Cover not available
Part of
Developing, Modelling and Assessing Second Languages
Edited by Jörg-U. Keßler, Anke Lenzing and Mathias Liebner
[Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching 5] 2016
► pp. 35–64

Question constructions, argument mapping, and vocabulary development in English L2 by Japanese speakers

A cross-sectional study

| School of Humanities & Communication Arts, Bilingual Research Lab & MARCS Institute, Western Sydney University

This study investigates the relationship between vocabulary size (Nation and Beglar 2007) and syntactic learning in English as a second language (ESL) using the framework of Processability Theory (PT, Pienemann 1998, Pienemann et al. 2005). In particular, the study focuses on the syntactic development of question sentences and argument mapping in conjunction with the learner’s current vocabulary size. Nine adult Japanese L1-English L2 speakers in Australia were selected out of a total sample of 22 who sat for the vocabulary size test, three each from Top, Middle and Low vocabulary sizes, to perform two language production tasks: (1) a ‘spot the differences’ task, used for speech profiling and (2) a translation task involving a range of verb categories including unaccusative verbs, psych verbs, as well as passive and causative constructions. The linguistic production of each informant was analysed against PT syntactic stages (Bettoni & Di Biase, 2015) in question sentences and argument mapping. Results suggest that vocabulary and syntactic development progress hand-in-hand. However Low and Mid vocabulary size ESL learners have problems in specific areas of syntax. High vocabulary learners, on the other hand, were able to cope with the whole range of verbs and syntactic constructions investigated in this study. Question sentences and argument mapping were found to be key indicators of ESL learners’ syntactic development. The broad goal of this investigation is to promote intermediate-advanced learners in ESL.

Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 29 June 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.5.02kaw
References
Bettoni, C., & DiBiase, B
(Eds.) (2015) Processability Theory: Current issues in theory and application. European Second Language Association.Google Scholar
Birrel, B
(2006) Implications of English standards among overseas students at Australian universities. People and Place, 14(4), 53-64.Google Scholar
Bock, K., & Levelt, W.J.M
(1994) Language production: Grammatical encoding. In M.A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J
(2001) Lexical-functional syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Burzio, L
(1986) Italian Syntax: A Goverment-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Choi, H.-W
(2001) Phrase structure, information structure, and resolution of mismatch. In P. Sells (Ed.), Formal and empirical issues in optimality theoretic syntax (pp. 17-62). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Comrie, B., Matthews, S., & Polinsky, M
(2003) The atlas of languages (rev. ed.). London: Eurospan Group.Google Scholar
Culicover, P., & Jackendoff, R
(2005) Simpler Ssntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, M
(2001) Syntax and semantics. Lexical functional grammar. Vol. 34. San Diego, SA: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R
(2007) Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 97-135). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
DiBiase, B., Kawaguchi, S., & Yamaguchi, Y
(2015) English. In Bettoni & DiBiase (Eds.), (pp. 85-115).Google Scholar
Foley, W.A., & Van Valin, R.D
(1984) Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T
(1984) Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J.H
(1966) Universals of language. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G., & Norrby, C
(2007) Processability Theory applied to written and oral Swedish. In F. Mansouri (Ed.), Second language acquisition research: Theory-construction and testing (pp. 81-94). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Harmer, J
(2007) The practice of English Language Teaching. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Harrington, M., & Carey, M
(2009) The on-line Yes/No test as a placement tool. System, 37(4), 614-626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hirakawa, M
(2003) Unaccusativity in second language Japanese and English. Tokyo: Hituzi Shobo.Google Scholar
Hopp, H
(2007) Cross-linguistic differences at the syntax-discourse interface in off- and on-line L2 performance. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Genetarive Approach to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA), Somerville, MA.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R.S
(1972) Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R.M., & Bresnan, J
(1982) Lexical-Functional Grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In J. Bresnan (Ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations (pp. 173-281). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kawaguchi, S
(2009) Acquiring causative constructions in Japanese as a second language. The Journal of Japanese Studies, 29(2), 273-291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) The relationship between lexical and syntactic development in English as a second language. In A.F. Mattsson & C. Norrby (Eds.), Language Acquisition and Use in Multilingual Contexts: Theory and Practice (Vol. 52, pp. 92-106). Lund: Traveaux de L'institut de Linguistique de Lund.Google Scholar
(2015) Connecting CALL and second language development: e-tandem learning of Japanese. In Bettoni & DiBiase (Eds.), (pp. 291-305).Google Scholar
Keenan, E., & Comrie, B
(1977) Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1), 63-99.Google Scholar
Kempen, G., & Hoenkamp, E
(1987) An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11(2), 201-258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J.F., & Tokowicz, N
(2001) The development of conceptual representation for words in a second language. In J.L. Nicol (Ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing. Explaining linguistics (pp. 49-71). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J
(2001) Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 1-26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W.J.M
(1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W.J.M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A.S
(1999) A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 1-38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M
(2005) Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mochida, A., & Harrington, M
(2006) The Yes/No test as a measure of receptive vocabulary knowledge. Language Testing, 23(1), 73-98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nation, I.S
(2006) How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes, 63(1), 59-82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nation, P., & Beglar, D
(2007) A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher, 31(7), 9-13.Google Scholar
Payne, T.E
(2011) Understanding English Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M
(1998) Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. & Kessler, J.-U
(Eds.) (2011) Studying Processability Theory: An introductory textbook. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., DiBiase, B., & Kawaguchi, S
(2005) Extending Processability theory. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (pp. 199-252). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S
(1984) Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rahkonen, M., & Håkansson, G
(2008) Production of written L2-Swedish-processability or input frequencies. In J.-U. Keßler (Ed.), Processability approaches to second language development and second language learning (pp. 135-161). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Slobin, D.I
(1982) Universal and particular in the acquisition of language. In E. Wanner & L.R. Gleitman (Eds.), Language acquisition: State of the art (pp. 128-170). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sorace, A
(2003) Near-nativeness. In C. Daughty & M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition theory and research (pp. 130-151). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Houston, T
(1998) Contextual effects in processing L2 input sentences. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 53-70.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R.D
(2005) Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R.D., & LaPolla, R.J
(1997) Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, L., Brown, C., Bruhn-Garavito, J., Chen, D., Hirakawa, M., & Montrul, S
(1999) Psych verbs in second language acquisition. In E.C. Klein & G. Martohardjono (Eds.), The development of second language grammars: A generative approach (pp. 171-196). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yamaguchi, Y
(2008) The early development in child L2 acquisition: What happens after "canonical order"? In J.-U. Keßler (Ed.), Processability approaches to second language development and second language learning (pp. 245-266). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
(2009) The development of plural marking and plural agreement in child English L2 acquisition. In J.-U. Keßler & D. Keatinge (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition: Empirical evidence across languages (pp. 9-39). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
(2010) The acquisition of English as a second language by a Japanese primary school child: A Longitudinal study from a Processability Viewpoint. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Western Sydney.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., & Mi, Y
(2010) Another look at language difficulties of international students. Journal of Studies in International Education 14, 371-388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Kawaguchi, Satomi & Junko Iwasaki
2023. Chapter 5. Acquiring content questions in Japanese child second language. In Processability and Language Acquisition in the Asia-Pacific Region [Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching, 9], ► pp. 115 ff. DOI logo
Yamaguchi, Yumiko & Hiroko Usami
2023. Chapter 11. Testing the validity of Processability Theory through a corpus-based analysis. In Processability and Language Acquisition in the Asia-Pacific Region [Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching, 9], ► pp. 280 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.