Arts, Faculty of
English, Department of
DSpace
UBCV
Bayless, Catherine
Master of Arts - MA
University of British Columbia
Researchers are increasingly using L1/L2 think-aloud studies to examine the well-established phenomenon of ESL writers utilizing their L1 in L2 composition. However, limited investigation has been conducted on how simultaneous bilinguals engage in L1 use for L2 composition, particularly native Tagalog speakers. The Philippines education system mandates English as the mode of instruction from elementary to university education, with American textbooks as the standard throughout institutions. Therefore, it is not uncommon for well-educated students to identify English as a “second mother tongue.” To address the lack of Tagalog L1/L2 studies, this L1/L2 think-aloud study examines sixteen native Tagalog speakers: eight university students in the Philippines and eight international students in Canada. The sixteen students were asked to compose four writing samples under a think-aloud protocol. The findings suggest that L1 use is minimal, with only two participants briefly using their L1 to generate ideas when writing L2 texts. The remaining participants strictly adhered to L2 writing and thinking. Many considered English as their dominant language, especially in writing. Participants have entrenched monolingual writing as a result of the requirement of English use by the Philippines’ education system in written assignments and the use of English as the language of instruction. Language ideology and the Philippines’ longstanding cultural admiration of Standard American English and Western influences noticeably affected the results. The debriefing interviews revealed that three additional students reported L1 use for L2 composition. This was not reflected in their think-aloud protocols, because their L1 usage is reserved for translation of advanced writing prompts, such as research papers. However, some participants openly discussed how they modified their participation for the study because the study was carried out by a Canadian university, with Standard American English used as the researcher’s language to conduct the case study. Overall, they felt pressured to conform to Standard American English due to these Western influences. The results of this study suggest that language ideology is a major consideration for Tagalog speakers L1/L2 composition in addition to (or beyond) simultaneous bilingual engagement in L1 use in L2 composition.
L1 USE IN THE L2 COMPOSITION PROCESS: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF PHILIPPINE ESL WRITERS by Catherine Bayless B.A., Loyola Marymount University, 2021 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (English) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) April 2023 © Catherine Bayless, 2023 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the thesis entitled: L1 Use in the L2 Composition Process: An Empirical Study of Philippine ESL Writers submitted by Catherine Bayless in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in English Examining Committee: Laurel J. Brinton, Professor, Department of English Language and Literatures, UBC Supervisor James M. Stratton, Assistant Professor, Department of English Language and Literatures, UBC Supervisory Committee Member iii Abstract Researchers are increasingly using L1/L2 think-aloud studies to examine the well-established phenomenon of ESL writers utilizing their L1 in L2 composition. However, limited investigation has been conducted on how simultaneous bilinguals engage in L1 use for L2 composition, particularly native Tagalog speakers. The Philippines education system mandates English as the mode of instruction from elementary to university education, with American textbooks as the standard throughout institutions. Therefore, it is not uncommon for well-educated students to identify English as a “second mother tongue.” To address the lack of Tagalog L1/L2 studies, this L1/L2 think-aloud study examines sixteen native Tagalog speakers: eight university students in the Philippines and eight international students in Canada. The sixteen students were asked to compose four writing samples under a think-aloud protocol. The findings suggest that L1 use is minimal, with only two participants briefly using their L1 to generate ideas when writing L2 texts. The remaining participants strictly adhered to L2 writing and thinking. Many considered English as their dominant language, especially in writing. Participants have entrenched monolingual writing as a result of the requirement of English use by the Philippines’ education system in written assignments and the use of English as the language of instruction. Language ideology and the Philippines’ longstanding cultural admiration of Standard American English and Western influences noticeably affected the results. The debriefing interviews revealed that three additional students reported L1 use for L2 composition. This was not reflected in their think-aloud protocols, because their L1 usage is reserved for translation of advanced writing prompts, such as research papers. However, some participants openly discussed how they modified their participation for the study because the study was carried out by a Canadian university, with Standard American English used as the researcher’s language to conduct the iv case study. Overall, they felt pressured to conform to Standard American English due to these Western influences. The results of this study suggest that language ideology is a major consideration for Tagalog speakers L1/L2 composition in addition to (or beyond) simultaneous bilingual engagement in L1 use in L2 composition. v Lay Summary Research confirms that when ESL university students write in English, they generate ideas in their first language. These studies often examine ESL university students that start learning English at an older age in school. In contrast, the Philippines mandates English as the mode of instruction from elementary to university education, which may result in native Tagalog speakers relying less on their first language to write in English. This thesis examines how native Tagalog speakers write in English as a second language, through a case study of them completing four writing tasks. My findings reveal that only two of the sixteen university students minimally relied on their first language to generate ideas when text-generating in English. vi Preface This thesis is an original, unpublished, and independent work by me. The case study reported in chapters 4-7 is covered by UBC Ethics Certificate ID# H22-00722. vii Table of Contents Abstract………………………………………………………………………………….………iii Lay Summary……………………………………………………………………………………iv Preface…………………………………………………………………………………………….v Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………..vi List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………...viii List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………ix List of Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………………….x Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………………………1 Chapter 2: Socio-Historical Context ………………………………………………...…………3 Chapter 3: Literature Review ......................................................................................................6 Chapter 4: Methodology .............................................................................................................10 4.1 Participants………………………………………………………………………...…10 4.2 Writing Tasks……………………………………………………………………...…12 4.3 Data Collection………………………………………………………………………15 4.4 Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………...16 Chapter 5: Results........................................................................................................................19 Chapter 6: Discussion..................................................................................................................22 6.1 Based on a think-aloud protocol, how frequently do Tagalog ESL writers think in their L1?………………………………………………………………………...……………...22 6.2 In what contexts do L1 Tagalog speakers use their L1 when composing L2 texts?....26 6.3 Does the amount of L1 use vary by writing task?.......................................................27 viii 6.4 Does the amount of L1 use vary with the writer’s L2 development? In other words, does L1 use necessarily decrease with advanced proficiency in English?....................33 6.5 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………36 Chapter 7: Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….39 References ....................................................................................................................................41 Appendices………………………………………………………………………………………44 Appendix A………………………………………………………………………………46 Appendix B………………………………………………………………………………46 Appendix C………………………………………………………………………………46 Appendix D………………………………………………………………………………48 Appendix E………………………………………………………………………………51 ix List of Tables Table 1: The Composition Process Defined by Wang and Wen (2002)………………………7 Table 2: Philippine University Students………………………………………………………11 Table 3: Philippine-Canadian International University Students…………………………..12 Table 4: Transcription Conventions…………………………………………………………..17 Table 5: The Coding Scheme…………………………………………………………………..18 Table 6: Tasks 1 and 2: L1/L2 Usage in Think-Aloud Protocols …………..……….………20 Table 7: Tasks 3 and 4: L1/L2 Usage in Think-Aloud Protocols……..………….….………21 x List of Figures Figure 1: Wang and Wen’s L1/L2 Writing Model…………………………………………….9 Figure 2: Task 1 Picture………………………………………………………………………..13 Figure 3: The Ten Conyomandments…………………………………………………………47 xi List of Abbreviations ESL – English as a second language CLT – Communicative language teaching LAMC – Language Arts of Multiliteracies Curriculum L1 – First language L2 – Second language 1 Chapter 1: Introduction In the Philippines, there are two official languages, English and Tagalog. The co-existence of these two languages creates a level of bilingualism in which 90 million Filipinos - 80% of the population - are competent speakers of English (Temelkova, 2022). When adults have English as a second language (ESL) - as is true for many native Tagalog speakers - it is well known that their first language (L1) and second language (L2) can interact because their L1 is learned natively as a child whereas their L2 is acquired later (e.g., Flege & Mackay, 2004; Hemchua & Schmitt, 2006; Schwartz & Sprouse, 2000). This phenomenon is often referred to as “crosslinguistic interference,” “crosslinguistic transfer,” or “crosslinguistic influence.” If speakers transfer a feature from the L1 to the L2 and the feature is a match, this can be described as a “positive transfer.” If speakers transfer a feature from the L1 to the L2 and it is not a match, it can be considered a “negative transfer.” For example, it is common for Tagalog speakers to use she and her as generic pronouns regardless of the biological sex or gender of the referent, since pronouns in Tagalog are gender neutral. This L1-L2 interference can impact an ESL learner’s speech, such as their phonetic and phonological system (Flege & Mackay, 2004), and it can also influence their writing practices, such as their sentence structure (Schwartz & Sprouse, 2000) and word choice (Hemchua & Schmitt, 2006). Wang & Wen (2002) analyzed this interaction in a study of sixteen L1 Chinese speakers in university. The authors instructed their students to complete two writing tasks through a think-aloud protocol: the method by which participants verbally describe each thought that occurs as they are writing. Wang and Wen (2002) found that all sixteen of their participants heavily relied on their L1, with some of them falling back on their L1 for over half of their composition process. 2 The purpose of this thesis is to investigate if L1 university Tagalog speakers continue to use their L1 in L2 writing, and/or whether their L1 can be a liability for successful academic writing (in the context of “negative transfer”). This thesis follows Wang and Wen’s (2002) L1/L2 experimental design. The Tagalog speakers recruited in the present study completed Wang and Wen’s (2002) two writing tasks following the same guidelines as the aforementioned authors’ think-aloud protocol. The think-aloud protocol holds potential to give insight into the participants’ cognitive processes, rather than relying on their writing samples as the sole form of data. In previous studies, several studies have attempted to document conscious thoughts and opinions that learners have when learning a second language as a means of studying cognition (e.g., Rosa & Leow, 2004; Schmidt, 1990). Wang & Wen’s (2002) methodology was selected in order to compare the Tagalog students’ results with their Chinese students’ results. To build upon Wang and Wen’s (2002) study and curate it for Tagalog speakers, two Tagalog writing prompts were added to probe if the participants prefer L2 writing and to explore whether L2 use in L1 composition occurs if they chose to write in their L1. The specific questions this thesis addresses are: • Based on a think-aloud protocol, how frequently do Tagalog ESL writers “think” in their L1? • In which contexts do L1 Tagalog speakers use their L1 when composing L2 texts? • Does the amount of L1 use vary by writing task? • Does the amount of L1 use vary with the writer’s L2 development? In other words, does L1 use necessarily decrease with advanced proficiency in English? This thesis is structured as follows: the second chapter addresses the socio-historical context of English education in the Philippines. Chapter three is a literature review on studies of 3 L1 usage in L2 composition, focusing on recent L1/L2 studies of university students. The methodology is outlined in the fourth chapter, followed by the results in the fifth chapter. The sixth chapter is a discussion of the results, and the above research questions in sequence. The thesis closes with a conclusion of the findings in relation to future research in chapter seven. Chapter 2: Socio-Historical Context The Philippines is home to nineteen regional languages and over 180 recognized provincial languages and dialects (Temelkova, 2022). Despite the Philippines’ linguistic diversity, English is the language of education. The Philippines Supreme Court federally mandated English as the sole medium of instruction throughout all public schools in 1925 through Act No. 74 of the Philippine Commission (Casambra,1982, p. 9). Act No. 74 initiated the “Speak English Only Policy” by colonial educators in the academic system (Canilao, 2020, p. 196). All students were treated as L1 speakers of English, and advancement in the education system was dependent on their English competency in all school subjects (Tupas, 2004, p. 9). Languages native to the Philippines were reserved for educating students on character and correct conduct, but not academic matters (Board of Education Survey, 1925, p. 40). There were no educational alternatives to the English-only public schools, except for a few exclusive private schools in urban areas, and the language policy in public education strove towards confining local languages to situations outside the educational system (Tupas, 2004, p. 9). According to Martin (2002), American literature was used not for their literary value, but rather as a means for English language teaching and Americanizing the students (p. 91). The texts were meticulously selected to promote colonial realities, such as Robinson Crusoe and Macbeth (p. 92). In lieu of analytical reading reports or discussions of the literature, students 4 were tasked with memorizing passages, reciting them orally, and performing grammar drills (p. 94). Memorizing the dialogue of American works was believed to be an important method of integrating Standard American English into the nation. Literature took on a language-oriented purpose that presupposed the texts demonstrated the formal English that the students should speak (Tupas, 2004, p. 9). Analysis of the texts was restricted to mechanical language studies, such as locating and explicating complex and compound sentences or splitting infinitives for study (Martin, 2002, p. 95). These educational practices - while atypical for English language pedagogy - perpetuated the colonial emphasis: Standard American English is proper English. The implication being that any other variety of English is not “proper English,” in particular, not outer or expanding circle varieties (Kachru, 1992). The growing power of English in the mid-1920s expanded to affluent families as they began to adopt Standard American English as their L1, particularly when English was made the official language in legislative and administrative jobs in the civil service (Lorente, 2013, p. 190). Accordingly, adult English language classes received a positive response (Casambra, 1982, p. 9). The infiltration of English into the white-collar class made English a sign of privilege, drawing a linguistic divide between the upper and working class. Today, if a student is born into a wealthy family, it is not uncommon for them to identify Standard American English as their L1 (Canilao, 2020, p. 204). English continues to monopolize and benefit the upper social strata, with private schools continuing the colonial practice of operating solely in English, whereas public schools have adopted Tagalog or a regional dialect. Teachers commonly praise students who speak Standard American English and criticize those who retain a regional accent or engage in Philippine English varieties (p. 197). These social behaviors are then ingrained into Philippine 5 society where citizens with Standard American English are favored over those without (Catama et al., 2018, p. 52). Currently, the K to 12 English as a second language (ESL) curriculum is defined by the “Language Arts of Multiliteracies Curriculum,” which requires students to demonstrate “grammatical awareness by being able to read, speak, and write correctly” and express themselves “in oral and written forms, using the correct grammatical structure of English” (Department of Education, 2016, p. 15). The four ultimate goals it sets out for students are: grammatical linguistic competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and strategic competence to break down language negotiation skills (p. 6). Martin (2014) points out that modern-day teaching methods retain colonial practices. American texts continue to be the used as standard material in Philippine classrooms (p. 478), and English pedagogical approaches emphasize reading aloud of books, grammar drills, and the usage of American texts to model a standard of English. Taken together, these methods reassert the dominance of Standard American English. Current scholarship surrounding second language discourse in the Philippines tends to focus on how language has become a marker to separate the social classes (e.g., Reyes, 2017). The dichotomy between private versus public education produces a linguistically divided demographic. This social divide is highlighted when a student enters university, where the nationwide standard for higher education institutions is to employ English as the sole medium of instruction. Students may struggle in an unfamiliar English-only environment and find themselves unable to articulate questions or contributions to class discussions in the language that is valued. Even though classrooms often break this mandate due to the professors’ or students’ preference for Tagalog or the regional variety, it is likely that a student will be in an 6 English-only classroom where they are presumed to be native speakers of English. A bilingual format, where the two national languages of Tagalog and English are used, may suit the learning style of students with lower English proficiency. Thinking in their L1 might remain dominant, notwithstanding the English-only environment. L1 use in L2 composition is an established pedagogical technique in North American ESL education (e.g., Chamcharatsi, 2021). In fact, research suggests that including the L1 in L2 instruction, versus exclusive L2 teaching, aids in cognitive processing when working with university students (e.g., Hall, 2002; Stratton, 2022) However, current scholarship surrounding Philippine education of suggesting skillful L1 use in L2 composing is a developing subject. Chapter 3: Literature Review Studies of crosslinguistic interference - L1 and L2 speech interaction – indicate that a speaker’s L1 can impact their L2 speech patterns, by influencing their phonetic and phonological system (Flege &Mackay, 2004), vocabulary (Hemchua & Schmitt, 2006), and sentence structure (Schwartz & Sprouse, 2000). Despite such scholarship, not all scholars agree that such interaction occurs. Broadly speaking, there are two dominant views. There is the “separate storage model,” which assumes that the languages of a bilingual are stored in separate parts of the brain; therefore, a speaker’s L1 does not and cannot impact their L2 usage (Grosjean, 1982). In contrast, the “common storage model” claims that languages are stored in a common space and thus do interact (Kirsner et al., 1984; Flege, 1995). For instance, lexical representation influences how a speaker will initially perceive an L2 term (Kirsner et al., 1994). This bilingual debate has carried over to L2 writing, with extensive studies on whether a writer’s L1 influences their L2 writing (e.g., Cumming, 1989, 1990; Silva, 1992). 7 In the realm of L2 writing, research has conclusively established that L1 usage can be a dominant cognitive strategy that either advanced or developing L2 writers revert to when composing (Basturkmen & Wette, 2016; Chamcharatsi, 2021). Wang and Wen (2002) define the composition process as a five-step procedure (see Table 1): Table 1: The Composition Process Defined by Wang and Wen (2002) Composition Activity Example Task-examining Analyzing the given prompt Idea-generating Brainstorming content Idea-organizing Organizing and evaluating the structure Text-generating Writing the formal text Process-controlling Proofreading Several studies investigating L1/L2 composition demonstrate that writers use their L1 for all five steps of this process, such as task-examining by transferring their L1 knowledge to L2 writing contexts (e.g., Cumming, 1989; Silva, 1992; Wang, 2003), idea-generating (e.g., Qi, 1998; Van Weijen et al., 2009; Wang, 2003), idea-organizing and text-generating to resolve linguistic barriers, such as vocabulary and phraseology (e.g., Cumming, 1989; Silva, 1992; Wang, 2003) and process-controlling through problem solving skills (e.g., Cumming, 1989, 1990), evaluating their writing (e.g., Cumming 1989), and preventing cognitive overload (e.g., Qi, 1998). Further studies examine the extent to which writers transfer their L1 into L2 writing with some studies showing students writing predominantly in their L1 and then translating their written text into the L2 (e.g., Whalen & Mennard, 1995; Raimes, 1987). Research on the L1/L2 translation model suggests that L2 proficiency may impact the writer’s composing process and the overall quality of their L2 writing (Cumming, 1989). However, it is challenging to compare the L1/L2 8 translation model against direct L1 writing, because research indicates that even when writers are instructed to solely compose in their L2, they admit to still cognitively relying on their L1 (Kobayashi & Rinnert, 1992, p. 200). Research reports that students with low L2 proficiency benefit from the translation model in terms of language use, organization, and style (Kobayashi & Rinnert, 1992; Uzawa, 1996), whereas proficient L2 writers produce awkward structures when writing via translation (Kobayashi & Rinnert, 1992). Recent L1/L2 studies indicate that university students overwhelmingly rely on their L1 for L2 composition. Van Weijen et al. (2009) followed a think-aloud protocol with twenty first-year BA English majors whose L1 was Dutch. For the four short essays they composed, all participants used their L1 for the five stages of composition, with idea-generating averaging 45% of L2 usage, and process-controlling averaging 43% (p. 241). Fujii (2012) analyzed the translation model versus L2 direct writing by instructing 128 students aged 19 to 21 whose L1 was Japanese to complete one writing prompt via translation from Japanese to English and the other solely in their L2. 94% of the students acknowledged that they generated their ideas in Japanese before writing in their L2, supporting the idea that L1use remains a significant cognitive composing activity in L2 composition (p. 36). This raises the question of the difference between translation and code switching: “the acting of switching from L2 to L1” (Qi, 1998, p. 41). Wang and Wen’s (2002) think-aloud study with sixteen BA English majors whose L1 was Chinese, revealed that all the students utilized their L1. However, the advanced students - students in their third and fourth year of university - used their L1 less and strategically code-switched during idea-generating, task-examining, and process-controlling by using their L1 for the cognitive composing activities. Wang’s (2003) case study on language switching - which drew upon the findings of Wang and Wen - concluded that 9 as L2 proficiency developed, so did the strategic ways L1/L2 writers switched to their L1, with many of them using their L1 to form rhetorical goals, process information, gain control over their language choices, and solidify rhetorical choices. Wang and Wen (2002) proposed a L1/L2 writing model based on the L1 activities that their skilled L2 writers favored during L2 composition (see Figure 1): Figure 1: Wang and Wen’s L1/L2 Writing Model This model posits predominant L1 use for idea-generating, idea-organizing and process-controlling, and L2 use for task-examining and task-generating. The only form of writing that would solely utilize the L2 would be the written task and final written output. However, this model has - to my knowledge - not been empirically tested. There is the need to investigate whether early or advanced L2 learners, such as native Tagalog speakers, follow such a L1/L2 writing process. The bilingual writing approach that previous research emphasized may differ 10 due to the bilingual education of Philippines students that prepared them as simultaneous bilinguals, compared to sequential bilinguals. Chapter 4: Methodology This case study replicates Wang and Wen’s (2002) think-aloud L1/L2 procedure used with native Chinese-speaking university students (pp. 229-232), and this thesis builds upon a pilot study for a term paper (Bayless 2022). 4.1 Participants To examine the effect of L2 proficiency on L1 use in the L2 composition process, sixteen L1 Tagalog speakers participated in this study: eight university students in the Philippines (P), and eight international Philippine students in Canada (C). Each marker is also followed by M or F to identify the student’s gender. The Philippine university students were recruited in a third-party manner where the first student agreed to participate, and the remaining university students were contacted by her for interest and are therefore students at her university. The Philippine Canadian students were recruited through Philippine Facebook groups. The participants in Canada were assumed to have higher proficiency levels of English, due to residing an inner-circle English-speaking nation and university context (cf. Kachru, 1992). All students were also coded according to whether they attended public or private schools in the Philippines, as the school forms can differ in their use of English. Further contextual information for each student, their age of introduction to English, their household language/s, university standing, and their status as a native speaker of English is included in each table (see Tables 2 and 3). 