







































Education, Language and Sociology Research 
ISSN 2690-3644 (Print) ISSN 2690-3652 (Online) 

Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr 

Original Paper 

L2 Written Production by Japanese Learners of English 
Yumiko Yamaguchi1* 

1 International Education Centre, Tokai University, Japan 
* Yumiko Yamaguchi, International Education Centre, Tokai University, Japan 

 

Received: October 8, 2020   Accepted: October 17, 2020   Online Published: October 27, 2020 

doi:10.22158/elsr.v1n2p88         URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/elsr.v1n2p88 

 

Abstract 

This paper presents part of the results of a learner corpus study of English spoken and written 

performances by Japanese native speakers. For the current study, the written data from 80 participants 

were used. Their English written production was examined based on Processability Theory (PT; 

Pienemann, 1998, 2005; Bettoni & Di Biase, 2015) as well as on the Common European Framework of 

Reference for Languages (CEFR; Council of Europe, 2001). Results demonstrated that there was an 

implicational pattern in the acquisition of English L2 grammar by the Japanese learners as predicted 

in PT. It was also shown that there was a linear connection between second language (L2) 

development as found in PT analysis and L2 proficiency levels as measured by the CEFR rating, while 

a statistically significant difference was not found.  

Keywords 

written production, L2, English, Japanese learners, Processability Theory, CEFR 

 

1. Introduction 

The present study aims to investigate empirically second language (L2) learners’ written production 

using two different approaches. Processability Theory (PT; Pienemann, 1998; Pienemann, Di Biase, & 

Kawaguchi, 2005), a major theory of Second Language Acquisition (SLA), is used to analyze the 

participants’ use of L2 grammatical structures. Their overall written performances were also measured 

by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR; Council of Europe, 2001).  

PT assumes that a universal hierarchy of L2 development exists. Based on Levelt’s (1989) Speech 

Model and Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG; e.g., Bresnan, 2001), PT hypothesizes as to the L2 

learners’ developmental stages concerning the acquisition of grammatical structures, including 

morphology and syntax. In 2005, PT proposed the new hypotheses regarding the acquisition of 

syntactic structures (Pienemann, Di Biase, & Kawaguchi, 2015) in accordance with the development of 

LFG.  

88 
 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

One of the hypotheses in the PT extension is the Lexical Mapping Hypothesis (The LMH; Pienemann, 

Di Biase, & Kawaguchi, 2015) which accounts for the development of argument mapping between 

thematic roles and grammatical functions in sentence construction. Table 1 summarizes the 

developmental stages of English syntactic structures hypothesized in the LMH. 

 

Table 1. Developmental Stages for English Syntax Based on the Lexical Mapping Hypothesis 

(after Pienemann, Di Biase, & Kawaguchi, 2005) 

STAGE  STRUCTURE EXAMPLE 

4. NON-DEFAULT MAPPING passive 

causative 

The ball was kicked by Lisa 

Dad made Bob wash the car 

3. DEFAULT MAPPING + 

ADDITIONAL ARGUMENT 

Ditransitive 

Canonical sentence + Oblique 

argument 

Janet gave Ben a present 

Tim put the book on the desk 

2. DEFAULT MAPPING  Canonical word order 

e.g., agent-event-patient  

Lisa kicked the ball 

1. LEMMA ACCESS single words 

formulas 

Look  

Thank you 

 

The LMH claims that L2 learners start constructing sentences using “default mapping” when they 

become able to produce utterances of more than one word. In “default mapping,” the highest available 

role in the thematic hierarchy, the Agent, is mapped onto the Subject (SUBJ) grammatical function. 

The sample sentence (1) shows typical “default mapping” with a transitive verb “kick,” which requires 

two arguments. In sentence (1), the most prominent role, the Agent “Lisa” is mapped onto the SUBJ, 

and the less prominent role, the Patient “the ball” is mapped onto the Object (OBJ), as shown in Figure 

1.  

(1) Lisa kicked the ball 

 

Agent Patient - thematic role 

| |  

SUBJ OBJ - grammatical function 

| |  

Lisa the ball - constituent structure 

Figure 1. Default Mapping: Lisa kicked the ball 

 

According to the LMH, L2 learners gradually learn how to direct the listener’s attention to a particular 

thematic role lower in the hierarchy by promoting it to the SUBJ and de-focusing the highest role by 

89 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

mapping it onto a grammatical function other than the SUBJ, or by suppressing it. A typical case of 

non-default mapping is Passive, as in the sample sentence (2). As represented in Figure 2, the Patient 

“the ball” is mapped onto the most prominent grammatical function, SUBJ, while the highest thematic 

role, the Agent, is suppressed and appears as Adjunct, “by Lisa.” The LMH predicts that L2 learners 

become able to produce “non-default mapping” which requires a much higher processing cost only 

after “default mapping” is in place. 

