Applied Linguistics

A Comparison of Reading Miscue Analysis Between Bilingual and Monolingual South American Third Graders

Shawnee State University

Universidad de los Andes, Venezuela

The application of miscue analysis as a tool to investigate reader's oral behavior has been used in-depth by researchers in the field of reading (Goodman, 1982, 129-30). The results of these analyses support the notion that 1) Reading is a psycholinguistic process by which readers engage in sampling linguistic cues. They select or sample some cues, to make inferences about the text, in order to produce hypotheses based on their language experiences and produce hypotheses about the meaning. They then continue to select more cues to confirm or reject their predictions [64]. 2) There is a single underlying reading process operating in both first and second language. This hypothesis is supported in Goodman and Goodman (1978) data based on children from different nationalities and ethnic groups (Renault 80-81).

Miscue analysis has shown that children also use their knowledge about the graphophonic, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic components of language to extract meaning from written material (Goodman 1982, 65-68). Moreover, Goodman's miscue analysis describes reading behavior by examining deviation of observed responses from expected responses (Goodman 1973, 5). These miscues can be categorized according to their graphophonemic, syntactic, and semantic acceptability.

The purpose of this study was two-fold: first, to conduct a descriptive analysis of the reading strategies in Spanish, used by a sample of eastern Venezuelan third graders. Second, to compare the reading strategies between Spanish monolinguals and a bilingual reader, when reading in Spanish.

The main objective of this study was to answer the following question: What is the difference in reading strategies in Spanish between a bilingual child who has interrupted schooling in Spanish for over a year and two other children who experienced no such interruption. It was hypothesized that the reading strategies used by the bilingual student in Spanish would not vary significantly from those used by other children under study because he had acquired his reading skills in his native language, Spanish. The hypothesis is supported by the linguistic interdependence principle, which states that, although the surface aspects of different languages such as pronunciation, fluency, etc., are separate, there exists an underlying cognitive academic proficiency which is common across languages. This underlying proficiency is what makes possible the transfer of cognitive/academic or literacy related skills across languages (Cummins 10).

This study is unique in the sense that it analyzes reading behavior in a bilingual student's native language and compares his competence to that of his former peers who did not interrupt learning in their native language. The findings from this study can help teachers understand the strategies bilinguals commonly use when processing a written text.

Subjects

Three eastern Venezuelan third graders served as voluntary participants. They were all in Venezuela at the time of the data collection. The three were native Spanish speakers and had well developed reading skills in that language. However, one child (Frankie) moved to the United States seventeen months prior to the collection of the data. He continued second grade in a private monolingual English school. Before that time, his only experience in English language schooling was one year of preschool at the age of three.

Materials

The selection the children read was a Venezuelan folktale entitled «La Piedra del Zamuró» (The Vulture's Stone). This selection contains 1,035 words and was prepared according to the guidelines of the Reading Miscue inventory (Goodman, Burke, Watson, 37). The guidelines suggest to prepare a typescript of the text. This typescript is used by the investigator to follow along as students read, and also to record miscues and other verbal and nonverbal actions (miscue 1, Appendix 1).

Instrument

Procedure 1 of the miscue analysis inventory (Goodman, Burke, Watson, 75) was the tool used to analyze the oral reading of the participants. This procedure examines each miscue separately while simultaneously testing the influence of reader's knowledge of the world and language as it is related to the context in which the miscue occurs.

This instrument provides researchers with questions as well as coding and data analysis forms needed to organize the data. Resulting reader profiles enable teachers and researchers to develop strategy lessons aimed at strengthening students' reading processes.

Procedure I also requires the reader to retell the story in his own words once the oral reading stage is completed. This adds information that describes the reader's searches for meaning and may supply explanation concerning miscues. The information obtained through application of Procedure I define readers profiles which include use of various reading strategies and patterns of strength and weakness as well as transactions readers engage in to interpret and respond to texts.

Once the miscues are selected, numbered and marked, a series of six questions are asked related to: 1) syntactic acceptability; 2) semantic acceptability; 3) meaning change; 4) correction; 5) graphic similarity; 6) sound similarity. According to the reading miscue inventory RM1, syntactic acceptability, (question 1), reveals the degree to which the sentence sounds like language and evidences the success with which the reader is controlling the structure of sentences as well as the relationships of the sentences to the structure of the whole passage.

