BATACLAO. R.C.2003.Transitional Markers in Written Composition Among
Freshaman College Students of Benguet State University. An
Analysis.
Unpublished
Thesis. Benguet State University, La
Trinidad,
Benguet
BAUTISTA. A. 1995. Motivations in English Proficiency of Student Teacher
Training Institutions in the Cordillera Administrative
Region.Unpublished Dissertation. University Of Baguio.
BERNHARDT 1991. Reading Matrix. Gender, Violence- Oriented Passage
Content and Second Language Reading Comprehension.
www.readingmatrix.com./pdf.
CAMERON, 1988. In
SADIGHI,
F.
M.R.
PARHIZGAR,
and
M.SAADAT.2004. Preposition Pied -Piping and Preposition Stranding
Constructions in the Interlanguage Grammar OF Iranian EFL Learners.
www.asian.efl.journal.com.
CANALE, M. AND M. SWAIN. 1980. Theoretical Bases of Communicative
Approach to Second Language Teaching and Testing. Applied
Linguistics.
Pp.
1-47.
CHERRY 1979. In HALLIDAY,M. A. and R. HASAN.1975. Cohesion in
English. Singapore: The Print house Ltd. P.12.
BOSE, A. C. 2005. The problems in Learning Model Auxiliary Verb in English at
High
school
Level.
www.language India.com/htm.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
74
BURSTALL. C. 1975. In ELLIS, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language
Acquisition. Oxford:Oxford University Press.P.106.
CHEN, J. 1996. Gender Differences in Taiwan Business Writing Errors.
www.iteslj.org/htm.
CHOMSKY, N. 1965. In Bose, A.C. 2005. The Problems in Learning Modal
Auxiliary Verbs in English
at High School Level. www.language
India.com/htm.
CORDER, S. 1974. In ELLIS, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language
Acquisition. Oxford:Oxford University Press. Pp. 51, 155,157,165.
CRYSTAL, D. 1988. In BOSE, A. C. 2005. The Problems in Learning Modal
Auxiliary Verbs in English at High school Level.
www.languageindia.com
CURTISS 1989 and YAMADA 1990. In RONDAL, J. 1995. Atypical Language
Development in Individual with Mental Retardation: Theoretical
Implications.www.vc.ehu.es/html.
COTIW-AN, LC. 1988. Weaknesses in English Grammar among Freshmen
High School Students of Benguet State University. Unpublished
Thesis.Baguio Central University. Baguio City.
DALAY-ON, M.C. 1991. Reading Competence of the Sophomore Students of
Gov. Bado Dangwa Agro Industrial School. Unpublished Thesis. Baguio
Central University. Pp. 56-57.
De LACOSTE. 1986. In PHILIPS.ed. Language Gender and Sex in Comparative
Perspective.www.ldc.upeen.edu.htm.
DULAY, H and M. BURT.1973. In ELLIS, R. 1985. Understanding Second
Language
Acquisition.
Oxford:Oxford University Press. Pp. 55,65-
67.
EKSTRAND, L. 1977. In ELLIS, R. 1985. Understanding Second
Language
Acquisition.
Oxford:Oxford University Press. P.107.
ELLIS, R.1985. Understanding Second Language
Acquisition.
Oxford:Oxford University Press. Pp.47-51, 155, 157, 165.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
75
GALANGCO, N.S. 1988. Proficiency in Written English of Teachers in the
Catholic Secondary Mission Schools of Mountain Province. Unpublished
Thesis. Saint Louis University. Baguio City.
GARZONIO, J. and S. GRACCI.2004. Italian Interrogatives. www.vc.ehu.es./htm
GREBENYOVA, L.(n.d.) Multiple Interrogatives in Child Language.
www.ling.umd.edu/grevenyova/pdf.
HALLIDAY,M. A. and R. HASAN.1975. Cohesion in English. Singapore:
The Printhouse Ltd. P.12.
HATCH, E. 1978. In ELLIS, R.1985. Understanding Second
Language
Acquisition. Oxford:Oxford University Press. P.167.
