Metacognitive Awareness and Second Language Reading

Author(s): Patricia L. Carrell

Source: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 73, No. 2 (Summer, 1989), pp. 121-134
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/326568 .
Accessed: 20/12/2013 10:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Wiley and National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:09:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MetacognitiveAwarenessand
Second Language Reading
PATRICIA L. CARRELL
IllinoisUniversity
Southern

THE CURRENT EXPLOSION OF RESEARCH IN the passage in mind during reading; 2) read in
second language reading has begun to focus, "broad phrases"; 3) skipped words viewed as
among other things,on readers' strategies. In unimportantto total phrase meaning; and 4)
the same way that investigatingspeakers'com- had a positive self-conceptas a reader. By con-
municative strategiesreveals the ways speak- trast, Hosenfeld's unsuccessful reader: 1) lost
ers manage oral communication, comprehen- the meaning of sentences as soon as theywere
sion, input, and thus, ultimately,acquisition decoded; 2) read in short phrases; 3) seldom
(Wenden & Rubin), reading strategiesare of skipped words as unimportant,viewing words
interest for what they reveal about the way as "equal" in termsoftheircontributionto total
readers manage their interactionwith written phrase meaning; and 4) had a negative self-
textand how these strategiesare relatedto text concept as a reader. Block, in a studyfocused
comprehension. on generallynonproficientreaders, foundthat
Since the 1970s there has been no shortage fourcharacteristicsseem to differentiate more
of L2 learning theoristsadvocating teaching successful from less successful nonproficient
students to use a variety of reading strategies readers: 1) integration;2) recognitionof aspects
in order to read better.' These strategiesrun of text structure;3) use of general knowledge,
the gamut from the traditionallyrecognized personal experiences, and associations; and 4)
reading skillsof skimmingand scanning, con- response in extensive versus reflexivemodes.
textual guessing or skipping unknown words, In the reflexivemode, readers relateaffectively
tolerating ambiguity, reading for meaning, and personally, directingtheirattentionaway
critical reading, and making inferences, to from the text and toward themselves, and
more recently recognized strategies such as focusing on their own thoughts and feelings
building and activating appropriate back- rather than on the informationin the text; in
ground knowledge (Zvetina) and recognizing the extensive mode, readers attempt to deal
textstructure(Block).2 Less common have been withthe message conveyedby the author,focus
empirical investigationsinto reading strategies on understandingthe author'sideas, and do not
actually used by successful and unsuccessful relate the textto themselvesaffectivelyor per-
second language learners (Hosenfeld; Haupt- sonally.Among the nonproficient readersBlock
man; Knight, Padron & Waxman; Sarig; investigated, one subgroup, which she desig-
Block; Barnett). nated "integrators," integrated information,
In exploratory,descriptiveinvestigationsof were generally aware of text structure, re-
small numbers of individual learners using sponded in an extensivemode, and monitored
think-aloud techniques, studies by both their understanding consistently and effec-
Hosenfeld and Block identifiedapparent rela- tively. They also made greaterprogressin de-
tions between certain types of reading strate- veloping theirreading skillsand demonstrated
gies and successful or unsuccessful foreignor greater success afterone semester in college.
second language reading. For example, Hosen- The other subgroup, which Block designated
feld'ssuccessfulreader: 1) kept the meaning of "nonintegrators," failedto integrate,tended not
to recognize textstructure,and seemed to rely
much more on personal experiences, respond-
ing in a reflexivemode. They also made less
The ModernLanguageJournal, 73, ii (1989)
0026-7902/89/0002/121
$1.50/0
progress in developing theirreading skillsand
demonstratedless success afterone semesterin
?1989 The ModernLanguageJournal
college.

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:09:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
122 PatriciaL. Carrell
As descriptivecase studies with small num- provided evidence of beginning ESL readers'
bers of subjects, neitherthe Hosenfeld nor the theoreticalorientationstowardreading in their
Block studies investigated these relationships second language. "Depending on the language
withlargernumbersof subjects or withexperi- units they professed to focus on or indicated
mentalresearchdesigns,thusmakingit difficult theyconsidered importantto effectivereading,
to generalize theirresultsto largerpopulations the subjects were classified as sound-, word-,
of interest.In addition, the highlyindividualis- or meaning-oriented. . ." (11: p. 97). Further
tic nature of readers' application of strategies (p. 104), Devine found thatmeaning-centered
(Sarig) makes itveryimportantto look at large readers demonstrated good to excellent com-
studypopulations. Furthermore,theseprevious prehension on a retelling task from an oral
case studies have used think-aloudtechniques reading, while sound-centered readers were
whichmay be highlyselectiveofjust those sub- judged to have eitherpoor or very poor com-
jects who are readily able to master the think- prehension.
aloud technique and to introspectand articu- Devine's result is reminiscent of firstlan-
late about their reading behavior. Moreover, guage reading research which has generally
the data in such studies tend to be implicitly shown thatyoungerand less proficientreaders
and subjectivelydiscovered in the open-ended tend to focus on reading as a decoding process
data providedby subjects,via posthoc analysis. rather than as a meaning-getting process
Finally, the previous research has also been (Myers & Paris; Canney & Winograd; Garner
limitedto strategyuse, and has not investigated & Kraus; Paris & Myers; Gambrell & Heath-
readers' awareness of strategies, i.e., their ington). Some of these firstlanguage reading
metacognitiveawareness. Block, forexample, studies(e.g., Paris & Myers; Garner & Kraus),
identifiesthreemetacognitivestrategiesin her using self-report data, have founda lack ofcor-
study ("comment on behavior or process," respondence between what childrensay theydo
"monitor comprehension," and "correct be- while reading and what theyin factdo. Phifer
havior") but none of these is mentioned in her and Glover found a similar lack of corre-
resultssection to relate to reading proficiency. spondenceamong collegestudents,leadingthem
First language reading researchers--most to entitletheirreport"Don't take students'word
notably Brown and her collaborators (e.g., for what they do while reading." Baker and
Baker & Brown)- have investigatedseveraldif- Brown pointout thatoftenreadersindicatethey
ferentaspects ofthe relationshipbetweenmeta- know a strategyis effective, but theydo not use
cognitive ability and effectivereading. Two it. Paradoxically, however, Baker and Brown
dimensions of metacognitiveabilityhave been pointout, sometimesa readerdoes not describe
recognized(Flavell): 1) knowledgeof cognition; how to use a particularstrategybut does in fact
and 2) regulationofcognition.The former,i.e., use it. How can we reconcilethisapparent con-
knowledge of cognition, includes the reader's tradiction? In the formercase metacognitive
knowledge about his or her own cognitive re- strategicknowledge seems to precede strategy
sources, and the compatibility between the use; in the latter,it seems to follow.To explain
reader and the reading situation. Thus, if a this apparent contradiction,Baker and Brown
reader is aware of what is needed to perform point out that "knowing that" (declarative
effectively,then it is possible to take steps to knowledge) is differentfrom "knowing how"
meet the demands of a reading situationmore (procedural knowledge), and that knowledge
effectively.If, however,the reader is not aware thata particular strategyis useful (awareness)
of his or her own limitationsas a reader or of precedesitsroutineuse, which in turnprecedes the
the complexityof the task at hand, then the ability to describe how it is used.
reader can hardly be expected to take preven- In a recent study of foreignlanguage read-
tive actions to anticipate or recover from ing, Barnett investigated the relationships
problems. among reading comprehension, strategyuse,
Related to this firstaspect of metacognition and perceived strategyuse. She found that all
is the reader's conceptualization of the reading three were significantlycorrelated for cogni-
process: how the readerconceptualizeswhathe/ tivelymatureuniversity-level readersof French
she is doing in reading. Devine has investigated as a foreignlanguage. She concluded: "students
second language readers' conceptualizations who effectively considerand remembercontext
about their reading in a second language. as they read [i.e., strategyuse] understand
Analysis of transcriptsof reading interviews more of what they read than students who

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:09:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Awareness& L2 Reading
Metacognitive 123

employthisstrategyless or less well. Moreover, theirmetacognitiveawareness and their com-

students who think they use those strategies prehension in both firstand second language
considered most productive [i.e., perceived reading.
strategyuse] actually do read throughcontext
betterand understandmore than do those who METHOD
do not thinktheyuse such strategies"(p. 156).
Subjects.Two groups of subjects participated
However, the questionnaire Barnett used to in the study. Group One consistedof forty-five
elicit subjects' perceptions about strategyuse, native speakers of Spanish, fromvarious coun-
using a multiple-choicecompletionformat,was tries, predominantly in Central and South
developed and scored in terms of predeter- America [Honduras (12), Colombia (12),
mined "correct"responses; i.e., predetermined Venezuela (5), Panama (4), Spain (3), Ecuador
judgments by the researcher about the effec- and Costa Rica (2 each), and one each from
tiveness of differentreading strategies. The El Salvador, Nicaragua, Puerto Rico, Peru,
formatofher questionnaire also had the draw- and Chile]. These subjects were studying at
back ofcombiningintoa singleitemseveraldif- Southern Illinois University at Carbondale
ferentstrategiesand forcingsubjects to choose
(SIUC) and were of intermediateand advanced
only one fromamong severalchoices, including proficiencylevels in English. Some were at
more than one correctresponse. For example, intermediateand high-intermediate levels at the
one of her items (p. 161) was: Center forEnglish as a Second Language, the
"When I read, I pay most attention to intensive program on campus; others were
a. what individual words mean
already admitted into the universityand were
b. what the reading passage means (*)
taking English composition in special sections
c. what the formor grammaticalfunction for international students.
of the words are (*)
Group Two consisted of seventy-fivenative
d. what the structureof the passage is"
speakers of English studyingSpanish at SIUC.
[*= "correct"response] They were at threedifferentproficiencylevels
To rectifythis shortcoming in the Barnett of study, in firstyear, second year, and third
study,it would be desirableto constructa ques- year Spanish classes. Figure I shows the levels
tionnairewhichdoes not prejudge the effective- and sizes of each group.
ness of strategies,but leaves thatjudgment to The differencesin their proficiencylevels
subjects, and then empiricallyinvestigatesthe played a central role in another part of the
relationshipbetween those readers'judgments study which investigated the relationship be-
about the effectivenessof the various reading tween second language reading, on the one
strategiesand the effectiveness oftheirreading.
hand, and firstlanguage reading ability and
It would also be valuable to elicitsubjects'judg-
ments about individual reading strategies,
ratherthan forcingthem to choose among sev-
FIGURE I
eral differentstrategies.
Groups and Levels of Proficiencyin the Second Language
While a vast body of research in firstlan-
guage reading and metacognition has found
that"youngchildrenand poor readersknowless GROUP 1 GROUP 2
and have more misconceptionsabout important Spanish L1 English L1
characteristicsof cognition than do older chil- (N = 45) (N= 75)
dren and good readers, respectively"(Garner: Level 2 N = 39 (First year
p. 61), we know very little about metacogni- Spanish, Second
tive factorsin second language reading. Since semester)
metacognitiveawareness "lies at the foundation Level 3 N = 8 (Inter- Level 3 N = 23 (Second
of effectiveinstructionin comprehensionmoni- mediate Intensive ESL) year Spanish, First
toring"(Casanave: p. 285), and since "know- semester)
ing that"precedes "knowinghow" in the sense Level 4 N = 20 (Advanced Level 4 N = 13 (Third
described by Baker and Brown above, a study Intensive ESL) year Spanish, Grammar
was undertaken to investigatethe metacogni- & Composition)
tive awareness of second language readers Level 6 N = 17 (Univer-
about reading strategiesin both theirfirstand
sity- English Comp)
second language, and the relationshipbetween

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:09:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
124 PatriciaL. Carrell

second language proficiency,on the other. Re-

FIGURE II
sultsof thatpart of the studyare reportedelse-
Structure of the Metacognitive Questionnaire
where (Carrell). In the metacognitivepart of
the study,differencesin proficiencylevel in the
second language are taken into account only 6 statements related to various aspects
1) Confidence
as they are reflectedin differencesin reading of a reader's perceived ability to read
comprehension in that language. in the language.
Metacognitive A questionnaire
Questionnaires. E.g., "When reading silently in
was developed to elicit relevant demographic Spanish, I am able to recognize the
informationfrom subjects, as well as to tap differencebetween main points and
their metacognitive conceptualizations or supporting details."
"awareness" judgments about silent reading 2) Repair 5 statements related to repair strate-
strategies in both their native and second gies a reader uses when comprehen-
sion fails.
language.
Using a 1-5 LikertScale (1 = stronglyagree, E.g., "When reading silently in Eng-
5 = stronglydisagree), subjects judged thirty- lish, if I don't understand something,
I keep on reading and hope for clari-
six statementsabout silentreading strategiesin
fication furtheron."
the language in question, English and Spanish.
3) Effective 17 statements related to reading
(See, forexample, Appendix A forthe English
strategies the reader feels make the
language questionnaire about reading in
reading effective.
Spanish.) Figure II shows the structureof the
Subcategorized into: Sound-letter (3
questionnaire. Items on the questionnaire in- statements); Word-meaning (5 state-
cluded: 1) six statementspertainingto subjects'
ments); Text gist (2 statements);
abilitiesin reading in thatlanguage, to provide Background knowledge (2 state-
a measure of theirconfidenceas readers in that ments); Content details (2 state-
language; 2) fivestatementspertainingto what ments); Text organization (2 state-
they do when they do not understand some- ments); Sentence syntax (1 statement)
thing,to provide a measure of theirawareness E.g., "When reading silently in
of repair strategies; 3) seventeen statements Spanish the things I do to read effec-
about what theyfocuson in orderto read more tively are to focus on the organization
of the text."
effectivelyand about reading behaviors of the
best readers theyknow, to tap theirperception 4) Difficulty 8 statements related to aspects of
of effective/efficientstrategies;and, finally,4) reading which make the reading
difficult.
eightstatementsabout thingswhichmay make
Subcategorized into: Sound-letter (3
reading in that language difficultfor them. statements); Word-meaning (1 state-
Within the last two categories of item-types ment); Text gist (1 statement); Back-
(i.e., measures of effectivestrategiesand diffi- ground knowledge (1 statement); Text
culty)individualitemsfocusedon various types organization (1 statement); Sentence
of reading strategies: 1) phonetic, pronuncia- syntax (1 statement)
tion, or sound-letteraspects of decoding; 2) E.g., "When reading silently in Eng-
word-level aspects of meaning; 3) sentence, lish, things that make the reading dif-
ficult are the grammatical structures."
syntacticdecoding; 4) details of text content;
5) global aspects of textual meaning, or text-
gist; 6) background knowledge; and 7) textual
organization. All of these strategieshad been
suggestedin the literatureas reading strategies Procedures. Subjects were tested in a second
related to comprehension(Hosenfeld; Brown; language session, and then in a firstlanguage
Baker & Brown; Devine; Block; Barnett). session. In each session subjects firstread two
The original questionnaires were prepared textsin the language in question and answered
in English and thentranslatedinto Spanish. In ten multiple-choicecomprehension questions
order not to have level of language proficiency about each text, then responded to the meta-
in the second language affectresults on the cognitive questionnaire about reading in that
metacognitivequestionnaires,subjectsreceived language.
the two questionnairesin theirnativelanguage. The two texts in each language were con-