(2) The ball was kicked by Lisa 

 

Agent Patient  - thematic role 

| |   

ø SUBJ Adjunct - grammatical function 

 | |  

 the ball by Lisa - constituent structure 

Figure 2. Non-default Mapping: The ball was kicked by Lisa 

 

The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR; Council of Europe, 2001) 

describes “what language learners have to do in order to use a language for communication and what 

knowledge and skills they have to develop so as to be able to act effectively” (Council of Europe, 2001, 

p. 1) and characterizes language learners’ communicative proficiency at six levels, including A1, A2, 

B1, B2, C1, and C2. In the CEFR ratings, learners at the A1/A2 levels can be regarded as Basic Users, 

those at the B1/B2 levels can be considered as Independent Users, and those at the C1/C2 levels are 

generally thought of as Proficient Users. The CEFR offers “a common basis for the elaboration of 

language syllabuses, curriculum guidelines, examinations, textbooks, etc. across Europe (Council of 

Europe, 2001, p. 1)” and has been widely used in current second/foreign language education. However, 

empirical research with L2 learner data has not been extensively conducted on the CEFR levels (e.g., 

Hulstijn, 2011; Wisniewski, 2017). Hulstijn (2011) argues that: 

Any association between CEFR levels of L2P [L2 Proficiency] and L2 development as 

studied in the second language acquisition (SLA) literature would be completely misplaced 

[…], unless empirical studies show evidence in its support. (Hulstijn, 2011, p. 241) 

 

2. Previous Studies 

PT has been used to analyze the development of L2 grammar in various recent SLA studies (e.g., 

Bettoni & Di Biase, 2015; Keßler, Lenzing, & Liebner, 2016; Lenzing, Nicholas, & Roos, 2019; 

Pienemann, 1998, 2005). On the other hand, studies on the LMH have been conducted mainly with 

Japanese L2 data (Kawaguchi, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009a, 2009b, 2016), and the acquisition of the 

passive construction has been the focus of English L2 studies on the LMH (e.g., Di Biase, Kawaguchi, 

& Yamaguchi, 2015; Keatinge & Keßler, 2009; Wang, 2009). Also, since most PT studies have been 
90 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

done on L2 spoken production, the issues of its validity in L2 writing need to be addressed with more 

learner data.  

As mentioned above, the CEFR has not been sufficiently investigated with L2 learner data yet (e.g., 

Hulstijn, 2011; Wisniewski, 2017). However, some recent research, which examined the acquisition of 

L2 grammar based on the CEFR and PT, found that L2 proficiency had some connection with L2 

development (Granfeldt & Ågren, 2013; Hagenfeld, 2017; Yamaguchi, 2019a, 2019b). Granfeldt and 

Ågren (2013) examined written data produced by 38 Swedish speakers learning French as a third 

language (L3). They analyzed the development of morphosyntax in L3 French based on PT, and the 

learners’ communicative proficiency was measured by two CEFR raters. A strong correlation between 

the CEFR rating and the PT analysis was found, while a dispersion at more advanced stages was shown 

to exist. Thus, Granfeldt and Ågren (2013) claimed that learners’ communicative proficiency up to the 

CEFR B1 level and morphosyntactic development up to PT stage 3 seemed to develop at the same rate. 

Hagenfeld (2017) examined the CEFR-based rating of 21 novice and ten expert raters on 14 original 

and eight edited files of the same speech samples and found a positive correlation between the CEFR 

levels and PT stages, again, only at lower levels. Yet, these studies indicated some connection between 

L2 proficiency and L2 development.  

While Granfeldt and Ågren (2013) and Hagenfeld (2017) examined the development of morphosyntax 

based on the original PT (Pienemann, 1998, 2005), Yamaguchi (2019a, 2019b) analyzed the acquisition 

of English syntax by Japanese learners of English using the LMH in the PT extension (Pienemann, Di 

Biase, & Kawaguchi, 2005) and demonstrated similar findings regarding the connection between L2 

proficiency and L2 development. However, the correlation between the CEFR and PT stages was not 

shown to be as strong as that found in the research on the development of morphosyntax by Granfeldt 

and Ågren (2013) and Hagenfeld (2017).  

 

3. Research Question 

The current study addresses the following research questions.  

1). Does the acquisition of English syntax found in the written production by Japanese learners follow 

the developmental sequence as predicted in the LMH in PT? 

