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 by 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 English Literature Teacher's Certificate; 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 in  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  quality.  compared  with  Additionally,  attitudes  toward  changes the  cultural  of  their  relationship awareness  learners' L1 quality was examined  English  between  and  writing  learners'  fluctuation  in both their  of  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,  speaking  syntactic  and  and  writing  pragmatic lexically,  dimensions  of  both  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 Introduction Background Purpose of the study Study questions Definitions Summary  1 1 1 4 5 5 7  Chapter Two - Review of the Literature Introduction Language transfer from LI to L2 Pragmatic transfer from LI to L2 First language attrition Attrition of LI pragmatics The Overview of language transfer and first langauge attrition Japanese as an LI and English as the L2: Typological comparison of the languages The Relationships between attitudinal factors of learners, language transfer, and the first language attrition Conclusion Summary  8 8 9 13 17 20  34 36 37  Chapter Three - Design of the Study Introduction Research site Sub j ects Personal history of English learning The most recent TOEFL Scores Subjects' majors at Ritsumeikan University Personal goals in UBC-Ritsumeikan Programme Instruments Procedure Summary  38 38 38 41 41 41 43 43 44 48 52  Chapter Four - Results of the Study Introduction Site Sub j ects  53 53 53 53  iii  21 22  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 70 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 Introduction Background The problem The literature Method Results and discussion Limitations of the study Implications for ESL programmes designed for mono-ethnic classroom settings Implications for future research  120 120 120 121 121 124 127 140  References  144  Appendix 1: Self-evaluation questionnaire  151  Appendix 2 : Detail of data used for graphics  152  141 142  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  VI  59  Tables of the number and proportion of English words directlyused 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 Table 4 .27 Tsutomu Table 4.28 Kengo Table 4.29 Kazuko Table 4.30 Overview  156 157 157 157 158  Tables of the number of negative questions and answering patterns in Japanese speech Table 4.31 Maho Table 4 .32 Tsutomu Table 4.33 Kengo Table 4.34 Kazuko Table 4.35 Overview  71 71 72 72 73  Tables of the speech Table Table Table Table Table  number of retrieved subject pronouns in Japanese 4.3 6 4.37 4.3 8 4.3 9 4.40  Maho Tsutomu Kengo Kazuko Overview  158 158 159 159 159  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  Vll  Tables of Composition Mastery Report - Japanese Table 4 .46 Content Table 4 .47 Organization Table 4 .48 Vocabulary Table 4.49 Language use Table 4 . 50 Mechanics Table 4.51 Overall scores  159 160 160 160 161 161  TOEFL scores Table Table Table Table Table  105 105 106 106 107  4.52 4 . 53 4 . 54 4.55 4.57  Maho Tsutomu Kengo Kazuko Means  Table 4.56 Composition Mastery Report - Japanese (Overview)....107 Tables of classification of subjects' diary entries cultural impressions of Japanese and English culture Table 4.58 Maho Table 4 .59 Tsutomu Table 4.60 Kengo Table 4.61 Kazuko  regarding 113 114 115 115  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 results  The means of self-evaluation questionnaires'  Table 4 . 64  Overview of the data  116  Vlll  117  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 Japanese text and speech Figure 4 .1 Maho Figure 4 . 2 Tsutomu Figure 4 . 3 Kengo Figure 4 .4 Kazuko Figure 4 . 5 Means  of  English  words  directly  used  in 60 61 61 62 63  Figures of the proportion of right-branching sentences in Japanese text and speech Figure 4 . 6 Maho Figure 4 . 7 Tsutomu Figure 4 . 8 Kengo Figure 4 . 9 Kazuko Figure 4.10 Means  64 64 65 66 66  Figures of the proportion of topic-prominent paragraphs and subject-prominent paragraphs in Japanese text and speech Figure 4 .11 Maho Figure 4 .12 Tsutomu Figure 4 .13 Kengo Figure 4 .14 Kazuko Figure 4 .15 Means  67 68 68 69 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 Figure 4 . 22 Organization Figure 4.23 Vocabulary Figure 4 . 24 Language use Figure 4 . 25 Mechanics Figure 4.26 Overall scores  IX  81 82 83 84 84 85  Comparison of Content Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure  writing quality between Japanese and English 4.27 4.28 4.29 4.30 4.31  Maho Tsutomu Kengo Kazuko Means  86 87 88 88 89  Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English Organization Figure 4.32 Maho Figure 4.33 Tsutomu Figure 4.34 Kengo Figure 4.35 Kazuko Figure 4.36 Means  90 90 91 92 92  Comparison of Vocabulary Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure  93 93 94 95 95  writing quality between Japanese and English 4.37 4.38 4.39 4.40 4.41  Maho Tsutomu Kengo Kazuko Means  Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English Language use Figure 4.42 Maho Figure 4.43 Tsutomu Figure 4.44 Kengo Figure 4 .45 Kazuko Figure 4.46 Means Comparison of Mechanics Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure  96 97 97 98 98  writing quality between Japanese and English 4.47 Maho 4.48 Tsutomu 4.4 9 Kengo 4.50 Kazuko 4.51 Means  99 100 100 101 101  Comparison of writing quality between Japanese and English Overall scores Figure 4.52 Maho Figure 4.53 Tsutomu Figure 4 . 54 Kengo Figure 4.55 Kazuko Figure 4 . 