Linguistics Improvements and Correlates in a Japanese Study Abroad Program

155 Pages·2016·8.53 MB·English

BBrriigghhaamm YYoouunngg UUnniivveerrssiittyy
BBYYUU SScchhoollaarrssAArrcchhiivvee
Theses and Dissertations
2012-12-11
LLiinngguuiissttiiccss IImmpprroovveemmeennttss aanndd CCoorrrreellaatteess iinn aa JJaappaanneessee SSttuuddyy
AAbbrrooaadd PPrrooggrraamm
Geoffrey Scott Biesinger
Brigham Young University - Provo
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd
Part of the Other Languages, Societies, and Cultures Commons
BBYYUU SScchhoollaarrssAArrcchhiivvee CCiittaattiioonn
Biesinger, Geoffrey Scott, "Linguistics Improvements and Correlates in a Japanese Study Abroad
Program" (2012). Theses and Dissertations. 3395.
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/3395
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion
in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please
contact [email protected], [email protected].
Linguistic Improvements and Correlates in a
Japanese Study Abroad Program

Geoffrey S. Biesinger

A thesis submitted to the faculty of
Brigham Young University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

Dan P. Dewey, Chair
J Paul Warnick
Masakazu Watabe

Center for Language Studies
Brigham Young University
December 2012

Copyright © 2012 Geoffrey S. Biesinger
All Rights Reserved.
ABSTRACT
Linguistic Improvements and Correlates in a
Japanese Study Abroad Program

Geoffrey S. Biesinger
Center for Language Studies, BYU
Master of Arts

Study abroad (SA) is typically thought to provide an excellent opportunity for second
language acquisition, particularly through exposure to and application of the target language
within the target culture. However, actual language gains vary greatly among SA participants
and some may gain very little (Freed, 1995a). The purpose of the current study is to determine
some specific linguistic gains made by 28 second language learners of Japanese studying for two
semesters in Japan, and to determine possible correlates with these gains. Specifically, it
addresses whether or not these SA students improve their grammatical proficiency, lexical
proficiency, narrative ability, fluency, and pragmatics proficiency. It then explores how
language learning aptitude, personality, language use, social networking, and initial ability
correlate with those gains. To measure these gains and their correlates it uses the following
instruments: the Elicited Imitation task, a picture story, the Pragmatics Self-Assessment, the
Non-Word Repetition test, the NEO-Five Factor Inventory, the Language Contact Profile, and
the Study Abroad Social Interaction Questionnaire. The results indicated that these SA students
improved significantly in at least on measure of grammatical proficiency, lexical proficiency,
narrative ability, fluency, and pragmatics proficiency. Initial ability and language use proved to
correlate best with each area of linguistic gain; however, the other correlates were also related in
certain areas. SA students should prepare to use their language and participate in social networks
to best improve their linguistic abilities.

Keywords: study abroad, linguistic gains, correlates, Japan
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank my wife, Rachel, for her unwavering support
during this project. I am indebted to a wonderful thesis committee—Drs. Dewey, Warnick, and
Watabe, and collaborator Dr. Larson-Hall, through whose wise council and support I have
learned how to research and to write. A great number of individuals contributed to research and
data collection, primarily Drs. Larson-Hall and Dr. Dewey, to whom I owe a debt of gratitude.
Thanks also to Hitokazu Matsushita and Spencer Ring for their help in data analysis. Finally, I
would like to thank a great number of individuals who helped to care for my family, so that I
could devote all my time and energy to the completion of this project, including: the
Sanderson’s, the Alston’s, and the Bushman’s.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………………………………ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………………iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………………………iv
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………………...1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ………………………………………………………………………4
Linguistic Improvement Areas during SA ………………………………………………...4
Grammatical Proficiency ………………………………………………………….4
Lexical Proficiency ………………………………………………………………..6
Narrative Ability …………………………………………………………………..7
Fluency …………………………………………………………………………...8
Pragmatics Proficiency..…………………………………………………………..9
Correlates with Linguistic Improvement Areas …………………………………………..10
Aptitude…………………………………………………………………………..11
Personality………………………………………………………………………..12
Language Use…………………………………………………………………….13
  ‐ iv ‐
Social Networking………………………………………………………………..14
Initial Ability ……………………………………………………………………..15
Measurement of Constructs Related to Study Abroad..…………………………………. 16
Elicited Imitation Task…………….…………………………………………….. 16
Picture Story (Elicited Narrative Task)………………………………………….. 18
Pragmatics Self-Assessment…………………………………………………….. 18
Non-Word Repetition (NWR) test…...………………………………………….. 18
NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI)……..………………………………….. 19
Language Contact Profile (LCP)…….………………………………………….. 20
Study Abroad Social Interaction Questionnaire (SASIQ)...…………………….. 20
Summary…………………………………………………………………………………. 20
Research Questions ……………………………………………………………………….21
Hypotheses ………………………………………………………………………………..21
3. METHODOLOGY ……………………………………………………………………………24
Data Description ………………………………………………………………………….24
Kansai Gaidai University ………………………………………………………...24
Participants ……………………………………………………………………….26
  ‐ v ‐
Data Analysis and Procedures………………………………………...…………………. 26
Analysis………………………………………………………………………………….. 37
4. RESULTS..………………..………………………………………………………………….. 39
Linguistic Measures….. ......………………………………………………………………39
Elicited Imitation…………………………………………………………………39
Narrative Length …………………………………………………………………40
Syntactic Complexity 1 …………………………………………………………..41
Syntactic Complexity 2 …………………………………………………………..42
Syntactic Complexity 3 …………………………………………………………..43
Semantic Density ………………………………………………………………...44
Speech Continuity ………………………………………………………………..45
Pragmatics Self-Assessment ……………………………………………………..46
Correlate Measures…... .. …………………………………………………………………47
Elicited Imitation Correlations …………………………………………………...48
Narrative Length Correlations …………………………………………………...49
Syntactic Complexity 1 Correlations …………………………………………….50
Syntactic Complexity 2 Correlations …………………………………………….51
  ‐ vi ‐
Syntactic Complexity 3 Correlations …………………………………………….51
Semantic Density Correlations…………………………………………………...52
Speech Continuity Correlations ………………………………………………….53
Pragmatic Self-Assessment Correlations ………………………………………...54
5. DISCUSSION……. …………………………………………………………………………... 56
Grammatical Proficiency Gains …………………………………………………………..56
Grammatical Proficiency Improvement ………………………………………….56
Correlates with Grammatical Proficiency Improvement………………………... 58
Lexical Proficiency Gains ………………………………………………………………...65
Lexical Proficiency Improvement………………………………………………. 65
Correlates with Lexical Proficiency Improvement……………………………… 66
Narrative Ability…….…………………………………………………………………… 69
Narrative Ability Improvement…………………………………………………. 69
Correlates with Narrative Ability Improvement…………………………............ 71
Fluency…………..…………………………………………………………………......... 74
Fluency Improvement...…………………………………………………………. 74
Correlates with Fluency Improvement…………………………........................... 74
  ‐ vii ‐
Pragmatics Proficiency…………………………………………………………………... 76
Pragmatics Proficiency Improvement…….……………………………………... 76
Correlates with Pragmatics Proficiency Improvement…………………………. 77
6. CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND FURTHER STUDIES.…………………………... 80
Summary…….. ………………………………………………………………………….. 80
Implications...……………………………………………………………………………. 83
Study Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research………………………………… 85
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………….. 89
APPENDICES
A. ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT SAMPLES………………………………………………. 98
B. PARTICIPANT DATA SPREADSHEET…………………………………………………. 125

  ‐ viii ‐
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 EI Task--Number of Missed or Inserted Morphemes per Participant……………… 40
Table 2 Narrative Length—Number of Acceptable Morphemes in Discourse Sample……. 41
Table 3 Syntactic Complexity 1—Count of Morphemes in Longest T-unit……………….. 42
Table 4 Syntactic Complexity 2—Largest Count of Clauses in any T-unit………………... 43
Table 5 Syntactic Complexity 3—Average Count of Clauses per T-unit…………………...44
Table 6 Semantic Density--Number of Unique References in the Discourse Sample……… 45
Table 7 Speech Continuity—Number of Stutters, Repeats, Long Pauses per Narr. Length.. 46
Table 8 Pragmatics Self-Assessment—Total Points Earned……………………………….. 47
Table 9 Elicited Imitation Task Correlations……………………………………………….. 48
Table 10 Narrative Length Correlations……………………………………………………... 50
Table 11 Syntactic Complexity 1 Correlations………………………………………………. 51
Table 12 Syntactic Complexity 3 Correlations………………………………………………. 52
Table 13 Semantic Density Correlations…………………………………………………….. 53
Table 14 Speech Continuity Correlations……………………………………………………. 54
Table 15 Pragmatics Self-Assessment Correlations…………………………………………. 55
Table 16 Correlations Between Linguistic Gains Areas and Individual Correlate Variables.. 80
  ‐ ix ‐