A study of language style variation in Japanese: Style usage by natives and learners

Kazumi Matsumoto, Purdue University

Abstract

There are various language styles in speaking and writing, but early studies have given the impression that there is a simple binary distinction between speaking and writing; that is, speaking is simple and casual, while writing is dense and formal. However, in reality, various types of speaking styles and writing styles exist (e.g. Halliday, 1989). Kawagoe (1991) indicated that there is no clear distinction between the spoken and written language. Biber and Vasquez (2008) also found that, based on a large corpus study, there is no difference between the spoken and written languages. Based on a literature review, the present study assumes the spoken and written languages as not having a clear distinction. Language styles change in accordance with a number of factors as Chafe and Danielewicz (1987) proposed. This study presents six factors for language style variation: (1) time constraints, (2) modalities, (3) degree to which a response is needed from a communicational partner, (4) purpose of communication, (5) situation, and (6) attributes of interlocutors. Of these, the present study focused on two factors, modalities and purposes of communication, and investigated how L2/FL learners used their language styles according to how these variables are set by comparing L1 and L2/FL language samples through quantitative and qualitative analyses. Moreover, how L2/FL learners develop their language styles was also examined. The results indicated that these factors do indeed affect language styles. Modalities affected length, vocabulary, complexity, and subjective expressions. Purpose of communication influenced length, vocabulary, and subjective expressions in L2/FL, while in L1, vocabulary, complexity, and subjective expressions were affected. Furthermore, language proficiency affected differences between modalities in length, complexity, and subjective expression, whereas differences between the purposes were affected in terms of vocabulary, complexity, and subjective expressions. The qualitative analyses found that attitudinal resources in the recount and persuasive texts were different, and number of resources, types of resources, and the way in which these resources were employed differed among the three proficiency groups.

Degree

Ph.D.

Advisors

Fukada, Purdue University.

Subject Area

Linguistics|Language

COinS