Volume 12 March 2018
ACADEME University of Bohol, Graduate School
and Professional Studies Journal
Print ISSN 2362-9142
Lexical and Syntactical
Competencies
among English Major Students
of the University of Bohol
LUZVIMINDA P. ABDUL
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5655-6217
[email protected] ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to assess the competency level of the
English major students of the University of Bohol (UB), in the aspects of
lexicon and syntax. The study further sought to find the correlation between
lexical and syntactical competencies and the degree of variance on the
different dimensions in lexicon and in syntax. The study made use of the
descriptive method of research. It also made use of complete enumeration
of the junior respondents from both the Teachers College and the College
of Arts and Sciences for the second semester of school year 2016-2017.
The results showed that the Junior English major students of UB had high
competency level in lexicon. They performed high in context clues, word
formation, and structural analysis but performed moderately in idioms. On
the other hand, the students had a Moderate competency level in Syntax.
They performed the best in subject-verb agreement but performed the worst
in sentence modification/transformation. There was a correlation between
lexical and syntactical competency; students who got high in lexicon were
also high in syntax. There was also variance in the lexical competencies
on the four dimensions. The English major students’ competency in getting
meaning through context clues, word formation and structural analysis and
idioms were of varying extent. Students performed differently in all these
aspects. Context clues got the highest, idioms got the lowest average
competency. Subject-verb agreement obtained the highest average
competency whereas sentence modification/ transformation obtained the
least.
43
Peer Reviewed Journal
Keywords: Lexicon, syntax, lexical competency, syntactical
competency, English grammar, English vocabulary, English major students
INTRODUCTION
In the era of globalization, English has increasingly become the medium
in every domain of communication, both in local and global contexts. As a
result, the demand for speakers using English effectively is necessary for
every country. English speakers are geographically dispersed throughout
the world in large number, about 80 percent of which are non-native
English speakers using English as a lingua franca - that is communication
between speakers who have different first languages. English as a lingua
franca entails innovations in both lexicon and syntax, particularly grammar
(Jenkin, 2008). In the Philippines, the English language has become more
popular as shown in a survey result that many activities are influenced by
the English language and that it has become the preferred language than
our official national language (Borlongan, 2009).
To have competence in the use of the English language is fundamental,
hence, learning the correct use of the language placed a significant role.
This paper makes this modest attempt to delve into the competency level of
the English major students in terms of - syntax and lexicon which are both
necessary for expressing one’s ideas in using the English language.
The study is anchored on the theory of Krashen (1981) as cited by
Schütz (2007) on second language acquisition (SLA) which stipulates
that ‘learning’ requires conscious knowledge about the language, such as
knowledge of grammar rules. It stresses that being sensible in grammar is
an ability of an individual to demonstrate his awareness of the syntactical
patterning of sentences in the language. Additionally, there are
two independent systems of second language performance: ‘the
acquired system’ and ‘the learned system’. The ‘acquired system’ or
‘acquisition’ requires the learners to speak or to communicate.
Learners may involve interaction to acquire the language. The ‘learned
system’ or ‘learning’ requires conscious knowledge about the language,
such as knowledge of grammar rules. In addition, In addition, the
Monitor Theory makes some very specific hypotheses about the inter-
relation between acquisition and learning in the adult. Terrell (1986),
further highlighted that in acquiring knowledge of the English language,
the Natural approach might be used. The natural approach is based on
the theory that language acquisition occurs only when students receive
44
ACADEME
University of Bohol, Graduate School
and Professional Studies Journal
comprehensible input. He noted that fluency in the production of
utterances is determined solely on the acquired knowledge while the
learned knowledge enables the speaker to correct utterances before it
is spoken with the use of mental processing, the monitor (Krashen & Terrell
1983; Terrell, 1986).
Likewise, the Generative Syntactic theory which includes
Transformational grammar, proposed by Noam Chomsky in 1957 tries
to show the underlying structure of words in their deeper relationship to
one another. Chomsky also believes that one must be knowledgeable in a
language to be considered competent in it. Its immediate goal of linguistics
is to develop formal, explicit models of various aspects of human language.
It is through the development that formal claims about language can be
tested. These formal levels are related to each other by special mappings,
which transform one level into another (Chomsky, 2014).
The use of this model can be the basis for actual communication.
Moreover, Bachman and Palmer (1982) proposed a much more
comprehensive model of communicative competence. Bachman suggested
a new model of communicative competence or, more precisely, the model
of communicative language ability (CLA). This consists of organizational
knowledge which includes grammatical knowledge of independent
areas such as knowledge of vocabulary, morphology, syntax, phonology,
and graphology; and pragmatic knowledge which also include lexical
knowledge. Both knowledge in grammar and lexicon aid in the production
of grammatically correct sentences as well as comprehension of their
propositional content (Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei, & Thurrell, 1995).
Bachman’s theory of Communicative competence (1988, 1990) and
Bachman and Palmer (1982), designs a framework of various components:
One of which is Language Competence which includes sociolinguistic,
strategic and grammatical competence: knowledge in lexicon, morphology,
syntax, phonology/graphology and textual competence in controlling the
formal structure of language for producing or recognizing grammatically
correct sentences and for ordering these to form texts.