56 Means  102 103 103 104 104  Impression of Figure Figure Figure Figure  108 109 110 110  English-speaking culture and Japanese culture 4 .57 Maho 4 . 58 Tsutomu 4.59 Kengo 4.60 Kazuko  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, research  the purpose of  investigated  are  this study and questions  specified.  Finally,  key  this  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,  variety of studies provide evidence of LI influence on L2 2  a  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 strong  learning affective  environments. Attitudinal factors  for  language  variables learning.  are  the  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  Belanger, 1988). Edelsky solid basis of  first  LI  to  L2,  (Canale,  Frenette,  and  (1982) emphasized the importance of a  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,  understand.  they,  Interestingly,  at  least,  manage  to  this type of transfer  make  others  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 "transfer competence  of  and  Beebe  first  (1987)  language  defined  (LI)  pragmatic  sociocultural  in performing L2 speech acts"  transfer  as  communicative  (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, Matsumoto  (1988)  Japanese  ESL  found  between  adopted  different  The  ESL  values  and  speakers  socioculturally This  in confusion  learners  pragmatic  English  strategies.  in English resulted  Japanese  Americans.  both native  learners  sociolinguistically strategies  that  Clancy (1986) and  native  which  difference  in a  and in  conversation  English  Japanese  and  ESL  speaking 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  sentence,  sensitivity  (Harrington,  to word order when they produce  1987).  To put  it  another  way,  a  English  sentences produced by native Japanese speakers reflect the topiccomment structure (topic prominence) and English sentences produced by native  English  speakers reflect  (subject prominence).  subject-predicate  structure  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 learners  in  existential  suggests  that  sentences  produced  transferred  LI  by  functions  Japanese of  ESL  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 learners'  of  these  ungrammatical  grammatical  knowledge  sentences  and practical  decreases uses  of  as  the  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  sufficiently  that  occurs when  a  language  to maintain proficiency"  is no  longer  (p. 257). Although  used 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  metalinguistic  LI  into  features  L2 by from LI  transferring to L2. In a  morphological  and  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 L2dominated. 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 LI development  L2 exposure  TRANSFER  Good LI speakers are good L2 learners.  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  loss  i L2 ATTRITION  -|0SS  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  recognition  that  processes  Japanese  native  differed  from  speakers'  those  of  English  native  word  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 expressed  conjunctions,  in Japanese  by  and  coordinating  "particles" that  conjunctions  are  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 sentencefinal 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 position  of  the word  in order  have  to pay  attention  to  the  word-end  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  John + nominal  katte-iru neko keep  cat + nominal  particle  nezumi rat  qa + nominal  qa  koroshita killed  particle  tabeta tiizu ate  wa  cheese + thematic  particle  kusatte-ita. rotten -was  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 graphically illustrates Example 1 as follows:  25  (1973)  Figure 2.2 An example of left-branching constructions  VP kusatte-ita (rotten-was) NP tiizu wa (cheese) VP tabeta (ate) NP nezumi ga (rat] VP koroshita (killed) S3 John ga katte-iru (John keeps  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  NPcheese  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 (d) as follows:  28  (c) can be changed to Sentence  (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  characteristic  verb  phrases  condition.  The  backward  English  would  violate  counterpart  this  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.  affected by this left-branching topic-prominent  characteristics  Japanese  pragmatics  is  sentence structures and formes 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 sentenceinitially, 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-thing), there-women) " are  and used  (that there woman),  karera/kanojora to  compensate  (these-there-men/thesefor  the  lack  of  pronouns. However, these words are originally derived from 31  sore  these  demonstrative pronouns. These words are used as personal pronouns like English  in contemporary  influence  direct  of  Japanese nowadays because of  translation  from  English  to  Japanese  the 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 totally  to respond  opposite  to  to negative  its English  questions  counterpart.  