Review of Recent Research L2 Japanese - Mori

Lang. Teach. (2011), 44.
4, 447–484
c Cambridge University Press 2011
doi:10.1017/S0261444811000292
A Language in Focus
Review of recent research (2000–2010) on learning and instruction

with specific reference to L2 Japanese
Yoshiko Mori Georgetown University, Washington DC, USA

moriy@georgetown.edu
Junko Mori The University of Wisconsin–Madison, USA

jmori@wisc.edu
2000 2010 200
( )
This review aims to identify major issues in and the direction of recent L2 Japanese research
by reviewing over 200 empirical studies published in English or Japanese between 2000 and
2010. The first part of this article examines topics in second language acquisition (SLA)
research with regard to L2 Japanese, including vocabulary and kanji (Chinese characters
transferred into Japanese) learning, syntactic development, reading and writing in L2
Japanese, interlanguage pragmatics and language socialization, affective factors, and
multilingualism and the acquisition of Japanese as a heritage language. The second part
offers an overview of issues and problems in pedagogical practices, including curriculum
design, culture in language education, classroom discourse, and study abroad. The review of
these themes illustrates a broad picture of current research in L2 Japanese learning and
instruction inspired by general trends in SLA and applied linguistics research, as well as
unique features of Japanese language and social contexts.
Over the last three decades, the number of Japanese language learners outside Japan
has dramatically increased, reaching 2.98 million in 2006, according to a survey by the
Japan Foundation’s (2007). Furthermore, the number of registered aliens in Japan surpassed
two million at the end of 2005 for the first time in history, according to Ministry of
Justice statistics (www.moj.go.jp/nyuukokukanri/kouhou/press_060530-1_060530-1.html).
448 A LANGUAGE IN FOCUS
Accordingly, there has been a growing demand for Japanese language instruction, both
overseas and in Japan, and researchers and practitioners have shown increasing interest in
investigating the processes and products of the learning of Japanese as a second language
(L2) and effective language instruction.
As a result, empirical research on L2 Japanese (or JSL) learning and instruction is
expanding, both in quality and quantity, resulting in an increasing number of publications
in journals, books, doctoral dissertations and conference proceedings specializing in L2
Japanese learning and instruction, as well as in applied linguistics in general. Many of these
works have sought to unravel the fundamental principles and processes underlying second
language acquisition (SLA), confirming the applicability of and factors involved in general
human learning to the acquisition of L2 Japanese. At the same time, the emerging interest
in identifying language-specific aspects of SLA prompts us to explore diverse L2 contexts
involving different types of languages. There has therefore been a strong demand for an
overview of the range and direction of L2 Japanese research, from not only general but also
language-specific perspectives.
In light of these developments, this review aims to identify major issues in and the direction
of recent L2 Japanese research by reviewing over 200 empirical studies published in English
or Japanese between 2000 and 2010. We focus primarily on original empirical studies of
L2 Japanese and pedagogy, rather than highly theoretical or descriptive accounts, in order
to make this review evidence-based. Critical reviews of current pedagogical practices and
descriptions of curriculum developments, however, are included if they provide insights into
program assessment. Reviewed studies were identified through electronic searches of such
databases as Linguistics and Language Behaviors Abstract (LLBA), the MLA International
Bibliography, and ERIC, as well as by searches in university libraries. We searched for
articles published in major journals, monographs, and authored books, but did not include
master’s or doctoral dissertations because of the large numbers involved. Our search, however,
identified far more publications than we could handle in a limited space, so we had to be
selective in choosing which studies to review. One of our concerns was the accessibility
of the reviewed works to readers of this journal, as we hope this review will interest
not only specialists in L2 Japanese research and pedagogy but also the wider community
of applied linguistics, where knowledge of Japanese is not widespread. As a result, the
present review has more coverage of studies published in English than in Japanese, and
the selection of topics has also been influenced by this decision. We acknowledge that the
resulting article misses a significant amount of research conducted and published in Japan
and other East Asian countries that addresses issues specific to its local contexts, but it is
our hope that this wealth of research will be made available for a wider audience on future
occasions.
This article has two parts: Issues in L2 Japanese acquisition and Issues in pedagogical practice. The
first examines issues in SLA research with regard to L2 Japanese. Topics include vocabulary
and the learning of kanji (Chinese characters transferred into Japanese), interlanguage
grammar development, reading and writing in L2 Japanese, interlanguage pragmatics and
language socialization, affective factors, and multilingualism and the acquisition of Japanese
as a heritage language, a growing field in L2 Japanese research. The second part examines
issues and problems in pedagogical practice, including curriculum design, culture in language
YOSHIKO MORI AND JUNKO MORI: L2 JAPANESE 449
education, classroom discourse, and study abroad. It should be noted that the classification
of the studies reviewed here, based on their key themes, does not mean that an article deals
only with those themes. SLA research and pedagogical practices should maintain a symbiotic
relationship, and L2 Japanese studies are expected to touch upon both issues.
1. Issues in L2 Japanese acquisition
1.1 Vocabulary and kanji learning
The growing number of studies investigating L2 Japanese vocabulary learning suggests that
lexical development is a major concern among L2 Japanese researchers and educators. Many
of those studies specifically address L2 kanji learning. For school-age or adult L2 Japanese
learners who often learn new words from printed materials, learning the different types
of orthography used in written Japanese (i.e. the two types of syllabaries – hiragana and
katakana – and a logography – kanji]) entails the learning of different types of words (e.g.
Japanese-originated words, grammar function words, foreign loan words, onomatopoeia,
and Sino-Japanese words). In particular, the acquisition of a good working knowledge of
kanji is essential for fluent reading, as kanji words constitute a crucial part of Japanese written
vocabulary (Y. Mori 2003b).
L2 Japanese learners’ vocabulary knowledge is both quantitatively and qualitatively
different from native norms (Komori 2003; Matsumoto & Horiba 2007). Furthermore, first
language (L1) orthographic experience has a significant impact on the development of L2
reading sub-skills, including phonemic awareness (Navas 2004) and word processing strategies
(see Koda 2008 for a review). L2 Japanese learners whose L1 is phonographic (i.e. a language
that employs a sound-based orthography, such as English), for instance, exhibit more reliance
on phonological, and less on visual, information when recognizing words in the L2 than
those with a logographic L1 (i.e. a language that uses a morpheme-based orthography, such
as Chinese). Chikamatsu (2006), however, demonstrated that higher-proficiency English-
speaking L2 Japanese learners showed more visual reliance (i.e. L2 orthographic strategies)
and less phonological reliance (i.e. L1 strategies) in L2 hiragana and katakana word recognition
than their lower-proficiency counterparts, suggesting that L2 word recognition strategies
can be reconstructed as students gain greater L2 proficiency. Hansen, Umeda, & McKinney
(2002) findings are in accordance with this result: they found that English-speaking missionary
returnees from Japan or Korea with more advanced L2 knowledge learned more new and
once-learned-but-forgotten items than those with lower L2 proficiency, suggesting that L2
proficiency also has a significant impact on L2 word learning and relearning strategies.
Many words are polysemous, with their exact meaning largely determined by context.
Research on incidental vocabulary learning – learning word meanings as a by-product of
comprehending overall meaning – has clearly documented L2 learners’ ability to learn new
words from context. Adachi (2003), for example, found that providing varied exemplars that
showed clear distinctions between semantically similar words promoted accurate word usage.
Wei (2006), who compared the gains of three instructional groups (reading plus vocabulary
exercise, reading only, and control), demonstrated that explicit vocabulary instruction,
in conjunction with reading for meaning, enhanced intermediate L2 Japanese learners’

