Introduction

1. Differences in comprehension strategies for discourse understandingby native Chinese and Korean speakers learning JapaneseKatsuo Tamaoka Graduate School of Languages and Cultures, Nagoya University, Japan Introduction Results (3) Duration of Japanese language learning Selecting 80 pairs resulted in a total of 160 undergraduate students (80 native Chinese and 80 native Korean speakers) learning the Japanese language in China or Korea. All participants were specializing in the Japanese language for their academic studies, and had just completed their first or second year. Each group of eighty consisted of 40 students who had completed their first-year course and 40 who had completed their second-year course. This selection procedure assured the equal learning duration of both groups. In the reading comprehension test, both groups obtained the same mean scores of 3.45 points with the same standard deviation of 1.87 points for the first year, and 5.08 points with the same standard deviation of 1.56 points. A 2 (native language: Chinese or Korean) ☓ 2 (duration of study: first or second year) analysis of variance (ANOVA) performed on scores of reading comprehension revealed a significant difference between two groups of first and second year of study duration [F(1,156)=36.346, p<.001] while mother tongue of Chinese or Korean showed no difference [F(1,156)=0.000, p=1.000, n.s. ]. (4) Gender The same number of 53 female and 27 male participants were selected in the matching procedure for pairing native Chinese and Korean speakers. An independent samples t-test indicated no difference in scores of reading comprehension between female (n=106, M=4.21, SD=1.71) and male (n=54, M=4.37, SD=2.18) students [t(158)=-0.518, n.s.]. Native Chinese and Korean speakers are often classified together as Japanese learners with Chinese character (hereafter, kanji) backgrounds. Even though the Korean language shows a great similarity in grammar to the Japanese language, kanji is seldom used in modern Korean written text. Conversely, Chinese grammar is different from Japanese, but Chinese texts are almost all written in kanji. Since native Chinese and Korean speakers seem to have quite distinct language backgrounds, the present study assumed that these two linguistically-diverse populations of Japanese learners may reflect different strategies to understand the Japanese language. Therefore, Chinese and Koreans were selected for structural equation modeling (SEM) multi-group analysis in order to depict the causal relationships of second language (L2) lexical and grammatical knowledge to discourse understanding. n=160 (80 native Korean and 80 native Chinese speakers). χ2=79.322, df=64, p=.094 (ns.). GFI=.914. AGFI=.852. CFI=.973. RMSEA=.039 (p<.05). Pair-matched sampling Latent variables - Ability tests The pair-matched sampling method was utilized for selecting 80 pairs of native Chinese and Korean speakers learning Japanese, by matching four characteristics of (1) age, (2) gender, (3) duration of Japanese language learning, and (4) scores for Japanese reading comprehension (i.e., no differences in these characteristics between Chinese and Koreans). • Japanese language ability was measured by three constructs; grammar knowledge, lexical knowledge and discourse comprehension. All these constructs were investigated by multiple-choice questions (one correct answer out of four choices) within a total testing time of 135 minutes (three 45-minutes classes). • Grammar knowledge • The first construct was measured by three tests; morphological inflections, local dependency and complex structure. Morphological inflections are defined to be correctly judged based on a single unit. • (2) Lexical knowledge • The second construct on lexical knowledge was measured by four tests classified on the basis of word categories; function words, Chinese-origin words (Kango), Japanese-origin words (Wago) and loanwords (Gairaigo). These words were taken from the vocabulary list of the Japanese-language proficiency test (Japan Foundation, 2004). • (3) Discourse comprehension • The third construct on discourse comprehension was measured by three tests; intentional expressions, co-referential resolution and causal relations. There were a total of 18 questions, 6 in each of the three categories. All question items of these three categories consisted of more than two sentences. • Age in months • An average age in months for the 80 native Chinese speakers was 20 years and 4 months (SD=1 year and 3 months) while for the 80 native Korean speakers it was 20 years and 7 months (SD=1 year and 9 months). A t-test for these two groups showed no significant difference [t(158)=-0.974, n.s.]. A 2 (native language: Chinese or Korean) ☓ 2 (duration of study: first or second year) analysis of variance (ANOVA) performed on age in months showed a significant difference between the two groups of first and second year of study duration [F(1,156)=71.356, p<.001] while mother tongue of Chinese or Korean showed no difference [F(1,156)=1.3701, n.s. ]. There was no significant interaction between these two factors [F(1,156)=0.877, n.s.]. Thus, those who had just completed the first year (M=19 years and 7 months, SD=1 year and 2 months) were younger on average than those who had completed the second year (M=21 years and 3 months, SD=1 year and 4 months). • (2) Scores for Japanese reading comprehension Scores for reading comprehension were measured by the level of understanding of six short written texts, each of which was followed by a single multiple-choice contextual question in which there was one correct answer out of four choices. Since 80 pairs were matched on a one-to-one basis, both native Chinese group and native Korean group had the same mean score of 4.26 points with the same standard deviation of 1.89 points, resulting in no significant difference between them [t(158)=0.000, p=1.000, n.s.]. This guaranteed that both groups had the same ability of reading comprehension. Figure 1 SEM multi-group analysis with standardized path coefficients - Relationship between grammar/word knowledge and discourse understanding performed by native Korean and Chinese speakers learning Japanese Model Fitting The SEM multi-group analysis converged to a proper solution with excellent fit [χ2(64)=79.322, p=.094, n.s.; GFI=.914; AGFI=.852; CFI=.973; RMSEA=0.039, p<.05] which guarantees direct comparison of both Chinese and Korean groups within the same model. The results were depicted in Figure 1 separately for each group. Causal Relations of the Model Chinese speakers displayed a significant causal relation directed from lexical knowledge to discourse comprehension (beta=.78, p<.001) while they showed no significant causal relation directed from grammatical knowledge to discourse comprehension (beta=.15, n.s.). These results indicate that Chinese speakers rely heavily on their lexical knowledge for discourse comprehension. In contrast, Korean speakers showed significant causal relations directed from both lexical (beta=.40, p<.001) and grammatical (beta=.52, p<.001) knowledge toward discourse comprehension. A correlation between lexical and grammatical knowledge was very high (r=.70, p<.001), so both knowledge types were likely to be acquired in a mutually-related fashion. The results suggest that Korean speakers use a balanced approach of lexical and grammatical knowledge for discourse comprehension. Discussion By controlling multiple characteristics of Chinese and Korean speakers learning Japanese, the present study depicted the contrast between the two first language (L1) linguistic backgrounds, showing a clear strategic difference toward L2 Japanese discourse understanding. Chinese speakers rely heavily on their lexical knowledge for discourse comprehension. Since Japanese words listed in a dictionary are presented in kanj(Yokosawa & Umeda, 1988), it is efficient for Chinese speakers to comprehend Japanese discourse using their kanji knowledge of Chinese by jumping conceptual words to construct semantic context. In contrast, Japanese grammar highly resembles to Korean grammar. For Korean speakers, it is more efficient to utilize both grammar and lexical knowledge for discourse comprehension. Presented at the Architecture and Mechanisms for language processing (AMLaP), September 8, 2012, Riva del Garda, Italy.