in Japanese For  example,  is 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 positivestatement 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  interlingual decelerated  L2  learners' transfer  in  language  and  accordance  LI with  learning  attrition this  speed is  largely  related  to  accelerated  or  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. Bidirectional  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,  emerging  in  proficiency studies  rhetorical,  the L2. The  semantic  influence  and of  grammatical  Ll  on L2  patterns  interlanguage  has been established by many researchers, yet  have  explored  how  L2  learning  processes  affect  few 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,  Education,  and  Cross-cultural  Intercultural  Studies  Communication  in in  Second  Language  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  Canadian culture. Field research was assigned as a project reflect  content  of  the  Core-Course.  Workshops  of  and to  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  with  rooms,  and  an  updated  language  laboratory  20  Macintosh computers. A variety of cultural activities was held in UBC-Ritusmeikan House and participants had many chances to take part in extracurricular 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 predeparture 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. 50 12  Section 1 Section 2 Section 3  Section 2 61 61 55 54 57. 75 7  Section 3 50 52 53 52 51. 75 3  Ove rail Scores (540) (527) (517) (550) (533.5) ( 33)  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  Tsutomu  Kengo  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 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 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  Kazuko  3. Self-discipline in a different culture 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. employed. Japanese  Jacob's The  ESL  Composition  results  writing  Mastery Evaluation  were  compared  evaluation  in order  with to  Scale  was  categorically.  The  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 observerparticipant. 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 researchers'  role  of data collection and analysis, and the  were  described,  present the findings of the study.  52  the  following  chapter  will  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  Means  2.5  Tsutomu 4 3 3 3 3 4 5  Kencro 2 4 3 2 3 3 2  3.5  2.7  54  Kazuko 3 4 2 2 2 2 2  2.4  Table 4.2 Number of sentences in subjects' Japanese writing samples Month Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.  Means  Maho 15 15 13 7 7 13 17  12 .4  Tsutomu 17 13 15 15 15 17 21  16.1  Kencro 16 16 19 12 20 17 17  16.7  Kazuko 17 10 12 7 10 6 7  9.8  Table 4.3 Average number of sentences in a paragraph in subjects' Japanese writing samples Month Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. I Mar. i Means  Maho  Tsutomu  Kenqo  Kazuko  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  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.  Means  Maho 156 127 129 105 141 127 197  140.2  Tsutomu 181 128 156 160 160 184 161  161.4  55  Kenqo 114 126 150 91 133 151 116  125.8  Kazuko 192 132 106 125 135 110 90  127.1  Table 4.5 Average number of meaning units in a sentence in subjects' Japanese writing samples Month Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Means  Maho 10.4 8.4 9.9 15.0 20.1 9.7 11.5 11.2  Tsutomu 10.6 9.8 10.4 10.6 10.6 10.8 7.6 10.0  Kengo 7.1 7.8 7.8 7.5 6.6 8.8 6.8 7.5  Kazuko 11.2 13.2 8.8 17.8 13.5 18.3 12.8 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. Means  Maho 3 5 4 2 4 2 3 3.2  Tsutomu 3 4 2 5 4 3 1 3.1  Kengo 2 4 3 4 3 2 2 2.8  Kazuko 10 5 5 4 3 1 1 4.1  Table 4.7 Number of sentences in subjects' English writing samples Month Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Means  Maho 17 28 28 10 16 16 14 18.4  Tsutomu 17 27 37 38 23 17 6 23.5  56  Kengo 6 20 32 40 12 11 12 19.0  Kazuko 50 31 40 26 22 5 4 25.4  Table 4.8  Average number of sentences in a paragraph in subjects' English writing samples  Month Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Means  Maho 5.6 5.6 7.0 5.0 4.0 8.0 4.6 5.6  Table 4.9  Number of words in subjects' English writing samples  Month Sep. Oct, Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Means  Maho 199 385 415 133 265 224 186 258.1  Tsutomu 5.6 6.7 18.5 7.6 5.7 5.6 6.0 7.5  Tsutomu 156 249 436 252 335 186 77 241.5  Kenao 3.0 5.0 10.6 10.0 4.0 5.5 6.0 6.0  Kencro 107 284 361 440 166 185 150 241.8  Kazuko 5.0 6.2 8.0 6.5 7.3 5.0 4.0 6.1  Kazuko 829 614 410 403 391 94 71 401.7  Table 4.10 Average number of words in a sentence in subjects' English writing samples Month Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Means  Maho 11.7 13.7 14.8 13.3 16.5 14.0 13.2 14.0  Tsutomu 9.1 9.2 11.7 6.6 14.5 10.9 12.8 10.2  57  Kenao 17.8 14.2 11.2 11.0 13.8 16.8 12.5 12.7  Kazuko 16.5 19.8 10.2 15.5 17.7 18.8 17.7 15.7  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. Means  Maho 20 32 34 34 38 31.6  Tsutomu 21 42 22 17 28 26.0  Kenao 17 29 12 23 19 20.0  Kazuko 6 47 15 32 33 26.6  Table 4.12 Number of sentences in subjects' Japanese discourse samples Month Oct. Nov. Dec . Feb. Mar. Means  Maho 32 60 79 62 80 63.0  Tsutomu 47 83 54 60 95 67.6  Kenqo 62 102 61 81 95 80.4  Kazuko 21 95 40 75 60 58.2  Table 4.13 Average number of sentences in an utterance in subjects' Japanese discourse samples Month Oct. Nov. Dec. Feb. Mar. Means  Maho 1.6 1.8 2.3 1.8 2.1 1.9  Tsutomu 2.2 1.9 2.4 3.5 3.3 2.6  Kencfo 3.6 3 .5 5.0 3.5 6.3 4.0  Kazuko 3.5 2.1 2.6 2.3 1.8 2.1  Table 4.14 Number of meaning units in subjects' Japanese discourse samples Month Oct. Nov. Dec. Feb. Mar. Means  Maho 263 418 390 410 377 371.6  Tsutomu 508 509 299 601 604 504.2 58  Kenao 529 773 463 615 723 620.6  Kazuko 116 526 350 482 437 382.2  Table 4.15 Average number of meaning units in an utterance in subjects' Japanese discourse samples Month Oct. Nov. Dec. Feb. Mar. Means  Maho 8.2 6.7 4.9 6.6 4.7 5.8  Tsutomu 10.8 6.1 5.5 10.0 6.4 7^_4  Kenao 8.5 7.6 7.5 7.4 7.6 7_J7  Kazuko 5.5 5.5 8.7 6.4 7.2 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 10  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 phraseend 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-  m 0-  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  10  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 u8 6 4 2 0 -  — J  1 — ^  _£i3_ 1  1  PI, 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 adverbend 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 807060bU40302010-  -• • • • •I • "1 1 •--• • • •• ^ ••-•--• .  •  writing  Hspeal<ing  1 II1 1 11 1 11 -II 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 Englishlike negative answer was found in Maho's speech. Table 4.31 The number of negative questions and answering patterns in Japanese speech. Maho Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. A B C  A  B  1 0 0 0 0  1 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0  # 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 Englishlike 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 Sep. 0 0 0 Oct. 0 0 0 Nov. 4 4 0 Dec. Jan. 2 2 0 Feb. 1 1 0 Mar. A B C  # of negative questions # of Japanese negative answers (Yes, I don't. / N o , 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 Englishlike 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 Sep. 0 0 0 Oct. 0 0 0 Nov. 0 0 0 Dec. Jan. 0 0 0 Feb. 0 0 0 Mar. 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 Sep. 1 1 0 Oct. 3 1 2 Nov. 0 0 0 Dec. Jan. 0 0 0 Feb. 2 2 0 Mar. A: # of negative questions B: # of Japanese negative answers (Yes, I don't. / N o , 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 -  A Sep. 0 Oct. 0 Nov. 0 Dec. Jan. 0 Feb. 0 Mar. Means 0 . 00  B 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 00  c0 0 0 0 0 0.  D M 1 1 0 0.00 1 2 0.50 I 0 0.00 ] j 0 0.00 1 0 0.00 ] 00 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 Maho's Japanese speech.  in  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  speaking  Lw 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. 0.320.280.240.20.160.120.080.040 -  •"•:  ••  H speaking  •III 1 II 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  Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar, 75  speaking  Frequency of a l l subjects' ellipses retrieval w a s higher in the latter half of the study period. Figure 4.20 below presents m e a n s for the four subjects' R S E in speech. The detail of the data is p r e s e n t e d in Table 4.40 in Appendix 2. Figure 4.20  T h e proportion of retrieved subject p r o n o u n s in Japanese speech - Means speaking  Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.  A p p l i c a t i o n of rigid tense agreement in subordinate clauses (RTA) Case 1: M a h o Maho's results a r e shown in Table 4.41. She applied R T A only in writing. N e i t h e r a n increase n o r a decrease of rigid tense agreement w e r e seen. Table 4.41 T h e number of sentences applying rigid tense agreement in subordinate clauses in Japanese writing and speech Maho A B C D Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.  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 Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.  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 Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  77  0 6 1 4 0  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 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 Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec . Jan. Feb. 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 Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.  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  0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00  Means 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 A: Maho, B: Tsutomu, C: Kengo, D: Kazuko, M: Means  Sep. 0 Oct. Nov. 0 0 Dec. Jan. Feb. 0 0 Mar. M e a n s 0 . GO  - Speech B C  D  0 0 0 0 0 0 . 00  0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.25 0 0.00 0 . 20 0 . 0 5  0 0 0 0 0 0 . 00  M  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  •  Maho  •  Kazuko  (30)  m Tsutomu m Kengo  n Means T 1 r r Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.  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 18 i7i 16 1 514  •  Maho  B Tsutomu Fl Kengo D Kazuko M Means 1  1  1——1  1——1  Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.  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  F i g u r e 4.23 (20)  Composition Mastery Report  19.5-1 19 18.5 18 17.5 17 16.5 16  • •  - Japanese:  Vocabulary  Maho Tsutomu  mKengo n Kazuko ^ ^ M  1  •  I  1 •  I •  I  Means  1  Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.  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  Maho  m Tsutomu m Kengo m Kazuko  20-  «ia Vleans  10  1  1  1  1  1  1  Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.  Mechanics Subjects' results are shown in Figure 4.25 below, and the detail of the data is presented in Table 4.50 in A p p e n d i x 2. N o t a b l e fluctuation w a s not seen in Maho's m e c h a n i c s . 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 w a s 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 •  «  .*  *  \  VAV  Maho  R Tsutomu HI Kengo  n Kazuko mMeans 3.5  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  PI Tsutomu Fl Kengo D Kazuko M Means  90 80 70  Maho  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) 30T  25 20 English  15'  Japanese 10' 5' 0'  •+•  Sep.  •+•  Oct.  Nov.  Dec.  I  Jan.  I  •+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 I English  15  Japanese 10 5' •+•+• •+•4H 1Sep. 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) 30T  25 20 English  15  Japanese 10 5' 0'  •+•  Sep.  