Abstract
In our study, we focused on the nominal domain, as it is an area of persistent difficulty for Japanese learners of English. We administered pretests, instruction, and posttests to 14 participants. The instruction part covered three weeks of a 15-week semester. The participants were randomly divided into two groups: one instruction group (n = 7) and one control group (n = 7). The control group did not receive any instruction. The posttest was given at the end of the instruction period to both groups and again at the end of the semester. The instruction group received instruction about the properties of definiteness, specificity, and genericity. Learners were also given instruction on the perception of articles in spoken English. The results of our study show that despite the complexity of articles, learners did have a better understanding of specificity and their perception of the indefinite article in oral input improved. We discuss the implications of generative SLA research applied to the language classroom.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The abbreviations used in the glosses of the Samoan examples in (6) and (7) are as follows (from Fuli 2007): ART = article, LD = locative directional particle, NSP = non-specific, SG = singular, SP = specific, Q = question and TAM = tense aspect marker.
- 2.
The symbol # in (10b) and elsewhere means that the sentence cannot receive a generic interpretation.
References
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
Bley-Vroman, Robert. 1990. The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis 20: 3–49.
Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink. 2006. Praat: doing phonetics by computer (Version 4.5.05) [Computer program]. Retrieved November 5, 2006 from www.praat.org.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Principles and parameters in syntactic theory. In Explanations in linguistics, ed. Norbert Hornstein and David Lightfoot. London: Longman.
Cohen, Ariel. 2001. On the generic use of indefinite singulars. Journal of Semantics 18: 183–209.
Dulay, Heidi C., and Marina K. Burt. 1974. Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning 24: 37–53.
Fodor, Janet, and Ivan Sag. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 355–398.
Fuli, Lotu Titi. 2007. Definiteness vs. specificity: An investigation into the terms used to describe articles in Gagana Samoa. Master’s thesis, University of Auckland.
García Mayo, María del Pilar, and Roger Hawkins (eds.). 2009. Second language acquisition of articles: Empirical findings and theoretical implications. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Goto-Butler, Yuko. 2002. Second language learners’ theories on the use of English articles: An analysis of the metalinguistic knowledge used by Japanese students in acquiring the English article system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24: 451–481.
Heim, Irene. 1991. Articles and definiteness. In Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich, 487–535. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.
Ionin, Tania, Heejeong Ko, and Kenneth Wexler. 2004. Article semantics in L2 acquisition: the role of specificity. Language Acquisition 12: 3–69.
Ionin, Tania, Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, and Vadim Philippov. 2009. Acquisition of article semantics by child and adult L2-English learners. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12: 337–361.
Ionin, Tania, Silvina Montrul, Ji-Hye Kim, and Vadim Philippov. 2011. Genericity distinctions and the interpretation of determiners in L2 acquisition. Language Acquisition 18: 242–280.
Izumi, Shinichi, and Usha Lakshmanan. 1998. Learnability, negative evidence and the L2 acquisition of the English passive. Second Language Research 14: 62–101.
Krashen, Steven. 1985. The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
Krifka, Manfred, Francis Pelletier, Gregory Carlson, Alice ter Meulen, Godehard Link, and Gennaro Chierchia. 1995. Genericity: An introduction. In The generic book, ed. Gregory Carlson and Francis Pelletier, 1–125. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Krol-Markefka, Agnieszka. 2008. The role of explicit rule presentation in teaching English articles to Polish learners. In Morphosyntactic issues in second language acquisition, ed. Danuta Gabry-Barker, 177–186. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Master, Peter. 1987. A cross-linguistic interlanguage analysis of the acquisition of the English article system. PhD dissertation, UCLA.
Master, Peter. 1990. Teaching the English articles as a binary system. TESOL Quarterly 24: 461–478.
Master, Peter. 1995. Consciousness raising and article pedagogy. In Academic writing in a second language, ed. Diane Belcher and George Braine, 183–204. Norword: Ablex.
Pica, Teresa. 1983. The article in American English: What the textbooks don’t tell us. In Sociolinguistics and language acquisition, ed. Nessa Wolfson and Elliot Judd, 222–233. Rowley: Newbury House.
Pierce, Lisa, and Tania Ionin. 2011. Perception of articles in L2 English. In Selected proceedings of the 2009 Second Language Research Forum, ed. Luke Plonsky and Maren Schierloh, 121–128. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Schwartz, Bonnie. 1993. On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and ‘linguistic behavior’. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15: 147–163.
Schwartz, Bonnie, and Magda Gubala-Ryzak. 1992. Learnability and grammar reorganisation in L2A: Against negative evidence causing the unlearning of verb movement. Second Language Research 8: 1–38.
Sudo, Michiko Mochizuki, and Ikuyo Kaneko. 2005. Acquisition process of English rhythmic patterns: Comparison between native speakers of English and Japanese junior high school students. JACET Bulletin 40: 1–14.
Trahey, Martha. 1996. Positive evidence in second language acquisition: some long term effects. Second Language Research 12: 111–139.
Trahey, Martha, and Lydia White. 1993. Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15: 181–204.
Trenkic, Danjela. 2008. The representation of English articles in second language grammars: determiners or adjectives? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 11: 1–18.
VanPatten, Bill, and Teresa Cadierno. 1993. Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15: 225–241.
White, Lydia. 1991. Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research 70: 133–161.
White, Benjamin. 2010. In search of systematicity: A conceptual framework for the English article system. PhD dissertation, Michigan State University.
Wilson, Ian. 2008. Using Praat and Moodle for teaching segmental and suprasegmental pronunciation. In Proceedings of the 3rd international WorldCALL Conference: Using Technologies for Language Learning (WorldCALL 2008), 112–115. Fukuoka, Japan.
Yusa, Noriaki, Masatoshi Koizumi, Jungho Kim, Naoki Kimura, Shinya Uchida, Satoru Yokoyama, Naoki Miura, Ryuta Kawashima, and Hiroko Hagiwara. 2011. Second-language instinct and instruction effects: Nature and nurture in second-language acquisition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 23: 2716–2730.
Acknowledgement
This study has been supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B, 21320078) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science to Noriaki Yusa.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Lesson 2 notes are not included in the Appendix, as the instruction provided in this lesson was on how to analyze sentences in Praat.
Appendix
1.1 Lesson 1. Uniqueness, Definiteness and Specificity
An important distinction in English is that a cannot be interpreted as definite in any context as in (1) and (2). ?? means it is odd:
(1)
a. A man walked into the room. After thirty minutes a man left. = indefinite
b. A man is in the women’s bathroom (but I haven’t dared to go in there to see who it is). = ??definite
(2)
a. A man just proposed to me in the orangery (though I’m much too embarrassed to tell you who it was). = indefinite
b. A man walked into the room. After thirty minutes a man left. = ??definite
The indefinite article a is specified as indefinite where the second use of the indefinite in (1a) and (2a) (a man) can be either specific or non-specific but it cannot be interpreted as definite as in (1b) as a man is a nonunique referent. Similarly, in example (2b), reference to A man cannot be indefinite if referring to the same individual.
(3)
a. A man walked into the room. After thirty minutes a man left. = ??indefinite
b. A man walked into the room. After thirty minutes the man left. = definite
The opposite is true of the definite article the. In (3b) the definite the man links to the first indefinite A man because the man has been identified and is unique within the discourse. But, in (3a) indefinite a cannot function as an article marking someone being identified as unique. However, the definite article can also be non-specific:
(4)
a. I’d like to talk to a winner of today’s race – whoever that is; I’m writing a story about this race for the newspaper. = ??indefinite
b. I’d like to talk to the winner of today’s race – whoever that is; I’m writing a story about this race for the newspaper. = definite
(5)
a. I’d like to talk to a winner of today’s race – she is my best friend! = ??indefinite
b. I’d like to talk to the winner of today’s race – she is my best friend! = definite
The examples in (4b) and (5b) show that there is going to be a winner of the race and there can usually be only one unique winner. In (4b) the speaker does not know who the winner will be but knows that there will be a unique winner (the person who comes first) and in (5b) the speaker refers to a particular individual in the race who is her best friend.
Think about example (6) below:
(6) Mary’s gone for a spin in the car she just bought. = definite
In (6) the hearer does not know the car. He/she cannot describe the car unless the hearer saw the car. The definite article in (6) shows there is only one car that is being described. It means that Mary bought only one car. What about example (7):
(7) Mary’s gone for a spin in a car she just bought. = indefinite
In (7) we have an indefinite article. But, we could be talking about one car or it is possible Mary bought more than one car.
1.2 Lesson 3. Generics
All generics look the same:
(1)
a. An elephant never forgets.
b. The elephant never forgets.
c. Elephants never forget.
What about the examples in 2?
(2) a. The sunflower blooms in spring. [generic]
b. The sunflower bloomed in spring. [nongeneric]
c. The tiger eats small animals. [generic]
d. The tiger has eaten small animals. [nongeneric]
e. The fox hunts rabbits. [generic]
f. The fox is hunting rabbits. [nongeneric]
If the verb is in the present tense, then it is possible to get a generic reading of the sentence. So, in 2. a, c and e, we get generic readings. But if the verb is in a different tense, we cannot get a generic reading as in examples 2. b, d and f. Example 2. b is past tense, 2. d is present perfect tense, and 2. f is present continuous tense.
Genericity: NP Level
-
A well-defined kind is established.
-
The target sentence contains a kind predicate.
-
Bare plurals and the definite article can be used.
Think about example 3:
(3)
a. The potato was first cultivated in South America.
b. Potatoes were introduced into Ireland by the end of the 17th century.
We call NPs like the potato in 3. a or potatoes in 3. b generic NPs. The underlined NPs in 3. do not refer to particular or specific potatoes but rather a group of potatoes in general. It does not refer to an ‘ordinary’ individual or object.
Certain types of verbs such as die out, extinct, invent and widespread are only used with the definite article. See examples in 4:
(4)
a. The lion will become extinct soon.
b. Lions will become extinct soon.
c. *A lion will become extinct soon.
d. A lion will become extinct soon (means a certain type of lion).
Genericity: Sentence Level
-
The kind is not well defined.
-
The target sentence is characterising.
-
Bare plurals and the indefinite article can be used.
Generic sentences report a general property. In the examples in 5. and 6. the sentences express a general property about potatoes, beavers and lions:
(5)
a. A potato contains vitamin C, amino acids, protein and thiamine.
b. Potatoes contain vitamin C, amino acids, protein and thiamine.
(6)
a. A beaver builds dams.
b. Beavers build dams.
c. A lion has a bushy tail.
d. Lions have bushy tails.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Snape, N., Yusa, N. (2013). Explicit Article Instruction in Definiteness, Specificity, Genericity and Perception. In: Whong, M., Gil, KH., Marsden, H. (eds) Universal Grammar and the Second Language Classroom. Educational Linguistics, vol 16. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6362-3_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6362-3_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-6361-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-6362-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)