vocabulary learning. While her study found that reading-only instruction had a significant
effect, students who received vocabulary instruction after reading learned more vocabulary
than the reading-only group. Similarly, Kitajima (2001) and Adachi (2005) documented the
advantage, for retention, of using newly learned target words in meaningful interactions over
receptive learning activities. These studies support the idea that multiple exposures in different
contexts and explicit operations, combined with reading for meaning, could compensate for
limited contextual clues, as pointed out by Y. Mori (2003a; 2003b).
Dictionaries and/or marginal glosses are commonly used to enhance L2 comprehension
and subsequent vocabulary learning. Yoshizawa (2005), however, points out that their effects
must be considered in terms of L2 proficiency and the purposes of reading. In her study, high-
and low-proficiency Chinese learners of Japanese read a short passage for comprehension
under one of three conditions: under the first, students were allowed to use dictionaries,
under the second, they were provided with a text with marginal gloss in Chinese, and the
third formed the control group. The results showed that while both high- and low-proficiency
students gained from marginal glosses for word learning, only the high-proficiency group
gained from dictionary use for reading comprehension and word learning.
The effects of mnemonics (memory-enhancing strategies) through the use of personal
encoding techniques or mental images of the items to be learned are another subject for
debate. Mnemonic devices include keywords, visual images, and phonological resemblance
to the target items; memory aids can either be formally pre-established or idiosyncratically
generated by the learner. Using pictorial mnemonic strategies, Manalo, Mizutani & Trafford
(2004) taught hiragana, katakana, and kanji characters to 27 introductory students who were
experiencing difficulties with coursework. While no statistically significant improvement was
observed in pre- and post-session test scores, a significant gain was observed in test-passing
rates. Furthermore, the students reported that the sessions helped in their course performance
and with assessments, suggesting that mnemonic strategy instruction has a positive impact
on learner perceptions, rather than on test performance as such.
Kanji learning is considered one of the most challenging aspects of learning Japanese, and
some students express a desire for some sort of strategy instruction (Y. Mori 2002; Shimizu
& Green 2002; Mori & Shimizu 2007). The challenge in kanji learning includes the difficulty
of retention, multiple readings of a single character, visual similarities between characters,
the polysemous nature of kanji words, the large number of characters to learn, and their
visual complexity. As a result, issues in L2 kanji include kanji learning/teaching strategies
(Shimizu & Green, 2002; Mori & Shimizu 2007), memory and retrieval (Chikamatsu 2005),
radical/compositional awareness (Toyoda 2000; Yamashita & Maru 2000; Kubota & Toyoda
2001; Mori, Sato & Shimizu 2007), the role of contextual and morphological information in
interpreting novel kanji words (Y. Mori 2002, 2003; Kondo-Brown 2006a; Mori et al. 2007),
the transferability of L1 knowledge among learners with Chinese-character backgrounds
(Kato 2005; Sawabe & Yasui 2008), the role of teacher feedback in learning to write kanji
characters (Kubota 2005), and teacher/student perceptions of kanji teaching/learning (Y.
Mori 2002; Shimizu & Green 2002; Gamage 2003; Grainger 2005; Mori & Shimizu 2007).
Using both qualitative and quantitative methods, Shimizu & Green (2002) identified six
factors in Japanese language educators’ attitudes toward kanji (viz. cultural tradition, the
difficulty of kanji, affective orientation, aptitude, the future of kanji, and its usefulness) and
two elements of self-reported kanji teaching strategies (viz. memory and context strategies).
Interestingly, teachers reported that rote learning was the most frequently used strategy,
and their appreciation of cultural tradition in kanji and its practicality was associated with
positive attitudes toward kanji teaching and the use of a variety of instructional strategies.
Drawing upon this conceptualization, Mori & Shimizu (2007) identified six dimensions of
L2 Japanese students’ attitudes toward kanji, represented by the following beliefs: It is fun;
It is difficult; It has cultural value; It has a future; It is useful; and Kanji learning requires
special abilities, and six self-reported kanji learning strategies: Morphological analysis, Rote
memorization, Context-based strategies, Association strategies, Metacognitive strategies, and
Helplessness. Further analysis revealed that students considered Rote memorization the most
effective and Metacognitive strategies the least effective, and that positive attitudes toward
kanji were associated with the use of varied strategies. The similarities between the kanji
beliefs of teacher-s and students may reflect the significant impact of educators’ teaching
philosophies on learner perceptions.
The studies outlined above only examined students’ own view of their learning strategies,
so Mori, Sato & Shimizu (2007) explored the relationship between students’ perceptions and
their actual use of strategies in handling novel kanji words. The results indicated that belief
in the effectiveness of metacognitive strategies could predict success in the compositional
analysis of novel kanji characters/words, suggesting that enhancing students’ metacognitive
awareness may increase their chances of becoming strategic kanji learners. Similarly, Kondo-
Brown (2006a) demonstrated moderate yet significant correlations between affective factors
(perceived reading ability, perceived difficulty of learning kanji, and their level of motivation
for reading) and reading proficiency and kanji knowledge. Interestingly, kanji knowledge was
more closely related to perceived reading ability than to reading proficiency, suggesting that
kanji knowledge plays a significant role in promoting students’ development of their own
effectiveness in reading, and vice versa.
Kanji words fall into two categories in terms of their compositional structure. One type
are the single-character words consisting of sets of less complex parts known as radicals. A
radical provides semantic and/or phonetic information that, at least partially, contributes to
the meaning and/or the sound of the character. The other type are kanji compounds: words
consisting of two or more kanji characters. L2 Japanese learners are aware of the semantic
and/or phonetic function of familiar parts of kanji words and can apply their compositional
knowledge to the learning of new words (Toyoda 2000; Yamashita & Maru 2000; Kubota &
Toyoda 2001). Toyoda (2000), however, points out that less information can be inferred from
word components than from other sources, and that learners are better at using semantic
information than phonetic information. Similarly, L2 students are able to use information
from component characters to infer the meanings of novel kanji compounds (Y. Mori 2002,
2003a; Kondo-Brown 2006a; Mori et al. 2007).
Information from kanji components, however, is not always straightforwardly related to the
meanings of the resulting words (Y. Mori 2003a). Consequently, L2 students often misinterpret
unfamiliar words (Y. Mori 2002) or fail to work out their meaning (Kondo-Brown 2006a).
Students should therefore be encouraged to use multiple sources of information in interpreting
novel kanji words (Y. Mori 2002; 2003a). At the same time, students show considerable
individual differences in the way they learn new kanji words (Kubota & Toyoda 2001; Y. Mori
2002). Y. Mori (2002), for instance, demonstrated that while the majority of the participants
were able to combine information from kanji components and sentential context in an additive
way, nearly half of the students over-relied on a single source and did not check their inferences
against other sources of information. These students may be the ones who benefit from
strategy instruction.
Studies of individual differences have shown that students’ choice of strategies for a
challenging learning task reflects their views on language learning, in general, and the nature
of the given task, in particular. Using the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)
(Oxford 1990), Grainger (2005) demonstrated that L2 Japanese learners, like learners of
Western languages, scored relatively highly on most literacy-related items of the SILL (such
as guessing from context), suggesting that orthographic divergences made little difference
in perceived literacy strategy use. Gamage (2003), however, found that learners of Japanese
as a foreign language (JFL) from alphabetic backgrounds reported that they would use
repeated writing strategies to memorize kanji words more frequently than learners from
Chinese character backgrounds. Future research must clarify the factors that contribute to
the formulation of learner perceptions and provide explanatory accounts for the relationship
between perceived strategies and actual learning behaviors.
1.2 Interlanguage grammar development
A central concern in SLA research has been L2 learners’ syntactic development. L2 Japanese
research is no exception, and interlanguage development has been explored in connection
with various aspects of syntactic acquisition, including verb morphology (Kawaguchi 2000;
Di Biase & Kawaguchi 2002; Hashimoto 2006, 2007), passive and causative constructions
(Taguchi 2001; Sawetaiyaram 2009), negation (Kamura 2001, 2003), argument structures
(Hirakawa 2001; Inagaki 2001; Sorace & Shomura 2001), noun-modifying clauses (Kanno
2001, 2007; Mukouyama 2004; Ozeki 2005; Ozeki & Shirai 2007; Yabuki-Soh 2007;
Yamashita 2008; Sawasaki 2009), temporal phrases (Ozeki 2003), conditional expressions
(Ozeki 2008), postpositional particles (Hasuike 2007; Hashimoto 2009), and numeral
classifiers (Hansen & Chen 2001).
One line of research in this area focuses on testing the applicability of universal
developmental paths and language-processing strategies to L2 Japanese learning. It has been
observed that young novice L2 learners’ oral productions exhibit syntactic and discourse
features that are similar to those of L1 children and adult JFL learners, including word-level
utterances, repetition, reliance on formulaic syntactic structures, difficulty with adjectival
inflections (particularly negative and past forms) compared to verb inflections, use of one-
to-one form-function mapping strategies, reliance on the canonical SOV word order, and
difficulty with multifunctional particles and passive constructions (Antonek, Donato & Tucker
2000; Donato, Tucker, Wudthayagorn & Igarashi 2000; Igarashi, Wudthayagorn, Donato &
Tucker 2002), and that, as their proficiency increases, L2 learners produce more syntactically
complex, longer utterances (Iwashita 2006). These observations lead to the hypothesis that,
like L1 children, L2 Japanese learners go through a fixed developmental sequence that can
be predicted by the hierarchy of markedness (the degree to which a certain form is distant
from a basic, default form).
Di Biase & Kawaguchi (2002) and Kawaguchi (2000) tested the applicability to L2 Japanese
of Pienemann’s (1998) verb morphology hierarchy, which predicted four developmental
stages: invariant forms (e.g. tabemasu ‘eat’ as a word), lexical-semantic morphemes (e.g.
tabemasu-ka ‘[do you] eat?’; tabe-masen ‘eat [polite negative]’), phrasal morphemes (e.g. nom-
a+na-i ‘do not drink’), inter-phrasal morphemes (e.g. passive, causative, and benefactive
[giving-receiving] forms). Kawaguchi’s production data, obtained in both longitudinal and
cross-sectional studies, tend to support this developmental sequence: L2 Japanese verbal
morphology seems to be acquired in a fixed order that is predictable through the identification
of the hierarchy of processing prerequisites for sentence production.
Studies of L2 Japanese relative clauses (e.g. Ozeki 2005; Ozeki & Shirai 2007; Sawasaki
2009), however, did not support the generalizability of the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy
(NPAH) (Keenan & Comrie 1977, cited by Ozeki & Shirai 2007), which predicts the order
of the ease of relativization as a function of the grammatical role of the head noun phrase
modified by the relative clause: subject > direct object > indirect object > oblique (e.g.
watashi-ga kenka-o shita-hito ‘the person with whom I had a fight’) > genitive > object of
comparison. Ozeki & Shirai (2007), for instance, found that subject relative clauses were not
necessarily easier than direct object or oblique relative clauses for L2 Japanese learners, and
that the animacy of the head noun played a significant role in learners’ interpretations of
Japanese relative clauses. They attributed these inconsistent findings to structural differences
between noun-modifying clauses in Japanese and gap-involving relative clauses in European
languages.
Furthermore, longitudinal studies with L2 children in Japan (Taguchi 2001; Hashimoto
2006, 2007, 2009) have shown that L2 children use different learning strategies and, as
a result, go though different developmental paths from L1 children. Hashimoto (2006),
who examined an English-speaking L2 Japanese preschooler’s acquisition of the past-tense
marker ta, found that (a) the L2 child produced non-target like utterances that were not
observed in an L1 child’s productions, and (b) unlike the L1 child, the L2 preschooler first
generated a ‘pivot’ schema with a slot based on a cognitively and phonologically salient
unit (e.g. [ ] + chatta ‘end up -ing’) and placed any unit into the slot until she started to
place verbs (e.g. ∗ dekiru+chatta ∗ ‘end up being able to’). Likewise, Taguchi (2001) observed
that a Brazilian fourth-grader acquired the Japanese passive and causative constructions
as a series of unanalyzed expressions (e.g. okorareru ‘be scolded’), instead of learning to use
inter-phrasal morphemes productively (e.g. okor-arer-u ‘scold [passive-nonpast]’), suggesting
that the syntactic development of young JSL learners in bilingual environments might be
more accurately described as a non-linear, rather than a sequential, progression.
Despite these differences, research consistently suggests that L2 learners’ knowledge of
form-function mapping is rule-governed (Hirakawa 2001) and developmental (Sorace &
Shomura 2001; Ozeki 2003, 2008). Using the framework of Universal Grammar, Hirakawa
(2001) demonstrated English-speaking JFL learners’ sensitivity to the syntactic and semantic
properties associated with Japanese unergative and unaccusative verbs that display distinct
argument structures in intransitive constructions. Unergative verbs are typically associated
with activities, so their argument is usually an AGENT generated in the subject position (e.g.
John-ga arui-ta ‘John walked’). Unaccusative verbs, in contrast, often denote a change of state,
and their argument is a THEME or PATIENT generated in the object position (e.g. John-ga tui-ta
‘John arrived’). While Hirakawa’s study demonstrated that L2 Japanese learners generally
knew the properties of these argument structures, Sorace & Shomura (2001) found that
unergative verbs were acquired earlier than unaccusative verbs, suggesting that that type of
knowledge was developmental. In other words, intermediate JFL learners were less sensitive
to the syntactic optionality of unaccusative verbs than to the non-optionality of unergative
verbs. For example, they recognize the acceptability of the two sentences with the counter
(or ‘numeral classifier’) san-nin (three-persons) at a different position while maintaining the
same meaning: Gakusei-ga san-nin Tokyo-ni tsuita and Gakusei-ga Tokyo-ni san-nin tsuita ‘Three
students arrived at Tokyo’. On the other hand, they may not recognize that while Gakusei-
ga san-nin wazato warat-ta ‘Three students intentionally laughed’ is acceptable, ∗ Gakusei-ga
wazato san-nin warat-ta is not. Higher proficiency students made better judgments about the
unacceptability of unergative sentences than lower proficiency students.
In addition to L2 proficiency, L1 influence, L2 input, and instructional effects must
be considered in L2 Japanese syntactic development, since these factors could alter the
markedness hierarchy. Inagaki (2001), for instance, predicted that Japanese-speaking L2
English learners and English-speaking L2 Japanese learners would learn manner-of-motion
verbs in the target language in different ways, based on the syntactic differences between
English and Japanese. English manner-of-motion verbs with a prepositional phrase indicating
a goal (goal PP) (e.g. walk to school) are grammatical and thus exist in English input (providing
positive evidence), whereas their Japanese counterparts (e.g. ∗ gakkoo-e aruku ‘walk to school’)
are unacceptable and thus do not exist in Japanese input (providing negative evidence).
Grammaticality judgment tests revealed that, while Japanese-speaking L2 English learners
correctly accepted English manner-of-motion verbs with goal PPs, English-speaking L2
Japanese learners, even at an advanced level, incorrectly accepted the Japanese counterparts
despite the absence of the argument structure in Japanese, suggesting that L2 learners would
rely on their L1 knowledge when an L2 argument structure had more constraints than its
L1 counterpart. Kanno’s (2007) report, that the properties of L1 relative clauses (e.g. head
direction, word order, and relative order of filler and gap) might affect learners’ interpretations
of difficult L2 relative clauses, is consistent with this interpretation.
Marked forms that appear frequently in L2 learning environments, however, may be
acquired earlier than the markedness scale would predict. Hansen & Chen (2001), for
instance, unexpectedly observed that English-speaking missionaries who had stayed in Japan
for a relatively short period of time made correct use, in a picture-describing task, of satsu
(the counter for books) and dai (the counter for large mechanical objects), both of which
were high-frequency classifiers but were considered marked because of their inanimacy.
In addition, Yabuki-Soh (2007) found that first-level JFL students who received form-
based, explicit instruction on marked relative clauses (e.g. oblique relativization) understood
less marked items better than those who received meaning-based or form+meaning-based
instruction, demonstrating L2 Japanese learners’ ability to generalize rules for other types of
relative clauses. These findings suggest that teaching marked items may enhance students’
attention to detailed analysis of form and thus facilitate the development of relativization in
the L2.
To summarize, the studies reviewed above consistently suggest that L2 Japanese syntactic
development is not random but largely predictable from general principles; however, factors
such as L1–L2 structural differences, L1 influence, L2 proficiency, L2 input, and instruction
must be taken into consideration, as they may have a significant impact on the acquisition
paths predicted by theories. At the same time, the notion of ‘acquisition’ calls for re-
examination, as individual studies used the term differently and examined different types of
knowledge (e.g. production, accurate usage, comprehension, and grammaticality judgment).
L2 learners’ syntactic knowledge is dynamic and subject to change over time, so rigorous
longitudinal, as well as cross-sectional, studies from various perspectives are needed in this
area.
1.3 Reading and writing in L2 Japanese
The acquisition of solid reading and writing skills is essential for L2 learners, particularly
for school-age or adult JFL learners whose primary learning resources are printed materials.
Fortunately, older L2 learners have age-appropriate experience in L1 literacy, conceptual
knowledge, and cognitive resources that are not usually fully available to young L1 learners.
As a result, L2 learners are expected to have a working schema for written materials and their
own strategies for approaching text, acquired through their L1 experience. One major issue
in this area is thus the transferability of L1 text-processing strategies into the L2 (see Nara
2003 for a review of transferable and nontransferable reading skills). This line of thought
leads to the identification of factors that facilitate or interfere with the use of L1 reading or
writing strategies in L2.
Cognitive overload is one factor that may hinder the use of L1 text processing strategies
in L2. Due to their limited L2 knowledge, L2 readers tend to allocate a large part of
their cognitive resources to lower-level processing, including character/word recognition and
sentence processing. Consequently, little capacity is left for higher-level processing, resulting
in the inability to make inferences or predictions, as proficient readers do in L1. For a
manageable text or task that does not take much of the reader’s cognitive capacity, or for high
proficiency L2 readers who have acquired efficient lower-level processing skills, higher-level
processing strategies might be accessible. To address this question, Horiba (2000) compared
native and L2 readers’ text-processing strategies as they tackled demanding or less demanding
texts and tasks. The results showed that native readers generated more backward inferences
and more comments on text structure for demanding texts and tasks than for less demanding
ones, but that nonnative readers did not process texts differently according to the nature of
the task. In other words, nonnative readers did not strategically engage in different modes
of processing according to text type and task as native readers did, and their text processing
was particularly inefficient for demanding texts and tasks.
If efficient lower-level processing frees L2 readers’ cognitive capacity for higher-level
processing, then Chinese students, who already have good working character knowledge,
should be able to read L2 Japanese texts better than non-Chinese students. Machida (2001a)
found, however, that Chinese and non-Chinese intermediate L2 Japanese learners showed no
significant differences in their text-approaching strategies, and that the non-Chinese group
even outscored the Chinese group in reading comprehension tasks, while the Chinese group
outperformed in kanji comprehension tasks, both with and without context. These unexpected
findings suggest that L1 character knowledge does not necessarily guarantee skilled L2 reading
unless readers pay attention to other sources of information in a text. The superiority of the
non-Chinese group in reading comprehension, however, must be interpreted with caution,
as it might be attributable to their higher L2 proficiency, rather than to their L1 knowledge.
The benefits of extensive reading, or reading for pleasure, in improving vocabulary and
reading comprehension skills have been extensively documented in L1, as well as in L2 (e.g.
Krashen 2004). To explore the applicability of these findings to L2 Japanese, Hitosugi & Day
(2004) implemented a ten-week extensive reading program in a second-semester Japanese
course at the University of Hawai’i. In the program, students selected what they wanted to
read from a collection of Japanese children’s literature and read as many books as they could
at their own pace, following the guidelines for an extensive reading program given by Day
& Bamford (2002). By the end of the program, the extensive-program students had read an
average of 31.6 books in ten weeks, gained more in reading comprehension, and showed
stronger motivation for Japanese learning than those who did not participate in the program.
Similarly, Leung (2002) observed positive effects of extensive reading on vocabulary learning,
reading comprehension, and attitude toward reading through a case study of an adult JFL
learner’s self-study over 20 weeks.
Writing in L2 can be viewed as an effective means of self-expression, communication,
and language learning, but L2 writers often face various challenges, such as their limited L2
proficiency, a lack of L2 writing experience, time constraints, and conceptual difficulty. Hence,
issues in L2 Japanese writing include: how students define L2 writing tasks (Nakayama 2002;
Haneda 2004, 2005), the effects of L1 and learning backgrounds (Woodall 2002; Iwashita &
Sekiguchi 2009), L2 proficiency (Kubota 2001), computer use (Chikamatsu 2003; Takahashi
2009), and the role of feedback (Kubota 2001; Kondo-Brown 2002; Hirose 2004).
Haneda (2005) views L2 writing as the interplay between L2 learners’ daily interactions
with others and macrosocial situations, where their L2 use takes place. In her study, two
Canadian university students from different ethnographic backgrounds (a Japanese heritage
learner and a Caucasian student with strong career-oriented goals) exhibited considerable
differences in the way they composed a text, differences that were attributable to the learners’
life histories, their relations to the target language and culture, and their identities. In her other
study (Haneda 2004), which examined the discourse patterns in one-on-one teacher-student
interaction in joint writing conferences, she found that their interaction varied according
to students’ self-selected revision goals, the choice of discourse topic, and the teacher’s
pedagogical goals. Furthermore, the pedagogical effectiveness of a teacher-student interaction
came not from the formal properties of the interaction (e.g. triadic dialogue (Initiate-Response-
Evaluation/Follow up) or the types of questions, but from the way in which the teacher used
such interactions in order to achieve particular pedagogical goals.
L1 writing experience is a useful resource in L2 writing processes, especially for less
proficient students or for demanding tasks. Woodall (2002) observed that less proficient
L2 writers switched to their L1s in their think-aloud protocols more frequently than more
advanced learners, and that difficult tasks increased the duration of L1 use. Interestingly, an
L1 background had a different impact on the quality of L2 texts: for learners from a cognate
L1 background, longer periods of L1 use were associated with higher quality L2 texts, whereas
for non-cognate background students, the L1 switch was related to lower quality L2 texts.
Iwashita & Sekiguchi (2009), however, argued that L1 effects must be considered in relation
to instructional modes. Their analysis revealed that character-based (e.g. Chinese) post-
beginners (i.e. students who started with an intensive first-year university course) generally
performed better in kanji use and other areas than post-secondary learners (i.e. those
who started at secondary school), but that among post-secondary learners, character-based
students did not necessarily outperform non-character-based (e.g. English) learners.
Computers can be beneficial in L2 writing, their uses ranging from drafting to revising, but
Japanese word-processing input procedures can be a challenge for L2 writers. Chikamatsu
(2003) compared typed and hand-written samples of intermediate Japanese L2 learner text
and found that the typed samples outscored the hand-written samples only in word accuracy
and kanji use, but not in writing time, nor in the quality of writing measured by t-unit. In
addition, the kanji usage ratio improved significantly among mid-skilled, but not among low-
or high-skilled students, suggesting that the benefits of computer use vary according to L2
proficiency. Takahashi (2009), on the other hand, demonstrated that a computer program
encouraging reflective thinking had a positive impact on higher levels of L2 writing processes
(e.g. self-evaluation on logical sequence and content), but not on L2 use at lower levels of
analytic evaluation. These findings suggest that computer use could promote the transfer of
higher levels of thinking from L1 to L2 and ease the burden of character-writing, but that it
cannot compensate for learners’ limited knowledge in L2 use.
One question that language teachers often ask concerns the types of feedback or error
correction that L2 writers find useful. Kubota (2001) found that, rather than the teacher
providing a correct form, an error coding system (indicating the type of an error, such as
P for a postpositional particle error) was effective for self-revising in L2 Japanese writing
in general. However, the effectiveness of this approach varied depending on error types
and L2 proficiency. Particle errors, for example, were relatively easy to fix, partly because
of the limited number of particles, but word choice errors were extremely difficult to self-
correct. Kubota pointed out that, while high proficiency students might simply need to
be informed of the locations of errors as their grammaticality judgments improved and
their proficiency increased, lower proficiency students might need more explicit feedback.
Teacher feedback, however, differed significantly in rating criteria and bias patterns (e.g.
their overall severity for extremely high- or low-ability students), although experienced JFL
teachers generally produced consistent self-evaluations (Kondo-Brown 2002). Furthermore,
Hirose (2004) found that, unlike teacher feedback, peer responses addressed the content
of essays more frequently than linguistic structures (e.g. grammar, spelling, mechanics), but
that peer comments regarding the content were not incorporated in student revisions at all,
suggesting that the effectiveness of feedback was confounded with feedback types and student
perceptions.
As we have seen, research in L2 reading and writing addresses key themes in SLA, such
as cross-linguistic transfer, L1–L2 interface, cognitive load, socio-cultural factors affecting
learning contexts, the role of instruction and feedback, and learner perception and goals.
Too much focus on the end products might lead one to overlook insights into L2 Japanese
reading and writing processes. A student’s failure to incorporate teacher feedback in a revised
draft, for instance, might be due to a lack of attention, a misunderstanding, or the inability
to correct errors due to limited L2 proficiency. Research in this area therefore requires more
in-depth analysis of on-going processes from multiple perspectives.
1.4 Interlanguage pragmatics and language socialization
Research on L2 Japanese has maintained a strong tradition in its investigation of interlanguage

