Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

Reaction toward false Kanji by native and non-native speakers ofJapanese
Yoko Okita

International Exchange Center, Tokyo Medical and Dental University
yokita.isc@tmd.ac.jp

Abstract
This study examined how native and non-native speakers of Japanese react to Pseudo, Wrong, Vague, andreal Kanji (Chinese character in Japanese). The non-native speakers in this study did not learn Chinesecharacters in their mother languages. They are begging to intermediate learners of Japanese. The participants
were asked to decide if a character is true (exist) or not true (does not exist) by pushing a key. The correct
rates of native speakers were significantly higher than those of non-native speakers in all stimulus groups.
The correct rates of Vague and Pseudo were low in both groups. The correct rate of Wrong Kanji in native
speakers was 100%, whereas the average correct rate of Wrong Kanji in non-native speakers was 57%. The
position of a semantic radical is never change and crucial to get the meaning of a character. The correct ratesof Wrong in non-native speakers increased in accordance with their proficiency. The importance of thesemantic radical should be more emphasized in teaching Kanji.

Keywords
Chinese character, Recognition, Non-native speakers

1
1.1

Introduction
Background

The purposes of this study are exploring learning processes of graphic features of Kanji (Chinese characters
in Japanese) and finding out difficult points when learners of Japanese from non-Chinese character area
(LJNC), those who have not learned Chinese characters in their mother languages. Learning to read Japanese
text is a big burden for LJNC (Toyoda, 2009). Japanese uses three different scripts, Hiragana, Katakana, andKanji simultaneously in one text. Hiragana and Katakana are syllabograms. There is one to one
correspondence between a character and reading. On the other hand Kanji is logograph which conveys
meanings and readings in one character. Further, most of Kanji characters have multiple readings. This
complex Japanese writing system discourages for LJNC to learn Japanese scripts. For example, there aresome introductory Japanese language text books which are not written in Japanese scripts, but in all
Romanized characters, such as “Japanese for Busy People I – Romanized Version “ (Nihongo Fukyu Kyokai,
1995). Therefore, making learning Japanese scripts easier is one of important educational issues in teachingor learning Japanese as a second language (JSL). Among three scripts, Kanji is one of the biggest obstaclesin learning to read Japanese for LJNC (Takebe, 1985).
Although there are controversies about pathways of reading process, cognitive reading process models
basically assume that reading starts from perception of visual information, and then converting visual
information to phonological information, and finally accessing meanings (Traxler, 2011). Recent
neuroimaging studies of visual word processing using Magnetoencephalography (MEG) (e.g., Pylkkanen andMarantz , 2003) and event-rerated potential (ERP) (e.g., Hauk, Coutout, Holden, and Chen, 2011; Hauk,
Davis, Ford, Pulvermuller, and Marslen-Wilson, 2006 ; Holcomb and Grainger, 2006) demonstrated thatvisual information is processed around 70-170 milliseconds (ms) after presenting a visual word, visual tophonological information is processed around 200-300 ms, and phonological-semantic information isprocesses around 350-400 ms. Thus, extracting visual information from print is the very first step of reading.
Chinese characters are processed slightly differently from alphabetic characters in the brain and require
more graphic computation compared with alphabetic characters (Wu, Ho, and Chen, 2012). For example, Lv
and Wang (2012) reported that font differences of Chinese characters led different activation pattern in thebrain when native speakers of Chinese passively looked at Chinese characters. According to them,72Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

