Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T22:53:58.665Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TEACHING RELATIVE CLAUSES IN JAPANESE: Exploring Alternative Types of Instruction and the Projection Effect

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 April 2007

Noriko Yabuki-Soh
Noriko Yabuki-Soh
Affiliation:
University of Toronto/York University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This quasi-experimental study explores the effects of three types of instruction (form-based, meaning-based, and form- plus meaning-based) on the learning of Japanese relative clauses (RCs) and postsecondary Japanese as a foreign language learners' ability to generalize different types of relativization, examined in comparison to the predictions of Keenan and Comrie's (1977) noun phrase accessibility hierarchy (NPAH). The study investigated whether instruction focused on a marked relativization type could facilitate the learning of other types. Results of comprehension and sentence-combination pretests and posttests showed that although the scores of all three groups increased, the form-based group outperformed the other two groups on both tests. Whereas the comprehension pretest results did not reflect the predictions of the NPAH, participants were able to generalize rules for other relativization types. This study suggests that learners' attention to detailed analysis of form facilitates the learning of RCs in this context, and that the teaching of marked items might inform effective syllabus development in second language relativization.I would like to thank Yasuhiro Shirai for giving me an opportunity to present this paper at the workshop on the SLA of relative clauses held at Cornell University on January 28, 2006. I greatly appreciate the insightful feedback that I received from the participants of the workshop (in particular, Stephen Matthews, James Mitchell, and Hiromi Ozeki) as well as the two anonymous SSLA reviewers, and Kiyoko Toratani, my colleague at York University. This paper is part of my doctoral dissertation to be submitted to the University of Toronto, and I would like to thank my thesis supervisor, Sharon Lapkin, as well as my thesis committee members, Nina Spada, Eunice Jang, and Yuki Johnson, for their continuous support and encouragement. I am also grateful to my former students in the Japanese course for agreeing to participate in this study.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , June 2007 , pp. 219 - 252
Copyright
© 2007 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aarts, F. & Schils, E. (1995). Relative clauses, the accessibility hierarchy and the contrastive hypothesis. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 47–63.Google Scholar
Allen, Q. (2000). Form-meaning connections and the French causative. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 69–84.Google Scholar
Ammar, A. & Lightbown, P. M. (2004). Teaching marked linguistic structures—More about the acquisition of relative clauses by Arab learners of English. In A. Housen & M. Pierrard (Eds.), Investigations in instructed second language learning (pp. 167–198). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Banno, E., Ohno, Y., Sakane, Y., Shinagawa, C., & Tokashiki, K. (1999). Genki: An integrated course in elementary Japanese. Tokyo: Japan Times.
Byrne, D. (1976). Teaching oral English. London: Longman.
Clancy, P. M. (1985). The acquisition of Japanese. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Vol 1. The data (pp. 373–524). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Comrie, B. (1998). Attributive clauses in Asian languages: Towards an areal typology. In W. Boeder, C. Schroeder, K. Wagner, & W. Wildgen (Eds.), Sprache in Raum und Zeit: In memoriam Johannes Bechert, Band 2 (pp. 51–60). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Comrie, B. (2002). Typology and language acquisition: The case of relative clauses. In A. Giacalone Ramat (Ed.), Typology and second language acquisition (pp. 19–37). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Croteau, K. C. (1995). Second language acquisition of relative clause structures by learners of Italian. In F. R. Eckman, D. Highland, P. Lee, J. Mileham, & R. Weber (Eds.), Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy (pp. 115–128). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
de Graaff, R. (1997). The eXperanto experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 249–276.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1995). Learning L2 grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 379–410.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348). Oxford: Blackwell.
Doughty, C. J. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431–469.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. J. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 256–310). Oxford: Blackwell.
Doughty, C. J. (2004). Effects of instruction on learning a second language: A critique of instructed SLA research. In B. VanPatten, J. Williams, S. Rott, & M. Overstreet (Eds.), Form-meaning connections in second language acquisition (pp. 181–202). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eckman, F. R., Bell, L., & Nelson, D. (1988). On the generalization of relative clause instruction in the acquisition of English as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 9, 1–20.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (1993). Rules and instances in foreign language learning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5, 289–318.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2002). Methodological options in grammar teaching materials. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 155–198). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gass, S. M. (1979). Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning, 29, 327–344.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1982). From theory to practice. In M. Hines & W. Rutherford (Eds.), On TESOL '81: Selected papers from the Fifteenth Annual Conference of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (pp. 129–39). Washington DC: TESOL.
Hamilton, R. L. (1994). Is implicational generalization unidirectional and maximal? Evidence from relativization instruction in a second language. Language Learning, 44, 123–157.Google Scholar
Hamilton, R. L. (1995). The noun phrase accessibility hierarchy in SLA: Determining the basis for its developmental effects. In F. R. Eckman, D. Highland, P. W. Lee, J. Mileham, & R. Weber (Eds.), Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy (pp. 101–113). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hansen-Strain, L. & Strain, J. (1989). Variation in the relative clauses of Japanese learners. JALT Journal, 11, 211–237.Google Scholar
Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching. London: Longman.
Hawkins, R. (1989). Do second language learners acquire restrictive relative clauses on the basis of relational or configurational information? The acquisition of French subject, direct object and genitive restrictive relative clauses by second language learners. Second Language Research, 5, 158–188.Google Scholar
Hyltenstam, K. (1984). The use of typological markedness conditions as predictors in second language acquisition: The case of pronominal copies in relative clauses. In R. Andersen (Ed.), Second languages: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 39–60). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Inoue, K. (1976). Henkei bunpo to nihongo: Vol. 1. [Transformational grammars and Japanese: Vol. 1]. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Izumi, S. (2000). The effects of output and input enhancement on the noticing and learning of relativization in English as a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington DC.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–577.Google Scholar
Izumi, S. (2003). Processing difficulty in comprehension and production of relative clauses by learners of English as a second language. Language Learning, 53, 285–323.Google Scholar
Izumi, Y. & Izumi, S. (2004). Investigating the effects of oral output on the learning of relative clauses in English: Issues in the psycholinguistic requirements for effective output tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review, 60, 587–609.Google Scholar
Kanno, K. (2001). On-line processing of Japanese English L2 learners. Research on Japanese as a Second Language, 4, 23–38.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63–99.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1973). The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lightbown, P. M. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. J. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom SLA (pp. 177–196). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mackey, A. & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.Google Scholar
Masuda, M. (2000). Nihongo gakushusha to bogowasha no sutorıteringu bun o hikaku suru [Comparing story-telling sentences between learners of Japanese and native speakers of Japanese]. Tama Ryugakusei Senta Kyoiku Kenkyu Ronshu [Tama Foreign Student Center Education Research Papers], 2, 13–25.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Semantics and pragmatics of noun-modifying constructions in Japanese. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 14, 166–175.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (1997). Noun-modifying constructions in Japanese: A frame-semantic approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Mitchell, J. G. (2001). The acquisition of relative clause structures in French as a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.Google Scholar
O'Grady, W., Lee, M., & Choo, M. (2003). A subject-object asymmetry in the acquisition of relative clauses in Korean as a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 433–448.Google Scholar
Ota, N. (2006). Lecture notes: AS/JP1000 6.0 Elementary modern standard Japanese. Retrieved August 18, 2006, from York University, Japanese Studies Program website: http://buna.yorku.ca/japanese/eljp/ejlecnotes.html
Ozeki, H. (2003). Nani ga kankeisetsu shutoku no nan'i o kimeru no ka: Kenkyu no doko oyobi Nihongo shutoku kenkyu e no shisa [What determines the difficulty of relative clause acquisition: Review of research and its implication for the L2 acquisition of Japanese]. In Nihon Gengo Bunka-gaku Kenkyu-kai [Association of Studies in Japanese Language and Culture] (Ed.), Daini gengo shutoku kyoiku no kenkyu saizensen: 2003-nen ban [The state of the art in second language acquisition and instruction research: 2003 version] (pp. 32–50). Tokyo: Bonjinsha.
Ozeki, H. (2005). Dainigengo ni okeru Nihongo no meishi shushokusetsu no sanshutsu wa fuhenteki shutoku nan'ido kaiso ni shitagau ka [Does the acquisition of noun-modifying constructions in L2 Japanese follow the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy?]. Dainigengo toshite no Nihongo no Shutoku Kenkyu [Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language], 8, 64–82.Google Scholar
Pavesi, M. (1986). Markedness, discoursal models, and relative clause formation in a formal and informal context. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 38–55.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 186–214.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1985). Learnability and syllabus construction. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 23–75). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10, 217–244.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Pienemann, M. & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Applying second language acquisition research (pp. 45–141). Adelaide, Australia: National Curriculum Resource Centre, AMEP.
Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., & Brindley, G. (1988). Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 217–243.Google Scholar
Roberts, M. (2000). Implicational markedness and the acquisition of relativization by adult learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, Honolulu.
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 27–68.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1997). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instruction conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 223–247.Google Scholar
Rutherford, W. & Sharwood Smith, M. (1988). Grammar and second language teaching. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Sadighi, F. (1994). The acquisition of English restrictive relative clauses by Chinese, Japanese, and Korean adult native speakers. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 141–153.Google Scholar
Saito, H. (2002). Rentaishushokusetsu no shutoku ni kansuru kenkyu no doko [Second language acquisition research on Japanese noun modifying clauses]. In Nihon Gengo Bunka-gaku Kenkyu-kai [Association of Studies in Japanese Language and Culture] (Ed.), Daini gengo shutoku kyoiku no kenkyu saizensen: 2002-nen ban [The state of the art in second language acquisition and instruction research: 2002 version] (pp. 45–69). Tokyo: Bonjinsha.
Sakamoto, T. & Kubota, S. (2000). Nihongo kankeisetsu no shutoku ni tsuite [The acquisition of Japanese relative clauses]. Nanzan Daigaku Kokusai Kyoiku Senta Kiyo [Nanzan University International Education Center Bulletin], 1, 45–69.Google Scholar
Sanz, C. & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence versus explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 54, 35–78.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning, 24, 205–214.Google Scholar
Scott, S. (2003). Second language acquisition of relative clauses in Irish. In J. M. Liceras et al. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 6th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2002) (pp. 260–268). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Shirai, Y. (1997). Linguistic theory and research: Implications for second language teaching. In G. R. Tucker & D. Corson (Eds.), The encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 4. Second language education (pp. 1–9). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Spada, N. & Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Instruction, first language influence and developmental readiness in second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 83, 1–22.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Y. (1996). The comprehension and acquisition of relative clauses by Japanese high school students through formal instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Tokyo.
Tarallo, F. & Myhill, J. (1983). Interference and natural language in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 33, 55–76.Google Scholar
Tosaku, Y. (2006). Yookoso!: An invitation to contemporary Japanese (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
VanPatten, B. & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495–510.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. (1983). Markedness and the projection problem. Language Learning, 33, 293–313.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. (1985). Grammars in search of input and intake. In S. M. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 329–344). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.