Semantic acceptability, (question 2), focuses on the success with which the reader is producing understandable structures. It is possible that a miscue can result in a semantically acceptable sentence that differs from the passage meaning but is still fully acceptable within the story. The main question is: «Does this sentence fit into the story as a whole?» Semantic acceptability is analyzed after syntactic acceptability and a sentence is always considered to be semantically unacceptable if it is syntactically unacceptable. Meaning change (question 3), evaluates the degree to which miscues preserve the writer's intended meaning. Correction (question 4), reveals how readers use their confirming strategies. Correction must be understood in relation to the quality of the miscues produced. Graphic similarity, and sound similarity (questions 5 and 6), provide information concerning the degree to which readers use the graphophonic system. The graphics include orthography or print and the sound refers to the phonological system.

Procedure II examines all the sentences the reader has read whether they include miscues or not. The typescript for this procedure is identical to the one for procedure one, with one important addition: each sentence in the text is numbered consecutively. This procedure is recommended for classroom teachers or students in teacher education programs. Procedure III is less time consuming than I and II because the marking, coding and analysis are all on the typescript. Neither a Coding Form nor a Reader Profile are necessary. Procedure IV, focuses on the most important questions used in miscue analysis: semantic acceptability and correction. The interrelationship of these two questions results in a comprehensive score. This procedure does not require tape-recording readers, and a

––––––––   809   ––––––––

typescript is necessary. This procedure is for teachers who know miscue analysis well enough to make use of miscue concepts when ever they listen to the readers.

Procedure I was selected because it is the most comprehensive and provides the greatest insight into the reading process. It reveals the strategies used in monitoring a text in ways that are not as apparent in the other

Procedures

Participants were presented with the story individually. Researchers instructed the children to read the selection aloud, and to tell in their own words all they remembered about the story. Researchers followed a typescript of the story the children read. The script also served as a means of recording miscues. All oral performances were recorded for later analysis. Next, the children were asked probing questions to expand data on comprehension. For example, researchers asked: «Tell me more, which part did you like the best?», «Was there some part of the story that made you feel sad, happy, nervous?» «Would you do the same thing?» etc. These questions and answers were also recorded.

Once collected, researchers coded all miscues recorded on the transcript, in the appropriate coding form.

This represents miscue No. 1, on line 008 in the transcript. The reader attempted to correct the miscue, and that is symbolized by C. The word the reader used in trying to correct the miscue was pagado. The code PNY (Partial, No, Yes) responds to the following questions: 1) Does the miscue occur in a syntactically acceptable structure? Answer: partially «P». 2) Does the miscue occur in a semantically acceptable structure? Answer: No «N». 3) Does this miscue produce a change of meaning? Answer: (-). This question is asked if the miscue is coded as syntactically and semantically acceptable. 4) Does the reader correct the miscue? Answer: Yes «Y».

The answers to those questions provided two patterns for analysis: first, did loss in the construction of meaning occur? [answers to questions 2, 3, 4; (N -Y)]; second, were grammatical relationships strong or weak? [answers to questions 1, 2, 4; (PNY)]. See Figure 1. The first pattern indicates reader's attempt to make sense of the text in relation to the expected meaning. The second pattern discloses reader ability to produce structures that are syntactically acceptable.

Two more questions needed to be answered in relation to the graphic and sound similarities. Those were: 1) Is the miscue graphically similar to the text? 2) Is the sound of the miscue similar to the text? [Figure 1]. This information was tabulated and quantified. The taped retelling then was transcribed and quantified for character analysis and development.

The following analysis is the result of manual and computer procedures as presented by the miscue inventory. A summary of these results is presented in the following comparative table along with the proficient profile results. (P = proficient reader, F = Frankie, O = Osana, R = Ramirito).

The data suggests that none of the informants are proficient readers based on the proficient reader level profile. The proficient reader has been described as the one who makes effective and efficient use of the linguistic cuing systems of the language and the reading strategies. Most of the time, this reader produces syntactically and semantically acceptable structures (Goodman, Watson,

Burke, 146). Ramirito achieved 74 percent (sum of no loss, that is, when there is no change of meaning within the context of the whole passage; and partial loss, when there is loss of a minor idea) in meaning construction which places him at the highest level (Frankie 64 percent, Usana 58 percent). On the other hand, there is a slight variation in the percent ages of the high grammatical relationships. Frankie reached 39 percent, Ramirito 41 per cent and Osana 40 percent.