11 Table 2: Philippine University Students Student Number Age Introduced to English Public or Private School Attendance: Elementary and Tertiary Household Language(s) University Level Regard Themselves as a Native Speaker of English PF1 3 Private Visaya, English 4th year No PM2 4 Private English, Tagalog 2nd year, Post Grad Yes PF3 2 Private English, Visaya 4th year Yes PM4 7 Private English, Visaya 4th year No PF5 8 Public Visaya 4th year No PF6 4 Private English, Visaya, Ilongo 4th year No PF7 8 Public elementary; private tertiary Visaya 4th year No PF8 8 Public Visaya 4th year No 12 Table 3: Philippine-Canadian International University Students Student Number Age Introduced to English Public or Private School Attendance: Elementary and Tertiary Household Language(s) Year Began University in Canada Regard Themselves as a Native Speaker of English CM1 4 Public Visaya 2021 No CF2 4 Public English, Tagalog 2021 Yes CF3 6 Public Tagalog, Waray 2021 No CF4 6 Private English, Tagalog 2022 No CF5 5 Private Tagalog 2022 No CF6 2 Private English, Tagalog 2021 Yes CF7 13 Private Tagalog, Bikolano 2022 No CF8 5 Private Tagalog 2021 No 4.2 Writing Tasks Wang and Weng (2002) used two writing tasks: a story and an argumentative prompt. The reason for the choice of these two tasks is Wang and Wen’s view that “narration is usually considered the least cognitively demanding writing task while argumentation is seen as the most demanding” (p. 229). This has been corroborated, in part, by Stratton (2022), indicating how L2 vocabulary is more easily recalled in narration activities. For the story task, the following pictures from the cartoon book, Father and Son, were provided, with the instruction to write a story of at least 200 words based on the following pictures (p. 246): 13 Figure 2: Task 1 Picture The story task is Task 1 in this Tagalog study. For argumentative writing, Wang and Wen (2002) wrote the following prompt on beepers and mobile phones: Nowadays beepers and mobile phones are becoming more and more popular in our life. Some people think they bring us much convenience while others argue they make more trouble. Which view do you agree with? Use your own ideas, knowledge, or experiences to generate support for your argument (p. 229). The pilot study highlighted that part of the prompt is dated, as students did not know what beepers were. Therefore, the prompt was minimally modified to the following to solely focus on mobile phones: Nowadays mobile phones are becoming more and more popular in our life. Some people think they bring us much convenience while others argue they make more trouble. Which view do you agree with? Use your own ideas, knowledge, or experiences to generate support for your argument. The prompt is noticeably still dated, as mobile phones are an integral part of contemporary society and surpassed the point of gaining momentum. However, a new prompt – in lieu of using 14 Wang and Wen’s (2002) prompt and altering it – was not pursued, so that the L1/L2 writing results of the native Tagalog speakers could be directly compared to Wang and Wen’s (2002) results through usage of their writing prompts. This modified argumentative prompt constitutes Task 2 for this study. For both writing tasks, students were required to write an English response of at least 200 words within 45 minutes, as per Wang and Wen’s guidelines (p. 229). Building on Wang and Wen (2002), I curated the study for native Tagalog speakers by adding two Tagalog prompts. The Philippine education system leads to some elite students regarding English as a “second mother tongue.” In some instances, students do not regard themselves as Tagalog speakers, due to the English-only format of Philippine schooling, despite being born and raised in the Philippines (Reyes, 2017, p. 213). Anticipating that some students’ L2 proficiency surpassed their L1 proficiency, the following two Tagalog prompts were added to inquire if the students preferred L2 writing and if L2 use in L1 composition occurred: Task 3: Sumulat ng mga bagay na gusto mog bilhin sa grocery. ‘Write a list of groceries you would like to buy’ Task 4: Isulat sa iyong diary ang mga bagay na nangyari sayo ngayong araw. ‘Write a diary-like summary of your day’ The students were presented with the Tagalog prompts with no instructions on which language to respond in. The only instructions they received were to write as many or as few words as they felt fulfilled the prompts. For those that inquired about language, they were told to respond in the language of their preference. However, bias was inadvertently inserted, as the researcher conducted the entirety of the case-study in English and used it as the language of instruction for the think-aloud protocol. A 45-minute time limit was imposed for each prompt. 15 4.3 Data Collection For participation in the case study, each student met with the researcher one-on-one over Zoom to accommodate for pandemic protocols, compared to Wang and Wen (2002) meeting individually with each student in a private, quiet office (p. 230). Current methods for examination of second language acquisition has derived from research on consciousness and the conclusion that subliminal language learning is not possible (Schmidt, 1990). Through an analysis of his personal diary entries learning Brazilian Portuguese, Schmidt concluded that a conscious effort is needed to acquire a second language as opposed to subconscious learning (Schmidt & Frota, 1986). These studies served as a future roadmap for investigation into second language acquisition through analysis of verbalized thought processes and writing samples. The so-called think-aloud method was developed to study the students’ cognitive process when composing in a second language; this process was used by Wang and Wen in their study (2002: 229-230), and I use it here. Prior to participating in the study, each participant was individually briefed on the protocol of the think-aloud method: the student was asked to write four written responses while vocalizing every single thought and to use the language that they thought in their mind when cognitively composing. In addition to vocalizing all of their thoughts, all of their formal writing was required to be verbalized while written. If the writer paused for longer than eight seconds without thinking aloud, a beeper would sound off to remind the writer to report their thoughts aloud, following Wang and Wen’s (2002) method (p. 230). While the student was composing aloud, no interruption was made by the researcher. All the sixteen students reported no difficulty with the think-aloud instructions and abided by the guidelines without complication. The whole process was audio-recorded for analysis. 16 Immediately after the student completed the writing tasks, a debriefing interview for the Philippine university students (Appendix A) and the Philippine Canadian international students (Appendix B) occurred. The think-aloud recording was used to ask the student for details about their composing process in relation to the five composing-activities from Wang and Wen’s (2002) L1/L2 writing model. For instance, if code switching in the student’s verbal report occurred while solely writing in English, the student was asked to explain the reason for code switching. For example, CF7 code switched to Tagalog for process-controlling of her English composition of Task 4, and was questioned for her reasoning of verbally code switching to idea-generate, despite engaging in otherwise L2 composition: Excerpt 1: CF7, Fragment of Task 4 Think-Aloud and Translations Whole milk, uh sour cream, cilantro, indomie instant noodles. . . Ay na to indomie instant noodles. ‘Whole milk, uh sour cream, cilantro, indomie instant noodles. . . that’s it indomie instant noodles.’ The retrospective interview lasted 30 to 40 minutes and was also-audio recorded. (see sample interview in Appendix E). 4.4 Data Analysis The think-aloud recordings were automatically transcribed by Zoom’s transcription feature. To ensure transcription accuracy, particularly for the Tagalog words, each recording was reviewed by the researcher to correct any observable transcription errors. Table 4 presents the details on transcription conventions. These conventions were adapted from Wang and Wen (2002, p. 230). 17 Table 4: Transcription Conventions Transcription Conventions Examples From the Data A series of three consecutive dots denotes a noticeable pause in the writer's verbalization. Um. . .nung ma approve ang aming application. . . and issuance of our visa going to Canada. Underlined words or word sequences mark the verbalization made while the writer is writing the text. I want to see him succeed as he in next in line for the position. Words enclosed by quotation marks signal the writing prompt or the previously written text that the writer reads aloud. But I have to move on and "but I have to move on and" Comments the researcher makes to clarify what is happening at a particular point are enclosed by square brackets. "I was. . . Nung ma approve ang aming application" [Erasing English portion to write the prompt in Tagalog.] Translations that the researcher makes of the L1 thinking (Tagalog) used in the writer's verbalization are italicized. It is difficult to say goodbye to what you are used to. When a verbalization excerpt is used for discussion, it is divided into sequentially numbered segments. These numbered segments correspond to what the researcher sees as units of thought. (1)Somehow. . . The. . . My immediate. . . (2)Carlo will be the one to replace and took over my position as early as January 2023. .(3) Or is it 2023 Then the transcriptions were coded into the five identified composing activities in the composition process: task-examining, idea-generating, idea-organizing, text-generating, and process-controlling. Table 5 reflects the coding scheme. 18 Table 5: The Coding Scheme Composing Activities Examples Task-examining: analyzing the writing prompt (Example 1) of commenting on the task (Example 2) "Write a story of about 200 words based on the following pictures." So that's 200 words? (Example 1) Please bear with me if my English isn't as fluent as yours (Example 2). Idea-generating: planning the content and evaluating it (Example 3) Okay I will start. The doctor came in due to the call of a patient (a little boy) "a little boy" who suffered under an illness in whih the doctor um evaluated and examined the patient. Afterwhich afterwhich and during examination the doctor has evaluated that the patient isn't as serious as he looks like. looked like. look like.[revises “looks like”]Okay. Idea-organizing: planning the organization (Example 4) and evaluating it (Example 5) The little boy [erases and indents new paragraph] (Example 4 and 5)After a while the little boy can be seen as playing in his bed after the doctor left. Task-generating activities: producing and reviewing the text (Example 6) After a few minutes "a few minutes" leaving, the doctor came in and have seen the boy playing and [types "wasn't" without verbalizing it and deletes it"] got a hmm [deletes "and got a"] and have decided to let the boy go home after playing. Process-controlling: controlling the writing procedures (Example 7), word and time limit (Example 8) I'm finished, I think. Minutes of leaving. [Revising a spotted error] See, I have few grammatical errors. (Example 7) I don't know if that's 200 words (Example 8) After all the protocols were coded, the frequency of Tagalog and English words was quantified to evaluate the extent to which L1 use occurred in the L2 composing process. First, the number of Tagalog and English words in each protocol was counted. For this process, Tagalog words were counted based on the Tagalog “unit” versus their English meaning, as shown in Excerpt 2. Excerpt 2: BC3, Think-Aloud 4 Fragment and Translation Mahirap magpaalam sa nakasanayan mo na. ‘It is difficult to say goodbye to what you are used to.’ 19 The example in Excerpt 2 yields 6 words versus 12 in the English translation. The percentage of Tagalog words was computed by dividing the number of Tagalog words by the total number of words in the protocol. The word-based count and percentage was used to calculate the proportion of the English and Tagalog words involved in each writing task and to compare any differences that might result from the writing genre. Additionally, since this study and data analysis is modeled after Wang and Wen’s (2002) case study, the word-based count was used to compare the results from the native Tagalog speakers with Wang and Wen’s (2002) native Chinese speakers. Chapter 5: Results For Tasks 1 and 2, the 16 think-aloud protocols revealed that no L1 usage occurred in the L2 composition process (see Table 6). English was used for the entirety of both protocols. Two students engaged in L1 use for L2 composition for Tasks 3 and 4 think-aloud protocols. Table (see Table 7). A breakdown of the results and an explanation of the L1/L2 usage occurs in the Discussion. 20 Table 6: Tasks 1 and 2: L1/L2 Usage in Think-Aloud Protocols Student Task 1 Task 2 L1 (number) L2 (number) L1 (%) L1 (number) L2 (number) L1 (%) PF1 0 167 0 0 197 0 PM2 0 223 0 0 246 0 PF3 0 469 0 0 206 0 PM4 0 93 0 0 129 0 PF5 0 162 0 0 163 0 PF6 0 226 0 0 207 0 PF7 0 180 0 0 229 0 PF8 0 75 0 0 130 0 CM1 0 144 0 0 246 0 CF2 0 127 0 0 110 0 CF3 0 159 0 0 202 0 CF4 0 179 0 0 269 0 CF5 0 271 0 0 152 0 CF6 0 158 0 0 174 0 CF7 0 515 0 0 1075 0 CF8 0 446 0 0 297 0 Average 0 225 0 0 252 0 21 Table 7: Tasks 3 and 4: L1/L2 Usage in Think-Aloud Protocols Student Task 3 Task 4 L1 (number) L2 (number) L1 (%) L1 (number) L2 (number) L1 (%) PF1 9 52 14 0 207 0 PM2 0 53 0 11 172 6 PF3 71 8 89 141 10 93 PM4 41 5 89 75 8 90 PF5 0 176 0 11 184 6 PF6 9 37 20 11 156 7 PF7 9 34 21 11 163 6 PF8 0 114 0 2 138 1 CM1 114 17 87 172 3 98 CF2 0 10 0 0 106 0 CF3 10 152 6 35 376 9 CF4 6 121 4 0 182 0 CF5 5 12 29 69 15 82 CF6 6 20 18 130 28 82 CF7 17 50 25 58 29 66 CF8 9 37 29 11 170 6 Average 19 56 27 46 122 35 22 Chapter 6: Discussion The results are discussed in chronological order, that is, the order presented in the introduction section of the thesis. 