graphically complex Chinese characters induced more activation in the brain. In Japanese, differences in
Kanji and Kana (Hiragana and Katakana) processing in the brain also have been studied (e.g., Hatta, 1981;
Thuy, Matsuo, Nakamura, Toma, Oga, Nakai, Shibusaki, and Fukayama, 2004). Thuy, Matsuo, andNakamura et al. (2004) reported that Kanji and Kana used different routes, even if the routes in the brain
were overlapped by and large. They also found that Kanji processing required more graphic computation
than Kana did. Kanji seems to need more computational demand in graphic processing than syllabogram,
Kana. Other neurological studies show importance of knowing graphic structures of Kanji. In Kanji
recognition process, a Kanji character is decomposed into small parts and intergraded into the original
character again. Flores d'Arcais and Saito (1993) found that pre-presenting a part of a Kanji character, such
as 口, facilitating recognition of another Kanji character, such as 石. 口 has meaning “mouth” and is
pronounced /kuchi/ or /kou/. 石 has meaning of “stone” and is pronounced /ishi/ or /seki/. 口 and 石 are
not related each other semantically as well as phonologically in Japanese. Kashiwagi and Kashiwagi (1989)
reported an aphasic patient who could write 日 and 立, but could not write 音. These results suggest thatknowing structures of Kanji and being able to decompose a Kanji character accurately are crucial skills in
Kanji learning and recognition
Studies on Japanese children and JSL learners showed the importance of graphic features of Kanji in Kanji
learning. For example, Koyama, Hansen, and Stein (2008) reported that visual memory was a strong
predictor of Japanese children’s Kanji knowledge. Hatta, Kawakami, and Tamaoka (1998) reported that
Australian learners of Japanese found learning graphic features of Kanji was most difficult. Some studies
investigated how adult JSL learners from alphabetic language backgrounds learned Japanese scripts(Chikamatsu, 2006; Toyoda, 2009). Chikamatsu (2006) found that more advanced L2 readers relied on moregraphic information than phonological information compared with less proficient L2 readers. Toyoda (2009)
found that graphic awareness of Kanji components improved according to Japanese language proficiency.
Cueva and Murota (2011) investigated decomposition of Kanji by non-native speakers of Japanese fromvarious countries. They found that intermediate learners decomposed Kanji more efficiently than beginninglearners. It appears that learning graphic feature of Kanji plays a key role in learning Kanji. However, mostof previous studies have focused on phonology or semantics. Learning graphic features of Chinese characterhas not been studied well (Koyama, Hansen, and Stein, 2008). However, learning processes of graphic
features of Kanji have not received much attention from researchers and teachers in Japanese primaryeducation and JSL.
One of educational issues in teaching Kanji is introduction order of Kanji. Vorobyova (2008) argued thatcomplex Kanji, such as 校 or 休 was introduced earlier than 木 in some 1st grade primary school
textbooks. The Ministry of Education in Japan explained how they decided the introduction order of Kanji ineach primary school grades in the 1955 primary school curriculum guidelines in Kanji no Gakunen Haito(1955). According to this explanation, the classification was based on 1) frequent use in social life, 2)familiarity, 3) small number of stroke order, and 4) easiness for remembering. The current primary school
curriculum guidelines in 2011 (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan(MEXT), 2011) still follow the 1955 guidelines. The same trend is found in teaching JSL. Instruction ordersof Kanji in popular Japanese language textbooks, such as in Minnano Nihongo Shokyu I, Kanji English
Edition (Nishiguchi, Shinya, Koga, Takada, and Mikogami, 2000) and Genki: An Integrated Course in
Elementary Japanese I (Banno, Ikeda, Ohno, Shinagawa, and Tokashiki, 2011), are based on familiarity or
frequent use. For example, in Genki: An Integrated Course in Elementary Japanese I (Banno, Ikeda, Ohno,
Shinagawa, and Tokashiki, 2011), 時 (hour, time) is introduced earlier than 寺 (temple). Semantically“hour, time” is more important and familiar than “temple.” However, graphically 時 is more complex than寺. Effectiveness of introduction order of Kanji has not been well studied (Vorobyova, 2008). Investigating
what kinds of graphic features of Kanji are difficult to learn could contribute to develop effective
introduction order of Kanji.
1.2
Radicals and structure of Kanji
Even though some Chinese characters have pictographic origins, the graphic features of Chinese characterstoday are abstracted (Shu and Anderson, 1995). Many Chinese characters are largely decomposed into twoparts horizontally, such as 古 or vertically, such as 利 (Fang and Wu ,1989). One of the two parts invertical or horizontal structure is a radical. Chinese character dictionaries are arranged by radicals. A radical
has a dominant position (i.e. frequently occurring position) in a Chinese character. For example, 氵, aradical which means water, is always placed at the most left side of a character. Psychological studies using
native speakers of Chinese (e.g., Taft and Zhu, 1997: Taft, Zhu, and Peng, 1999) reported that changing
73

