Hajime Umeda
Suzuka International University

I. Introduction
　Recent Information Technology (IT) development has created a situation in which people have more opportunities to use English as a communication tool. This implies that English is now more commonly used even amongst non-native English speakers (NNESs), whose mother tongues may be different each other. This paper examines the evaluation of some ungrammatical English sentences that might be produced by NNESs. It also determines whether Japanese university students and their Spanish counterparts differ in judgment of ungrammatical sentences. At the same time, factors important to better communication amongst NNESs in order to avoid miscommunication with each other are discussed.

II. Previous Research
　There have been quite a few similar studies conducted in the past.
　Kanaya and Takanashi (1978) claim that in grading ungrammatical sentences, American students are more likely to emphasize meaning over form (grammar) while Japanese teachers of English tend to lend more importance to form.
　Fayer and Krasinski (1987) had both native English speakers (NESs) and NNESs evaluate some sentences recorded by ESL students. As a result, they found that NESs were more tolerant of ungrammatical English sentences than NNESs.
　The same kind of research was conducted by Matsunaga and Caprio (1989). NESs tend to evaluate ungrammatical sentences higher than NNESs. Furthermore, English teachers put better grades on the incorrect sentences than non-English teachers.
　Ludwig (1982) mentioned tendencies in evaluating ESL learnersﾕ writing. According to his research, NESs tend to put emphasis on the content that ESL learners want to express while NNESs tend to evaluate primarily the accuracy of the grammar.
　Suenobu, Kanzaki, and Yamane (1987) recorded EFL learnersﾕ utterances, and had them evaluated by NESs. In their results, intelligibility was rated at 79.8 percent. They, therefore, insist that EFL instructors realize the importance of English as a communication tool, while avoiding excess attention given to grammatical accuracy.

III. Research
1. Hypothesis
　There is a significant difference in the judgment of ungrammatical English sentences between Japanese university students (JSs) and Spanish university students (SSs).

2. Subjects
　(1) JSs: 95 Suzuka International University students, majoring in international studies (60 freshmen and 35 sophomores)
　(2) SSs: 136 students from Polytechnic University of Valencia¹⁾ majoring in computer science (132 freshmen, 2 sophomores, and 2 juniors)

3. Data Collection
　JSs: April 2000
　SSs: March 2000

4. Method
　A questionnaire (See Appendix.) was made and delivered to both JSs and SSs. In the questionnaire, five English sentences were prepared. For each of these five sentences, three alternative sentences were supplied. These alternatives were intended to carry the same meaning as the correct sentences, but with varying degrees of acceptability. The subjects were to rate "1" through "3" in the order of "best," "second best," and "worst" ("1" being "best" and "3" being "worst"). Each subject returned his/her copy of the questionnaire after completion of rating.

5. Questionnaire Item Sources
　Five sentences, commonly used in every day life, were selected from the following junior high school textbooks currently in use in Japan.
　(1) Total English 1
　(2) Sunshine 2
　(3) Columbus English Course 2
　(4) New Horizon 2
　(5) Sunshine 1

6. Statistical Analysis
　In order to find out how similarly or differently the two student groups answered each question, the Chi-square (χ²) test was used. The critical value ofχ² is 5.991476 at the level of 0.050, and one can conclude that if the value is smaller than 5.991476, there is a relationship between the two groups in their evaluation. The value of the χ² test is shown to the right of each alternative sentence (See Appendix.).

IV. Results and Observations
　According to the results of the statistical analysis, the proposed hypothesis is likely to be correct.
　Items 1 and 3 have no correlation in their alternative sentences. On the contrary, as for Items 4 and 5, one alternative each has a relationship between the two groups. Lastly, two alternative sentences are correlated with Item 2. The following examines the results in more detail.

1. Wh-Questions: Items 1 and 2
　In Items 1b and 2c, interrogative words (phrases) are put at the end of each sentence. These sentences contain "echo questions," and it was found that neither student group gave these two alternatives a high evaluation. Sixty-six JSs (69%) chose 2c as worst while 111 SSs (82%) did so, indicating relation between these two figures. Meanwhile, 68 JSs (72%) and 110 SSs (81%) rated 1b worst. Although the T-value (6.04) fails slightly to show correlation, it is implied that both groups of students tend to rate echo questions low. Related research, Umeda (1994, 1995) reports that Japanese L2 speakers are likely to put a more severe mark on echo questions than American L1 speakers.
　The translation of Item 1 into Spanish is:

　(1s)

　The verb "tiene" (Dictionary form: "tener") is generally translated "have" into English. If alternatives 1b and 1c had included "have" instead of "is," would a different outcome have been available? This can be an interesting topic for further studies.