Oct.  Nov.  •+•  Dec.  •+• -tJan. Feb. Mar.  •+•  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) 30T  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 English  15  Japanese 10 5' 0'  Sep.  -h  •+•  Oct.  •+•  Nov.  Dec.  H  Jan.  h  •+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  I English  10  Japanese  •< Sep.  Oct.  Nov.  1 Dec.  1 Jan.  Feb.  h 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.  90  Mar.  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) 20T  English Japanese  Sep.  Case 4 :  Oct.  Nov.  Dec.  Jan.  Feb. Mar,  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  I English  10'  I Japanese  Sep.  H  Oct.  1 1Nov. Dec.  Jan.  H  h 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 English  10  Japanese  I Sep.  I Oct.  Nov.  1 I 1 H 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 Sep.  I I I I I 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)  I English  10  Japanese  04-—I——I 1 , , , Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.  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) 20i  10  •+•  Sep.  Ocl. -+-Nov.  Dec.  -I-  Jan.  •+-  Feb. Mar.  95  I  English  ^  Japanese  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) 30i  English Japanese  Sep.  Oct.  Nov.  Dec.  Jan.  Feb. Mar.  C a s e 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) 30T  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 English  15  Japanese 10 5' 0.  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) 30T  25  •  English  E^ Japanese 10  -) Sep.  1 Ocl.  1 Nov  ) Dec  (_ Jan.  H 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  Sep.  I  Oct.  I  Nov.  I  Dec.  1 1 I 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) 5i  i English Japanese  OH  1 Sap.  1 Oct.  1 Nov.  1 Dec.  1 Jan.  1 Feb.  Mar.  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-  Sep.  Oct.  Nov.  Dec  Jan  Feb.  101  Mar  •  English  ^  Japanese  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  j English  50  Japanese 25  Sep.  H  Oct.  1 1 1 1 h 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  < Sep.  1 I 1 1 1Oct. 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 English  50  Japanese 25  Sep.  I  Oct.  I  Nov.  I  Dec.  I  Jan.  I  Feb.  103  H Mar.  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) 90T  80 70 60 50  I English  40. Japanese  30' 20100Sep.  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) 90T  Sep. Gel.  Nov. Dec. Jan,  Feb. Mar.  104  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 Sep. 53 52 51 530 Nov. 54 54 51 540 Dec. 51 56 55 573 Mar. 57 58 57 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 Section 1 47 45 48 48  Sep. Nov. Dec. Mar.  Section 1 Section 2 Section 3  TOEFL scores - Kengo  Section 2 53 59 57 55  Section 3 51 51 54 51  Overall scores 503 517 520 513  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 Section 1 Sep. Nov. Dec. Mar.  55 59 61 63  TOEFL scores - Kazuko  Section 2  Section 3 54 55 51 56  53 61 59 59  Overall scores 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  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  JAPANESE C D 5 17.6 21 1 16.3 19 0 17.1 17 1 17.0 18 0 17.0 17 1 19.1 20 0 18.1 19 8 17.4 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  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  ENGLISH C D 0 15.5 17 0 13.5 15 1 15.7 16 7 14.7 14 2 13.7 13 2 15.0 16 6 13.5 15 1 14.5 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  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  Section 1 Section 2 Section 3  53.0 56.0 57.0 56.5  52.5 52.5 53.5 54.7  518.2 531.7 534.2 550.5  Listening Comprehension Structure and Written Expression Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension 107  F 75.1 71.6 74.7 68.3 67.2 73.1 67.5 71.0  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 Japanesespeaking culture (Maho) 3T  m English ^  Oct.  Nov.  Dec.  Jan.  Feb.  108  Mar.  Japanese  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 Japanesespeaking culture (Tsutomu)  English Japanese  Oct.  Nov.  Dec.  Jan.  Feb.  Mar.  C a s e 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 Japanesespeaking culture (Kengo)  •  English  M Japanese  Oct.  Case 4 :  Nov.  Dec.  Jan.  Feb.  Mar.  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 Japanesespeaking culture (Kazuko)  •  English  O Japanese  Oct.  Nov.  Dec  Jan  Feb.  110  Mar,  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) 4T  3--  I  2--  English  @ Japanese ! • •  04  •+•  Oct.  Nov.  •+-  Dec.  -+- Jan -+- Feb. •+- Mar.  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) 4T  3--  2--  •  English  ^  Japanese  1 ••  Oct.  Case 4 :  -*- Nov. -+- Dec. -(- Jan. • + •  •+•  Feb.  Mar.  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) 4T  3-I  2--  English  @ Japanese 1--  Oct,  -+- Nov. -+- Dec. -+- Jan. -+- Feb. -+- Mar.  Detail of cultural impressions of Japanese culture and Englishspeaking 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 Positive Neut.ral Negat ive JAN ENGL JAN ENGL JAN ENGL 1 1 Sep. 0 9 2 3 Oct. 0 10 1 5 2 4 Nov. 2 7 2 5 1 2 Dec. Jan. 3 1 0 0 4 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 Englishspeaking culture decreased gradually during the research. Table 4.59 Classification of diary entries regarding cultural impressions of Japanese and English culture - Tsutomu Positive Neutral Neaative JAN ENGL JAN ENGL ENGL JAN Sep. 7 0 5 2 1 3 Oct. 2 5 0 9 4 11 Nov. 0 3 0 7 1 16 Dec. 0 0 6 0 8 4 Jan. 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 Positive Neutral Neaat ive JAN JAN ENGL ENGL JAN ENGL 0 0 0 Sep. 1 0 0 Oct. 2 3 0 0 2 2 Nov. 0 1 0 1 1 0 Dec. 0 11 0 1 3 0 Jan. 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 Positive Neutral Neaat ive JAN ENGL JAN ENGL JAN ENGL 0 0 1 2 Sep. 0 0 Oct. 0 0 0 3 3 0 Nov. 0 0 0 3 2 0 Dec. 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ Jan. Table 4.62 Additional classification of Kazuko's diary entries regarding degree of satisfaction of the life in UBCRits House Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.  Satisfied 0 2 1 0  Frustrated 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 Japanesespeaking 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 Japanesespeaking 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 Sep. 7.00 1.47 52.08 Oct. 8.47 2.68 4.16 8.70 52.08 Nov. 7.47 1.21 1.92 6.39 58.33 Dec. 9.78 2.55 3.57 9.14 54.16 Jan. 5.83 0.00 62.49 Feb. 3.88 2.36 1.47 7.84 72.91 Mar. 3.00 1.63 1.31 12.10 60.83 Mns. 6.25 2.02 1.98 8.83 58.98  H 11.70 23.73 24.02 23.76 24.65 21.57  0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10  0.09 0.23 0.25 _ 0.60 0.36 0.38  0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.25 0.25 0.00 0.10  86.5 83.0 82.0 81.6 80.5 87.7 86.0 83.9  K 75.1 71.6 74.7 68.3 67.2 73.1 67.5 71.0  P L M R S N 0 0 Sep. 50 .2 53 .0 52 .5 518 .2 Oct. 2.25 1.75 1.00 2.75 Nov. 2.00 2.25 2.00 2.50 51 0 56 .0 52 .5 531 .7 Dec. 1.75 1.75 2.75 1.75 51 7 57 0 53 .5 534 .2 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 54 0 56 5 54 7 550 5 Mns. 2.37 2.25 2.51 2.50 51 7 55 6 53 ^ _ 533 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 Englishspeaking 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%, DUEWspeech: 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  institutions  in  foreign student populations at  Canada.  An  increasing  number  of  tertiary 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  differences between Japanese and Canadians.  120  cultural  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  learning  and  transfer.  negative  Positive  transfer  transfer  decelerates  L2  accelerates  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 Scollon,  1991).  (Clancy, 1986; Matusmoto; 1988; Scollon and 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  features,  common  characteristics  learners acquire  the target  with  the  language  LI  linguistic  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  attrition tends to accelerate  by restriction  in LI use, LI  (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 direct  use  investigated of  English  in terms of the following points: 1)  words; 2) English-like  right  branching  sentences; 3) tense agreement in subordinate clauses; 4) Englishlike 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 UBC126  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-activitycentred. 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  deteriotation of subjects' thinking process during 129  led  to  a  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  Japanese  became  cultures  and  frustrated about English and  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 phraseend  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  sentences  reorganization  in  sentence  structures  affected subject ellipses retrieval ellipses  occur most  Japanese  listeners  frequently usually  the  (SER). In Japanese, subject  in main  identify  and  clauses  omitted  of  sentences.  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 aware  of  insufficiency  of  people  their  increased,  English  they became  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 L2like 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 longterm 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., 437454. 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., 337368. 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. 237326). 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 EnglishAsian 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, 383389. Stotsky, S. (1983). Research on reading/writing relationships: A synthesis and suggested directions. Language Arts, 60, 627642. 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:  151  )  APPENDIX 2  Table 4.16 The number and proportion of English words directly used in Japanese text and speech Maho Month B(%) D(%) ( 3.20) Sep. 5 ( 6.29) Oct. 8 7 ( 2.66) ( 3.87) Nov. 5 2 { 0.47) (24.76) Dec. 26 9 ( 2.30) ( 9.21) Jan. 13 9 ( 9.44) Feb. 12 2.19) ( 0.00) 5 Mar. 0 1 1.32) ( 7.02: Averages 9.8 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 B(%) Month D(%) : i i ,60) Sep, 21 : 7 81) { 2.95) Oct, 10 15 7 05) ( 1.37) Nov. 11 7 4 37) { 1.33) Dec, 7 4 3 75) Jan. 6 0 00) 10 ( 1.66) Feb. 0 0 5 Mar. 1 ( 0.82) 1 06) ( 4.95) ( 1.62' Means 8.0 8.2 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 Month Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Means  The number and proportion of English words used directly in Japanese text and speech Kencro 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  D(%)  -  -  9 16 8  ( 1.70) ( 2.06) ( 1.72)  -  -  9 7 9.8  ( 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(%) ( 1 1 45) Sep. 22 (17 42) ( 3.44) 4 Oct. 23 ( 0.95) 5 (11 32) Nov. 12 ( 4.85) ( 5 60) 17 Dec. 7 ( 9 62) Jan. 13 20 ( 4.14) ( 5 45) Feb. 6 15 ( 3.43) Mar. 10 (11 11) 13.2 (10.44: ( 3.19: Means 12,2 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 Sep. 5 21 2 Oct. 8 3 10 Nov. 5 11 11 Dec. 26 7 4 Jan. 13 6 1 Feb. 12 0 1 Mar. 0 1 1 Means 9.8 8.0 3 .2  22 12.50 3 .20 23 11.00 6 29 12 9.75 3 87 7 11.00 24 76 13 9 21 8.25 6 4.75 9 44 10 3.00 0 00 13 .2 8.55 ! 