HAWKINS and H. HATTORI.Interpretation Of English Multiple WH- Questions
by Japanese Speakers; A Missing Uninterpretable Feature
Account.www.ex.ac.uk/ukorghawk/
Hawkins/htm.
HAYNES, 1990.The Essentials of Language Teaching, Teaching Goals and
Method Goals: Communicative Competence. www.
nclrc.org.essentials/goalsmethods/thml.
HONG, R.and S.JEON (2000) The L2 Acquisition of Articles in English: The
Effect of “Age Arrival and Length of Residency” in the United
States.www.hichumanities.org/htm.
HOLLOWAY. 1993. In PHILIPS.ed. Language Gender and Sex in
Comparative Perspective.www.ldc.upeen.edu.htm
HOLMES. 1984. In In PHILIPS.ed. Language Gender and Sex in
Comparative Perspective.www.ldc.upeen.edu.htm.
HORNER1988. In BOSE, A. C. 2005. The Problems in Learning Modal
Auxiliary
Verbs in English at High school Level.
www.language
India.com/htm.
KHAN, H. 2005. Speaking Strategies to Overcome Communication Difficulties
in the Target Language Situation- Bangladeshis in New Zealand.www.
Languageindia.com.htm
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
76
KRASHEN, S. 1981. In ELLIS, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language
Acquisition. Oxford:Oxford University Press.Pp.128 - 129, 261-263, 265.
KILGOUR, D. 1999. The Importance of Language. www.davidkilgour.com.htm.
LENNEBERG, E. 1967. In BROWN, D.H. Principles of Language Learning and
Teaching.
4th Ed. New York: Pearson Education Company. Pp. 54-55.
LEVINE, D.A. 2001. Health Literacy: Implications for Seniors Symposium
Proceedings.www.cal.org.caela/eslresources/digests/healthlit.html.
LITTLEWOOD, W. 1983. Communicative Language Teaching: An Introduction.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
LOPEZ, P.M. 1987. Competence in English Among Freshmen High School
Students of University Of Baguio. Baguio City. P. viii.
LYONS, J. 1986. ELLIS, R.1985. Understanding Second
Language
Acquisition. Oxford:Oxford University Press. P.167.
MAGTALES, F.A. 1998. English Proficiency of the Freshmen Students of the
Ramon Magsaysay Polytechnic College. Unpublished Thesis,
Baguio
Central University. Baguio City.
MASAITINE, D. 2002. Respectus Philologicus.http.filogija.vukhf.lt/htm.
MC TEAR, M.1975. ELLIS, R.1985. Understanding Second
Language
Acquisition.
Oxford:Oxford
University Press. Pp.147-148.
MASTER, P. 1996. Systems in English Grammar: An Introduction for Language
Teachers. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents. Pp.136-147.
NANDAKUNAR. 1993. In LIN, J. and F.WU. Differential Performance
by Gender in Foreign LanguageTesting.www.education.ualberta.com.
NEMSER, W. 1971. In ELLIS, R.1985. Understanding Second Language
Acquisition. Oxford:Oxford University Press. P.47.
NIEDERHAUSER J. (n.d.)
Motivating Learners at South Korean
Universities. http://exchanges. State.gov/forum/vols/vol35/no1/p8htm
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
77
O’CONNOR and HERMELIN .1991. In RONDAL, J. 1995. Atypical
Language Development in Individual with Mental Retardation:
Theoretical
Implications.www.vc.ehu.es/html.
RICHARDS, J. 1974. ed. In ELLIS, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language
Acquisition.
Oxford:Oxford
University Press. P. 53.
RODNEY and HUDDLESTON. 1978. . In BOSE, A. C. 2005. The Problems in
Learning Modal
Auxiliary Verbs in English at High school Level.
www.languageindia.com.
RONDAL, J. 1995. Atypical Language Development in Individual with Mental
Retardation:
Theoretical
Implications.www.vc.ehu.es/html.
SADIGHI, F. M.R. PARHIZGAR, and M.SAADAT.2004. Preposition Pied -
Piping and Preposition Stranding Constructions in the Interlanguage
Grammar OF Iranian EFL Learners.www.asian.efl.journal.com.
