Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-2bkkj Total loading time: 0.41 Render date: 2022-10-02T18:55:44.144Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

English and Japanese interlanguage comprehension strategies: An analysis based on the competition model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Yoshinori Sasaki*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
*
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Department of Educational Psychology #210, Education Building, 1310 South Sixth St., Champaign, IL 61820. e-mail: sasac@uiucvmd.bitnet

Abstract

In an experiment based on the competition model, 12 native Japanese speakers (J1 group) and 12 native English speakers studying Japanese (JFL group) were requested to report sentence subjects after listening to Japanese word strings which consisted of one verb and two nouns each. Similarly, 12 native English speakers (E1 group) and 12 native Japanese speakers studying English (EFL group) reported the sentence subjects of English word strings. In each word string, syntactic (word order) cues and lexical-semantic (animacy/inanimacy) cues converged or diverged as to the assignment of the sentence subjects. The results show that JFL-Ss (experimental subjects) closely approximated the response patterns of J1-Ss, while EFL-Ss showed evidence of transfer from their first language, Japanese. The results are consistent with the developmental precedence of a meaning-based comprehension strategy over a grammar-based one.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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

Bates, Elizabeth, & MacWhinney, Brian. (1979). A functionalist approach to the acquisition of grammar. In Ochs, E. & Schieffelin, B. (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Bates, Elizabeth, & MacWhinney, Brian. (1981). Second-language acquisition from a functionalist perspective: Pragmatic, semantic, and perceptual strategies. In Winitz, H. (Ed.), Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences conference on native and foreign language acquisition. New York: New York Academy Press.Google Scholar
Bates, Elizabeth, & MacWhinney, Brian. (1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bates, Elizabeth, & MacWhinney, Brian. (1987). Competition, variation and language learning. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bates, Elizabeth, MacWhinney, Brian, Wulfeck, Beverly, Miceli, Gabriele, Friederici, Angela, Smith, Stan, Osman-Szagy, Judit, Zurif, Edgar, & Juarez, Larry. (1985). Cross-linguistic studies of language processing in aphasia. USPHS NS19639–02 Annual Report 1984–1985.Google Scholar
Bates, Elizabeth, McNew, Sandra, MacWhinney, Brian, & Devescovi, Antonella. (1982). Functional constraints on sentence processing: A cross-linguistic study. Cognition, 11, 245299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bransford, John D. (1979). Human cognition: Learning, understanding, and remembering. Belmont, CA: Wardsworth.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. (1981). Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cziko, Gary A. (1978). Differences in first- and second-language reading: The use of syntactic, semantic and discourse constraints. Canadian Modern Language Review, 34, 473489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cziko, Gary A. (1980). Language competence and reading strategies: A comparison of first- and second-language reading errors. Language Learning, 50(1), 101116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duff, Patricia Ann. (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.Google Scholar
Flynn, Susan. (1987). Contrast and constructions in a parameter-setting model of L2 acquisition. Language Learning, 37(1), 1962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, K. I. (1979). Levels of processing and the structure of the language processor. In Cooper, E. William & Walker, Edward C. T. (Eds.), Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fuller, Judith, & Gundel, Jeanette. (1987). Topic-prominence in interlanguage. Language Learning, 37(11), 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garnsey, Susan, Tanenhaus, Michael, & Chapman, Robert. (1989). Evoked potentials and the study of sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18(1), 5160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, Susan. (1987). The resolution of conflicts among competing systems: A bidirectional perspective. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 329350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givon, Talmy. (1979a). From discourse to syntax grammar as a processing strategy. In Givon, T. (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 12. Discourse and syntax. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Givon, Talmy. (1979b). On understanding grammar. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Givon, Talmy. (1985). Function, structure, and language acquisition. In Slobin, Dan Isaac (Ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition (Vol. 2, 10051028). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hakuta, Kenji. (1982). Interaction between particles and word order in the comprehension and production of simple sentences. Developmental Psychology, 18(1), 6276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, Michael. (1987). Processing transfer: Language-specific processing strategies as a source of interlanguage variation. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 351377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hashimoto, Mantaro. (1982). Gengo-onkei no Kozo-ruikei. [Structural patterns of speech sounds]. Gengo, 11(12), 2937.Google Scholar
Hatch, Evelyn M. (1983). Psycholinguistics: A second language perspectivnt. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hermon, Gabriella. (1987, March). Government and Binding theory: Implications for L1 and L2 acquisition. Paper presented at the SLATE Seminar, Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
Huebner, Thom. (1983). Linguistic systems and linguistic change in an interlanguage. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5(1), 3353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, Takehiko, Tahara, Toshiji, & Park, Won-Suk. (1989). Japanese particles as case markers: Developmental psycholinguistic comparison between Japanese and Korean, and within Japanese. In Peng, F. L. et al. (Eds.). Language in the individual and society. Hiroshima: Bunka-Hyoron.Google Scholar
Jackson, Kenneth L., & Whitman, Randel L. (1971). Evaluation of the predictive power of contrastive analysis of Japanese and English. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Institute of International Studies.Google Scholar
Kilborn, Kerry, & Cooreman, Ann. (1987). Sentence interpretation strategies in adult Dutch-English bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 415431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, Michael, & Sato, Charlene. (1985). Methodological issues in interlanguage studies: An interactionist perspective. In Davies, A., Criper, C., & Howatt, A. (Eds.), Interlanguage. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. (1987a). Applying the competition model to bilingualism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 315327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. (1987b). The competition model. In MacWhinney, Brian (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian, & Bates, Elizabeth. (1984). Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 127150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian, Leinbach, Jared, Taraban, Roman, & McDonald, Janet. (1989). Language learning: Cues or rules? Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 255277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian, Pleh, Csaba, & Bates, Elizabeth. (1985). The development of sentence interpretation in Hungarian. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 178209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, William. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8, 191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonald, L. Janet. (1986). The development of sentence comprehension strategies in English and Dutch. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41, 317335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, L. Janet. (1987a). Assigning linguistic roles: The influence of conflicting cues. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 100117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, L. Janet. (1987b). Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers of English and Dutch. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 379413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miao, Xiao-chun. (1981). Word order and semantic strategies in Chinese sentence comprehension. International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 8(3), 109122.Google Scholar
Omaggio, Alice. (1986). Teaching language in context: Proficiency-oriented instruction. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Rutherford, William. (1980). Aspects of pedagogical grammar. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 6073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, William. (1982). Markedness in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 32(1), 85108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, William. (1987). Second language grammar: Learning and teaching. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan Isaac, & Bever, Thomas G. (1982). Children use canonical sentence schemas: A crosslinguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition, 12, 229265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swinney, David A. (1982). The structure and time-course of information interaction during speech comprehension: Lexical segmentation, access, and interpretation. In J., Mehler, Walker, E. C. T., & Garrett, M. (Eds.), Perspective on mental representation (pp. 151167). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tyler, Lorraine Komisarjevsky. & Marslen-Wilson, William D. (1983). Speech comprehension processes. In Mehler, J., Walker, E. C. T., & Garrett, M. (Eds.), Perspective on mental representation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Whitman, Randel L., & Jackson, Kenneth L. (1972). The unpredictability of contrastive analysis. Language Learning, 22(1), 2941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulfeck, Beverly B., Juarez, Larry, Bates, Elizabeth A., & Kilborn, Kerry. (1986). Sentence interpretation strategies in healthy and aphasic bilingual adults. In Vaid, J. (Ed.), Language processing in bilinguals: Psycholinguistic and neuropsychological perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
34
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

English and Japanese interlanguage comprehension strategies: An analysis based on the competition model
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

English and Japanese interlanguage comprehension strategies: An analysis based on the competition model
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

English and Japanese interlanguage comprehension strategies: An analysis based on the competition model
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *