[研究ノート］

Sanno University Bulletin Vol. 39 No.1 September 2018

日本人EFL学習者の発話コーパスにおける冠詞の使用
The Use of Articles in Japanese EFL Learners’ Spoken Corpus

日吉 佑太
Yuta Hiyoshi

Abstract
This research surveys Japanese EFL learners’ errors related to articles.

In

particular, the following are investigated; (1) how often the errors occur, (2) whattypes of errors are more frequent, and (3) how the frequency and the types of errors
change over learners’ development are investigated.

The error-tagged componentof NICT JLE Corpus, the transcription of Japanese EFL learners’ speech in the
English oral proficiency test, was used in the present research, and the errors weredetected and analyzed by using AntConc, a concordancer software.

As a result, thelearners were found to make about 31 errors related with articles in every 1,000
words.

Errors regarding indefinite articles (i.e., a/an) occurred more frequently

than those regarding the definite article (i.e., the), and the omission of articles wasmore common than substitution and addition of them among the learners.

It wasalso revealed that the group of the most proficient learners made approximately
one-third as many errors as beginners did.

In general, the percentage of errors

related to the definite article and that of the addition errors increased as thelearners’ proficiency level rose.

１． Introduction
I have been teaching English to junior high, high school, and college
students for more than nine years.

In the course of my teaching, I often

notice that my students omit, add, and substitute articles and that they
complain about the difficulty of learning English articles.
2018年4月3日

受理

45

In my perception,

日本人EFL学習者の発話コーパスにおける冠詞の使用

the difficulty has been increased by the lack of time spent on teachingarticles, as it has been generally placed near the end of textbooks used forlessons.
Articles have been hypothesized to be one of the morphemes that arelearned relatively early by both L1 and L2 learners.

Brown 〔1973〕 argued

that an article is the sixth of nine morphemes that L1 learners acquire.
Similarly in L2, Dulay and Burt 〔1974〕 reported that English learners who

spoke various L1 also followed the similar sequences of morpheme
acquisition.

Following the series of studies, Krashen 〔1977〕 formulated the

Natural Order Hypothesis of L2 morpheme acquisition, with articles being,along with the auxiliary be, the second of four groups of morphemes that are
acquired early by L2 learners.
Judging from my teaching experience, I have had doubts about the above
proposed easiness of learning articles until I learned recently that there areresearch papers focusing on Japanese learner’s acquisition of morphemes.
These papers have indicated, the order of acquisition of Japanese learners isbasically consistent with Krashen’s theory, except for possessive -’s and anarticle, i.e. the former was learned relatively early, and the latter waslearned late 〔Hakuta 1976; Shirahata 1988; Tono 2002 as cited in Izumi,

Uchimoto and Isahara 2005; Luk and Shirai 2009〕.

However, it is still unclear how learners’ use of articles change over time.

I am here concerned with how the frequency of errors change, and whattypes of errors Japanese EFL learners commit in regard to articles.

I willbegin this paper with the details of research on morpheme acquisition orderof Japanese learners, followed by the statement of research questions.

I

will thereafter describe the methodology of this paper, along with the results
and discussion.

In the conclusion, I will summarize and raise further

questions for study.

２． Literature Review
As mentioned in the introduction, a number of studies were conducted toinvestigate the acquisition order of morphemes in the 1970s.

46

The research

Sanno University Bulletin Vol. 39 No.1 September 2018

by Brown 〔1973〕 was the starting point of a series of papers, although it was

L1 learners, not L2 learners, that were surveyed in the paper. He reported
that L1 learners manifested the following order of acquisition: (1) Present

progressive –ing, (2) plural –s, (3) irregular past, (4) possessive -’s, (5) copulabe, (6) an article, (7) regular past –ed, (8) third person singular present –s,and (9) auxiliary be.

Subsequently, similar results were found for L2 English learners
irrespective of their L1, such as Spanish and Chinese 〔Dulay and Burt 1974;

Bailey, Madden and Krashen 1974〕.

However, ranking all morphemes has

between the morphemes are ignored.

To deal with this issue, Krashen

potential risk that they disguise the actual difference in accuracy between
them 〔Ellis 2008, p. 83〕, meaning that actual distances of difficulty levels〔1977〕 finally put morphemes into groups that are learned at the same stageof development.

This is known as the Natural Order which consists of fourgroups: (1) –ing, plural, and copula, (2) auxiliary and article, (3) irregular

past, and (4) regular past, third person singular, possessive –s.

Some studies have been conducted to explore the acquisition order ofJapanese learners of L2 English.

They have shown that Japanese learners

basically share similar sequences of acquisition with the Natural Order,
although there were some differences.

In particular, articles have beenshown to be more difficult for these learners (i.e., they are learned later)
than it was predicted in the Natural Order.

On the contrary, morphemes

such as possessive ’s were learned earlier 〔Hakuta 1976; Sihrahata 1988;

Tono 2002 as cited in Izumi, Uchimoto and Isahara 2005; Luk and Shirai2009〕.

For example, Luk and Shirai 〔2009〕 reviewed eight studies ofmorpheme acquisition by Japanese learners and found that all the studies
except two indicated Japanese learners acquired articles relatively latecompared with the Natural Order, where articles belong to the second grouplearned.

These findings were consistent with the recent research that was

carried out from the perspective of learner corpus research.

Tono 〔2002 as

cited in Izumi, Uchimoto and Isahara 2005〕 which surveyed the corpus

named JEFFL (Japanese EFL Learner) Corpus that consists of written
production derived for Japanese high school and college students.

47

He日本人EFL学習者の発話コーパスにおける冠詞の使用

likewise found that the acquisition of articles was delayed in comparison
with the Natural Order of acquisition while possessive ‘s was learned earlier.
The reason for these differences has been attributed to the influence of L1.
As the Japanese language does not have any system equivalent to articles, anegative transfer occurs, forcing learners’ difficulty. On the other hand,possessive ’s has its L1 equivalent that allows learners to learn easily 〔Lukand Shirai 2009〕.

３． Research Questions
Following the discussion above, it seems to be obvious that articles impose
a heavy burden on Japanese learners compared with other L1 speakers. It
is thus advised that teachers offer substantial help to learners. For thatreason, it is important to focus on the details of the acquisition of articles, i.e.,
how often the errors occur, what errors are prevalent among Japanese EFL
learners, or how those features change with the learners’ development.
However, there is yet little research that directly answers to these questions.
Thus, the following research questions are set for the present study:
1. How often do Japanese EFL learners make errors regarding articles?
2. What types of errors do Japanese EFL learners tend to make?
3. How do the frequency of errors and the error types change as learners
develop their English proficiency?

４． Methodology for the Present Study
The corpus used for this project is taken from the NICT JLE Corpus.
This corpus consists of 1,281 samples and 1.2 million words which wereelicited from Japanese EFL learners in an English oral proficiency test
(ACTFL-ALC SST).

One of the advantages of using this corpus is that 167

out of 1,281 transcripts are error-tagged and easy for analyses using aconcordancer software.

It is also beneficial that each learner’s proficiency

level is specified, from Level 1 (lowest) to Level 9 (highest).

To maximize

these advantages, I only used 167 error-tagged transcripts and divided them48

Sanno University Bulletin Vol. 39 No.1 September 2018

into 8 sub-corpora according to the proficiency level.

As there was only one

transcript from Level 1 learner, Levels 1 and 2 were combined and formed a
sub-corpus.

Table 1 shows the summary of the sub-corpora.

The errors were detected by utilizing AntConc, a free concordancer
software which was developed and distributed by Dr. Laurence Anthony.

Toanswer Research Question 1, the number of errors were counted in each
sub-corpora and subsequently frequency rates per 1,000 words were
calculated.
For Research Question 2, the detected errors were further classified in two
ways.

First, the errors were categorized into indefinite article (i.e., a, an)and definite article (i.e., the) based on which article is obligatory
gramatically.

Secondly, the errors were categorized into three types:

omission, substitution, and addition. In this project, they were defined asfollows: (a) Omission: An error in which article was omitted when it was
required; (b) Substitution: An error in which indefinite article (a, an) wasused instead of the definite article (the), or in which the definite article wasused instead of an indefinite article; (c) Addition: An error in which an article
was unnecessarily used although it was not required.
For Research Question 3, the frequency data and the categorized data arecompared between sub-corpora in order that the change of article use
according to proficiency can be observed.

49

日本人EFL学習者の発話コーパスにおける冠詞の使用

Table 1

Summary of eight Sub-Corpora
Level

Number of

Total words

Distribution

learners
1&2

8

1,680

4.78%

3

28

12,50616.76%

443

30,24425.74%

530

26,54717.96%

6

28

28,01616.76%

7

16

18,562

9.58%

8

9

10,507

5.38%

9

5

6,682

2.99%

Total

167

134,699−

５． Results
5.1

Research Question 1 (How often do Japanese EFL learners make errors

regarding articles?)The frequency of the errors regarding the use ofarticles is shown in Appendix A.

The number of errors regarding articles

adds up to 4,177 times in 134,699 words. This means the learners
committed 31.01 errors in every 1,000 words.
5.2

Research Question 2 (What types of errors do Japanese EFL learners

tend to make?)

The numbers of errors regarding indefinite articles (a, an)and definite articles (the) are shown in Appendix B.