Several studies were conducted related to this investigation. Chang
(2011), as he contrasted the use of grammar-translation method
and communicative approach in English Language teaching, arrived
at the conclusion that with the wrong use of grammar, words have no real
meaning or sense. To be able to express one’s self with competence in the
use of the English language, knowledge of grammar should be applied. It
45
Peer Reviewed Journal
is, therefore, a dire need for teachers to teach grammar not only for
students to express themselves but also for them to fulfill their
expectations in the learning of a language. There are no miracles on the
way to learn a language. No matter how students are taught grammatical
concepts, syntactic constructions and stylistic devices, or language
conventions and editing concepts, they will not automatically make use of
these in their talking.
Lauttamus, Nerbonne, & Wiersma (2007) found out that
‘juvenile’ Finnish Australians are more contaminated or learned in
the English language compared to the ‘adults’ as they were exposed
earlier to the language. They also observed that adult English
speakers demonstrate typical morpho-syntactic features of temporary
shift and imperfect learning of English.
Luciana (2006) attempted to probe the degree to which the underlying
process of output in a collaborative interactional grammar task can lead to
grammar learning. She disclosed that such output could provide a rich forum
for learning to take place through its mechanisms: gap-noticing, hypothesis
testing, and metalinguistic function. A different impact upon different
levels of students. The study also found out that a grammar sensitive
task can pave the way to L2 grammar learning by pushing syntactic
processing. Output serves a complementary function to foster L2 grammar
learning.
The study of Chan (2004) shows evidence of syntactic transfer from
Chinese to English based on data obtained from 710 Hong Kong Chinese
ESL learners at different proficiency levels. The results showed that many
of these learners in Hong Kong tended to think in Chinese first before they
wrote in English, and that the surface structures of many of the interlanguage
strings produced by the participants were very similar or even identical to
the usual or normative sentence structures of Cantonese, the learners’ first
language.
Bowey (1996) observed that students who had varying decoding abilities
were observed to differ in syntactic awareness. This was reflected in their
ability to correct grammatically deviant sentences within an oral language
task, even with general verbal ability effects covaried. Performance on the
syntactic awareness task (“syntactic control”) was correlated with measures
of ongoing reading comprehension and comprehension monitoring and with
performance on standardized tests of reading comprehension.
46
ACADEME
University of Bohol, Graduate School
and Professional Studies Journal
METHODOLOGY
To acquire an accurate, factual and systematic data that can provide an
actual picture of the data set reviewed, the descriptive method of research
utilizing the questionnaire was used to determine the competencies in
lexicon and syntax among the 32 respondents from the College of Arts
and Sciences and Teachers College of the University of Bohol. It also used
purposive universal sampling method for only the Junior English major
students were the chosen respondents. However, all the officially enrolled
Junior English majors were considered.
The standard tool designed by Dr. Jonathan Malicsi, formerly of the
University of the Philippines and author of the English 1 and 2 manuals
and workbooks that the English 1 and 2 teachers in this university are
presently using was the primary source for the test questionnaire. The
preparation of the test covered items taken from the Exit and Progress
Tests in both English 1 and 2 subjects. However, there were some items
in which the researcher utilized other sources: such as English Grammar
books, Developmental Reading books, Vocabulary books and even from
the Internet. The Language Test administered to the English major students
was composed of two areas. The first pertains to Lexicon which included
25 items in each dimension. This totaled 100 items. Meanwhile, the second
part was on Syntactic rules and patterns with 20 items per and a total of 100
points. The Language Test in two sets had a total of 200 items.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Profile of the Respondents
The majority of the student respondents were between the ages of
18-20. Twenty-eight (87.50%) of them were taking up Bachelor of
Secondary Education – Major in English. Meanwhile, Bachelor of Arts -
Major in English only had four (12.50%) respondents.
Level of Students Lexical Competency
Lexical competence has been suggested to be a cluster of knowledge
(form, meaning and use of a lexical item), skills and abilities that a person
develops and deploys in different contexts of communication (Caro, 2017).
47
Peer Reviewed Journal
Table 1. Level of students’ lexical competence
N=32
Items Average Competence Level of Lexical Competence Rank
1. Context clues 73.13 High Competency 1
2. Word Formation 69.63 High competency 2
3. Structural Analysis 60.63 High competency 3
4. Idioms 53.88 Moderate Competency 4
Average 64.31 High Competency
Rating:
0 19 No Competency
20 39 Slight Competency
40 59 Moderate Competency
60 79 High Competency
80 100 Very High Competency
The overall rating of students’ level of competency in lexicon showed
that the English major students had High Competency level in lexical
aspect for obtaining an average of 64.31. This result signified a continued
need for the students to be lexically enhanced to meet the maximum
competency level as what Bachman theorized in the study of Celce-Murcia
et al., (1995) that knowledge in lexicon contributes to one’s ability in
using the English language for communicative purposes.