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

dominant radical position slowed graphic, phonetic, and semantic processes in Chinese recognition. Su, Mak,
Cheung, and Law (2012) reported that characters with a less dominant position radical, such as 覧, invokedslower reaction than characters with a dominant position radical, such as 蜆 did. In Chinese 見, as a radical,
dominantly appears on the right side of a character. Lin, Chen, Zhao, Li, He, and Weng (2011) comparedneural activities of N170 which is an ERP component after 170ms onset of stimulus presentation and is
supposed to reflect visual processing in the brain using real Chinese characters, pseudo characters, false
characters, and stroke combination. In pseudo characters the combination of two radicals does not exist. In
false characters the position of a semantic radical was changed. Stroke combination is made with
non-existing radicals. Lin et al. (2011) found that real and pseudo characters evoked larger left-lateralized(dominant language hemisphere) N170 reaction compared with false characters and stroke combination.
They also reported that real and pseudo characters produced the same amplitude of left-lateralized N170.
Real character is pronounceable, whereas false characters, pseudo characters, and stroke combination are notpronounceable. These finding suggest that orthography rather than phonology plays an important rule in
Chinese character recognition.
Besides the position of a radical, there is another important graphic feature in Kanji to access the rightmeaning. Very slight graphical differences become distinctive features of Kanji. For example, in 末(end) and未(feature) or 士(warrior) and 土 (soil), length of the two horizontal lines is crucial to know the meanings
of a Kanji character. For those LJNC, it must be very difficult to be aware of the importance of length of thetwo lines without any guidance.
In 1945 commonly used Chinese characters in Japanese, 1167 Chinese characters are Keisei, a compoundcharacter group, which consists of a semantic radical and a sound radical. Knowledge of combinations of asemantic radical and a sound radical must be useful for learning Kanji. One might be able to guess themeaning of a Keisei character, if one knows the meanings of a semantic radical and a sound radical. For
example, 晴 is made of 日 and 青. 日 is a semantic radical with meaning of “sun”. 青 is a sound radicalwith meaning of “blue”. Then the meaning of 晴 is “fine sky”. A Kun reading, that is Chinese origin reading,of 青 is /sei/ in Japanese. Therefore, it might be easy to guess that a reading of 晴 is /sei/. Even if learners
fail to guess the meaning or reading of 晴, knowledge of radicals would help them with learning themeaning and pronunciation of a Keisei character. However, knowing the right combinations is difficult evenfor native speakers of Japanese. The biggest Chinese character dictionary in Japanese, Dai kanwa jiten(Morohashi, 2000), listed around 51,000 Kanji characters, whereas only around 2,100 characters have been
selected by the Japanese government as commonly used Kanji. That is there should be lots of Kanji whicheven Japanese have not learned.
In this study, we focused on three Kanji graphic features, 1) slight distinctive differences, 2) the rightcombinations of a semantic and a sound radicals, and 3) the right position of a radical. We tested awarenessof the above three points in LJNC and Japanese adopting an experimental paradigm of Lin et al. (2011). We
employed three different types of illegal Kanji, namely Vague, Pseudo, and Wrong. Vague has very minor
or . Or a part was 180
wrong graphic features, such as equal length of the two horizontal lines, likedegree rotated, like . Vague characters were based on JLNC’s writing mistakes and were supposed to be
mistakable forms by JLNC. Vague was used to examine awareness of slight graphic differences of Kanji.
Pseudo consisted of parts with the correct radical position. However the combination of two components
does not exist. Pseudo was used to examine awareness of the right combination of a radical and a component
part. Wrong does not follow the dominant radical positioning rules. The position of a semantic radical isinverted horizontally or vertically. Wrong was used to examine awareness of the right radical position in acharacter. We also employ Korean characters as a stimulus group. Graphic combining structures of Chinesecharacters and Korean characters are the same. Korean characters also can be divided into largely two parts
vertically, such as 먀 or horizontally, such as 루. Component parts are different in Chinese and Korean
characters. Korean characters are shown in many signs in the city, such as in department stores or stations.
Therefore, one who lives in Tokyo can easily see Korean characters in daily life at least passively. Korean
characters are good indicators to examine if JLNC participants can discriminate graphic differences ofcomponents between Kanji (Chinese) or Korean characters. Korean characters also serve as fillers among
stimuli.
This study solely focused on graphic features of a Kanji character following a word decision paradigm inexperimental cognitive studies. Processing phonological and semantic information of Kanji or Kanji
compounds is cognitively very complex and difficult to control many aspects of linguistic features andindividual differences, such as frequency and familiarity for words, and linguistic and social backgrounds of74

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

the participants. Avoiding confusion and stress of JLNC during the experiment is another reason why
Hiragana and Kanji compounds were not used in this study.