Finally, we observed that graphic similarities were above the proficient reader level in Osana and Frankie's reader profiles and Ramirito was below that level (73 percent). In sound similarities, Osana reached a level of 100 percent, with 78 percent for the proficient level, while Frankie and Ramirito were below the proficient level (64 and 73 percent respectively).

The results of the analyses seem to indicate that the three children are «natural users of their language». That is, they are using their syntactic, semantic and graphophonic systems when processing the written page. However, they need to expand and enhance all these processes in order to become proficient readers in Spanish.

In spite of Frankie's low 64 percent in meaning construction, he was reading with a more natural rhythm than the other two readers and his miscues are grouped within the lexical component. A good example of the latter is the word «tapara» 'container' stressed in the first syllable as «tápara» throughout (lines 099, 109, 111, 113, 114). In line 050 he substituted «picacho» 'pick' for «pinacho» which can be considered a dialect form. The two words are synonyms, however «picacho» is used in written language, while «picacho» is used more commonly in oral communication among speakers of that region.

Another interesting miscue is the gender change from male to female when referring to the word «paují» (an indigenous term for a tad animal), and the substitution of «sabroso» 'tasty' for «sabrosa» (line 138). Like the other children, Frankie, also produced the tense verb changes in «contó» 'counted' for «conto» (resulting in a nonword line 053), «mandé» 'ordered' for «mande» (line 059), «miró» 'looked' for «miro» 'I look' (fine 105), «ordenaba» 'used to order' for «ordenó» 'ordered (line 129), "pasó" 'passed' for «paso» o 'I pass' (line 136), and «persiguió» 'chased' for «persigue» 'chase' (line 170).

In line 074, he inserted the article «la» 'the' which discriminates the snake «la sabanera» from other types of snakes giving it a particular characterization. In line 075, he substituted «de» for «del» 'his' which is the contracted form of preposition and article «de» + «el» before a masculine noun, in this case «tigre» 'tiger.' This is a good miscue example in which the reader constructs meaning in stead of reading letter by letter, syllable by syllable and word by word.

In line 077, Frankie substituted «lo» 'it' for «yo» 'I': This substitution is acceptable with what happened previously but not with the following noun phrase. At the syntactic level however, he substituted on line 077 «un» 'a' for «el» 'the' which makes more sense with the previous miscue in the sentence and the whole story. Ramirito's profile suggests that he is a slow and careful reader. In line 005, he substituted the word «matas» for «plantas» 'plants'. This miscue involved the substitution of an informal word «matas» for a more formal one «plantas» with the meaning remaining the same. This miscue shows us his participation in maintaining meaning during the reading process. In line 009, he substituted the simple present continuous verbal form «brincando» 'jumping' for the past tense of the same verb. The change involves a tense verb transformation from a present progressive verb into a simple past tense. In spite of this syntactic transformation, this gave a new dimension to the action involved in the narrative and by the same token, it maintained the meaning according to the sentence and the whole story in spite of the syntactic transformation. He produced a very interesting miscue (line 012), using an antonym for the action of the verb involved according to the noun phrase used prior to the miscue: «el corazón se le ajitaba» for «el corazón se le aquietaba» 'his heart was beating' for 'his heart was calming down'. He maintained the tense verbal suffix although the meaning was totally disrupted. In line 023, the miscue «así» for «ah, si» involved an intonation shift which resulted in a change from 'this way' to 'oh, yes' thereby losing the sarcasm of the character in his dialogue. In line 033, we observed the substitution «de la piedra» 'of the stone' for «las piedras» 'the stones'. This shows his use of the plural form

––––––––   811   ––––––––

and gender according to the Spanish language rules of pluralization between nouns and adjectives categories. This is a good example of his knowledge of the Spanish language and its grammar. In line 042, Ramirito substituted the present progressive form of the verb «volando» flying for the infinitive form, giving it a more static action in which the character is involved. Interestingly enough, in line 046 he did the opposite, where he substituted the simple present tense for the progressive form of «corriendo» 'running,' the preceding verb had the same verbal pattern. We also observed many article insertions to form noun phrases which are more common in the written form. This can be a clue that even though he is a slow and careful reader, he is very familiar with written language.

Osana did not have any miscues in the first one hundred words of the reading, she also read very carefully. Subsequently, however, there were several tense changes in her miscues. For example in line 072, she substituted the past tense of the verb for the present tense «buscó» 'looked' for «busco» 'I look'; this same miscue was produced by Ramirito. In spite of the change, there is a minimal amount of meaning loss. The same thing happened in line 074 where she substituted «llaman» 'call' for «llamaban» 'used to call' present tense for past tense. These two changes occurred in the same paragraph where she kept the tenses the same. She maintained the same verb tense in which the actions occurred according to the meaning of the sentence and consistent with the whole story. In line 165, she substituted the present tense of the verb «estar» 'to be' for the imperfect tense. In line 170 the same thing occurred in that she substituted «toca» 'touch' for «tocaba» 'used to touch'. We see that the verbal miscue substituted present tense for imperfect past tense. This seems to indicate that she was consistent throughout the entire text in her tense substitution. The verbal changes between the three students reflect a tendency to accept actions in the past and not in the continuous form.

In looking at the three readers, it is evident that their miscues followed similar patterns in verb substitutions. One noticeable difference between Frankie and the other two students is that his weakness is at the lexical level and his strength seems to be at the syntactic level. This can be explained by the fact that because he was in the United States, he has not had the same opportunities to develop his vocabulary in Spanish as the other two children.

Once the oral reading is analyzed and quantified, the retelling information is quantified. This retelling score is one measure of comprehension. To quantify the retelling information, we used the global retelling guide in Procedure I. This procedure suggests assigning points which can be distributed into 40 points for the analysis of the characters in the story, and 60 points for events. That distribution depends on the purpose of the study. For this investigation the following points were as signed: 60 for the retelling of the events, and 20 each for the plot and theme.

Osana's retelling was very limited. Even with much probing, she gave little information about the story. It seems that once she finished reading, she felt that she had done her duty. Her limited retelling suggests that she has not had very much experience with this type of activity. Her total score of eleven points indicates the small quantitative information given in her retelling.

Along with the retelling, miscue analysis provides information that allows researchers to conclude that Osana is overlying on the graphophonic cuing system. As a result she is less effective in using her strategies in order to preserve meaning. Her percentage for sound similarity relationships was 91 percent. The percentages are above the percentages established for the proficient reader. On the other hand, her percentage of 57 percent on meaning construction is moderately below the suggested percentages for the proficient reader. These figures seem to indicate that Osana is more concerned with accurate oral production rather than meaning construction.

Ramirito was able to provide a nice summary of the story in which he talked about its plot and theme. His score was 44.5. This confirms the percentages obtained in the miscue analysis which was 74 percent in meaning construction. The percentage is close to the proficient reader's profile. Ramiro was not overlying on the graphophonic cuing system. His scores of 61 and 62 percent of graphic and sound similarities are even with those of the proficient reader.

Frankie obtained a total score of 59 in his retelling. This figure is consistent with the percentage obtained in meaning construction

––––––––   812   ––––––––

which was 64 percent. By the same token, in spite of obtaining lower scores, Frankie was able to summarize and narrate the setting, character and resolution of the story in a more cohesive way.

The results of this procedure offer the following reading strategy suggestions: First, to help the readers develop abilities that will enable them to construct meaning of what they are reading, a variety of interesting reading materials is recommended, especially children's literature. The students should have the opportunity to be involved in choosing some of the materials. When students are given the opportunity to choose, they then have the opportunity to develop a feeling of control and success in their own reading.

Second, before the students read the text, it is beneficial for them to have an opportunity to discuss what they think the story is going to be about. In this way the children will be thinking about what is going to happen in the story instead of being overly concerned with recoding. A variety of reading materials give the students the opportunity to become familiar with different genres. Students can then become more involved in choosing reading materials that are interesting to them. After the reading experience, the readers should be encouraged to discuss their impressions and understanding of what they read. This is especially important for the children in this study who showed the difficulty they had with retelling.

Third, in order for the discussion of previously read material to help children, discover that the goal of reading is the construction of meaning, an environment in which the students feel comfortable about discussing the understanding of what they have read should be created. Throughout these discussions, the readers can begin to realize that different people understand distinct aspects of the same reading and that different interpretations are valid.

Fourth, the children in this study have been too concerned with reading as a performance for the adult, who represents the authority, which in this case is the teacher. They have not realized that reading is for them to get something out of the text for various purposes.