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:09:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Awareness& L2 Reading
Metacognitive 125
trolledforcontentschemata; all fourofthe texts RESULTS
were on the general topic of "language." In
addition the texts were controlled for formal Results forreading in the firstlanguage are
schemata: one in each language was a compare/ reported in the top half of Table I.
contrasttype,the othera problem/solution type For reading in the firstlanguage, these re-
of organization. Length, as well as lexical and sults reveal that no confidenceitems or repair
syntacticcomplexity,were also controlled:each strategieswere significantlyrelated to reading
textwas between 315 and 344 words in length, performance for either group of subjects.
and one textin each language was "more diffi- Further, for the Spanish L1 group (Group
cult," the other"easier," on a readabilityindex One), the more subjects tended to disagree with
which takes word and sentence length into statementsabout particulartypes of strategies
account. In addition, the multiple-choicecom- as being effectiveforreading in thatlanguage,
prehensionquestions foreach textintentionally the bettertheir reading performance.For ex-
avoided testing"matching" informationfrom ample, if they tended to disagree with state-
the text and instead called for the drawing of ments such as "When reading silently in
inferences,e.g., saying what statementswere Spanish, the thingsI do to read effectively are
nottrue based on the text, and identifyingthe to focus on 'mentally sounding out parts of
author's position. Distractors were plausible words,' 'the grammatical structures,''under-
alternatives if one had not read the text or standing the meaning of each word,' 'the de-
understood the arguments made in the text. tails of the content,'" they tended to be better
The questions were intendedto tap deep levels readersin thatlanguage. Finally,iftheytended
of textprocessing,based on carefulreadingand to disagreethat sound-letter information or
thorough comprehension of the text. (See grammatical structuremade reading difficult,
Appendix B fora sample of the textsand mul- then they also read significantlybetter. Thus,
tiple-choice questions.) to put it in a positive way, if they tended to
ResearchHypotheses andData Analysis.The re- agree that what we might characterize as
search questions addressed in this study con- "local," bottom-up, decoding types of reading
cern the relationship between subjects' meta- strategieswere not particularly effective,but
cognitive conceptualizations about reading in also did not cause them particular difficulty,
theirL1 and L2 and their reading in that lan- then reading performancetended to be better.
guage. More specifically,the followingques- The English L1 group (Group Two) showed
tions are addressed: 1) What are the relation- some of these same tendencies with regard to
ships between subjects' perceptionsabout their "local" reading strategies,but not to the same
reading abilities (i.e., theirconfidence), about extentas the Spanish L1 group. Interestingly,
repair strategies,about effectivestrategies,and what we mightcharacterizeas awareness ofthe
about what causes them difficulty,all on the more "global,"top-downtypesofreading strate-
one hand, and their reading ability, on the gies (e.g., text-gist,background knowledge,
other?2) What is the relationshipbetween sub- and textorganization)were not significantly re-
jects' metacognitiveperceptionsabout reading lated to firstlanguage reading performancefor
in theirL1 and L2 and theirreading abilityin either group of subjects. This resultmay have
that language? 3) To what extent is reading been due to a relativelack of variabilityin the
ability related to reader conceptualizations? L1 metacognitivejudgments in the tendency
Data analyses consistedof separate simplere- of both groups to agree with the "global"
gressionsrun foreach group of subjects, look- strategies.
ing at the fourdifferentcategories of metacog- The resultsforreading in the second or for-
nition(Confidence, Repair, Effective,and Dif- eign language are reported in the second half
ficulty)and subjects' reading in their L1 and of Table I. For reading in the second or for-
L2. These simple regressionswere run accord- eign language some of the confidence and
ing to the General Linear Models procedure repair strategiesemerge as significantly related
of SAS, Version Five. An alpha level of .05 was to reading performance.For Group One, the
chosen as the significancelevel. Nonsignificant more subjects agreed with the statementthat
results are indicated by either dashed lines or they are able to recognize the differencebe-
by n.s.,;significantresultshave the exact prob- tween main points and supportingdetails, the
ability levels reported. better they performed in reading English as

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:09:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
126 PatriciaL. Carrell

TABLE I
RegressionModel: Significant ofMetacognitive
RegressionEffects Factorson Readingin theFirstand SecondLanguage

Regression Model: Ll Reading as a Function of Ll Metacognition

Significant Regression Effects

CONFIDENCE REPAIR EFFECTIVE DIFFICULTY
Group 1 - - - Sound letter - Sound letter
Spanish L1 - Sent. syntax - Sent. syntax
- Word meaning
- Content details

Group 2 - - Sound letter

English L1

Regression Model: L2 Reading as a Function of L2 Metacognition

Significant Regression Effects
CONFIDENCE REPAIR EFFECTIVE DIFFICULTY
Group 1 + Main/Support - Give up/stop - Content details - Background
Spanish L1 stop reading knowledge
Group 2 + Able to question - Give up/stop + Word meaning - Sent. syntax
English L1 author reading - Sound letter
+ Sent. syntax

with the metacognitive statement, the better the subject

+ = positive relationship. The greater the subject's agreement
read in that language.
- = negative relationship. The greaterthe subject's disagreement
with the metacognitive statement,the betterthe subject
read in that language.