pragmatics and language socialization. Topics explored in this area of research include
types of speech act, such as requests or refusals, the use of interactional particles and
other utterance-final expressions, honorific speech styles, demonstration of listenership and
alignment, comprehension of formulaic expressions and indirect meanings, or enhancement
of discourse cohesion and coherence. The existence of a rich set of indexical resources that
are critical for Japanese interaction, but hard to learn and teach, appears to have prompted
many researchers to examine closely L1 and L2 speakers’ language use. Anecdotes and folk
beliefs concerning differences between Eastern and Western styles of communication may
have also contributed to this development.
One of the traditional approaches in interlanguage pragmatics research is to compare L1
and L2 speakers’ performance in the use of interactional particles (Masuda 2009), hearsay
evidentials (K. Ishida 2006), honorific forms (Ikeda 2009), or particular speech acts and
interactional moves. Iwasaki (2009), for instance, compared how L1 and L2 speakers state
and support their opinions in an interview setting, and found that L1 speakers frequently
used various mitigation devices to seek common ground with the interlocutor, whereas L2
speakers rarely employed such devices. Nakai (2002), on the other hand, analyzed how L1
and L2 speakers support their co-participants in topic openings and closings in face-to-
face conversation. She reported that L2 speakers’ lack of knowledge of topic-shifting devices
caused them to open and close topics in a rather abrupt manner; as a result, these L2 speakers
created an impression that they did not understand or appreciate the topics introduced by
their L1 interlocutors.
Receptive and interpretive skills for certain pragmatic features are yet another area where
L1 and L2 speakers have been compared. Hagiwara (2009), for instance, reports that L1
speakers and intermediate L2 learners differ in their interpretation of formulaic utterances.
Cook (2001) demonstrates how native-speaking teachers and L2 learners showed different
levels of sensitivity towards the inconsistent use of desu/masu style observed in audio-recorded
self-introductions. Similarly, H. Ishida (2006) points out qualitative differences between L1
and L2 speakers’ perception and interpretation of back-channel cues.
The performance of L2 learners on different levels has also been studied in order to
trace the general trend of their development. Taguchi (2008), for instance, compared the
ways that beginning, intermediate, and advanced level learners interpret indirect meaning,
and reported that a proficiency effect was observed on accuracy but not on comprehension
speed. Further, Watanabe (2003) provided a close examination of ACTFL oral proficiency
interviews (OPIs) at the Intermediate-High through Superior levels, paying special attention
to L2 speakers’ use of cohesive and coherence devices. Her analysis shows that upper-
level speakers used a wider range of devices to extend discourse and to signal discourse
organization. Likewise, Geyer (2007a, 2007b) sheds light on the close relationship between
pragmatic, grammatical, and discourse competence in learner language by analyzing the
use of contrastive markers in OPIs involving Novice to Superior L2 speakers. The results
of her study also suggest that upper-level speakers employ various lexical and grammatical
markers in an effective manner to foreground their assertions while properly inserting self-
qualifications. These studies show how important it is to teach students how to use a range
of predicate endings, connective words, discourse markers, and sentence-final and clausal
particles to create extended connected discourse.
The identification of gaps between L1 and L2 speakers’ performance has also inspired
studies of the effect of explicit instruction. Tateyama (2001, 2009), for instance, examined
how consciousness-raising activities, which include viewing video clips and reviewing
their transcripts, may facilitate L2 speakers’ understanding of pragmatic routines, such
as thanking, apologizing, or requesting. Yoshimi (2001), K. Ishida (2009), and Kakegawa
(2009) investigated how instructional interventions would improve learners’ understanding
of the use of interactional discourse markers (n desu, n desu kedo, n desu ne), different speech
styles, and interactional particles. While these studies demonstrate some positive results
from explicit instruction, they also acknowledge the complex factors that contribute to
the development of discourse-pragmatic competence. Remaining questions concern the
effect of learners’ motivation and other affective factors, the applicability of the knowledge
gained through short-term explicit instruction to situations outside the classroom and
experimental settings, and the relationship between explicit instruction and incidental
learning that may occur through learners’ exposure to, and socialization in, real-life
interaction.
A growing number of qualitative studies explore these questions by examining how L2
speakers participate in classroom and out-of-classroom interactions. Ohta’s (2001a, 2001b)
longitudinal classroom research is a seminal example. She documented how novice learners
developed an interactional style of listener response not only through the teacher’s explicit
instruction, but also through the learners’ recurring participation in interactional routines in
the language classroom. In a different study, M. Ishida (2006) described how an L2 learner,
through repeated participation in decision-making activities with a native speaker, came
to understand the functions of modal expressions. The learner also gained the ability to
anticipate the trajectory of the decision-making sequence.
The process of language socialization has also been explored in the study-abroad context.
M. Ishida (2009), for instance, investigated how one learner, during his nine-month study
abroad experience, expanded his interactional repertoires through the use of the particle ne.
Iwasaki (2010) compared five learners’ uses of desu/masu and plain forms before and after their
study abroad, and showed that they all gained some understanding of the social meanings of
style shift, but that they did not all make the same use of this resource. The results indicate
that these learners established their ability to make their own choices as to how they wanted
to present themselves in different social contexts. Indeed, Cook (2008) offers a rich analysis
of dinner-time conversations between learners of Japanese and their host families, revealing
how these learners were socialized to use an appropriate speech selection between desu/masu
and plain forms, as well as how they accomplished the socialization of their identities through
the style shift.
These recent studies call attention to the issue of identities involved in the development
of interactional competence. Rather than assuming that there is a set of norms and patterns
of language use uniformly adhered to by all speakers of Japanese, they explore how various
pragmatic factors come into play to create speakers’ social or situated identities. This line of
research contrasts sharply with the studies reviewed earlier in this section, which generally
compare faceless, uniform categories of L2 learners as deficient communicators and L1
speakers as target models. In addition, increasing numbers of recent studies (e.g. Ishihara &
Tarone 2009; Kumagai & Sato 2009) have addressed how learners’ experiences of language
socialization can differ, depending on what kinds of social communities they want to belong
to or what kinds of identities are attributed to them by other people. L2 speakers do not have
to follow idealized native speaker models all the time and the mastery of the target models
does not necessarily guarantee that they will be treated like natives. To this end, studies such
as Fukuda (2006), Zimmermann (2007), and Suzuki (2009) offer microanalyses of the ways
in which linguistic or cultural identities are ascribed, claimed, resisted, or co-constructed in
interactions between L1 and L2 speakers.
Finally, while traditional approaches tend to focus on linguistic resources, especially those
that are most noticeable and considered unique to Japanese, an emerging body of studies
investigates how L2 speakers coordinate linguistic and non-linguistic resources in order to
accomplish their participation in social interaction (e.g. Mori & Hayashi 2006; Okada &
Yanagimachi 2008; Yanagimachi 2009; Mori 2010). The impartial close analysis of video-
recorded interactions with no preconceived notions regarding what L2 learners should study
can lead to the discovery of previously unnoticed linguistic and non-linguistic resources that
enable speakers to accomplish particular social actions. The findings from such research can
contribute to the reconsideration of goals and processes of L2 pragmatic development.
1.5 Affective factors in L2 Japanese learning
The study of individual differences in SLA has identified a number of nonlinguistic factors
in an attempt to account for why some L2 learners are more successful than others. One
possible source of individual differences can be found in affective factors, including motivation,
anxiety, attitudes, and learner perceptions. Affective studies are founded on the assumption
that students take different approaches to a certain task because they have different goals,
feelings, attitudes, and perceptions, which eventually influence their degree of success in L2
learning. Research has demonstrated that learner affect is a complex system of multiple,
independent constructs, and that learners’ task-specific beliefs can be related to their strategy
use. Consequently, affective research has taken at least two distinct methodological directions:
one is a large-scale quantitative approach to identify observable factors and explore the
relationship between the identified variables and learning behaviors; the other is an in-depth,
context-specific analysis focusing on a single or small number of individual learner(s).
1.5.1 Motivation
To identify observable factors underlying FL students’ motivations, self-reported strategy
use, and preferred pedagogical activities, Schmidt and Watanabe (2001) conducted a
large-scale questionnaire survey involving 2,089 learners of five different languages (Mandarin
Chinese, Filipino, French, Japanese, and Spanish) at the University of Hawai’i. Separate factor
analysis for each language identified motivational factors that were comparable across the
languages: VALUE APPRECIATION, EXPECTANCY, MOTIVATIONAL STRENGTH, COMPETITIVENESS,
COOPERATIVENESS, HERITAGE, and LANGUAGE REQUIREMENT. Interestingly, learners of the
Asian languages showed significantly stronger ethnic heritage motivation than learners of
the non-Asian languages, possibly due to the large number of Asian heritage students in the
Hawaiian context. Heritage motivation, however, was not correlated with perceived strategy
use or preferences for learning activities.
Likewise, Yang (2003), who conducted a questionnaire survey involving 341 college
students enrolling in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean courses in seven mid-western American
universities, found that heritage status was the strongest motivation for East Asian
language learners among seven identified motivational orientations (MOs): INTEGRATIVE,
INSTRUMENTAL, HERITAGE-RELATED, TRAVEL, INTEREST, SCHOOL-RELATED, and LANGUAGE
USE. In addition, heritage students showed stronger HERITAGE-RELATED and SCHOOL-RELATED
MOs than non-heritage students, whereas non-heritage students demonstrated a greater
INTEREST MO than heritage learners, suggesting that HERITAGE- and SCHOOL-RELATED
motivations are among the traits that characterize learners of East Asian languages.
JFL learners, however, may have a stronger instrumental motivation than other East Asian
language learners. Wharton (2005) found that a majority of bilingual undergraduates in a
management university in Singapore demanded more opportunities for FL study, particularly
for Japanese, French, and Spanish, and that their primary motivation was to learn about the
target culture to enhance their employment marketability. In other words, Japanese is seen as a
socio-economic tool that enhances students’ professional opportunities, a view different from
that of other East Asian language learners, especially L2 Korean learners, who demonstrated
strong heritage-related motivation.
1.5.2 Anxiety
Anxiety related to JFL learning has been observed to negatively influence students’
achievement (Machida 2001b, 2001c; Samimy 2003). Machida’s (2001b, 2001c)
questionnaire surveys involving 166 Australian college students enrolling in first-level Japanese
courses, for instance, revealed that students’ performance on oral tests were negatively
correlated with both situation-specific anxiety (i.e. oral test anxiety) and state anxiety (i.e.
anxiety the student felt before and after oral examinations). In addition, high-scoring students
exhibited slightly less anxiety than low or medium achievers, suggesting that confidence in
one’s own ability was associated with high performance, or that successful achievement leads
to less anxiety. Likewise, Kitano’s (2001) survey involving 212 JFL college students revealed
that fear of negative evaluation and low self-perceived speaking ability were associated with a
high anxiety level. Interestingly, male students who lacked confidence in their own speaking
ability are more prone to feel anxiety than their female counterparts, suggesting gender
differences in the impact of self-perceived abilities on anxiety level. These findings, however,
must be interpreted with caution, as correlation cannot determine the direction of causal
relations.
1.5.3 Learner/teacher perceptions and attitudes
As examined earlier, kanji perception studies have demonstrated (a) considerable individual
differences in students’ kanji learning beliefs and (b) a relationship between perceptions and
actual learning/teaching behaviors (Shimizu & Green 2002; Gamage 2003; Grainger 2005;
Kondo-Brown 2006a; Mori & Shimizu 2007; Mori et al. 2007). This line of thought enables
researchers to identify sources of individual differences in task-specific beliefs. To explore
instructional impacts as a possible source of introductory JFL students’ different views of
the Japanese writing system, Dewey (2004a) compared the attitudes of two groups of college
students toward script use: one group was taught authentic Japanese script as soon as they
started learning Japanese, and the other group was exposed to ROMANIZED Japanese first
and authentic script later. The two groups showed a similar degree of satisfaction as their
teachers with the script used in the classroom, suggesting a significant impact of instruction
and teacher beliefs on the formulation of student perceptions, at least in the initial stage of
L2 learning.
Similarly, a series of assessment studies conducted by Tucker, Donato and their associates
(Antonek et al. 2000; Donato et al. 2000; Igarashi et al. 2002) suggested that JFL children’s
self-assessment of their own L2 proficiency was attributable to the nature of the class activities,
instruction, and student proficiency. According to their data, children who participated in
multiple years of the Japanese FLES (Foreign Language Learning in the Elementary School) program
(for 75 minutes a week) were judged to be at the novice-mid level, based on their scale
adapted from the ACTFL oral proficiency rating scale, and students’ high self-assessment
declined considerably as task demands increased. Class observation over a seven-month
period revealed that the teacher focused mainly on word meanings and context, and that
student responses rarely moved beyond the single word level. In addition, highly routinized
class activities did not provide ample opportunities to practice modes of discourse, and
children’s narrations were often developed in collaboration with the interlocutor. In short,
FLES children’s achievement might be a product of classroom instruction; even young learners
were aware of what they could do or could not do in L2 Japanese.
Interactional resources available outside the classroom could also promote learning
opportunities, and the way in which L2 learners socially structure the learning environment
and the patterns of their language choice reflect their attitudes toward the target language and
culture. Kurata’s (2004, 2007) in-depth, semi-structured interviews identified several traits
in a small number of Australian intermediate-level JFL learners’ communication networks
with native speakers of Japanese after their stays in Japan: large networks, multiple clusters
recruited from diverse activity fields, the learners’ engagement in a wide range of activities
with their Japanese native network members, mutual and equal relationships, and a wide
variety of backgrounds among the members of their network. In particular, the informants’
many social roles and transactional content involving complex topics in their discussions
with Japanese natives seemed to be closely related to the raising of their linguistic, as well as
non-linguistic, awareness.
Links between learner affect and success in learning can be interpreted in two ways:
successful learners exhibit positive feelings and strong motivation for L2 learning, and success
in learning promotes a sense of achievement. Affective factors are conceptualized as dynamic,
not fixed, so future studies should address the malleability of student perceptions in relation
to the effects of external factors, such as instruction and communication networks.
1.6 Multilingualism and the acquisition of Japanese as a heritage language
As a result of globalization, an increasing number of school-age children, accompanied by

