L2 Written Production by Japanese Learners of English

Yumiko Yamaguchi

doi:10.22158/elsr.v1n2p88

Abstract

This paper presents part of the results of a learner corpus study of English spoken and written performances by Japanese native speakers. For the current study, the written data from 80 participants were used. Their English written production was examined based on Processability Theory (PT; Pienemann, 1998, 2005; Bettoni & Di Biase, 2015) as well as on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR; Council of Europe, 2001). Results demonstrated that there was an implicational pattern in the acquisition of English L2 grammar by the Japanese learners as predicted in PT. It was also shown that there was a linear connection between second language (L2) development as found in PT analysis and L2 proficiency levels as measured by the CEFR rating, while a statistically significant difference was not found.

Highlights

The present study aims to investigate empirically second language (L2) learners’ written production using two different approaches
5.1 Processability Theory (PT) Stages for English L2 Syntax Table 2 presents the results of the PT analysis for developmental stages for English L2 syntax found in the written production by 80 Japanese learners
It can be argued that the acquisition of English syntax found in the written production by Japanese learners follows the developmental sequence as predicted in the LMH in PT

Summary

Introduction

The present study aims to investigate empirically second language (L2) learners’ written production using two different approaches. Processability Theory (PT; Pienemann, 1998; Pienemann, Di Biase, & Kawaguchi, 2005), a major theory of Second Language Acquisition (SLA), is used to analyze the participants’ use of L2 grammatical structures. Their overall written performances were measured by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR; Council of Europe, 2001). In 2005, PT proposed the new hypotheses regarding the acquisition of syntactic structures (Pienemann, Di Biase, & Kawaguchi, 2015) in accordance with the development of LFG

Methods

Results

Conclusion