their second language. For Group Two, the tivenessofthe readingare not as clear forread-
more subjects agreed with the statementthat ing in the second language as they were for
they are able to question the significance or reading in the firstlanguage. Reading forde-
truthfulness of what the author says, the better tails of content, for Group One, and sound-
theyperformedin reading in Spanish as a for- letter correspondences, for Group Two, are
eign language. For both groups, the more sub- both negativelyrelatedto readingperformance,
jects disagreed with the statementthat when as they were for the firstlanguage situation.
theydon't understand somethingtheygive up However, forGroup Two, word meaning and
and stop reading, the bettertheyperformedin sentence syntax are both positivelyrelated to
reading the second language. This result is reading performance;thatis, the more subjects
reminiscentof Hewett's (21, 22) findingsthat agreedthat these "local" reading strategieswere
readers who rate themselvesas being more re- effectivefortheirreading in Spanish as a for-
flectivethan impulsive achieved significantly eign language, the better their reading.
bettersecond language readingscores,and that The difference between"local"strategies(i.e.,
persistence is a significant component of those having to do with sound-letter,word-
reflectivity. meaning, sentencesyntax,and textdetails) and
In the categoryofwhat makes reading in the "global" strategies(i.e., those having to do with
second language difficult, sentence syntax background knowledge, text gist, and textual
emergesas significantforGroup Two, the same organization) appeared to be worth pursuing
as it did for Group One for reading in the further.Therefore,each group of subjects was
forGroup One,
native language. Interestingly, divided into two mutuallyexclusive subgroups
the more subjects tended to disagree with the on the basis of theirresponses to the effective
statement that relating the text to what they and difficultyitems on the questionnaire. Of
already know about a topic (their background the seventeen items on the "effectiveness"of
knowledge) caused them difficulty,the better strategies,the eleven items relatingto sound-
they read. letter,word-meaning,sentencesyntaxand text
The relationships between what are per- details were classified as "local" items; the re-
ceived to be effectivestrategiesand the effec- maining six relatingto backgroundknowledge,

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:09:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Awareness& L2 Reading
Metacognitive 127
text gist, and textual organization were classi-
TABLE II
fiedas "global" items. Of the eightitemson the
Effects
Significant of"Global"versus"Local" Strategizers'
"difficulty"of strategies, the five relating to
Perceptionsof Effective
and Difficult
Reading Strategies
sound-letter, word-meaning, and sentence on Firstand Second Language Reading
syntax were classified as "local" items; the re-
maining three items relating to background RegressionModel: L1 Reading as a Functionof
knowledge, text gist, and textual organization L1 Metacognition
were classified as "global" items. Subjects' re-
EFFECTIVE DIFFICULTY
sponses to each subgroup of items (Effective-
Group 1
global, Effective-local,Difficult-global,Diffi-
Spanish ns ns
cult-local)were averaged. Subjects whose aver- Ll L
age responses to "effective"items showed them (N = 45)
to agree to a greaterextentthat"global" rather
than "local" strategieswere effectivewere clas- Group 2
English F = 4.55
sified as "global strategizers";otherwise they
L1 p = .0363
were classifiedas "local strategizers."Similarly,
(N = 75)
subjects whose average responsesto "difficulty"
items showed them to disagree to a greaterex- RegressionModel: L2 Reading as a Functionof
L2 Metacognition
tentthat"global"strategiesas opposed to "local"
EFFECTIVE DIFFICULTY
strategiescaused them difficulty were classified
as "global strategizers"; otherwise they were Group 1
Spanish ns F = 6.32
classifiedas "local strategizers."In otherwords,
firstitems were categorized into global versus L1 p= .0158
(N = 45)
local, and then on the basis of their responses
to these items, subjects were categorized as Group 2
English
"global" versus "local" strategizers.Next, sepa- L1
ns ns
rate regressionmodels were run, by group,test-
(N = 75)
ing for effectson the reading comprehension
test in the language in question due to the dif- ns = not significant, p< .05
ferencebetween "global strategizers"and "local
strategizers"on both "effective" and "difficulty"
= 10); themean score ofthetwenty-seven "local
items. These results are reported in Table II.
For reading in the firstlanguage, there was strategizers" was M = 6.63, suggesting that
those who perceive the global reading strate-
a significanteffectforGroup Two on the "effec-
tive" items. These resultsmust be interpreted gies as posing less difficulty
forthemread better
in English as theirsecond language than those
cautiously,however, since the dichotomization who perceive the local reading strategies as
ofthe subjectsresultedin onlyone subjectbeing
classifiedas a "local strategizer";all seventy-four posing less difficulty.
of the others were classified as "global strate-
DISCUSSION
gizers." (This result is what was alluded to
earlier as the relative lack of variabilityin the This studyset out to investigatethe relation-
L1 metacognitive data.) However, the mean shipsbetweenreaders'metacognitiveawareness
score on the reading comprehensiontestof the of(i.e., judgmentsabout) various typesofread-
seventy-four "global strategizers"was M = 8.89 ing strategiesand theirreading abilityin both
(out of a maximum of 10); the score of the sole their L1 and their L2. The results obtained
"local strategizer"was 6.50, suggesting that have shown some of these relationships. For
those who perceivethe global reading strategies reading in the L1, "local" reading strategies
as being more effectiveread better in English (focusing on grammatical structures,sound-
as their firstlanguage than do those who per- letter,word-meaning,and textdetails) tended
ceive the local reading strategies as being to be negatively correlated with reading per-
effective. formance. One would expect this correlation
For readingin the second or foreignlanguage for proficientL1 readers who have the requi-
therewas a significanteffectforGroup One on site language decoding skills to process texts
the "difficulty" items. The mean score on the automatically (rather than attentionally) for
reading comprehension test of the eighteen effectivereading comprehension. For reading
"global strategizers"was M = 7.97 (maximum in the L2, some differencesemerged between

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:09:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
128 PatriciaL. Carrell