their parents, receive formal education in a foreign country. Many of them struggle to learn the
mainstream language as L2 to acculturate to the foreign community in which they are growing
up, while also trying to maintain their home language and ethnic identity. Recently, there
has been growing interest among L2 Japanese educators and researchers in the language
and identity problems faced by multilingual and/or multicultural children. Within Japan,
where Japanese is the mainstream language, JSL education for migrant workers’ children
has become a major concern (e.g. Kanno 2008). Outside Japan, where Japanese is not the
dominant language, the maintenance or acquisition of Japanese as a heritage language (JHL)
becomes an issue (e.g. Kondo-Brown 2006b). While both JSL and JHL learners must receive
equal attention, this section provides an overview of issues in multilingualism, mainly from
JHL perspectives, with a hope that a focus on Japanese as a minority language illuminates
problems associated with multilingualism.
One reason why issues in JHL attract the attention of L2 Japanese researchers is
that JHL learners tend to be far more proficient in the mainstream language than in
JHL, but their language proficiency demonstrates different traits from that of L2 or first
language (L1) (Lee 2005; Kondo-Brown 2006b). JHL learners usually possess strong Japanese
listening comprehension skills, acquired mainly through interactions with their Japanese-
speaking parent(s) at home, but varying degrees of speaking and literacy skills. Furthermore,
young heritage language (HL) learners’ dominant language usually shifts from their HL
to the mainstream language as they grow up (language shift). Even with some degree of
parental or educational support, the majority of school-age Japanese-speaking children
attending hoshuukoo (‘supplemental’ schools outside Japan that offer the Japanese school
system curriculum) in the United States were seen to become English-dominant partial
bilinguals (Kataoka, Koshiyama & Shibata 2005). Thus, JHL learners’ linguistic and cultural
competence cannot be equated with that of L1 learners, who usually use the mainstream
language only. At the same time, JHL learners demonstrate different language skills, cultural
awareness, and motivational orientation from JFL learners, who often choose to learn
Japanese despite having little prior linguistic and/or cultural background knowledge before
being exposed to the language (Kondo-Brown 2001a, 2001b, 2005; Lee 2005). Language
instruction for JHL learners should therefore be tailored to their linguistic and cultural needs
(Lee 2005; Kondo-Brown 2006b).
In addition, JHL learners show considerable individual variation in their bilingual
competence, which begins to broaden around the fourth grade (Kataoka, Koshiyama
& Shibata 2005). JHL learners’ bilingual development is substantially influenced by
the amount of Japanese used at home (Shibata & Koshiyama 2001; Kondo-Brown
2005). Kondo-Brown (2005), for example, compared Japanese language proficiency among
JFL learners and three subgroups of JHL learners (JHL Descent Group with no
Japanese-speaking parent or grandparent; JHL Grandparent Group with at least one

Japanese-born grandparent but no Japanese-speaking parent; and JHL Parent Group with
at least one Japanese-speaking parent). The JHL Parent Group demonstrated significantly
higher grammar knowledge and listening and reading proficiency than the other groups,
and made higher self-assessments; and the other two JHL groups did not differ from JFL
students.
Researchers in bilingualism are also interested in whether the two language systems develop
independently or interdependently. One assumption, known as linguistic interdependence, is
that children’s bilingual development is founded on a common underlying proficiency (CUP),
and that a well-established CUP is transferable between L1 and L2. This position, if correct,
predicts an association between high L1 aptitude and high L2 proficiency. Minami (2003),
for instance, demonstrated a positive correlation between English and Japanese vocabulary
usage among bilingual children (ages 6–12), using Bilingual Verbal Ability Tests (BVAT).
Mishima-Mori (2002), however, found no signs of bilingual interaction in two Japanese-
English bilingual children’s usage of past tense marking and negation. Shibata (2004) also
found no significant relationship between Japanese and English proficiency among JHL
college students. These contradictory findings suggest substantial individual variation among
JHL learners in their bilingual attainment.
However, adult learners with a high level of JHL literacy show common traits and similar
language experiences. First, competent JHL readers had access to sufficient Japanese printed
material, in particular ‘light’ reading materials that fostered their interest in recreational
reading, in their home and JHL community (Tse 2001). Yoshimitsu (2000) observed that
Australian-born JHL children with permanent residence status who had attained as good
command of Japanese as temporarily resident children were motivated to learn Japanese,
and enjoyed reading Japanese books and playing with Japanese-speaking friends. Second,
successful JHL learners had contact with community institutions that provided literacy
experience beyond the home, including religious organizations (Tse 2001), JHL schools
(Shibata & Koshiyama 2001) and hoshuukoo (Chinen & Tucker 2006).
JHL learners’ ethnic identity is another factor that plays a significant role in their bilingual
development. In general, Japanese ethnic identity is thought to be associated with a high level
of Japanese language proficiency, and participation in a JHL program (e.g. hoshuukoo) promotes
Japanese ethnic identity development and eventually has a positive impact on JHL proficiency,
particularly on literacy skills (Chinen & Tucker 2006). Conversely, ethnic ambivalence or
rejection of one’s own ethnic identity leads to negative attitudes toward the ethnic group and
its language speakers, feelings that extend to a lack of interest in maintaining and developing
their HL (Tse 2000). These Japanese/non-Japanese continuum models, however, may not
accurately describe new generations’ identities as multilingual speakers. McMahill (2005),
for instance, described how a class project (creating a world globe) in a first-grade classroom
in a trilingual (English, Portuguese, and Japanese) community school in Japan – a grassroots
effort by multilingual parents and teachers to pass on their languages and cultural values
to younger generations – created an opportunity for debating the values of non-English or
non-Japanese languages and cultures. Such multilingual education evidenced the emergence
of children’s identities as multilingual speakers. Similarly, Morita (2003), through her analysis
of young children’s insertion of English personal pronouns into Japanese speech, interpreted
Japanese-English bilingual children’s code mixing as indicating their emerging identities as

bilingual speakers.
An examination of JHL learners’ ethnic identities leads to investigations of a broader
multilingual context that involves social factors, such as ethnolinguistic vitality and social
networks. Sakamoto (2001; 2006) examined retrospective data from five Japanese immigrant
families living in Toronto, Canada, using Engeström’s activity theory framework (1999, cited
by Sakamoto 2001), and found that Japanese was viewed as a medium for establishing
and retaining family bonding, and that English was considered an indispensable socio-
economic tool. As a result, all her informants said they supported their children’s JHL
oral development because good oral communication was key to family bonding, but some
parents did not actively enforce the use of written Japanese or honorific discourse because
these types of formal Japanese were not necessary at home. Given that individual parents’
efforts and resources are varied and limited, Shibata (2000) argues that extra-curricular
JHL schools/programs are one of the most effective ways for Japanese-born parents to pass
on their HL to their children in a location where ethnolinguistic vitality is low. Her case
study identified five essential components that would be required to open a JHL school:
leadership, parental and community support, teaching methodology, and materials. Siegel
(2004) identified two additional components that were required to assure ethnolinguistic
vitality and continuity, namely social networks and administrative policies.
Despite their limitations, a growing number of JHL studies in English-speaking countries
address key issues in multilingualism, including learners’ ethnographic backgrounds and
bilingual competence, their psychological and sociocultural factors, identity issues, L1-L2
relations, and the ethnolinguistic vitality of a multilingual community. These issues should
be further investigated, with both conceptually and methodologically rigorous approaches,
in different L2 Japanese acquisition contexts involving groups of young learners who have
not been examined by the studies reported in this section (e.g. JSL children in Japan and
JHL learners in other areas). A review of published works in those areas would be useful for
obtaining a better understanding of the problems faced by multilingual children.
2. Issues in pedagogical practice
2.1 Instructional approaches and curriculum design
During the last two decades, efforts to establish a common standard or framework for language
education have been seen in various parts of the world. Both the Standards for Foreign Language
Learning: Preparing for the 21st Century (hereafter, the U.S. Standards) and the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages: Language, Teaching, and Assessment (CEFR) first appeared
in 1996 and went through revisions during the following decade. More recently, in 2010,
the Japan Foundation released the JF Standard for Japanese Language Education (JF Standard,
http://jfstandard.jp), which is modeled on the CEFR. These documents all emphasize the
necessity of identifying learners’ needs and goals, and encourage educators to consider what
learners should be able to do in L2 upon completion of a particular unit, as they develop
materials, activities, and assessment tools.
The establishment of these standards has had varying degrees of impact depending on the
language, level of instruction, institution, and region. Falsgraf (2001), for instance, discusses
the fundamentals of a standard-based system with reference to developments in the state
of Oregon, where strong legislative and policy mandates have accelerated JFL educators’
adaptation to this new approach. He concludes that the standard-based approach, which lays
out clear, specific, performance-based goals for instruction and requires reliable and practical
assessment methods to monitor learners’ progress towards those goals, has improved not
only student performance but also teacher quality. In addition, Yamada & Moeller (2001)
reported on their design of a project-based unit around pen-pal letter exchanges, following
the guidelines of the U.S. Standards. Their action research study describes how a classroom
lesson can be changed from a prescriptive form-focused approach to a descriptive meaning-
focused one. A number of similar action research studies have been presented at regional,
national, and international conferences during the last decade.
This shift towards an emphasis on meaning and effective communication and away from
purely form-focused instruction has promoted a number of instructional methods. While
the influence of communicative approaches is still prevalent, others, such as content-based,
sociocultural, or literacy-oriented approaches, have recently gained recognition. However, the
application of these approaches, first developed for teaching English and other commonly
taught European languages, to JFL, raises some unique issues. For instance, as discussed
earlier, non-Western orthographic systems present a challenge to a balanced development of
oral proficiency and literacy in JFL. Indeed, the timing of the introduction of the Japanese
syllabaries (Hatasa 2002; Dewey 2004a) and the place of handwriting – given the existence
of word-processing technologies (Allen 2008) – have been subjects of controversy in their
own right. Further, for English and other European language speakers, the grammatical
structures of Japanese, being different from those of their native language, and the lack of
cognates between their L1 and L2, present additional challenges. As a result, ideas based on
the instruction of commonly taught European languages cannot be easily or speedily adapted
to JFL contexts.
Acknowledging such challenges, many still advocate the importance of content-based
instruction (CBI). Spence-Brown (2001), for instance, argues that by incorporating Japanese
studies content into language courses, learners can gain social and cultural knowledge
essential for effective communication: they are learning the language, and at the same time,
using it to do something meaningful. To overcome obstacles such as the lack of material
and teacher expertise, she recommends collaboration between Japanese studies experts and
language experts.
Douglas & Kataoka (2008), however, emphasize the importance of designing systematic
and consistent scaffolding activities in order to make selected materials accessible for students
whose proficiency may not be advanced enough to tackle them on their own. Similarly,
Hasegawa & Kambara (2008) argue that, for understanding authentic materials, it is critical
to develop students’ ability to appreciate aspects such as rhetorical structure, organizational
cues, cohesive devices, which are typically not covered in introductory language courses
(see also Fujii 2005 for a similar discussion). Further, Morioka, Takakura & Uchida (2008)
introduce web-based multilevel materials developed by the California State University system
for promoting Japanese CBI, showcasing sample activities from a second year course and a
heritage language course. In addition, Chikamatsu’s (2009) case study of CBI implemented
in an advanced level university classroom documents how a local community of Japanese
and Japanese-Americans were brought into the students’ learning experience.
One of the areas where CBI has been adopted for some time is language for specific
purposes (LSP), such as technical Japanese (e.g. Tsutsui 2001) or business Japanese (e.g.
Wei 2003; Takami 2005). Wei (2003), for instance, introduces a case study of a course she
developed for a group of advanced learners of Japanese, who were legal specialists soon
to be assigned to Tokyo. The goal of this course was to develop their understanding of
Japanese corporate culture and current affairs, at the same time promoting their language
proficiency. Even for such a small, coherent group of learners, Wei found it challenging to
locate appropriate course materials and design suitable instructional activities. In a different
study, Takami (2005) discusses an intermediate level business Japanese course offered for the
general undergraduate population. In order to make authentic materials on relevant topics
accessible to learners at this level, Takami found it necessary to rewrite some texts, a move
that some have questioned. In addition, although the implementation of CBI is not their
main focus, Thomson, Masumi-So & Osho (2001) also report on how an intermediate level
course was developed centering on the practices of the tourism and hospitality industry, a
major employer of Australian non-native speakers of Japanese.
For these newer approaches to succeed, however, it is critical that both instructors and
learners understand their benefits. A survey of Japanese, Spanish, and Swahili students
conducted by Kubota, Austin & Saito-Abbot (2003), for instance, reveals that while the
authors consider it important to include sociopolitical issues in foreign language classrooms,
students often perceive language learning and content learning as separate matters and tend
to prefer language courses to focus on grammar, vocabulary, and basic communication. Such
perceptions about the nature of language courses may be the results of students’ socialization
through exposure to classroom interactions, textbooks, and public discourse that represent
the persistent influence of conventional views of language learning. Parry’s (2000) review of
introductory Japanese language textbooks, for instance, suggests that despite the authors’
claims that their textbooks adopt a Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach,
the approach is only partially reflected in the design of exercises. According to Parry, while
meaningless form-concerned grammatical exercises are not very common, a large portion of
the exercises still impose control over the expected correct utterance. Mori’s (2005) analysis
of the sample dialogs included in introductory textbooks also provokes a similar observation.
The use of these introductory textbooks may unintentionally cultivate a particular view of
what classroom language learning should be like, although it must also be acknowledged that
the value of these traditional teaching and learning practices cannot be easily dismissed.
In order to compensate for the limitation of textbooks and classroom instruction, several
case studies report web-based projects designed to supplement regular classroom activities.
Fukai, Nazikian & Sato (2008), for instance, describe how the authors introduced sociocultural
approaches to assessment activities by incorporating web-based peer learning and portfolio
projects. These projects provided students with opportunities to engage in self- as well as
peer-assessments and reflect on their own language learning experiences. Ishihara (2007)
introduces a web-based pragmatics curriculum developed for JFL learners, which aims to
raise learners’ awareness. The web-based self-study curriculum encourages students to take
the perspectives of researchers or ethnographers, and examine language use in a descriptive