The learners made2,044 times of mistakes regarding indefinite articles (60.1%), and 1,356
times regarding definite articles (39.9%). Moreover, the numbers of eachtype of errors and its percentage are shown in Appendix C.

When we lookat the whole subject corpus, 2,779 errors out of 4,177 were omission ofarticles, which was 66.5% of the total.

Substitution occurred 503 times, andaddition 895 times, which accounted for 12.0% and 21.4% each.

Thus themost common type of error among Japanese EFL learners was omission ofarticles.

The results show that Japanese learners make errors for50

Sanno University Bulletin Vol. 39 No.1 September 2018indefinite articles more often than definite articles, and they tend to omit
articles more frequently than the other types of errors, substitution andaddition.
5.3

Research Question 3 (How do the frequency of errors and the error

types change as learners develop their English proficiency?) To begin with,for overall frequency of errors, Japanese learners tend to improve as theirlanguage proficiency develops (See Appendix A).

The learners at Levels 1

and 2 made 50.00 errors per 1,000 words; for the most proficient group oflearners, Level 9, the figure dropped down to 17.36.

In other words, themost advanced learners showed error frequency that was about one-thirdthat of the beginners.
Next, the percentage data in Appendix B was transformed into a chart (seeFigure 1).

Here we can find that more than 75% of the errors made by the

beginners are with indefinite articles.

Throughout the proficiency levels,

however, errors regarding indefinite articles are more common than those of
the definite article. Additionally, the ratio of proficient learners’ errors withthe definite article was higher than that of beginning learners.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%

the

40%

a/an

30%
20%
10%
0%

Level Level Level Level Level Level Level Level
1/2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Figure 1. Rate of Errors Regarding Indefinite/Definite Articles

51日本人EFL学習者の発話コーパスにおける冠詞の使用

Finally, The percentage data in Appendix C were organized as a chart (seeFigure 2).

It is obvious that learners tend to make frequent omission ofarticles from the beginning of learning.

As they improve their proficiency,

learners move away from omission to addition.

However, omission was still

the most frequent type of error throughout the proficiency levels.

Even forlearners who belong to Level 9, the most proficient group, omission
accounted for 58.6% of the total number of errors.

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%

Addition

40%

Omission

Substitution

30%
20%
10%
0%

Level Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level7 Level 8 Level 9
1/2

Figure 2. Rate of Error Types

52

Sanno University Bulletin Vol. 39 No.1 September 2018

６． Discussion
As we have seen in the previous section, Japanese EFL learners as a wholeappear to make about 31 errors about articles in every 1,000 words according
to the subject corpus.

Although beginning learners make about 50 article

errors in every 1,000 words, the rate should ultimately decrease to less than
20 per 1,000 words if they keep on learning.
According to the study, indefinite articles (a, an) are prone to errors more

frequently than the definite article (the). This tendency seems to persist
even after the learners reach high proficiency, although the rate of errors
with the definite article errors slightly increased.

It can be assumed thatindefinite articles are more susceptible to Japanese EFL learners’ errors
because the proportion of obligatory contexts requiring indefinite anddefinite articles could have been consistent throughout the levels.

However,

we cannot directly conclude that, as the accuracy rate of each article type
was not calculated in this paper.
With regard to the types of the errors, omission is the most frequent for allgroups of learners.

This result might have reflected the influence ofnegative transfer from Japanese to English.

That is, the learners probably

do not even notice that there should be articles, as the Japanese language
does not include any system that is comparable to articles.

Bryan 〔1984〕 is

supportive of this view, mentioning that incorrect omission of articles byJapanese learners results is caused by the ‘intrusion of L1’ (p. 2).

The fact

that the articles are function words, and the misuse of them does notnecessarily affect communication might also account for this tendency.
Here again, the accuracy rate of articles was not counted either.

The same

problem also occurs here so that we cannot make a conclusion.

We cannevertheless presume that beginning learners are likely to make moreomission than substitution and addition errors, while advanced learners
make less omission and more addition.
In class, teachers should inform learners of the importance of articles fromthe beginning stage of learning, against frequent disregard for them intextbooks and syllabi.

The recent trends toward communication-oriented

teaching make the situation more difficult, as communication can be carried

53

日本人EFL学習者の発話コーパスにおける冠詞の使用

out without articles to some extent. However, brief but frequent references
to when and how articles are used might help learners’ understanding.
Teachers furthermore need to focus on the indefinite article rather than thedefinite article if they want to improve the overall article use of theirlearners.

７． Conclusion
It is true that Japanese EFL learners frequently make errors regarding
articles. However, such a difficult morpheme of English can be acquired
over time gradually, not to say rapidly.