the Spanish L1 and English L1 groups. For the assumption that such instructionwill be bene-
English L1 group, at lower proficiencylevels ficial. Casanave, forexample, articulates this
than the Spanish L1 group and reading in assumption: "In accordance with Baker and
Spanish as aforeign,ratherthan a second,lan- Brown (1984), I am assumingthatin classroom
guage, some of the "local" reading strategies settings,inefficientreaders who enhance their
were positively correlated with reading per- awareness of the nature of reading and of their
formance.For the Spanish L1 group, at slightly own reading strategieswill ultimatelybe better
higher proficiencylevels than the English L1 readersthan thosewho do not. Such awareness
group and reading in English as a second,rather lies at the foundationof effectiveinstructionin
than aforeign,language, some "global" reading comprehension monitoring"(p. 285).
strategieswere positivelycorrelatedwithread- The firststep in "enhancing"readers' aware-
ing performance. In other words, the ESL ness is to findout what theyare already aware
group, of more advanced proficiencylevels, of in termsof reading strategies.The studyre-
tended to be more "global"or top-downin their ported in this article has made such a contri-
perceptions of effectiveand difficulty-causing bution to our knowledge. As previouslymen-
reading strategies. The Spanish-as-a-foreign- tioned, subsequent research must now follow,
language group, at lower proficiencylevels, not only with additional studies of second lan-
tended to be more "local" or bottom-upin their guage readers' awareness of reading strategies,
perceptions of effectiveand difficulty-causing but with trainingstudies on the most effective
reading strategies.Because of theirlower profi- instructionalmeans forteachingreading strate-
ciency level in the foreignlanguage, theymay gies. Sarig and Folman's work is a beginning
have been more dependent on bottom-up de- in metacognitivetraining in second language
coding skills;theymay have needed--and may reading and writing.They have conducted a
have been aware oftheirneed - to "hold in their successful "one-shot"training, case study de-
bottoms,"as Eskeyhas argued. That is, we may signed to develop metacognitiveawareness of
be seeingmetacognitivereflexesofthelanguage the relevantknowledge involved in textrepro-
"short circuit" (Clarke). For both groups of cessing (a combined reading and writingtask).
readers reading in their L2, persistence was Brown, Campione and Day see the principal
positivelycorrelatedwithreadingperformance. aim of metacognitive"awareness" instruction
However, these metacognitiveresultsare to as gettingthe studentsto understandthe inter-
be taken as suggestive rather than definitive, active nature of reading, and the active role
since in many ways this study is a firstof its played by the reader:
kind. Additional studies of metacognitivefac- What we are advocatingis an avoidance of
tors in second language reading are needed. blindtrainingtechniquesand a seriousattempt
Subsequent research must follow with addi- at informed, self-controltraining,thatis, topro-
tional studies of second language readers' vide novicelearnerswiththeinformation neces-
awareness of various reading strategiesand the forthem to effective of their
sary design plans
relationshipsbetween awareness and reading own.The essentialaim oftrainingis to makethe
ability and reading performance on a wide traineemoreawareoftheactivenatureoflearn-
varietyof reading tasks. Also needed are train- ing and the importanceof employingproblem-
ing studies on the most effectiveinstructional solving,trouble-shooting routinesto enhance
means for teaching reading strategies. Iflearnerscan be made awareof
understanding.
Several firstlanguage researchershave advo- forreadingand remembering,
(1) basicstrategies
cated metacognitivetraining,especially meta- rules of textconstruction,(3) differing
(2) simple
comprehension training in reading, with the demandsofa varietyofteststowhichtheirinfor-
goal ofteachingindividualshow to adjust their mationmaybe put,and (4) theimportance ofacti-
cognitive activity in order to promote more vatingany backgroundknowledge which they
effectivecomprehension(Gavelek & Raphael;
may have, theycannothelp but become more
Brown, Campione & Day; Baker & Brown). effective learners.Such self-awareness is a pre-
In fact, in first language reading research, requisiteforself-regulation, theabilityto orches-
direct instructionof reading comprehension trate,monitor,and checkone'sowncognitive ac-
strategiesvia teacher explanation has yielded tivities(6: p. 20).
consistently positive results (Winograd &
Hare). For second language reading, without Although the requisite metacognitivetrain-
the requisite research, we have only the ing research is stilllacking in second language

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:09:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Awareness& L2 Reading
Metacognitive 129

reading,it nonethelessseems clear thateffective strategy's evaluation, rationale, and utility

second language reading pedagogy must in- should greatlyincrease the positive outcomes
clude not only trainingand practice in the use of instruction.This approach is, in effect,train-
of task-specificstrategies(i.e., strategytrain- ing for lateral transferin the sense of Gagne
ing), instructionin orchestrating,overseeing, and Smith, i.e., explicitlyinstructingstudents
and monitoringthese skills(i.e., self-regulation about what the strategyis, why it should be
training), but, more importantly,information learned, where, when, and how to use a
about the significance and outcome of these strategyin a variety of appropriate domains,
skillsand the range oftheirutility(i.e., aware- and how to evaluate their use of the strategy
ness training).Too oftenstudentsin second lan- (Winograd & Hare). This instructiongoes far
guage reading programs, who receive instruc- beyond much of what passes for second lan-
tion only in the skills or strategies,fail to use guage reading pedagogy today, which is often
them intelligentlyand on theirown volitionbe- limitedto repeated but relativelyunguided and
cause they do not appreciate the reasons why uninformedexposure to a task, and materials
such strategiesare useful nor do they under- saturated with directives but short on
stand where and when to use them. Adding in- explanations.
structionin "awareness" or knowledge about a

21 am deliberatelyusing the term "strategies"as opposed

NOTES to the more traditionalterm"skills"because the term"strate-
gies" refersto deliberate actions that learners or readers
select and control to achieve desired goals or objectives
'See, for example, the references to Zvetina; Loew; (Johnston & Byrd; Paris, Lipson & Wixson; van Dijk &
Woytak; Phillips; Schulz; Aspatore; Grellet; Omaggio; Kintsch). The term "strategies" emphasizes the reader's
and Hosenfeld, Arnold, Kirchofer, Laciura and Wilson in active participation, whereas the term "skills"may suggest
the bibliography. only passive abilities which are not necessarily activated.

9. Casanave, Christine P. "Comprehension Monitoring in

BIBLIOGRAPHY ESL Reading: A Neglected Essential." TESOL Quar-
terly22 (1988): 283-302.
10. Clarke, Mark A. "The Short Circuit Hypothesis of ESL
1. Aspatore, Jilleen V. "But I Don't Know All the Words!" Reading -or When Language Competence Inter-
ForeignLanguage Annals 17 (1984): 297-99. fereswith Reading Performance." ModernLanguage
2. Baker, Linda & Ann L. Brown. "Metacognitive Skills Journal64 (1980): 203-09; [rpt. Interactive
Approaches
and Reading." HandbookofReadingResearch.Ed. P. to SecondLanguageReading. Ed. Patricia L. Carrell,
David Pearson. New York: Longman, 1984: Joanne Devine & David E. Eskey. Cambridge:
353-94. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1988: 114-124.]
3. Barnett,Marva A. "Reading throughContext: How Real 11. Devine, Joanne. "ESL Readers' Internalized Models
and Perceived StrategyUse AffectsL2 Comprehen- of the Reading Process." On TESOL '83. Ed. Jean
sion." ModernLanguageJournal72 (1988): 150-62. Handscombe, Richard Orem & Barry Taylor.
4. Block, Ellen. "The Comprehension Strategiesof Second Washington: TESOL, 1984: 95-108.
Language Readers." TESOL Quarterly20 (1986): 12. Eskey, David E. "Holding in the Bottom: An Interac-
463-94. tive Approach to the Language Problems of Second
5. Brown, Ann L. "Metacognitive Development and Read- Language Readers." Interactive Approachesto Second
ing." TheoreticalIssues in ReadingComprehension.
Ed. Language Reading. Ed. Patricia L. Carrell, Joanne
Rand J. Spiro, Bertram C. Bruce & William F. Devine & David E. Eskey. Cambridge: Cambridge
Brewer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1980: 453-81. Univ. Press, 1988: 93-100.
6. - , Joseph C. Campione & Jeanne D. Day. "Learn- 13. Flavell, John H. "Metacognitive Development." Struc-
ing to Learn: On Training Students to Learn from tural/Process
Theoriesof ComplexHuman Behavior.Ed.
Texts." EducationalResearcher10 (1981): 14-21. Joseph M. Scandura & Charles J. Brainerd. Alphen
7. Canney, G. & Peter Winograd. Schemata forReadingand a.d. Rijn, Netherlands: Sijthoff& Noordhoff,1978:
ReadingComprehension Performance
(Technical Report 217-45.
No. 120). Urbana: Univ. of Illinois, Center forthe 14. Gagne, Robert A. & E. C. Smith. Learningand Indi-
Study of Reading, 1979 [ERIC Document Repro- vidual Differences.
Columbus, OH: Merrill, 1967.
duction Service, ED 169 520]. 15. Gambrell, Linda B. & Betty S. Heathington. "Adult
8. Carrell, Patricia L. SecondLanguageReading.ReadingAbility Disabled Readers' Metacognitive Awareness about
orLanguageProficiency? Ms., Southern Illinois Univ., Reading Tasks and Strategies."Journalof Reading
1988. Behavior13 (1981): 215-22.