manner.
The trials and errors documented by the studies reviewed in this section offer language
educators invaluable information that could help them design lessons and curricula suitable
for a particular local context. Obviously, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to issues such as
what kinds of content should be selected or how to balance form-focused instruction, contents,
tasks, and activities, and the increasing diversity of learners that have to be accommodated
in the same program may exacerbate these difficulties. For instance, while the challenges in
learning Japanese experienced by speakers of English and other European language were
mentioned earlier in this section, the situation is dramatically different for Chinese and Korean
learners. Their knowledge of characters gives Chinese learners of Japanese an advantage
over others who have to start learning them from scratch. Because Japanese and Korean
grammatical structures are very similar, Korean learners of Japanese tend to develop their
oral proficiency much faster than speakers of other languages. However, with the globalization
of higher education, more and more classrooms have to accommodate students from diverse
language and cultural backgrounds learning together, not only in Japan, but also elsewhere.
Students differ not only in their language backgrounds, but in their interests and career
aspirations, and this also makes it difficult to select a topic or activity that will serve everyone
involved. To this end, the ‘can do’ list and the portfolio-based assessment introduced by CEFR
and JF Standard may help learners and teachers identify the trajectory of each learner, as
well as common features among a group of learners. Furthermore, as we shall discuss in the
next section, while the U.S. Standards have been influential in the development of language
education in the U.S. over the past ten years, they have not escaped criticism. Studies in the
next decade, we hope, will continue to address how these standard-setting documents should
influence language teaching practices, as well as how they should be modified by reflecting
the needs of the rapidly changing world in which language learners find themselves.
2.2 Conceptualization of ‘culture’ in language education
Learning a foreign language cannot be accomplished without learning the culture embodied
by, and constructed through, the language. While this view is widely accepted among
educators and researchers, the complexity and elusiveness of culture results in diverse
perspectives and approaches as to how culture should be conceptualized and integrated
into foreign language education.
Kubota (2003) discusses the danger in the U.S. Standards’ tendency to reinforce static,
fixed images of a given culture as a representation of a homogeneous group. Although it
is an important step toward developing an understanding of the differences and similarities
between the Self and the Other, Kubota warns that prescriptive approaches that underscore
binary judgments of what is ‘correct versus incorrect’ about the culture may prevent students
from developing a deeper and more nuanced understanding. Instead, Kubota argues for
the importance of promoting students’ critical thinking or, in other words, a DESCRIPTIVE
understanding of a culture with the appreciation of DIVERSITY within the culture as well as
its DYNAMIC and DISCURSIVE construction. This alternative perspective has been observed in
a number of studies published in the last decade (e.g. Tai 2003; Kubota 2008; Sato & Doerr
2008; but see Makino 2009 for a different view).
This critical approach examines how ideologies are introduced and recreated in
Japanese language classrooms and language textbooks. Matsumoto & Okamoto (2003),
for instance, reviewed five commonly used textbooks and showed how they provide
simplified accounts of sociolinguistic phenomena such as communication styles (politeness,
indirectness, self-effacement), speech styles (formal versus informal), and ‘standard’ Japanese
and regional dialects. They caution that such simplification and over-emphasis on generalized
cultural values can actually hinder learners’ development of sociolinguistic competence.
Indeed,Shimizu’s (2009) study of JFL and JSL learners’ responses to compliments attests to the
unwanted consequence of simplified and generalized instruction about culture. Specifically,
the results of his study indicate that JFL learners frequently responded to a compliment with
an explicit denial, which textbooks often introduce as a generalized ideal response.
Likewise, Heinrich (2005) points out that the language ideologies that surface in JFL
teaching materials developed in the 1970s and 1980s often legitimize socially accepted
knowledge originating in the educated middle class of urban centers. Ando (2005) also
argues that the concept of ‘correctness’ prevalent in Japanese language classrooms is
heavily influenced by the ideology of standard Japanese. She encourages Japanese language
instructors to reflect on language used in real-life situations and reconsider what counts as
‘correct’ and how, and by whom, that correctness has been determined. Furthermore, Siegal
& Okamoto (2003) and Thomson & Otsuji (2003) examine how textbooks tend to introduce
stereotyped, hegemonic images of gender roles and gendered speech styles, and suggest that
the introduction of traditional norms and viewpoints should be accompanied by critical
reflections on how they were established and how they may or may not apply to real-life
situations.
As mentioned earlier, in order to curtail the tendency to introduce culture as a set of
simple, unambiguous norms, Spence-Brown (2001) advocates the effective integration of
language instruction and Japanese studies and CBI; Ohara, Saft, & Crookes’s (2001) attempt
to incorporate a feminist critical pedagogy into a beginning level course, or Iwasaki &
Kumagai’s (2008) action research on critical reading implemented in an advanced level
reading course provide examples of such integration. In order to pursue opportunities of
collaboration with Japanese Studies experts, as proposed by Spence-Brown, language experts
need to expand their understanding of how culture is approached in different disciplines
within the humanities and beyond. Indeed, many students in higher education have exposure
to courses in anthropology, history, literature, political science, or sociology, and the knowledge
and critical perspectives that they gain through these courses can also inform their learning
in the language classroom.
Learners’ exposure to culture, of course, is not limited to the formal instructions discussed
so far. The study by Shimizu (2009), mentioned earlier, also demonstrated that JSL learners
who had ample opportunities to interact with native speakers outside the classroom appeared
to have modified their understanding of how one should respond to compliments, which was
originally based on textbook instruction. Itakura’s (2004) study of a collaborative intercultural
email project between Hong Kong learners and native speakers of Japanese also explored
how the learners form, reaffirm, or modify cultural stereotypes about Japan by interpreting
various types of input, including classroom teaching and remarks from native speakers and
fellow learners, as well as the mass media. The effects of learners’ interactions with native
speakers upon the formation of their cultural understanding is also evident in Cook’ (2006)
and Iino’s (2006) studies, which examine interactions between learners studying abroad in
Japan and their host family members. Their everyday interactions provided both parties with
opportunities to become aware of each other’s cultural assumptions, and to jointly construct
or renegotiate folk beliefs.
Finally, the recent surge of interest in Japanese popular culture cannot be dismissed.
Increased access to popular culture materials, such as manga, anime, dramas, games, and music,
and the rapid growth of online fan communities have certainly changed and expanded the
environments in which the learning of Japanese language and culture takes place, as observed
by Thorne (2009). While this observation has been confirmed by numerous anecdotes shared
among Japanese language educators, until now few systematic studies have been conducted
to investigate the impact of popular culture fandom upon the learning of language and
culture. Fukunaga (2006) is one of a few published studies that explore how students who
self-identify as anime fans incorporate their anime knowledge while learning the language,
and how they apply newly acquired knowledge of vocabulary, grammar, writing systems,
and culture through their language classroom experience to enhance their appreciation of
anime.
While restricted or simplified presentations of culture in language classrooms have long
been subject to criticism, a wide range of cultural products, practices, and perspectives have
become easily available to learners outside the classroom. Nevertheless, these learners may
not have a sophisticated lens through which to appreciate the discursive construction of
culture. Questions of how to conceptualize culture and how to introduce it in language
classrooms need to be reconsidered vis-à-vis ever-changing environments, including reality
and cyberspace, where today’s learners are situated.
2.3 Classroom discourse
Along with the exploration of innovative instructional approaches, the investigation of

classroom discourse has also expanded its scope during the last decade. While classroom
research used to focus on teacher-student interactions, a growing number of recent studies
have examined how peer-to-peer interactions are carried out in actual classroom settings.
In the meantime, the methodological and conceptual frameworks adopted for classroom
research have also become diversified.
Studies conducted within cognitive/psycholinguistic frameworks, for instance, typically
measure language learning in terms of the expansion of knowledge of linguistic systems
and their accurate execution. One of the key questions explored in this tradition concerns
what kind of interactional moves effectively promote learners’ recognition of their errors
and their eventual production of correct forms. Iwashita (2003) examined how negative
feedback and positive evidence provided in task-based interaction affect learners’ acquisition
of two target grammatical structures. The results indicate that interactional moves containing
positive evidence were beneficial only for learners who received an above-average score on
the pretest, whereas implicit negative feedback, especially recasts, contributed to short-term
development of the target grammar regardless of learners’ pretest scores. Similarly, Ishida
(2004) studied the effects of recasts on the acquisition of a grammatical form and found
that the number of recasts provided during the treatment period was significantly correlated
with the students’ overall accuracy, as measured both in the immediate and delayed post-test
periods. In addition, Lyster & Mori’s (2006) comparative analysis of immersion programs,
one in French, the other in Japanese, revealed Japanese learners’ more frequent and more
accurate responses to teachers’ corrective feedback. The researchers suggest that the results
were due to the differences in commonly employed class activities between the two settings: the
Japanese program is described as focusing more on linguistic accuracy than on the contents
conveyed. The typological difference between the target languages and the students’ native
language is also discussed as a possible cause for the different tendencies in the two programs.
Wei (2002) specifically examined how learners perceive recasts provided by their teachers
in the classroom. Based on stimulated recalls concerning the relevant segments of video-
recorded classroom interactions, she reported that the learners, in general, were able to
understand the feedback given on their morphosyntactic, phonological, and lexical errors,
but that there were also a notable number of occasions when the intended targets of correction
were misunderstood. Learners’ perception of corrective feedback was also studied by Yoshida
(2008), who explored corrective feedback provided by peers during pair work. She concluded
that learners’ responses to corrective feedback may indicate that they have noticed the
correction, but may not always suggest their understanding of errors. Yoshida also suggested
that the effectiveness of corrective feedback in pair work may be influenced by the level of
the learners’ satisfaction with their assigned pair work roles.
The last decade has also seen a surge of interest in sociolinguistic and sociocultural
approaches to the study of classroom discourse. These approaches conceptualize L2 learning
as the increased participation in L2 social interaction rather than the expansion of knowledge
concerning L2 linguistic systems, and critically review the analytical procedures commonly
adopted in earlier studies. Ohta’s study (2000, 2001b) of students’ private speech, for instance,
demonstrated the importance of paying attention to how teachers’ recasts and other corrective
feedback might affect the learning of students other than those to whom the feedback was
addressed. Likewise, Ohta (2005), as well as Foster & Ohta (2005), illustrated the limitations
of coding and counting methods typically adopted by studies on corrective feedback. For
example, moves that have been classified into categories, such as comprehension checks,
confirmation checks, or clarification requests based on their forms, may actually serve other
functions. Furthermore, these studies argue that moves that have not received much attention
in the past, such as co-construction and prompting, appear to play a critical role in assisting
other learners to accomplish the tasks at hand. Using conversation analysis, Mori (2004a)
also demonstrated the importance of analyzing interactions involving language learners not
only from the perspective of error correction and information transfer, but also from the
perspective of the achievement of social actions and sequential development.
Pair or group work taking place in the language classroom is another area that has received
increased attention during the last decade. Iwashita’s study (2001), conducted within the
cognitive paradigm, compared the quality of peer interactions in mixed level dyads and same
level dyads based on the number of interactional moves and modified output made. Ohta’s
qualitative analyses (2001b, 2001c), informed by Vygotskian sociocultural theory, revealed