It might be a good idea for teachers

to show their learners such data derived from learner corpus research sothat learners are properly encouraged and motivated.

It was also foundthat the beginning learners make more errors with indefinite articles thanwith the definite article, and more omission than substitution or addition.
As learners improve, the rate of errors with the definite article and addition
type errors increase.
There are certainly some limitations in this study. The small sample sizeof the study may have influenced the results.

In addition, the total numberof occurrence of articles in learners’ production should have been counted,
which enables calculation of an accuracy rate.
Further research is required.

Analyzing other types of corpora andcomparing the results from various analyses should help us understandmorpheme acquisition of Japanese learners.

For instance, the use ofmorphemes in written learner corpus (e.g., the JEFFL Corpus) should be
investigated to see whether there is a different tendency of errors between
oral production and written production because writing allows moreplanning time for learners.

If there is enough time for monitoring, learners

can pay more attention, which leads to higher accuracy in turn (i.e.,style-shifting) 〔Tarone 1985〕.
should fall.

It is thus predicted that the error frequency

Research involving a corpus gained from younger learners

should also benefit classroom teaching at junior-high and high school inJapan.

54

Sanno University Bulletin Vol. 39 No.1 September 2018

References
Bailey, N., Madden, C., & Krashen, S.: Is there a “natural sequence” in adultsecond language learning?, Language Learning, 24(2), 1974, p.p.235-243
Brown, R.: A First Language: The Early Stage, Harvard University Press,
1973, Cambridge, Mass.
Bryant, W. H.: Typical errors in English made by Japanese ESL students,
JALT Journal, 6, 1984, p.p.1-18
Dulay, H., & Burt, M.: A new perspective on the creative construction process
in child second language acquisition, Language Learning, 24, 1974,
p.p.37-53
Hakuta, K.: A case study of a Japanese child learning English as a second
language, Language Learning, 26, 1976, p.p.321-351
Izumi, E., Uchimoto, K., & Isahara, H.: Investigation into Japanese learners’
acquisition order of major grammatical morphemes using error-tagged
learner corpus, Journal of Natural Language Processing, 12, 2005,
p.p.211-225
Krashen, S.: Some issues relating to the Monitor Model, In H. Brown, C.
Yorio, & R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL ’77, TESOL, Washington, D.C.,
1977, p.p.144-158
Luk, Z. P., & Shirai, Y.: Is the acquisition order of grammatical morphemes
impervious to L1 knowledge? Evidence from the acquisition of plural –s,
articles, and possessive ‘s, Language Learning, 59(4), 2009, p.p.721-754
Shirahata, T.: The learning of English grammatical morphemes by Japanesehigh school students, JACET Bulletin, 19, 1988, p.p.83-102
Tarone, E.: Variability in interlanguage use: A study of style-shifting inmorphology and syntax, Language learning, 35(3), 1985, p.p.373-403

55

日本人EFL学習者の発話コーパスにおける冠詞の使用

Appendix A

Frequency of Article Errors
Level

Total words

Total errors

Errors per 1,000
words

1&2

1,680

84

50.00

3

12,506

562

44.94

4

30,244

1,196

39.55

5

26,547

896

33.75

6

28,016

686

24.49

7

18,562

394

21.23

8

10,507

243

23.13

9

6,682

116

17.36

Total

134,699

4,177

31.01

Appendix B

Number of Errors Regarding Indefinite/Definite Articles
Level

Indefinite (a, an) (%)

1&2

55 (76.4)

17 (23.6)

3302 (63.6)

173 (36.4)

4585 (59.4)

400 (40.6)

5434 (58.3)

310 (41.7)

6

320 (60.3)

211 (39.7)7

185 (60.1)

123 (39.9)

8114 (58.8)

80 (41.2)

949 (53.8)

42 (46.2)

Total

2,044 (60.1)

1,356 (39.9)

56

Definite (the) (%)

Sanno University Bulletin Vol. 39 No.1 September 2018

Appendix C

Number of Error Types
Level

Total errors

Omission (%)

Substitution

Addition (%)

(%)

1&2

84

65 (77.3)

6 ( 7.2)

13 (15.5)3562

463 (82.4)

57 (10.1)

42 ( 7.5)

4

1,196

822 (68.7)

130 (10.8)

244 (20.4)5896

584 (65.2)

111 (12.4)

201 (22.4)6686388 (56.6)

101 (14.8)

197 (28.7)7394

236 (59.9)

53 (13.4)

105 (26.6)

8243

153 (63.0)

30 (12.4)

60 (24.7)

9116

68 (58.6)

15 (12.9)

33 (28.4)

Total

4,177

2,779 (66.5)

503 (12.0)895 (21.4)

57