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:09:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
130 PatriciaL. Carrell
16. Garner, Ruth. Metacognition and ReadingComprehension. ForeignLanguageAnnals 17 (1984): 305-08.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1987. 30. Paris, Scott G., Marjorie Y. Lipson & Karen K.
17. - & Katherine Kraus. "Good and Poor Com- Wixson. "Becoming a Strategic Reader." Contempo-
prehender Differencesin Knowing and Regulating raryEducationalPsychology 8 (1983): 293-316.
Reading Behaviors." EducationalResearchQuarterly 6 31. - & Meyer Myers. "Comprehension Monitoring,
(1981-82): 5-12. Memory, and Study Strategies of Good and Poor
18. Gavelek, James R. & TaffyE. Raphael. "Metacogni- Readers."JournalofReadingBehavior13 (1981): 5-22.
tion, Instruction, and the Role of Questioning Ac- 32. Phifer, SandraJ. & John A. Glover. "Don't Take Stu-
tivities." Metacognition,Cognition,and Human Per- dents' Word for What They do While Reading."
formance.Instructional Practices.Ed. D. L. Forrest- BulletinofthePsychonomic Society19 (1982): 194-96.
Pressley, G. E. MacKinnon & T. Gary Waller. 33. Phillips,June K. "Practical Implications of Recent Re-
Orlando: Academic, 1985: II, 103-36. search in Reading." Foreign Language Annals 17
19. Grellet, Francoise. DevelopingReadingSkills. A Practical (1984): 285-96.
GuidetoReadingComprehension Exercises.Cambridge: 34. Sarig, Gissi. "High-level Reading in the First and in
Cambridge Univ. Press, 1981. the Foreign Language: Some Comparative Process
20. Hauptman, Philip C. "A Comparison of First and Sec- Data." Researchin Readingin Englishas a SecondLan-
ond Language Reading Strategies among English- guage. Ed. Joanne Devine, Patricia L. Carrell &
speaking University Students." Interlanguage Studies David E. Eskey. Washington: TESOL, 1987:
Bulletin4 (1979): 173-201. 105-20.
21. Hewett, Nancy M. CulturalVariablesand Impulsivity in 35. Sarig, Gissi & Shoshana Folman. "Metacognitive
Second-Language-Reading Acquisition. Ann Arbor: Awareness and Theoretical Knowledge in Coher-
Univ. Microfilms, 1983. ence Production."Paper, Communication and Cog-
22. - . "Reading and Impulsivity: A Look at Some nition InternationalCongress, Ghent, 1987; [forth-
Relationships in L2 Pays." coming, Communicationand Cognition. Ed. M.
Acquisition--Persistence
Paper, TESOL Annual Meeting, Anaheim, 1986. Spoelders. Special Issue.]
23. Hosenfeld, Carol. "A Preliminary Investigation of the 36. SAS Institute. SAS User'sGuide. Statistics,Version
5 Edi-
Reading Strategiesof Successful and Nonsuccessful tion. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, 1985.
Second Language Learners." System 5 (1977): 37. Schulz, Renate A. "Second Language Reading Re-
110-23. search: From Theory to Practice." ForeignLanguage
24. - , Vicki Arnold, Jeanne Kirchofer, Judith Annals 17 (1984): 309-12.
Laciura & Lucia Wilson. "Second Language Read- 38. Van Dijk, Teun A. & Walter Kintsch. Strategies ofDis-
ing: A Curricular Sequence forTeaching Reading courseComprehension. New York: Academic, 1983.
Strategies." Foreign Language Annals 14 (1981): 39. Wenden, Anita &Joan Rubin. LearnerStrategies in Lan-
415-22. guageLearning.Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall,
25. Johnston, Peter & Margie Byrd. "Basal Readers and 1987.
the Improvement of Reading Comprehension 40. Winograd, Peter & Victoria Chou Hare. "Direct In-
Ability."Searchesfor Meaningin Reading/Language Pro- struction of Reading Comprehension Strategies:
cessingand Instruction.
Ed. Jerome A. Niles & Larry The Nature of Teacher Explanation." Learningand
A. Harris. Rochester, NY: National Reading Con- StudyStrategies.Issues in Assessment,Instruction,and
ference, 1983: 140-47. Evaluation.Ed. Claire E. Weinstein,Ernest T. Goetz
26. Knight, Stephanie L., Yolanda Padron & Hersholt C. & Patricia A. Alexander. San Diego: Academic,
Waxman. "The Cognitive Reading Strategies of 1988: 121-39.
ESL Students." TESOL Quarterly 19 (1985): 789-92. 41. Woytak, Lydia. "Reading Proficiency and a Psycho-
27. Loew, Helen Z. "Developing StrategicReading Skills." linguisticApproach to Second Language Reading."
ForeignLanguageAnnals 17 (1984): 301-03. ForeignLanguageAnnals 17 (1984): 509-17.
28. Myers, Meyer & Scott G. Paris. "Children's Metacog- 42. Zvetina, Marina. "From Research to Pedagogy: What
nitive Knowledge about Reading." Journal ofEdu- do L2 Reading Studies Suggest?" ForeignLanguage
cationalPsychology 70 (1978): 680-90. Annals 20 (1987): 233-38.
29. Omaggio, Alice C. "Making Reading Comprehensible."