3

Method3.1
Participants
The participants were eight JLNC (4 male and 4 female, M=25.6, SD=2.45) from various countries and eight
Japanese (3 male and 5 female, M=27.3, SD=4.01). The experiment in this study was approved by Ethical
Review Boards at Tokyo Medical Dental University. All participants satisfied the following threerequirements by Ethical Review Boards, 1) participants should belong to the same department or faculties
with the author or partner researchers, 2) participants agree to participate in the experiment voluntary, and 3)
the participants had advisers’ permission to participate in the experiment. All participants signed theinformed consent. All participants were healthy and had normal or corrected visions. JLNC participants were
graduate students at a university in Tokyo. They did not receive formal Japanese language education at theirhome countries. Eight Japanese participants were undergraduate students at a university in Tokyo. Table 1
showed background information of the eight JLNC. Five JLNC participants (number 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8)
studied Japanese at a formal classroom setting for 330 hours in 6 months intensively at a university. The used
testbooks were Genki I (Banno, Ikeda, Ohno, Shinagawa, and Tokashiki, 2011), and Genki II (Banno, Ikeda,
Ohno,Shinagawa, and Tokashiki, 2011). Around 200 Kanji were introduced in the class. The number 7
participant studied Japanese before coming to Japan by herself. Her level was intermediate, even if her stayin Japan was less than one year. The number 2 participant studied Japanese at a language class for 67.5 hours
in 3 months at a university. The used textbook was Hakase, Basic Japanese for students (1) (Yamazaki andDoi, 2006). Kanji were used in the main text in this textbook. However, Kanji was not taught in class. The
number 6 participant studied Japanese language for one year at a language school. However, the participantcannot remember the exact hours of instruction at the school. Intermediate participants’ level was judged
using Level 3 test from Japanese-Language Proficiency Test Official Practice Workbook (2009).
Japanese-Language Proficiency Test before 2010 had four levels, form Level 1 (advanced) to Level 4(beginning). Level 3 was placed as intermediate. The number 2 and 4 students did not take Japanese classes
for last one year at the time of experiment.

Table 1: Background information of JLNC participants
NumberNationality
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Bangladesh
Bangladesh
Bangladesh
Ghana
Thai
Nepal
Indonesia
PakistanJapanese learning
hours and period at aformal language class
330 hours, 6 months
67.5 hours, 3 months
330 hours, 6 months
330 hours, 6 months
330 hours, 6 months
Unknown* , 1 year
330 hours , 6 months
330 hours , 6 months

Period of living in
Japan

Level

2 years
2 years
3 years
2 years
2 years
2 years
11 months
3 years

Beginning
Beginning
Beginning
Beginning
Beginning
Beginning
Intermediate
Intermediate

Note: * The participant did not remember the exact hours of classes.
3.2
Character stimuli
There were five groups of character stimulus groups, four Kanji groups and one Korean group. Four Kanji
stimulus groups were Vague, Pseudo, Wrong and Real. Vague and Wrong consisted of 15 characters. Pseudoconsisted of 20 characters. Korean consisted of 10 characters. Real consisted of 25 characters. Original Kanjicharacters of Wrong and Real were chosen from Kanji characters which were introduced in beginning level
Japanese language textbooks, Minnano Nihongo Shokyu I (Three A Network, 1998a), Minnano Nihongo
Shokyu II (Three A Network, 1998b), Genki I (Banno, Ikeda, Ohno, Shinagawa, and Tokashiki, 2011), andGenki II (Banno, Ikeda, Ohno, Shinagawa, and Tokashiki, 2011). The list of Character stimuli is presented inAppendix A.
3.3
Procedure
Each character was presented one by one in the computer monitor and remained until a participant reacted.
The participants were asked to hit “1” when they thought a presented character was true Kanji and to hit “0”75Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

when they thought a presented character was not true Kanji. In the experiment, the stimuli were presented
randomly for each participant. A short practical session was conducted before the experiment. After theexperiment, short oral interview was conducted for JLNC asking, 1) if a participant tried to read Kanji on thestreet or not, and 3) if a participant continued to learn Kanji by oneself. Super Lab 4.0 (Cedrus Cooperation)
was used to present stimuli and correct data. The participants’ response and reaction time were recorded.
Reaction times were not analyzed in this study, because individual differences were large in reaction times
regardless of nationality and did not relate to correct rates. SAS 9.0 (Windows, SAS Institute Inc.) was used
to perform statical analyses. Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the mean correct rates between theparticipant groups. Friedman test was used to examine the differences of mean correct rates within
participant groups.

4

Results and Discussion

4.1
Oral interview
The participant number 2 and 4 told that they did not try to read Kanji on the street. The participant number 4,6, and 7 told that they gave up learning Kanji.
4.2
Mean correct rates
Table 2 shows the mean correct rates of Vague, Pseudo, Wrong and Real in JLNC and Japanese. Both JLNC
and Japanese detected Korean characters prefect. All participants could distinguish Kanji (Chinese)characters from Korean characters well. The correct rates of Wrong and Real were perfect in native speakers
of Japanese. Vague was lowest correct rates in both LJNC and Japanese.

Table 2: Mean correct rates of character groups
LJNC
Japanese

Vague
0.37
(0.13)
0.59(0.14)

Pseudo0.51(0.16)
0.88(0.12)

Wrong
0.58(0.22)
1.00(0)

Korean
1.00
(0.0)
1.00
(0)

Real
0.83
(0.14)
1.00(0)

Note: Figures in parentheses is SD.

The Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to compare correct rates between LJNC and Japanese in the fourcharacter groups. In the all four character groups, the correct rates of Japanese were higher than those of
LJNC, U=56.0, Z=2.54, p=.011, r=.63 in Vague, U=62.5, Z=3.22, p=.001, r=.80 in Pseudo, U=64.0, Z=3.59,
p<.000, r=.89 in Wrong, and U=62.0, Z=3.34, p=.001, r=.83 in Real. It is reasonable that performance ofJapanese native speakers was significantly better than that of LJNC.
4.3
Correct rates of Wrong Kanji
The position of a radical is fixed and important in Kanji recognition process. It was a surprise that the correct
rates of Wrong was law in JLNC. Figure 1 shows correct rates of Wrong Kanji in LJNC. It seems that correct
rates of Wrong Kanji increased along with Japanese language proficiency.
The participant number 7 and 8 were intermediate learners. Participant number 2 studied Japanese only for
3 months and did not show much interests in reading Kanji in the street. Knowledge of Kanji might belimited, even if the participant lived in Japan for two years at the time of the experiment. Participant number
1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 took the 6 month intensive Japanese language class and studied 200 Kanji characters.
They lived in Japan more than 2 years. Post experiment oral interview revealed that the three participants(number 4, 6, and 7) did not study Kanji after the intensive course. Oral communication skill of the 6participant (number from 1 to 6) was roughly equivalent to Novice High in ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines
2012 Speaking (2012). Differences between those 5 participants and 2 intermediate participants wereinterests in Japanese text and the length of Japanese learning. Even if the participant 7 gave up learning kanji,
she enjoyed reading Japanese comic books for a long time in her country. The participant 8 continued
studying Japanese by himself after the 6 month intensive Japanese language class. The participant 1 and 3
showed interests in learning Kanji by themselves. Therefore, follow up studies might reveal if learners’
knowledge of a radical position in a character increase with continues motivation to learn Kanji. Many
beginning LJNC quit learning Kanji due to complex nature of Kanji in Japanese text. A Kanji character has
multiple readings. Readings and meanings of a Kanji character heavily rely on the context. Further, many
Japanese content words are Kanji compounds. Learners have to study not only single Kanji character but also
Kanji compounds. It must be very tedious and difficult for LJNC to study Kanji. Knowledge of Kanji is76

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

important to advance Japanese language proficiency, because most of abstract words are Chinese compounds
in Japanese. Therefore, it is necessary to develop teaching materials or methods for LJNC to continue tolearn Kanji.

Figure 1: Correct rates of Wrong Kanji in JLNC
Table 3 shows the lowest and highest correct rates of Wrong Kanji in LJNC. Two intermediate participants
answered the lowest correct rate characters correctly. The two components in the lowest correct ratecharacters are complex and have similar oblong shapes. As far as comparing the highest and lowest correct
rate characters, it seems that more complex characters are difficult to judge for beginning LJNC. However,
言 and 糸 are popular radicals which appear at the left side of a Kanji character. For example, 話(story),
語(language), 結(unite or result), and 終(end) were frequently used in daily life and were introduced in the
6 month intensive class. One problem is that component parts are introduced later than a whole character in
話 or 語 or 結. For example, 話 consists of 言(say) and 舌(tongue). 舌 is not introduced in the
beginning textbooks, because “tongue” is not a familiar word in daily life. It might be difficult for LJNC tojudge which component is the radical.
Table 3: Lowest and highest correct rates of Wrong Kanji in JLNC
HighestSecondHighestLowest

0.92

0.85

0.31

Character
Correct Rate

The correct rate of Wrong in Japanese native speakers was perfect. This result suggests that the knowledgeof the right position of radicals is indispensable in mastering Kanji. A close look at LJNC errors revealed thatthe correct rates of Wrong Kanji seemed to increase according to Japanese proficiency of the LJNC. This
result suggests that knowing the right position of the radical in a character might be a good indicator of Kanjior Chinese character learning. Developing educational materials or devices is needed to improve LJNC’s
awareness of the right position of a radical in a character. Information about Kanji structures and meaningsof semantic radicals are introduced in beginning Japanese language textbooks. It seems that further
emphasizing the importance of a correct radical position is necessary. In this study the number ofparticipants is small. And the number of characters is limited. Therefore, further studies should examine whatkinds of radicals are difficult for LJNC to learn.
4.4
Vague and Pseudo Kanji
Friedman test yielded significant differences in both participant groups, χ2(3, N=8)=14.5, p=0.002, Kendall’s
W is .61 in LJNC, and χ2(3, N=8)=16.7, p<0.000, Kendall’s W is .80 in native speakers of Japanese.
Multiple comparisons showed that the mean correct rate of Vague was significantly lower than that of Real in
LJNC. However, any significant differences were not fond in other paired comparisons in LJNC. The mean
77

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

correct rates of Wrong and Pseudo were lower than that of Real. However, statistical significances were notfound.
The mean correct rate of Vague was significantly lower than those of Wrong and Real in Japanese. Vague
led highest mistakes in both LJNC and Japanese. It seems that slight distorted graphic features of Chinesecharacters led native speakers’ confusion.
Table 4 shows four Vague characters in which both all LJNC and Japanese native speakers made higher
is right, even though it does not haveerrors. Surprisingly, most of Japanese native speakers thought
distinctive features. It is not 末 nor 未. It appears that when
was presented alone without context, mostof Japanese accepted it as a real character. Probably, Japanese can easily differentiate 末 from 未 within acontext. Japanese native speakers were more easily able to detect correctly
than . It might be graphic
nature ofis simpler than that of. We should not assume that JLNC do not need to pay attention toslight differences of distinctive graphic features of Kanji, just because native speakers of Japanese also did
not detect the differences of distinctive graphic features of Kanji well. For beginning LJNC, it might bedifficult to make use of a context as well as Japanese native speakers do. Therefore, LJNC need to recognizea character accurately paying attention to minor graphic differences.
Table 4: Correct rates for some Vague Kanji characters
Vague

Right
JLNC
Japanese

学 向 魚 末未
0
0.50

0.50
0

0.12
0

土士

0.12
0.12

0.15
0.46

Table 5 shows Pseudo characters which obtained higher and lower correct rates in LJNC and Japanesenative speakers. In Japanese native speakers, the lowest correct rate character was . As shown in the Table
5, the difference ofand the real Kanji was very minor. The native speakers of Japanese might not detectthe difference. In Japanese native speakers, the highest correct rates characters were
and . There are
not so many Kanji characters which have 心 at the bottom in a character and 阝 at the right of a character.
Therefore, it might be easier for native speakers of Japanese to make a decision on the correctness of acharacter. This might suggest that importance of teaching frequent occurring combination patterns in Kanji
learning. Further investigation is needed to know what kinds of combinations of a radical and a component
part are difficult to learn for LNJC.
Table 5: Correct rates for some Vague Kanji characters
HighestSecond Highest

LowestSecond Lowest

0.85

0.69

0.23

0.15

JLNC
Correct rate

神Japanese(Pseudo)Correct rate

0.92

0.85

0.62

(Real)
0.54

During the experiment, the author encountered an interesting case. Slight graphic differences of acharacter caused by computer type fonts confused judgment of native speakers of Japanese. Five out of seven
Japanese native speakers judged the Gothic 外 is wrong. Table 6 shows the differences of Kanji andHiragna in Gothic, Mincho and Kyokasho fonts. Kyokasho means textbook in Japanese. Kyokasho font isused in Japanese primary and secondary school education. Japanese children have to write by hand as
characters printed in Kyokasho font. Continued lines are more economic than cut lines in creating printing

78Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

type fonts. Gothic or Mincho fonts are used more commonly as printing type fonts. Most of Japanese often
see さ or き on the street. Therefore, Japanese native speakers accept Gothic font さ or き, even if theses
Hiragana characters are graphically clearly different from さ or き in Kyokasho font. However, thedifference between 外 and 外 is very minor, and when the font size is small, most people cannot notice thedifference. When a font size is large, the graphic difference becomes very clear, and it becomes easy to
notice the graphic difference. Not, Kyokasho font, but Gothic or Mincho font is used in most of Japanese
language text books for non-native speakers of Japanese. As a result many JSL learners hand write Hiragana
characters as Gothic or Mincho fonts. The MEXT Notice on Joyo Kanji (1981) says that graphic differences
due to font differences are small. Therefore, font differences do not affect comprehending Kanji. However,majority of native Japanese speakers judged Gothic type font of 外 is wrong. Minor graphic
differences due to font types do affect acceptance of a Kanji shape. Further research is needed to find out
what kinds of graphic features of Kanji are acceptable and what kinds are not.
Table 6: Differences in Gothic and Kyokasho fonts
Font
GothicMinchoKyokasho

Kanji

Hiragana

Hiragana

外
外
外

さ
さ
さ

き
き
き

In sum, native Japanese speakers may not pay much attention to minor graphic features of Kanji, because
they easily detect the meaning of Kanji from the context. However, minor graphic features of Kanji should
not be considered less important in the JSL context, because LJNC may not be able to make use of context assame as Japanese do. We need further studies to know what kinds of graphic features and what kinds of
combinations of a radical and a component are important in learning Kanji in the JSL context.

5

Conclusion

Slight distortion in Vague, such as rotation of components of a character or length of lines, seemed to leadhighest errors in both native speakers of Japanese and LJNC. Ignoring minor graphic features may not
influence Japanese native speakers’ comprehension, because Japanese can utilize contexts to reach themeaning of a character. However, it must be important for LJNC to learn minor graphic features of Kanji,
because LJNC cannot make use of context as well as native Japanese speakers do. Pseudo was also difficultfor LJNC to judge. The result of Japanese native speakers suggests that knowing popular combination
patterns of a radical and a component part might be useful to judge the right Kanji characters. However, it isnecessary to evaluate how knowing frequent occurring combinations of Kanji component parts are importantin successful Kanji learning. Learning the correct radical position of a Kanji character might be a good
indicator of mastery of Kanji in LJNC. Further research and development of teaching materials are necessary
to improve awareness of the right position of a radical in a character.
References
ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 2012 Speaking. (2012). Retrieved fromhttp://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012-Speaking.pdf
Banno, E., Ikeda, Y., Ohno, Y., Shinagawa, C., & Tokashiki, K. (2011). Genki An Integrated Course in
Elementary Japanese I (2nd ed.). Tokyo: The Japan Times.
Banno, E., Ikeda, Y., Ohno, Y., Shinagawa, C., & Tokashiki, K. (2011). Genki An Integrated Course in
Elementary Japanese II (2nd ed.). Tokyo: The Japan Times.
Chikamatsu (2006). Developmental word recognition: A study of L1 English readers of L2 Japanese. The
Modern Language Journal, 90(1), 67–85.
Fang, S., & Wu, P. (1989). Illusory conjunctions in the perception of Chinese characters. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15(3), 434-447.
Flores d'Arcais, G. B., & Saito, H. (1993). Lexical decomposition of complex kanji characters in Japanesereaders. Psychological Research, 55, 52-63.
Hatta, T. (1981). Differential Processing of Kanji and Kana Stimuli In Japanese People - Some Implications
From Stroop-Test Results. Neuropsychologia, 19(1), 87-93.

79

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

Hatta. T., Kawakami., and Tamaoka, M. (1998). Writing errors in Japanese Kanji: A study with Japanese
students and foreign learners of Japanese. Reading and Writing, 10, 303-316
Hauk, O., Coutout, C., Holden, A., & Chen, Y. (2012). The time-course of single-word reading: Evidence
from fast behavioral and brain responses. Neuroimage, 60(2), 1462-1477.
Hauk, O., Davis, M. H., Ford, M., Pulvermuller, F., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2006). The time course ofvisual word recognition as revealed by linear regression analysis of ERP data. Neuroimage, 30(4),1383-1400.
Holcomb, P. J., & Grainger, J. (2006). On the time course of visual word recognition: An event-related
potential investigation using masked repetition priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(10),1631-1643.
Kashiwagi, T., & Kashiwagi, A. (1989). Recovery process of a Japanese alexic without agraphia.
Aphasiology, 3(1), 75-91.
Kokusai koryu kikin & Nihon kokusai kyoiku shien kyokai (Ed.). (2008). Japanese-Language Proficiency
Test Official Practice Workbook: Level 3 and 4 . Tokyo: Bonjinsha
Kokusai Nihongo Fukyu Kyokai. (1995). Japanese for Busy People I - Romanized Version (3rd ed.).
Tokyo:Kodansha
Koyama, M. S., P. C. Hansen, & S. Stein. (2008). Logographic Kanji versus Phonographic Kana in Literacy
Acquisition. Learning, Skill Acquisition, Reading, and Dyslexia. G. F. Eden and D. L. Flower.
Oxford, Blackwell Publishing. 1145, 41-55.
Lin, S. E., Chen, H. C., Zhao, J., Li, S., He, S., & Weng, X. C. (2011). Left-Lateralized N170 Response To
Unpronounceable Pseudo But Not False Chinese Characters-The Key Role Of Orthography.
Neuroscience, 190, 200-206.
Lv, C., and Wang, Q. (2012). Font effects of Chinese characters and pseudo-characters on the N400:
Evidence for an orthographic processing view. Brain and Cognition, 80(1), 96-103.
Ministry of Education, Japan. (1955). Kanji no Gakunen Haito [Classifying Chinese Characters by Grades].
Tokyo: Meijitosho Shuppan. Retrieved fromhttp://www.bunka.go.jp/kokugo_nihongo/joho/series/24/24.html
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan, Notice on Joyo Kanji (1981).
Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/nc/k19811001001/k19811001001.html.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan. (2011) Shin gakushu shido
yoryoo [New Primary School Curriculum Guidelines]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/new-cs/youryou/eiyaku/1261037.htm
Morohashi, T. (2000). Dai kanwa jiten [Great Japanese-Chinese Character Dictionary]. Tokyo: Taishukan
shoten.
Nishiguchi, K., Shinya, M., Koga, T., Takada, & Mikogami, K.. (2000). Minnano Nihongo Shokyu I Kanji,
English Edition [Minnano Nihongo, Beginning I, Chinese character, English Edition]. Tokyo: Three
A Network.
Pylkkanen, L., & Marantz, A. (2003). Tracking the time course of word recognition with MEG. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 187-189.
Shu, H., & Anderson, R.C. (1997). Role of radical awareness in the character and word acquisition ofChinese children. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(1), 78–89.
Su, L.-F., Mak, S.-C. C., Cheung, L.-Y. M., & Law, S.-P. (2012). Taking a Radical Position: Evidence for
Position-Specific Radical Representations in Chinese Character Recognition Using Masked Priming
ERP. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(Article 333).
Taft M., Zhu X. (1997). Submorphemic processing in reading Chinese. Journal of Experimental Psychology.
Learning. Memory and Cognition. 23, 761–775.
Taft M., Zhu X., Peng D. (1999). Positional specificity of radicals in Chinese character recognition. Journalof Memory and Language. 40, 498–519.
Takebe, Y. (1985). Kanji wa muzukashikunai [Kanji is not difficult]. Tokyo: Alc.
Three A Network ed. (1998a). Minnano Nihongo Shokyu I. Tokyo: Three A Network.
Three A Network ed. (1998b). Minnano Nihongo Shokyu II Tokyo: Three A Network.
Traxler, M. J. (2011). Introduction to Psycholinguistics: Understanding Language Science. Chichester, UK:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Toyoda, E. (2009). An Analysis of L2 Readers’ Comments on Kanji Recognition . Electronic Journal of
Foreign Language Teaching, 6(1), 5-20.
Thuy, D. H. D., Matsuo, K., Nakamura, K., Toma, K., Oga, T., Nakai, T., Shibusaki, H., & Fukayama, H.
(2004). Implicit and explicit processing of kanji and kana words and non-words studied with fMRI.
80

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

Neuroimage, 23(3), 878-889.
Vorobyova, G. (2008). Kanji no bunkai to kosei yoso no keiryoteki buseki ni motozuita kanji gakushu nosaiteki na teishutsu junjo no kaihatsu [Development of a Kanji introducing order based on Kanji
components and their quantitative analysis]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.komi.com/japanese/vorobyova/text/200808europa13vorobevarombun.pdf.
Wu, C.-Y., Ho, M.-H. R., & Chen, S.-H. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of fMRI studies on Chinese
orthographic, phonological, and semantic processing. Neuroimage, 63(1), 381-391.
Appendix A. List of stimuli
Number ofCharacters

Vague

15

Pseudo

20

Wrong

15

Korean10

True

Character25

81