how peer interactions provide different types of opportunity for learners’ participation
from teacher-fronted interactions and how learners accomplish peer assistance not only by
correcting errors, but also by offering assistance for the partner’s performance. Continuing
this line of investigation, Ohta (2008) examined laughter observed in peer interaction in the
classroom as an indication of the learners’ social interactive, affective, and cognitive states.
Bushnell (2008) also analyzed how learners in the classroom engage in language play, and
thereby participate in the teacher-assisted pedagogical activities on their own terms. He
argued that language play provides opportunities for further development of sociolinguistic
competence, as well as for memorable encoding of the target language.
While Ohta & Bushnell argued for the potential benefit of laughter and language play
on learners’ linguistic development, Yoshida’s case study (2007) reported that a student’s
self-expressive jokes or unique answers were often considered distracting by his instructor.
This indicates a mismatch between the instructor’s and the student’s expectations about the
goal of classroom interaction. The gap between teachers’ intended outcomes and students’
actual performance was also demonstrated by J. Mori (2002). Her study illustrates an
inadvertent effect of task instruction on the sequential development of talk between two
learners and a guest speaker. The influence of task instructions and task prompts on the
quality of resulting peer interaction is also examined by Mori (2004b) and Mori & Hasegawa
(2009). Furthermore, these studies demonstrate that even when engaging in the same activity,
learners demonstrate their convergent or divergent orientation towards different aspects of
language learning, including pronunciation, grammar, or discourse, which may not match
the instructors’ or researchers’ expectations.
Other studies of classroom discourse address more directly how a particular instructional
approach can be implemented and what kinds of learning opportunities may be realized as
a result. DiNitto (2000), for instance, explored how two student groups responded differently
to a task instruction aimed at enhancing collaborative learning. Her study suggested that
for collaborative learning to yield positive results, it is essential to establish a classroom
culture that incorporates the students’ socialization into the particular learning style. Yoshimi
(2008) documented the effect of lessons designed to explicitly encourage students to draw
upon their experiences, intuitions, and knowledge in the classroom for their development
of interactional competence. Furthermore, Tateyama & Kasper (2008) reported how the
presence of a native-speaking guest speaker in the language classroom gives opportunities for
different participation frameworks for pragmatic development. Kumagai (2007) examined
how conflicts between an instructor’s teaching agenda and students’ learning agendas may
arise in the language classroom. Her critical discourse analysis suggests how such moments
of tension could offer rich opportunities to foster students’ critical literacy.
As innovative instructional approaches continue to be introduced into the classroom,
rigorous classroom research, informed by solid methodological and conceptual frameworks,
remain critical for timely evaluation of how these approaches change the quality of learners’
experiences. The studies published so far tend to examine classrooms in higher education
largely because most researchers and readers of these studies are affiliated with higher
education. Classroom research should be conducted in a wider range of settings to address
such issues as the articulation between programs or the development of effective LSP courses.
2.4 Study abroad
As mentioned in the previous sections, an increasing number of studies have explored how
language learning takes place outside the classroom, and how learning inside and outside the
classroom can influence each other. In particular, the impact of the study abroad experience
upon learners’ development has, in recent years, attracted the interests of researchers,
educators, and administrators, as the emphasis on the internationalization of higher education
continues to accelerate. As a result, a number of conference panels and symposia on this topic
have been organized during the last decade.
One such symposium yielded a special issue of Japanese Language and Literature offering
an overview of study abroad related research (Dewey 2007), conceptual frameworks to
understand or enhance learners’ study abroad experiences (Kawamura 2007; Noda 2007;
Thompson 2007), and detailed accounts of existing programs (Kawamura 2007; Warnick
2007). However, the number of empirical studies that systematically investigate the effects of
study abroad experiences is still limited. Among the articles featured in the special issue, only
Iwasaki’s (2007) includes an explicit discussion of research methods. This study demonstrates
the diversity among four study abroad participants’ goals, expectations, experiences, and
gains in language proficiency. It also acknowledges the difficulty of measuring the different
types of gains accomplished by the participants through the use of standardized tests, such
as the Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) or the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview
(OPI).
An approach often adopted by researchers to evaluate gains from study abroad experiences
is to focus on specific aspects of learners’ proficiency. For instance, Asada (2006) examined
how four Chinese students who had received formal L2 instruction in China changed their
speech style when exposed to the informal language spoken in daily life in Japan. By focusing
on the use of the aspect marker and its reduced form, Asada revealed how the use of the
reduced form by the four students steadily increased over time, reflecting the expansion of
their social network and their accommodation of native speaking interlocutors’ speech variety
(see also Ishida 2009 and Iwasaki 2010, discussed earlier, for similar findings). Shimizu (2009)
compared learners who studied Japanese in their home countries to those who spent an
extended period of time in Japan by using discourse completion tasks (DCTs) that elicited
their performance concerning compliment responses, and reported that the time spend
abroad can trigger the learners’ pragmatic development. Dewey (2004b) investigated the
reading development of learners who participated in a summer study abroad program and
those who participated in an intensive domestic immersion program. The results of his study
showed no significant differences between the two groups with regard to gains in reading
comprehension measured by free-recall and vocabulary knowledge, but the study abroad
participants’ self-assessment of their reading comprehension was higher than that of the
domestic immersion program participants. Dewey also notes the degree of variability in the
study abroad experiences, as opposed to the relative homogeneity of the domestic immersion
experiences, which might have influenced the results.
Needless to say, the study abroad experience encompasses different types of learning
opportunities. McMeekin (2006), for instance, compared classroom interactions with those
that study abroad participants experience with host families, paying special attention to
exposure to comprehensible input, opportunities for output modification, and focus on form.
The results indicated that students overall engaged in more negotiations with the host family
to attain comprehensible input than in the classroom, but that the classroom provided
more opportunities for student modification of output and negotiations focusing on form.
Based on these results, she concluded that a combination of in- and out-of-class interaction
with native speakers maximizes the benefits of the study abroad experience. In addition to
differences arising from the settings of language use, study abroad participants’ racial or
ethnic backgrounds can affect the quality of their experience in Japan (Kumagai & Sato
2009).
For the enhancement of effective articulation of pre-departure, study-abroad, and post-
study-abroad training, the understanding of the diverse experiences participants encounter
during their time abroad is invaluable. Kurasawa & Nagatomi (2006) presented an example
of such an attempt by examining how the Massachusetts Institute of Technology evaluated
the experiences of participants of its internship program in Japan and incorporated the results
into the restructuring of curricula at the home institution. While similar small-scale action
research projects appear to have been undertaken at various institutions, further research
is still necessary to uncover the complex web of learning opportunities afforded by study
abroad and their effects upon L2 development. In addition, an emerging body of research
on study abroad experiences emphasizes the importance of examining learners’ subjectivity
(Kinginger 2009) in order to understand their experiences abroad. This is another area where
study-abroad research conducted in JFL/JSL contexts should continue to expand its scope.
3. Concluding remarks
In an attempt to identify major issues in, and the direction of, current L2 Japanese research
and pedagogy, this article has reviewed over 200 selected empirical studies on L2 Japanese
published between 2000 and 2010. Through the review of these studies, we hope to have
succeeded in illustrating how general trends in SLA and applied linguistics research have
informed L2 Japanese research, as well as how unique features of Japanese language
and the social and historical contexts of its speakers influence the teaching and learning
of L2 Japanese. The instruction of kanji, for instance, presents unique challenges in L2
Japanese learning, but the knowledge gained from studies on this topic can inform studies of
other languages that involve non-Western orthography, which are generally less commonly
taught, and underrepresented in SLA research. Further, an examination of the learning
of Japanese noun-modifying clauses has yielded a piece of evidence suggesting language-
specific acquisition paths that were attributable to structural differences between Japanese and
European languages. These results provide an opportunity to reconsider the understanding
of SLA processes that had been developed primarily through the examination of commonly
taught European languages.
While we believe that L2 Japanese research contributes to the advancement of SLA theories
and research methodologies by introducing a new set of data, we must also acknowledge that
a critique concerning the skewed database analyzed by SLA researchers (cf. Firth & Wagner
2007) also applies to L2 Japanese research. That is, the majority of studies remain focused on
college-level JFL learners in English-speaking countries, as mentioned earlier. This lopsided

coverage should be adjusted, and L2 Japanese research as a whole should aspire to examine a
broader range of L2 speakers of Japanese, both inside and outside Japan, who learn and use
the language in diverse contexts. Such an expansion of the database should enhance studies
conducted within not only sociocultural and sociolinguistic, but also cognitive frameworks.
As shown in this article, the range of theoretical and methodological frameworks prevalent
in SLA research today are also represented in L2 Japanese research, but they appear to co-
exist by acknowledging what each approach can bring to the understanding of L2 Japanese
learning. The sociocultural and sociolinguistic approaches that have become more visible
during the last decade view learners as social beings who have their own agency and
subjectivity but are situated in communities; as a result, they shed new light on language
learning that had previously been investigated by conventional quantitative, experimental
studies, which tend to treat learners as autonomous, independent entities. To advance this
trend, however, qualitative researchers of L2 Japanese need to improve their articulation of
theoretical orientations, data collection and analysis procedures, and produce systematic well-
grounded presentations of results to the same standards expected of quantitative researchers.
Similarly, quantitative, experimental researchers need to tailor their research designs and
methodologies to the significant advancement, both theoretically and methodologically, that
cognitive frameworks have seen in the last decade. A growing interest in exploring language-
related memory structures in the human brain, for instance, appears to present a promising
direction for L2 Japanese research. Such collaborative work among researchers from different
perspectives will help to expand the database and contribute to the establishment of L2
Japanese learning as a solid research area.
With regard to research on pedagogical practices, we found that the majority of published
studies still tend to be showcases of ‘best practices’. While these types of report have their
own value, more integration of research, theory, and pedagogy could help us improve the
quality of L2 research and education. We also found that while testing and assessment have
been a significant topic in L2 Japanese education, the number of studies that systematically
evaluate testing or assessment instruments or processes themselves is still limited. To this end,
we consider it important to establish further collaboration between researchers, instructors,
and test developers, or more importantly, to train instructors who can apply research findings
to their practice and conduct action research investigating their own classroom. Indeed,
teacher education and professional development constitute another important area where
L2 Japanese research could expand its scope.
Finally, as we mentioned at the start, there are a number of exciting new projects unfolding
in Japan, as well as in other non-English-speaking countries, that we have not been able
to cover in this review. A growing number of studies, for instance, examine JSL learners
who come from a wide variety of countries, most notably those from other Asian as well
as South American countries (e.g. Brazil), reflecting current population movements. As for
adult JSL learners, their language socialization in the workplace is an emerging area of
interest, reflecting Japan’s growing dependence on foreign workers in various fields, including
healthcare. Besides the space limitation, the primary reason why we were not able to cover
these topics extensively is that few such studies have been made accessible to an international
audience. This fact itself is indicative of the current state of L2 Japanese research: the
lack of extensive international collaboration among researchers of L2 Japanese, or between