Fifth, reading response journals, in which students write their reactions to what they have read, help them retell stories in writing and think about their own understanding of the story. Writing gives them the opportunity to use all the cuing systems of the language, especially the semantic system, because what they write will have to make sense to them and to the people with whom they share their journals. These journals can provide an interesting way to begin discussing what the students have read and to summarize the ideas expressed in the story.

Sixth, predicting, sampling, and confirming strategies help students apply personal organization techniques to reading procedures. The students read different sections of a story after it has been cut up. The students will then discuss how they think the story is organized. The important aspect of this strategy is to have the students engage in discussion in which they can share their background knowledge and understanding of what they have read.

This study demonstrates that the miscue analysis inventory is a powerful tool when the need to re-evaluate students in the classroom arises. It offers teachers insight into students' reading process so they may assist them in becoming proficient readers.

The main research question of this study was: What is the difference between a reader who has interrupted schooling in Spanish for over a year when compared with two other readers who did not interrupt their schooling? This research has shown that difference at a lexical level exists for children whose schooling is interrupted. The assertion is based on the type of miscues produced, which seems to indicate that the lexical items are no longer active in the student's repertoire. It could also be speculated that the child did not have the experience with that type of vocabulary prior to the time of the data collection. At the syntactic level, his grammatical patterns seem to be very well established since there were no syntactic influences from English to Spanish indicated. The findings in this investigation show that Procedure I of the Reading Miscue Analysis inventory allows quantification of data and permits qualification of information related to the interaction that takes place between the reader and the text.

Cummins, Jim. Theory and Policy in Bilingual Education.

––––––––   813   ––––––––

Paper presented at the National Seminar on Education in Multicultural Societies, Ljublana. 1985. (Mimeograph).

Goodman, Kenneth. «Miscues: Windows on the Reading Process», in Kenneth S. Goodman (ed.), Miscue Analysis, Applications to Reading Instruction. ERIC: Urbana, IL, 1973. 3-14.

_____. «Analysis of Oral Reading Miscues: Applied Psycholinguistics» in Language and Literacy: The Selected Writings of Kenneth S. Goodman Frederick Gollasch (ed.), Vol. I. Boston, London and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1982.

Goodman, Yetta, D. Watson and Carolyn Burke. Miscue Inventory: Alternative Procedures. New York: Richard C. Owen Publishers, Inc., 1987.

Goodman, Yetta and Carolyn Burke. Reading Strategies Focus Comprehension. New York: Richard C. Owen Publishers, Inc., 1980.

Renault, Louise H. «First Language in Developing Second-Language Literacy: Genesis and Generation for Spanish/English Readers». Diss. Indiana U 1985. Rivero, R. La Piedra del Zamuro. Caracas, Venezuela: Ediciones Ekare, Banco del Libro. 1985.

Nombre del Alumno______________

Fecha____________ Grado/Edad___

LA PIEDRA DEL ZAMURO

001 Una tarde Tío Zorro

002 estuvo a punto de atrapar

003 a Tío Conejo. Fue en el pozo,

004 mientras Tío Conejo bebía, tranquilo, sin saber

005 que Tío Zorro lo miraba agazapado entre las matas.

006 De repente, Tío Zorro dió un gran salto para caer justo

007 sobre él, pero Tío Conejo alcanzó a oirlo y escapó.

008 Corrió monte adentro con Tío Zorro pegado atrás.

009 Brincando de una mata a otra, logró despistarlo y ya

010 fatigado, se tendió en una ramita húmeda a descansar.

011 Miraba los helechos y las grandes mariposas azules

012 mientras el corazón se le aquietaba. En eso,

013 una ramita crujió. Tío Conejo se enderezó

014 atento, y ya iba a correr cuando vió

015 asomarse a Tío Morrocoy.

016 Pero si eres tú, Tío Morrocoy. ¡Qué susto me has dado!

017 Y de quién escapas hoy, Tío Conejo? -preguntó con su voz

018 seca Tío Morrocoy.

019 Ahorita, de Tío Zorro. Ayer, de Tío Tigre; antier, de Tío

020 León y la semana pasada de Tío Gavilán. ¿Qué le parece?

021 Resígnate, Tío Conejo. Esa es la suerte de nosotros, los

022 pequeños -dijo tranquilo el Morrocoy.

023 Ah, si, para usted es fácil decirlo con ese tremendo carapacho

024 que carga. Nadie se atreve a meterle el diente. Ni tampoco al

025 cachicamo ni al puercoespín. Todos tienen con que defenderse:

026 Tío Venado y Tío Toro tienen sus cuernos y las aves tienen sus

027 alas. Y, míreme a mí, yo no tengo nada.

028 ¿Y tus veloces piernas, Tío Conejo? ¿No crees que son

029 tus mejores armas?

030 Es verdad Pero no me bastan mis piernas. Yo quisiera algo

032 más. Como me gustaría pelear con los animales más feroces y

032 ganarles siempre!

033 Para eso necesitarías la piedra del zamuro, Tío Conejo. Los

034 animales de la selva dicen que es el mejor amuleto contra el

035 peligro y que da poderes mágicos a quien la posee. Pero es muy

036 difícil conseguirla. Sólo se encuentra en el nido del Rey

037 Zamuro.

038 Desde ese día Tío Conejo sólo pensó en la piedra del zamuro.

039 Qué bueno sería ser invencible y poderoso!

040 Qué bueno sería!

041 Pasó el tiempo, terminaron las lluvias y llegó el verano.

042 Una mañana, Tío Conejo vió volando muy alto en el cielo a un

043 gran pájaro de amplias alas y hermosos colores. ¡Era el Rey

044 Zamuro! Volaba sin esfuerzo hacia las montañas azules que se

045 veían en el horizonte. ¡Seguro que allí está su nido!, pensó

046 Tío Conejo y corrió veloz, siguiéndolo. Corrió mucho, mucho,

047 hasta que llegó, jadeando, al pie de las empinadas montañas.

048 Desde allí vió cómo el Rey Zamuro se remontaba

049 aún más para desaparecer por una grieta

050 del picacho más alto, allá,

051 casi entre las nubes.

052 Tío Conejo tomó aliento y comenzó a trepar. Por fin

053 llegó junto al nido y sin pararse a descansar le contó

054 al Rey Zamuro por qué quería la piedra mágica.

055 La piedra está aquí, en mi nido -graznó

056 el Rey Zamuro-. Pero no puedo dártela ahora.

057 Primero tienes que cumplir cuatro pruebas.

058 Tío Conejo estaba feliz:

059 Mande usted, Tío Rey Zamuro.

060 Yo haré lo que me diga.

061 Pon atención. Te entregaré la piedra

062 cuando me hayas traído lo siguiente:

063 un colmillo de caimán, una culebra

064 sabanera, un pelo de las barbas del

065 león y algunas lágrimas de tigre.

066 Tío Conejo bajó de la montaña

067 y esa noche durmió contento.

068 A la mañana siguiente cogió su cuatro y un

069 garrote y se fue a la orilla del río.

070 Allí se puso a cantar:

071 Un colmillo de caimán

072 busco de cualquier manera

073 y también una culebra

074 que llaman sabanera.

075 Busco lágrimas de tigre

076 y, aunque haya complicación,

077 yo conseguiré un pelito

078 de las barbas de Tío León.

079 Tío Sapo dormitaba entre los

080 juncos de la orla y al escuchar

081 el cuatro y la canción se despabiló.

082 Dando salticos se acercó a Tío Conejo para

083 hacer la segunda voz. Juntos cantaron y bailaron

084 y luego Tío Sapo cogió el cuatro para tocar unas coplas.

085 Apenas con la punta del hocico asomaba sobre la superficie

086 del río, Tío Caimán dormía. El ruido que hacían los músicos

087 le hizo despertar de mal humor,

088 Lentamente se fue

089 acercando a los cantores.

090 Tío Conejo lo miraba con un

091 ojo; Tío Caimán avanzaba.

092 Traía la inmensa boca abierta.

093 Cuando calculó que lo tenía a buena

094 distancia, Tío Conejo le dió un solo

095 golpe con el garrote. Un enorme

096 colmillo saltó por el aire. Tío Conejo lo

097 cogió al vuelo y con tres brincos se alejó.

098 Al otro día, Tío Conejo preparó un tapón bien ajustado para

099 su tapara encabullada y salió a buscar a la culebra sabanera.

100 La encontró tomando sol junto a unos bejucos.

101 -Hola, Tía Culebra. Justamente de usted estaban hablando

102 unos animales, allí cerca de la laguna.

103 Y que decían? -dijo la culebra desenrollándose.

104 Pues... no eran cosas muy buenas.

105 Cómo va a ser? -silbó la sabanera-. Dime que decían esos

106 chismosos- y miró a Tío Conejo con sus ojos amarillos.

107 Tío Conejo volteó para no verla:

108 -Pues... decían que usted no es capaz de deslizarse por una

109 grieta pequeña ni pasar por un agujero estrecho. Que usted no es

110 siquiera capaz de meterse en una tapara de boca ancha.

111 -¿Eso decían? Animales estúpidos. Dame

112 acá tu tapara y ve tú mismo, Tío Conejo.

113 Y en un segundo la culebra sabanera

114 se metió en la tapara encabullada. De un salto,

115 Tío Conejo le ajustó el tapón y cargó con tapara y culebra

16 De regreso a su casa se topó con Tío León. Se le veía contento,

117 con la barriga llena, Tío Conejo se atrevió a saludarlo:

118 -Hola, Tío León. Que bien se le ve.

119 El león sonrió satisfecho y a Tío Conejo se le ocurrió una

120 idea, Se acercó y se le quedó mirando fijamente:

121 -No puede ser- dijo-. No puede ser que Ud. tenga en

122 su barba un pelo gris como los de Tío Burro.

123 ¡Qué mal se ve todo un león con un pelo de burro!

124 Tío León gruñó:

125 ¿Y que esperas, Tío Conejo?

126 Arráncamelo de una vez.

127 Y Tío Conejo hizo

128 enseguida lo que

129 Tío León le

130 ordenaba

131 Esa tarde en su casa, Tío Conejo exprimió

132 el jugo de varios limones en una taparita.

133 «Ya tengo colmillo, culebra

134 las lágrimas de Tío Tigrito» me canturreaba.

135 Muy temprano al día siguiente se fue camino de la casa

136 de Tío Tigre. Cerca de allí se encaramó a un samán y se puso

137 a esperar. Al rato, pasó Tío Tigre todavía soñoliento pero con

138 mucha hambre. Tío Conejo habló duro desde el árbol:

139 -Qué sabroso está este paují! ¿No quiere compartir mi

140 desayuno, Tío Tigre?

141 ¿Compartir? Nada de eso. Paují y Conejo serán mi

142 desayuno- rugió Tío Tigre y se trepó al samán.

143 -Por aquí- gritó Tío Conejo desde arriba. Tío Tigre miró

144 las ramas altas del samán y en ese mismo instante, Tío Conejo le

145 lanzó a los ojos el jugo del limón.

146 Tío Tigre rugió y lloró. Por su nariz rodaron unas enormes

147 lagrimotas. Tío Conejo tuvo tiempo de ir a lavar la taparita al

148 río y recoger de regreso diez lágrimas de tigre.

149 Al día siguiente se presentó en el nido del Rey Zamuro.

150 -Aquí están los cuatro encargos que me hizo.

151 El Rey Zamuro examinó con cuidado el colmillo de

152 caimán, la culebra sabanera, el pelito del león y las lágrimas

153 del tigre. Y se quedó pensativo.

154 -Ahora me puede dar la piedra del zamuro

155 -dijo Tío Conejo orgulloso.

156 -Si, ahora puedo dártela- dijo el Rey Zamuro y con el pico le

157 alargó una piedra redonda y blanca. Tío Conejo la tocó. Era

158 Usa y fría y parecía brillar con la luz. Tío Conejo estaba

159 feliz. -Pero hay algo que tengo que decirte, Tío Conejo- graznó

160 el Rey Zamuro-. Esa es una piedra de estas montañas que mis

161 hijos y yo hemos alisado afilando en ella nuestros picos. Es una

162 piedra cualquiera. No es una piedra mágica ni puede darte

163 ningún poder.

164 Tío Conejo no podía creerlo. Se veía tan blanca y pulida.

165 Tenía que haber un poder oculto en ese trozo de roca.

166 -El poder no está en la piedra- continuó el Rey Zamuro -sino

167 en ti mismo. Guárdala para que recuerdes que sin ella lograste

168 cuatro cosas casi imposibles.

169 Tío Conejo bajó sin prisa de la montaña.

170 Guardó la piedra del zamuro y cada vez que lo

171 persigue Tío Tigre, toca su amuleto y se acuerda

172 de sus cuatro hazañas. Entonces el mundo le parece

173 más luminoso y sus piernas más veloces.

Hispania [Publicaciones periódicas]. Volume 73, Number 3, September 1990