SAMIMY, K. 2002. Exploring Willingness to Communicate in English.
www.ohiolink.edu./htm.
SAVIGNON, S. J. 1972. Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom
Practice Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley Publishing Company. Pp.24-25.
SELIGER.H.1977. In Allwright and K. Bailey.1991. Focus on the Language
Classroom: An Introduction to Classroom Research for Language
Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 130-131.
SELINKER, L. 1972.In ELLIS, R.1985. Understanding Second Language
Acquisition.
Oxford:Oxford
University Press. Pp.47-49.
SELINKER, L and J. LAMENDELLA. 1978. In ELLIS, R.1985. Understanding
Second
Language
Acquisition. Oxford:Oxford
University
Press.
P.47.
SHIHAMOTO, J. 2001. The Womanly Woman. In PHILIPS.ed. Language
Gender and Sex in Comparative Perperctive.
www.ldc.upeen.edu.htm.
SHIN, J.S. (2000) Age Factor in Foreign Language
Acquisition.www.nt2primaire.org./articles/en/vo/9_6.pdf.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
78
SMITH, M.S. 1994. Second Language Acquisition: Theoretical
Foundations. New York: Longman Publishing. Pp.9-17
TSIMPLI, I. 2003. In HAWKINS and H. HATTORI.Interpretation Of English
Multiple WH- Questions by Japanese Speakers; A Missing
Uninterpretable
Feature
Account. www.ex.ac.uk/ukorghawk/
Hawkins/htm.
VORHESS, D. 2001. Issue to Studying English. Express Yourself 2. Korea: LIS
Korean Company. P.64.
WIDDOWSON,H. 1978. Teaching Language in Communication. Oxford. Oxford
University
Press.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
MASTER’S MODEL OF ERRORS IN CONSTRUCTING YES-
NO QUESTIONS
Position of Auxiliary
(before the subject)
Category of Auxiliary
(modal, be, have, do)
Subject- Auxiliary Agreement (singular, plural)
Tense of Auxiliary
(past, present)
Punctuation
(question mark)
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
80
Appendix 2
Letter to Administer a Test
The President
E-maple Academy
Green Valley,
Baguio City
September 18, 2006
Sir/Madam:
The researcher is conducting a study entitled “ Comprehension and
Performance of Korean Students in Asking Questions” as a requirement for the
degree, Master of Arts in English as a Second Language.
In this connection, the researcher would like to ask permission to
administer the questionnaires to some of your students.
Your approval will surely contribute to the success of the study. Rest
assured that whatever results obtained will be used solely for this study.
Respectfully yours,
(Sgd.) YOUNG MI JUNG
Researcher
Noted by:
(Sgd.) DIMAS WANDIT
Adviser
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
Appendix 3
Instrument
Name :(Optional)______________________________ Gender:______
Length of Stay in the Philippines:_______months/ year
Part I –Comprehension Questions
Read every situation carefully and select the best answer.
1. You are inside a restaurant and you want to ask the waitress if they serve
Korean food. What will you ask her?
a. What Korean food do you serve?
b. Can I order Korean food?
c. Do you serve Korean food here?
2. You met a person for the first time and you want to be friend him/her. What
will you ask?
a. What is your name?
b. Do you want to be my friend?
c. May we know each other?
3. You are in the wet market and looking for a Blue Marlin for sashimi. What
will you ask the fish vendor?
a. How much is the price of Blue Marlin?
b. Do you sell Blue Marlin?
c. Is Blue Marlin expensive or cheap?
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
82
4. You are inside the classroom. At the middle of the period you feel going
to the Comfort Room. What will you ask to the teacher?
a. Ma’am, may I please go out?
b. Ma’am, where is the way to the Comfort Room?
c. Ma’am, how far is the Comfort Room from our room?
5. Your ballpen ran out of ink. You want to borrow one from your seatmate.
How will you ask it?
A. Do you have an extra ballpen?
B. Can you give me a ballpen?
C. Will you please lend me extra ballpen?
6. In a narrow corridor, you want to pass in between two people talking to
each other. What will you ask?