researchers of L2 Japanese and those of other L2 languages. We hope that the current article
will be seen as a small step towards recognizing the achievements of L2 Japanese research,
and encourage more L2 Japanese researchers to begin participating in scholarly exchanges
with researchers of other languages worldwide.
References
Adachi, T. (2003). Accurate learning of word usage: Differentiating semantically similar words. Foreign
Language Annals 36, 267–278.
Adachi, T. (2005). Memory of socially-obtained information versus non-socially obtained information.
Foreign Language Annals 38, 514–522.
Allen, J. R. (2008). Why learning to write Chinese is a waste of time: A modest proposal. Foreign Languge
Annals 41.2, 237–251.
Ando, Y. (2005). Japanese language instruction and the question of ‘correctness’. International Journal of
the Sociology of Language 175/176, 271–284.
Antonek, J. L., R. Donato & G. R. Tucker (2000). Differential linguistic development of Japanese
language learners in elementary school. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne des
Langues Vivantes 57, 325–351.
Asada, H. (2006). Longitudinal effects of informal language in formal L2 instruction. JALT Journal 28,
39–56.
Bushnell, C. (2008). ‘Lego my keego!’: An analysis of language play in a beginning Japanese as a foreign
language classroom. Applied Linguistics 30, 49–69.
Chikamatsu, N. (2003). The effects of computer use on L2 Japanese writing. Foreign Language Annals 36,
114–127.
Chikamatsu, N. (2005). L2 Japanese kanji memory and retrieval: An experiment on the tip-of-the-pen
(TOP) phenomenon. In V. Cook & B. Bassetti (eds.), Second Language Writing Systems. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters, 71–96.
Chikamatsu, N. (2006). Developmental word recognition: A study of L1 English readers of L2 Japanese.
The Modern Language Journal 90, 67–85.
Chikamatsu, N. (2009). Content-based instruction in the USA: Japanese-American history in Chicago.
Japanese Language Education around the Globe 19, 141–156.
Chinen, K. & G. R. Tucker (2006). Heritage language development: Understanding the roles of ethnic
identity, schooling and community. In K. Kondo-Brown (ed.) (2006b), 89–126.
Cook, H. M. (2001). Why can’t learners of JFL distinguish polite form from impolite speech styles? In
K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.) (2001), 80–102.
Cook, H. M. (2006). Joint construction of folk beliefs by JFL learners and Japanese host families. In M.
A. DuFon & E. Churchill (eds.), Language learners in study abroad contexts. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters, 120–150.
Cook, H. M. (2008). Socializing identities through speech style: Learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Day, R. R., & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive reading in the second language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Dewey, D. P. (2004a). Connections between teacher and student attitudes regarding script choice in
first-year Japanese language classrooms. Foreign Language Annals 37, 567–583.
Dewey, D. P. (2004b). A comparison of reading development by learners of Japanese in intensive
domestic immersion and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26, 303–327.
Dewey, D. P. (2007). Language learning during study abroad: What we know and what we have yet to
learn. Japanese Language and Literature 41, 245–269.
Di Biase, B. & S. Kawaguchi (2002). Exploring the typological plausibility of processability theory:
Language development in Italian second language and Japanese second language. Second Language
Research 18, 274–302.
DiNitto, R. (2000). Can collaboration be unsuccessful? A sociocultural analysis of classroom setting and
Japanese L2 performance in group tasks. Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese 34, 179–210.
Donato, R., G. R. Tucker, J. Wudthayagorn & K. Igarashi (2000). Converging evidence attitudes,
achievements, and instruction in the later years of FLES. Foreign Language Annals 33, 377–393.
Douglas, M. O. & H. C. Kataoka (2008). Scaffolding in content-based instruction of Japanese. Japanese
Language and Literature 42, 337–359.
Falsgraf, C. (2001). Pedagogic implications of standards-based education. In H. Nara (ed.), Advances
in Japanese language pedagogy. Columbus, OH: National East Asian Languages Resource Center,
314–335.
Firth, A. & J. Wagner (2007). Second/foreign language learning as a social accomplishment:
Elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA. The Modern Language Journal 91, 800–819.
Foster, P. & A. S. Ohta (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language
classrooms. Applied Linguistics 26, 402–430.
Fujii, N. (2005). Learning from learner discourse: Rethinking grammar instruction. Japanese Language
and Literature 39, 291–237.
Fukai, M., F. Nazikian & S. Sato (2008). Incorporating sociocultural approaches into assessment:
Web-based peer learning and portfolio projects. Japanese Language and Literature 42, 389–411.
Fukuda, C. (2006). Resistance against being formulated as cultural other: The case of a Chinese student
in Japan. Pragmatics 16, 429–456.
Fukunaga, N. (2006). ‘Those anime students’: Foreign language literacy development through Japanese
popular culture. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 50.3, 206–222.
Gamage, G. H. (2003). Perceptions of kanji learning strategies: Do they differ among Chinese character
and alphabetic background learners? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 26, 17–30.
Geyer, N. F. (2007a). Self qualification in L2 Japanese: An interface of pragmatic, grammatical, and
discourse competence. Language Learning 57, 337–367.
Geyer, N. F. (2007b). The grammar–pragmatics interface in L2 Japanese: The case of contrastive
expressions. Japanese Language and Literature 41, 93–117.
Grainger, P. (2005). Second language learning strategies and Japanese: Does orthography make a
difference? System 33, 327–339.
Hagiwara, A. (2009). Comprehending utterances in Japanese as a foreign language: Formulaicity and
literality. In N. Taguchi (ed.), 227–248.
Haneda, M. (2004). The joint construction of meaning in writing conferences. Applied Linguistics 25,
178–219.
Haneda, M. (2005). Investing in foreign-language writing: A study of two multicultural learners. Journal
of Language, Identity & Education 4, 269–290.
Hansen, L. & Y. Chen (2001). What counts in the acquisition and attrition of numeral classifiers? JALT
Journal 23, 90–110.
Hansen, L., Y. Umeda & M. McKinney (2002). Savings in the relearning of second language vocabulary:
The effects of time and proficiency. Language Learning 52, 653–678.
Hasegawa, Y. & W. Kambara (2008). Literacy in the foreign language curriculum: A supplementary
grammar course for intermediate Japanese instruction. Japanese Language and Literature 42, 95–112.
Hashimoto, Y. (2006). The verb morphology acquisition processes of one infant in a second language:
The development of language structure based on schema generation. Acquisition of Japanese as a Second
Language 9, 23–41.
Hashimoto, Y. (2007). The development of language structure based on schema generation of three
infants in their second language: Comparing with the verbal potential form acquisition of one infant
in a first language. Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language 10, 28–48.
Hashimoto, Y. (2009). The development of sentence structure of one infant in second language of
Japanese: Focusing on schema generation based on the particles ‘no’ and ‘ga.’ Acquisition of Japanese
as a Second Language 12, 46–65.
Hasuike, I. (2007). L1 influence on the use of Japanese spatial expressions: The case of Korean, Chinese,
and English-speaking learners. Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language 12, 68–86.
Hatasa, Y. A. (2002). The effects of differential timing in the introduction of Japanese. The Modern
Language Journal 86, 346–67.
Heinrich, P. (2005). Language ideology in JFL textbooks. International Journal of Sociology of Language
175/176, 213–232.
Hirakawa, M. (2001). L2 acquisition of Japanese unaccusative verbs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition
23, 221–245.
Hirose, W. (2004). The effect of peer response on composition revisions: Malaysians learning
Japanese – Intermediate level. Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language 7, 60–80.
Hitosugi, C. I. & R. R. Day (2004). Extensive reading in Japanese. Reading in a Foreign Language 16,
20–30.
Horiba, Y. (2000). Reader control in reading: Effects of language competence, text type, and task.
Discourse Processes 29, 223–267.
Igarashi, K., J. Wudthayagorn, R. Donato & G. R. Tucker (2002). What does a novice look like?
Describing the grammar and discourse of young learners of Japanese. The Canadian Modern Language
Review/La Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes 58, 526–554.
Iino, M. (2006). Norms of interaction in a Japanese homestay setting: Toward a two way flow of
linguistic and cultural resources. In M. A. DuFon & E. Churchill (eds.), Language learners in study abroad
contexts. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 151–173.
Ikeda, K. (2009). Advanced learners’ honorific styles in ema and telephone calls. In N. Taguchi (ed.),
69–100.
Inagaki, S. (2001). Motion verbs with goal PPs in the L2 acquisition of English and Japanese. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 23, 153–170.
Ishida, H. (2006). Learners’ perception and interpretation of contextualization cues in spontaneous
Japanese conversation: Back-channel cue Uun. Journal of Pragmatics 38, 1943–1981.
Ishida, K. (2006). How can you be so certain? The use of hearsay evidentials by English-speaking
learners of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 38, 1281–1304.
Ishida, K. (2009). Indexing stance in interaction with the Japanese desu/masu and plain forms. In N.
Taguchi (ed.), 41–67.
Ishida, M. (2004). Effects of recasts on the acquisition of the aspectual form -te i–(ru) by learners of
Japanese as a foreign language. Language Learning 54, 311–394.
Ishida, M. (2006). Interactional competence and the use of modal expressions in decision- making
activities: CA for understanding microgenesis of pragmatic competence. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, C.
Felix-Brasdefer & A. S. Omar (eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (vol. 11). Honolulu, HI: University
of Hawaii at Manoa, National Foreign Language Resource Center, 55–79.
Ishida, M. (2009). Development of interactional competence: Changes in the use of ne in L2 Japanese
during study abroad. In H. Nguyen & G. Kasper (eds.), Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual perspectives.
Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii at Manoa, National Foreign Language Resource Center, 351–
385.
Ishihara, N. (2007). Web-based curriculum for pragmatics instruction in Japanese as a foreign language:
An explicit awareness-raising approach. Language Awareness 16.1, 21–40.
Ishihara, N. & E. Tarone (2009). Subjectivity and pragmatic choice in L2 Japanese: Emulating and
resisting pragmatic norms. In N. Taguchi (ed.), Pragmatic competence. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,
101–128.
Itakura, H. (2004). Changing cultural stereotypes through e-mail assisted foreign language learning.
System 32, 37–51.
Iwasaki, N. & Y. Kumagai (2008). Promoting critical reading in an advanced-level Japanese
course: Theory and practice through reflection and dialogues. Japanese Language and Literature 42,
123–156.
Iwasaki, N. (2007). Assessing progress towards advanced level Japanese after a year abroad: Focus on
individual learners. Japanese Language and Literature 41, 271–296.
Iwasaki, N. (2009). Stating and supporting opinions in an interview: L1 and L2 Japanese speakers.
Iwasaki, N. (2010). Style shifts among Japanese learners before and after study abroad in Japan:
Becoming active social agents in Japanese. Applied Linguistics 31, 45–71.
Iwashita, N. (2001). The effect of learner proficiency on interactional moves and modified output in
nonnative–nonnative interaction in Japanese as a foreign language. System 29, 267–287.
Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential
effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25, 1–36.
Iwashita, N. (2006). Syntactic complexity measures and their relation to oral proficiency in Japanese
as a foreign language. Language Assessment Quarterly 3, 151–169.
Iwashita, N. & S. Sekiguchi (2009). Effects of learner background on the development of writing skills
in Japanese as a second language. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 32, 1–20.
Japan Foundation (2007). Survey report on Japanese-language education abroad 2006: Present condi-
tion of overseas Japanese-language education (Summary). www.jpf.go.jp/e/japanese/survey/result/
img/2006_01.pdf.
Kakegawa, T. (2009). Development of the use of Japanese sentence-final particles through email
correspondence. In N. Taguchi (ed.), 301–334.
Kamura, N. (2001). Developmental sequences of negation in Japanese by adult Chinese-speaking
learners. Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language 4, 63–81.
Kamura, N. (2003). The acquisition of expressions of negation in Japanese by adult Chinese-speaking
learners: Based on oral interviews. Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language 6, 52–69.
Kanno, Y. (2001). One-line processing of Japanese by English L2 leaders. Acquisition of Japanese as a
Second Language 4, 23–28.
Kanno, Y. (2007). Factors affecting the processing of Japanese relative clauses by L2 learners. Studies in
Kanno, Y. (2008). Language and education in Japan: Unequal access to bilingualism. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Kataoka, H., Y. Koshiyama & S. Shibata (2005). Japanese and English language ability of students and
supplementary Japanese schools in the U.S. CRIE Review of International Education 2, 1–18.
Kato, T. (2005). Acquisition of Japanese vocabulary by Chinese native speakers: Based on the prototype
and transferability theory. Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language 8, 5–23.
Kawaguchi, S. (2000). Acquisition of Japanese verbal morphology: Applying processability theory to
Japanese. Studia Linguistica 54, 238–248.
Kawamura, H. (2007). Participant observation for language learners: A performance-based approach
to language learning during study abroad. Japanese Language and Literature 41, 333–349.
Keenan, E. & B. Comrie (1977), Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry
8(1), 63–99.
Kinginger, C. (2009). Language learning and study abroad: A critical reading of research. Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Kitajima, R. (2001). The effect of instructional conditions on students’ vocabulary retention. Foreign
Language Annals 34, 470–482.
Kitano, K. (2001). Anxiety in the college Japanese language classroom. The Modern Language Journal 85,
549–566.
Koda, K. (2008). Impacts of prior literacy experience on second-language learning to read. In K. Koda
& A. M. Zehler (eds.), Learning to read across languages. New York: Routledge, 68–96.
Komori, S. (2003). A study of L2 lexical collocations of English-speaking learners of Japanese. Acquisition
of Japanese as a Second Language 6, 33–51.
Kondo-Brown, K. (2001a). Bilingual heritage students’ language contact and motivation. In Z. Dornyei
& R. Schmidt (eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition. Honolulu, HI: U Hawaii Press, 433–459.
Kondo-Brown, K. (2001b). Heritage language students of Japanese in traditional foreign language
classes: A preliminary empirical study. Japanese Language and Literature 35, 157–179.
Kondo-Brown, K. (2002). A FACETS analysis of rater bias in measuring Japanese second language
writing performance. Language Testing 19, 3–31.
Kondo-Brown, K. (2005). Differences in language skill: Heritage language learner subgroups and
foreign language learners. The Modern Language Journal 89, 563–581.
Kondo-Brown, K. (2006a). How do English L1 learners of advanced Japanese infer unknown kanji
words in authentic texts? Language Learning 56, 109–153.
Kondo-Brown, K. (ed.) (2006b). Heritage language development: Focus on East Asian immigrants. Philadelphia,
PA: John Benjamins.
Krashen, D. S. (2004). The power of reading: Insights from the research (2nd edn). Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Kubota, M. (2001). Error correction strategies used by learners of Japanese when revising a writing
task. System 29, 467–480.
Kubota, M. (2005). Spelling correction strategies employed by learners of Japanese. Australian Review of
Applied Linguistics 28, 67–80.
Kubota, M. & E. Toyoda (2001). Learning strategies employed for learning words written in kanji versus
kana. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 24, 1–16.
Kubota, R. (2003). Critical teaching of Japanese culture. Japanese Language and Literature 37, 67–87.
Kubota, R. (2008). Critical approaches to teaching Japanese language and culture. In J. Mori & A. S.
Ohta (eds.), Japanese applied linguistics: Discourse and social perspectives. London: Continuum, 327–352.
Kubota, R., T. Austin & Y. Saito-Abbott (2003). Diversity and inclusion of sociopolitical issues in foreign
language classrooms: An exploratory survey. Foreign Language Annals 36, 12–24.
Kumagai, Y. (2007). Tension in a Japanese language classroom: An opportunity for critical literacy?
Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 4, 85–116.
Kumagai, Y. & S. Sato (2009). ‘Ignorance’ as a rhetorical strategy: How Japanese language learners
living in Japan maneuver their subject positions to shift power dynamics. Critical Studies in Education
50, 309–321.
Kurasawa, I. & A. Nagatomi (2006). Study-abroad and internship programs: Reflection and articulation
for lifelong learning. Global Business Languages 11, 23–30.
Kurata, N. (2004). Communication networks of Japanese language learners in their home country.
Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 14, 153–179.
Kurata, N. (2007). Language choice and second language learning opportunities in learners’ social
networks: A case study of an Australian learner of Japanese. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 30,
1–18.
Lee, J. (2005). Through the learners’ eyes: Reconceptualizing the heritage and non-heritage learner of
the less commonly taught languages. Foreign Language Annals 38, 554–567.
Leung, C. (2002). Extensive reading and language learning: A diary study of a beginning learner of
Japanese. Reading in a Foreign Language 14, 66–81.
Lyster, R. & H. Mori (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 28, 269–300.
Machida, S. (2001a). Japanese text comprehension by Chinese and non-Chinese background learners.
System 29, 103–118.
Machida, S. (2001b). Anxiety and oral performance in a foreign language test situation. Australian
Review of Applied Linguistics 24, 31–50.
Machida, S. (2001c). Test anxiety in Japanese-language class oral examinations. Japanese- Language
Education around the Globe 11, 115–118.
McMahill, C. (2005). Multilingual literacies in Japan: Children’s project work in a community language
school. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 15, 79–96.
McMeekin, A. (2006). Negotiation in a Japanese study abroad setting. In M. A. DuFon & E. Churchill
(eds.), Language learners in study abroad contexts. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 177–202.
Makino, S. (2009). Review of Bunka, Kotoba, Kyoiku: Nihongo/Nihon no ‘Hyojun’ o Koete [Culture, language,
and education: Beyond ‘Standard’ in Japanese/Japan’s education] Edited by S. Sato & N. Doerr.
Japanese Language and Literature 43, 461–486.
Manalo, E., S. Mizutani & J. Trafford (2004). Using mnemonics to facilitate learning of Japanese script
characters. JALT Journal 26, 55–77.
Masuda, K. (2009). Learners’ use of interactional particles in student–teacher conversations. Japanese
Language and Literature 43, 335–362.
Matsumoto, J. & Y. Horiba (2007). Breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge in Japanese: A
comparative study of Chinese-speaking L2 learners and native speakers of Japanese. Acquisition of
Japanese as a Second Language 10, 10–27.
Matsumoto, Y. & S. Okamoto (2003). The construction of the Japanese language and culture in
teaching Japanese as a foreign language. Japanese Language and Literature 37, 27–48.
Minami, M. (2003). Holding on to a native tongue: Retaining bilingualism for school-age children of
Japanese heritage. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research, & Practice 4, 39–61.
Mishina-Mori, S. (2002). Language differentiation of the two languages in early bilingual development:
A case study of Japanese/English bilingual children. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching 40, 211–234.
Mori, J. (2002). Task design, plan, and development of talk-in-interaction: An analysis of a small group
activity in a Japanese language classroom. Applied Linguistics 23, 323–347.
Mori, J. (2004a). Pursuit of understanding: Conversation analytic account of a small-group activity in a
Japanese language classroom. In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (eds.), Second language conversations. London:
Continuum, 157–177.
Mori, J. (2004b). Negotiating sequential boundaries and learning opportunities: A case from a Japanese
language classroom. The Modern Language Journal 88, 536–550.
Mori, J. (2005). Why not why? The teaching of grammar, discourse, and sociolinguistic and cross-
cultural perspectives. Japanese Language and Literature 39, 255–289.
Mori, J. (2010). Learning language in real time: A case study of the Japanese demonstrative pronoun
are in word search sequences. In G. Kasper, H.T. Nguyen, D. R. Yoshimi & J. K. Yoshioka (eds.),
Pragmatics and language learning (vol. 12). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii at Manoa, National
Foreign Language Resource Center, 13–40.
Mori, J. & A. Hasegawa (2009). Doing being a foreign language learner in a classroom: Embodiment
of cognitive states as social events. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 47,
65–94.
Mori, J. & M. Hayashi (2006). The achievement of intersubjectivity through embodied completion: A
study of interactions between first and second language speakers. Applied Linguistics 27, 195–219.
Mori, Y. (2002). Individual differences in the integration of information from context and word parts
in interpreting unknown kanji words. Applied Psycholinguistics 23, 375–397.
Mori, Y. (2003a). The roles of context and word morphology in learning new kanji words. The Modern
Language Journal 87, 404–420.
Mori, Y. (2003b). Vocabulary acquisition in Japanese. In Y. Hatasa (ed.), Daini gengo kenkyuu eno shootai
[Introduction to second language acquisition research]. Tokyo: Kuroshio-shuppan, (47–66 in Japanese, 171–
186 in English).
Mori, Y., K. Sato & H. Shimizu (2007). Japanese language students’ perceptions on kanji learning and
their relationship to novel kanji word learning ability. Language Learning 57, 57–85.
Mori, Y. & H. Shimizu (2007). Japanese language students’ attitudes toward kanji and their perceptions
on kanji learning strategies. Foreign Language Annals 40, 472–490.
Morioka, A., A. H. Takakura & E. Ushida (2008). Developing web-based multi-level materials for
Japanese content based instruction. Japanese Language and Literature 42, 361–387.
Morita, E. (2003). Children’s use of address and reference terms: Language socialization in a Japanese-
English bilingual environment. Multilingua 22, 367–395.
Mukouyama, Y. (2004). The effect of explicit formal instruction in a meaning-focused lesson on the
acquisition of Japanese noun modifying clauses. Acquisition of Japanese as a second language 7, 100–120.
Nakai, Y. K. (2002). Topic shifting devices used by supporting participants in native/native and
native/non-native Japanese conversations. Japanese Language and Literature 36, 1–25.
Nakayama, T. (2002). Learning to write in Japanese: Writing contexts, student performance, and
instructional approach. Babel 37, 27–36.
Nara, H. (2003). The foreign language learner. In H. Nara & M. Noda (eds.), Act of reading: Exploring
connections in pedagogy of Japanese. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 63–86.
Navas, A. L. G. P. (2004). Implications of alphabetic instruction in the conscious and unconscious
manipulations of phonological representations in Portuguese-Japanese bilinguals. Written Language
and Literacy 7, 119–131.
Noda, M. (2007). Performed culture: Cataloging culture gains during study abroad. Japanese Language
Ohara, Y., S. Saft & G. Crookes (2001). Toward a feminist critical pedagogy in a beginning Japanese-
as-a-foreign-language class. Japanese Language and Literature 35, 105–133.
Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking recasts: A learner-centered examination of corrective feedback in the
Japanese language classroom. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verlpaetse (eds.), Second and foreign language learning
through classroom interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 47–71.
Ohta, A. S. (2001a). A longitudinal study of the development of expression of alignment in Japanese
as a foreign language. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), 103–120.
Ohta, A. S. (2001b). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ohta, A. S. (2001c). Japanese second language acquisition in the classroom: What the voices of teachers
and students tell us about the process of learning Japanese. In H. Nara (ed.), Advances in Japanese
language pedagogy. Columbus, OH: National East Asian Languages Resource Center, 93–136.
Ohta, A. S. (2005). Confirmation checks: A discourse analytic reanalysis. Japanese Language and Literature
39, 383–412.
Ohta, A. S. (2008). Laughter and second language acquisition: A study of Japanese foreign language
classes. In J. Mori & A. S. Ohta (eds.), Japanese applied linguistics: Discourse and social perspective. London:
Continuum, 213–242.
Okada, M. & T. Yanagimachi (2008). How do coparticipants organize instructions? Analyses based on
multimodality and joint attention. The Japanese Journal of Language in Society 11, 139–150.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Ozeki, H. (2003). Variation and prototype schemas in interlanguage: A longitudinal study of the
acquisition process of temporal phrase -toki by a JSL teacher. Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language
6, 70–89.
Ozeki, H. (2005). Does the acquisition of noun-modifying constructions in L2 Japanese follow the noun
phrase accessibility hierarchy? Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language 8, 64–82.
Ozeki, H. (2008). How do L2 learners make form–function mapping?: A case study on the development
process of conditional expressions in Japanese. Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language 11, 122–140.
Ozeki, H. & Y. Shirai (2007). Does the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy predict the difficulty order
in the acquisition of Japanese relative clauses? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29, 169–196.
Parry, M. (2000). How communicative are introductory undergraduate level Japanese language
textbooks? Japanese Studies 20, 89–101.
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: John Benjamin.
Rose, K. R. & G. Kasper (eds.) (2001). Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Sakamoto, M. (2001). Exploring societal support for L2 learning and L1 maintenance: A socio-cultural
perspective. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 24, 43–60.
Sakamoto, M. (2006). Balancing L1 maintenance and L2 learning: Experiential narratives of Japanese
immigrant families in Canada. In K. Kondo-Brown (ed.), Heritage language development: Focus on East
Asian immigrants. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 33–56.
Samimy, K. K. (2003). Individual differences: Focus on learners’ affective factors and Japanese language
learning and teaching. In Y. Hatasa (ed.), An Invitation to second language acquisition research in Japanese:
In honor of Seiichi Makino. Tokyo: Kuroshio, 219–242.
Sato, S. & N. M. Doerr (eds.) (2008). Bunka, Kotoba, Kyoiku: Nihongo/Nihon no Hyoojun o Koete [Culture,
language, education: Beyond the standard in Japan]. Tokyo: Akashi Shoten.
Sawabe, Y. & A. Yasui (2008). A study of Japanese language acquisition regarding Chinese verbs in
Korean learners: Comparing learners in Korea and Japan. Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language
11, 141–159.
Sawasaki, K. (2009). Processing of relative clauses by learners of Japanese: A study on reading times of
English/Korean/Chinese L1 Speakers. Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language 12, 86–106.
Sawetaiyaram, T. (2009). The acquisition of passive voice in discourse functions: The case of Thai-
speaking learners. Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language 12, 107–126.
Schmidt, R. & Y. Watanabe (2001). Motivation, strategy use, and pedagogical preferences in foreign
language learning. In Z. Dornyei & R. Schmidt (eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition.
Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 313–359.
Shibata, S. (2000). Opening a Japanese Saturday school in a small town in the United States:
Community collaboration to teach Japanese as a heritage language. Bilingual Research Journal 24,
465–74.
Shibata, S. (2004). The effects of Japanese heritage language maintenance on scholastic verbal and
academic achievement in English. Foreign Language Annals 37, 224–231.
Shibata, S. & Y. Koshiyama (2001). Social influences in the acquisition and maintenance of spoken
Japanese as a heritage language. Japan Journal of Multilingualism and Multiculturalism 7, 18–37.
Shimizu, H. & K. E. Green (2002). Japanese language educators’ strategies for and attitudes toward
teaching kanji. The Modern Language Journal 86, 227–241.
Shimizu, T. (2009). Influence of learning context on L2 pragmatic realization: A comparison between
JSL and JFL learners’ compliment responses. In N. Taguchi (ed.), Pragmatic competence. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter, 167–198.
Siegal, M. & S. Okamoto (2003). Toward reconceptualizing the teaching and learning of gendered
speech styles in Japanese as a foreign language. Japanese Language and Literature 37, 49–66.
Siegel, S. (2004). A case study of one Japanese heritage language program in Arizona. Bilingual Research
Journal 28, 123–134.
Sorace, A. & Y. Shomura (2001). Lexical constraints on the acquisition of split intransitivity. Studies in
Spence-Brown, R. (2001). The symbiosis of Japanese studies and Japanese language teaching: A
language teaching perspective. Japanese Studies 21, 77–83.
Suzuki, A. (2009). When ‘gaijin’ matters: Theory-building in Japanese multiparty conversation. In H.
Nguyen & G. Kasper (eds.), Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual perspectives. Honolulu, HI: University of
Hawaii at Manoa, National Foreign Language Resource Center, 89–109.
Taguchi, K. (2001). A case study: Brazilian children and their acquisition of Japanese passive and
causative expressions: A comparison with Japanese children. Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Languages
4, 116–133.
Taguchi, N. (2008). Pragmatic comprehension in Japanese as a foreign language. The Modern Language
Journal 92, 558–576.
Taguchi, N. (ed.) (2009). Pragmatic competence. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tai, E. (2003). Rethinking culture, national culture and Japanese culture. Japanese Language and Literature
37, 1–26.
Takahashi, K. (2009). Effects of support to encourage reflective thinking in the process of L2 writing:
A single case experiment conducted on an advanced learner of the Japanese language. Acquisition of
Japanese as Second Language 12, 28–45.
Takami, T. (2005). Integrating language and content: A case study of intermediate Japanese
for professions. In R. Jourdenais & S. Springer (eds.), Content, tasks and projects in the language
classroom: 2004 conference proceedings. Monterey, CA: Monterey Institute of International studies, 69–
77.
Tateyama, Y. (2001). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper
(eds.), 200–222.
Tateyama, Y. (2009). Requesting in Japanese: The effect of instruction on JFL learners’ pragmatic
competence. In N. Taguchi (ed.), 129–166.
Tateyama, Y. & G. Kasper (2008). Talking with a classroom guest: Opportunities for learning Japanese
pragmatics. In E. Alcón Soler & A. Martı́nez-Flor (eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language
learning, teaching and testing. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters, 45–71.
Thompson, C. S. (2007). Study abroad for advanced skills in Japanese: Improving students’
communicative competence using self-instructional strategies. Japanese Language and Literature 41,
315–332.
Thomson, C. K., H. Masumi-So & F. Osho (2001). Meeting the challenges in language for specific
purposes: The incorporation of sociolinguistics and learner autonomy into course design. Japanese
Studies 21, 85–98.
Thomson, C. K. & E. Otsuji (2003). Evaluation of business Japanese textbooks: Issues of gender.
Japanese Studies 23, 185–203.
Thorne, S. L. (2009). ‘Community’, semiotic flows, and mediated contribution to activity. Language
Teaching 42, 81–94.
Toyoda, E. (2000). English-speaking learners’ use of component information in processing unfamiliar
kanji. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 23, 1–14.
Tse, L. (2000). The effects of ethnic identity formation on bilingual maintenance and development:
An analysis of Asian American narratives. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 3,
185–200.
Tse, L. (2001). Heritage language literacy: A study of US biliterates. Language, Culture and Curriculum 14,
256–268.
Tsutsui, M. (2001). Japanese for specific purposes: Teaching Japanese to engineers and scientists. In
H. Nara (ed.), Advances in Japanese language pedagogy. Columbus, OH: National East Asian Languages
Resource Center, 281–313.
Warnick, J. P. (2007). Oshiego ni wa tabi o saseyo: An independent model for study abroad. Japanese Language
Watanabe, S. (2003). Cohesion and coherence strategies in paragraph-length and extended discourse
in Japanese oral proficiency interviews. Foreign Language Annals 36, 555–565.
Wei, M. M. (2002). Recasts, noticing and error types: Japanese learners’ perception of corrective
feedback. Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language 5, 24–41.
Wei, M. M. (2003). Content-based course to teach American lawyers about Japanese business and
current affairs. The Journal of Language for International Business 14, 86–95.
Wei, M. M. (2006). Reading for meaning and incidental vocabulary acquisition: The case of Japanese.
Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language 9, 5–22.
Wharton, G. (2005). Language learning interest at a new management university in multilingual