Level of Students’ Syntactic Competence
Competence in syntax included students’ ability to apply the
correct use of the following: Subject-Verb agreement, verb tenses,
sentence modification/ transformation, recognizing sentence parts/
functions and sentence embedding.
Table 2. Level of Students’ Syntactic Competence
N=32
Average
Items Level of Syntactical Competence Rank
Competence
1. Subject-verb agreement 73.44 High Competency 1
2. Verb tenses 54.38 Moderate Competency 3
3. Sentence modification/
23.13 Slight Competency 5
transformation
48
ACADEME
University of Bohol, Graduate School
and Professional Studies Journal
4. Recognizing sentence
55.94 Moderate Competency 2
parts/functions
5. Sentence embedding 42.50 Moderate Competency 4
Average 49.88 Moderate Competency
Rating:
0 19 No Competency
20 39 Slight Competency
40 59 Moderate Competency
60 79 High Competency
80 100 Very High Competency
Table 2, depicted the summary of the competency of the English
major students in Syntax. As reflected, the average yielded 49.88,
described as Moderate Competency. This illustrates the need of the
English majors to augment their syntactical knowledge as what Krashen,
as cited by (Schütz, 2007); Chomsky (2014) and Bachman & Palmer
(1982) posited that one must be knowledgeable of the structure of the
language to demonstrate awareness of syntactical patterns of
sentences and to recognize grammatically correct sentences to be
considered competent in the use of the English language.
Statistical analysis between lexical and syntactical competence
showed a significant correlation, students who obtained high scores in
lexicon also attained high scores in syntax, while those who obtained a
low score in the lexicon, also obtained a low score in syntax. There was
also a significant variance in the different lexical, and syntactical
dimensions understudied.
CONCLUSION
The students had high competency level on context clues, word
formation, and structural analysis; however, they had moderate competency
level in idioms. In totality, the English major students were highly
competent in lexicon.
The students performed the most in subject-verb agreement
but performed the least in sentence modification/ transformation. As a
whole, student respondents had moderate competency level in syntax.
49
Peer Reviewed Journal
REFERENCES CITED
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1982). The construct validation of some
components of communicative proficiency. TESOL quarterly, 16(4),
449-465. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/wLuSMz (accessed last 16
January 2017).
Borlongan, A,M, (2009) A Survey on Language Use, Attitudes and Identity
in Relation to Philippine English among Young Generation Filipinos:
An Initial Sample from a Private University. Online Submission, 3,74-
107. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/7F5Erz, (accessed last 16 February
2017).
Bowey, J. A. (1986). Syntactic awareness in relation to reading skill and
ongoing reading comprehension monitoring. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 41(2), 282-299.Retrieved from https://goo.gl/Gy4fck,
(accessed last 16 January 2017).
Caro, K. (2017). Lexis, lexical competence and lexical knowledge: a
review. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(2), 205.
Retrieved from https://goo.gl/LXkWug, (accessed last 31 March 2017).
Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative
competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content
specifications. Issues in Applied linguistics, 6(2), 5-35. Retrieved from
https://goo.gl/oVSAhp, (accessed last 16 January 2017).
Chang, S. C. (2011). A contrastive study of grammar translation method
and communicative approach in teaching English grammar. English
Language Teaching, 4(2), 13. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/vmdRMb,
(accessed last 16 January 2017).
Chan, A. Y. (2004). Syntactic transfer: Evidence from the interlanguage of
Hong Kong Chinese ESL learners. Modern language journal, 56-74.
Retrieved from https://goo.gl/hIWypq, (accessed last 16 January 2017).
Chomsky, N. (2014). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (Vol. 11). MIT press.
Retrieved from https://goo.gl/pbCvBe, (accessed last 16 January 2017).
50
ACADEME
University of Bohol, Graduate School
and Professional Studies Journal
Jenkins, J., & Leung, C. (2014). English as a lingua franca. John Wiley
& Sons, Inc. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/zGBZPy, (accessed last 13
January 2017).
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language
acquisition in the classroom. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/23XaBZ,
(accessed last 13 January 2017).
Lauttamus, T., Nerbonne, J., & Wiersma, W. (2007). Detecting syntactic
contamination in emigrants: the English of Finnish Australians. SKY
Journal of Linguistics, 20, 273-307. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/
zfrDL6, (accessed last 12 January 2017).
Luciana. (2006). Roles of Output in Foreign Language Learning: A Case of
Collaborative Grammar Task. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 3(3), 143-176.
Retrieved from https://goo.gl/mJqyr2, (accessed last 12 January 2017).
Schütz, R. (2007). Stephen Krashen’s theory of second language
acquisition. English made in Brazil, 2(2), 2007. Retrieved from https://
goo.gl/BvD6nf, (accessed last 16 January 2017).
Terrell, T. D. (1986). Acquisition in the natural approach: The binding/access
framework. The Modern Language Journal, 70(3), 213-227. Retrieved
from https://goo.gl/uHN56W, (accessed last 15 January 2017).
51