2. To-Infinitives: Items 2 and 3
　Both Items 2 and 3 have the to-infinitive structure in them. In alternatives 2b and 3a, the preposition "to" is missing before each of the verbs; Item 2 uses "play," and Item 3 uses "see." There is no correlation between the two groups in terms of evaluating 2b and 3a. However, 116 SSs (85%) chose 2b best. As for 3a, 98 SSs (72%) picked the alternative sentence as best. These two alternatives were also evaluated high by JSs, 76 (80%) of whom rated 2b as best while 61 (64%) selected 3a as best. Focusing on these percentages in each group, more SSs ranked both 2b and 3a higher than the JSs. When Items 2 and 3 are translated into Spanish, bare infinitives appear in each sentence. This may be a reason why quite a few SSs graded 2b and 3a best. Below are the translations:

(2s)
(3s)

The verbs "practicar" means "play" while "ver" is equivalent to "see" in English. Both of the verbs are in the structure of bare infinitives.
　Taking a look at 2a, a correlation is observed between the two student groups. Only 13 SSs (10%) chose 2a as best while 14 JSs (15%) made the same choice. This implies that neither SSs nor JSs gave a high grade to the alternative without a subject in it. Although no relation is evident, it appears that the students evaluated 3c similarly.

3. Imperatives: Items 4 and 5
　Correlation is observed in 4b and 5c. In 4b, the indirect object "me" is at the top of the sentence. Eighty-seven JSs (92%) and 113 SSs (83%) rated it as worst. This trend is quite understandable, taking standard English structure into consideration.
　In addition, there are some Spanish structures, as well as Japanese structures, in which objects precede verbs. In such cases, personal pronouns should be used as objects. For example,

　(J) Sore o watashi ni misete kudasai. (=Show me that, please.)

The Spanish translation of the sentence above is:

　(S) Me lo presentas, por favor²⁾.

The indirect object in (J) "watashi ni" is equivalent to "me" in (S) while "sore o" translates as "lo" as a direct object. These objects precede the verbs both in (J) where the verb is "misete" (Dictionary form: "miseru") and in (S) where the verb is "presentas" (Dictionary form: "presentar"). Personal pronouns in Spanish sentences can be put either before or after verbs. On the contrary, nouns are always placed only after verbs. Therefore, when Item 4 is translated into Spanish, it can be:

　(4s) .

Verb "presenta" is combined with the indirect object "me," followed by the direct object "tu pasaporte" (your passport). This grammatical structure is never found in Japanese, where all nouns/pronouns are located in front of verbs. Another Spanish translation of Item 4 can be:

　(4s') Me presentas tu pasaporte, por favor.

In (4s'), the indirect object "me" is put before the verb "presentas" as is found in (S) above. In contrast, "tu pasaporte" as the direct object follows the verb. This sentence pattern is also observed in (4s). From these factors, it is inferred that SSs did not evaluate 4b as high because the noun (NOT pronoun) as object is placed before the verb.
　As for 4c, 123 SSs (90%) rated it as best, where only 32 JSs (34%) did the same. As mentioned in IV-2, SSs seem to be more generous against the misusage of the preposition "to" than JSs. Meanwhile, 62 JSs (65%) chose 4a as best. This is plausible due to the alternative's similar word order to Japanese structure.
　Forty-six JSs (48%) and 75 SSs (55%) selected 5c as worst respectively. The students of both groups seemed to put priority on the fact that negative imperative sentences begin with "Don't" in English. In addition, 87 SSs (64%) treated 5a as best. This may be because negative imperatives in Spanish start with "No" as is found in English structure.

V. Conclusion
　Through this research, the author examined some of the differences between JSs and SSs in judging incorrect English sentences. The number of items and alternative sentences is very limited, and the English skill of each student group is most definitely different. These facts should be taken into consideration. Statistically speaking, however, it was observed that 11 out of 15 alternatives were evaluated without correlation between the two groups. Therefore, it can be posited that there is a difference in judging the grammaticality of English sentences between Japanese university students and Spanish university students.
　In the 21st century, with the continued high development of information media, millions of people will come in contact with English, regardless of whether they would like to or not. This means that more people whose native language is not English will communicate with each other by the use of ESL/EFL. In treating English as a communication tool, the most important thing is how accurate the information can be transmitted through the language amongst its users. In order to keep this accuracy in information exchange, people are expected to acquire a certain linguistic and communicative ability in ESL/EFL. Therefore, people may have to be familiar with basic language structure, i.e. grammar, of English. When communication occurs between native English speakers (NESs) and non-native English speakers (NNESs), communication breakdown can be avoided if NESs realize and understand misusage of English by NNESs. However, the incorrect usage of English may lead people to much more serious mutual misunderstanding when NNESs, whose mother tongues are different from each other, try to communicate in English. In relation to this issue, the research conclusion in Suenobu et al. (1987) may not be evaluated positively from the non-native English speakersﾕ point of view. In other words, communication breakdowns can occur unless people understand the language structure itself. Those who are engaged in any kind of communication by use of English should always keep this in their minds.
　As for a future study topic, I would like to investigate how much/how exactly the language structure of English should be understood in attempting to carry out communication activities by setting up several different levels of difficulty.

Notes:
1) Polytechnic University of Valencia and Suzuka International University have had a Sister School Treaty since 1997.
2) This can also be translated as: The verb form in all of the Spanish imperative sentences appearing in this paper is the second person singular.

References
Fayer, J. and E. Krasinski. (1987). Native and Non-native Judgments of Intelligibility and Irritation, Language Learning, 37, 3. pp. 313-26.

Kanatani, K. and Y. Takanashi. (1978). Error Analysis: Eigo Kyoiku ni okeru ayamari no hyoka (An Evaluation of Errors in English Teaching), Tokyo Daigaku Kyoiku-gakubu Kiyo.

Kiyokawa, H. (1990). Eigo kyoiku kenkyu nyumon. (An Introduction to Research in English Teaching.) Taishukan.

Ludwig, J. (1982). Native Speaker Judgments of Second-Language Learners' Efforts at Communication: A Review, Modern Language Journal, 66, pp. 274-83.

Matsunaga, T. and M. Caprio. (1989). Native and Non-native Speaker Evaluation of Non-native English Students' Language Production, JACET Bulletin, pp. 37- 50.

Suenobu, M., K. Kanzaki, and S. Yamane. (1987). An Experimental Study of Intelligibility of English Spoken by Non-Natives, JACET Bulletin, pp. 147-71.

Umeda, H. (1994). Wh- gimon-bun no hyoka: nichi-bei eigo kyoshi-kan no hikaku (A Comparative Study of Acceptability Judgment on Wh-Questions between Japanese Teachers of English and their American Counterparts), Suzuka International Forum 1, pp. 71-76.

Umeda, H. (1995). Judging Acceptability: Japanese Teachers of English and their American Counterparts, Suzuka International Forum 2, pp. 89-97.

Acknowledgment
　I would like to express my special thanks to Dr. Cristina Perez, the Chair of Language Department at Polytechnic University of Valencia for allowing me to conduct this research at her Department. I also wish to acknowledge Professor Chizuru Ushida (Suzuka International University) for her advice on Spanish sentence structures, and Professor Ichiro Uwafuji (Suzuka International University) for his assistance in statistical analysis.

I would appreciate it very much if you could kindly respond to the following questions. The results of this questionnaire will be used strictly for my research. There are five English sentences below. For each of the five sentences given at the top, there are three alternatives that are intended to mean the same thing although some are obviously better than others. In other words, some are closer to the original sentence in meaning, and more acceptable. Please write "1" before the sentence you would feel is the best; "2" for the second best; "3" for the worst.

　

(1) How old is your brother?
		1	2	3	χ2-T value
1a. How old your brother?	JSs	44 (46)	40 (42)	11 (12)	33.01
	SSs	17 (13)	96 (71)	23 (17)
1b. Your brother is how old?	JSs	10 (11)	17 (18)	68 (72)	6.04
	SSs	4 (3)	22 (16)	110 (81)
1c. How old your brother is?	JSs	41 (43)	38 (40)	16 (17)	45.29
	SSs	115 (85)	18 (13)	3 (2)

　

(2) What sports do you like to play?
		1	2	3	χ2-T value
2a. What sports do like to play?	JSs	14 (15)	60 (63)	21 (22)	2.94*
	SSs	13 (10)	100 (74)	23 (17)
2b. What sports do you like play?	JSs	76 (80)	11 (12)	8 (8)	6.55
	SSs	116 (85)	18 (13)	2 (1)
2c. You like to play what sports?	JSs	5 (5)	24 (25)	66 (69)	5.53*
	SSs	7 (5)	18 (13)	111 (82)

　

(3) Do you want to see the videotape?
		1	2	3	χ2-T value
3a. Do you want see the videotape?	JSs	61 (64)	15 (16)	19 (20)	12.84
	SSs	98 (72)	31 (23)	7 (5)
3b. The videotape you want to see?	JSs	11 (12)	38 (40)	46 (48)	22.03
	SSs	5 (4)	25 (18)	106 (78)
3c. Want to see the videotape?	JSs	23 (24)	42 (44)	30 (32)	7.51
	SSs	33 (24)	80 (59)	23 (17)

　

(4) Show me your passport, please.
		1	2	3	χ2-T value
4a. Your passport show me, please.	JSs	62 (65)	32 (34)	1 (1)	86.76
	SSs	11 (8)	107 (79)	18 (13)
4b. Me your passport show, please.	JSs	1 (1)	7 (7)	87 (92)	3.55*
	SSs	2 (1)	21 (15)	113 (83)
4c. Show to me your passport, please.	JSs	32 (34)	56 (59)	7 (7)	85.16
	SSs	123 (90)	8 (6)	5 (4)

　

(5) Don't sit here.
		1	2	3	χ2-T value
5a. No sit here.	JSs	35 (37)	31 (33)	29 (31)	16.52
	SSs	87 (64)	25 (18)	24 (18)
5b. Don't sits here.	JSs	45 (47)	30 (32)	20 (21)	11.71
	SSs	35 (26)	64 (47)	37 (27)
5c. Doesn't sit here.	JSs	15 (16)	34 (36)	46 (48)	1.85*
	SSs	14 (10)	47 (35)	75 (55)

back to Papers index

back to Top