APPENDIX A
Sample Metacognitive Questionnaire

Questionnaire - Reading in Spanish

Name Age
Native Language Sex
Course and Section Number

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:09:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Awareness& L2 Reading
Metacognitive 131
Can you read any language(s) other than English and/or Spanish?
Circle: yes no
If yes, which language(s)?
Other than your assigned readings, do you regularly read Spanish materials outside the classroom?
Circle: yes no
If so, please check whichever apply: newspapers
popular magazines
novels, literature
other (specify)

Number of years of studying Spanish

a. In the U.S.A.
b. In other country
Specify country

The followingstatements are about silent reading in Spanish. Please indicate the level of your agreement or disagree-
ment witheach statementby circlingthe appropriate number: 1 indicates strongagreement, 5 indicates strongdisagreement.

STRONGLY STRONGLY
AGREE AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE DISAGREE
1 2 3 4 5

1. When reading silently in Spanish, I am

able to anticipate what will come next in
the text ............................. .... 1 2 3 4 5
2. When reading silently in Spanish, I am
able to recognize the differencebetween
main points and supporting details .......... 1 2 3 4 5
3. When reading silently in Spanish, I am
able to relate information which comes
next in the text to previous information
in the text ............................... 1 2 3 4 5
4. When reading silently in Spanish, I am
able to question the significance or
truthfulnessof what the author says ......... 1 2 3 4 5
5. When reading silently in Spanish, I am
able to use my prior knowledge and
experience to understand the content
of the text I am reading ................... 1 2 3 4 5
6. When reading silently in Spanish, I have
a good sense of when I understand some-
thing and when I do not .................. 1 2 3 4 5
When reading silently in Spanish, if I don't
understand something,
7. I keep on reading and hope for clarification
furtheron ................ ............. 1 2 3 4 5
8. I reread the problematic part ............... 1 2 3 4 5
9. I go back to a point before the problematic
part and reread from there................. 1 2 3 4 5
10. I look up unknown words in a
dictionary ............... ............... 1 2 3 4 5
11. I give up and stop reading ................. . 1 2 3 4 5
When reading silently in Spanish, the things I do
to read effectivelyare to focus on
12. mentally sounding out parts of the
words................................... 1 2 3 4 5
13. understanding the meaning of each
word ................................... 1 2 3 4 5
14. getting the overall meaning of
the text.................... ............. 1 2 3 4 5

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:09:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
132 PatriciaL. Carrell
15. being able to pronounce each whole
word ................... ............... 1 2 3 4 5
16. the grammatical structures................. 1 2 3 4 5
17. relating the text to what I already know
about the topic ........................... 1 2 3 4 5
18. looking up words in the dictionary .......... 1 2 3 4 5
19. the details of the content .................. 1 2 3 4 5
20. the organization of the text ................ 1 2 3 4 5

STRONGLY STRONGLY
AGREE AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE DISAGREE
1 2 3 4 5
When reading silently in Spanish, things that make
the reading difficultare
21. the sounds of the individual words .......... 1 2 3 4 5
22. pronunciation of the words ................ 1 2 3 4 5
23. recognizing the words ................... .. 1 2 3 4 5
24. the grammatical structures................. 1 2 3 4 5
25. the alphabet ............................. 1 2 3 4 5
26. relating the text to what I already know
about the topic ........................... 1 2 3 4 5
27. getting the overall meaning of the text....... 1 2 3 4 5
28. the organization of the text ................ 1 2 3 4 5
The best reader I know in Spanish is a good reader
because of his/herability to
29. recognize words .......................... 1 2 3 4 5
30. sound out words ......................... 1 2 3 4 5
31. understand the overall meaning of a text..... 1 2 3 4 5
32. use a dictionary .......................... 1 2 3 4 5
33. guess at word meanings ................... 1 2 3 4 5
34. integrate the information in the text with
what he/she already knows ................. 1 2 3 4 5
35. focus on the details of the content........... 1 2 3 4 5
36. grasp the organization of the text ........... 1 2 3 4 5

APPENDIX B
Sample Reading Passages and Multiple-Choice Comprehension Questions

Is English Degenerating? In reality,word usage and grammar have changed over

the centuries, but this does not mean that the English lan-
The charge that English is degenerating into a sloppy guage is degenerating. Shakespeare himselfused slang and
and ungrammatical language is not new. Although this euphemisms, and used other words in ways that they are
charge has been made since the 17th century, English is not used today. For instance,he used "pneumonia" to mean
still strong and growing. English was never perfect, and "head cold," and "nice" to mean '"lewd."Grammatical rules
it never followed unchanging rules. have also changed over the centuries. The word "the"once
Alarmists oftencite the use of slang and euphemisms as had at least 15 differentforms, depending upon where it
proof that the English language is degenerating. These appeared in a sentence. Modern English has not been dam-
people claim thatthe use of slang words insteadof"standard" aged because there is now only one form of "the," and it
words and the use of euphemisms instead of more "exact" will not be damaged because the distinctionbetween "fewer"
phrases cause English users to speak and write unclearly. and "less" is fading. Thus, yesterday's slang is today's
Also, these people argue that the "incorrect"grammar of standard English, and today's"bad" grammar is tomorrow's
many English speakers and writersproves thatthe language acceptable English.
is degenerating; theybelieve that ifspeakers do not express Without a doubt, changes in grammar, meaning and
themselves in "standard" English, they will not be under- usage will continue as long as people use the language. In
stood by others. They believe that unclear thinking and the future,these changes could cause English to break up
a world where people cannot understand each other will into several differentlanguages; more likely, however, is
be two bad consequences of this degeneration. that English will become almost universal as a worldwide