6.1 Based on a think-aloud protocol, how frequently do Tagalog ESL writers “think” in their L1? All 16 interviewees appear to have used no Tagalog in their thinking process for the two English writing prompts: Task 1 and Task 2. Of the 16 think-aloud protocols collected for the two L2 prompts in this study, the students used English for the entirety of the think-aloud. All the participants reported that daily, formal English lessons began early in their schooling. A key aspect of this early English education was that their written assignments throughout their subjects required English, not Tagalog or their regional variety. Therefore, monolingual writing was engrained at an early age, and they did not adopt an L1/L2 composing process, such as the one Wang and Wen (2002) proposed. In fact, students claimed that the idea of thinking in their L1 while writing in their L2 would likely hinder the quality of their text. The practice of thinking in one language and then translating it into another language for the written outcome appeared tedious and more importantly not feasible since Tagalog has a narrow vocabulary that adopts numerous words from English. However, there are hints that the students may have been thinking in their L1. The eight-second buffer period proved to be a limitation as this time interval did not sufficiently constrain the participants’ nonverbal thought processes. For instance, task-examination was not verbalized for many of the students’ think-aloud, since they comprehended the prompts within eight seconds. All students used English filler terms when pausing in composing, such as wait and hold on. The students may not have verbalized the entirety of their composing process, knowing 23 that they had eight-second periods where verbalization was not required. In these allowed eight seconds of silence, a few students - PF7, PF8, CF4, and CF7 - used phrases signaling that they might be thinking in their L1, such as: what do you call that? How can I say this? How do you call it? I can’t find the words and asking themselves if it's even a word when settling on an English term. In particular, during the debriefing interviews, PF8 admitted that although she wrote Task 3 and 4 in English, she would have preferred to respond in Tagalog but felt pressured to write in English since the study was conducted in English. Additionally, since she wrote the first two prompts in English, she thought it would be unprofessional to switch to Tagalog. However, she used one Tagalog word in Task 4, as follows (with the transcription conventions): Excerpt 3: PF8, Task 4 Think-Aloud Fragment I woke up and what’s only changed is that we have no electricity in the area because of some people who “who” have let me just put it in Visaya language tried to kawat or like steal our electricity, “kawat our electricity.” PF8 used the Tagalog/Visaya term kawat (steal) and clarified in the interview that it was due to being unable to recall the English translation in eight seconds. CF7 wrote Task 3 in English and engaged in L1 use in L2 composition. The following is her think-aloud (with the transcription conventions): Except 4: CF7, Task 3 Think-Aloud and Translation Sumulat ng mga bagay na gusto mog bilhin sa grocery. . . gusto mog bilhin sa grocery. Whole milk, uh sour cream, cilantro, indomie instant noodles. . . Ay na to, “indomie instant noodles. . . Whole milk, sour cream, cilantro”, ah fruits, pear, apples, banana, avocado. I forgot the green onion. What else? Seaweed snack, broccoli, no, no, no, [writes broccoli but deletes it] I already have broccoli. Um eggs, carrots uh cottage cheese, and lasagna noodles. ‘Write a list of groceries you would like to buy. . . groceries you would like to buy. Whole milk, uh sour cream, cilantro, indomie instant noodles. . . That’s it, indomie instant noodles. . . Whole milk, sour cream, cilantro, ah fruits, pear, apples, banana, avocado. I forgot the green onion. What else? Seaweed snack, broccoli, no, no, no, I already have broccoli. Um eggs, carrots, uh cottage cheese, and lasagna noodles.’ 24 The student uses the Tagalog phrase, ay na to (that’s it), when contemplating if indomie instant noodles was the correct item she had in mind. CF7 reported that she does not rely on Tagalog when writing in English, due to her education cementing a monolingual writing process. However, she often cognitively translates when speaking. She began Task 4 by verbalizing and then re-verbalizing a portion of the L1 prompt, hence the brief L1 usage later on. Although no other students verbalized any L1 use to generate their L2 compositions, these events suggest that a few students may have minimally relied on their L1. Some students reported that they speak and think in their L1 on a daily basis either exclusively or preferentially. Only PM2, CM1, CF2, CF6, and CF7 reported that they solely think in English. PM2 reported English as his preferred language for all purposes, since his parents used it as his household language and he attends an English-language-only private school. CM1, CF2, CF6, and CF7 mirrored the preference for English due to the perceived need to rapidly acclimate to English-speaking Canadian culture after migrating. All students reported that English is their preferred language for academic and personal writing, except for PF8, who prefers Tagalog for only personal writing, and CF3, who prefers it for both academic and personal writing. PF8 prefers Tagalog for personal writing on account of the freedom of expression it affords her. CF3 prefers Tagalog for all writing and speaking purposes as she is an older student pursuing a second bachelor’s degree in Canada who has been out of school for over a decade and is no longer immersed in the English environment of Philippine schooling. PF3, PM4, PF5, PF6, CF4, CF5, and CF7 reported their preferred language is context dependent and they will think monolingually in the language conducive to their environment. They consumed Western English media daily, such as music, books, or television shows. Philippines domestic media also produce a large amount of content in English in addition to 25 Tagalog or a regional variety. Even though they do not identify English as a household language, English is regarded as an unofficial household language since they regularly converse with relatives in English-speaking nations. Among the participants who used primarily Tagalog and their regional variety for speaking and thinking, they stated they do not intentionally engage with English unless it is for writing or an English discussion initiated by someone else. They do not feel proficient enough in English to adopt it for regular use, despite reporting native-like English writing patterns. This contrast between the speaking preference for Tagalog and regional dialects and the writing preference for English is a consequence of the common educational outcome in the Philippines, where English is regarded as the academic and professional standard while Tagalog and regional dialects are reserved for recreational/informal use (Lorente, 2013, p. 195-196). With all the participants reporting an advanced grasp of English, many found the question of whether or not they regarded themselves as a native speaker of English as a challenging part of the case study. The purpose of this inquiry derives from the pilot story where all the participants engaged in strict L1 composition and regarded themselves as native speakers of English (Bayless, 2022). Therefore, they engaged in a monolingual writing process despite acknowledging that English is technically their second language. The question of self-perceived native English speaker status was framed with the presumption that they learned English at a young age through the mode of instruction in their schooling, possible predominance of English in their household, and formal acceptance of English as an official language in the Philippines. For the four that regarded themselves as a native speaker, only CF2 firmly answered yes. For example, PF1 stated: I guess so. I guess if you can say that I use English all the time, if that's the way you see it as native, I guess I am a native speaker of English. 26 PF3 reported the following: In a way I guess so. It's because we mostly use it everywhere. When we go to the mall, usually people speak to us in English or when we go to school when I communicate with my professors they all speak to us in English. Yeah, I guess you could say that. CF6 was hesitant with her answer, as she associated native speakers with Western nations. She specifically stated the following when questioned: I guess so, because I feel like I am proficiently fluent. That's why I would regard myself as native, but I don't know if that's correct. Does native, can native, apply to me if I’m not, like, Western? I don’t know if that’s correct. The remaining students did not regard themselves as native speakers since English is not their primary language. They are sequential bilinguals, since Tagalog or a regional variety was learned as their native language, while English was distinctly acquired as an additional language once formal schooling began 6.2 In which contexts do L1 Tagalog speakers use their L1 when composing L2 texts? Several students claimed to use their L1 for more challenging writing tasks, such as university research papers. Task 1 and Task 2 that derived from Wang & Wen (2002) were reported as too elementary for both student groups that had written in English throughout their education. The only times in their elementary and tertiary education that they were tasked to write in Tagalog was in their Tagalog language class and social studies, which is also reflected in university with an additional requirement to also write in Tagalog for Rizal, a general education university course on the life and works of the Philippine national hero, Jose Rizal. PM4 reported that he translates writing prompts for university research papers into his preferred language, which helps him better comprehend and clarify the assignment. However, once the writing plans 27 are solidified, strict L2 adherence occurs since the early English education created no barriers in the L2 composition process. It is easier for him to compose with one language rather than trying to work through two. PF6, PF7, and PF8 reported the same process, namely, translation occurs for advance university writing prompts for the sake of assignment comprehension, but writing remains a monolingual process with L2 adherence since their education allows them to write in English without linguistic barriers. None of the Philippine-Canadian students reported L1 use in L2 composition. 6.3 Does the amount of L1 use vary by writing task? For the Tagalog prompts, Tasks 3 and 4, PF3, PM4, CM1, CF5, and CF6 composed their responses almost exclusively in Tagalog. Although all of them reported that they preferred to write in English during debriefing interviews, PM4, CM1, CF5, CF6 responded in Tagalog since the prompts were written in Tagalog, even though they would normally compose a grocery list in English or engage in diary-like writing with English, while PF3 wrote in Tagalog since she did not inquire about the language desired. CF7, despite using English for personal writing, wrote Task 4 in Tagalog as she stated she missed writing in Tagalog and wanted to take advantage of the opportunity. As illustrated above, PF8 wrote Task 4 in English and CF7 wrote Task 3 in English, and they minimally used their L1 to idea-generate for text-generation in the L2. In Table 7 it may initially appear as if quite a few of the other participants may have used a number of words of their L1 for L2 composition for Task 3 and 4 (ranging from 2 to 35 words). However, their L1 usage was restricted to them reading aloud the prompt before choosing to respond in English, minus the students listed above who wrote the Task 3 and 4 in Tagalog. Therefore, PF8 and CF7 were the only students to use their L1 for text-generation in their L2, but in very limited ways. 28 A more striking writing pattern occurred for some of the responses to the Tagalog writing prompts: L2 use in L1 composition. With respect to writing, L2 use in L1 composition is difficult to measure for the Tagalog prompts, primarily because Tagalog contains a noticeable number of loanwords from English. This data initially appears misleading without further examination. For example, both Tagalog writing prompts contain an English word. It is expected that a writing sample of Tagalog would contain English words. Additionally, Table 7 may appear as if some of the listed Tagalog writers wrote in English, due to the amount of their L1 think-aloud. Writing in the L1 tasks is distinguished by the language used for text-generation versus the think-aloud. PF3 wrote Tasks 3 and 4 in Tagalog. She, unlike most participants, did not ask if she was required to write in Tagalog. Upon receiving Task 3 she stated this one is in Filipino and immediately jumped into text-generation. The following is her L1 response to Task 3 and 4: Excerpt 5: PF3, Task 3 Writing Sample and Translation Sa grocery, ang una kong binibili ay pagkain. Kasali na rito ang mga sari-saring gulay at karne. Pangalawa, gusto kong bumili ng mga kagamitang pangbahay tulad ng mga tisyu, syampu, at sabon. Pangatlo at huli sa lahat, gusto kong bumili ng isang galon na ice cream upang maiwasan ang mainit na panahon dito sa Pilipinas. ‘At the grocery store, the first thing I buy is food. This includes a variety of vegetables and meat. Second, I want to buy household items like tissues, shampoo, and soap. Third and the last, I want to buy a gallon of ice cream to avoid the hot weather here in the Philippines.’ Excerpt 6: PF3, Task 4 Writing Sample and Translation Kaninang umaga, ang aking selpon ay nag-alarm. Ibig sabihin nito, kailangan ko nang bumangon at kumain ng almusal. Ngunit, dahil sa pagod at antok, hindi ko ito pinansin at natulog ulit. Dahil dito, malapit akong ma-late sa trabaho kaya sa loob ng isang oras, tinapos ko ang pagkain, pagligo, pagbihis, at pag lagay ng make-up na hindi ko karaniwang natatapos ng madali. Pagkatapos nito ay dinala ako ng aking ama sa trabahuan at nakapasok ako sa tamang oras. Umupo lang ako sa aking lamesa at nag-antay na bibigyan ng mga gawain sa aking mga katrabaho. Subalit, wala silang pinaggawa sa akin kaya binigyan ako ng offer sa aking kaibigan na si Juvie na sumali sa isang research kaya ako nagsusulat ngayon at nakilala si Ms. Kate. 29 ‘This morning I heard my cell phone alarm. That means it’s time to get up and eat breakfast. But I was very tired and I ignored the alarm and went back to sleep. For that reason I’m likely late to work. I got ready for work within an hour, ate breakfast, took a shower, got dressed, and did my makeup. Then my father took me to work and I arrived on time. I was sitting at my desk waiting for my co-workers to give me something to do, but they didn’t give me anything to do. Instead, my friend Juvie offered me to join in a research study so that's why I’m writing and Ms. Kate was introduced to me.’ PH3 clarified during the debriefing interview that she was using a translator to compose her Tagalog responses, since English is her primary language and she lacked the Tagalog vocabulary to sufficiently respond. This is why she italicized the English words she used. However, these terms were used as there is not a Tagalog equivalent available. For instance, alarm clocks are a modern technology, and modern words tend to be adopted rather than formed from a Tagalog term. Therefore, using the Tagalog word for alarm (alarma) would not communicate the same message, as alarma means ‘feeling fear’ and there are no Tagalog words for alarm clock. For the remaining terms, the English word has overtaken the Tagalog term. Using an archaic Tagalog equivalent would alter the intended modern message or read like “thesaurus writing” since the words are no longer in contemporary Tagalog. There are several words in her responses that she did not italicize: ice cream, research, and the abbreviated miss. These are loanwords that have been fully assimilated into Tagalog as standard terms, which is why she did not indicate them as English terms. CF7 also wrote Task 4 in Tagalog with a number of loanwords: Excerpt 7: CF7: Task 4 Writing Sample and Translation Gumising ako ng 9:00 ng umaga. Tinulungan ko si Marvin gumawa ng breakfast. Nagluto kami ng omelette with spinach, bacon and cheese. Kumain kami ng breakfast habang nakikinig sa Christmas songs. Pagkatapos kumain, nag-umpisa na akong mag-edit ng resume at cover letter para sa job posting na nakita ko sa Indeed. ‘I woke up at 9:00 in the morning. I helped Marvin make breakfast. We cooked an omelet with spinach, bacon, and cheese. We ate breakfast while listening to Christmas songs. 30 After eating, I started to edit the resume and cover letter for the job posting that I saw at Indeed.’ The English loanwords here are breakfast, omelette, with, spinach, bacon, and, cheese, Christmas, songs, edit, and the phrases cover letter and job posting. It is critical to highlight that this does not constitute L2 use in the L1 composition process. Modern Tagalog has many English loanwords that have supplemented outdated Tagalog terms. This is separate from the practice of actively thinking in English to compose a Tagalog writing sample. However, three students, CM1, CF5, and CF6, engaged in L2 use for L1 composition for Tasks 3 and 4. A key factor for their L2 use in L1 composition is that their L2 surpassed their L1 development. Therefore, their L1 is their non-dominant language. Their L2 usage was minimal in their think-aloud. However, their L1 usage aligns with Wang and Wen’s (2002) findings where the non-dominant language is tied with idea-generating and processing-controlling. The excerpts of their portions of L2 use in L1 composition with the transcription conventions are as follows. Except 8: CM1 Task 3 Think-Aloud Fragment and Writing sample and Translation Bibili din ako ng lutuan gaya ng karahay, at sandok dahil ayokong humiram sa mga kamasa sa bahay dahil hindi nila hinihugasan ng. . . very good “ng” maayos ang kanilang mga kagamitan. ‘I will also buy cooking materials like a frying pan and cooking utensils, because I don’t want to borrow anything from my roommates because they don’t wash their household items properly.’ Bibili ako ng mga karne. Unang una karne ng manok dahil mahilig ako ssa chicken curry at adobo. Bibili din ako ng toyo, suka, at mga gulay kagaya ng kamatis, luya, sitaw, bataw, at patani. Bibili din ako ng sorbetes at chokolate pang meryenda. Bibili din ako ng lutuan gaya ng karahay, at sandok dahil ayokong humiram sa mga kasama sa bahay dahil hindi nila hinuhugasan ng maayos ang kanilang mga kagamitan. Bibili din ako ng kape, asukal, at gatas para inumin sa umaga bago pumasok sa paaralan. Sisiguraduhin ko na dala ko ang aking pera at ang aking “walmart” bag para may lalagyan ako ng aking mga binili. 31 ‘I will buy some meat. The first one is chicken because I am fond of chicken curry and adobo. I will also buy so sauce, vinegar, vegetables such as tomatoes, ginger, string beans, lima beans, and kidney beans. I will also buy ice cream and chocolate for a snack. I will also buy cooking materials like a frying pan and cooking utensils, because I don’t want to borrow anything from my roommates because they don’t wash their household items properly. I will also buy coffee, sugar, and milk to drink in the morning before I got school. I will make sure that I bring my money and my “Walmart” bad to put in the things that I bought.’ CM1 verbalized very good before composing the Tagalog equivalent, maayos – in the final translation maayos would be properly. During the debriefing interview CM1 was perplexed with his L2 use for L1 idea-generating. He has no barriers composing in his L1; however, he attributed his L2 use in L1 composition to migration. English is now his language of thought, and the need to write in Tagalog is restricted. Consequently, his pause to collect his thoughts occurred in his preferred language, English. CF5 also used English for idea generating: Excerpt 8: CF5, Task 4 Think-Aloud Fragment, Writing Sample, and Translations Kumain ako ng overnight oats. Umalis ako ng bahay bandang . . . I believe nang 6:15am. I ate overnight oats. I left my house around 6:15am. Kaninang alas-singko ng umaga, nagising ako ng aking alarm clock. Tumayo ako at nagsipilyo. Pagkatapos ay gumawa ako ng isang tasa ng kape at naghain ng almusal. Kumain ako ng overnight oats. Umalis ako ng bahay nang bandang 6:15AM. Naglakad lang ako papuntang trabaho at gumawa kami ng maraming-maraming sushi. Natapos ang trabaho pagkalipag ng pitong oras. Kumain ako kaagad ng pananghalian pagkauwi at gumawa ng mga mga takdang-aralin, I woke up at around 5am. I got up then made a cup of coffee and had breakfast. I ate overnight oats. I left my house around i believe around 6:15am. I walked to work. At work we made plenty of sushi. It took us seven hours to finish working. When I came home I had lunch then did my homework. For Task 4, CF5 discussed the time she left her house and used English to contemplate the time of her departure. In the debriefing interview she clarified that she regularly relies on English to idea-generate in Tagalog. Her Tagalog usage was limited to speaking. When she needs to compose in Tagalog, such as when messaging relatives abroad, she thinks in English since it is 32 her preferred language for composition. This was her sole L2 use in L1 composition for this writing task, in addition to her verbalizing I don’t know what alarm clock is in Tagalog before using the loanword of alarm clock. However, she demonstrated a slight instance of her L2 thinking process for L1 composition in Task 3: Excerpt 10: CF5, Task 3 Think-Aloud, Writing Sample and Translation What did I buy last time? Itlog, kape, manok, uh, keso, gatas, yeah that’s it. That’s it. Itlog, kape, manok, keso, gatas. ‘Eggs, coffee, chicken, cheese, milk.’ As seen, English is used for idea-generating and Tagalog is solely reduced to text-generation. CF6, unlike CM1 and CF5, used her L2 for process-controlling. The following is her sample from Task 3. Excerpt 11: CF6, Task 3 Think-Aloud, Writing Sample, and Translation Biskwit, chicheria, clover, gatas. . . “gatas”, orange juice, kimchi, yogurt, oh not yogurt, [deletes yogurt from the list] yakult, napkin, ramen, bigas, jam, nutella, strawberry, “jam nutella,” yep I think that’s it. Biskwit, chicheria, clover, gatas, orange juice, kimchi, yakult, napkin, ramen, bigas, strawberry jam, nutella. ‘Biscuits, snacks, clover [a brand of Philippine chips], milk, orange juice, kimchi, yakult, napkin, ramen, rice, jam, nutella, strawberry.’ CF6 began her list in Tagalog but used English to process-control when she realized she listed the incorrect item. CF6 stated that L2 use in L1 composition is not an uncommon occurrence for her. English is her language of thought, so she tends to idea-generate in English. The inclusion of English items in her Tagalog list is due to a lack of a Tagalog equivalent for the grocery item or absence of a Tagalog term for foreign groceries or brands. 33 For the remaining students that wrote Task 3 and 4 in English, PM2 reported that he engages in L2 use in L1 composition through translation. PM2 stated that he finds writing in Tagalog difficult since he thinks in English. When he composes in Tagalog, he idea-generates in English before translating to Tagalog, since he does not possess the vocabulary needed to express his message. CF3 stated that she would likely have to rely on English to compose in Tagalog, as she has grown accustomed to English since migrating to Canada and her grasp of Tagalog is now reduced to speaking. However, she could not confirm this as she stated she could not recall the last time she wrote in Tagalog. A key factor of this L2 use in L1 composition is that the student’s L2 has surpassed their L1 development. Therefore, their L1 is their non-dominant language. 6.4 Does the amount of L1 use vary with the writer’s L2 development? In other words, does L1 use necessarily decrease with advanced proficiency in English? Although the results of this study do not point conclusively to L1 use in L2 composition, they suggest that L1 reliance decreases as English proficiency increases. For instance, PM4, PF6, PF7, and PF8 still rely on their translation for task-examination. However, none of the Philippine-Canadian university students - who are now in English-only academic environments - engage in any L1 usage. In fact, for some of them their L2 surpasses their L1 proficiency, hence the L2 use in L1 composition. Students were polled on their attendance of public versus private education to inquire if background education influenced their writing patterns. This study did not find evidence to support the contention that public or private education was a defining factor for the students’ current L2 writing. For example, PM4, PF6 and PF7 for some time attended private school, yet they still rely on their L1. Additionally, PF7 also reported that her public school 34 operated in English, unlike PF8’s public school that utilized Tagalog and the regional variety of Visaya. Certain limitations of this study may have caused the low L1 usage, notably, the social factors of this study. The Philippines has a longstanding cultural tradition of uprooting one’s self and loved ones and migrating to higher income nations, originating from colonialist ideas that life in a wealthy nation is preferable to life in the Philippines (Tungohan, 2017, p. 244). This has arguably led to the United States becoming the preferred destination, in light of American colonization (Canilao, 2021, p. 294), with Canada following closely behind. This cultural favoritism of the English language and Western influences have birthed the modern Philippine phenomena: conyo. Conyo refers to a mixed-race Filipino, often mestizo (ethnically half Philippine and half Caucasian), who is English speaking, wealthy and associated with private schooling (Reyes, 2017, p. 213). The assumption is that mestizo Filipinos are members of the higher social classes and are not Tagalog speakers. This creates the social trend of non-conyo Filipinos striving to mimic the infamously poor Tagalog of true conyos (Appendix C) in an attempt to identify with this elite class (p. 215). Due to perceived social pressures, Conyoism was a recurring deterrent for honest discussion for the Philippine participants, as they noted that I was mestizo. Prior to beginning the writing prompts, 15 out of the 16 students asked if I spoke Tagalog. PF1 was the exception, although she asked if I understood Tagalog. As mentioned in the methodology, the Philippine university students were secured in a third-party manner where PH1 agreed to participate, and the remaining participants were reached out to by her and secured at her university. This third-party recruitment initially informed participants that I was a Philippine mestizo, an American citizen, and that the study was occurring for a Canadian university. PF1 reported that potentially 35 interested students backed out of the case study, as they felt intimidated by a conyo researcher, and my usage of Standard American English, and felt that there was pressure to perform exceptional English with the study occurring for a Canadian university. This notion of Western intimidation was also reported as the reason for some students altering their participation in the study, such as using a nickname or keeping their camera off during the Zoom session. Several of them also inquired if I knew Visaya, and if they were therefore free to use their regional variety during the think-aloud. The students were assured that they were free to use Visaya, as I understand it, due to it being my family’s residence. However, none of them engaged with Visaya. To build rapport with the students, I shared the two schools I previously attended in the Philippines. Those that were familiar with the schools asked questions related to conyoism, ranging from why a conyo would attend a school that is not affiliated with enrolling a conyo population to how attendance was possible at a Tagalog dominant school. Overall, they did not seem confident that I was competent in Tagalog. If the study had occurred in the Philippines with a non-mestizo researcher, that student group might have used their L1 more freely, as they would have been immersed in their L1. Of note, several students reported that the language they favor is contingent upon their environment. PF5 and PF6 regarded conyo as a preferred language during debriefing interviews, suggesting they were attempting to conform to this ideology of what constitutes an elite Filipino. Another limitation was that I conversed solely in English with the students. During the think-aloud, a few students used signal phrases indicating that they may have used the eight second buffer period to briefly think in their L1. However, my usage of English may have pressured them to not reveal it. It is also noticeable in Table 6 that several students did not reach the prescribed 200-word count for Task 1 and Task 2. L1 usage is predominantly tied to idea- 36 generation (e.g., Qi, 1998; Van Weijen et al., 2009; Wang, 2003), and if a minimum word count was mandated rather than allowing participants to end their compositions once they ran out of ideas, the results may have differed by encouraging further idea development. L1 usage was likely lost in this study without sufficient idea-generation. The largest limitation is that several students’ fluency in English surpassed their Tagalog fluency, making it difficult to assess if L1 usage remained pertinent in their L2 writing. 6.5 Discussion The tentative findings of this study do not support the contention that L2 composition is a bilingual process, as has been suggested by prior studies (e.g., Cummings, 1990; Uzawa, 1996; Qi, 1998; Van Weijen et al., 2009). Notably, this study does not align with Wang and Wen’s (2002) sample of 16 Chinese university students, who all relied on their L1 for L2 composition. English education is likely a key contributor for these results. Wang and Wen (2002) specified that their students’ English education averaged eight years with four hours of English courses a week (p. 228). In contrast, 14 of the 16 native Tagalog speakers of this study attended English-speaking institutions for their elementary and tertiary education. It is critical to reiterate several aspects of Philippine education that their institutions are bound by. As noted above, Act No. 74 of the Philippine Commission federally enacted English as the sole medium of instruction throughout all schools in 1925 (Casambra, 1982, p. 9). This act remains active, as well as its guideline that all students are to be treated as native speakers of English (Tupas, 2004, p. 9). However, the rules of instruction are often broken due to teacher or student preference, resulting in the growth of Tagalog or regional varieties for the mode of instruction in public schools. Regardless, it is important to reinforce that K to 12 institutions, including those that operate in 37 Tagalog or a regional variety, are bound by the Language Arts of Multiliteracies Curriculum (LAMC). LAMC requires students to possess grammatical linguistic competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and strategic competence to use language negotiation skills at their grade level (Department of Education, 2016, p. 6). Another key factor is that American textbooks are standard in the Philippines, including those that operate in Tagalog or a regional variety (Martin, 2014, p. 478). These textbooks provide the Tagalog speakers with supplemental English education, in addition to the English language goals established by Act No. 74, LAMC, and their institutions’ usage of English as the medium of instruction. These aspects effectively provided the students with eight hours of English education each school day, with the Philippine school system specifically implementing native-like English goals in their curriculum. This greatly contrasts with Wang and Wen’s (2002) Chinese students who received four hours of English education a week. The disparity in English education for the Tagalog speakers compared to Wang and Wen’s (2002) Chinese speakers mirrors other recent L1/L2 university studies. Van Weijen et al.’s (2009) think-aloud study – which drew upon Wang and Wen’s (2002) research – gathered 20 L1 Dutch students. All of them overwhelmingly used their L1 in the L2 composition process, with L1 usage averaging 45% for idea-generation and 43% for process-controlling (p. 242-243). There is little context provided about the students, except that they are all first-year BA English majors. The authors do not specify the prior English education of the participants, but contextually the Netherlands does not have English as an official national language. It is likely that the Dutch participants would not have received as rigorous of a K-12 English education in English as the Tagalog speakers. Similarly, Fujii (2012) think-aloud analyzed L1 Japanese speakers, through a study of 128 university students, who “have a solid foundation in 38 mathematics and science, but their English proficiency is low” (p. 35). The students were free to use translators or dictionaries for the two writing tasks, but 94% of the students cognitively idea-generated in Japanese before text-generating in English (p. 36). The cognitive L1 composition is a key factor to highlight, as research confirms that writers still cognitively rely on their L1, even when instructed to solely compose in their L2 (Kobayashi and Rinnert, 1992, p. 200). The Philippines’ emphasis on English education partly explains why the Tagalog students minimally engaged in L1 use for L2 composition, and thereby produced contrasting results to previous L1/L2 studies that confirmed a bilingual writing process. However, language ideology noticeably influenced the Tagalog students’ writing behaviors – particularly the Philippine university students – as indicated by their interview responses about using their L1 for translation of writing prompts, PF8’s open conformity to using English, PF5 and PF6’s participation in the conyo phenomenon, and PF1 reporting that interested students dropped out of the study due to Western intimidation. It is common for teachers in the Philippines to praise students whose English most closely approximates Standard American English and critique those who retain a Philippine accent (Catama et al., 2018, p. 52). The students might have felt the pressure to stick with Standard American English given that this is the standard in Philippine classrooms. Therefore, the participants’ reluctance to admit use of their L1 might have been influenced by an overt conformity to English and the Philippine social hierarchy favoring English and Western influences. PM4, PF6, PF7, and PF8 stated that they rely on their L1 for translation of task-examination. These findings contrast with prior studies demonstrating that translation is favored by those with low L2 proficiency and is utilized for idea-generating, idea-structuring, and word choice (Kobayashi & Rinnert, 1992; Uzawa, 1996). However, the advanced L2 Tagalog speakers 39 use it to comprehend advanced writing prompts. More importantly, research shows that skilled L2 writers can create awkward essay structures when they utilize translation (Kobayashi and Rinnert, 1992). Yet, this did not seem to be the case for the advanced L2 Tagalog speakers, even though a few of them still rely on translation at their advanced level. This can likely be credited to translation being reserved for task-examination and not reaching text-generation composition activities. For the two students that briefly engaged in L1 use to idea-generate in L2 composition, PF8 and CF4, their L1 usage is consistent with previous L1/L2 studies. PF8 used her L1 in Task 4 as she could not recall an English term within the eight second buffer period. This aligns with findings of L1 usage occurring for resolving linguistic barriers, such as vocabulary and phraseology (e.g., Cumming, 1989; Silva, 1992; Wang 2003). CF4 switched to her L1 in Task 3 when contemplating if she wrote the correct item on her list, which aligns with research confirming that writers revert to their L1 to engage in problem solving skills (e.g., Cumming 1989, 1990). However, with most of the Tagalog students engaging in monolingual composing, and the two students’ L1 use in L2 composition remaining miniscule, the Tagalog students did not adopt an L2 composition process. Chapter 7: Conclusion Based on the small sample studied in this thesis and their conscious reports through the think-aloud protocol, this study suggests that advanced simultaneous bilinguals do not or minimally engage in L2 use for L2 composition. The Philippines enforces Standard American English as a fundamental aspect of their education system. This linguistic edge may lead to some students to regard English as “second mother tongue,” with, in some cases, their proficiency in 40 English surpassing Tagalog. Therefore, L2 use in L1 composition can occur. This study highlights that future L1/L2 studies of native Tagalog speakers would benefit from studying student writers at a developmental level, such as high school students, as the Philippine curriculum aims to solidify the L2 composition process by university. It is difficult to gauge if L1 use persists and proves useful when the students possess native-like fluency for L2 writing. Language ideology in the Philippines is heavily tied to social class and linguistic factors. Therefore, studying high school students in the Philippines would likely produce different linguistic results since the usage of Tagalog for the mode of instruction in many schools today and the influences from a Western setting would be omitted from the impressionable students. 41 References Bautista, M. C., Bernardo, A. B. I., & Ocampo, D. (2010). When reforms don’t transform: Reflections on institutional reforms in the department of education (HDN Research Monograph). Basturkmen, H. & Wette, R. (2016). English for academic purposes. In G. Hall (Ed), The Routledge handbook of English language teaching (1st ed., pp. 164-176). Routledge. Bayless, Kate. (2022). L1 Use in the L2 Composing Process: An Empirical Study of Philippine ESL Writers. Ms. Theory and Research in Teaching Second Language Writing, LLED574, Kathryn Accurso, April 21, 2022. Board of Education Survey. (1925). A Survey of the Education System of the Philippine Islands. Canilao, M. L. E. N. (2020, May 3). Foregrounding Philippine Englishes in fostering linguistic equality. Asian Englishes. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2020.1715575 Casambra, N. J. (1982). The impact of American education in the Philippines. Educational Perspectives, 21(4), 7-14. Catama, B. V., Wacdagan, B. D., Tigbao, J. T., Ventura, G. B., & Viernes, M. Q. (2018). Challenges in maintaining a heritage language. International Language of Research Studies in Language Learning, 7(1), 39–61. Chamcharatsi, B. (2021). Inviting multilingual students to use their first language (L1) in peer activities. In K. M. Losey (Ed.), Plurilingual pedagogies for multilingual writing classrooms, (1st ed., pp. 31-44). Routledge. Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication, 7(4), 482-511. 42 Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second-language proficiency. Language Learning, 39(1), 81-135. Department of Education. (2016). K to 12 Curriculum Guide: English. https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/English-CG.pdf Department of Education. (2009, July 14). Institutionalizing Mother-Tongue Based Multilingual Education. https://www.deped.gov.ph/2009/07/14/do-74-s-2009-institutionalizing-mother-tongue-based-multilingual-education-mle/ Ellis, R. (2017). Task-based language teaching. In S. Lowen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (1st ed., pp. 108-125). Routledge. Flege, J. E. (1995). Second-language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issue in cross-language research (pp. 229-273). York Press. Flege, J. E. & MacKay, I. (2004). Perceiving vowels in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 1-34. Friginal, E. (2011). The modal verb would in spoken and written Philippine English. In M. Lourdes S. Bautista (Ed.), Studies of Philippine English: Exploring the Philippine component of the International Corpus of English, 51-74. Anvil. Fujii, Y. (2012). The effects of L1 on L2 writing and translation: A case study. Journal of Modern Languages, 22(1), 32-44. Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism. Harvard University Press. Hall, C. J. (2002). The automatic cognate form assumption: Evidence for the parasitic model of vocabulary development. IRAL, 40, 69-87. 43 Hemchua, S. & Schmitt, N. (2006). An analysis of lexical errors in the English compositions of Thai learners. Prospect, 21(3), 3-25. Kachru, B. (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures. University of Illinois Press. Kirsner, K., Smith, M. C., Lockhart, R., & Jain, M. (1984). The bilingual lexicon: Language specific units in an integrated network. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23(4), 519-539. Kobayashi, H. & Rinnert, C. (1992). Effects of first language on second language writing: Translation versus direct composition. Language Learning, 42(2), 183-209. Leow, R. (1997). The effects of input enhancement and text length on adult L2 readers’ comprehension and intake in second language acquisition. Applied Language Learning, 8(2), 151-182. Lorenta, B. (2013). The grip of English and Philippine language policy. In L. Wee, R. B. H. Goh, & L. Lim (Eds.), The politics of English: South Asia, Southeast Asia and the Asia Pacific (pp. 187-203). John Benjamins Martin, I. (2014). English language teaching in the Philippines. World Englishes, 33(4), 472-485. Martin, I. (2002). Pedagogy: Teaching practices of American colonial educators in the Philippines. Kritika Kultura, 1(1), 90-100. Qi, D. (1998). An inquiry into language-switching in second language composing processes. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(3), 413-435. Raimes, A. (1987). Language proficiency, writing ability, and composing strategies: A study of ESL college student writers. Language Learning, 37(3), 439-468. Reyes, A. (2017). Inventing postcolonial elites: Race, language, mix, excess. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 27(2), 210-231. 44 Rosa, E. & Leow, R. P. (2004) Awareness, different learning conditions, and second language development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25(2), 262-292. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158. Schmidt, R. & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversations in second language learning (pp. 237-322). Newbury House. Schwartz, B. D. & Sprouse, R. A. (2000). When syntactic theories evolve: Consequences for L2 acquisition research. In J. Archibald (Ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 156-186). Blackwell. Silva, T. (1992). L1 vs L2 writing: ESL graduate students’ perceptions. TESL Canada Journal, 10(1), 27-47. Stratton, J. (2022). Intentional and incidental vocabulary learning: The role of historical linguistics in the second language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 106(4), 837-857. Temelkova, K. (2022, April 20). Languages of the Philippines: Everything you need to know. Milestone Localization. https://www.milestoneloc.com/languages-of-the-philippines/ Tupas, R. (2004). History, language planners, and strategies of forgetting: The problem of consciousness in the Philippines. Language Problems & Language Planning, 27(1), 1-25. Tungohan, E. (2017). Temporary foreign workers in Canada: Reconstructing ‘belong’ and remaking ‘citizenship.’ Social & Legal Studies, 27(2), 236-252. Uzawa, K. (1996). Second language learners’ processes of L1 writing, L2 writing, and translation from L1 into L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(3), 271-294. 45 Van Weigen, D., Van den Bergh, H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Sanders, T. (2009). L1 use during L2 writing: an empirical study of a complex phenomenon. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 235-250. Wang, L. (2003). Switching to first language among writers with differing second-language proficiency. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(4), 347-375. Wang, W., & Wen, Q. (2002). L1 use in the L2 composing process: An exploratory study of 16 Chinese EFL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(3), 225-246. Whalen, K., & Menard, N. (1995). L1 and L2 writers’ strategic and linguistic knowledge: A model of multiple-level discourse processing. Language Learning, 45(3), 381-418. 46 Appendix A: Debriefing interview questions: Philippine university students a. What age were you formally introduced to English? b. Is English your second or third language? c. Did you attend public or private school growing up? i. What language was used as the mode of instruction at your school? ii. Did you have access to supplemental English language resources at your school, such as summer programs focused on creative writing or English tutoring? iii. What year in school did you begin formal English classes? iv. What was your education like regarding English composition? d. What language/s were used in your household growing up? i. Did you have access to supplemental English exposure at home, such as music, TV shows, movies, or relatives abroad that would communicate to you in English? e. What language does your university operate in? f. Do you find it easier to write in English depending on the genre? g. Do you prefer to write in English or Tagalog? h. Do you regard yourself as a native speaker of English? i. Why? i. What language do you think in? Appendix B: Debriefing interview question: Philippine-Canadian international students a. What age were you formally introduced to English? b. Is English your second or third language? c. Did you attend public or private school growing up? i. What language was used as the mode of instruction at your school? ii. Did you have access to supplemental English language resources at your school, such as summer programs focused on creative writing or English tutoring? iii. What year in school did you begin formal English classes? iv. What was your education like regarding English composition? d. What language/s were used in your household growing up? i. Did you have access to supplemental English exposure at home, such as music, TV shows, movies, or relatives abroad that would communicate to you in English? e. When did you start university in Canada? f. Do you find it easier to write in English depending on the genre? g. Do you prefer to write in English or Tagalog? h. Has living in Canada altered your language preferences? i. Do you regard yourself as a native speaker of English? i. Why? j. What language do you think in? Appendix C: Example of conyospeak with English translations (Reyes, 2017, p. 222). 47 Figure 3: Ten Conyomandments 1. Thou shall make use “make + verb.” 1. Let’s make enter now to our class! 2. Wait! I’m making eating now! 3. Come on now, we can’t make wait anymore! It’s in Andrew, you know? 2. Thou shall make clutter “well/right(doesn’t always translate)” right” and “eh” in your sentence. 1. I don’t like to make walk in the flood, right? Eh, it’s like, so eew, right? 2. What, stop being dramatic, noh? 3. Eh, as if you want to also, right? 3. When making describe a whatever, always say “It’s SO adjective!” 1. It’s so big, you know, and so hot! 2. I know, right? So delicious, eh! 3. You’re making me envious. . . I’ll make buy my own burger now. 4. When you’re a man, make like punctuation “dude,” dude” or “dude.” 1. Dude, ENGANAL is so hard, dude. 2. I know, dude, I got failed in quiz one, eh. 5. Thou shall, you know? I know, right! 1. My bag is so heavy today, you know? 2. I know, right! We have to make carry because the jumbo physics book, eh! 6. Make use of the plural of nouns like in English or Spanish. 1. I have so many pimples, oh! 7. Like, when you can make so, always use like. Like, I know right? 1. Like, it’s so hot now! 2. Yah! The aircon, it’s, like broken! 48 8. Make yourself feel so good by translating the last word of your sentence, you know, sentence? 1. It’s annoying in the LRT! 2. How plenty of people, you know, people? 3. It’s so tight. 9. Make use of plenty of abbreviations, you know, abbreviated? 1. Like, OMG! It’s, like, a lot of traffic in the LRT! 2. I know, right? It’s so kaka! 3. Kaka? 4. Annoying! 10. Make use the most artistic voice and pronunciation you have for full effect! 1. I’m, like, making class at Ateneo (Ateneo de Manila University) 2. Me, I’m from Le Salle! (De La Salle University) Appendix D: PM2’s Writing sample and coded think-aloud protocols of the Four Writing Tasks Task 1: Write a story of about 200 words based on the following pictures: Writing sample: This is a story of a sick boy in a hospital. The doctor is going to check on the boy patient and is about to interview him about his disease. After the interview the doctor gave him something to fill his stomach cause that’s important for the patient. Then later at night on the same day the doctor went into his room to read him of his status on how long he will be in the hospital and what’s his status on his sickness. After a few tests on the subject the doctor leaves the patient to recover and to make him feel better. A few days past when the doctor is 49 about to check on the patient, the boy suddenly feels rejuvenated and is feeling so well that he is jumping up and down the bed. Then when the doctor realized that the kid/patient is already cured and is healthy enough to be removed from the hospital he finally said goodbye to the patient and let him leave the hospital. Coded think-aloud protocol: ‘This “this” is a story of a sick boy in a hospital hospital. The doctor” (Example 6) “oh wait wait sorry someone is calling me.okay okay sorry someone called. (Example 7) The doctor” is going “is going” to check on the boy patient to interview him about his disease. After the interview the doctor gave him “gave him” something to fill his stomach cause that’s important for the patient. Then later at night on the same day the doctor went into his room to read him of his status on how long he will be in the hospital and what’s “the what’s” his status on his sickness “I think. After that” [writes “after that” but deletes immediately] “after” a few tests on the subject the doctor leaves the patient to recover “to recover” and to make him feel better. A few days past “the” [writes “the” but deletes immediately] when the doctor is about to check on the patient the boy suddenly feels rejuvenated. “Rejuvenated”. And is feeling so well that, “rejuvenated,” [fixes spelling of “rejuvenated”] so well that he is jumping up and down the bed. “After the doctor” [writes this phrase but deletes immediately] then when the doctor realized that the kid slash patient is already cured and is healthy enough for “enough” to be “oh what’s the word? to be to be” removed from the hospital he finally said goodbye to the patient and let him leave the hospital. (Example 6) “How many words is that?”’ (Example 8) Task 2: Nowadays mobile phones are becoming more and more popular in our life. Some people think they bring us much convenience while others argue they make more trouble. Which view do you agree with? Use your own ideas, knowledge or experience to generate support for your argument. (200 words) Writing sample: Mobile phones are the future of our society and will still be the way of living even in many years to come, but some may think that mobile phones are trouble to others because of what the use the phones with. Younger and younger people are using phones as a access to social media and internet. They think of it as a nuisance because young people then to use it as an access to mobile games and random insignificant stuff. That is why people find mobile phones a nuisance. To me mobile phones are a great source of information and a tool that is used for convenience. You can literally do anything with your phone. You can buy stuff, work, pay, play, and many more. The use of mobile phones or smart phones is a great discovery for us and we should be grateful about it. “Nowadays mobile phones are becoming more and more popular in our life. Some people think they bring us much convenience while other argue they make more trouble. Which view do you agree with? Use your own ideas, knowledge or experience to generate support for your argument. (Example 1) Um, okay, let me think. . . which convenience while other argue they make more trouble. Um, okay”. (Example 2) Mobile phones are the future of our society and will “be the. . . and will be the” . . . [erases be the] “and will” still be the way of living even in many years to come, but some may think that mobile phones are trouble to others because of what they 50 use the phones with.. . . Younger and younger people. . . are using the “using the” mobile phones they are using phones as a access to social media and “and” internet. They think of it. . . “they think of it” as a nuisance because young people tend to use it as “mobile as [erases mobile] an” access to mobile games and “and” random insignificant stuff. That is why people find “find” mobile “mobile” phones a nuisance. To me mobile phones are a great “oh no” [revises incorrect spelling of great] “great. . . great” source of information and a tool that is used for convenience. You can literally do anything “literally do anything” with your phone. Buy stuff. . . “buy stuff”, pay, work, “pay” . . . play, and many more. The use of mobile phones and.. . or smart phone is a great discovery for us and we should be grateful about it. (Example 6) “Another 100? Do I?” (Example 8) Task 3: Sumulat ng mga bagay na gusto mog bilhin sa grocery ‘Write a list of groceries you would like to buy’ Writing sample: Food Water Clothes Utensils Plates Chocolates Cereal Meat Oil Canned goods Chips Bread Egg Coded think-aloud protocol: Food, water, clothes, utensils, (Example 6) “um what else do I need?” (Example 3) plates, (Example 6) “condiments, oh condiments I forgot the spelling never mind” (Example 6) [starts to write “condiments” but deletes it]. “What do we usually buy at the grocery? Um” (Example 3) chocolates, cereal, meat, oil, canned canned goods, (Example 6) “um what else? What else do I buy?” (Example 3) Chips, bread, egg, (Example 6) “um what else? (Example 3) That’s it I guess.” (Example 5) 51 Task 4: Isulat sa iyong diary ang mga bagay na nangyari sayo ngayong araw ‘Write a diary-like summary of your day’ The morning I woke up my sister is insisting me to driver her to the mall to pick up some groceries. Then I drove her to the mall and dropped her off for her to buy groceries. Later that time after i picked her up and went home, I ate breakfast. Eating 2 pieces of bacon and a sunny side up egg. Then at around 12pm I started playing online games while waiting for the time to go out for our family dinner. Around 5pm me and my siblings went out to the mall and met with my cousins to celebrate my father’s birthday. Then we ate and walked around the mall, doing some window shopping and just having fun. Then hours past by till we got home and me sitting here in front of the computer doing this interview with Kate. “Isulat sa iyong diary ang mga bagay na nangyari sayo ngayong araw.” write a diary-like summary of your day. (Example 1) “Um okay. (Example 2) What did I do today?” (Example 3) “Today” the morning I woke up my sister is insisting me to driver her to the mall to pick up some groceries. Then I drove “drove” her to the mall “drove her to the mall” and dropped her off for her to buy groceries, “grocery, groceries”. Later that time after I picked her up and went home, I ate breakfast. Eating two pieces of bacon and a sunny side up egg. Then at around “around” 12pm I started playing online games while waiting for the time to go out for our family dinner. Around 5pm me and my siblings went out to the mall and met with my cousins to celebrate my father’s birthday. Then we ate and walked “we ate and walked” around the mall doing what at the mall,. . . doing some window shopping and just having fun. Then hours past by till we got home and me sitting here in front of the computer doing this interview with Kate. (Example 6) “And I’m done.” (Example 7) Appendix E: Complete Interview Transcription with PM2 Researcher 0:00 Okay, so whenever you feel ready, you can go ahead and start going through the prompts and going through your thinking process. PM2 0:11 I mean, think about this first or do I have to do it on the dot? I mean, as I'm thinking I should write it right now. Or can I? Can I think of it first before I start working? Researcher 0:30 Yeah, you can think of it first. Just make sure you're verbalizing your thinking process. PM2 0:36 Like I'm thinking right now, but I'm not yet typing. Researcher 0:39 Yeah. Yeah, you'd say it even if you're not typing it yet. PM2 0:44 Okay, okay. So, 52 Researcher 0:47 To study your thinking. PM2 0:48 so I have to write a story right do I have to make the beginning a beginning and middle and climax and something like that or or anything just write what I see in the pictures? Researcher 1:03 just write what you see. However you feel answers the prompt and about a paragraph there's no right or wrong answers with this PM2 1:14 okay this this is a story of a sick boy in a hospital hospital. the doctor oh wait wait sorry someone is call me okay sorry someone called. the doctor is going is going to check on the boy patient to interview him about his disease. after the interview the doctor gave him gave him something to fill his stomach cause thats important for the patient. then later at night on the same day the doctor went into his room to read him of his status of how long he will be in the hospital and what's the what's his status on sickness I think. After that after a few tests on the subject the doctor leaves the patient to recover to recover and to make him feel better. a few days past the when the doctor is is about to check on the patient the boy suddenly feels rejuvenated. rejuvenated. and is feeling so well that. rejuvenated. so well that he is jumping up and down the bed. after the doctor then when the doctor the doctor realized that the kid slash patient is already cured and is healthy enough for enough to be oh what's the word to be removed from the hospital he finally said goodbye to the patient and let him leave the hospital. How many words is that? Researcher 6:40 Probably about 200 because 200 words is about a paragraph. PM2 6:45 Oh, in one paragraph. Sorry. 53 Researcher 6:46 Yeah. All right. PM2 6:50 Yeah, sorry. Researcher 6:53 Awesome. So, I'm gonna go ahead and add a new page and there is the second writing prompt. PM2 7:11 What, what Researcher 7:12 On the second page there is another writing prompt. PM2 7:16 okay. There's another another story. Researcher 7:22 So however you feel answers this prompt fully, um, just answer it however you see fit about a paragraph. PM2 7:32 Same same as what I did on the other the other one? Researcher 7:37 Yeah, just verbalizing your thought process throughout it and then verbalizing as you write it as well. PM2 7:44 Okay. Just going to read it first. Nowadays mobile phones are becoming more and more popular in our life. Some people think they bring as much convenience while others argue they make more trouble which view do you agree with? use your own ideas knowledge experience to generate support for your argument okay, let me think, which convenience while others they make more trouble um okay. mobile phones are the future of our society and will be the and will be the and will still be the way of living even in many years to come. But some may think that mobile phones are trouble to Others because of what they use the phone with. younger and younger people are using the using the mobile phones they are using phones as a access to social media and and internet. they think of it they think of it as a nuisance because young people tend to use it as mobile as an access to mobile games and and random insignificant stuff. that is why people find find mobile mobile phones a nuisance. to me mobiles are a 54 great oh no great great source of information and a tool that is used for convenience. you can literally do anything literally do anything with your phone. buy stuff buy stuff, pay, work, pay, play and many more the use of mobile and or smart phones is a great discovery for and we should be grateful about it. Another 100? Do 1? Researcher 13:24 Okay, so below it I'll add the third one. PM2 13:30 Oh, there's another one why is it in Tagalog? Researcher 13:40 Just answer how you naturally would compose a grocery list. PM2 13:47 For this one? Do I have to answer it in Tagalog? Researcher 13:50 You can use any language that you would like. PM2 13:52 Chinese? Researcher 13:55 If that's the language you would use to make your grocery lists then yeah feel free to. PM2 13:59 Oh it's been a while since I've done grocery I've been to grocery huh oh just the list, not the, just the list right? Researcher 14:18 Yeah. PM2 14:20 Okay. Do I have like generalize it like food, water like that? Or specific? Researcher 14:30 You can just be general. PM2 14:32 General. Food Water, clothes. utensils. um What else do I need? plates condiments oh condiments I forgot the spelling nevermind what do we usually buy the grocery? um chocolate cereal meat oil and canned canned goods um what else? What else do I buy? chips bread egg butter um what else. I think that's it 55 I guess Researcher 16:05 okay so I'm gonna add another page and then however you see fit just respond. PM2 16:21 Isulat sa iyong diary ang mga bagay na nangyari sayo ngayong araw um Okay What did I do today today the morning I wake up woke up my sister is insisting me to drive her to mall to pick up some groceries then i drove drover her to the mall drove her to the mall and dropped her off for her to buy groceries groceries groceries. later that time after I picked her up and went home I ate breakfast eating too pieces of bacon a sunnyside up edd then at around around 12pm i started playing onlines games while waiting for the time to go for our family dinner around 5pm Me and my siblings went out to the mall and met with my cousins to celebrate my father's birthday. then we ate and walked we ate and walked around the mall doing what at the mall, doing some window shopping and just having fun then hours past by till we got home and me sitting here in front of the computer interview doing this interview with Kate. Researcher 21:15 All right. Those are all of the writing prompts. Do you want to go ahead and stop sharing your screen? PM2 21:23 Okay, okay. Researcher 21:24 Then I have some interview questions about your writing process and then also just your education. PM2 21:35 Okay. Researcher 21:36 56 Do you know what age you are formally introduced to English? PM2 21:43 I think that was around five or or four I guess the time I went to school, like preschool right? That's fine, right? Yeah, I guess. Researcher 22:03 So is English your second language or your third language or? PM2 22:08 Second Language. Researcher 22:12 So Tagalog is your first, So growing up, did you attend public or private school? PM2 22:22 Um, private school. Researcher 22:30 When you were at private school, what language was used as the mode of instruction? PM2 22:37 English mostly English, but because we have a Filipino subject. So you need to speak in Tagalog during Filipino reception. Researcher 22:48 So while you're at school, in addition to it operating in English, did they have any additional resources that gave you more exposure to English such as like tutoring, or something like that? PM2 23:09 Not really, other than the English class and the school being, I mean, promoting English language. If you don't speak English, throughout the day, other than the Filipinos subject, I think you'll be penalized like that. So they do this rule that you need to speak English at all times. And you basically have to adapt to that prose that English is like, the main language in that school. And I mean, and there's this whole other thing that you have classmates, like Korean classmates, foreign class foreign classmates that you need to interact, so you need to they don't know they don't know Tagalog. So you need to really speak in English, so everyone will understand. Researcher 24:12 Oh, interesting. So when you were in school, do you remember what year like what level? You formally began? English classes? PM2 24:26 English classes, I think that's I think grade one. Or, or before grade? Kinder? Yes. Or preschool. Kinder before grade one. That's, that's. That's kindergarten. Researcher 24:52 57 So when you were taking your English classes throughout your education, what was the education like regard reading writing and English. PM2 25:03 writing. Yeah. Pretty basic in the - wait I'm sorry. Someone was at the door. If you didn't get what's the question again? Researcher 25:32 What was the education like regarding writing in English? PM2 25:36 Writing in English? It's pretty basic. When they when I started learning English was like, the basic ABCs one, two threes pretty basic words the or is it the I started or throughout the entire thing throughout my career? I mean, for years, Researcher 25:58 Throughout your school years was English writing something that was an emphasis within your English classes? PM2 26:06 Oh, I see. I see. Yeah, it's pretty prominent for all through the English English subject, because writing is different than with speaking, right. You may you may, you may write the things that you want. But sometimes you cannot utter the words that you wrote. Right? So writing is really a big impact in your, in your English career in the way you speak English the way you think of the words, sometimes you need to write them before you even say it. Sometimes you can't even say but you can write it. So writing is like number one, through our through basic learning and through intermediate and advanced learning English. Researcher 26:58 So it was emphasized a lot? PM2 27:00 Yeah, it is. Researcher 27:03 Oh, interesting. So growing up, what language or languages was used in your household? PM2 27:13 Mostly English, and English and Tagalog? That's basically. Researcher 27:23 So why did your family use English? PM2 27:27 Um, some words are easier to say anything I mean, to utter in English than in Tagalog. And my, my siblings are like, um, what's the word? In English? Do you know whats maarte [pretentious]? Researcher 27:47 What sorry? What? 58 PM2 27:49 It's tagalog maarte [pretentious]. I mean, like, they're like um, what's the translation? There? Like? What's the word? I forgot the word they're like you're hearing in our household they're like grammar people. If you don't know the words if you're wrong grammar you don't know the English word they like my my sisters they correct you so So I begin to adapt to that kind of living so Me, Myself I tend to I tend to speak English I correct other people's grammar. The way they speak the, the way they say the words how they pronounce the words I we tend to use English because it's easier to use than Tagalog. Researcher 28:56 So growing up, did you have a lot of access to supplemental English exposure? Like did you watch a lot of like movies and English TV? PM2 29:07 Definitely. I watch a lot of TV series movies. You know, I don't even watch Tagalog movies. I don't even listen to Tagalog music. Everything in my phone everything I watch. It's English. And sometimes I sometimes I watch anime. So it's basically in Japanese. But still I watch I read the subtitles in English. So everything has to do with English because I don't really like hearing things in Tagalog. It's like it's too local. And yeah, it's like ah Researcher 29:52 So what language do you prefer to write and then? PM2 29:56 Definitely English. Researcher 30:00 Why is that? PM2 30:01 Because I have a bit of a wider spectrum of words. And I have a bigger variety of ways to say the phrases that I want to say in English rather than in Tagalog. In what in what I just said I cant even say that in Tagalog, I cant even translate that in Tagalog, the way the way I say things right now, sometimes I can't even translate that properly in Tagalog. Researcher 30:34 Because Tagalog doesn't have as many words? PM2 30:38 Yeah, because Tagalog doesn't have many translation sometimes. One Tagalog word converts to many English translation Researcher 30:52 So when it comes to writing Tagalog, do you find that harder than writing in English? 59 PM2 31:00 Most of the time, it's harder to write in Tagalog because sometimes I forgot the words I don't know how to say the how to I don't know how to say the words or the phrases in Tagalog. Sometimes I need to translate in my head. What is the installation of this one? What's the transition from this one? From English Tagalog? It's it's kind of hard to say things in Tagalog it's kind of hard to write things. Researcher 31:33 So since you have a lot of exposure to English and you know you've been growing up using your household and your speaking pretty much daily throughout your life, would you regard yourself as a native speaker of English? PM2 31:51 Native speaker of English I guess so. I guess I'm if you can say that I use English all the time. Is that the way you see it as native? I guess I am a native speaker of English. Researcher 32:17 So you know, you know English, Tagalog, do you know any other languages? PM2 32:22 Not fluently, but it's as I know a lot a few words in a few phrases in Japanese and Korean. Researcher 32:35 So which language do you think in? PM2 32:39 Think Yeah. On a daily basis, yeah. Mostly English. It's like 75% English like 20% 20% Tagalog and then the last five was like Japanese or Korean. Researcher 33:00 So when you think you like Japanese, Korean? Is that when you're like watching anime or? PM2 33:05 Yeah, watching and talking about anime and stuff like that? Yeah. Researcher 33:11 So when do you think in Tagalog? PM2 33:15 When I talk to my friends in Tagalog, like play when I play with my friends. I usually play with my friends here in the Philippines. So basically, they speak Tagalog or I cant just speak in English suddenly with them. That's gonna be awkward. So I I speak Tagalog when I play with them when. Sometimes when I speak with my family, sometimes here they speak Tagalog sometimes, but still, we use mostly English. So when they speak Tagalog, I tried to communicate Tagalog when we speak in English. I speak in English. Researcher 33:53 60 So when we're going through the writing prompts, I noticed that you were thinking in English the whole time. Is that because just as we discussed, you're so fluent in English that when it comes to writing, and you would talk in English you wouldn't have to use any Tagalog? PM2 34:13 A Yeah, yeah. When I when I read what the words mean, write a story like that. Like when you explained it to me. Most like I mean, most like I would write it in English, other than if there's another instruction that I would write. In fact, that's why I asked you earlier when you when I saw that, when I saw that. The question sumulat [write] from the grocery that was in Tagalog, that was in a legal question. I asked you do I need to write it? Because sometimes it's harder to think about that I'm mostly thinking and it's because it's easier for me. I don't know for the others, but for me, it's Quite easy Researcher 35:03 So that's also why when you have the two Tagalog prompts you chose to respond in English because it’s preferred? PM2 35:10 It's for me I prefer to write it in English because because I think for because for me it's easier to write it in English, even though the question is in Tagalog, that's why I asked you if I, if I, if I need to ask answer it in English or in Tagalog, but you you didn't say you didn't say anything that it just told you that answer as I see fit, right. But still, I write it in English because it's easier and more accessible. Researcher 35:49 All right, well, that is all my interview questions. Thank you for completing I read your prompts. Thank you for doing the interview and participating in my case study as a whole for my thesis. I really appreciate it.
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
English
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Brinton, Laurel J.
L1 use in the L2 composition process : an empirical study of Philippine ESL writers
Text