A. Excuse me, may I pass?
B. Will you allow me to pass?
C. May I pass in between the two of you?
7. You forgot your watch and you want to know the time from somebody
else. What will you ask?
A. What is your time?
B. May I know what time is it?
C. Will you tell me the time?
8. In a party, you want to go home earlier than the rest. What will you ask to
them?
A. May I go home ahead of you?
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
83
B. Will you please allow me to go home now?
C. Can I go home now?
9. Your friend is angry at you for some reason you do not know. What will
you ask to him/her?
A. Why are you angry at me?
B. What is the reason you are angry at me?
C. May I know why you are angry at me?
10. You want to order something through your friend who is going
downtown. What will you ask him/her?
A. Will you please do me a favor?
B. Will you buy something for me?
C. Will you go to downtown and buy something for me?
11. You misplaced your eyeglasses and you could hardly find them, you want
your board mate’s to help you. What will you ask them?
A. Will you look for my eyeglasses?
B. Who took my glasses?
C. Anybody of you, who saw my eyeglasses?
12. You want to know the age of your friend. What question will you ask her?
A. What is your age?
B. How old are you?
C. How many years do you have?
13. You want to know where the boarding house your friend is. What will you
ask him/her?
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
84
A. Where do you stay?
B. How to go to your boarding house?
C. Where is your boarding house located?
14. Your friend is in tears and you want to find out why? What question will
you ask?
A. What is the matter with you?
B. What are you crying for?
C. Are you crying for me?
15. You found a lost wallet inside the classroom. How will you find the
owner?
A. Anybody among you who lost a wallet?
B. Who likes this wallet?
C. To whom will I give this wallet?
16. It is raining heavily and you want to go to the other building for your next
class. What will you ask to a classmate who has an umbrella?
A. May I borrow your umbrella?
B. May I use your umbrella?
C. Can you share your umbrella to me?
17. You are eating a bar of chocolate and you want to share it to your friend.
What will you ask?
A. Are you hungry?
B. Do you eat chocolate?
C. Do you mind to have a bit of my chocolate?
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
85
18. You want your classmate to help you in your assignment. What will you
ask him/her?
A. Can you do my assignment?
B. May I copy your assignment?
C. Will you please assist me do my assignment?
19. You cannot understand the explanation of the teacher about a new lesson.
What will you ask?
A. Ma’am, will you please explain further?
B. Ma’am, will you please talk louder?
C. Ma’am, will you please talk slower?
20. You want to buy an item but it’s quite expensive for you. How will you
ask for a bargain?
A. What is your best price?
B. Can you give me some discount?
C. Why is this item very expensive?
21. You want to inquire about the status of someone. How will you ask it?
A. When did you get married?
B. Is your spouse still alive?
C. Are you married or still single?
22. You are interested to find the number of children your friend has. What
question will you ask?
A. Are you interested in having children?
B. How many children do you have?
C. How many children do you plan to have?
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
86
23. You want to know the favorite type of literature your friend enjoys. What
will you ask him/her?
A. What type of literature do you like most?
B. How many times did you read this type of literature?
C. What do you enjoy reading this type of literature?
24. You want to know when your visitor is going to leave. What will you ask?
A. Do you want to know?
B. When is the right time for you to leave?
C. At what time do you intend to go?
25. You want to know the height of your friend. What will you ask?
A. What is your height?
B. How long are you?
C. How tall are you?
Part 2 – Performance Test
A. Transforming Declaratives to Questions
A. Transform the following statements into questions:
Example: There are many Korean students in Baguio.
Answer: Are there many Korean students in Baguio?
1. The girl need some help.
_______________________________
2. He will come next week.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
87
________________________________
3. They are reading in the library.
_________________________________
4. The visitor ate all the food.
________________________________
5. Winter is very cold in Korea.
____________________________________
6. You love to stay in the Philippines.
7. The baby did not sleep well.
____________________________________
8. They have not been to London.
_____________________________________
9. She will be leaving next week.
_____________________________________
10. The dog had died before you come.
B. Constructing WH- questions
B. Construct three (3) questions under each kind of WH-question.
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
88
Example: Who is your friend?
When did you finish high school?
Where do you stay?
Why are you late?
How old are you?
1. Who
a.___________________________________________________
b.___________________________________________________
c. .___________________________________________________
2. When
a.___________________________________________________
b .___________________________________________________
c.___________________________________________________
3. Where
a.___________________________________________________
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
89
b.___________________________________________________
c .___________________________________________________
4.Why
a.___________________________________________________
b.___________________________________________________
c.___________________________________________________
5. How
a.___________________________________________________
b. .___________________________________________________
c.___________________________________________________
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
90
Thank You Very Much!!
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
90
Appendix 4
RESULT OF ITEM ANALYSIS
Action
Item Number
Index of
Index of
Taken
Difficulty %
Discrimination
1 80
.25
Retained
2 50
.20
Retained
3 80
.25
Retained
4 90
.20
Revised
5 50
.50
Retained
6 80
.25
Retained
7 90
.13
Revised
8 50
.50
Retained
9 40
.06
Retained
10 70
.33
Retained
11 60
.20
Retained
12 90
.13
Revised
13 60
.20
Retained
14 90
.13
Revised
15 80
.25
Retained
16 80
.25
Retained
17 70
.33
Retained
18 80
.25
Retained
19 70
.33
Retained
20 90
.13
Revised
21 90
.13
Revised
22 70
.13
Retained
23 80
.25
Retained
24 50
.20
Retained
25 60
.20
Retained
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Young mi Jung is the eldest among the five children of Mr.Jin il Jung and
Mrs. Kem ok Kang of Korea. She was born on July 11, 1968.
She completed her elementary education at Baek Su Elementary School
in Jeon Nam, Korea in 1980, her middle school education at Hwa Gok Middle
School (Seoul, Korea) in 1983 and her high school education at Deok Won High
School in Seoul, Korea in 1986.The researcher continued her university studies at
Chung Ang University in Seoul, Korea and was able to obtain the bachelors’
degree of English Language and Literature.
After graduating from the university, she started to teach English to high
school students in a private school, then went to Canada to improve her English in
an ESL Academy and studied TESL (Teaching English as a Second Language ) at
Western Town College in Toronto, Canada. To further enrich her field of
specialization, she pursued her graduate studies at the Benguet State University,
La Trinidad with the degree, Masters of Arts in English as a Second Language
(MA ESL).
Comprehension and Performance of Korean College
Students in Asking Questions/ Young Mi Jung 2006
Document Outline
- Comprehension and Performance of Korean College Students in Asking Questions
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- ABSTRACT
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- Background of the Study
- Statement of the Problem
- Objectives of the Study
- Importance of the Study
- Scope and Delimitation of the Study
- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
- Second Language Acquisition
- Interaction and Second Language Acquisition
- Acquisition of Negation and Interrogation
- English Modal Auxiliary Verbs
- Communicative Competence
- Error Analysis
- Length of Stay
- Theoretical Framework
- Definition of Terms
- Hypotheses of the Study
- METHODOLOGY
- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
- Subjects� Level of Comprehensionin Contextualized Questions
- Subjects� Level of Performance inTransforming Declaratives to Questions
- Subjects� Level of Performance in ConstructingWH- questions
- Subjects� Overall Level of Performancein Asking Questions
- Grammatical Errors Committed by the Subjects
- Subjects� Level of Comprehension inContextualized Questions as to Gender
- Subjects� Level of Performance inTransforming Declaratives toQuestions as to Gender
- Subjects� Level of Performance inConstructing WH-questionsAs to Gender
- Subjects� Level of Comprehension in ContextualizedQuestions as to Length of Stay in the Philippines
- Subjects� Level of Performance inTransforming Declaratives to Questionsas to Length of Stay in the Philippines
- Subjects� Level of Performance inConstructing WH-questions as toLength of Stay in the Philippines
- SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
- Summary
- Conclusions
- Recommendations
- LITERATURE CITED
- APPENDICES
- Appendix 1
- Appendix 2
- Appendix 3
- Appendix 4
- BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH