2007 Fiscal Year Final Research Report Summary
Study on Japanese Learning Process of Bilingual Speakers
| Project/Area Number |
16520316
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Section | 一般 |
|---|
| Research Field |
Japanese language education
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Tokyo University of Foreign Studies |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
TSUCHIYA Junichi Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Japanese Language Center for International Students, Associate Professor (10262213)
|
|---|
| Co-Investigator(Kenkyū-buntansha) |
TSUCHIYA Chihiro Teikyo University, Faculty of Liberal Arts, Professor (00242389)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2004 – 2007
|
| Keywords | Error Analysis / Keyboard Typing / Belief / Bilingual Speakers / J. S. L. Students |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
In order to investigate the relation between the level of Japanese language proficiency and the self-evaluation, we have conducted two kinds of test to bilingual J. S. L. students and monolingual J. S. L. students.
Test 1 : In order to investigate the types of errors which bilingual and monolingual J. S. L. students make when they type in Japanese using a keyboard, we video-taped the display while they are typing their responses in Japanese to questions given on the computer display. We video-taped the input process of J. S. L. students.
Test 2 : In order to compare the bilingual and monolingual J. S. L. students' self-evaluation of Japanese proficiency, we have conducted semi-structured interviews to them immediately after test1.
The following results were obtained from our analysis:
(1) The error rate of bilingual speakers was not lower than the rate of monolingual speakers
(2) Even the error rate was high, bilingual speakers in Korean and Chinese evaluated themselves higher than both Korean monolingual speakers and Chinese monolingual speakers.
(3) Even the type of input errors of bilingual speakers in Mongolian and Chinese was almost same as Chinese speakers' type, they evaluated themselves higher than Chinese monolingual speakers.
(4) Input process of Tibetan speakers showed no error concerning to distinction between voiced plosive and voiceless plosive which can be frequently observed in the process of Chinese speakers.
|
