Recorrido de los alimentadores de la subestación 110/13.8 kV.

Malay and English texts apply different ways of organising writing. These differences could influence reading comprehension since L2 readers in advanced academic reading settings such as in universities would need both linguistic and genre knowledge. For example, L2 readers would need insights into discourse organisation and patterns of discourse organisation (Grabe and Stoller, 2011) for academic reading.

61

L2 readers might be familiar with the vocabulary and understand the main concept(s) of a text yet still be unable to ‘follow the specific development of the text, the new information being presented or the arguments being made’ (Grabe and Stoller, 2011, p.37). Thus, a major point in this section relates to different types of academic texts in Malay and English, as text difference could well influence Malay readers’ L2 reading comprehension.

Malay text conventions differ significantly from those found in English texts. Koda (1994) pointed out that ‘like other aspects of linguistic sophistication, discourse knowledge is language-specific’ (p. 14). These text-specific conventions are possibly linked to cross-cultural differences in discourse and text organisation. Grabe and Stoller (2011) stressed that ‘the organization of L2 text resources might not always match the L1 reading experience’ (p. 53). Thus, Table 2.5 is aimed at providing a basic description on the generic differences between Malay (e.g. Nathesan 2008) and English Science texts (e.g. Fang, 2006; Fang, Schleppegrell and Cox, 2006; Wray, 2004; Wray and Janan, 2013).

Table 2.5: Generic differences between Malay and English science texts Science Texts

Language/ Texts Features

Malay English

Syntactic 1) Contained lots of active voice (80.7%), while, passive voice consisted of 19.3%. There were a lot complex sentences (about 75.9%). 2) Dominant use of Verb and Noun phrases.

3) There were a lot of borrowed English scientific terms. The sentence structures, however, were not influenced by the English sentence structures.

(Nathesan, 2008)

1) Use of passive voice, there was a tendency to avoid active voice (Fang, 2006).

2) Complex sentences and contained much higher lexical density (Wray, 2004).

3) This density of information was achieved partly through the use of longer and more complex nominal groups that incorporated prepositional phrases and clause embedding (e.g. a natural, non- living solid with a definite chemical structure; the heat and pressure deep inside the earth; the

62

Previous research in academic texts highlighted several linguistic and text feature differences across disciplines and within a single discipline. Conrad (1996) explored the differences between research articles and textbooks for a Biology course wherein ‘one of the many challenges for readers facing a new register was learning to understand how its language use differed from other registers, such as the difficulty that novice readers had in recognising the rhetorical nature of texts, including distinguishing interpretations from facts and recognizing human agency and personal attitudes’ (p.321).

In addition, Snow (2010) examined the academic language and the challenge of reading for learning Science where the use of sophisticated words and complex grammatical constructions could potentially disrupt reading comprehension and block learning. In view of this, for students to become independent learners of science or social studies, help in learning academic vocabulary and how to process academic language is minerals that make up the rocks; a pattern that forms small crystals) (Fang, Schleppegrell and Cox, 2006, p.259).

4) Exclusive use of declarative clauses (Fang, Schleppegrell and Cox, 2006)

Morphology 1) Contained lots of Nouns. 2) Contained lots of prefix Men- (e.g. Menerima, Mengesani). 3) Malays science texts

consisted of 36.5% linking words (e.g. dan, tetapi, atau).

(Nathesan, 2008)

The use of grammatical metaphor through nominalisation. For example, a noun was substituted for a verb or where nouns were used as adjectives.

E.g. How fast a car speeds up  car’s acceleration

(Wray, 2004) Cohesion 1) Malay science texts

consisted of 86% of cross- referencing (or repetition). 2) Malay science texts consisted of only 14% of connectives (e.g.

Bagaimanapun, di samping itu, oleh itu).

(Nathesan , 2008, p.68)

English science texts contained (1) causal connectives, such as because, so, nevertheless etc.); and (2) clarification connectives, namely, that is to say, in other words, for example etc.).

63

critical if they are to have ‘access to the all-purpose academic vocabulary that is used to talk about knowledge that they would need … in making their own arguments and evaluating others’ arguments’ (Snow, 2010, p.451).

Science texts appear to have somewhat lower word concreteness, and are relatively high in both syntactic simplicity and referential cohesion, whereas arts texts have more syntactic challenges for the reader, and include more cohesion gaps (McNamara, 2013). This could be due to science concepts being more abstract than those in language and arts and texts (ibid). Thus, generic differences in text conventions across languages and disciplines might place demands on academic reading comprehension.

When L2 readers are ‘aware of the various types of genre and specific text structures, this knowledge allows them to access information more readily and accurately as they construct their personal interpretations of the text’ (Alexander and Jetton, 2000, p.292). Goldman and Rakestraw (2000) further suggested that ‘knowledge of structure is clearly important in efficient and strategic processing of text’ (p.323) in addition to awareness of its specific development. Knowledge of genre conventions is usually acquired through immersion in the discourse community, with explicit instruction by expert members of the discourse community accelerating the acquisition of genre skills. Hyon (1997, p.98) postulated that ‘[t]exts are not autonomous; they cannot be separated from roles, purposes, and contexts’ which could impact on reader and writers, who might be influenced by past educational experiences, their experiences with the genre, culture, content, context, and a host of other mediating factors. Cultural and linguistic backgrounds in themselves would therefore not necessarily provide L2 readers with a literacy-rich environment. Instead proper instruction on genre conventions and the length of time spent in the community of practice to develop knowledge on how to handle various text types might be much more appropriate.

64

Examples from the Literature on Issues Related to Academic Discourse

Past studies have revealed linguistic knowledge pertaining to academic discourse as being important in achieving better reading comprehension (e.g. Snow and Uccelli, 2007; Snow, 2010; Miller, 2011; Fillmore and Fillmore, 2012). For example, there are some linguistic features in academic texts that may contribute to academic reading challenges, such as high lexical density, precision, abstract and technical concepts (Snow and Uccelli, 2007). In a later study, Snow (2010) reported the most commonly noted features of academic language to be ‘grammatical embedding, sophisticated and abstract vocabulary, precision of word choice, and use of nominalisations to refer to complex processes - reflecting the need to present complicated ideas in efficient ways’ (p.452).

Miller's study (2011) on university and ESL textbooks found academic writing in university textbooks to be ‘transmitted within the noun phrase through various modification structures’ (p.39), unlike academic writing in ESL textbooks. In addition, a high frequency of nominal modification features in terms of the lexico-grammatical differences is often found in the university textbook (ibid). Fillmore and Fillmore (2012) stated that academic texts would usually contain (1) informational density and (2) heavy noun-phrases.

Ting and Tee (2008) conducted a study on how Malaysian TESL undergraduates managed five common academic text-types and used generic structure and language features in their written assignments. The ways in which Malaysian undergraduates used the generic structure and language features in their written assignments for an academic purpose were analysed. This study has revealed several findings in terms of how language features such as modality, conditional clauses and connectors were used in their academic writing. Analysis of the cause-and-effect relationship in an explanation text indicated the undergraduates’ preference for showing causality through content rather than connectors.

65

Although the overarching structure of Ting and Tee’s study is on academic writing, it could still lend breadth to the potential of research into L2 readers’ (or learners) understanding of the generic structure and language features in L2 texts.

The synthesis of findings suggests that linguistic knowledge is important for successful academic reading comprehension. In the context of Malay L2 readers reading academic texts in their L2, these differences in terms of linguistic processing could be based on (1) the L1 and L2 morphology, (2) syntactical structures and (3) use of cohesive devices. These issues will be discussed in relation to text complexity in reading.