Countability of Normal/Material Nouns in

Japanese EFL Learners’ Explicit and Implicit

KnowledgeAugust 9, 2014 40th JASELE

Tokushima University

The handout is available from…

The handout is available from…

Overview• Introduction• Background• The Present Study• Results• Discussion• Conclusion

Overview• Introduction• Background• The Present Study• Results• Discussion• Conclusion

1

Introduction• This study investigated…!–What?!– Explicit and Implicit knowledge of normal

and material nouns!– How?!– Untimed and Speeded Grammatical

Judgment Tests

2

Conclusion• Only knowledge of normal noun was affected

by task type.!• Only in untimed condition, the mean accuracy

score of normal noun is significantly higher than that of material noun.!!

! The knowledge of normal noun and material noun are qualitatively different. !

3

Overview• Introduction• Background• The Present Study• Results• Discussion• Conclusion

Overview• Introduction• Background• The Present Study• Results• Discussion• Conclusion

4

Background• Japanese EFL learners have difficulty in

acquiring countability of material nouns.!• ex. meat, chalk, gold, mud, etc.

5

Background• Shirahata & Yokota (2013): !• Lack of input and sufficient explanations

for the use of material nouns in the textbooks used in public schools in Japan!

• Japanese college students know the explicit rules of normal nouns but not material nouns.

6

Yu TAMURA!Graduate School, Nagoya Univ.!

yutamura@nagoya-u.jp!Kunihiro KUSANAGI!

Graduate School, Nagoya Univ.!JSPS Research Fellow !kusanagi@nagoya-u.jp

Background• Inagaki (2014):!• the difficulty in acquiring mass-count

distinction derives from L1 influence!• Mass-count distinction!• Japanese nouns: semantics!• English nouns: syntax!

• Japanese learners tend to make English mass-count judgments on the basis of Japanese semantics.

7

Background• Takahashi (2013):!• Japanese learners tendencies in

countability judgments!• applying fixed rules!• viewing mass-count as abstract and

concrete!• thinking generally referred object as

uncountable!• unable to apply ‘boundedness’ to

abstract nouns 8

Background• The previous research has attempted to

investigate the cause of difficulty in acquiring normal and material nouns.

9

But

But• As which type of knowledge do Japanese

EFL learners have difficulty?

10

Explicit or Implicitor both?

11

Two Types of Knowledge

12

Background

Grammatical Knowledge

Explicit Knowledge

Implicit Knowledge

13

BackgroundExplicit Knowledge

• Intuitive!• Procedural!• Automatic!• Non-integrated

• Conscious!• Declarative!• Analyzed!• Integrated

(Ellis,2004,2005; Jiang,2007)

Implicit Knowledge

14

BackgroundExplicit Knowledge

• Intuitive!• Procedural!• Automatic!• Non-integrated

• Conscious!• Declarative!• Analyzed!• Integrated

Implicit Knowledge

These are theoretical constructs and should be separated from processing or learning.

15

Background

• How explicit and implicit knowledge are measured?

16

Background

Explicit !Knowledge

• oral production task!• written production

task

• fill-in-the blank!• verbal reports!• error correction

MeasurementImplicit !

Knowledge

17

Background

Explicit !Knowledge

• oral production task!• written production

task!• timed/speeded GJT

• fill-in-the blank!• verbal reports!• error correction!• untimed GJT

MeasurementImplicit !

Knowledge

(Bialystok, 1979; Kusanagi & Yamashita, 2013; Loewen, 2009)18

Overview• Introduction• Background• The Present Study• Results• Discussion• Conclusion

Overview• Introduction• Background• The Present Study• Results• Discussion• Conclusion

19

The Present Study• RQs!• Do Japanese EFL learners have explicit

knowledge of normal nouns and material nouns?!

• Do Japanese EFL learners have implicit knowledge of normal nouns and material nouns?

20

The Present Study• Participants!• 18 Japanese graduate students!

!

!

!

!

• Self-reported Proficiency

Age TOEIC Scoren M SD M SD

Participants 18 24.72 3.75 805.67 103.01

21

The Present Study• Stimuli(K = 24)!• 12 normal nouns and 12 material nouns!• 24 fillers Normal Material

apple!!

golddog!!

winepen!!

toastbag stonecar paperlake meatknife threadchild riceman chalk

mouse gasgoose timbertooth mud

Regular

Irregular

22

The Present Study• Examples!• *[NP She] [VP picked [NP three apple]] [PP

out of the bag].!• [NP She] [VP picked [NP three apples]] [PP

out of the bag].!• *[NP She] [VP cooked [NP many rices]] [PP

for dinner].!• [NP She] [VP cooked [NP a lot of rice]] [PP for

dinner].23

The Present Study• Experiment !• Untimed / Speeded GJTs on PCs (HSP ver. 3.2)

+

Yusaku often feels fatality.

100ms

50ms

24

The Present Study• Experiment !• The participants took untimed and

speeded GJTs in turn. !• One of four conditions was attributed to

each participant • untimed/speeded ×grammatical /

ungrammatical!• Test items were presented randomly.

25

The Present Study• Analysis !• Accuracy Score!• Two-way ANOVA!• Item(Normal / Material)× Task(Untimed/

Speeded)!• Reaction Time!• Ex-Gaussian Distribution!• Outlier(above M + 2.5SD)was replaced

to M + 2.5SD. 26

Overview• Introduction• Background• The Present Study• Results• Discussion• Conclusion

Overview• Introduction• Background• The Present Study• Results• Discussion• Conclusion

27

Results

Accuracy Score

K M SD 95%CI

UntimedNormal 12 .88 .13 [.82, .94]

Material 12 .56 .23 [.45, .67]

SpeededNormal 12 .72 .24 [.61, .83]

Material 12 .69 .24 [.58, .80]

Descriptive Statistics of the Accuracy Score

28

Comparison of Mean Accuracy Score

Error bar represents 95%CI.

29

Comparison of Mean Accuracy Score

Error bar represents 95%CI.

Significant interaction (F(1, 17) = 5.72, p = .028, ηp2 = .251)

30

Comparison of Mean Accuracy Score

Error bar represents 95%CI.

Significant main effect (F(1, 17) = 8.16, p = .011, ηp2 = .324)

31

Comparison of Mean Accuracy Score

Error bar represents 95%CI.

No significant main effect (F(1, 17) = 1.98, p = .177, ηp2 = .104)!

32

Comparison of Mean Accuracy Score

Error bar represents 95%CI.

Significant main effect (F(1, 17) = 24.11, p < .001, ηp2 = .587)

33

Comparison of Mean Accuracy Score

Error bar represents 95%CI.

No significant main effect (F(1, 17) = 0.15, p = .701, ηp2 = .008)

34

Reaction Time

Estimated Parameters of the Reaction Times (ms) Using Ex-Gaussian Distributions

The number of reactions

Ex-Gaussian distribution

μ σ τ

UntimedNormal 216 722 2850 5223

Material 216 3393 1694 3123

SpeededNormal 216 1674 573 1655

Material 216 2200 1034 163335

Estimated Parameters of the Reaction Times (ms) Using Ex-Gaussian Distributions

The number of reactions

Ex-Gaussian distribution

μ σ τ

UntimedNormal 216 722 2850 5223

Material 216 3393 1694 3123

SpeededNormal 216 1674 573 1655

Material 216 2200 1034 1633

μ+τ≒mean

SD

36

37

Longer in responding to material nouns

38

Overview• Introduction• Background• The Present Study• Results• Discussion• Conclusion

Overview• Introduction• Background• The Present Study• Results• Discussion• Conclusion

39

Discussion• Only knowledge of normal nouns was

affected by task type.$• Only in untimed condition, the mean accuracy

score of normal nouns is significantly higher than that of material nouns.$$

$ The knowledge of normal nouns and material nouns are qualitatively different. $

40

Bootstrapped sample plot

41

Bootstrapped sample plot

Explicit predominant?Implicit predominant?

42

Discussion

Implicit Knowledge

Explicit knowledge

Normal nouns

Material nouns

Explicit Knowledge

Implicit Knowledge

43

Discussion• Reaction Time$• In both conditions, the participants took

longer time in responding to material nouns.$

$

44

Accuracy score and RT together…

45

Discussion• Normal noun $• Explicit knowledge → ◯$• Implicit knowledge → △$

• Material noun$• Explicit knowledge → ☓？$• Implicit knowledge → △?$

$46

Limitations• Small sample size$• bootstrapping and 95%CI$

• Ungrammatical and grammatical sentences should have been separated.$

• Need to consider reaction bias$• Signal Detection Theory $

• Learners’ proficiency$$

$47

Overview• Introduction• Background• The Present Study• Results• Discussion• Conclusion

Overview• Introduction• Background• The Present Study• Results• Discussion• Conclusion

48

Conclusion• The participants tend to rely on explicit

knowledge when judging countability in normal nouns.$

→They have difficulty in acquiring implicit knowledge of normal nouns.$• The participants tend to rely on implicit

knowledge when judging countability in material nouns.$

→They may have incorrect explicit knowledge of material nouns, or they may not have it. $$

$ 49

ReferenceBialystok, E. (1979). Explicit and implicit judgements of L2 grammaticality. Language Learning, 29(1), $ 81-103.$Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54(2), $ 227-275.$Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring Implicit and Explicit Knowledge of A Second Language: A psychometric study. $ Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 141-172. doi:10.1017/S0272263105050096$Inagaki, S. (2014). Syntax–semantics mappings as a source of difficulty in Japanese speakers’$$ acquisition of the mass–count distinction in English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,$$ 17(3),464-477. doi: 10.1017/S1366728913000540$Jiang, N. (2007). Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language learning. $$ Language Learning, 57(1), 1-33.$Loewen, S. (2009). Grammaticality judgment tests and the measurement of implicit and explicit L2 $$ knowledge. In R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Philp, & H. Reinders (Eds.), Implicit and ! explicit knowledge in second language learning (pp. 94–112). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.$Takahashi, T. (2013). Japanese Learners’ Criteria to Judge English Nouns’ Countability. International!! Journal of Curriculum Development and Practice, 15, 1-10.$Shirahata, T. & Yokota, H. (2013). meijiteki bunpou setsumei no yukosei to genkai: busshitsu meishi$$ no tansukei/hukusuki no syutoku wo rei ni totte: Effectiveness and Limitation of Explicit$$ Grammar Instruction : In the Case of Acquisition of Material Nouns in English. CELES!! Journal, 42, 1-8.$$

$ 50

Countability of Normal/Material Nouns in

Japanese EFL Learners’ Explicit and

Implicit Knowledgecontact info

Yu TamuraGraduate School, Nagoya University

yutamura@nagoya-u.jp

http://tamurayu.wordpress.com/

Japanese EFL Learners’ #knowledge representation

Normal Nouns Material Nouns

Explicit knowledge

Implicit knowledge

Explicit knoweldge

Implicit knowledge

◯ △ ☓？ △？

51