Singapore. Foreign Language Annals 38, 544–553.
Woodall, B. R. (2002). Language-switching: Using the first language while writing in a second language.
Journal of Second Language Writing 11, 7–28.
Yabuki-Soh, N. (2007). Teaching relative clauses in Japanese: Exploring alternative types of instruction
and the projection effect. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29, 219–252.
Yamada, Y. & A. Moeller (2001). Weaving curricular standards into the language classroom: An action
research study. Foreign Language Annals 34, 26–34.
Yamashita, H. (2008). Effects of sentence processing strategy proximity on the comprehension of second
languages. Second Language 7, 43–82.
Yamashita, H. & Y. Maru (2000). Composition features of kanji for effective instruction. Japanese Language
Yanagimachi, T. (2009). Second-language speakers’ participation in interaction and achievement of
learning. The Japanese Journal of Language in Society 12, 57–66.
Yang, J. S. R. (2003). Motivational orientations and selected learner variables of East Asian language
learners in the United States. Foreign Language Annals 36, 44–56.
Yoshida, R. (2007). Perceptions of a learner’s self-expressive speech by an instructor and the learner.
Yoshida, R. (2008). Learners’ perception of corrective feedback in pair work. Foreign Language Annals 41,
525–541.
Yoshimi, D. R. (2001). Explicit instruction and JFL learners’ use of interactional discourse markers. In
K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), 223–244.
Yoshimi, D. R. (2008). Learner competence as a resource in the Japanese as a foreign language
classroom: Issues in oral assessment. In J. Mori & A. S. Ohta (eds.), Japanese applied linguistics: Discourse
and social perspectives. London: Continuum, 301–326.
Yoshimitsu, K. (2000). Japanese school children in Melbourne and their language maintenance efforts.
Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 10, 255–278.
Yoshizawa, M. (2005). Incidental vocabulary learning and comprehension in L2 reading: The effects
of dictionary and marginal glosses as a function of Japanese proficiencies. Acquisition of Japanese as a
Second Language 8, 24–42.
Zimmerman, E. (2007). Constructing Korean and Japanese interculturality in talk: Ethnic membership
categorization among users of Japanese. Pragmatics 17, 71–94.
YOSHIKO MORI is Associate Professor and Director of the Japanese Language Program in the
Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures at Georgetown University. Her research
interests include second-language vocabulary learning and instruction, student perceptions and
metacognition, individual differences in language learning, and heritage language learning. Her work
has been published in Reading Research Quarterly, Language Learning, The Modern Language Journal, Applied
Psycholinguistics, and Foreign Language Annals.
JUNKO MORI is Professor of Japanese Language and Linguistics at University of Wisconsin-Madison

and a recipient of ACTFL/MLJ Paul Pimsleur Award for Research in Foreign Language Education.
Her research interests center on the application of the methodological framework of conversation
analysis to the study of talk-in-interaction involving first and second language speakers of Japanese.
Her publications include Japanese Applied Linguistics: Discourse and Social Perspectives (Continuum, 2008)
co-edited with Amy S. Ohta as well as a number of book chapters and articles that have appeared in
Applied Linguistics, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, and The Modern Language
Journal, among others.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Review of Recent Research L2 Japanese - Mori

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review of Recent Research L2 Japanese - Mori

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lang. Teach. (2011), 44.

Review of recent research (2000–2010) on learning and instruction

Yoshiko Mori Georgetown University, Washington DC, USA

Junko Mori The University of Wisconsin–Madison, USA

2000 2010 200

1. Issues in L2 Japanese acquisition

1.1 Vocabulary and kanji learning

in conjunction with reading for meaning, enhanced intermediate L2 Japanese learners’

1.2 Interlanguage grammar development

1.3 Reading and writing in L2 Japanese

1.4 Interlanguage pragmatics and language socialization

Research on L2 Japanese has maintained a strong tradition in its investigation of interlanguage

1.5 Affective factors in L2 Japanese learning

1.5.3 Learner/teacher perceptions and attitudes

1.6 Multilingualism and the acquisition of Japanese as a heritage language

As a result of globalization, an increasing number of school-age children, accompanied by

Japanese-speaking parent or grandparent; JHL Grandparent Group with at least one

Japanese-English bilingual children’s code mixing as indicating their emerging identities as

2. Issues in pedagogical practice

2.1 Instructional approaches and curriculum design

the perspectives of researchers or ethnographers, and examine language use in a descriptive

2.2 Conceptualization of ‘culture’ in language education

2.3 Classroom discourse

Along with the exploration of innovative instructional approaches, the investigation of

qualitative analyses (2001b, 2001c), informed by Vygotskian sociocultural theory, revealed

2.4 Study abroad

college-level JFL learners in English-speaking countries, as mentioned earlier. This lopsided

lack of extensive international collaboration among researchers of L2 Japanese, or between

Wharton, G. (2005). Language learning interest at a new management university in multilingual

JUNKO MORI is Professor of Japanese Language and Linguistics at University of Wisconsin-Madison

You might also like