7 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  A: Maho, B: Tsutomu, C: Kengo, D: Kazuko, M: Means  153  11 .45 17 42 11 32 5 60 9 62 5 45 11 11 10 44  M 7.00 8.47 7.39 9.78 5.83 3.88 3.00 6.25  - Speech A B Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Means  (#) C  (%)  M  -  -  -  -  7 2 9  15 7 4  9 16 8  4 5 17  -  -  -  -  C  M  ~  ~  -  -  -  -  8.75 7.50 9.50  2.66 0.47 2.30  2.95 1.37 1.33  1.70 2.06 1.72  3.44 0.95 4.85  2.68 1.21 2.55  -  9 20 12.00 7 8.00 15 9.8 12. 2 9.15  10 9 5 5 6.4 8.2  B  -  -  -  -  -  2.19 1.32 1.72  1.66 0.82 1.62  1.46 0.96 1.57  4.14 3.43 3.19  2.36 1.63 2.02  A: Maho, B: Tsutomu, C: Kengo, D: Kazuko, M: Means Table 4.21 The number and proportion of right-branching sentences in Japanese text and speech Maho Month Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Means A, A' B, B' c. C D, D' E, E' F, F' G, G'  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  F 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 .04  G(%) ( 0.00) ( 6.66) { 7.69) (14.28) ( 0.00) ( 0.00) ( 0.50) ( 4.59)  A' B' C  D' E'  1 5 5  2 0 1  0 0 0  2 2 2  1 0 3  6(18.75) 7(11.66) 11(13.92)  2 4  2 3  0 0  1 2  0 0  5( 8.06) 9(11.25) 7.8(12.06)  F' G' (%)  # 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) # of adjective clause-end sentences (E : W • E':s) Total of right-branching sentences (F ^ W ; F' :S) Proportion of right-branching sentence s in total number of Japanese sentences (G: w; G' :s)  Table 4. 22 The number and proportion of right-branching sentence s in Japanese text and speech Tsutomu Month Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Means A, A' B, B' c. C D, D'  # # # #  A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  B 1 0 0 0 0 0 0  of of of of  adverb-end sentences adverbial phrase-end adjective phrase-end adverbial clause-end  c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  D 0 0 0 0 0 1 1  E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  F 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 .42  154  G(%) 5.88) 0.00) 0.00) 0.00) 0.00) 5.88) 4.76) 2.65)  A' B' C  D' E'  F' G'(%)  0 2 2  1 1 1  0 1 1  2 1 0  0 0 0  3 5 4  1 0  1 9  0 0  5 5  0 0  (6.38) (6.02) (7.40)  7(11.66) 14(14.73) 6.6(9.76)  (A: writing; A': speech) sentences (B: w; B':s) sentences (C: w; C':s) sentences (D: w; D':s)  E, E' F, F' G, G' Table 4.23 Month Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Means A, A' B, B' c, C D, D' E, E' F, F' G, 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 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  F 0 ( 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' B' C' D' E'  F' G' {%)  1 5 3  1 1 1  0 0 0  4 1 5  0 0 0  6 (9.67) 7 (6.86) 9(14.75)  2 6  2 2  0 0  5 5  0 2  9(11.11) 15 (15.78) 6.6 (11.44) # 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) # of adjective clause-end sentences (E: w • E':s) Total of right-branching sentences (F : w; F' :s) Proportion of right-branching sentence s in total number of Japanese sentences (G: w; G' :s)  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, B, C, D, E, F, G,  A' B' C' D' E' F' G'  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  F G(%) 0 ( 0.00) 1 (10.00) 0 ( 0.00) 0 ( 0.00) 0 ( 0.00) 0 ( 0.00) 0 ( 0.00) 0 .14( 1.44)  A' B' C' D' E'  F' G' (%)  0 1 1  0 0 1  0 0 0  0 0 0  0 0 0  0 1 2  1 3  1 0  0 0  2 1  0 0  (0.00) (1.05) (0.50)  4 (0.53) 4 (6.66) 2.2(3.78)  # of adverb-end sentences (A: writing; A': spe ech) # of adverbial phrase-end sentences (B: W ; B ' : S) (C : W ; C':s) # of adjective phrase-end sentences # of adverbial clause-end sentences (D: W ; D' : S) (E ; w; E':s) # of adjective clause-end sentences (F: w; F' : S Total of right-branching sentences Proportion of right-branch ing sentences in tota number of Japanese sentenc es (G: w; G' ;s)  155  Table 4. 25 Right -branchin sentences - Overview - Writing (#) (%) A B C D M A B C D Sep. 0 1 0 0 0.25 0.00 5.88 0.00 0.00 1 Oct. 1 0 0 0.50 6.66 0.00 0.00 10.00 Nov. 1 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.25 7.69 0.00 Dec. 1 0 0 0 0.25 14.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Jan. 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.88 Feb. 0 1 0 0 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.50 4.76 Mar. 1 1 0 0.50 0.00 0.00 4.59 2.65 0.00 1.44 Means 0 14 0. 42 0. 00 0. 14 0.28  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 B C Sep. Oct. 6 3 6 Nov. 7 7 5 Dec. 11 4 9 Jan. Feb. 5 7 9 Mar. 9 14 15 Means 7.8 6. 6 6.6  (%)  D  M  A  B  C  D  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  0 1 2  8.75 7.50 9.50  18.75 11.66 13.92  6.38 6.02 7.40  9.67 6.86 14.75  0.00 1.05 0.50  8.70 6.39 9.14  -  -  4 12.00 4 8.00 2. 2 9.15  -  -  -  8.06 11.25 12.06  11.66 14.73 9.76  11.11 15.78 11.44  M  -  0.53 6.66 3 .78  -  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 and subject-prominent paragraphs, and respective proport ion in Japanese text and speech Maho Month Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Means  A 2 ( 1 ( 1 ( 0 ( 0 ( 1 { 2 ( 1.0 (  B (%) 66.66) 1 33.33) 2 50.00) 1 0.00) 2 0.00) 3 50.00) 1 66.66) 1 38.88) 1.5  A'  (%)  ( 33.33) { 66.66) ( 50.00) (100.00) (100.00) ( 50.00) ( 33.33) ( 61.11)  (%)  B'  -  -  2 ( 10.00) 3 ( 9.37) 3 ( 8.82)  2 5 1  -  -  -  (%) ( 10 00) ( 15 .62) ( 2 .94)  5 ( 14.70) 4 ( 11 76) 3 ( 7.89) 6 ( 15 78) 3.2( 10.12) 3.6 ( 11 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  Month Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Means  The number of topic-prominent paragraphs and subjectprominent paragraphs, and respective proportion in Japanese text and speech Tsutomu A 3 ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 ( 1.2 (  B (%) 75.00) 1 ( 33.33) 2 ( 33 .33) 2 ( 33 .33) 2 ( 33.33) 2 { 25.00) 3 ( 20.00) 3 ( 36.00) 2.1(  A'  (%)  25.00) 66.66) 66.66) 66.66) 66.66) 75.00) 60.00) 60.00)  (%)  B'  (%)  -  -  8 ( 38.09) 8 ( 19.04) 6 ( 27.27)  3 ( 14.28) 5 { 11.90) 4 ( 18.18)  -  -  -  -  6 ( 35.29) 4 ( 23.52) 10 ( 35.71) 4 ( 14.28) 7.6{ 29.23) 4.5 ( 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  Month Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec . Jan. Feb. Mar. Ave.  The number of topic-prominent paragraphs and subjectprominent paragraphs, and respective proportion in Japanese text and speech Kenqo A B (%) 1 [ 50.00) 1 ( 2 ' 50.00) 2 ( 1 ; 33.33) 2 ( 1 50.00) 1 ( 2 66.66) 1 ( 1 33.33) 2 { 1 50.00) 1 ( 1.2 47.36) 1.4 (  A'  (%)  50.00) 50.00) 66.66) 50.00) 33.33) 66.66) 50.00) 52.63)  (%)  -  B'  (%)  -  6 { 35.27) 1 { 5.88) 5 ( 17.24) 14 ( 48.27) 2 ( 16.66) 5 ( 41.66) -  -  -  -  2 ( 8.69) 8 ( 34.78) 2 ( 10.52) 9 ( 47.36) 3.4( 17.00) 7.4( 37.00)  A, A':# of topic-prominent paragraphs (A: writing; A' speech B, B':# of subject-prominent paragraphs (B: w; B': s) Table 4.29 The number of topic-prominent paragraphs and subjectprominent paragraphs, and respective proportion in Japanese text and speech Kazuko Month Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec . Jan. Feb. Mar. Ave.  A (%) B (%) 0.00) 3 (100.00) 0 3 75.00) 1 ( 25.00) 1 50.00) 1 ( 50.00) 2 100.00) 0 ( 0.00) 1 50.00) 1 ( 50.00) 0.00) 2 (100.00) 0 0.00) 2 (100.00) 0 41.17) 1.4( 58.82) 1.1  A'  (%)  B'  (%)  -  -  1 ( 16.66) 6 ( 12.76) 5 ( 33.33)  1 ( 16.66) 9 ( 19.14) 5 ( 33.33)  -  -  -  9 ( 28.12) 7 ( 21.21) 5.6 ( 21.05)  -  8 ( 25.00) 7 ( 21.21) 6.0 ( 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 Subject-prominent paragraphs - Overview Writing (#) (%) A B C D M I A B C 1 1 1.50 Sep. 1 3 33.33 25.00 50.00 100.00 2 1.75 2 2 1 66.66 66.66 50.00 25.00 Oct. 2 1.50 Nov. 1 2 1 50.00 66.66 66.66 50.00 1 1.25 2 2 0 100.00 66.66 50,00 0,00 Dec. Jan. 3 2 1 1 1.75 100.00 66.66 33.33 50.00 1 2 2.00 Feb. 3 2 50.00 75.00 66.66 100.00 1 1 2 1.75 Mar. 3 33.33 60.00 50.00 100.00 1. 4 4 1.64 1.5 2 1 1. 61.11 60.00 52.63 58.82 Means A: Maho, B : Tsutomu, C: Kengo, D: Kazuko, M: Means - Spe(5Ch {#) A B C Sep. Oct. 2 3 1 Nov. 14 5 5 1 Dec. 4 5 Jan. 8 Feb. 4 4 Mar. 6 4 9 Means 3.6 4. 5 7. 4 A: Maho, B: Tsutomu,  (%) D M A B C 1 1.75 10.00 14.28 5.88 8.25 9 15.62 11.90 48.27 3.75 5 2.94 18.18 41.66 6.00 8 11.76 23.52 34.78 7 6.50 15.78 14.28 47.36 6. 0 5.25 11.39 15.38 37.00 C: Kengo, D: Kazuko, M: Means  D 16.66 19.14 33.33 25.00 21.21 22.55  Table 4.3 6  The number of retrieved subject pronouns in Japanese speech. Maho # Sep. Oct. 0 (0 00) Nov. 1 (0 .23) Dec. 1 (0 25) Jan. 4 (0 97) Feb. 2 Mar. (0 53) 1.6 (0.43) Mean  Table 4.3 7  The number of retrieved subject pronouns in Japanese speech Tsutomu # (% Sep. Oct. 1 (0.19) (0.19) Nov. 1 (0.00) Dec. 0 Jan. Feb. 3 (0.49) Mar. 4 (0.66) Mean 1.8 (0.35)  158  M 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  Table 4.3 8  Table 4.3 9  Table 4.40 - Speech A Sep. Oct. 0 Nov. 1 Dec. 1 Jan. Feb. 4 2 Mar. Means 1.6 Maho, B  The number of retrieved subject pronouns in Japanese speech Kengo S_ -  -  Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.  2 2  Mean  1.4 (0.22)  1 1 1 -  (0.18) (0.12) (0.21) -  (0.32) (0.27)  The number of retrieved subject pronouns in Japanese speech Kazuko # (%) -  -  Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.  3 0  Mean  1.4 (0.36)  0 2 2 -  (0.00) (0.38) (0.57) -  (0.62) (0.00)  The number of retrieved subject pronouns in Japanese speech - Overview (%)  B  C  D  M  A  B  C  D  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  1 1 0  1 1 1  0 2 2  0.50 1.25 1.00  0.00 0.23 0.25  0.19 0.19 0.00  0.18 0.12 0.21  0.00 0.38 0.57  0.09 0.23 0.25  -  -  3 2 4 2 1.8 1.4 Tsutomu,  -  3 0 1.4 C:  -  -  -  -  3.00 0.97 0.49 0.32 2.00 0.27 0.53 0.66 1.55 0.35 0.22 0.43 Kengo, D : Kazukc , M: Means  -  -  0.62 0.00 0.36  0.60 0.36 0.38  ble 4. 46 Composition Mastery Report - Japanese: Content Month Maho Tsutomu Kencro Kazuko Means Sep. 29.5 23.0 27.5 26.6 26.5 27.5 26.0 26.0 Oct. 26.0 24.5 Nov. 27.0 27.0 26.5 27.0 25.0 Dec. 25.0 25.5 27.5 26.0 23.5 Jan. 26.0 25.2 26.5 26.0 22.5 26.0 27.3 Feb. 27.5 27.5 28.5 26.7 Mar. 27.5 27.0 25.5 27.0 26.2 Means 27.5 26.2 25 6 26.1 SD 0.886 1.413 2 083 0.812 Var. 0.786 1.996 4 339 0.674  159  M  (3o;  Table 4.47 Composition Mastery Report - Japanese Organization (20) Kazuko Month Maho Tsutomu Kencro Sep. 19 15.5 17.5 17 Oct. 18 16.5 16.0 17 Nov. 17 17.5 15.5 17 Dec. 17.0 14.0 16 17.0 Jan. 17.0 16 16.0 14 5 Feb. 18.0 14.0 18.0 18 5 Mar. 16.5 16.0 17.5 18.0 Means SD Var.  17. 9 1.208 1.460  16.8 0.753 0.567  16.6 1.802 3.246  Means 17 17 17 16 16 17 17  16.5 1.165 1.357  Table 4.58 Composition Mastery Report - Japanese: Vocabulary (20) Month Maho Kazuko Tsutomu Kengo 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  Table 4.59 Composition Mastery Report - Japanese Language use (25) Month Maho Tsutomu Kengo Kazuko Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Means SD Var.  23 .5 22 .5 16,.5 18..5 15..0 18..5 18..5 19..5 3 .151 . 9.,292  18.5 19.0 17.5 • 20.0 20.0 21.5 20.0 19.8 1.487 2.210  160  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  17.6 16.3 17.1 17.0 17.0 19.1 18.1 17.4  Means 21,.0 19,.0 17..3 18..5 17..6 20..2 19.,7 19.,0  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  Japanese: Overall Table 4.51 Composition Mastery Report scores (100) Kazuko Month Maho Tsutomu Kenqo 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  161  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  

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:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078126/manifest

Comment

Related Items