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:09:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Awareness& L2 Reading
Metacognitive 133
second language. Regardless of which direction English ? English is not degenerating.
takes, it will develop rather than degenerate. c. The author does not reveal a point of view.
d. The author is neutral.
Is English Degenerating? 10. Which statement is true?
a. Slang and euphemisms were not used until this
Based on thetext,please circle the letter of the best answer
century.
to each of the following questions.
Changes are taking place in English.
1. Which statement best represents the author's point of c. English follows unchanging rules.
view? d. None of the above.
( English is in a constant state of change.
b. English has changed for the worse since the 17th Aprendamos Idiomas
century.
c. Shakespeare should have avoided the use of slang. Es muy importanteaprender otrosidiomas. Sin embargo,
d. None of the above. muy pocos anglohablantes en los Estados Unidos se
2. Which statement would the author disagreewith? molestan en aprender un idioma extranjero.Por otra parte,
a. English is in a constant state of change. la mayorfa de europeos habla dos, y a veces, hasta tres o
b. English has always been an imperfectlanguage. miasidiomas. Por su parte, los asiaticos, los africanos y los
English has changed for the worse since the 17th latinoamericanos se esfuerzan por aprender otro idioma,
century. generalmente el ingles o el frances.
d. Both (a) and (b). Los estadounidenses dan muchas excusas para no
3. Those who say that English is changing but not de- aprender idiomas extranjeros. Segin los diplomiticos esta-
generating . . . dounidenses, la mayoria de las negociaciones entre los
a. believe thatShakespeare is responsibleforthe change. Estados Unidos y otros pafses se realiza en ingles. Como
b. say that grammatical rules do not change without resultado, ellos no ven la necesidad de hablar bien otro
bad effects. idioma. Los hombres de negocios estadounidenses dicen
c. use the word "pneumonia" to mean "head cold." que no ven el motivo de aprender un idioma extranjero
agree that word usage and grammatical rules have si la mayoria de sus colegas en el mundo habla y entiende
changed over time. el ingles. Los turistas estadounidenses insisten en que si
4. Which of the following statements is true? ellos pagan, pueden comprar lo que deseen utilizando el
a. The word "nice" once meant "head cold." idioma que quieran, es decir el ingles.
b. The words "fewer" and "less" were once used the Aprender otros idiomas claramente tiene muchas venta-
same way. jas. Si los hombres de negocios estadounidenses se
c. English has not changed since the 17th century. esforzaranpor aprender otro idioma, 6sto sin duda ayudaria
There is still some distinction between the words a incrementar las exportaciones. Tambi6n se reducirfa el
"fewer" and "less." d6ficitcomercial del cual siempre se quejan las politicos
5. Some people argue that the English language . . . estadounidenses. Si las embajadas estadounidenses en el
a. has degenerated. extranjero tuvieran interpretes capacitados, cesarian los
b. has changed but not degenerated. erroresdiplomiticos. Obviamente, tambien mejorarian las
c. has neither changed nor degenerated. relaciones entre los Estados Unidos y otros paises. Los
dboth (a) and (b) are argued. turistas inevitablemente se beneficiarfande poder hablar
6. Which statement is true? otro idioma. Sus viajes serian mucho maisagradables y no
a. English could become a worldwide second language. tendrianque depender tantode gufas,interpretesy agencias
b. English could break up into several languages. de viajes.
0 Both (a) and (b) are true. Es obvio que los estadounidenses necesitan ser menos
d. Both (a) and (b) are false. arrogantesen cuanto a su dependencia del ingles. El conoci-
7. People who say that English is degenerating . . . miento de idiomas extranjeros decididamente les ayudarfa
a. believe that slang and euphemisms are acceptable a comprender mejor a otras culturas y a entender como
substitutes for standard English. la gente de otras naciones ve el mundo. Los estadounidenses
? say that imprecise grammar causes English users to necesitan demostrarle al resto del mundo que quieren
think less clearly. aprender otros idiomas si desean mejorar su reputaci6n en
c. believe that today's bad grammar is tomorrow's el extranjero.
acceptable English.
d. all of the above.
Aprendamos Idiomas
8. Since the 17th century .
Basdndoseenel texto,por favormarque con un circulo la letra
Speople have said that English is becoming sloppy
and ungrammatical. correspondiente a la mejor respuesta a cada una de las
b. English has changed little. siguientes preguntas.
c. English usage has become more precise. 1. El articulo nos dice que la mayoria de estadounidenses
d. English has followed unchanging rules. habla .
9. What is the author's position? a. dos o mis idiomas.
a. English is degenerating. b. s610 inglks.

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:09:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
134 PatriciaL. Carrell
c. varios dialectos del ingles. a. Muy pocos hombres de negocios extranjeroshablan
d. ingles y espafiol. ingles.
2. ?Cuil de las frases siguientes mejor expresa el punto b. La mayoria de los hombres de negocios extranjeros
de vista del autor? entiende el ingles.
a. Los estadounidenses no necesitan aprender otros c. Los hombres de negocios estadounidenses normal-
idiomas. mente realizan negociaciones en un idioma extran-
b. Hablar un idioma extranjero no es una ventaja. jero.
c. Es necesario saber idiomas extranjeros. d. (a) y (c).
d. Los estadounidenses deberfan aprender espafiol o 7. Por lo general, los europeos hablan .
. .
chino. a. por lo menos dos idiomas.
3. Si maishombres de negocios estadounidenses hablaran b. s61o inglks.
idiomas extranjeros, esto . . . c. mis de cuatro idiomas.
a. reducirfa las exportaciones. d. ingles y frances.
b. aumentarfa el d6ficit comercial. 8. Los hombres de negocios estadounidenses no piensan
c. molestarfa a los politicos estadounidenses. que es necesario aprender un idioma extranjeroporque
d. aumentarfa las exportaciones. a. los idiomas extranjeros son dificiles.
4. Segfin el articulo, b. el ingles es su idioma favorito.
a. los estadounidenses tienen buena reputaci6n en el c. los hombres de negocios extranjeros normalmente
extranjero. no saben ingles.
b. los estadounidenses deberfanmejorar su reputaci6n d. la mayoria de los hombres de negocios extranjeros
en el extranjero. habla inglks.
c. otros paises deberfan mejorar su reputaci6n en los 9. ?Cuail de las siguientes frases es verdadera?
Estados Unidos. a. El gobiernoestadounidensesno siempretienebuenos
d. ninguna de las frases anteriores. int6rpretesen sus embajadas.
5. A trav6s del articulo sabemos que . . . b. Los int6rpretesestadounidenses siempre estin bien
a. los diplomiticos estadounidenses normalmente no capacitados.
hablan en ingles con otros extranjeros. c. Las embajadas de los Estados Unidos ahora tienen
b. los diplomiticos estadounidenses piensan que deber- int6rpretesexcelentes.
fan hablar bien otros idiomas. d. Los Estados Unidos tienen muchos int6rpretes.
c. los extranjerosnormalmentehablan en ingles con los 10. Los turistasestadounidenses se beneficiarfande saber
diplomiticos estadounidenses. idiomas extranjeros porque .
. .
d. los diplomiticos estadounidenses normalmenteutili- a. sus vacaciones les costarfan mais.
zan idiomas extranjeros cuando hablan con extran- b. podrian Ilevar a toda la familia.
jeros. c. dependerfan mais de gufas e int6rpretes.
d. tendrian mais independencia.

?Mv-
6. jCuil de las siguientes frases es verdadera?

f"T-IO
UNVHR ET
CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT
I
UNIVERSITY
CALL FOR PAPERS

Research Perspectivesin
Adult Language Learning and Acquisition
November 3-4, 1989, Columbus, Ohio

Keynote addresses by:

Vicki Galloway, Editor, ForeignLanguageAnnals (ACTFL)

Earl Stevick, U.S. Foreign Service Institute (ret.)
Renate Schulz, University of Arizona
This annual conferenceis organizedby the ForeignLanguage Center ofThe Ohio State University,
and is co-sponsored by TheModernLanguageJournaland the OSU College of Humanities. Papers
will be refereed.Those selectedwill be distributedbeforethe conferenceto preregistrants.Follow-
ing the conference,all papers will be considered forpublication by TheModernLanguageJournal.
Preregistration desirable.
RP-ALLA '89
OSU Foreign Language Center
155 Cunz Hall, 1841 Millikin Road
Columbus, OH 43210-1215

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:09:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions