Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Effects of second language learning on the first language: a longitudinal case study of Japanese learners Hayashi, Choji 1994

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1994-0446.pdf [ 5.8MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078126.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078126-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078126-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078126-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078126-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078126-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078126-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078126-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078126.ris

Full Text

EFFECTS OF SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING ON THE FIRST LANGUAGE: A LONGITUDINAL CASE STUDY OF JAPANESE LEARNERS b y Choj i H a y a s h i B a c h e l o r of S o c i o l o g y ; Kansai U n i v e r s i t y , 1986 E n g l i s h L i t e r a t u r e T e a c h e r ' s C e r t i f i c a t e ; Bukkyo U n i v e r s i t y , 1988 A MASTERS THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Language Education) We accept this Masters Thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1994 Choji Hayashi, 1994 In presenting this Major Paper in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at The University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this Paper for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying of publication of this Paper for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Language Education The University of British Columbia 2125 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T 1Z5 Abstract The intent of this study was to examine L2 (English) influence on L1 (Japanese). The lexical, syntactic, and pragmatic influences of L2 on L1 were investigated both in learners' speaking styles and writing styles. Changes in their Japanese writing quality was also examined over an extended period of time and compared with changes of their English writing quality. Additionally, the relationship between learners' attitudes toward cultural awareness and fluctuation of learners' L1 quality was examined in both their Japanese speech and writing. Two male and two female Japanese learners studying at a university level in Canada were the subjects of the study. The results of a descriptive analysis revealed that the learners' L1 was influenced by longitudinal exposure to L2 in lexical, syntactic and pragmatic dimensions of both speaking and writing lexically, syntactically and pragmatically. However, pragmatic transfer from L2 to L1 was not as conspicuous as lexical and syntactic transfer. The results also showed the relationship between changes of subjects' L1 and their attitudes toward the target culture. ii Table of Contents Abstract ii Table of Contents iii List of Tables vi List of Figures ix Acknowledgements xi Chapter One - Introduction to the Study 1 Introduction 1 Background 1 Purpose of the study 4 Study questions 5 Definitions 5 Summary 7 Chapter Two - Review of the Literature 8 Introduction 8 Language transfer from LI to L2 9 Pragmatic transfer from LI to L2 13 First language attrition 17 Attrition of LI pragmatics 20 The Overview of language transfer and first langauge attrition 21 Japanese as an LI and English as the L2: Typological comparison of the languages 22 The Relationships between attitudinal factors of learners, language transfer, and the first language attrition 34 Conclusion 36 Summary 3 7 Chapter Three - Design of the Study 38 Introduction 3 8 Research site 38 Sub j ects 41 Personal history of English learning 41 The most recent TOEFL Scores 41 Subjects' majors at Ritsumeikan University 43 Personal goals in UBC-Ritsumeikan Programme 43 Instruments 44 Procedure 48 Summary 52 Chapter Four - Results of the Study 53 Introduction 53 Site 53 Sub j ects 53 iii Data collection 53 Diary entries 54 Japanese writing samples 55 English writing samples 56 Interviews 58 Self-evaluation questionnaires 59 Findings 59 Lexical transfer from L2 to LI in speech and writing 59 Syntactic transfer from L2 to LI in speech and writing 63 Prominence in paragraphs 67 Application of English-like way of corresponding negative questions in Japanese speech 7 0 Grammatical transfer from L2 to LI in speech and writing 73 Retrieval of subject ellipses 73 Application of rigid tense agreement in subordinate clauses 76 Application of English-like verb deletion patterns in coordinated sentences 79 Replacement of adversity passive with English-like passive 79 Application of "lower animals" as subjects in transitive constructions 79 L2 influence on LI writing quality 80 Content 80 Organization 81 Vocabulary 82 Language use 83 Mechanics 84 Overall quality 85 Comparison of writing quality between LI and L2..86 Content 86 Organization 89 Vocabulary 92 Language use 96 Mechanics 99 Overall quality 102 TOEFL scores 105 The relationship between attitudinal factors and LI change 108 Impression of English-speaking culture and Japanese culture 108 Interaction with English-speaking people and Japanese-speaking people Ill Detail of cultural impressions of Japanese and English-speaking culture 113 Conclusion 116 Summary 119 IV Chapter Five - Discussion of the Study 120 Introduction 120 Background 120 The problem 121 The literature 121 Method 124 Results and discussion 127 Limitations of the study 140 Implications for ESL programmes designed for mono-ethnic classroom settings 141 Implications for future research 142 References 144 Appendix 1: Self-evaluation questionnaire 151 Appendix 2 : Detail of data used for graphics 152 List of Tables Table 3.1 TOEFL scores of the subjects (August, 1993) 52 Table 3.2 Subjects' personal goals in UBC-Rits Programme 53 Table 4.1 Number of paragraphs in subjects' Japanese writing samples 54 Table 4.2 Number of sentences in subjects' Japanese writing samples 55 Table 4.3 Average number of sentences in a paragraph in subjects' Japanese writing samples 55 Table 4.4 Number of meaning units in subjects' Japanese writing samples 55 Table 4.5 Average number of meaning units in a sentence in subjects' Japanese writing samples 56 Table 4.6 Number of paragraphs in subjects' English writing samples 56 Table 4.7 Number of sentences in subjects' English writing samples 56 Table 4.8 Average number of sentences in a paragraph in subjects' English writing samples 57 Table 4.9 Number of words in subjects' English writing samples 57 Table 4.10 Average number of words in a sentence in subjects' English writing samples 57 Table 4.11 Number of utterances in subjects' Japanese discoursesamples 58 Table 4.12 Number of sentences in subjects' Japanese discourse samples 58 Table 4.13 Average number of sentences in an utterance in subjects' Japanese discourse samples 58 Table 4.14 Number of meaning units in subjects' Japanese discourse samples 58 Table 4.15 Average number of meaning units in an utterance in subjects' Japanese discourse samples 59 VI Tables of the number and proportion of English words directly-used in Japanese text and speech Table 4.16 Maho 152 Table 4.17 Tsutomu 152 Table 4.18 Kengo 153 Table 4.19 Kazuko 153 Table 4.20 Overview 153 Tables of the number and proportion of right-branching sentences in Japanese text and speech Table 4.21 Maho 154 Table 4.22 Tsutomu 154 Table 4.23 Kengo 155 Table 4.24 Kazuko 155 Table 4 . 25 Overview 156 Tables of the number of topic-prominent paragraphs and subject-prominent paragraphs, and respective proportion in Japanese text and speech Table 4.26 Maho 156 Table 4 .27 Tsutomu 157 Table 4.28 Kengo 157 Table 4.29 Kazuko 157 Table 4.30 Overview 158 Tables of the number of negative questions and answering patterns in Japanese speech Table 4.31 Maho 71 Table 4 .32 Tsutomu 71 Table 4.33 Kengo 72 Table 4.34 Kazuko 72 Table 4.35 Overview 73 Tables of the number of retrieved subject pronouns in Japanese speech Table 4.3 6 Maho 158 Table 4.37 Tsutomu 158 Table 4.3 8 Kengo 159 Table 4.3 9 Kazuko 159 Table 4.40 Overview 159 Tables of the number of sentences applying rigid tense agreement in subordinate clauses in Japanese writing and speech Table 4 .41 Maho 76 Table 4.42 Tsutomu 76 Table 4.43 Kengo 77 Table 4 . 44 Kazuko 78 Table 4.45 Overview 78 V l l Tables of Composition Mastery Report - Japanese Table 4 .46 Content 159 Table 4 .47 Organization 160 Table 4 .48 Vocabulary 160 Table 4.49 Language use 160 Table 4 . 50 Mechanics 161 Table 4.51 Overall scores 161 TOEFL scores Table 4.52 Maho 105 Table 4 . 53 Tsutomu 105 Table 4 . 54 Kengo 106 Table 4.55 Kazuko 106 Table 4.57 Means 107 Table 4.56 Composition Mastery Report - Japanese (Overview)....107 Tables of classification of subjects' diary entries regarding cultural impressions of Japanese and English culture Table 4.58 Maho 113 Table 4 .59 Tsutomu 114 Table 4.60 Kengo 115 Table 4.61 Kazuko 115 Table 4.62 Additional classification of Kazuko's diary entries regarding degree of satisfaction of the life in UBC-Ritsumeikan House 115 Table 4.63 The means of self-evaluation questionnaires' results 116 Table 4 . 64 Overview of the data 117 Vlll List of Figures Figure 2.1 Mechanism of Language transfer and first language attrition 21 Figure 2.2 An example of left-branching constructions 26 Figure 2.3 An example of right-branching constructions 27 Figures of the proportion of English words directly used in Japanese text and speech Figure 4 .1 Maho 60 Figure 4 . 2 Tsutomu 61 Figure 4 . 3 Kengo 61 Figure 4 .4 Kazuko 62 Figure 4 . 5 Means 63 Figures of the proportion of right-branching sentences in Japanese text and speech Figure 4 . 6 Maho 64 Figure 4 . 7 Tsutomu 64 Figure 4 . 8 Kengo 65 Figure 4 . 9 Kazuko 66 Figure 4.10 Means 66 Figures of the proportion of topic-prominent paragraphs and subject-prominent paragraphs in Japanese text and speech Figure 4 .11 Maho 67 Figure 4 .12 Tsutomu 68 Figure 4 .13 Kengo 68 Figure 4 .14 Kazuko 69 Figure 4 .15 Means 70 Figures of the number of retrieved subject pronouns in Japanese text and speech Figure 4 .16 Maho 74 Figure 4.17 Tsutomu 74 Figure 4 .18 Kengo 75 Figure 4.19 Kazuko 75 Figure 4.20 Means 76 Figures of Comparison Mastery Reprot Figure 4.21 Content 81 Figure 4 . 22 Organization 82 Figure 4.23 Vocabulary 83 Figure 4 . 24 Language use 84 Figure 4 . 25 Mechanics 84 Figure 4.26 Overall scores 85 IX Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English -Content Figure 4.27 Maho 86 Figure 4.28 Tsutomu 87 Figure 4.29 Kengo 88 Figure 4.30 Kazuko 88 Figure 4.31 Means 89 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English -Organization Figure 4.32 Maho 90 Figure 4.33 Tsutomu 90 Figure 4.34 Kengo 91 Figure 4.35 Kazuko 92 Figure 4.36 Means 92 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English -Vocabulary Figure 4.37 Maho 93 Figure 4.38 Tsutomu 93 Figure 4.39 Kengo 94 Figure 4.40 Kazuko 95 Figure 4.41 Means 95 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English -Language use Figure 4.42 Maho 96 Figure 4.43 Tsutomu 97 Figure 4.44 Kengo 97 Figure 4 .45 Kazuko 98 Figure 4.46 Means 98 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English -Mechanics Figure 4.47 Maho 99 Figure 4.48 Tsutomu 100 Figure 4.4 9 Kengo 100 Figure 4.50 Kazuko 101 Figure 4.51 Means 101 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English -Overall scores Figure 4.52 Maho 102 Figure 4.53 Tsutomu 103 Figure 4 . 54 Kengo 103 Figure 4.55 Kazuko 104 Figure 4 . 56 Means 104 Impression of English-speaking culture and Japanese culture Figure 4 .57 Maho 108 Figure 4 . 58 Tsutomu 109 Figure 4.59 Kengo 110 Figure 4.60 Kazuko 110 Interaction with English-speaking people and Japanese-speaking people Figure 4.61 Maho Ill Figure 4.62 Tsutomu 112 Figure 4 . 63 Kengo 112 Figure 4 . 64 Kazuko 113 XL Acknowledgements I owe a debt of thanks to many precious people whose invaluable assistance, advice, and encouragement bring this thesis project together. Dr. Lee Gunderson, my faculty advisor, who assisted me day and night despite his tight time constraints. I am extremely grateful to him for helping me get my ideas into appropriate form on paper. Dr. Richard Berwick, and Dr. Gloria Tang, my other committee members, who supported me during my two-year programme at U.B.C. Bill McMichael, Sheri Wenman, Junko Haga, and Jean Hamilton, the staff members of UBC-Ritsumeikan Academic Exchange Programme, who made it possible for me to conduct my project at UBC-Rits House. Four Ritsumeikan University students, who agreed to participate in my research and devoted their precious time to making my data collection feasible. Roberta Buck, who helped me academically and spiritually as a classmate and a prayer-mate at the sacrifice of driving up to B.C. from Washington many times during hectic moments. Magnus & Marita Birkner, who always gave me precious comfort not only as my landlords but as my Canadian family and helped me establish my community network in West Point Grey district. Jeff Sc Tiffany Erdman, who helped me settle down in Vancouver and welcomed me into their home so often. Many friends deserve thanks for being supportive: Charles Voth, Jennifer Martens, Lynda Hayward, Wendy Pringle, Sandie Nakagawa, Vinh Nelsen, Brent Walker, and people from University Chapel. My wonderful parents and sisters, who supported me in so many ways and believed I would accomplish my goal at U.B.C, even when I could not believe so. I am grateful for their precious love to me. Finally, I would like to thank all of the people who encouraged me from Japan beyond the Pacific. XU CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY INTRODUCTION This chapter begins with a discussion of the role of language transfer and first language attrition in second language learning. Second, the background of the present study is discussed. Following the discussion, the purpose of this study and questions this research investigated are specified. Finally, key working definitions are explained. THE PROBLEM Traditionally researchers have focused on the effects of a first langauge (LI) on the learning of a second langauge (L2). The effects include the transfer of LI features to L2. However, the learning of an L2 has effects on LI, including both transfer and attrition. Unfortunately, little research has been conducted to investigate the effects of learning L2 on LI. BACKGROUND Second language learners often feel frustrated about their slow progress. Even highly advanced L2 learners feel disappointed because they cannot see rapid development in their target language in spite of long hours of arduous work. Although evidence has been found which suggests LI has a negative effect on L2 learning in some ways, not enough is known to explain adequately the complex relationship between L2 acquisition and and its influence on LI. Indeed, few studies have been conducted to explore the effects of learning an L2 on LI. The problem is that there has been an increase in business and academic collaborations in Canada associated with the development of Pacific Rim relations and the Canadian economy (see, e.g. Hammer, 1992; Nelson, 1992) which has included a significant increase in the number of students who come to Canada to study English. It is not well understood what effects the learning of English has on students' first languages. Researchers have explored the relationship between LI and L2 from two points of view. One is based on Contrastive Analysis and the other on Creative Construction. Contrastive Analysis Theory proposes that second language learners acquire their target language by comparing features of LI and L2 and then transferring grammatical features from LI to L2, (Fries, 1945; Lado, 1957) . On the other hand. Creative Construction Theory proposes that second language learners acquire L2 just as they do their LI. Namely, L2 learners acquire their target language by learning semantic and syntactic features of L2 one by one like young children acquire their first language. In Creative Construction Theory L2 learners perceive grammatical features of their target language separately from LI knowledge. For instance, Dulay and Burt (1976) and Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982) state that the principle of second language acquisition is independent of LI experience. Dulay and her colleagues claim that transfer of LI syntactic patterns rarely occurs in children's second language acquisition. However, a variety of studies provide evidence of LI influence on L2 2 acquisition, (Duskova, 1969; Oiler and Redding, 1971; Taylor, 1975; Rutherford, 1983; and White, 1985). Furthermore, Dulay and Burt (1978) state that there are universal processing strategies to learn languages, but Brown (1987) comments on their findings and says that adult learners encounter different obstacles in acquiring a second language than the ones children experience. However, Contrastive Analysis Theory does not focus on learners' attitudinal factors on L2 learning. Chomsky (1959) says that language learning means more than simple rote learning of structures. There are various types of affective factors in natural language learning environments. Attitudinal variables are the strong affective factors for language learning. Learning motivation, learners' impressions of the target language culture, their impressions of the learning environments and the learners' personality have strong affects on learning. There have not been studies which deal with such attitudinal variables in Contrastive Analysis. Linguistic features across LI and L2 and learners' attitudinal variables have been explored separately. On the other hand, studies of linguistic features, especially language transfer from LI to L2 have been explored by comparing two languages and analyzing transferring processes. Studies which integrate these two areas are needed. Moreover, Contrastive Analysis Theory does not account for L2 influence on learners' LI. Studies of language transfer have focused on the effects of LI on L2. However, there is a complex relationship between LI and L2: LI affects L2 and L2 affects LI (Carson and Kuehn, 1992). To understand better the complexities of language transfer it is necessary to observe it from both sides. According to Brown (1987) there are two types of bilinguals: "People who learn a second language in ... separate contexts are referred to as coordinate bilingual; they have two meaning systems, as opposed to compound bilingual who have one meaning system from which both languages operate (p. 52)" To become a coordinate bilingual learners learn two languages at once from a zero level like children who are raised in bilingual environments. Therefore, the majority of second language learners, especially adults, have the potential to become compound bilinguals since they have already acquired their first languages. It is natural that such learners utilize their LI knowledge to learn L2 by comparing linguistic features of the two languages. However, its processes are complex. Although believers in a universal grammar point out drawbacks of Contrastive Analysis Theory, there is evidence to suggest the relationship between LI and L2 . This study was designed to explore the complex relationships between learning a second language and syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, and cultural influences of the second language on the first language. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The intent of this study is to examine L2 (English) influence on LI (Japanese). The lexical, syntactic, and pragmatic influences of L2 on LI are investigated both in learners' speaking styles and 4 writing styles. Changes in Japanese writing quality is also examined over an extended period of time. Additionally, the relationship between learners' cultural awareness and fluctuation of learners' LI quality is examined in Japanese speech and writing. The following are the questions to be examined in this study: STUDY QUESTIONS 1. Will lexical transfer from L2 to LI occur in speech and writing? 2. Will syntactic transfer from L2 to LI occur in speech and writing? 3. Will pragmatic transfer from L2 to LI occur in speech and writing? 4. Will quality of LI writing be debased due to transfer of linguistic features from L2 to LI? 5. Will changes in LI quality during L2 exposure be associated with L2 development? 6. Will learners' attitudes related to culture awareness affect learners' LI speech and writing? DEFINITIONS Counter language transfer: Transfer of linguistic features from L2 to LI. This term includes the following items; lexical transfer, syntactic transfer and pragmatic transfer. Left-branching constructions: A characteristic of sentence structures. Genitives, adjectives and relative clauses precede the head nouns. Japanese has this structural feature. Japanese sentences can easily contain as many left-branching clauses as is necessary to make a description complex. Ricrht-branching constructions: A characteristic of sentence structures. Genitives, adjectives and relative clauses follow the head nouns. English has this structural feature. Adversity passive: A unique passive voice which Japanese has. In Japanese, when the action of a sentence is expressed with adversity, intransitive verbs appear in passive constructions in some cases as well as transitive sentences. Topic prominence: A tendency to expressan idea through topical statements which can be often seen in Asian languages. In Asian languages, topics precede subjects main ideas in conversation and in presentation of statements. Namely, Asian language speakers tend to present information (topics) before the main idea (subject). Subject prominence: A tendency to present an idea in statements which can be often seen in English. In English, subjects precede topics in conversation and in presentation of statements. Namely, English speakers tend to present the main idea first, and then present information. 6 SUMMARY The needs and the purposes for this study were discussed. The position of this study in Contrastive Analysis Theory was explained as background information. Six research questions were presented and the chapter concluded with an explanation of key terms which are used in this study. CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE INTRODUCTION This chapter begins with a review of studies on the effects of language transfer and language attrition on the learning of a second language, particularly when the language is English. Second, the effects of attitudinal factors on second language learning are described. Finally, a contrastive analysis of Japanese and English is presented, followed by a discussion of the implications such research has for second language research and pedagogy. Lanquacre Transfer From LI to L2 Research to understand language transfer has been focused on the relationship between learners' LI proficiency and their L2 performance. Mohan and Lo (1985) claim that transfer of ability to L2 can only occur if individuals have already acquired that ability in their LI. There are studies which support this position. For instance, Mace-Matluck and her colleagues found a significant relationship between LI proficiency and L2 development in Cantonese speaking English learners, (Mace-Matluck, Dominguez, Holtzman, and Hoover, 1883). Edelsky's (1982) study of the language transfer of Spanish speaking elementary school children also revealed evidence of a relationship between LI proficiency and L2 performance. Furthermore, Canale, Frenette and Belanger (1988) found evidence indicating a significant relationship between LI writing 8 proficiency and L2 writing performance in French-English bilingual high school students. These findings suggest that language transfer occurs after skills have been established in the LI. That is, the higher the learners' LI proficiency, the more actively language transfer occurs in L2 learning. Canale and his colleagues found that writing proficiency developed in the LI first, followed by an interlingual transfer from LI to L2, (Canale, Frenette, and Belanger, 1988). Edelsky (1982) emphasized the importance of a solid basis of first language literacy before second language literacy instruction is begun. The evidence of language transfer is clearly seen in L2 learners' writing performance. LI proficiency appears influential in L2 writing development. Evidence for this was found in learners' writing process for individuals across two languages (Arndt, 1987; Gumming, 1989; Edelsky, 1982; Hall, 1990; Pennington and So, 1993) . Skilled L2 writers produce good texts because of their effective LI writing strategies. Writing strategies are acquired in the process of developing writing skills in LI (Flower and Hayes, 1986; Perl, 1979, 1980) . Zamel (1984) explained this relationship by focusing on writing competency of lower-level ESL learners as follows: ...while ESL students must certainly deal with concerns that are linguistic specific, it seems that it is their writing strategies and behaviours and not primarily language proficiency that determine composing skill, (p. 198) As for advanced L2 learners, they apply not only rhetorical knowledge in the LI (Kaplan, 1983) but also knowledge of writing planning skills (Jones and Tetroe, 1987), and thinking and revising strategies (Gumming, Rebuffot and Ledwell, 1989) which are developed in their LI. Lay (1982) believes writers' LI competency is indispensable because it allows them to produce essays of better quality in terms of ideas, organization and details. Gumming (1989) also pointed out "their [L2 learners'] native language is an important resource in their continual processes of decision making while writing" (p. 128). On the other hand, there are some studies which reveal first language interference, (Lado, 1989; Rivers, 1975). Schumann's study on basilang speech discovered both negative transfer and positive transfer from LI to L2 (Schumann, 1986) . The findings of his comparative study of Japanese and Spanish speakers indicated that Japanese speaking ESL learners tend to have more problems in developing skills of using prepositions than Spanish speaking ESL learners. He hypothesized that these problems were due to the differences of linguistic distance between Japanese, Spanish, and English. Japanese speakers attempted to substitute pseudo-adverbial phrases for prepositions which the Japanese language does not have, (e.g. My father stayed hospital long time.) While Spanish speakers tended to use "in" when they were not sure which to use, "in" or "on" . Schumann assumes this tendency was due to the transfer of the Spanish preposition "en" meaning "in" and "on" in English in order to simplify the system. Japanese speakers and Spanish speakers both 10 transfer the grammatical features of their native language to convey meaning to the receivers. Although this finding implies that negative transfer from the learners' LI contributes to pidginization of the target language, Edelsky (1982) and Takashima (1992) proposed that this type of transfer does not necessarily affect L2 learning negatively if fossilization can be avoided. When L2 learners have difficulties in logical development of ideas in the target language, they attempt to convey meaning in the pidginized target language by borrowing LI features which simplify or overgeneralize complex features of L2 . Although the learners' L2 is not grammatical, they, at least, manage to make others understand. Interestingly, this type of transfer is common to advanced learners' L2 . Takashima (1987) depicts the characteristics of relationships between the types of language transfer and the levels of ESL learners' achievement by citing Taylor (1975) as follows: Errors resulting from reliance on native language structures (native language transfer) are more prevalent among beginners, while errors made by intermediate speakers are more attributable to overgeneralization from approximate knowledge of L2. (p.43) However, if the learners set their achievement goal as native-like proficiency in the target language, the pidginization should be reduced. That is, the learners should be more aware of grammatical accuracy of the target language in order to help produce input to the learners' satisfaction, (Hakuta, 1974; Krashen and Scarcella, 11 1978; Manguhbai, 1991; Schmidt and Frota, 1986). However, negative transfer which hampers learners' L2 development was also been found in Selinker's (1969) study of English learners of Hebrew speakers and Duskova's (196 9) study of English learners of Czech speakers. Flynn (1987) sums up negative transfer as follows: L2 acquisition consists of the transfer of the LI habits to the L2 . Where the LI and the L2 match, positive transfer takes place. Where the LI and the L2 do not match, there is negative transfer (interference). At those points of interference, the learner, it is claimed, must learn the new habits (language patterns) for the L2 through modification of the old ones, for example, by addition or deletion, (p. 21) In this sense second language input plays a significant role in developing literacy skills in L2, (Krashen 1984). Moreover, the transfer of literacy-related skills across languages does not occur without achieving cognitive academic proficiency in the target language (Cummins, 1981). Intralingual input occurs as the result of literacy events in the second language, (Belanger, 1987; Stotsky, 1983) . Different patterns of langauge transfer occur in different stages of the L2 learning process and the transfer continues until L2 proficiency becomes equivalent to LI proficiency. Once learners achieve this level, there is the possibility that the learner is truely bilingual. In a sense, it can be said that langauge transfer is a transformation process of LI to L2. 12 Pracrmatic Transfer from LI to L2 Takahashi and Beebe (1987) defined pragmatic transfer as "transfer of first language (LI) sociocultural communicative competence in performing L2 speech acts" (p. 134) . Looking at language acquisition from a metalinguistic point of view, it is easy to identify the transfer of pragmatics from LI to L2. If the learners' L2 goal is to achieve native-like proficiency, acquiring standard pragmatics of the target language is crucial in order to avoid miscommunication (Thomas, 1983). Speakers of Asian languages prefer an inductive manner to present an idea which makes them tend to appear to be inscrutable to English speaking Westerners. Whereas, English speakers prefer deductive patterns of rhetorical organization, speakers who use deducitve rhetorical organization in presenting an idea tend to appear arrogant to Asian language speakers (Scollon and Scollon, 1991). For instance, Asian langauge speakers engage in small talk more than English speaking Westerners, especially, before getting to the main topic of a conversation, and Asian language speakers' small talk is perceived as not necessarily relevant to the main topic. That is, the introduction of main topics by Asian language speakers are relatively delayed in a conversation, while English speaking Westerners introduce topics early in a conversation. Moreover, English speaking Westerners state their opinions clearly in the beginning of a conversation, but Asian language speakers state their opinions vaguely at the end of a conversation. Another study by Scollon and Scollon (1985) on Northern Athabaskans and 13 North American English speakers also produced the similar results. In terms of expressing politeness in English, Clancy (1986) and Matsumoto (1988) found that both native English speakers and Japanese ESL learners adopted socioculturally and sociolinguistically different strategies. This difference in strategies in English resulted in confusion in a conversation between Japanese ESL learners and native English speaking Americans. The pragmatic values which Japanese ESL learners transferred from their LI (Japanese) background did not fit those of native English speakers. This problem seems to stem in part from cross-cultural differences in the rules of speaking, (Hymes, 1972; Wolfson 1983). Cohen and Olshtain's (1981) study of apologies of native Hebrew speakers and the sociocultural transfer of their native language into English and Olshtain's (1983) study of rating patterns of apologies from English to Russian and from Russian to Hebrew found pragmatic transfer occurring from LI to L2. Pragmatic transfer most often occurs after learners' have attained a high level of L2 proficiency. Beginners have the highest level of morphological transfer, with transfer decreasing as proficiency increases (Taylor, 1975). However, pragmatic transfer does not occur in beginners because lower proficiency learners do not have enough fluency in the target langauge to allow pragmatic transfer (Takahashi and Beebe, 1987). Takahashi and Beebe suggest that the relationships between pragmatic transfer and L2 competency are as follows: 14 Transfer at the pragmatic level is not exactly parallel to transfer at the phonological or morpho-syntactic level because pragmatic transfer requires competence at the lower linguistic levels (e.g., phonology, grammar, lexicon), (p. 137) Thus, if this assumption is universally common to L2 acquisition, evidence of pragmatic transfer can be regarded as a criterion to indicate specific stages of L2 acquisition. As mentioned earlier, syntactic transfer is assumed to occur just before pragmatic transfer. This stage of transfer indicates a significant process connecting morphological transfer and pragmatic transfer because the primary stage of pragmatic transfer can be recognized at a syntactic level. For instance, English sentences which native Japanese EFL learners produce are heavily influenced by animacy cues. On the other hand, native English speakers show a higher overall sensitivity to word order when they produce a sentence, (Harrington, 1987). To put it another way, English sentences produced by native Japanese speakers reflect the topic-comment structure (topic prominence) and English sentences produced by native English speakers reflect subject-predicate structure (subject prominence). It can be assumed that these differences between the two language groups regarding sentence structure are related to LI linguistic differences. English is a subject prominence language, while Japanese is a topic prominence language, (Farmer, 1985) . Duff (1985) (cited in Sasaki, 1991) notes that native Japanese speakers are consistently influenced by topic-comment (pragmatics-based) sentence formation in their LI when 15 writing in English, which is characteristic of subject-predicate (syntax-based) information. This LI influence on L2 sentence structure results in grammatical problems when producing L2 sentences. Li and Thompson's (1976) study of topic-prominence versus subject-prominence typological framework shows that Chinese and Japanese, whose Lis have strong topic prominent orientations, tend to transfer their LI prominence to the L2, and this tendency is apt to cause a problem with passive sentences in the L2. A study of topicalization of locatives in existential sentences produced by Japanese ESL learners suggests that transferred LI functions of locatives distort L2 function of locatives (Sasaki, 1990) . Japanese does not have a locative such as "There is" which English has. Instead of this expression, sentences start with a word directly indicating place. Japanese ESL beginners construct existential sentences in English such as, "Mary's school is twenty seven students". However, production of these ungrammatical sentences decreases as the learners' grammatical knowledge and practical uses of the L2 increase. Namely, as this type of ungrammatical product decreases, the learners produce more subject prominent sentences representing the linguistic features of the L2 (English) (Sasaki, 1990). Duff (1988) (cited in Sasaki, 1990) proposed that there is a general progression from less syntacticized topic-prominence to more syntacticized subject-prominence as learners' L2 develops To sum up, the transfer from topic-prominent structures to subject-predicate structures indicates progress in L2 proficiency 16 from intermediate to advanced (Rutherford 1983; Schachter and Rutherford, 1979). Upper beginning or intermediate ESL learners produce more topic-comment structures loosely organized by pragmatic word order, whereas advanced ESL learners produce more target-like subject-predicate structures tightly organized by elaborate use of morphological devices. Subsequently, this change contributes to developing L2 pragmatics in the learners' strategies of presenting statements, writing paragraphs, and producing discourse structures. First Language Attrition In a review of studies on reading-writing relationships between the first and second language, Carson et. al.(1990) noted that "...attrition may be similar, then, to the phenomenon of langauge loss that occurs when a language is no longer used sufficiently to maintain proficiency" (p. 257). Although first language loss can be regarded as a phenomenon caused by the lack of an LI environment after a long exposure to an L2 environment, a more complicated mechanism related to language transfer exists. Sharwood Smith (1983) sees language loss as change. His study shows that language loss is the evolution of the language system through transfer phenomena. Conversely, it can be said that transfer is a fundamental process in LI loss. Jaespart Kroon, and van Hort (1986) comment on this point as follows: LI losers do not just lose linguistic elements over time.... they may substitute linguistic elements .... [that] .... a 17 substitute is borrowed from another language system may be too unimportant a feature of language loss to warrant the claim that language loss is a separate autonomous language change process, (p. 40) Carson and Kuehn (1992) proposed that LI loss occurs in the process of transforming LI into L2 by transferring morphological and metalinguistic features from LI to L2. In a sense, when the linguistic features which underlie the two languages are common, the features appear to be transferred from LI to L2. For example, L2 learners who have an article system in their LI acquire the English article system significantly faster than learners whose LI lacks an article system (Oiler and Redding, 1971) . On the other hand, LI linguistic features which are not common to L2 features can also be transferred, attributed to an overgeneralization due to the linguistic similarities or overestimation of grammatical roles. Ungrammatical English existential constructions of Japanese ESL learners (Sasaki, 1990) are examples of the transfer caused by overgeneralization of grammatical roles. As a result grammatical errors occur through inappropriate transfer from LI to L2 (Flynn, 1987). This grammatical incongruence between LI and L2 is assumed to trigger attrition in LI. In order to reduce grammatical incorrectness learners need to apply strong conscious effort to avoid inappropriately transferred LI features into L2. In some cases, this effort affects learners' LI, especially, when the learners regard LI features as critical obstacles in L2 learning. Even when learners use LI, they tend to avoid using LI features 18 which cause grammatical confusion in L2 learning, and eventually those features will be lost from the LI, (Flynn, 1987). In terms of language loss in highly advanced learners, Gardner at al. (1985) (cited in Carson and Kuehn, 1992) specify the L2 criteria which are lost after a learner is separated from exposure to L2 learning as follows: 1. Language loss occurs first with skills not completely ingrained but where there is some level of competence. 2. Attrition occurs primarily for skills acquired or improved recently, or for skills that were rapidly acquired. 3. Attrition occurs primarily with active skills that require interaction with speakers of the other language. A correlate is that active skills decline more rapidly than do passive skills. (Reading did not seem to be affected.) (p. 162) They hypothesize that the same tendency can be seen in LI. For instance, LI academic writing skills, academic discourse which has developed recently or rapidly, tends to be lost quickly if the exposure to the academic LI environment is reduced. McLaughlin (1987) found evidence that advanced L2 readers did not necessarily utilize their LI reading skills. The advanced learners utilized strategies directed at meaning when they read in their first language, but they had not yet made this shift in their second language. In general, it can be said that advanced learners switch their linguistic dependency from LI to L2 in order to enlarge the L2 domain in their thinking process. In a way, the 19 power balance of LI and L2 shifts from being LI-dominated to L2-dominated. When learners have reached this level, it is assumed that the first language attrition subsequently occurs (Andersen, 1982) . Attrition of LI Pragmatics Fuller and Gundel (1987) and Huebner (1983) conducted studies of EFL learners suggesting that pragmatics based (topic-comment) formation of speech overrode syntax-based formation when the two formations conflict with each other. According to Carson and Kuehn's (1992) and Flynn's theory (1987) the same type of attrition is hypothesized to occur not only in terms of grammatical features of LI but also in terms of pragmatic features of LI. That is, the LI values which cause confusion when producing text or speech in L2 are eliminated in the process of L2 development. In other words, problematical parts of LI pragmatics are also eliminated from the LI side in order to concentrate on conveying intelligible communication in the target language. The issues of LI attrition have not been well explored, so little data to support this hypothesis are available. The present research focuses on this type of attrition, the effects of learning L2 on LI. 20 The Overview of Langage Transfer and First Langauge Attrition The mechanism of language transfer and first langage attrition is described by Figure 2.1 as follows. Figure 2.1 Mechanism of Language Transfer and Attrition Mechanism of Language Transfer and Attrition Good LI speakers are good L2 learners. LI development L2 exposure TRANSFER L1 — • L2 Threshold level of L2 causes transfer. L2 DEVELOPMENT i More L2 exposure, less L1 use L1-L2 TRANSFER DECREASING More L2 development LI ATTRITION restriction of L2 use L2 ATTRITION - | 0 S S loss i Recently acquired language skills Rapidly acquired language skills Active language skills; speaking and writing 21 Japanese as an LI and English as the L2 : Tvxioloqical Comparison of the Languages The linguistic characteristics of Japanese language which are presumably related to language transfer are described in this section. Japanese ESL learners' English has been explored by many researchers. The linguistic idiosyncrasies of the Japanese language are explained in studies on language transfer from Japanese to English. Akiyama (1984) discovered a difference in Japanese speakers' and English speakers' cognitive processes involved in verification of understanding; he found that the characteristics of Japanese ESL learners' English strongly affected the cognitive processing of their native language. Hayashi's (1991) study of the interactive processing of words in connected speech in Japanese and English revealed that Japanese native speakers' English word recognition processes differed from those of native English speakers. When some words of a tape-recorded English sentence are eliminated by noise, Japanese listeners use bottom-up strategies to identify the eliminated words, while English listeners use top-down strategies. Zobl (1980) found that knowledge of the LI (Japanese) caused complex error-making patterns in the process of transferring meaning from the LI to the L2 (English) . For example, Japanese English learners' problems in subject-verb agreement and tense agreement are caused by word order free sentence structures in Japanese. Sasaki's (1990) study of Japanese native speakers' interlanguage explored the manner in which L2 learners' word order 22 differed from low-level to high-level proficiency, concluding that while Japanese favour topic comment structure English-speakers favour subject-comment structure. Japanese is a postpositional language. This characteristic is attributed to the function of particles which determine the function of each word. All case relations and other functional relations that would be represented in English by prepositions, subordinating conjunctions, and coordinating conjunctions are expressed in Japanese by "particles" that are postpositional. Namely, a particle contributes to forming a functional meaning unit by being attached to each word. This linguistically unique element of Japanese affects the basic word order of a sentence. Makino and Tsutui (1989) explains Japanese as follows: Japanese is typologically classified as an SOV (Subject + Object + Verb) langauge, whereas English is classified as SVO. An important fact about Japanese word order is that each sentence ends in a verb, an adjective or a form of the copula, and the order of the other sentence elements is relatively free, except for the topic noun or noun phrase, which normally comes at sentence-initial position. The Location and the Direct Object can be switched, but the Subject (topic) and the Verb must normally be in sentence-initial and sentence-final positions, respectively, (p. 16) Greenberg (1963) (cited in Kuno, 1973) hypothesized that "With overwhelmingly greater than chance frequency, languages with normal SOV order are postpositional" (p. 5). 23 Kuno (1973) identified four typological characteristics more explicitly by specifying as follows: Jl) Japanese is a postpositional; J2) Japanese is a left-branching language; J3) Verb phrase deletion works backward; J4) And interrogative words such as who, which, what, when do not have to move to the sentence-initial position, (p.4) In contrast to these four characteristics of Japanese, English has the following typological characteristics: El) English is a prepositional language (English does not have particles); E2) English is a right-branching language; E3) Verb phrase deletion works forward; E4) And interrogative words such as who, which, what, when have to move to the sentence-initial position. Without exception, each particle is attached to a word like a suffix and provides the word with a contextual function so that receivers of the word have to pay attention to the word-end position in order to identify the function of the word. Some particles represent the speaker's attitude toward the content of the sentences by being attached after sentence-final verbs. This function of sentence-end prepositions contributes to characterizing Japanese as a rigid SOV language because attitudes of an agent are universally presented in verbs in a sentence. The postpositional particle system of Japanese promotes development of its J2, J3, and J4 characteristics mentioned above. 24 Japanese is a left-branching language. Genitives, adjectives, and relative clauses precede the head nouns in Japanese. The following is Kuno's (1973) example modified by the author: 1) John ga katte-iru neko qa koroshita John + nominal keep cat + nominal killed particle particle nezumi qa tabeta tiizu wa kusatte-ita. rat + nominal ate cheese + thematic rotten -was particle particle 2)John owned a cat that killed a rat that ate cheese that was rotten. 3)The cheese that the rat, which was killed by a cat owned by John, had eaten was rotten. (pp. 7-8) The underlined Example 1 is a grammatical sentence in Japanese. Example 2 is an English translation of Example 1. Kuno (1973) graphically illustrates Example 1 as follows: 25 Figure 2.2 An example of left-branching constructions S3 John ga katte-iru (John keeps VP kusatte-ita (rotten-was) NP tiizu wa (cheese) VP tabeta (ate) NP nezumi ga (rat] VP koroshita (killed) NP neko ga (cat) (p. 7) Three embedded left-branching clauses (SI, S2, S3) can be seen in this sentence. By adding more left-branching clauses, this sentence could be longer and more descriptive. Thus, Japanese sentences can easily contain as many left-branching clauses as is necessary to make a description complex. 26 On the other hand, English is a right-branching language. Example 2 is illustrated by Kuno (1973) in the following diagram: Figure 2.3 An example of right-branching constructions SO NP-cheese S3 that was rotten. (p. 8) As shown in the comparison of branching between the two languages, it is clear that Japanese and English contrast with each other in terms of the way they organize information when a sentence is constructed. These differences are presumably due to the difference of the location of verbs in a sentence between Japanese and English. In Japanese, the main subject of a sentence, subjects in subordinate clauses and objects, can be long and complicated by adding embedded clauses and phrases. Since the main verb of a sentence is always located at the sentence-end, naturally the sentences tend to expand in their left portion in written form. On the other hand, English sentences, basically locating a verb 27 between a subject and an object, tend to expand in both directions. However, English sentences do not favour long subjects. Long subjects are usually substituted for by dummy subjects and the detail of the subject is described in the predicate after the main verb. Thus, the English sentences tend to expand in a right direction in written form, (Farmer, 1985; Saint-Jacques, 1966). In Japanese verb phrase deletion works backward. Kuno (1973) explains that verb phrases delete all but the last of identical verbs in coordinated sentences in Japanese. For example, the verbs "married" in the following Japanese sentence (a) can be omitted as is seen in sentence (b): (a) John wa Mary to kekkon-shi. Bill wa Jane to kekkon-shi. John Mary married Bill Jane married Tom wa Martha to kekkonshita. Tom Martha married. (b) John wa Mary to. Bill wa Jane to, Tom wa Martha to kekkonshita. On the other hand, in English, verb phrase deletion in coordinated sentences works forward. Sentence (c) can be changed to Sentence (d) as follows: 28 (c) John married Mary, Bill married Jane, and Tom married Martha. (d) John married Mary, Bill Jane, and Tom Martha. This difference in verb phrases between English and Japanese is also attributed to differences in sentence structures. All clauses in Japanese must end with verbs because Japanese is a rigid SOV language. Deleting verb phrases backward would violate this characteristic condition. The English counterpart takes the opposite form because English is an SVO language. Although there are a few exceptions in both languages, each principle applies for verb phrase deletion in accordance with the characteristics of respective sentence structures in English and in Japanese. There is another distinctive feature which characterizes Japanese as a postpositional language. In Japanese, the position of interrogative words equivalent to what, who, whom, which, when, where, and how occur following subjects. Subjects are frequently omitted when the agents are obvious in a sentence. Because of this ellipsis, sentences look like interrogative word-initial sentences. Furthermore, Yes-No interrogative sentences start with subject like statements. The interrogative particle "ka" is necessary at the end of the sentence to make Yes-No questions. Naturally, receivers of a message can not recognize if the sentence is interrogative or declarative until hearing the last word, that is, the interrogative particle. 29 The postpositional characteristics seems to have a significant relationship with procedures to express an idea and discourse structures in Japanese. An agent's attitudes are always presented as a verb at the end of a sentence. Receivers of the message have to wait until the end of the sentence in order to recognize if the statement is affirmative or negative. Japanese pragmatics is affected by this left-branching sentence structures and formes topic-prominent characteristics in Japanese discourse. This characteristic of Japanese is attributed to cultural aspects of Japanese people and society. Hinds (1976) paints out that: A striking characteristic of Japanese conversation is the degree to which disagreements are avoided. Rather than overtly disagreeing, participants usually hesitate. Connected with this is the purpose of repetitions in Japanese conversation. There are more repetitions when hesitations occur. Repetitions may also signal that the speaker has nothing more to say but does not want to relinquish the floor, (p. 141) In the Japanese culture people attempt to maintain stability of their society by avoiding conflicts. They consider avoidance of disagreements as a virtue. Therefore, Japanese speakers usually elaborate on background of ideas underlying main clauses to try to avoid abrupt presentation of opinions. Naturally, subordinate clauses become longer and are placed before main clauses. This sentence characteristic contributes to topic-prominent pragmatics of Japanese. 30 Japanese, it is suggested, is a highly contexualized language. Frequent occurrences of ellipsis represent this characteristic of Japanese. Makino and Tsutsui (1993) explain ellipsis in Japanese as follows: "Generally speaking, elements which can be understood from the context and/or from the situation can be omitted in Japanese unless ellipsis makes the sentence ungrammatical" (p. 23). Ellipsis occurs to subjects and objects most frequently. Sentences can have their subjects missing and transitive verbs can have their objects missing within the limit of grammaticality. The abundant use of pronouns does not allow subjects and objects to be omitted even if the agents are overt. Ellipsis in Japanese seems to have a significant relationship with Japanese word order. Kuno (1973) explains the relationship as follows: This [ellipsis] is, no doubt, related to the fact that word order is rather free in Japanese except for the verb-final constraint. In normal sentences, subjects appear sentence-initially, but when some other elements in the sentence are emphasized, they can be placed rather freely to the left of the subject, (p.17) Another factor which contributes to ellipsis in Japanese is that Japanese lacks authentic third person pronouns. Japanese does not have pronouns which mean "he, she, it, and they". Instead of these words, "kare (that-there-man), kanojo (that there woman), sore (that-there-thing), and karera/kanojora (these-there-men/these-there-women) " are used to compensate for the lack of these pronouns. However, these words are originally derived from 31 demonstrative pronouns. These words are used as personal pronouns like English in contemporary Japanese nowadays because of the influence of direct translation from English to Japanese in imported literature, (Fujii, 1991). Nevertheless, the use of these demonstrative pronouns is relatively limited for intellectual discourse or writing. As a result these demonstrative pronouns indicating he, she, it, and they tend to be omitted in a sentence. Japanese has a unique passive voice which English does not have which is called "adversity passive". In Japanese when the action of a sentence is expressed with adversity, intransitive verbs appear in passive constructions in some cases as well as transitive sentences. For example, in Japanese, the following sentences are both grammatical: a) My wife died; b) My wife was died. Example a) is a simple statement of the fact. On the other hand. Example b) implies the speaker's respect indicating that my wife's death was an adversity. The English passive voice does not employ intransitive verbs in any cases (Kuno, 1973, Makino and Tsutsui, 1993). The negative LI transfer into L2 of Japanese ESL learners at beginners level is occasionally found in this area (Watabe, Brown, and Ueta, 1991). Namely, they produce English sentences like, "I was rained." or "I was stayed there alone." when adversity is implied. Tense agreement in subordinate clauses is rigid in English except in a few cases, but the Japanese counterpart is relatively loose. The following sentences are both grammatical: a) Mary closed the book that she was reading; b) Mary closed the book that she is 32 reading. When a subordinate sentence contains words indicating the time relationship between a main clause and the subordinate clause tense agreement is strictly requisite. Colloquial Japanese requires higher animals as subjects in transitive constructions (Kuno, 1973). Thus, in Japanese, the following sentence is not acceptable semantically: a) A traffic accident killed John. The subject, "traffic accident" is not a higher animal so that the sentence should be expressed as such: b) John died in a traffic accident. (The passive form, John was killed by (in) a traffic accident is not acceptable in Japanese because "traffic accident" is an active agent of the action, "killed".) Japanese ESL learners at the beginner level seldom produce English sentences which have higher animals as a subject, (Watabe, Brown, and Ueta, 1991) . The way to respond to negative questions in Japanese is totally opposite to its English counterpart. For example, in answering negative questions such as " Don't you like it?" yes in Japanese means "No, I like it," and no means "Yes, I like it." However, there are some exceptions. Kuno (1973) generalizes the mechanism of the relationship between negative questions and their answers as follows: The Japanese hai (yes) is used for introducing a negative statement answer, and lie (no) for introducing a positive-statement answer, to a negative question when it is a neutral question. On the other hand, if a negative question includes the questioner's expectation of the positive-statement answer, 33 hai is used for introducing a positive-statement answer, and iie a negative-statement answer, just like 'yes' and 'no' in English, (p. 275) This Japanese element is also apt to be most frequently mistransferred into English discourse by Japanese ESL beginners (Akiyama, 1984). Although there are additional interesting differences between Japanese and English they are not introduced here since the present study concentrates on issues regarding language transfer and language attrition. The Relationships Between Attitudinal Factors of Learners, Language Transfer, and First Language Attrition There are a number of intrinsic LI features which elicit direct and indirect effects on language transfer and first language attrition. It is important to determine how a learner's LI influences her/his L2 learning in both direct and indirect ways and how each of these correlates with success. Attitude, for example, has both intrinsic and extrinsic features depending on whether the influence stems from the learner's LI or her/his L2. Attitudes toward the culture of the target language have been analyzed and have been found to impact strongly on language learning (Foss and Reitzel, 1988) . Gardner (1982) found evidence that attitudinal and motivational characteristics played a key role in language maintenance and attrition in a comparative study on L2 maintenance between Canadian Francophones and Canadian Anglophones. Andersen (1982) suggested that both positive socio-cultural interaction 34 skills and a supportive social environment are indispensable to encourage language maintenance. Much of the research on affective learner variables shows that when learners are positive about their instructors, teaching methods, target language, and target culture, they acquire the target language more quickly, (Sasaki, 1990). On the other hand, if learners have negative attitudes toward them, stagnation in their language learning may occur (Schumann, 1975) . According to Schumann's graph of cultural integration and culture shock, L2 learners usually encounter a stage in which they refute either the LI culture or the L2 culture several times in the process of total assimilation toward their second culture. The degree of L2 learners' language learning speed related to interlingual transfer and LI attrition is accelerated or decelerated in accordance with this largely attitude-driven fluctuation in cultural integration. While some (d'Anglejan and Renaud, 1985; Stevick, 1979) have studied anxiety in a communicative context, looking for evidence in poor pronunciation and classroom anxiety, few have focused on diary studies to elicit data. Diaries represent individual personal observations of learners' developing language. As such they would appear to be extraordinary source of information regarding learners attitudes toward the target culture, their developing knowledge of language, and the effects of the syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, and cultural features of L2 on LI. 35 CONCLUSION While there have been numerous studies aimed at determining how a learner's Ll influences her/his L2 learning (language transfer studies) few have explore the mechanism of influence of L2 on Ll. While language universals have received a great deal of attention from researchers who believed that language acquisition patterns were common to all language groups (e.g. McNeill, 1966), more recent cross-language studies of language acquisition patterns have questioned the generalizability of this theory (Greenberg, 1978). However, the studies have been focused on the L2 side. Bi-directional analysis of interlanguage phenomena will allow the effects of L2 on Ll to be explored. Several studies have indicated that Ll structures influence the cognitive, rhetorical, semantic and grammatical patterns emerging in the L2. The influence of Ll on L2 interlanguage proficiency has been established by many researchers, yet few studies have explored how L2 learning processes affect the learners' Ll. Furthermore, there have been few studies designed to explore the relationships between L2 learners' change in their Ll and their attitudes toward L1/L2 culture and languages. Even if learners' efforts to acquire a target language do not clearly appear in L2, instructors can find subtle signs of L2 development in the L2-like change in the learners' Ll. These signs could help instructors determine which level learners are located in L2 progress. As long as language teaching curricula are designed to focus on learner-centred instruction, it is necessary to identify 36 how learners' Lis are affected. Bi-directional analyses of language transfer and attrition between learners' native language and their target language is needed in order to explore this area of study. SUMMARY In this chapter studies on the evidence of language transfer from LI to L2 and the mechanism of first language attrition were introduced. Second, some linguistic features which differentiate Japanese from English were described and then attitudinal variables which affect language transfer and second language attrition were presented. Finally, the need to study bi-directional transfer and attrition between LI and L2 was suggested. 37 CHAPTER THREE DESIGN OF THE STUDY INTRODUCTION This chapter begins with a description of the background of the research. Information about the subjects who took part in the research is presented. Second, instruments employed for the research are specified and subsequently procedures of the research are described. In addition, the role of the researcher in the study is explained. RESEARCH SITE The present research was conducted at UBC-Ritsumeikan House located at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. UBC-Ritsumeikan House is the main facility of the UBC-Ritsumeikan Academic Exchange Programme. UBC is one of the biggest public universities in Western Canada which enrols approximately 35,000 full- and part-time students. The Ritsumeikan programme was cooperatively organized by UBC and Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto, Japan in 1991 for the purposes of providing Japanese university students with integrated language and content programmes conducted in English. Ritsumeikan University is a large-scale private university located in Western Japan. The approximate number of students enroled in 1993 was 13,000. The participants of this programme are second- or third-year students selected from all departments of Ritusmeikan University: Business, 38 Economics, Engineering, International Relations, Literature, Law, and Social Science. The selection of participants is based on TOEFL scores, the Test of English as a Foreign Language. The lowest TOEFL score of participants in 1993's programme was 467 and the highest was 580. Ninety-eight students whose native language was Japanese took part in the 1993 programme from August 30, 1993 to April 16, 1994. Most of the classes were taught at UBC-Ritsumeikan House which was designed for this program. The curriculum consists of three main courses: a Core-Course, an English Education Course, and an elective course. The Core-Course consisted of two subject courses: Pacific Rim Studies and Intercultural Communication. The courses were offered by the UBC Faculty of Arts for academic credit and taught by instructors from UBC and Ritsumeikan University. The Core-Course was included both Ritsumeikan and UBC students. Graduate students of the Arts Department served as teaching assistants (TAs) for those courses and organized discussion sessions to help students understand the content of the lectures. The English Education Course consisted of four subject courses: Introduction to Language Across the Curriculum, Language Field Experience, Cross-cultural Studies in Second Language Education, and Intercultural Communication in Second Langauge Education. Graduate students from the Language Education Department served as TAs and organized review sessions to help students understand the content of the lectures. Students learned about 39 Canadian society and studied differences between Japanese and Canadian culture. Field research was assigned as a project to reflect content of the Core-Course. Workshops of macintosh computers were offered during the school year to encourage the students to become familiar with word processing, data processing, and computer-assisted communication. Students who scored 570 or over on TOEFL during the first term were allowed to take regular UBC courses in the second term of their academic years. They mostly took one or two courses related to their majors at Ritsumeikan University. The same UBC grading criteria were employed for all courses. Ritsumeikan University accepts for transfer all credits students receive in the exchange programme. All participants lived in the UBC-Ritsumeikan House with 100 UBC students. Two Japanese students shared a suite which has four bedrooms, two bathrooms, one kitchen, and one living room with two UBC students. The building has three classrooms, two communal activity rooms, and an updated language laboratory with 20 Macintosh computers. A variety of cultural activities was held in UBC-Ritusmeikan House and participants had many chances to take part in extra-curricular activities with UBC students inside and outside of the programme. Furthermore, a "Buddy Programme" was arranged by the programme administration staff and one UBC student was introduced to each Japanese student as a cultural exchange peer. 40 SUBJECTS Two male and two female second-year students were randomly selected from participants of the programme as subjects: Kengo (male), Tsutomu (male), Kazuko (female), and Maho (female) . Fictitious names are used to insure subjects' privacy. Subjects' English Language Backgrounds All four subjects had completed regular high school academic programmes in Japan before commencing post-secondary studies at Ritsumeikan University. Each had taken a special academic writing course for 3 hours a week for 18 weeks in Japan as a part of a pre-departure programme. They also had taken a regular English reading course for 3 hours a week for 2 terms from April 1992 to March 1993. They had not studied English outside of the university. Maho, however, worked actively with English speaking people in an international club at Ritsumeikan University and Kazuko had studied at a high school in England for 11 months, both Tsutomu and Kengo had no particular involvement in voluntary English learning. The female subjects had more exposure to English environments than the male subjects. The Most Recent TOEFL Scores The subjects' TOEFL scores are summarized in Table 4.1 below. The biggest difference can be seen in listening comprehension ability section (Section 1) . The female subjects scored higher than the male subjects. This result may be due to the amount of hours of 41 exposure to English the subjects had experienced prior to beginning term year at UBC. Maho's experience at the international club and Kazuko's experience in England appear to have helped them develop listening ability. Section 2 of TOEFL consists of knowledge of English grammar. Basically, all candidates who wish to enter Ritsumeikan University are required to take entrance examinations. An English test is mandatory for applicants. Maho, Tsutomu studied English by concentrating on grammar to pass this entrance examination. Kazuko concentrated on English reading because of her English learning experiences in England. The section of the entrance examination testing grammatical knowledge takes up half of the entire examination and the reading comprehension portion takes up the other half. Therefore, if one gets an extremely high score on either portion, the chances of passing increases. On the other hand, Kengo was exempted from the entrance examination because he was accepted as a sports scholarship student. Thus, he had no intensive English study which regular university candidates usually have. Table 3.1 TOEFL Scores of the Subjects (August, 1993) Subiects Maho Tsutomu Kengo Kazuko Means Ranaes Section 1 51 45 47 59 50. 12 50 Section 2 61 61 55 54 57. 7 75 Section 3 50 52 53 52 51. 3 75 Ove rail Scores (540) (527) (517) (550) (533.5) ( 33) Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Listening Comprehension Structure and Written Expression Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension 42 Subjects' Mai ores at Ritsumeikan University in Japan The subjects' majores at Ritsumeikan University varied: Maho: International Relations, Tsutomu: Business, and Kengo and Kazuko: Economics. Compared to the other subjects, Maho had relatively more opportunities to encounter literature written in English and to speak English on account of the nature of her academic majors. Personal Goals in UBC-Ritsumeikan Programme Through individual interviews, the subjects' personal goals for UBC-Ritsumeikan Programme were investigated. The details are summarized in Table 3.2 below. All the subjects gave first priority to improving their English pi;oficiency. The male subjects showed more interest in speaking. On the other hand, the female subjects were more interested in more advanced subjects. They were all motivated to learn English. Kazuko focused on her future plans after the programme rather than studying in the programme. Other subjects focused on cultural experiences and developing friendships in the programme. Table 3.2 Subjects' Personal Goals in UBC-Ritsumeikan Programme Maho 1. Developing English proficiency: mostly focusing on communicative skills in academic English 2. Experiencing North American culture 3. Making friends with Canadian students and international students Tsutomu 1. Developing English proficiency: mostly focusing on speaking ability at a casual conversation level 2. Experiencing North American culture 3. Making friends with Canadian students and international students Kengo 1. Developing English proficiency: mostly focusing on speaking ability at a casual conversation level by increasing English vocabulary 2. Making friends with Canadian students and international students 3. Self-discipline in a different culture Kazuko 1. Developing English proficiency: mostly focusing on reading and writing ability in academic settings 2. Studying economics in English 3. Having a good grasp of academic standard to study at Canadian universities for the preparation to study at UBC in the future * The numbers indicate the order of priority. INSTRUMENTS Diary Books Diaries were given to each informant in the second week of the programme in September, 1993. The instructions, given in Japanese were based on those used in Matsumoto's diary study of Japanese ESL learners (Matsumoto, 1989) . The following were the instructions for the present study: Please make diary entries in Japanese describing your classroom learning experiences in the Ritsumeikan-UBC programme you are participating in this term and next term. You are asked to write about the content of your classes and your learning activities, as well as what you have thought and felt during your classes, and any other things which are involved in your language learning experiences. Please write your comments and feelings in as much detail as possible, honestly and openly, as if you were keeping your own personal, confidential diary. Try to write your entry as soon as possible after the class before you have forgotten about the class content. 44 Monthly Self-Evaluation Questionnaire In order to understand the long-term fluctuation in the informants' attitudes toward the English immersion environment, a closed-question format questionnaire using a five-point Likert scale (see Appendix 3.1 ) was administered monthly during interview sessions. This questionnaire is of closed-question format using a five-point Lickert scale. Results of these surveys were plotted graphically and related to the findings from the diary studies, the results of the discourse analysis of interview session, and an evaluation of students' Japanese and English writing. Japanese Discourse Samples Five transcribed Japanese conversations of monthly interviews were used as Japanese discourse samples. Details of the monthly interviews are described later in this chapter. Japanese Writing Samples The seven longest complete diary entries having an introduction, development and a conclusion were selected monthly and were used as Japanese writing samples. English Writing Samples Seven copies of assignments completed in course work were collected and were used as English Writing Samples. 45 Jacob's ESL Composition Mastery Evaluation Scale Jacob's ESL Composition Mastery Evaluation Scale (1981) was employed in order to evaluate subjects' English writing. The scale consists of five criteria. The score for each criterion is shown in parentheses as follows: a) content (30), b) organization (20), c) vocabulary (20), d) language use (25), and e) mechanics (5). The overall score is the sum of all criteria. Each criterion consists of several descriptors as follows: a) content (knowledgeable, substantive, thorough development of thesis, relevant to one clear topic); b) organization (fluent expression, ideas clearly stated/supported, succinct, well-organized, logical sequencing, cohesive); c) vocabulary (sophisticated, effective word/idiom choice and usage, word form mastery, appropriate register); d) language use (effective complex constructions, agreement, tense, word order/function, pronouns, number, articles); e) mechanics (spelling, punctuation, paragraphing capitalization) 46 Modified Jacob's ESL Composition Mastery Evaluation Scale A modified Jacob's ESL Composition Mastery Evaluation Scale was used to evaluate subjects' Japanese writing samples. The same metric was used for each criterion. Because of the differences between English and Japanese the descriptors were altered as follows: a) content-30 (knowledgeable, substantive, thorough development of thesis, relevant to one clear topic); b) organization-20 (fluent expression, ideas clearly stated/supported, succinct, well-organized, logical sequencing, cohesive); c) vocabulary-20 (sophisticated, effective word/idiom choice and usage, word form mastery, appropriate register); d) language use-25 (effective complex constructions, tense, word order/function, pronouns); e) mechanics-5 (orthography of Chinese characters, punctuation, paragraphing). *The underlined descriptor was the one added on the Japanese version. "Agreement", "number" and "articles" from Language Use and "spelling" from Mechanics were omitted because of the nature of Japanese linguistic features. 47 PROCEDURE Data collection was conducted for 7 months from September, 1993 to March 1994. Diary Entry Collection and Analysis Subjects started keeping diaries in Japanese in the second week of September, 1993. Their diaries were collected once a month and were photocopied. First, subjects' comments indicating attitudes regarding English cultural awareness and reflection of Japanese culture were extracted from the entries. Second, these variables were classified into positive, negative or neutral statements. Data analysis was conducted in April, 1994 at the end of the academic year. In classifying variables, two researchers analyzed the entries separately; when disagreements arose, differences were discussed until agreement was reached. The results were plotted graphically and compared with other findings of this study. Japanese Writing Sample Collection and Analysis One Japanese writing sample was chosen from each individual's diary entries at the end of each month. The following are criteria for the sample collection: 1. Content: the samples should be based on a particular topic or an idea; 2. Length: the samples should be at least one-page long, and long enough to develop a thesis. 48 Data analysis was conducted in April, 1994 after the completion of the academic year. Subjects' writing styles in Japanese were analyzed by focusing on the following criteria: a) whether direct use of English words increased in the subjects' Japanese writing; b) whether English-like right-branching constructs increased in the subjects' Japanese sentences; c) whether application of rigid tense agreement in subordinate clauses increased; d) whether application of English-like verb deletion in coordinated sentences occurred; e) whether replacement of adversity passive with English-like passive occurred; f) whether retrieval of subject ellipses increased; g) whether application of "lower animals" as subjects in transitive constructions occurred; h) whether subject-prominence increased in their statement presentation patterns; Scores for Item a) were counted sample by sample and the ratio of English words to the sum of meaning units in each sample was calculated as a percentage. The numbers of Item b), c), d), e) and g) were counted sample by sample and each ratio to the sum of sentences in each sample was calculated as a percentage. The number of Item h) was counted sample by sample, and its ratio to the sum of paragraphs in each sample was calculated as a percentage. The results were compared with results of Japanese discourse analysis 49 in order to see the relationship between subjects' writing styles and speaking styles. The same texts were evaluated by two raters whose native language was Japanese in order to assess the overall quality of subjects' Japanese writing. Japanese Discourse Sample Collection and Analysis An interview was conducted during the school year in an informal location for approximately 20 minutes. Casual topics were discussed in the sessions, including daily life, classes, friends, culture, etc. The interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed. The transcribed conversations were analyzed in the same manner as the analysis of the Japanese writing samples. The following are the criteria for the analysis: a) whether direct use of English words increased in the subjects' Japanese speech; b) whether English-like right-branching constructs increased in the subjects' Japanese sentences; c) whether application of rigid tense agreement in subordinate clauses increased; d) whether application of English-like verb deletion in coordinated sentences occurred; e) whether replacement of adversity passive with English-like passive occurred; f) whether retrieval of subject ellipses increased; g) whether application of "lower animals" as subjects in transitive constructions occurred; 50 h) whether subject-prominence increased in their statement presentation patterns; and i) whether application of English-corresponding negative questions increased. Item a) scores were tallied sample by sample and the ratio of English words to the sum of meaning units in each sample was calculated as a percentage. Scores for items b), c), d), e) and g) were counted sample by sample, and each ratio to the sum of sentences in each sample was calculated into percentages. Item h) scores were as counted sample by sample and its ratio to the sum of paragraphs in each sample was calculated as a percentage. Item i) scores were counted sample by sample and each was compared with the sum of negative questions in each sample. The results were compared with results of Japanese writing analysis in order to see the relationship between subjects' writing styles and speaking styles. English Writing Sample Collection and Analysis Subjects were asked to submit copies of all writing assignments of their course work once a month. One sample was chosen out of all assignments by the present researcher based on the following criteria: 1. Content: the samples should be based on a particular topic or an idea, 2. Length: the samples should be at least one-page long, and long enough to develop a thesis. The text was evaluated by two raters whose native language was 51 English in order to assess the overall quality of subjects' English writing. Jacob's ESL Composition Mastery Evaluation Scale was employed. The results were compared with categorically. The Japanese writing evaluation in order to see the relationship between changes in writing quality in Japanese and in English. Researcher's Role In this research the researcher took the role of observer-participant. During analysis of the informants' writing styles and oral presentation styles, the researcher's role was that of observer. However in order to collect reliable data about internal variables related to the informants' attitudes, a rapport must be established between the researcher and the informants. Creating a relationship of mutual trust between the researcher and informants in order to elicit honest expressions requires that the researcher became a friend of the informants, thereby, rendering the researcher not only an observer but also a participant. SUMMARY In this chapter, the research site, the subjects, the research instruments, methods of data collection and analysis, and the researchers' role were described, the following chapter will present the findings of the study. 52 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS OF THE STUDY INTRODUCTION This chapter begins by presenting a description of the research site, background information on the subjects who took part in the research, and a summary of data collection. Subsequently, details of findings are presented and discussed. SITE The study was conducted at UBC-Ritsumeikan House beginning September 1993 and concluding in March 1994. SUBJECTS Four randomly selected subjects took part in the study: Maho (f) 19 years old; Tsutomu (m) 19 years old; Kengo (m) 19 years old; Kazuko (f) 19 years old. DATA COLLECTION Diary Entries Subjects were asked to maintain diaries regularly diring the 167 days in total of this study. The number of subjects' diary entries were as follows: Maho, 52 entries (31%); Tsutomu, 88 entries (52%); Kengo, 23 entries (13%); Kazuko, 31 entries (18%). Although the collection of diary entries was originally planned to be conducted from September 17 to March 31, Tsutomu, Kengo, and Kazuko stopped keeping a diary in December because they did 53 not have time. Maho did not keep a diary from the middle of November to the beginning of January. She stopped keeping a diary in late January. The subjects were asked to submit a Japanese writing sample at the end of each month when they could not keep a diary. This part of the study was conducted for the purpose of obtaining a representative collection of Japanese writing samples. Japanese Writing Samples Seven Japanese writing samples were carefully collected from each subject by two experienced langauge teachers, including the present researcher, whose native language is Japanese. Writing was analyzed for 1. number of paragraphs; 2. number of sentences; 3. average number of sentences in a paragraph; number of meaning units; and 4. average number of meaning units in a sentence. The details of the collection are summarized in Tables 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 below. Table 4.1 Number of paragraphs in subjects' Japanese writing samples Month Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Maho 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 Tsutomu 4 3 3 3 3 4 5 Kencro 2 4 3 2 3 3 2 Kazuko 3 4 2 2 2 2 2 Means 2.5 3.5 2.7 2.4 54 Table 4.2 Number of sentences in subjects' Japanese writing samples Month Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Maho 15 15 13 7 7 13 17 Tsutomu 17 13 15 15 15 17 21 Kencro 16 16 19 12 20 17 17 Kazuko 17 10 12 7 10 6 7 Means 12 .4 16.1 16.7 9.8 Table 4.3 Average number of sentences in a paragraph in subjects' Japanese writing samples Month Maho Tsutomu Kenqo Kazuko Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. I Mar. i 5.0 5.0 6.5 3.5 2.3 6.5 5.6 4.2 4.3 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.2 4.2 8.0 4.0 6.3 6.0 6.6 5.6 8.5 5.6 2.5 6.0 3.5 5.0 3.0 3.5 Means 4.8 4.5 6.1 4.0 Table 4.4 Number of meaning units in subjects' Japanese writing samples Month Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Maho 156 127 129 105 141 127 197 Tsutomu 181 128 156 160 160 184 161 Kenqo 114 126 150 91 133 151 116 Kazuko 192 132 106 125 135 110 90 Means 140.2 161.4 125.8 127.1 55 Table 4.5 Average number of meaning units in a sentence in subjects' Japanese writing samples Month Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Maho 10.4 8.4 9.9 15.0 20.1 9.7 11.5 Tsutomu 10.6 9.8 10.4 10.6 10.6 10.8 7.6 Kengo 7.1 7.8 7.8 7.5 6.6 8.8 6.8 Kazuko 11.2 13.2 8.8 17.8 13.5 18.3 12.8 Means 11.2 10.0 7.5 12.8 Encrlish Writing Samples Seven English writing samples were collected from each subject by the present reseacher. Results are summarized in Tables 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10 below. Table 4.6 Number of paragraphs in subjects' English writing samples Month Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Maho 3 5 4 2 4 2 3 Tsutomu 3 4 2 5 4 3 1 Kengo 2 4 3 4 3 2 2 Kazuko 10 5 5 4 3 1 1 Means 3.2 3.1 2.8 4.1 Table 4.7 Number of sentences in subjects' English writing samples Month Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Maho 17 28 28 10 16 16 14 Tsutomu 17 27 37 38 23 17 6 Kengo 6 20 32 40 12 11 12 Kazuko 50 31 40 26 22 5 4 Means 18.4 23.5 19.0 25.4 56 Table 4.8 Average number of sentences in a paragraph in subjects' English writing samples Month Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Maho 5.6 5.6 7.0 5.0 4.0 8.0 4.6 Tsutomu 5.6 6.7 18.5 7.6 5.7 5.6 6.0 Kenao 3.0 5.0 10.6 10.0 4.0 5.5 6.0 Kazuko 5.0 6.2 8.0 6.5 7.3 5.0 4.0 Means 5.6 7.5 6.0 6.1 Table 4.9 Number of words in subjects' English writing samples Month Sep. Oct, Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Maho 199 385 415 133 265 224 186 Tsutomu 156 249 436 252 335 186 77 Kencro 107 284 361 440 166 185 150 Kazuko 829 614 410 403 391 94 71 Means 258.1 241.5 241.8 401.7 Table 4.10 Average number of words in a sentence in subjects' English writing samples Month Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Maho 11.7 13.7 14.8 13.3 16.5 14.0 13.2 Tsutomu 9.1 9.2 11.7 6.6 14.5 10.9 12.8 Kenao 17.8 14.2 11.2 11.0 13.8 16.8 12.5 Kazuko 16.5 19.8 10.2 15.5 17.7 18.8 17.7 Means 14.0 10.2 12.7 15.7 57 Interviews Interview data are summarized in Tables 4.11, 4.12, 4.13, and 4.14 below. Table 4.11 Number of utterances in subjects' Japanese discourse samples Month Oct. Nov. Dec. Feb. Mar. Maho 20 32 34 34 38 Tsutomu 21 42 22 17 28 Kenao 17 29 12 23 19 Kazuko 6 47 15 32 33 Means 31.6 26.0 20.0 26.6 Table 4.12 Number of sentences in subjects' Japanese discourse samples Month Oct. Nov. Dec . Feb. Mar. Maho 32 60 79 62 80 Tsutomu 47 83 54 60 95 Kenqo 62 102 61 81 95 Kazuko 21 95 40 75 60 Means 63.0 67.6 80.4 58.2 Table 4.13 Average number of sentences in an utterance in subjects' Japanese discourse samples Month Oct. Nov. Dec. Feb. Mar. Maho 1.6 1.8 2.3 1.8 2.1 Tsutomu 2.2 1.9 2.4 3.5 3.3 Kencfo 3.6 3 .5 5.0 3.5 6.3 Kazuko 3.5 2.1 2.6 2.3 1.8 Means 1.9 2.6 4.0 2.1 Table 4.14 Number of meaning units in subjects' Japanese discourse samples Month Oct. Nov. Dec. Feb. Mar. Maho 263 418 390 410 377 Tsutomu 508 509 299 601 604 Kenao 529 773 463 615 723 Kazuko 116 526 350 482 437 Means 371.6 504.2 620.6 382.2 58 Table 4.15 Average number of meaning units in an utterance in subjects' Japanese discourse samples Month Oct. Nov. Dec. Feb. Mar. Maho 8.2 6.7 4.9 6.6 4.7 Tsutomu 10.8 6.1 5.5 10.0 6.4 Kenao 8.5 7.6 7.5 7.4 7.6 Kazuko 5.5 5.5 8.7 6.4 7.2 Means 5.8 7^ _4 7_J7 6^5 Self-evaluation Questionnaires Seven self-evaluation questionnaires were collected from each subject during the research. FINDINGS Six research questions were proposed for this study. The following is a presentation of the results of the study as they related to these questions. Lexical transfer from L2 to LI in speech and writing To answer the question, "Will lexical transfer from L2 to LI occur in speech and writing?", the number of English words used in each subject's writing and speech samples was counted and its proportion in each sample was calculated. The details are as follows: Case 1: Maho Maho's results are shown in Figure 4.1 below, and the detail of the data is shown in Table 4.16 in Appendix 2. More use of English words was found in her writing than in her speech. She used English words most frequently in December. Although the number of English words decreased after December, she used more 59 English words in January and February compared to September, October and November. No English word was found in March. The number of English words in her speech decreased gradually from October to March. Figure 4.1 The proportion of English words directly used in Maho's Japanese text and speech Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Case 2: Tsutomu Tsutomu's results are shown in Figure 4.2 below, and the detail of the data is shown in Table 4.17 in Appendix 2. More use of English words was found in his writing than in his speech. He used English words most frequently in September in writing. The use decreased gradually from September to February, and no English word was used in February. As for speech, he used English words most in October, and the use decreased until March except a slight increase in February. 60 Figure 4.2 The proportion of English words used directly in Tsutomu's Japanese text and speech 20-1 Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar, Case 3: Kengo Kengo's results are shown in Figure 4.3 below, and the detail of the data is shown in Table 4.18 in Appendix 2. Most frequent use of English words in both writing and speech was seen in November. The number of English words in his writing increased from September to November and decreased from December to February. In his speech the number also increased from the beginning of the research to November and decreased toward the end of the research. Figure 4.3 The proportion of English words used directly in Kengo's Japanese text and speech Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 61 Case 4: Kazuko Kazuko's results are shown in Figure 4.4 below, and the detail of the data is shown in Table 4.19 in Appendix 2. More use of English words was found in her writing than in her speech. She used English words most frequently in October in writing. The use decreased gradually from October to December, and was least frequent in February. As for speech, Kazuko used English words most in December and least in November. The frequency of English word use actively fluctuated during the research in her writing and speech. Figure 4.4 The proportion of English words used directly in Japanese text and speech 20-1 0-Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Direct use of English words was seen more in subjects' writing than in speech. High frequency of direct use of English words was seen in their writing in the beginning half of the study period except Maho. Roughly speaking, the frequency decreased in Tsutomu and Kengo's writing and speech during the research. Maho and Kazuko's results showed some fluctuation about the use of English words, but the frequency tended to decrease toward March. The Figure 4.5 below presents means for the four 62 subjects' direct use of English words, and the detail of the data is shown in Table 4.20 in Appendix 2: Figure 4.5 Direct use of English words - Means 1 0 Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Syntactic transfer from L2 to LI in speech and writing To answer the question, "Will syntactic transfer from L2 to LI occur in speech and writing?", the number of English-like right branching sentences (RBS) in each subject's writing and speech samples was counted, and its proportion in each sample was calculated. The details are as follows: Case 1: Maho Results of Maho are shown in Figure 4.6 below, and the detail of the data is shown in Table 4.21 in Appendix 2. Maho used more RBS in speech than in writing. Although fluctuation can be seen, the proportion of RBS in her writing decreased from October to March and the proportion of RBS in her speech increased from October to December. No RBS was found in September, January and February in her speech. Adverb-end sentences were the most frequently used RBS in her speech. 63 Figure 4.6 The proportion of right-branching sentences in Maho's Japanese text and speech 20-1 1 0 0 - I 1 r Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Case 2: Tsutomu Results for Tsutomu are presented in Figure 4.7 below and the detail of the data is shown in Table 4.22 in Appendix 2. He used more RBS in speech than in writing. In his speech, RBS steadily increased from November to March, and adverbial phrase-end sentences and adverbial clause-end sentences were used frequently. On the other hand, only 3 RBS were found in his writing during the research, and one of them was adverbial phrase-end sentences and the rest were adverbial clause-end sentences. Figure 4.7 The proportion of right-branching sentences in Tsutomu's Japanese text and speech 20n 1 0-0 -m Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 64 Case 3: Kengo Kengo's results are shown in Figure 4.8 below, and the detail of the data is presented in Table 4.23 in Appendix 2. No English-like right branching sentences (RBS) were seen in his writing. On the other hand, he actively used RBS in speech. In those, he used adverb-end sentences and adverbial clause-end sentences frequently. The most frequent RBS use was seen in March. Figure 4.8 The proportion of right-branching sentences in Kengo's Japanese text and speech 20 1 0 I. 1 — " - 1 — " " - T — — 1 1 — — r Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar Case 4: Kazuko Results for Kazuko are shown in Figure 4.9 below, and the detail of the data is presented in Table 4.24 in Appendix 2. She used RBS only once in October in writing. Although RBS was seen in her speech, she did not use RBS so frequently as other subjects. RBS increased in her speech during the research, and was highest in March and lowest in October. Adverbial phrase-end sentences were most frequently used in her speech. 65 Figure 4.9 The proportion of right-branching sentences in Kazuko's Japanese text and speech 1 u-8 -6 -4 -2 -0 -— J _£i3_ PI, 1 — ^ 1 1 r Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar All subjects used RBS more frequently in speech than in writing. Although some fluctuation was seen in the data, the frequency of RBS use increased during the research except for Maho. In terms of speech, Maho's RBS proportion was highest of all the subjects'. Except for Tsutomu, the subjects used adverb-end sentences most frequently as RBS, and adverbial clause-end sentences followedin frequency. Tsutomu used adverbial clause-end sentences more frequently than adverb-end sentences. Figure 4.10 below presents means for the four subjects' use of RBS, and the detail of the data is shown in Table 4.25 in appendix 2. Figure 4.10 Right-branching sentences - Means -I r Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 66 Pragmatics Transfer To answer the question, "Will pragmatic transfer from L2 to LI occur in speech and writing?", prominence in subjects' speech and writing was examined. Case 1: Maho Maho's results are shown in Figure 4.11 below and the detail of the data is presented in Table 4.26 in Appendix 2. In her writing, Maho used only subject prominent paragraphs (SPP) in December and January. She used slightly more SPPs in both writing and speech than topic prominent paragraphs (TPP). Figure 4.11 The proportion of topic-prominent paragraphs and subject-prominent paragraphs in Maho's Japanese text and speech Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Case 2: Tsutomu Tsutomu's results are shown in Figure 4.12 below, and the detail of the data is presented in Table 4.27 in Appendix 2. Tsutomu used more SPP than TPP in writing. On the other hand, he used more TPP than SPP in speech. Whereas slight increase of SPP was seen between September and February in his writing, SPP 67 increased 11.62% in his speech between November and February. He used SPP most frequently in February both in writing and speech. Figure 4.12 The proportion of topic-prominent paragraphs and subject-prominent paragraphs, in Tsutomu's Japanese text and speech 8 0 -7 0 -6 0 -b U -4 0 -3 0 -2 0 -1 0 -- • • • • • I • "1 1 • • • ••-•--• •--• • .^  • writing Hspeal<ing 1 II 1 1 1 -II 1 1 1 1 1 L.I L| k| 1hhBIHh Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Case 3: Kengo Kengo's results are shown in Figure 4.13 below, and the detail of the data is presented in Table 4.28 in Appendix 2. He used more SPP than TPP in both writing and speech, and more frequent use of SPP was seen in speech than in writing. Whereas there was no conspicuous concentration of SPP use in his writing, he used SPP most frequently in November in speech. March scored showed the second highest frequency of SPP use in his speech. Figure 4.13 The proportion of topic-prominent paragraphs and subject-prominent paragraphs in Kengo's Japanese text and speech Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 68 Case 4: Kazuko Kazuko's results are shown in Figure 4.14 below, and the detail of the data is presented in Table 4.29 in Appendix 2. Kazuko used slightly more SPP than TPP both in writing and speech. In her writing, SPP decreased between September and December. However, it increased after December through February. On the other hand, SPP in her speech increased from October to December and decreased after December until March. Figure 4.14 The proportion of topic-prominent paragraphs and subject-prominent paragraphs in Kazuko's Japanese text and speech Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 69 Figure 4.15 below presents the means for the four subjects' use of SPP in writing and speech. The detail of the data is shown in Table 4.32 in Appendix 2. Figure 4.15 Subject-prominent paragraphs - Means Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar Maho's SPP proportion was largest among all subjects for writing and Kengo's SPP proportion was largest among all subjects for speech. Whereas the means of SPP proportion in speech showed ups and downs after October, the mean SPP proportion in writing increased from September to March almost steadily. Application of English-like way of correspondinQ necrative questions in Japanese speech In Japanese, people who are asked questions do not necessarily have to say either "Yes" or "No" to correspond to Yes-No questions. Because of the nature of the Japanese conversation pattern, some negative questions in the interviews were not answered with either "Yes" or "No". Therefore, only the discourse which formed a set of a negative question and Yes-No answers was examined. 70 Case 1: Maho Maho's results are shown in Table 4.31 below. No English-like negative answer was found in Maho's speech. Table 4.31 The number of negative questions and answering patterns in Japanese speech. Maho A B S e p . O c t . Nov. Dec . J a n . F e b . Mar. -1 0 0 -0 0 -1 0 0 -0 0 -0 0 0 -0 0 A B C # of negative questions # of Japanese negative answers (Yes, I don't. / No, I do.) # of English-like negative answers (Yes, I do./ No, I don't.) Case 2: Tsutomu Tsutomu's results are shown in Table 4.32 below. No English-like negative answer was found in his speech. Table 4.32 The number of negative questions and answering patterns in Japanese speech. Tsutomu A B C S e p . O c t . Nov. Dec. J a n . Feb . Mar. -0 0 4 -2 1 -0 0 4 -2 1 -0 0 0 -0 0 A B C # of negative questions # of Japanese negative answers (Yes, I don't. /No, I do.) # of English-like negative answers (Yes, I do./ No, I don't.) Case 3: Kengo Kengo's results are shown in Table 4.33 below. No English-like negative answer was found in his speech. 71 Table 4.33 The number of negative questions and answering pattern in Japanese speech. Kenao A B C S e p . O c t . Nov. Dec. J a n . F e b . Mar. -0 0 0 -0 0 -0 0 0 -0 0 -0 0 0 -0 0 A B C # of negative questions # of Japanese negative answers (Yes, I don't. / No, I do.) # of English-like negative answers (Yes, I do./ No, I don't.) Case 4: Kazuko Kazuko's results are shown in Table 4.34 below. Two cases of English-like negative answers were found in her speech in November. Table 4.34 The number of negative questions and answering pattern in Japanese speech. Kazuko A B C S e p . O c t . Nov. Dec. J a n . F e b . Mar. -1 3 0 -0 2 -1 1 0 -0 2 -0 2 0 -0 0 A: # of negative questions B: # of Japanese negative answers (Yes, I don't. /No, I do.) C: # of English-like negative answers (Yes, I do./ No, I don't.) English-like negative answers were only seen in Kazuko's speech in November. Other subjects applied Japanese negative answers to all answers to negative questions. Table 4.35 below presents the means of the four subjects. 72 Table 4.37 English-like negative answers - Means - Speech -S e p . O c t . Nov. Dec . J a n . F e b . Mar. Means A -0 0 0 -0 0 0 . 00 B -0 0 0 -0 0 0 . 00 c -0 0 0 -0 0 0 . 00 D -0 2 0 -0 0 0 . M 1 1 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 5 0 I 0 . 0 0 ] j 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 0 ] 00 0 . 1 0 1 A: Maho, B: Tsutomu, C: Kengo, D: Kazuko, M: Means Grammatical transfer from L2 to LI in speech and writing To answer the question, "Will grammatical transfer from L2 to LI occur in speech and writing?", five grammatical features were investigated: 1. retrieval of subject ellipses; 2. tense agreement; 3. verb deletion; 4. voice; 5. application of lower animals as subjects. The details are as follows: Retrieval of subject ellipses (RSE) Case 1: Maho Retrieval was seen only in speech. Maho's results are shown in Figure 4.16 below. The detail of the data is presented in Table 4.36 in Appendix 2. The figure indicates the proportion of retrieved subjects in non-subject sentences in her speech. The retrieval increased from November to February. 73 F i g u r e 4 . 1 6 The p r o p o r t i o n of r e t r i e v e d s u b j e c t p r o n o u n s i n Maho ' s J a p a n e s e s p e e c h . speaking Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Case 2: Tsutomu Retrieval was seen only in speech. Tsutomu's results are shown in Figure 4.17 below, and the detail of the data is presented in Table 4.3 7 in Appendix 2. The retrieval occurred most frequently in March. Although the retrieval of subject ellipses decreased once in December, it increased steadily in February and March. Figure 4.17 The proportion of retrieved subject pronouns in Tsutomu's Japanese speech 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 I 0.1 0 Lw speaking T 1 Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan, Feb, Mar. 74 Case 3: Kengo Retrieval was seen only in speech. Kengo's results are shown in Figure 4.18 below, and the detail of the data is presented in Table 4.3 8 in Appendix 2. The retrieval occurred most frequently in February. Figure 4.18 The proportion of retrieved subject pronouns in Kengo's Japanese speech. 0 . 3 2 -0 . 2 8 -0 . 2 4 -0 . 2 -0 . 1 6 -0 . 1 2 -0 . 0 8 -0 . 0 4 -0 -• " • : • • H speaking • 1 II III II Hi, ,11 Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Case 4: Kazuko Retrieval of subject ellipses was only seen in speech. Kazuko's results are shown in Figure 4.19 below, and the detail of the data is presented in Table 4.3 9 in Appendix 2. The retrieval occurred most frequently in February and increased steadily between October and February. Figure 4.19 The proportion of retrieved subject pronouns in Kazuko's Japanese speech 0.7-1 speaking Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar, 75 Frequency of all subjects' ellipses retrieval was higher in the latter half of the study period. Figure 4.20 below presents means for the four subjects' RSE in speech. The detail of the data is presented in Table 4.40 in Appendix 2. Figure 4.20 The proportion of retrieved subject pronouns in Japanese speech - Means speaking Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Application of rigid tense agreement in subordinate clauses (RTA) Case 1: Maho Maho's results are shown in Table 4.41. She applied RTA only in writing. Neither an increase nor a decrease of rigid tense agreement were seen. Table 4.41 The number of sentences applying rigid tense agreement in subordinate clauses in Japanese writing and speech Maho A B C D S e p . O c t . N o v . D e c . J a n . F e b . M a r . 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 -3 0 0 -0 1 -0 0 0 -0 0 A: # of sentences which allow either past tense or present tense to be used it the subordinate clauses in the subjects' written products. B: # of sentences which apply past tense in the sentences A for verb agreement in the subjects' written products. C: # of sentences which allow either past tense or present 76 tense to be used it the subordinate clauses in the subjects' spoken products. D: # of sentences which apply past tense in the sentences A for verb agreement in the subjects' spoken products. Case 2: Tsutomu Tsutomu's results are shown in Table 4.42 . He applied RTA only once in speech. Table 4.42 The number of sentences applying rigid tense agreement in subordinate clauses in Japanese writing and speech Tsutomu A B C D S e p . O c t . N o v . D e c . J a n . F e b . M a r . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 1 -1 3 -0 0 0 -1 0 A: # of sentences which allow either past tense or present tense to be used it the subordinate clauses in the subjects' written products. B: # of sentences which apply past tense in the sentences A for verb agreement in the subjects' written products. C: # of sentences which allow either past tense or present tense to be used it the subordinate clauses in the subjects' spoken products. D: # of sentences which apply past tense in the sentences A for verb agreement in the subjects' spoken products. Case 3: Kengo Kengo's results are shown in Table 4.43 . He applied no RTA in writing and speech. Table 4.43 The number of sentences applying rigid tense agreement in subordinate clauses in Japanese writing and speech Kengo A B C D S e p . O c t . N o v . D e c . J a n . F e b . M a r . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 6 1 -4 0 -0 0 0 -0 0 77 A: # of sentences which allow either past tense or present tense to be used it the subordinate clauses in the subjects' written products. B: # of sentences which apply past tense in the sentences A for verb agreement in the subjects' written products. C: # of sentences which allow either past tense or present tense to be used it the subordinate clauses in the subjects' spoken products. D: # of sentences which apply past tense in the sentences A for verb agreement in the subjects' spoken products. Case 4: Kazuko Kazuko's results are shown in Table 4.44. She applied RTA only once in speech in December. Table 4.44 The number of sentences applying rigid tense agreement in subordinate clauses in Japanese writing and speech Kazuko S e p . O c t . Nov. Dec . J a n . F e b . Mar. A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C -0 0 1 -0 0 D -0 0 1 -0 0 A: # of sentences which allow either past tense or present tense to be used it the subordinate clauses in the subjects' written products. B: # of sentences which apply past tense in the sentences A for verb agreement in the subjects' written products. C: # of sentences which allow either past tense or present tense to be used it the subordinate clauses in the subjects' spoken products. D: # of sentences which apply past tense in the sentences A for verb agreement in the subjects' spoken products. Maho applied the tense agreement more frequently than other subjects. No common tendency was seen among subjects' writing and speech. Table 4.4 5 below presents the means for the four subjects' use of RTA. 78 Table 4.45 The number of sentences applying rigid tense agreement in subordinate clauses in Japanese writing and speech - Means - Writing -A B C D M S e p . O c t . Nov . D e c . J a n . F e b . M a r . 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 2 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 2 5 0 . 2 5 0 . 0 0 Means 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 A: Maho, B: Tsutomu, C: Kengo, D: Kazuko, M: Means - Speech B C D M S e p . O c t . Nov . D e c . J a n . F e b . M a r . Means -0 0 0 -0 0 0 . GO -0 0 0 -0 0 0 . 00 -0 0 0 -0 0 0 . 0 0 -0 0 0 -1 0 0 . -0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 -0 . 2 5 0 . 0 0 20 0 . 0 5 A: Maho, B: Tsutomu, C: Kengo, D: Kazuko, M: Means RTA was found in Tsutomu's and Kazuko's speech and Maho's writing. No RTA was found in Kengo's writing and speech. Application of English-like verb deletion patterns in coordinated sentences (EVDP) No EVDP was found in subjects' writing or speech. Replacement of adversity passive with English-like passive (AP-EP) No AP-EP was found in subjects' writing or speech. Application of "lower animals" as subjects in transitive constructions (LA) No LA was found in subjects' writing or speech. 79 L2 influence on LI writing quality To answer the question, "Will quality of LI writing be debased due to transfer of linguistic feature from L2 to LI?", subjects' Japanese samples were rated by two native Japanese speakers in terms of the following criteria: 1. content; 2. organization; 3. vocabulary; 4. language use; and 5. mechanics. Content Subjects' results are shown in Figure 4.21 below, and the detail of the data is presented in Table 4.46 in Appendix 2. The content of Maho's writing maintained almost the same quality during the research. She scored highest in September and lowest in January. The content of Tsutomu's writing quality fluctuated mildly and improved during the course of the study. He scored highest in February and lowest in September. The content of Kengo's writing quality deteriorated from September to January. Although it showed 6.0 point recovery in February, the quality went down in March again. He scored highest in February and lowest in January. The content of Kazuko's writing quality did not show a notable change during the research. She scored highest in September and lowest in December. 80 Figure 4.21 Composition Mastery Report - Japanese: Content (30) T 1 r r Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. • m m • n Maho Tsutomu Kengo Kazuko Means Organization Subjects' results are shown in Figure 4.22 below, and the detail of the data is presented in Table 4.47 in Appendix 2. Maho scored highest in September and lowest in January, and the scores decreased steadily from September to January. Slight recovery was seen in February and March. The organization of Tsutomu's writing changed somewhat during the study. He scored highest in February and lowest in September. Kengo's skills of organizing ideas deteriorated from September to December. Although scores started going up in January and shot up four points in February, the score fell slightly in March. He scored highest in February and lowest in January. The quality of organizing ideas in Kazuko's writing did not show any notable changes during the research except a February drop. 81 Figure 4.22 Composition Mastery Report - Japanese Organization (20) 20 19 1 8 i7i 1 6 1 5-1 4 1 1 1——1 1——1 Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. • B Fl D M Maho Tsutomu Kengo Kazuko Means Vocabulary Subjects' results are shown in Figure 4.23 below, and the detail of the data is presented in Table 4.48 in Appendix 2. Big fluctuation was not seen in the quality of Maho's vocabulary use. She scored highest in September-and lowest in January. The vocabulary use in Tsutomu's writing gradually improved during the research. He scored highest in February and lowest in September. The quality of Kengo's vocabulary use in writing showed mild fluctuation between September and January. His score shot up in February and sightly fell in March. He scored highest in February and lowest in January. Although the quality of Kazuko's vocabulary use in writing showed mild fluctuation during the research, neither obvious improvement nor deterioration of vocabulary skills was seen. She scored highest in September and lowest in October and December. 82 Figure 4.23 Composition Mastery Report - Japanese: Vocabulary (20) 19.5-1 19 18.5 18 17.5 17 16.5 16 1 • I 1 • I • I 1 Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. • • m n ^ ^ M Maho Tsutomu Kengo Kazuko Means Language use Subjects' results are shown in Figure 4.24 below, and the detail of the data is presented in Table 4.49 in Appendix 2. The most active fluctuation was seen in Maho's language use. She scored highest in September and lowest in January. The scores decreased from September to November and from December to January. Recovery was seen in February and March. The language use in Tsutomu's writing gradually improved during the research. He scored highest in February and lowest in November. The quality of Kengo's language use in writing gradually deteriorated between September and December. The scores started going up in December and it reached higher than his September score in February. The score went down slightly in March. Kazuko's language use quality in writing once dropped in October, and levelled out after October until March. She scored highest in September and lowest in October. 83 Figure 4.24 Composition Mastery Report - Japanese: Language use (25) 30 20-10 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. • m m m «ia Maho Tsutomu Kengo Kazuko Vleans Mechanics Subjects' results are shown in Figure 4.25 below, and the detail of the data is presented in Table 4.50 in Appendix 2. Notable fluctuation was not seen in Maho's mechanics. She scored lowest in November. Tsutomu's mechanics developed during the research. He scored highest in February. Kengo scored highest in January, February and March. The score was lowest in October and November. Kazuko's mechanics skills declined in October once and levelled out until March. She scored highest in September. Figure 4.25 Composition Mastery Report - Japanese: Mechanics (5) 5 4.5 H • « .* * V A V \ 3.5 • R HI n m Maho Tsutomu Kengo Kazuko Means T — • — I 1 1 r Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 84 Overall quality Results for overall scores are shown in Figure 4.26 below, and the detail of the data is presented in Table 4.51 in Appendix 2. The scores decreased from September to November and from December to January. Recovery was seen in February and March. Tsutomu's Japanese writing quality mildly developed during the research. He scored highest in February and lowest in September. The scores decreased slightly in March. Kengo's Japanese writing quality mildly deteriorated from September to January. The range of quality difference between September and January was 11 points. The scores increased in January and went down slightly in March. He scored highest in September and lowest in January. The scores decreased slightly in March. Although Kazuko's Japanese writing quality showed subtle fluctuation during the research, neither obvious improvement nor deterioration was seen. She scored highest in February and lowest in September. Figure 4.26 Composition Mastery Report - Japanese: Overall scores (100) I00n 90 80 70 • PI Fl D M Maho Tsutomu Kengo Kazuko Means 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 85 Maho and Kazuko's overall Japanese writing quality deteriorated, and Tsutomu and Kengo's writing quality improved during the research. Maho's language use deteriorated most among all subjects' writing quality. Comparison of writing quality between LI and L2 To answer the question, "Is fluctuation of LI quality during L2 exposure relevant to learners' L2 development?", the results of subjects' Japanese writing evaluations were compared with the results of their English writing evaluations. Content Case 1: Maho The comparison is shown in Figure 4.27 below. Content quality of her writing in Japanese and English was almost the same. She scored highest in English in October and lowest in December and January. Therefore, she scored lowest in January both in Japanese and English. The biggest difference of the scores between Japanese and English is five (March). Figure 4.27 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English - Content (Maho) 3 0 T 25 20 15' 10' 5' 0' English Japanese •+ • •+ • I I •+-Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 86 Case 2: Tsutomu The comparison is shown in Figure 4.28 below. Content quality of his writing in Japanese and English was almost the same from September to November. However, his English content quality dropped 6.5 points in December, and since then it remained even lower than his initial English content quality. Figure 4.28 reveals parallel fluctuation in both English and Japanese content quality fluctuation after December until March. He scored highest in November and lowest in January. Figure 4.28 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English - Content (Tsutomu) 30 25 20 15 10 5' I English Japanese •+- •+• •+- H 1- •4-Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Case 3: Kengo The comparison is shown in Figure 4.29 below. Content quality of his writing in Japanese was superior to his writing in English during the research. Compared to his Japanese content, his English content did not show progress. The quality of his English writing content was highest in October and lowest in January and March. Fluctuation of English content quality was roughly parallelled to Japanese from September to December. 87 However, similar fluctuation was seen in both English and Japanese content quality after December until March. The difference of writing quality between English and Japanese was biggest in March. Figure 4.29 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English - Content (Kengo) 3 0 T 25 20 15 10 5' 0' • + • •+ • •+ • -t- • + • Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. English Japanese Case 4: Kazuko The comparison is shown in Figure 4.3 0 below. Content quality of Kazuko's writing in English deteriorated during the research. Similar fluctuation was seen in her writing quality in Japanese and English between September and December. She scored highest in English content quality in September and lowest in February. Figure 4.30 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English - Content (Kazuko) 3 0 T Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 88 The comparison of mean scores in content quality is shown in Figure 4.31 below. Japanese scores decreased from September to January and recoverd from January to March. On the other hand, English scores decreased from September to March except for a temporary recovery in October and February. Figure 4.31 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English - Content (Means) 30 25 20 15 10 5' 0' -h •+• •+• H h •+-English Japanese Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Organizing Case 1: Maho The comparison is shown in Figure 4.32 below. Maho's skills in organizing ideas in English were lower than Japanese from September to December. In January her English organization improved and became almost the same as Japanese. The score continued increasing until February and declined in March as well as her Japanese score. 89 Figure 4.32 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English - Organization (Maho) 20 10 I English Japanese •< 1 1 h Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar Case 2: Tsutomu The comparison is shown in Figure 4.33 below. Tsutomu's skills in organizing ideas in English were lower than Japanese. Although his English organizing skill shot up in November, it plunged in December to its lowest point. His score for English organizing skills slightly recovered after December and levelled out until March. Figure 4.33 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English - Organization (Tsutomu) [ English Japanese Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 90 Case 3: Kengo The comparison is shown in Figure 4.34 below. His skills in organizing ideas in English were lower than Japanese. Although his English organizing skills shot up in October, the score gradually went down after October until December. It showed slight improvement in January and went down steadily in February and March. There were big differences in organizing skills between Japanese and English writing in September and March, 5.5 points and 7.0 points respectively. Figure 4.34 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English - Organization (Kengo) 2 0 T English Japanese Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar, Case 4 : Kazuko The comparison is shown in Figure 4.3 5 below. Kazuko maintained almost the same quality in organizing skills in English during the research. Her Japanese score fell to its lowest point in February, even below her score in English. She scored highest in September and lowest in February in both languages. 91 Figure 4.35 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English - Organization (Kazuko) 20 10' I English I Japanese H 1 1- H h Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. The comparison of mean scores in organizing quality is shown in Figure 4.3 6 below. Japanese scores decreased from September to January and recoverd in February and March. On the other hand, English scores fluctuated from September to March. Figure 4.36 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English - Organization (Means) 20n I English 1^ Japanese Sep. Oct. Nov, Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Vocabulary Case 1: Maho The comparison is shown in Figure 4.37 below. Fluctuation of her English vocabulary skills was similar to her Japanese vocabulary skills. Although she scored highest in November in English, she scored lowest both in Japanese and English in 92 January. The scores declined from December to January and from February to March both in Japanese and English. Figure 4.37 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English - Vocabulary (Maho) 20 15 10 I I 1 I 1 H English Japanese Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Case 2: Tsutomu The comparison is shown in Figure 4.38 below. Whereas Tsutomu's Japanese vocabulary use developed, his English vocabulary use deteriorated during the research. He scored highest in November and lowest in January. Similar fluctuation were obsurved in Japanese and English from January to March. Figure 4.38 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English - Vocabulary (Tsutomu) English Japanese Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 93 Case 3: Kengo The comparison is shown in Figure 4.39 below. Mild fluctuation of English vocabulary use quality was seen during the year. Similar fluctuation was seen in both languages between September and December. However, the quality of Kengo's English vocabulary skills decreased after January until March, and his Japanese skills increased remarkably after January until February. The big difference occurred in vocabulary use quality in the two languages in March (7.5 points). He scored highest in September and lowest in October and March in English. On the other hand, he scored highest in March and lowest in October in Japanese. Figure 4.39 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English - Vocabulary (Kengo) 20 15 10' I I I I I I Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mm. Case 4: Kazuko The comparison is shown in Figure 4.4 0 below. Similar changes in Japanese and English vocabulary skills occurred during the period. Whereas her Japanese vocabulary skills remained at almost the same level during the research, her English showed 94 2.5-point difference in scores between September and March. She scored highest in September and February and lowest in March in English. Figure 4.40 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English - Vocabulary (Kazuko) 10 0 4 - — I — — I 1 , , , Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. I English Japanese The comparison of mean scores in vocabulary skills is shown in Figure 4.41 below. Japanese scores decreased from September to January and recoverd in February and March. On the other hand, English scores fluctuatedand decreased from September to March. Figure 4.41 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English - Vocabulary (Means) 2 0 i 10 •+• I English ^ Japanese -+- - I - •+-Sep. Ocl. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 95 Languacre use Case 1: Maho The comparison is shown in Figure 4.42 below. Except for November scores, fluctuation of her language use quality in English was similar to that of her Japanese language use quality. She scored highest in September and lowest in January both in Japanese and English. Figure 4.42 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English - Language use (Maho) 30i Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Case 2: Tsutomu The comparison is shown in Figure 4.43 below. Whereas steady improvement was seen in Tsutomu's Japanese language use, rises and falls were seen in his English language use. He scored highest in February and lowest in January. Similar fluctuations were observed in his vocabulary skills and language use in both Japanese and English. 96 Figure 4.43 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English - Language use (Tsutomu) 3 0 i English Japanese Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Case 3 : Kengo The comparison is shown in Figure 4.44 below. His Japanese language use quality is superior to the quality of his language use quality in English. His scores decreased both in Japanese and English from September to December. The scores increased sightly in January in both languages, and the difference in quality between Japanese and English became biggest in March (11.0 points). He scored lowest in Japanese and English in December. He scored highest in English in February and in Japanese in September. Figure 4.44 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English - Language use (Kengo) 3 0 T I English I Japanese Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 97 Case 4: Kazuko The comparison is shown in Figure 4.45 below. Kazuko's written Japanese and her English language use skills appeard to change during the research. The quality of her English language use was almost at the same level as her Japanese. She scored highest in February and lowest in September in English. Figure 4.45 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English - Language use (Kazuko) 30 25 20 15 10 5' 0. English Japanese Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. The comparison of mean scores in language use is shown in Figure 4.46 below. Japanese scores decreased from September to January and recoverd in February and March. On the other hand, English scores showed fluctuated and decreased from September to January and recovered in February and March. Figure 4.46 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English - Language use (Means) 3 0 T 25 10 • English E^ Japanese -) 1 1 ) (_ H Sep. Ocl. Nov Dec Jan. Feb. Mar. 98 Mechanics Case 1: Maho The comparison is shown in Figure 4.4 7 below. Except November, the same fluctuation was seen in both Japanese and English. No overall mechanics development was found in either language. Figure 4.47 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English - Mechanics (Maho) English Japanese I I I 1 1 I Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Case 2: Tsutomu The comparison is shown in Figure 4.48 below. Tsutomu's Japanese mechanics use was superior in Japanese. Whereas he scored the same in Japanese and English in September, the difference of quality of mechanics use averaged two points. His English mechanics scores was lowest in March. 99 Figure 4.48 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English - Mechanics (Tsutomu) 5-1 Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Case 3: Kengo The comparison is shown in Figure 4.4 9 below. Kengo's use of mechanics was superior in Japanese. The difference of mechanics use between the two languages ranged from 1.0 point to 1.5 points constantly. He scored highest in February and lowest in November both in Japanese and English. Figure 4.49 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English - Mechanics (Kengo) Sep. Oct. Nov Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 100 Case 4: Kazuko The comparison is shown in Figure 4.50 below. Kazuko's Japanese mechanics use was superior to her English except in February. Whereas the quality of her Japanese mechanics skills did not appear to change, her English showed some fluctuation; she scored highest in February and lowest in October. Figure 4.50 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English - Mechanics (Kazuko) 5 i OH 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sap. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. i English Japanese The comparison of mean scores in mechanics skills is shown in Figure 4.51 below. Japanese scores decreased from September to January and recoverd in February and March. On the other hand, English scores fluctuated and decreased from September to March. Figure 4.51 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English - Mechanics (Means) 5-• English ^ Japanese Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec Jan Feb. Mar 1 0 1 Overall quality Case 1: Maho The comparison is shown in Figure 4.52 below. Fluctuation of Maho's Japanese and English writing was almost the same except in December. She scored highest in September and lowest in January both in Japanese and English. The scores slightly declined from February to March in both languages. Figure 4.52 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English - Overall scores (Maho) IOOT 50 25 j English Japanese H 1 1 1 1 h Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Case 2: Tsutomu The comparison is shown in Figure 4.53 below. Whereas Tsutomu's Japanese writing quality showed steady improvement, his English fluctuated. The difference of overall quality of writing in Japanese and English increased during the research. The biggest difference between the two languages was 27.5 points (January). He scored lowest in English in January. 102 Figure 4.53 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English - Overall scores (Tsutomu) 100 English Japanese < 1 I 1 1 1-Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Case 3: Kengo The comparison is shown in Figure 4.54 below. His writing quality deteriorated from September to December both in Japanese and English except for a slight November recovery in English. Whereas his Japanese writing quality improved remarkably in February, his English writing quality score stagnated and remained lower than his September score. Figure 4.54 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English - Overall scores (Kengo) IOOT 75 50 25 English Japanese I I I I I H Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 103 Case 4: Kazuko The comparison is shown in Figure 4.55 below. Both Kazuko's overall English and Japanese writing quality slightly deteriorated. Her Japanese writing quality was slightly higher than her English writing quality. The difference in scores between English and Japanese ranged between 6.5 points and 4.0 points. Figure 4.55 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English - Overall scores (Kazuko) 9 0 T 80 70 60 50 40. 30' 20-10-0-I English Japanese Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar The comparison of mean scores in mechanics skills is shown in Figure 4.56 below. Both Japanese and English scores decreased from September to January and recoverd in February and March. Figure 4.56 Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English - Overall scores (Means) 9 0 T Sep. Gel. Nov. Dec. Jan, Feb. Mar. 104 Sep. Nov. Dec. Mar. 53 54 51 57 52 54 56 58 51 51 55 57 TOEFL scores Case 1: Maho Maho's TOEFL scores during the research are shown in Table 4.52 below. Her overall scores increased during the research. The scores for all sections increased. Table 4.52 TOEFL scores - Maho Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Overall scores 520 530 540 573 Section 1: Listening Comprehension Section 2: Structure and Written Expression Section 3: Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension Case 2: Tsutomu Tsutomu's TOEFL scores during the research are shown in Table 4.53 below. The scores for Structure and Written Expression increased most during the research. Table 4.53 TOEFL scores - Tsutomu Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Overall scores Sep. 46 54 53 510 Nov. 46 50 53 497 Dec. 47 56 54 523 Mar. 48 54 55 523 Section 1: Listening Comprehension Section 2: Structure and Written Expression Section 3: Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension Case 3: Kengo Kengo's TOEFL scores during the research are shown in Table 4.54 below. The scores for Structure and Written Expression increased most during the research. 105 Table 4.54 TOEFL scores - Kengo Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Overall scores Sep. Nov. Dec. Mar. 47 45 48 48 53 59 57 55 51 51 54 51 503 517 520 513 Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Listening Comprehension Structure and Written Expression Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension Case 4: Kazuko Kazuko's TOEFL scores during the research are shown in Table 4.55 below. Her overall scores increased, and her listening comprehension ability improved most during the research. Table 4.55 TOEFL scores - Kazuko Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Overall scores Sep. Nov. Dec. Mar. 55 59 61 63 53 61 59 59 54 55 51 56 540 583 570 593 Section 1: Listening Comprehension Section 2: Structure and Written Expression Section 3: Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension All subjects' English writing quality slightly deteriorated during the research. While Maho and Kazuko's Japanese writing quality was similar to their respective English writing quality, the quality of Tsutomu and Kengo's Japanese writing was better than their English counterparts. No particular influence of change of Japanese on subjects' overall Japanese and English writing quality was found in terms of syntactic change, pragmatic change and most of grammatical change. The influence was only found in direct use of English and retrieval of subject ellipses. As direct use of English words increased, Japanese quality deteriorated and vice versa in Maho, 106 Tsutomu's and Kengo's writing. While no influence of direct use of English words on Maho and Kazuko's English writing quality was found, Kengo's and Tsutomu's English writing quality deteriorated as English words increased in their Japanese writing. In terms of retrieval of subject ellipses, Maho and Kazuko's Japanese writing quality deteriorated as the retrieval increased. On the other hand, Tsutomu and Kengo's writing quality developed as the retrieval increased. All subjects' English writing quality deteriorated as the ellipses increased. Regarding subjects' TOEFL scores, all subjects' scores for Section 2 (structure and written expression) increased most during the research. Table 4.56 below presents the mean scores of Japanese and English Composition Mastery Reprots. Table 4.59 presents the means of the four subjects' TOEFL scores. Table 4.56 Composition Mastery Report (Overview) Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Mns JAPANESE A 26 26 26 25 25 27 26 26 6 0 5 5 2 3 7 2 B 17 17 17 16 16 17 17 16 5 1 0 1 0 1 0 8 C 17.6 16.3 17.1 17.0 17.0 19.1 18.1 17.4 D 21 19 17 18 17 20 19 19 0 3 3 5 6 2 7 0 E 4.3 4.1 4.0 4.2 4.2 4.6 4.3 4.2 F 86.5 83.0 82.0 81.6 80.5 87.7 86.0 83.9 ENGLISH A 24 25 24 22 22 23 21 23 7 7 7 8 1 8 6 6 B 14 15 15 12 14 14 13 14 C 0 15.5 0 13.5 1 15.7 7 14.7 2 13.7 2 15.0 6 13.5 1 14.5 D 17 15 16 14 13 16 15 15 2 6 6 8 6 7 5 7 E 3.8 3.3 3.5 3.3 3.6 4.1 3.2 3.5 F 75.1 71.6 74.7 68.3 67.2 73.1 67.5 71.0 A: content, B: organization, C: vocabulary, D: language use, E: mechanics, F: overall scores Table 4.57 TOEFL scores (Means) Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Overall scores Sep. Nov. Dec. Mar. 50.2 51.0 51.7 54.0 53.0 56.0 57.0 56.5 52.5 52.5 53.5 54.7 518.2 531.7 534.2 550.5 Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Listening Comprehension Structure and Written Expression Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension 107 The relationships between attitudinal factors and LI change To answer the question, "Will learners' attitudes related to culture awareness affect learners' LI speech and writing", the results of self-evaluation questionnaires were plotted in graphic form, and diary entries were classified into three categories: positive, neutral, and negative. Subsequently the data was compared with change of subjects' Japanese speech and writing. Impression of English-speaking culture and Japanese culture (Results of questionnaires) Case 1: Maho The results are shown in Figure 4.57 below. Maho's impression of English-speaking culture was positive and stable during the research. She maintained same degree of positiveness about the culture. On the other hand, her impression of Japanese culture dropped from positive to neutral in December and plunged to negative in February. However, the impression became positive again in March. Figure 4.57 Impression of English-speaking culture and Japanese-speaking culture (Maho) 3 T m English ^ Japanese Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 108 Case 2: Tsutomu The results are shown in Figure 4.58 below. Tsutomu's impression of English-speaking culture was positive in the beginning of the research, but became neutral in November and December. His impression became positive and remained at the same level as October until March. His impression of Japanese culture started negative and showed ups and downs during the research. He responded most negatively in September and December. Figure 4.58 Impression of English-speaking culture and Japanese-speaking culture (Tsutomu) English Japanese Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Case 3 : Kengo The results are shown in Figure 4.59 below. Kengo's impression of English-speaking culture was negative in the beginning of the research, but it became neutral in December and positive in January. Although regression was seen in February, his impression of English-speaking culture became positive in March. His impression of Japanese culture followed the same change as his impression of English-speaking culture until January. His impression of Japanese culture became neutral in March. 109 Figure 4.59 Impression of English-speaking culture and Japanese-speaking culture (Kengo) • English M Japanese Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Case 4 : Kazuko The results are shown in Figure 4.60 below. Her impression of English-speaking culture was positive in the beginning of the research. However, it became neutral in December and ended positively in February and March. Her impression of Japanese culture was neutral from October to December. Positive impression of Japanese culture was observed in January and March. Figure 4.60 Impression of English-speaking culture and Japanese-speaking culture (Kazuko) • English O Japanese Oct. Nov. Dec Jan Feb. Mar, 110 Interaction with English-speaking people and Japanese-speaking people (Results of questionnaires) Case 1: Maho The results are shown in Figure 4.61 below. Maho's interaction with English speaking people increased from September to March consistently. On the other hand, interaction with Japanese-speaking people decreased from September to December and returned to the same level as September in January, February and March. Figure 4.61 Interaction with English-speaking people and Japanese-speaking people (Maho) 4 T I English M Japanese Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Case 2: Tsutomu The results are shown in Figure 4.62 below. Tsutomu's interaction with English speaking people increased from September to December consistently and remained steady between December and March. On the other hand, interaction with Japanese-speaking people decreased from September to December and from January to February, and increased back to a fairly high level in March. Ill Figure 4.62 Interaction with English-speaking people and Japanese-speaking people (Tsutomu) 4 T 3--2--! • • 0 4 •+ • •+--+- -+- •+-Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan Feb. Mar. I English @ Japanese Case 3: Kengo The results are shown in Figure 4.63 below. Kengo's interaction with English speaking people increased from November to January and remained steady between January and March. On the other hand, interaction with Japanese-speaking people remained steady from September to December and increased remarkably in January. Figure 4.63 Interaction with English-speaking people and Japanese-speaking people (Kengo) 4 T 3--2--1 • • -*-• English ^ Japanese -+- -(- •+ • •+ • Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Case 4 : Kazuko The results are shown in Figure 4.64 below. Kazuko's interaction with English speaking people increased from October 112 to January consistently and declined sharply in February. The interaction continued decreasing until March. On the other hand, her interaction with Japanese-speaking people was not active during the research. Figure 4.64 Interaction with English-speaking people and Japanese-speaking people (Kazuko) 4 T 3--2--1 - -I English @ Japanese -+- -+- -+- -+- -+-Oct, Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Detail of cultural impressions of Japanese culture and English-speaking culture (diary entries) Case 1: Maho Maho's diary entries were classified as shown in Table 4.58 below. Whereas her impression of English was relatively positive during the research, some changes can be seen. She had no positive comments on Japanese culture in September and October and had positive comments in November and January. On the other hand, she had negative comments in September, October and November, but she had no negative comments in January. Table 4.58 Classification of diary entries regarding cultural impressions of Japanese and English culture - Maho Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Positive JAN 0 0 2 -3 ENGL 9 10 7 -4 Neut JAN 1 1 2 -0 .ral ENGL 2 5 5 -1 Negat JAN 3 2 1 -0 ive ENGL 1 4 2 -1 113 Case 2: Tsutomu Tsutomu's diary entries were classified as shown in Table 4.59 below. He wrote about his impression of Japanese culture from September to November; the number of entries of Japanese culture decreased during the research. In September more entries about positive impressions about Japanese culture were seen than negative impressions, but more negative entries were seen than positive entries in October and November. On the other hand, negative entries about English-speaking culture increased dramatically after September. Positive entries about English-speaking culture decreased gradually during the research. Table 4.59 Classification of diary entries regarding cultural impressions of Japanese and English culture - Tsutomu Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Positive JAN 7 2 0 0 -ENGL 5 5 3 4 Neutral JAN 0 0 0 0 ENGL 2 9 7 6 -Neaative JAN 3 4 1 0 -ENGL 1 11 16 8 -Case 3: Kengo Kengo's diary entries were classified as shown in Table 4.60 below. Entries about positive impressions about Japanese culture decreased and negative entries increased during the research. On the other hand, positive entries about English-speaking culture increased during the research and data showed dramatic increase of positive entries about English-speaking culture in December. 114 Table 4.60 Classification of diary entries regarding cultural impressions of Japanese and English culture - Kengo Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Positive JAN 1 2 0 0 -ENGL 0 3 1 11 -Neutral JAN 0 0 0 0 -ENGL 0 0 1 1 -Neaat JAN 0 2 1 3 -ive ENGL 0 2 0 0 -Case 4: Kazuko Kazuko's diary entries were classified as shown in Table 4.61 below. She seldom wrote about impression of English-speaking culture. Most of her diary entries were regarding English learning and frustration about courses and her friends. Her entries about Japanese culture were neutral or negative. Additional data classification of her diary entries is shown in Table 4.62. Table 4.61 Classification of diary entries regarding cultural impressions of Japanese and English culture - Kazuko Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Positive JAN 0 0 0 0 -ENGL 0 0 0 0 _ Neutral JAN 0 0 0 0 ENGL 1 3 3 0 -Neaat JAN 2 3 2 0 -ive ENGL 0 0 0 0 -Table 4.62 Additional classification of Kazuko's diary entries regarding degree of satisfaction of the life in UBC-Rits House Satisfied Frustrated Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. 0 2 1 0 6 6 4 2 Subjects' impressions of English-speaking culture fluctuated in different ways, but their impressions in March were the same as impressions in September or higher. On the other hand, 115 fluctuation of individual subjects' impressions of Japanese-speaking culture varied. Except for Kazuko, subjects' interaction with English speaking people increased during the research. Kazuko's interaction with English-speaking people decreased after January. Subjects' fluctuation of interaction with Japanese-speaking people also varied. Tsutomu and Kazuko were more reluctant to have interactions with Japanese than Maho and Kengo. Table 4.63 below presents the means of self-evaluation questionnaires' results. Table 4.63 The means of self-evaluation questionnaires' results A B C D Sep. - - - -Oct. 2.25 1.75 1.00 2.75 Nov. 2.00 2.25 2.00 2.50 Dec. 1.75 1.75 2.75 1.75 Jan. 2.50 2.75 3.50 2.75 Feb. 2.75 2.00 3.00 2.50 Mar. 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.75 Mns. 2.37 2.25 2.51 2.50 A: Impressions of North American culture B: Impressions of Japanese culture C: Interactions with English-speaking people D: Interactions with Japanese-speaking people CONCLUSION The above results are the data collected from four subjects who studied in UBC-Ritsumeikan Academic Exchange Programme from September, 1993 to March, 1994. Table 4.64 presents the summary of the findings. 116 Table 4.64 Overview of the data B D H K Sep. 7.00 1.47 52.08 0.25 86.5 75.1 Oct. 8.47 2.68 4.16 8.70 52.08 11.70 0.00 0.09 0.00 83.0 71.6 Nov. 7.47 1.21 1.92 6.39 58.33 23.73 0.50 0.23 0.00 82.0 74.7 Dec. 9.78 2.55 3.57 9.14 54.16 24.02 0.00 0.25 0.00 81.6 68.3 Jan. 5.83 - 0.00 - 62.49 - - _ o.25 80.5 67.2 Feb. 3.88 2.36 1.47 7.84 72.91 23.76 0.00 0.60 0.25 87.7 73.1 Mar. 3.00 1.63 1.31 12.10 60.83 24.65 0.00 0.36 0.00 86.0 67.5 Mns. 6.25 2.02 1.98 8.83 58.98 21.57 0.10 0.38 0.10 83.9 71.0 Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Mns. L -2.25 2.00 1.75 2.50 2.75 3.00 2.37 M -1.75 2.25 1.75 2.75 2.00 3.00 2.25 N -1.00 2.00 2.75 3.50 3.00 3.00 2.51 0 -2.75 2.50 1.75 2.75 2.50 2.75 2.50 P 50 -51 51 --54 51 .2 0 7 0 7 0 53 -56 57 --56 55 .0 .0 0 5 6 R 52 -52 53 --54 53 .5 .5 .5 7 ^ _ S 518 -531 534 --550 533 .2 .7 .2 5 6 A: Direct use of English word - writing B: Direct use of English word - speech C: Right-branching sentences - writing D: Right-branching sentences - speech E: Subject-prominent paragraphs - writing F: Subject-prominent paragraphs - speech G: English-like negative answers - speech H: Subject ellipses retrieval - speech I: Rigid tense agreement - writing J: Composition Mastery Report (Japanese) K: Composition Mastery Report (English) L: Impressions of Japanese culture M: Impressions of North American culture N: Interactions with Japanese-speaking people O: Interactions with English-speaking people P: TOEFL scores (Section 1: listening comprehension) Q: TOEFL scores (Section 2: structure and written expression) R: TOEFL scores (Section 3: vocabulary and reading comprehension) S: TOEFL scores (Overall scores) Direct use of English words (DUEW) in the subjects' writing was most frequently observed in December (9.78%), when the subjects recorded their lowest impressions for both Japanese culture (1.75) and interactions with Japanese people (1.75). However, the impression of North American culture was also 117 recorded at it lowest in December (1.75) . The score of Japanese Composition Mastery Report in December was the second lowest (81.6). The frequency of DUEW increased from September (7.00%) to December (9.78%) and decreased from December to March (3.00%). On the other hand, the scores of subjects' Japanese language use decreased from September (21.0) to November (17.3) and increased from November to March (19.7). Interestingly, the scores of their English language use also decreased from September (17.2) to January (13.6) and increased form January to March (15.5). DUEW was more frequently used in writing than in speech. Right-branching sentences (RBS) in Japanese speech showed the biggest increase among all other changes in subjects' Japanese. RBS was more frequently found in speech than in writing. The frequency of RBS in speech constantly increased from September (8.70%) to March (12.10%). Interactions with English-speaking people also increased constantly during the research (September: 1.00, March: 3.00). The frequency of DUEW and RBS in both writing and speech marked higher scores in October (DUEW-writing: 8.47%, DUEW-speech: 2.68%; RBS-writing: 4.16%, RBS-speech: 8.70%) and December (DUEW-writing: 9.78%; DUEW-speech: 2.55%; RBS-writing: 3.57%; RBS-speech: 9.14%), although the frequency of RBS was the highest in speech (12.10%). Meanwhile, the impression of Japanese culture was recorded as the lowest in October (1.75) and December (1.75) . Subject ellipses retrieval (SER) showed constant increase 118 (September: 0.09%, February: 0.60%) as did RBS except for the decrease in March (0.36%) . Subject-prominent paragraphs (SPP) increased in writing from September (52.08%) to February (72.91%) as well as interactions with English-speaking people (October: 1.00, February: 3.00), whereas, obvious change was not seen in speaking. Rigid tense agreement in subordinate clauses was only found in September, January and February in Maho's writing and one case of English-like negative answers was found in Kazuko's November data. However, application of English-like verb deletion patterns in coordinated sentences (EVDP), replacement of adversity passive with English-like passive (APEP) and application of "lower animals as subjects in transitive constructions (LA) were not recognized. SUMMARY This chapter discussed the results of the study. The Research site, the information about the subjects, individual characteristics of their written and spoken Japanese and English, and individuals' goals in UBC-Ritsumeikan Programme was summarized. Following this was the detail of data collection and findings. 119 CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION OF THE STUDY INTRODUCTION This chapter presents an overview the study followed by a discussion of results of the research and their implications for further research. Finally, the limitations of the study are considered and recommendations made for further study. BACKGROUND Asian undergraduate and graduate student populations currently exceed those of other foreign student populations at tertiary institutions in Canada. An increasing number of Japanese universities are establishing sister school relationships, branch university campuses, and study abroad programmes in English-speaking institutions. This tendency has been led by an increase in business and academic collaboration throughout the Pacific Rim relations (see, e.g. Hammer, 1992; Nelson, 1992). More than 200,000 Japanese people visit Canada yearly, including tourists and students, and more than Can$ 146,000,000,000 moves between Japan and Canada as results of active commercial transactions (Yoshida, 1987) . As well as the development of economic relations, academic exchange has been encouraged by both Japan and Canada for the purpose of understanding cultural differences between Japanese and Canadians. 120 THE PROBLEM Traditionally researchers have focused on the effects of a first language (LI) on the learning of a second language (L2). The effects include the transfer of LI features to L2. However, the learning of an L2 has effects on LI, including both transfer and attrition. Unfortunately, little research has been conducted to investigate the effects of L2 on LI. It is not well known whether learning a L2 has positive or negative effects on learning a LI. THE LITERATURE In classical studies of LI influence on L2 learning (Fries, 1945; Lado, 1957) it was shown that LI experience significantly influenced L2 learning. Flynn (1987) states that "L2 acquisition consists of the transfer of LI habits to the L2" (p. 21) . These studies imply that the process of learning a language as a second language is not necessarily the same as the process of learning the first language. LI influence appears in L2 learning as both positive and negative language transfer. Positive transfer accelerates L2 learning and negative transfer decelerates L2 learning. For instance, good LI writers may have the potential to become good L2 writers by applying LI writing strategies to L2 writing (Arndt, 1987; Carson and Kuehn, 1992; Gumming, 1989; Edelsky, 1982; Hall, 1990; Pennington and So, 1993). Skilled L2 writers produce good texts because of their effective LI writing strategies. Namely, writing strategies are acquired in the process of developing 121 writing skills in LI first and learners transfer strategies from LI to L2 (Cummins, 1980; Mohan and Lo, 1985). LI influence also appears in L2 pragmatics. That is, L2 learners transfer their LI pragmatics to express their opinions or ideas. For instance, Asian-langauge-speaking ESL learners transfer the topic-prominence of their LI to English pragmatics based on subject-prominence (Clancy, 1986; Matusmoto; 1988; Scollon and Scollon, 1991). Pragmatic transfer most often occurs after learners' L2 proficiency has attained a higher than beginning because the learners need advanced L2 skills to convey pragmatic meanings (Takahashi and Beebe, 1987; Taylor, 1975) . Rudimentary pragmatic transfer from LI to L2 can be recognized in L2 syntax. This stage of transfer indicates a process connecting morphological transfer and pragmatic transfer. For example, Asian language speaking ESL learners use more topic-comment structures than native English speakers (Farmer, 1985). This LI influence on the L2 sentence structure results in grammatical problems when learners produce passive sentences (Li and Thompson, 1976) and locative sentences (Sasaki, 1990). As this type of ungrammatical product decreases, the learners produce more subject prominent sentences representing English linguistic features. Grammatical transfer from LI to L2 has also positive and negative effects on L2 learning. When the linguistic features of the L2 share common characteristics with the LI linguistic features, learners acquire the target language faster than LI learners whose LI is significantly different from the L2 (Liceras, 122 1983; Oiler and Redding, 1972; Schumann, 1986). On the other hand, LI linguistic features which are not common to L2 features can also be transferred, attributed to an overgeneralization due to the linguistic similarities or overestimation of grammatical roles (Sasaki, 1990). This type of transfer causes grammatical errors in the L2. Eventually learners regard some LI features as critical obstacles in L2 learning and they tend to avoid using LI features which cause grammatical confusion in L2 learning. This L2 learners' tendency may trigger first language attrition (Flynn, 1987). Especially when the L2 learning is accompanied by restriction in LI use, LI attrition tends to accelerate (Andersen; 1982). Furthermore, the same type of attrition may occur not only in terms of grammatical features of LI but also in terms of pragmatic features of LI since forming pragmatics heavily relies on syntactic features of the target language. Learners' attitudes toward the target culture and language have also significant influences on language attrition. The more positive learners attitudes are toward learning the target language and culture the better they maintain L2 proficiency. Attitudinal and motivational characteristics play a key role in language maintenance and attrition (Gardner, 1982) . In order to maintain LI and L2 both positive socio-cultural interaction skills and a supportive social environment are indispensable. The influence of LI on L2 interlanguage proficiency has been established by many researchers, yet studies have focused on the 123 L2 side. Bidirectional analysis of interlanguage phenomena is necessary to comprehend L2 learning processes by shedding light on the LI side. Furthermore, there have been few studies designed to explain the relationships between change in learners L2 and in their LI and their attitudes toward L1/L2 culture and language. The present study was designed to explore the effects of learning a second language on the first langue. METHOD This study was designed to investigate the following questions: 1. Will lexical transfer from L2 to LI occur in speech and writing? 2. Will syntactic transfer from L2 to LI occur in speech and writing? 3. Will pragmatic transfer from L2 to LI occur in speech and writing? 4 . Will grammatical transfer from L2 to LI occur in speech and writing? 5. Will quality of LI writing be debased due to transfer of linguistic features from L2 to LI? 6. Is fluctuation of LI quality during L2 exposure relevant to learners' L2 development? 7. Will learners' attitudes related to culture awareness affect learners' LI speech and writing? 124 Two male and two female Japanese learners were the subjects of the study. Their TOEFL scores ranged from 517 to 550. The subjects were randomly selected from 98 participants of the UBC-Ritsumeikan Academic Exchange Programme (UBC-Rits Programme). UBC-Rits Programme was an integrated language and content (ILC) programme designed cooperatively by the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada and Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto, Japan. The programme was conducted in English. All participants of UBC-Rits Programme were Japanese students from Ritsumeikan University who were studying and living at UBC-Ritsumeikan House located at UBC for eight months during the research period. The following items were collected as samples for the study: diary entries, Japanese writing samples, English writing samples, Japanese discourse samples, and monthly self-evaluation questionnaires. Diaries were given to each subject at the beginning of the programme with Japanese instructions based on one used in Matusmoto's diary study of Japanese ESL learners (Matusmoto, 1989). Their diaries were collected once a month and entries indicating attitudes regarding English cultural awareness and reflection of Japanese culture were extracted and classified into positive, negative or neutral statements. The results were compared with the results of quality and style analysis of subjects' Japanese and English in order to see the relationship between subjects' attitudinal variables and changes in quality if their LI and L2. One best Japanese writing sample was carefully chosen from each individual's diary entries by two native Japanese speaking language 125 teachers at the end of each month. The writing samples were analyzed by focusing on writing style and quality. The writing styles were investigated in terms of the following points: 1) direct use of English words; 2) English-like right branching sentences; 3) tense agreement in subordinate clauses; 4) English-like verb deletion in coordinated sentences; 5) replacement of adversity passive with English-like passive; 6) retrieval of subject ellipses; 7) application of "lower animals" as subjects in transitive constructions; and 8) prominent models in statement presentation patterns. Writing quality was assessed by employing Jacob's ESL Composition Mastery Evaluation Scale (1981) modified for Japanese. The evaluation criteria included content, organization, vocabulary, language use and mechanics. Copies of assignments completed in course work were used as subjects' English writing samples. The best samples were carefully selected by the present researcher once a month and analyzed for quality by using Jacob's scale mentioned above. The results were compared with the scores of the Japanese Composition Mastery Evaluation in order to see the relationship between changes in writing quality in Japanese and in English. An oral interview was held monthly in an informal location and casual topics were discussed in the sessions. The interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed. The conversations were analyzed in the same manner as the analysis of the subjects' writing styles. Application of English-corresponding negative questions was added to the analysis criteria. Additionally, personal goals in the UBC-126 Rits Programme were asked about individually during the first interview session. To supplement information obtained from from diary entries a monthly questionnaire was administered during the interview sessions. Subjects were asked about their impressions of Japanese and English-speaking cultures and the degree of interaction with Japanese and English speaking people they had during the month. Results were plotted graphically and compared with findings from the diary studies. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Subjects' educational backgrounds were similar except for experience in non-official English education. Female subjects, Maho and Kazuko, had been enthusiastically involved in activities involving English use. Maho worked actively with English speaking people in an international club at Ritsumeikan University and Kazuko studied at a high school in England for 11 months. Maho's major at Ritsumeikan University (International Relations) also may have contributed to her English learning because she had to read more English literature than the other subjects: Tsutomu, business; Kengo and Kazuko, economics. Although Tsutomu and Kengo also had taken university English education which Maho and Kazuko had taken to prepare themselves for the UBC-Rits Programme, they had experienced much less communicative language activities in English than Maho and Kazuko. Subjects' backgrounds in English was reflected in their final 127 TOEFL scores before they came to Canada. The total TOEFL score consists of Section 1 (listening comprehension), Section 2 structure and written expression) and Section 3 (vocabulary and reading comprehension. Kazuko scored 550, Maho 540, Tsutomu 527 and Kengo 517. The difference of the highest and the lowest score in each section was as follows: Section 1; 12, Section 2; 7, and Section 3; 3) . That is, Maho and Kazuko were more skilled in listening. The differences in scores of Section 2 among subjects may be due to the differences of the subjects' high school English education. (Maho and Tsutomu scored 61, Kengo 55, and Kazuko 54.) Section 2 consists of knowledge of English grammar. While Maho and Tsutomu's English education in high school was grammar-centred, Kazuko's English education in England was communicative-activity-centred. Furthermore, Kengo did not have to study English at high school like other students because he was exempted from the entrance examination as a sports scholarship student. The differences in subjects' initial learning attitudes were seen in their personal goals in the UBC-Rits Programme. All subjects were highly motivated to learn English. The male subjects showed more interest in speaking and the female subjects were more interested in taking advanced subjects. While Maho, Tsutomu and Kengo showed interest in developing friendship with Canadian students, Kazuko showed less interest in people. An analysis of the learners' writing revealed that Kengo's writing was different from the rest of the subjects. Kengo used many sentences in a paragraph and his average number of meaning units in 128 a sentence was fewer than other subjects. That is, his sentences were generally shorter than other subjects. An analysis of their English writing revealed that Maho and Kazuko used longer sentences more often than Tsutomu and Kengo. An analysis of subjects' Japanese discourse samples showed that Maho was rather quiet and Kengo was rather talkative. The average number of sentences in a paragraph and meaning units in a sentence were calculated. Maho's average number of sentences in an utterance was small and her average number of meaning units in a sentence was also small. On the other hand, Kengo's average number of sentences in an utterance was large and his average number of meaning units in a sentence was also large. There were examples of the influence of L2 on LI in both speaking and writing. For instance, the direct use of English words (DUEW) was found more frequently in writing than in speech. The mean of DUEW frequency in writing was 6.25% and its counterpart in speech was 2.02%. The DUEW frequency in writing increased slightly from September (7.00%) to December (9.78%), but it plunged to 3.00% in March. Composition Mastery Report (CMR) scores regarding content and organization in Japanese writing showed a similar change to the fluctuation of DUEW frequency. Both CMR content and organization scores went down from September (content: 26.6; organization: 17.5) to January (content: 25.2; organization: 16.0). The scores showed recovery from January to March (content: 26.7; organization: 17.0). It may be that excessive use of English words led to a deteriotation of subjects' thinking process during 129 the first half of the research period. They stopped using English words by degrees in order to deal with more profound themes as writing topics in the latter half of the study become more difficult. Results of questionnaires regarding impressions about North American and Japanese culture and interactions with Japanese speaking people are also interesting. Results were lowest (1.75) in December. The subjects felt most frustrated about English and Japanese cultures and became introspective by shutting down interactions with Japanese friends. In terms of the subjects' diary entries, they mainly dealt with "simple" topics such as sightseeing, Canadian food, English, classes and parties during the first half of the research period. However, they wrote about themselves, cultural values, friendship, future concern, struggle about learning English and pressure from course work during the latter half of the research period. Naturally, they may have found difficulties in expressing themselves in Japanese mixed with limited English vocabulary when the writing topics were deep and complex. As shown in the CMR results regarding English vocabulary skills, no obvious improvement was recognized. Thus, their English vocabulary reached its limit to supply replacement words to Japanese writing in December and lexical transfer from English to Japanese stopped. Consequently their writing quality began to improve, and approached its initial level later in the study. Right-branching sentence (RBS) in speech showed the most dramatic change. RBS was found more frequently in speech than in 130 writing. The mean of RBS frequency in writing was 1.98% and its counterpart in speech was 8.83%. The frequency of RBS use increased from September (8.70%) to March (12.10%) in speech. The subjects used adverb-end, adverbial phrase-end and adverbial clause-end sentences as RBS mostly. In those, adverb-end and adverbial phrase-end sentences were most frequently used because of their simplicity. They added adverbs or adverbial phrases at the ends of sentences like English so that they did not have to change sentence structures drastically. However, adverbial clause-end sentences need reorganization in sentence structures and the sentences affected subject ellipses retrieval (SER). In Japanese, subject ellipses occur most frequently in main clauses of sentences. Japanese listeners usually identify omitted subjects of main clauses by subjects introduced in subordinate clauses which usually come before main clauses. However, when RBS is applied in Japanese sentences, listeners are apt to get confused about identifying agents of main clauses because of abrupt subject ellipses. In that case, the agents of main clauses are clarified by retrieving omitted subjects. This tendency was seen in the increase of SER frequency during the research (October: 0.09; May: 0.36). Subjects' right-branching sentences were rather less intelligible during the first half of the study, but they became well organized by retrieving omitted subjects after the middle point of the research period. Their RBS after December were direct translations from English to Japanese and were intelligible and sophisticated like translated Japanese literature from English in 131 March. This implies that disorganized SER may have led to deterioration of the subjects' Japanese in the first half of the research, but sophisticated RBS by retrieving omitted subjects may have contributed to helping them recover their Japanese writing skills. Although few RBS and no SER were observed in Japanese writing, there was some evidence of RBS use in subjects' writing. Their writing in September was linguistically sophisticated with many complex sentence structures. However, their sentence structures gradually became more simple until December. Sentences started becoming more complex after December and they wrote about more complicated issues. The sentences were grammatical, but some were extremely long and confused the indeitifation of agents by use of excessive subject ellipses. Japanese CMR scores showed a decrease from September to January and the decrease was most obvious in terms of grammatical quality (language use - September: 21.0; January: 17.6) mainly because of excessive use of English words. However, the scores were the lowest in January (17.6), mainly as a result of awkward sentence structures. The sentences became sophisticated toward the end of the study period and the scores approached their initial levels. This awkwardness of sentence constructions caused troubles in conveying an idea in writing. Japanese CMR scores decreased from September (content: 26.6; organization: 17.5) to January (content: 25.2; organization: 16.0.) The scores were lowest in January. These findings regarding RBS imply that counter transfer of 132 RBS may continue in speech but not in writing. While RBS in speech may be adapted to Japanese context with application of SER, RBS in writing may be excluded because of careful editing. Writing is visible and correctable by editing but speech transient. The change in subjects' use of Japanese pragmatics both in writing and speech was small. Subject-prominent paragraphs (SPP) increased slightly in writing from September (52.08%) to March (60.83%). On the other hand, SPP in speech showed constant ups and downs during the research. It may be that pragmatic change was limited by the subjects' English proficiency. Usually, pragmatic transfer from LI to L2 occurs after learners' target language proficiency has attained an advanced level (Taylor, 1975). To put the situation into counter pragmatic transfer, English pragmatics would not transfer into Japanese pragmatics when learners' English proficiency is not advanced enough to absorb the patterns of English pragmatics through English context. Thus, the subjects' English proficiency may not have been advanced enough for the counter transfer or they may not have had enough knowledge to identify what pragmatic differences between English and Japanese were The reason their pragmatics in writing changed more than in speech is presumed to be that the subjects had more English writing instruction than speaking instruction through the UBC-Rits programme they attended. Furthermore, they had more confidence in writing than speaking because of their English educational backgrounds in Japan. Naturally, they tended to rely on writing to 133 express themselves in English. Therefore, they had less opportunities to become aware of English pragmatics in speech. Their Japanese writing quality was slightly influenced by pragmatic changes in terms of organization. Unsophisticated application of English-like SPP occasionally confused a story line in writing products between September and January and the use of SPP became apparent in the Japanese context after January until March. This implies that counter pragmatic transfer may have occurred in the process of English learning and it may have led to the deterioration of quality in the beginning of the process like counter syntactic transfer. However, SPP were blended naturally in Japanese context and became like translated literature in both writing and speech. Although paragraph structures looked peculiar, SPP contributed to developing a story line. English-like negative answers (ENA) were only found in Kazuko's speech and rigid tense agreement in subordinate clauses (RTA) was only found in Maho's writing. These examples of counter transfer may have been related to the subjects' English proficiency. Kazkuko's study experience at a British high school based may have encouraged her to use ENA. Maho had been engaged in writing business letters at the International Club at Ritsumeikan University so that she may have become more aware of grammatical mistakes in writing. Subjects had the most difficult time with their programs during December according to the self-evaluation questionnaires and journal entries. Impressions of North American and Japanese 134 cultures were marked the lowest in December and interactions with Japanese-speaking people was also marked the lowest in December. Although the number of negative entries in their journal did not synchronize with the results of the questionnaires, all subjects wrote the longest entries regarding extreme frustration about their English progress and uncomfortable relationships with other Japanese-speaking friends in the same programme. (Maho wrote about these topics in January.) In December's interviews, all subjects explained their frustrations and they were similar. As the opportunities to get acquainted with English-speaking people increased, they became aware of insufficiency of their English proficiency. Some inadequate reactions of native English speakers, mainly caused by misunderstanding, made them feel uncomfortable, hurt and discouraged. The pressure of academic course work appeared to reach an unbearable point, especially since their English proficiency levels demanded by their course work was far above their capacities. They stayed away from other Japanese-speaking friends in UBC-Rits House and stopped reading Japanese books to concentrate on speaking English and thinking in English because they thought stopping using Japanese helped them develop their English. However, this strategy resulted in more frustration. As a result, they became extremely introspective and started looking at everything cynically. Interestingly, an increase in DUEW and RBS was observed both in writing and speech at that time. Their scores of CMR were also low in December and January both in Japanese and English. 135 There appears to be a relationships between counter language transfer and psychological behaviours related to learning attitudes. Counter language transfer started occurring in the early stages of encountering new English learning environments. However, it led to the deterioration of the learners' first language to some degree until either it was discarded or blended in the LI context. When they reached the lowest point of L2 learning attitudes, they unconsciously decided which counter transfer should be kept and which one should be discarded. Subsequently, their Japanese quality increased to its initial level with some new L2-like features in it. In the case of the present research, counter vocabulary transfer was discarded (attrition) to protect Japanese quality and counter transfer of sentence structure and pragmatic transfer continued because these were adaptable to Japanese context. Another significant element which influences counter language transfer is learners' L2 proficiency. Vocabulary transfer from English into Japanese stopped when subjects realized that the knowledge of their English vocabulary reached the limit to continue counter transfer in order to deal with complex topics in Japanese. ENA and RTA occurred only among those whose English was more advanced. This is because ENA occurs when L2 learners have good exposure to English conversation and RTA occurs when L2 learners have strong awareness of English grammatical features. After the final interviews, the subjects were asked if they had noticed any change in their Japanese, but none of them had 136 noticed it. That is, counter langauge transfer occurred outside of their awareness. Interestingly, the quality of subjects' English writing fluctuated in the same manner as their Japanese counterpart in CMR. The tendency was obvious especially in terms of vocabulary skills and language use. To understand this phenomenon, the following assumption can be proposed: Language transfer occurs bidirectionally between two languages and the transfer causes the same type of positive and negative changes to both languages at the same time. Namely, as well as L2 features transferring into LI context, LI features also transfer into L2 context. The transferred LI features may lead to the deterioration of learners initial L2 to some extent until they reach a critical point to decide what transfer to retain and what transfer not to retain in order to attain better L2 quality. Transfer capabilities appear to emerge only after learners attain a threshold level of L2 proficiency (Cummins, 1980). Furthermore, transfer of ability to L2 can only occur if learners have already acquired that ability in their LI (Mohan and Lo, 1985). The subjects who participated in this research had already acquired Japanese as native Japanese speakers and their English proficiency had already attained an upper intermediate level before the research began. That is, the level of their Japanese and English had already reached the point where bidirectional language transfer could occur. Therefore, attitudinal variables also may have contributed to the change of their English as well as their 137 Japanese. However, more thorough studies to compare LI and L2 change by focusing on language transfer are needed in order to generalize the findings of this study. The following are the answers to study questions of this study: 1. Will lexical transfer from L2 to LI occur in speech and writing? Answer: Lexical transfer from L2 to LI occurs in speech and writing in the beginning of L2 learning. However, the transfer stops when learners' L2 reaches the limit of lexical knowledge in L2. 2. Will syntactic transfer from L2 to LI occur in speech and writing? Answer: Syntactic transfer from L2 to LI occurs in speech and writing. Learners' LI structures absorb L2 lexical features. Affected LI sentence structures remain in the learners' LI. 3. Will pragmatic transfer from L2 to LI occur in speech and writing? Answer: Pragmatic transfer from L2 to LI occur in speech and writing. The transfer occurs more frequently to the L2 learners whoes L2 proficiency is high. 4. Will grammatical transfer from L2 to LI occur in speech and writing? Answer: Some grammatical features transfer from L2 to LI. The transfer occurs more frequently to the L2 learners whoes 138 L2 proficiency is high. 5. Will quality of LI writing be debased due to transfer of linguistic features from L2 to LI? Answer: Quality of LI writing is debased until learners becomes aware of excessive use of L2 bocabulary in LI context. Syntactic transfer contributes to sophisticating LI writing quality when learners become skillful at blending affected sentences into LI context. Some grammatical features affect LI writing quality negatively. 6. Is fluctuation of LI quality during L2 exposure relevant to learners' L2 development? Answer: Fluctuation of LI quality pararelles L2 quality. 7. Will learners' attitudes related to culture awarenes affect learners' LI speech and writing. Answer: Learners' attitudes toward the target culture affects language tranfer from L2 to LI. All types of counter transfer continue until learners encounter critical point to adjust themselves to the L2 culture. 139 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY In this study, this researcher found effects of L2 learning on learners' LI. The results of the study suggest that L2 features transfer to the LI. He also found that the transfer has relationships with learners' attitudinal variables. Moreover, this study supports the notion that language transfer occurs at both grammatical and pragmatic levels. However, there are some limitations of the present study. Due to the small number of subjects, whose educational backgrounds are homogenous, the results cannot be applied to all cases of Japanese speakers. Four subjects who participated in the research were all university students and motivated to learn English. Grammatical accuracy depends on the subjects' phisical and mental condition to some degree. Some would have been careless about making grammatical mistakes in Japanese when they were tired or unhappy. Therefore, subjects' language quality, especially the quality of their spoken language is not necessarily affected by language learning. The researcher could not collect the same amount of writing or utterances from all of the subjects. Each subject has his or her own writing or speech style. Some subjects spoke faster than other subjects or some wrote more in one paragraph than other subjects. That is, the research may not have obtained enough evidence due to variation among the subjects in terms of such factors as rate of speech or amount of writing. 140 In addition, the products of the questionnaires may have been different to interpret reality because these are subjective and impressionistic. The results are not necessarily comparable between subjects. Role of the researcher as a teaching assistant may have interfered with collecting honest opinions from subjects. This could have affected the reliability of the subjects' expression of attitudes. Reflecting the limitations above, future studies should focus on better strategies to collect information from subjects. IMPLICATIONS FOR ESL PROGRAMMES DESIGNED FOR MONO-ETHNIC CLASSROOM SETTINGS The findings of this study suggest several recommendations for ESL teachers and programme coordinators the majority of whose students or participants are from specific LI groups. In mono-ethnic classroom settings in which students share one first language, the students tend to heavily rely on their first language to communicate with other students inside and outside of classrooms. In some case, learners may become less enthusiastic to continue learning their target language. This type of situation often happens especially when the students feel frustration about expressing themselves in their target language and adapting to the target culture. Thus, teachers should pay attention not only to learners' L2 progress but also to the learners' mental condition seen in their learning attitudes. On the other hand, being familiar with students' first 141 language and background culture makes it easier for teachers to perceive the nature of L2 learners' progress in mono-ethnic classroom settings. The results of this study suggest that L2 learners' first language may be systematically affected by long-term exposure to the target language and its culture through cunter language transfer. Even if L2 progress does not appear in the L2 clearly, evidence of LI change provides teachers with clues to identify the learners' L2 progress. In order to identify the change of the learners' LI, teachers should have good knowledge about the learners' LI. Furthermore, LI pragmatics affected by L2 pragmatics also offers significant clues to understand how much L2 learners have learned cultural aspects of the target language. Therefore, teachers should also know about learners' LI culture. IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH The results of this study suggest: 1. A similar investigation needs to be conducted, employing larger samples from a larger population which reflects more evidence of counter language transfer and its relationships with attitudinal variables. 2. Instruments which can obtain more precise data about writing and speaking quality in both English and Japanese need to be devised. 3. Instruments which can obtain more precise data of attitudinal variables need to be devised. 142 Furthermore, the present study also suggests a number of questions that may serve to guide furture research as follows: 1. Do differences of L2 proficient, age, gender and length of exposure to L2 environments affect counter language transfer? 2. Does counter language transfer occur when young children learn two languages as Lis? 3. Do socio-cultural variables affect counter language transfer 4. Do learners' personalities affect counter language transfer? 5. Does the same type of counter language transfer occur to L2 learners whose LI is other than Japanese? 6. Do differences in teaching methodologies affect counter language transfer? 7. What type of strategies can be applied to teaching ESL by utilizing knowledge gained through the study of counter language transfer? 143 REFERENCES Akiyama, M. M. (1984) . Are language acquisition strategies universal? Development psychology, 20, 219-228. d'Anglejan, A., and Renaud, C. (1985). Learner characteristics and second language acquisition: A multivariate study of adult immigrants and some thoughts on methodology. Language Learning. 35, 1, pp. 1-19. Andersen, R. W. (1982). Determining the linguistic attributes of language attrition. In R.D. Lambert and B.F. Freed (Eds.), The loss of langauge skills (pp. 83-119). Arndt, V. (1987) . Six writers in search of texts: A protocol-based study of LI and L2 writing. ELT Journal. 41, pp. 257-267. Belanger, J. (1987). Theory and research into reading and writing connections: A critical review. Reading-Canada-Lecture. 5, 1, pp. 10-18. Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive bases for linguistic structure. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 279-362). New York: Wiley. Brown, H. D. (1987). Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewook Cliffs. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Canale, M., Frenette, N., and Belanger, M. (1988). Evaluation of minority student writing in first and second language. In J. Fine, (Ed.) Second langauge discourse: A textbook of current research (pp. 14 7-164). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex. Carson, J. E., Carrell, P., Silberstein, S., Kroll, B., and Kuehn, P. A. (1990). Reading - writing Relationships in First and Second Language. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 2, pp. 245-266. Carson, J.E. and Kuehn, P.A. (1992) . Evidence of transfer and loss in developing second language writers. Langauge Learning, 42, 2./ June, 157-182. Carson, J. G. (1992). Becoming Biliterate: First language influences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 1, 37-60. Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of skinner's verbal behavior. Language, 35, 26-58. Clancy, P. M. (1986). The acquisition of communicative style in Japanese. In B. Schieffelin and E. Ochs (Eds.), Language acquisition and socialization across cultures (pp. 213-250) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 144 Cohen, A., and Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: The case of apology. Language Learning, 31, 113-134. Gumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second language proficiency. Language Learning, 39, 81-141. Gumming, A., Rebuffot, J., and Ledwell, M. (1989). Reading and summarizing challenging texts in first and second languages. Reading and Writing. An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 7-25. Cummins, J. (1980). The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency: Implication for bilingual education and the optimal age issue. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 175-187. Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary langauge development in promoting educational success for langauge minority students. In Schooling and language minority students: Describing, measuring, judging, (pp.3-49). Los Angeles, California: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University. Duff, P. D. (1985). Syntacticization of topic in Japanese and Mandarin students' English: A test of Rutherford's model. Unpublished master's thesis. University of Hawaii at Manoa. Duff, P. (1988). The progression toward subject prominence in the interlanguage of Chinese middle school students. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, Honolulu, Hawaii. Dulay and Burt (1978). Some remarks on creativity in language acquisition. In W. G. Ritchie (Ed.), Second language acquisition research, (pp. 65-86), New York, New York: Academic Press. Dulay, H. , Burt, M. K., and Krashen, S. (1982) . Language 2. London: Oxford University Press. Duskova, L. (1969). On sources of errors in foreign language learning. IRAL, 7, 11-36. Edelsky, G. (1982). Writing in a bilingual program: The relation of LI and L2 texts. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 211-228. Farmer, A. K. (1985). On the interaction of morphology and syntax. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University. Flower, L. S. and Hayes, J. R. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41, 1106-1113. 145 Flynn, S. (1987). Contrast and construction in a parameter-setting model of L2 acquisition. Language Learning, 37, 1, 19-62. Foss, K. A., and Reitzel, A.C. (1988). A relational model for managing second language anxiety. TESOL Quarterly. 22., 437-454. Fries, C. (1945) . Teaching English as a foreign language. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press. Fujii, N. (1991). Historical discourse analysis: Grammatical subject in Japanese: Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Fuller, J., and Gundel, J. (1987). Tpoic-prominence in interlanguage. Language Learning, 37, 1-18. Gardner, R.C. (1982). Social factors in language retentin. In R.D. Lambert and B. Freed (Eds.), The loss of language skills (pp.24-39). Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers. Gardner, R.C, Lalonde, R.N., and MacPherson, J. (1985). Social factors in second language attrition. Language Learning. 35, 519-540. Greenberg, J. H. (1963) . Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of Language, (pp. 77-113). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Hakukta, K. (1974). Prefabricated patterns and the emergence of structure in second langage acquisition. Language Learning. 24, 2, 287-297. Hall, C. (1990). Managing the complexity of revising across languages. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 43-60. Hammer, M. R. (1992). Research, mission statements, and international student advising offices. International Relations, 16, 217-236. Harrington, M. (1987). Processing transfer: Language - specific processing strategies as a sourse of interlanguage variation. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8., 351-377. Hayashi, T. (1991). Interactive progress of words in connected speech in LI and L2. IRAL, 29, 151-168. Hinds, J. (1976). Aspects of Japanese discourse structure. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. Huebner, T. (1983) . A longitudinal analysis of the acguisition of English. Ann Arbor, michigan: Karoma Publishers, Inc. 146 Hymes, D. (1972) . Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 35-71). New York, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Jacobs, H. L., Zinkgraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartifiel, V. F., and Hughey, J. B. (1981). Testing ESL composition. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House. Jaespart, K., Kroon, S., and van Hort, R. (1986). Points of reference in first language loss research. In B. Weltens, K. de Bret, and T. vam Els (Eds.), Language attrition in progress (pp. 37-52). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris. Jones, S., and Tetroe, J. (1987). Composing in a second language. In A. Matsuhashi (Ed.), Writing in real time: Modeling production processes (pp. 34-57). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex. Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Langauge Learning, 16, 1-20. Krashen, S. D., and Acarcella, R. (1978). On routines and patterns in language acquisition and performance. Language Learning. 28, 2, 283-300. Krashen, S. (1984). Writing: Research theory and applications. Oxford: Pergamon Institue of English. Kuno, S. (1973). The structure of the Japanese langauge. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Lado, R. (1957) . Linguistics across cultures. Ann arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press. Lay, N. D. S. (1982). Composing processes of adult ESL learners: A case study. TESOL Quarterly, 16. 406-407. Li, C , and Thompson, S. A. (1976). Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In C. Li (ED.), Subject and topic (pp. 457-498). New York, New York: Academic Press. Liceras, J. (1985). The role of intake in the determination of learners' competence. In S. M. Gass and C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second langauge acquisition (pp. 354-376). Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House. Mace-Matluck, B.J., Dominguez, D., Holtzman, W., and Hoover, W. (1983). Language and literacy in bilingual instruction. Austin, Texas: Southwest Educationa Laboratory. Makino, S., and Tsutsui, M. (1989). A dictionary of basic Japanese grammar. Tokyo: The Japan Times. 147 Manguhbai, F. (1991). The processing behaviours of adult second language learners and their relationship to second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 12, 3., 268-298. Matsumoto, K. (1989) . An analysis of a Japanese ESL learner's diary: Factors involved in the L2 learning process. JALT Journal, 11, 2, 167-192. McLaughlin, B. (1987). Reading in a second language: Studies with adult and child learners. In S.R. Goldman and H.T. Trueba (Eds.), Becoming literate in English as a second lanquacre (pp. 57-70). Norwood, New Jersey: Albex. Mcneill, D. (1966) . Development psycholinguistics. In F. Smith and G. A. Miller (Eds.), The genesis of language (pp. 15-84). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Mohan, B., and Lo, W. (1985). Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and developmental factors. TESOL Quarterly, 11, 515-534. Nelson, P. A. (1992) . Lower Mainland multicultural education project. Vancouver: Social Planning and Research Council of B.C. Oiler, J., and Redding, J. (1971). Article usage and other language skills. Language Learning. 21. 85-95. Pennington, M. C. and So, S. (1993). Comparing writing process and pruduct across two languages: A study of 6 Singaporean university student writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2, 1, 41-63. Perl, S. (1979). The composing processes of unskilled college writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 317-336. Perl, S. (1980). Understanding composing. College Composition and Communication, 31, 363-369. Rivers, W. M. (1975). Students, teachers and the future. Foreign Language Annals, 8., 1, 22-32. Rutherford, W. (1983) . Language typology and language transfer. In S. M. Grass and L. Sekinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 385- 370). Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers. Saint-Jacques, B. (1971). Structural analysis of modern Japanese. Vancouver, B.C.: Evergreen Press. Sasaki, M. (1990). Topic prominence in Japanese EFL students' existential constructions. Language Learning, 40, 3., 337-368. 148 Sasaki, Y. (1991). English and Japanese interlanguage based on the competition model. Applied Psvcholinquistics, 12, 47-73. Schumann, J. H. (1975) . Affective factors and the problem of age in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 25., 209-235. Schachter, J., and Rutherford, W. (1979). discourse function and language transfer. Working papers in bilingualism. 19., 1-12. Schmidt, R. W. and Frota, S. M. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237-326). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Newbury House. Schumann, J. (1986). Locative and directional expressions in Basilang speech. Language Learning, 36, 3, 277-294. Scollon, R., and Wong-Scollon, S. (1984) . Cooking it up and boiling it down: abstracts in Athabaskan children's story retellings. In T. Deborah (Ed.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse (pp. 173-197). Norwood, New Jersey: Albex. Scollon, R., and Scollon, S. W. (1991). Topic confusion in English-Asian discourse. World English, 10., 2, 113-125. Selinker, L. (1969). Language transfer. Reprinted (1983) in Language transfer in language learning, S. M. Grass and L. Selinker, (Eds.), General Linguistics (pp.33-53), Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers. Sharwood Smith, M. (1983). On first langauge loss in the second language acquirer: Problems of transfer. In S.M. Grass and L. Silinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 272-231). Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers. Stevick, P. (1979). Critical mass. College English, 41, 4, 383-389. Stotsky, S. (1983). Research on reading/writing relationships: A synthesis and suggested directions. Language Arts, 60, 627-642. Takahashi, T., and Beebe, L. M. (1987). The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English. JALT Journal, 8, 131-155. 149 Takashima, H. (1987) . Natural acquisition processes and transfer -a case study: Studies in English language education. In A collection of essays in commemoration of professor Naomi Kakita's retirement from office, (pp. 57-71). Tokyo, Taishukan Shoten. Takashima, H. (1992) . Transfer, overgeneralization and simplification in second language acquisition: A case study in Japan. IRAL. 30, 2, 97-119. Taylor, B. (1975). The use of overgeneralization and language transfer strategies by elementary and intermediate students in ESL. Language Learning, 25, 73-107. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91-112. Watabe, M., Brown, C , and Ueta, Y. (1991). Transfer of discourse function: Passives in the writing of•ESL and JEL learners. IRAL. 29, 2, 115-134. White, L. (1985). The "pro-drop" parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 35., 47-63. Wolfson, N. (1983). Rules of speaking. In J.C. Richards and R.W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication. London: Longman. Yoshida, K. (1987). Japan-Canada relations: The Guide to studying in Canada, Bessatsu English Journal, 59, 16. Zamel, V. (1984). In search of the key: Research and practice in composition. In J. Handscomb Orem, and B. P. Taylor (Eds.), On TESQL '83: The question of control (pp. 195-223). Washington, DC: TESOL. Zobl, H. (1980). Developmental and transfer errors: Their common bases and (possibly) differential effects on subsequent learning. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 469-479. 150 Appendix 1 SELF-EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE 1. How did your impression of English-speaking culture change? (negatively) 0 1 2 3 4 (positively) 2.. How did your impression of Japanese-speaking culture change? (negatively) 0 1 2 3 4 (positively) 3. Did you have much interaction with English-speaking people? (no) 0 1 2 3 4 (yes) 4. Did you have much interaction with Japanese-speaking people? (no) 0 1 2 3 4 (yes) Name {Date: ) 1 5 1 APPENDIX 2 Table 4.16 The number and proportion of English words directly used in Japanese text and speech Maho Month B(%) D(%) Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 5 8 5 26 13 12 0 ( 3.20) ( 6.29) ( 3.87) (24.76) ( 9.21) ( 9.44) ( 0.00) 7 2 9 9 5 ( 2.66) { 0.47) ( 2.30) 1 2.19) 1.32) Averages 9.8 ( 7.02: 6.4 1.72: A: # of English words in written Japanese B: proportion of English words in sum of meaning units in written Japanese C: # of English words in spoken Japanese D: proportion of English words in sum of meaning units in written Japanese Table 4.17 The number and proportion of English words used directly in Japanese text and speech Tsutomu Month B(%) D(%) Sep, Oct, Nov. Dec, Jan. Feb. Mar. 21 10 11 7 6 0 1 1 : i i : 7 7 4 3 0 0 ,60) 81) 05) 37) 75) 00) 06) 15 7 4 10 5 { 2.95) ( 1.37) { 1.33) ( 1.66) ( 0.82) Means 8.0 ( 4.95) 8.2 ( 1.62' A: # of English words in written Japanese B: proportion of English words in sum of meaning units in written Japanese C: # of English words in spoken Japanese D: proportion of English words in sum of meaning units in written Japanese 152 Table 4.18 The number and proportion of English words used directly in Japanese text and speech Kencro Month Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Means A 2 3 11 4 1 1 1 3.2 B(%) ( 1.75) ( 2.38) ( 7.33) ( 4.39) ( 0.75) ( 0.66) ( 0.86) ( 2.61) C -9 16 8 -9 7 9.8 D(%) -( 1.70) ( 2.06) ( 1.72) -( 1.46) ( 0.96) ( 1.57) Table 4.19 The number and proportion of English words used directly in Japanese text and speech Kazuko Month A B(%) D(%) Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 22 23 12 7 13 6 10 ( 1 1 (17 (11 ( 5 ( 9 ( 5 (11 45) 42) 32) 60) 62) 45) 11) 4 5 17 20 15 ( 3.44) ( 0.95) ( 4.85) ( 4.14) ( 3.43) Means 13.2 (10.44: 12,2 ( 3.19: A: # of English words in written Japanese B: proportion of English words in sum of meaning units in written Japanese C: # of English words in spoken Japanese D: proportion of English words in sum of meaning units in written Japanese Table 4.20 Direct use of English words - Overview Writing - (#) (%) A B C D_ M I A___ __ B _C D M Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 5 8 5 26 13 12 0 Means 9.8 21 10 11 7 6 0 1 8.0 2 3 11 4 1 1 1 3 .2 22 23 12 7 13 6 10 13 . 12.50 11.00 9.75 11.00 8.25 4.75 3.00 2 8.55 ! 3 6 3 24 9 9 0 7 .20 29 87 76 21 44 00 02 11 7 7 4 3 0 0 4 60 81 05 37 75 00 06 95 1 2 7 4 0 0 0 2 75 38 33 39 75 66 86 61 11 17 11 5 9 5 11 10 .45 42 32 60 62 45 11 44 7.00 8.47 7.39 9.78 5.83 3.88 3.00 6.25 A: Maho, B: Tsutomu, C: Kengo, D: Kazuko, M: Means 153 - Speech - (#) A B C M B (%) C A: Maho, B: Tsutomu, C: Kengo, D: Kazuko, M: Means M Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Means -7 2 9 -9 5 6.4 -15 7 4 -10 5 8.2 -9 16 8 -9 7 9.8 -4 5 17 -20 15 12. ~ 8.75 7.50 9.50 -12.00 8.00 2 9.15 ~ 2.66 0.47 2.30 -2.19 1.32 1.72 -2.95 1.37 1.33 -1.66 0.82 1.62 -1.70 2.06 1.72 -1.46 0.96 1.57 -3.44 0.95 4.85 -4.14 3.43 3.19 -2.68 1.21 2.55 -2.36 1.63 2.02 Table 4.21 The number and proportion of right-branching sentences in Japanese text and speech Maho A, B, c. D, E, F, G, A' B' C D' E' F' G' Month Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Means A 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 .04 G(%) ( 0.00) ( 6.66) { 7.69) (14.28) ( 0.00) ( 0.00) ( 0.50) ( 4.59) A' 1 5 5 2 4 B' 2 0 1 2 3 C 0 0 0 0 0 D' 2 2 2 1 2 E' 1 0 3 0 0 F' G' (%) 6(18.75) 7(11.66) 11(13.92) 5( 8.06) 9(11.25) 7.8(12.06) # of adverb-end sentences (A: writing; # of adverbial phrase-end sentences (B # of adjective phrase-end sentences ( # of adverbial clause-end sentences (D # of adjective clause-end sentences ( Total of right-branching sentences (F Proportion of right-branching sentence number of Japanese sentences (G: w; G' c : E ^ s A' w; : W w; : W W ; in :s) : speech) B' :s) ; C :s) D' :s) • E':s) F' :S) total Table 4. sentence 22 The number and proportion of right-branching s in Japanese text and speech Tsutomu Month Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Means A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .42 G(%) 5.88) 0.00) 0.00) 0.00) 0.00) 5.88) 4.76) 2.65) A' 0 2 2 1 0 B' 1 1 1 1 9 C 0 1 1 0 0 D' 2 1 0 5 5 E' 0 0 0 0 0 F' G'(%) 3 (6.38) 5 (6.02) 4 (7.40) 7(11.66) 14(14.73) 6.6(9.76) A, B, c. D, A' B' C D' # # # # of adverb-end sentences (A: writing; A': speech) of adverbial phrase-end sentences (B: w; B':s) of adjective phrase-end sentences (C: w; C':s) of adverbial clause-end sentences (D: w; D':s) 154 E, E' F, F' G, G' Table 4.23 A, B, c, D, E, F, G, A' B' C D' E' F' G' # of adjective clause-end sentences (E: w; E':s) Total of right-branching sentences (F: w; F':s) Proportion of right-branching sentences in total number of Japanese sentences (G: w; G':s) The number and proportion of right-branching sentences in Japanese text and speech Kenqo Month Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Means A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F 0 ( 0 ( 0 ( 0 ( 0 ( 0 ( 0 ( .00 ( G(%) 0.00) 0.00) 0.00) 0.00) 0.00) 0.00) 0.00) 0.00) A' 1 5 3 2 6 B' 1 1 1 2 2 C' 0 0 0 0 0 D' 4 1 5 5 5 E' 0 0 0 0 2 F' G' {%) 6 (9.67) 7 (6.86) 9(14.75) 9(11.11) 15 (15.78) 6.6 (11.44) # of adverb-end sentences (A: writing; # of adverbial phrase-end sentences (B # of adjective phrase-end sentences ( # of adverbial clause-end sentences (D # of adjective clause-end sentences ( Total of right-branching sentences (F Proportion of right-branching sentence number of Japanese sentences (G: w; G' A' : w; C: W : w; E: w : w; s in :s) : speech) B' :s) • C':s) D' :s) • E':s) F' :s) total Table 4.24 The number and proportion of right-branching sentences in Japanese text and speech Kazuko Month Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Means A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 G(%) ( 0.00) (10.00) ( 0.00) ( 0.00) ( 0.00) ( 0.00) ( 0.00) .14( 1.44) A' 0 1 1 1 3 B' 0 0 1 1 0 C' 0 0 0 0 0 D' 0 0 0 2 1 E' 0 0 0 0 0 F' G' (%) 0 (0.00) 1 (1.05) 2 (0.50) 4 (0.53) 4 (6.66) 2.2(3.78) A, A' B, B' C, C' D, D' E, E' F, F' G, G' # of adverb-end sentences # of adverbial phrase-end # of adjective phrase-end # of adverbial clause-end # of adjective clause-end Total of right-branching s Proportion of right-branch number of Japanese sentenc (A: writing; (B: (C (D: (E (F: sentences sentences sentences sentences entences ing sentences es (G: w; G' A': spe W; B ' : S : W; C': W; D' : S ; w; E': w; F' : S in tota ;s) ech) ) s) ) s) 155 Table - Writing Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Means A 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 14 -B 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0. 4. 25 (#) 42 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. Right D 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 00 0. 14 -branchin sentences -M 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.28 A 0.00 6.66 7.69 14.28 0.00 0.00 0.50 4.59 B 5.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.88 4.76 2.65 Overview (%) C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.44 M 1.47 4.16 1.92 3.57 0.00 1.47 1.31 1.98 Maho, B: Tsutomu, C: Kengo, D: Kazuko, M: Means - Speech A Sep. Oct. 6 Nov. 7 Dec. 11 Jan. Feb. 5 Mar. 9 Means 7.8 B -3 5 4 -7 14 6. (#) C -6 7 9 -9 15 6 6.6 D -0 1 2 -4 4 2. M -8.75 7.50 9.50 -12.00 8.00 2 9.15 A -18.75 11.66 13.92 -8.06 11.25 12.06 B -6.38 6.02 7.40 -11.66 14.73 9.76 (%) C -9.67 6.86 14.75 -11.11 15.78 11.44 D -0.00 1.05 0.50 -0.53 6.66 3 .78 M -8.70 6.39 9.14 -7.84 12.10 8.83 A: Maho, B: Tsutomu, C: Kengo, D: Kazuko, M: Means Table 4.26 The number of topic-prominent paragraphs subject-prominent paragraphs, and respective proport Japanese text and speech Maho and ion in Month Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Means A 2 ( 1 ( 1 ( 0 ( 0 ( 1 { 2 ( 1.0 ( (%) 66.66) 33.33) 50.00) 0.00) 0.00) 50.00) 66.66) 38.88) B 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 1.5 (%) ( 33.33) { 66.66) ( 50.00) (100.00) (100.00) ( 50.00) ( 33.33) ( 61.11) A' -2 ( 3 ( 3 ( -5 ( 3 ( 3.2( (%) 10.00) 9.37) 8.82) -14.70) 7.89) 10.12) B' (%) -2 ( 10 5 ( 15 1 ( 2 -4 ( 11 6 ( 15 3.6 ( 11 00) .62) .94) 76) 78) 39) A, A':# of topic-prominent paragraphs (A: writing;A':speech) B, B':# of subject-prominent paragraphs (B: w; B': s) 156 Table 4.2 7 The number of topic-prominent paragraphs and subject-prominent paragraphs, and respective proportion in Japanese text and speech Tsutomu Month Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Means A 3 ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 ( 1.2 ( (%) 75.00) 33.33) 33 .33) 33 .33) 33.33) 25.00) 20.00) 36.00) B 1 ( 2 ( 2 ( 2 ( 2 { 3 ( 3 ( 2.1( (%) 25.00) 66.66) 66.66) 66.66) 66.66) 75.00) 60.00) 60.00) A' -8 ( 8 ( 6 ( -6 ( 10 ( 7.6{ (%) 38.09) 19.04) 27.27) -35.29) 35.71) 29.23) B' -3 ( 5 { 4 ( -4 ( 4 ( 4.5 ( (%) 14.28) 11.90) 18.18) -23.52) 14.28) 15.38) A, A':# of topic-prominent paragraphs (A: writing; A':speech B, B':# of subject-prominent paragraphs (B: w; B': s) Table 4.28 The number of topic-prominent paragraphs and subject-prominent paragraphs, and respective proportion in Japanese text and speech Kenqo Month Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec . Jan. Feb. Mar. Ave. A 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1.2 (%) [ 50.00) ' 50.00) ; 33.33) 50.00) 66.66) 33.33) 50.00) 47.36) B 1 ( 2 ( 2 ( 1 ( 1 ( 2 { 1 ( 1.4 ( (%) 50.00) 50.00) 66.66) 50.00) 33.33) 66.66) 50.00) 52.63) A' -6 { 5 ( 2 ( -2 ( 2 ( 3.4( (%) 35.27) 17.24) 16.66) -8.69) 10.52) 17.00) B' -1 { 14 ( 5 ( -8 ( 9 ( 7.4( (%) 5.88) 48.27) 41.66) -34.78) 47.36) 37.00) A, A':# of topic-prominent paragraphs (A: writing; A' B, B':# of subject-prominent paragraphs (B: w; B': s) speech Table 4.29 The number of topic-prominent paragraphs and subject-prominent paragraphs, and respective proportion in Japanese text and speech Kazuko Month Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec . Jan. Feb. Mar. Ave. A 0 3 1 2 1 0 0 1.1 (%) 0.00) 75.00) 50.00) 100.00) 50.00) 0.00) 0.00) 41.17) B (%) 3 (100.00) 1 ( 25.00) 1 ( 50.00) 0 ( 0.00) 1 ( 50.00) 2 (100.00) 2 (100.00) 1.4( 58.82) A' -1 ( 6 ( 5 ( -9 ( 7 ( 5.6 ( (%) 16.66) 12.76) 33.33) -28.12) 21.21) 21.05) B' -1 ( 9 ( 5 ( -8 ( 7 ( 6.0 ( (%) 16.66) 19.14) 33.33) -25.00) 21.21) 22.55) A, A':# of topic-prominent paragraphs (A: writing; A':speech B, B':# of subject-prominent paragraphs (B: w; B': s) 157 Table 4.3 0 Writing - (#) A B C Subject-prominent paragraphs -(%) D M I A B C Overview M Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Means 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 1.5 A: Maho, B - Spe( Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Means 5Ch -A -2 5 1 -4 6 3.6 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1. 4 : Tsutomu, B -3 5 4 -4 4 4. 5 {#) C -1 14 5 -8 9 7. 4 3 1 1 0 1 2 2 1. C: D -1 9 5 -8 7 6. 1.50 1.75 1.50 1.25 1.75 2.00 1.75 4 1.64 Kengo, M -1.75 8.25 3.75 -6.00 6.50 0 5.25 33.33 66.66 50.00 100.00 100.00 50.00 33.33 61.11 25.00 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 75.00 60.00 60.00 D: Kazuko, M: A -10.00 15.62 2.94 -11.76 15.78 11.39 B -14.28 11.90 18.18 -23.52 14.28 15.38 50.00 50.00 66.66 50,00 33.33 66.66 50.00 52.63 Means (%) C -5.88 48.27 41.66 -34.78 47.36 37.00 100.00 25.00 50.00 0,00 50.00 100.00 100.00 58.82 D -16.66 19.14 33.33 -25.00 21.21 22.55 52.08 52.08 58.33 54.16 62.49 72.91 60.83 58.98 M -11.70 23.73 24.02 -23.76 24.65 21.57 A: Maho, B: Tsutomu, C: Kengo, D: Kazuko, M: Means Table 4.3 6 The number of retrieved subject pronouns in Japanese speech. Maho # Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. -0 1 1 -4 2 -(0 (0 (0 -(0 (0 00) .23) 25) 97) 53) Mean 1.6 (0.43) Table 4.3 7 The number of retrieved subject pronouns in Japanese speech Tsutomu # (% Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Mean -1 1 0 -3 4 1.8 -(0.19) (0.19) (0.00) -(0.49) (0.66) (0.35) 158 Table 4.3 8 The number of retrieved subject pronouns in Japanese speech Kengo S_ Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. -1 1 1 -2 2 -(0.18) (0.12) (0.21) -(0.32) (0.27) Mean 1.4 (0.22) Table 4.3 9 The number of retrieved subject pronouns in Japanese speech Kazuko # (%) Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. -0 2 2 -3 0 -(0.00) (0.38) (0.57) -(0.62) (0.00) Mean 1.4 (0.36) Table 4.40 The number of retrieved subject pronouns in Japanese speech - Overview - Speech -Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Means A -0 1 1 -4 2 1.6 B -1 1 0 -3 4 1.8 C -1 1 1 -2 2 1.4 D -0 2 2 -3 0 1.4 M -0.50 1.25 1.00 -3.00 2.00 1.55 A -0.00 0.23 0.25 -0.97 0.53 0.43 B -0.19 0.19 0.00 -0.49 0.66 0.35 (%) C -0.18 0.12 0.21 -0.32 0.27 0.22 D -0.00 0.38 0.57 -0.62 0.00 0.36 M -0.09 0.23 0.25 -0.60 0.36 0.38 Maho, ble 4. Month Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. B 46 Tsutomu, C Composition Maho 29.5 27.5 27.0 27.5 26.5 27.5 27.5 : Kengo, Mastery Tsutomu 23.0 26.0 27.0 26.0 26.0 27.5 27.0 D : Kazukc Report -Kencro 26.5 24.5 25.0 23.5 22.5 28.5 27.0 , M: Means Japanese: Kazuko 27.5 26.0 27.0 25.0 26.0 26.0 25.5 Content Means 26.6 26.0 26.5 25.5 25.2 27.3 26.7 (3o; Means SD Var. 27.5 0.886 0.786 26.2 1.413 1.996 25 2 4 6 083 339 26.1 0.812 0.674 26.2 159 Table 4.47 Composition Mastery Report - Japanese Organization (20) Month Maho Tsutomu Kencro Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 19 18 17 17.0 16.0 18.0 17.5 15.5 16.5 17.5 17.0 17.0 18.0 16.5 17.5 16.0 15.5 14.0 14 18 5 5 18.0 Kazuko Means 17 17 17 16 16 14.0 16.0 17 17 17 16 16 17 17 Means SD Var. 17. 9 1.208 1.460 16.8 0.753 0.567 16.6 1.802 3.246 16.5 1.165 1.357 Table 4.58 Composition Mastery Report - Japanese: Vocabulary (20) Month Maho Tsutomu Kengo Kazuko Means Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Means SD Var. 19.0 17.0 17.5 17.5 17. 0 18 .0 17.5 17.7 0.651 0.423 16.5 16.5 17.0 18.0 18.0 19.5 19.0 17.9 1.178 1.388 17.0 16.0 17.0 16.5 16.0 19.5 19.0 17.5 1.439 2.071 18.0 16.0 17.0 16.0 17.0 19.5 17.0 16.9 0.694 0.482 17.6 16.3 17.1 17.0 17.0 19.1 18.1 17.4 Table 4.59 Composition Mastery Report - Japanese Language use (25) Month Maho Tsutomu Kengo Kazuko Means Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Means SD Var. 23 22 16, 18. 15. 18. 18. 19. 3 . 9. .5 .5 .5 .5 .0 .5 .5 .5 151 ,292 18.5 19.0 17.5 • 20.0 20.0 21.5 20.0 19.8 1.487 2.210 21.5 19.0 18.0 17.5 17.5 23.0 22.5 20.6 2.588 6.696 20.5 17.0 17.5 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.1 1.026 1.054 21, 19, 17. 18. 17. 20. 19. 19. .0 .0 .3 .5 .6 .2 ,7 ,0 160 Table 4.50 Composition Mastery Report - Japanese: Mechanics {5] Month Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Means SD Var. Maho 4.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.2 0.378 0.143 Tsutomu 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.3 0.372 0.138 Kenqo 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.6 0.443 0.196 Kazuko 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 0.231 0.054 Means 4.3 4.1 4.0 4 .2 4.2 4.6 4.3 4.2 Table 4.51 Composition Mastery Report scores (100) Month Maho Tsutomu Kenqo Japanese: Overall Kazuko Means Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Means SD Var. 96.5 90.0 82.0 85.5 78.5 86.5 85.0 87.3 6.077 36.924 77.5 82.0 83.5 85.5 85.5 91.5 87.0 85.2 4.309 18.576 87.0 79.5 79.5 76.0 77.0 94.5 91.5 84.9 7.858 61.746 85.0 80.5 83.0 79.5 81.0 78.5 80.5 81.2 2.034 4.138 86.5 83.0 82.0 81.6 80.5 87.7 86.0 83.9 161 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078126/manifest

Comment

Related Items