2). Is L2 proficiency levels as measured by the CEFR rating related to L2 development of English 

syntax as found in PT analysis in a corpus of English written production by Japanese learners? 

 

4. Methodology 

In the present study, 80 participants’ written data were randomly chosen from the Japanese Learner 

Corpus of English Narratives (JaLCEN) constructed by Yamaguchi and Usami (2017a, 2017b). 

JaLCEN consists of 946 files of English Spoken and Written performances by 473 Japanese native 

speakers, aged 18-30. For the data elicitation, each participant was asked to perform both spoken and 

written narratives using a picture book called “Frog, where are you?” (Mayer, 1969). This picture book 
91 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

contains 24 wordless pictures and has been widely used in various first/second language acquisition 

studies. Half of the participants (i.e., 40 learners) were asked to begin with written narratives and the 

other half to start with spoken narratives to minimize the ordering effects. The participants wrote their 

written narratives with pen and paper, while their spoken narratives were audio-recorded and 

transcribed. 

For the data analysis, the participants’ acquisition of English L2 syntax was examined based on the 

LMH in PT, while their overall written performances were measured by two experienced CEFR raters. 

In the PT analysis, the current study determined if a target syntactic structure was acquired by each 

participant based on the emergence criterion. According to PT, “emergence can be understood as the 

point in time at which certain skills have, in principle, been attained or at which certain operation can, in 

principle, be carried out” (Pienemann, 1998, p. 138). Although most previous language acquisition 

studies examined the development of grammatical structures based on accuracy, PT argues that using a 

grammatical structure at a high level of accuracy, even 80% to 90%, does not guarantee that the learner 

will be able to continue producing that structure at the same or higher level of accuracy in the future.  

Regarding the PT analysis of English syntax, sentences with default mapping, as in (3) and (4), were 

coded as stage 2 structures. 

(3) bees chased Tim 

(4) the boy and dog found the frog 

Then, those with default mapping with additional arguments, as in (5) and (6), were coded as stage 3 

features.  

(5) they named their new frog friend Froggie 

(6) the dog put his head into the jar 

When non-default mapping, as in (7), appeared, the learner was considered to have reached stage 4 for 

English syntax.  

(7) the dog was chased by many bees 

 

5. Results and Discussion 

5.1 PT Stages for English L2 Syntax  

Table 2 presents the results of the PT analysis for developmental stages for English L2 syntax found in 

the written production by 80 Japanese learners. All the 80 learners produced various sentences with 

default mapping in their written narratives. Two of them were found to use only default mapping and 

they can be regarded to be at stage 2. On the other hand, 28 learners produced stage 3 structures, that is, 

default mapping plus another argument, while 50 learners were found to use non-default mapping. Thus, 

62.5% of the participants in this study were found to have reached the highest PT stage for English L2 

syntax. Also, since all the stage 4 learners were shown to produce syntactic structures belonging to 

stage 3 (i.e., default mapping plus another argument), there was an implicational pattern in the 

development of English L2 syntax. Thus, it can be argued that the acquisition of English syntax found 
92 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

in the written production by Japanese learners follows the developmental sequence as predicted in the 

LMH in PT. 

 

Table 2. PT Stages Found in English Written Production by 80 Japanese Learners 

PT stage 2 3 4 

n = 80 2 28 50 

 

5.2 CEFR Levels 

Table 3 summarizes the results of the CEFR rating for L2 proficiency levels found in English written 

production by 80 Japanese learners. According to the table, although no CEFR A1 level was found, 45 

learners were regarded as A2 level suggesting that more than half of the participants in this study, 

namely 56.25%, were considered as Basic Users by the CEFR raters. On the other hand, 31 learners 

were rated as B1 level, and four learners as B2 level. That is, 43.75% of the participants in this study 

are regarded as Independent users in English writing.  

 

Table 3. CEFR Levels Found in English Written Production by 80 Japanese Learners 

CEFR level A1 A2 B1 B2 

n = 80 0 45 31 4 

 

5.3 Relationship between PT Stages and the CEFR levels 

Table 4 summarizes how PT stages and the CEFR levels are related in English written production by 80 

Japanese learners in this study. As shown in the table, only two learners were found to be at PT stage 2, 

and both were rated as A2 level suggesting that they were regarded as Basic Users in the CEFR ratings. 

