ISSN 2619-7219

Volume 4



We are delighted to release the fourth volume of this journal. The Asian Journal of English Language Studies has successfully lived through the first three critical years of its production. Now, after overcoming the birth pains of putting this publication together, the members of the editorial team look forward to more volumes and better quality outputs with increased regularity.

During the initial stages of its production, the biggest challenge that faced the editorial team was the acceptance of the publication by its niche market.

Happily, this fourth volume highlights articles that bring to the fore studies on language learning motivation, stylistic and discourse analysis, as well as reading comprehension strategy instruction.

The first article by Giovanna V. Fontanilla examines the crucial role that motivation plays in teaching and learning English by determining the types of motivation and self-identity changes of Filipino students who major in secondary education English teaching at institutions declared as Centers of Excellence by the Philippines’ Commission on Higher Education. Through interviews and survey questionnaires, the results showed that no dichotomy exists in the types of English language learning motivation as claimed by some teachers and students, and that such motivation is both integrative and instrumental. Interestingly, the sets of respondents agree on the level of ratings for each of the self-identity changes experienced by the English majors, with self-confidence topping the list followed by productive change.

Ilyn R. Faminial shares an interesting study on critical poetry reading through creative and responsive skills. It deals with the semantic deviation in the language used in the poem “The Secretary Chant,” focusing on lexical features. The meaning of the text was inferred through its deviating features, such as metaphors, in the process employing the framework of Leech (1969) on the classification of tropes.

The aforementioned paper is followed by the study on “The discourse organization of Philippine university newspaper opinion columns” written by Wilfred Gabriel A. Gapas. Veering away from the usual discourse analysis of newspaper articles such as editorials and news stories, he studied the organization of opinion articles found in university-level newspapers. Anchored on the framework of Ho (2001), he analyzed the macro-structure and features of the editorials. The findings revealed that the discourse structure of Philippine newspaper opinion articles employs the two-move pattern in the orientation, exposition, and summation blocks, suggesting that most of the time, university students adhere to a prescribed journalistic text organization.

The fourth article by Luzminda R. Valeriano and Rachelle B. Lintao endeavors to critically examine the similarities and differences in the stylistic features of Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) and The Washington Post (WP), respectively, using Halliday’s (2000) transitivity method. Aiming to compare the transitivity process types employed in the PDI and the WP editorials as well as the predominant process types employed in the editorials of these two newspapers, the results yielded that the stylistic features of the WP editorials highlight people’s characters and attributes, believed to be important factors in the argumentative nature of the WP editorials. Conversely, PDI editorials focus on ‘what is done to someone’ and ‘who does it.’ This study puts forward that the transitivity system could be an effective tool to analyze the stylistic features of editorials.

The second to the last article entitled “Discourse features of methodology sections of research articles in high-impact and non-high-impact applied linguistics journals” written by Rodrigo C. Morales attempts to describe the discourse features of 30 methodology sections of research articles by employing Peacocks’ (2011) framework. The findings revealed that high-impact academic writers were more prolix with respect to the number of words and paragraphs in writing their methodology than non-high-impact academic writers. The obligatory move (Move 1 Subjects/Materials) has been employed by both sets of academic writers; while Move 3 (Procedure) and Move 4 (Data Analysis) have been found to be obligatory moves in non-high-impact journals but seem optional for some high-impact journal academic writers.

Aiming to investigate the relationship between theory and practice, the sixth and final article by Ma. Jhona B. Acuña studies the pedagogical beliefs and pedagogical content knowledge for the reading comprehension strategy instruction of teachers. Administering the survey to at least 121 Math, Science, and English language teachers, the teachers’ perceptions on the awareness of teaching comprehension strategies were analyzed. Validating the responses gathered, an observation of classes was conducted to check on the relationship between pedagogical beliefs, pedagogical content knowledge, and instructional practices. The results indicated that while teachers in general believed in the importance of comprehension strategy instruction, many are not quite familiar with the principles on which those strategies are founded. Their ambiguous understanding of pedagogical content knowledge likewise limited their use of comprehension strategies in instruction. Furthermore, a significant correlation was established between the teachers’ beliefs and knowledge of their practices. It is to be noted that the actual practices as observed by experts did not match the teachers’ perceptions on pedagogical beliefs and pedagogical content knowledge and that the perceptions of the content-area teachers were not observed in their practices in comprehension strategy instruction.

I sincerely hope that with the articles published in this volume, fresh insights will be developed and similar or new studies will spring.

I wish to thank all those who contributed their share to this fourth volume of AJELS. I also thank the members of the Board of Editorial Consultants/Reviewers who have been generous with their time to review the articles and address the production timetable of AJELS. In particular, I extend my gratitude to Dr. Maya Khemlani David of the University of Malaya, Dr. Loy Lising of the University of Sydney, Dr. Remedios Z. Miciano and Dr. Leonisa A Mojica of the De La Salle University-Manila, and Dr. Christopher Conlan, formerly of Curtin University (Perth, Australia). Without your scholarly inputs, AJELS Volume 4 would have not come out this well and on time.

Editor, Asian Journal of English Language Studies