As for PT stage 3, 16 learners were rated as A2 level, 11 learners as B1 level, and one learner as B2 

level. Concerning PT stage 4, 27 learners were rated as A2 level, 20 learners as B1 level, and three 

learners as B2 level. This suggests that more than half of the participants who have reached the highest 

PT stage for English syntax were regarded as Basic Users by the CEFR raters.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

93 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

Table 4. Relationship between PT Stages and the CEFR Levels Found in English Written 

Production by 80 Japanese Learners 

        PT stage 

 

CEFR level 

2 3 4 Total (n = 80) 

B2 0 1 3 4 

B1 0 11 20 31 

A2 2 16 27 45 

A1 0 0 0 0 

Total (n = 80) 2 28 50 80 

 

Figure 3 presents the correlation between PT stages and the CEFR levels found in the English written 

production by 80 Japanese learners. In the scatterplot in Figure 3, the size of each circle varies 

according to the number of participants. According to this scatterplot, there seems to be a linear 

connection between PT stages and the CEFR levels. However, the result of a Spearman’s rho test 

showed that the correlation between the participants’ PT stages and CEFR levels for English writing 

was not statistically significant. This finding is not consistent with the results of the previous study by 

Granfeldt and Ågren (2013) who also examined the relationship between PT stages and the CEFR 

levels with written data.  
 

 

Figure 3. Correlation of PT Stages and the CEFR Levels Found in English Written Production by 

80 Japanese Learners 

94 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

On the other hand, the dispersion was found to increase at higher PT stages as indicated in the previous 

research by Granfeldt and Ågren (2013) and Hagenfeld (2017). For instance, more than half of the PT 

stage 4 learners were rated as CEFR A2 level, namely as Basic Users, as shown above. (8) to (10) 

present the sample sentences produced by one of the PT stage 4 learners rated as CEFR A2 level (i.e., 

Learner #36). Learner #36 frequently produced the sentences with non-default mapping, as in the 

samples below, and is considered to have reached PT stage 4 for English L2 syntax according to the 

emergence criterion in PT. However, the CEFR ratings for this learner range from A1+ to A2, as shown 

in Table 5.  

(8) #36 Unfortunately, bird entered from that hole, and a boy was very surprised. A dog was followed 

by so many bees. 

(9) #36 A boy was carried by a deer. A deer ran fast. 

(10) #36 Bees was angry because honey’s house was fall by a dog and broken. A boy find second hole 

on the tree. He said “frog! where is!” 

 

Table 5. The CEFR Ratings for Learner #36 

Global 

Scale 

Overall Written 

Production 

General 

Linguistic Range 

Grammatical 

Accuracy 

Vocabulary 

Range 

Vocabulary 

Control 

A2 A1+ A2 A2 A2 A2 

 

In fact, Learner #36 often made grammatical mistakes regarding the use of articles, verb forms, and so 

on, as in samples (8) to (10). Also, this learner used the wrong vocabulary, as in (10), “honey’s house” 

for “beehive.” This suggests that the L2 learners who often make grammatical and/or vocabulary 

mistakes can be rated as Basic Users in the CEFR rating system, although they frequently produce 

advanced grammatical structures. Further studies are needed to address the issues of the possible causes 

for the dispersion between two approaches in more detail.  

 

6. Conclusion 

The results of the analysis of a learner corpus of 80 Japanese learners of English demonstrate that the 

acquisition of English syntax found in L2 written production follows the developmental sequence as 

predicted in the LMH in PT. This study also shows that there is a linear connection between PT stages 

and the CEFR levels. Thus, it can be argued that L2 proficiency levels as measured by the CEFR rating 

is related to L2 development of English syntax as found in PT analysis in a corpus of English written 

production by Japanese learners to some extent. However, the correlation between the participants’ PT 

stages and CEFR levels is not shown to be statistically significant, and the dispersion between these 

two approaches is found to increase at more advanced PT stages. Since this study examined only 

written data by 80 Japanese learners of English focusing on the development of English L2 syntax in 

95 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

PT analysis, future research should explore the relationship between CEFR L2 proficiency and PT 

developmental stages with a greater variety of learner data. In particular, the correlation between L2 

proficiency and L2 development was not shown to be as strong as that demonstrated in the previous 

studies (Granfeldt & Ågren, 2013). Thus, more research is required to investigate whether the 

discrepancies found in these studies were caused by methodological differences (e.g., elicitation tasks, 

target grammatical structures).  

 

Acknowledgments 

This work was in part supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 18K00754. The author is grateful 

to Hiroko Usami, Katharina Hagenfeld, Kiki Nakamura, Satomi Kawaguchi, & Bruno Di Biase for 

their kind assistance with data collection and analysis. 

 

References  

Bettoni, C., & Di Biase, B. (2015). Grammatical development in second languages: Exploring the 

boundaries of Processability Theory. European Second Language Association.  

Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-functional syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.  

Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, 

teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  

Di Biase, B., Kawaguchi, S., & Yamaguchi, Y. (2015). The development of English as a second 

language. In C. Bettoni, & B. Di Biase (Eds.), Grammatical development in second languages: 

Exploring the boundaries of Processability Theory (pp. 85-115). European Second Language 

Association.  

Granfeldt, J., & Ågren, M. (2013). Stages of processability and levels of proficiency in the Common 

European Framework of Reference for Languages: The case of L3 French. In A. Mattsson, & c. 

Norrby (Eds.), Language acquisition and use in multilingual contexts: Theory and practice (pp. 

28-38). Travaux de l’Institut de linguistique de Lund 52. 

Hagenfeld, K. (2017). PT and the CEFR—Apples and oranges?! A theoretical and an empirical 

investigation of interfaces between PT and the CEFR. Paper presented in PALA 2017. PH 

Ludwigsburg, Germany.  

Hulstijn, J. H. (2011) Language proficiency in native and nonnative speakers: An agenda for research 

and suggestions for second language assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8, 229-249. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2011.565844 

Kawaguchi, S. (2005). Argument structure and syntactic development in Japanese as a second language. 

In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory (pp. 253-299). 

Amsterdam, Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.30.10kaw 

96 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.30.10kaw


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

Kawaguchi, S. (2007). Lexical Mapping Theory and Processability Theory: A case study in Japanese. 

In F. Mansouri (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition Research: Theory-Construction and Testing 

(pp. 39-90). Newcastle, UK, Cambridge Scholars Publishing.  

Kawaguchi, S. (2008). Language typology and Processability Theory. In J.-U. Keßler (Ed.), Processing 

Approaches to Second Language Development and Second Language learning (pp. 89-112). 

Newcastle, UK, Cambridge Scholars Publishing.  

Kawaguchi, S. (2009a). Acquiring causative constructions in Japanese as a second language. The 

Journal of Japanese Studies, 29(2), 273-291. https://doi.org/10.1080/10371390903066657 

Kawaguchi, S. (2009b). Acquisition of non-canonical order in Japanese as a second language: The case 

of causative structure. In D. Keatinge, & J.-U. Keßler (Eds.), Research in Second Language 

Acquisition: Empirical Evidence Across Languages (pp. 213-239). Newcastle, UK, Cambridge 

Scholars Publishing.  

Kawaguchi, S. (2016). Question constructions, argument mapping, and vocabulary development in 

English L2 by Japanese speakers: A cross-sectional study. In J.-U. Keßler, A. Lenzing, & M. 

Liebner (Eds.), Developing and Assessing Second Language Grammars across Languages. 

Amsterdam, Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.5.02kaw 

Keatinge, D., & Keßler, J.-U. (2009). The acquisition of the passive voice in L2 English: Perception 

and production. In D. Keatinge, & J.-U. Keßler (Eds.), Research in Second Language Acquisition: 

Empirical Evidence Across Languages (pp. 67-92). Newcastle, UK, Cambridge Scholars 

Publishing.  

Keßler, J.-U., Lenzing, A., & Liebner M. (Eds.). (2016). Developing, modelling and assessing second 

languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.5 

Lenzing, A., Nicholas, H., & Roos, J. (2019). Widening Contexts for Processability Theory. 

Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.7 

Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. 

Mayer, M. (1969). Frog, where are you? New York: Dial Books for Young Readers. 

Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory. 

Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.15 

Pienemann, M. (2005). Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John 

Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.30 

Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, S. (2005). Extending Processability Theory. In M. 

Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory (pp. 199-251). Amsterdam: 

John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.30.09pie 

Wang, K. (2009). Acquiring the passive voice: Online production of the English Passive construction 

by Mandarin speakers. In D. Keatinge, & J.-U. Keßler (Eds.), Research in Second Language 

Acquisition: Empirical Evidence Across Languages (pp. 93-117). Newcastle, UK, Cambridge 

Scholars Publishing. 
97 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.5.02kaw
https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.5
https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.7
https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.15
https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.30
https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.30.09pie


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

Wisniewski, K. (2017). Empirical learner language and the levels of the common European framework 

of reference. Language Learning, 67(S1), 232-253. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12223 

Yamaguchi, Y. (2019a). Developmental stages and the CEFR levels in foreign language learners’ 

speaking and writing. Studies in English Language Teaching, 7(1), 1-13. 

https://doi.org/10.22158/selt.v7n1p1 

Yamaguchi, Y. (2019b). L2 proficiency and L2 developmental stages: A learner corpus analysis. 

Studies in English Language Teaching, 7(4), 516-525. http://doi.org/10.22158/selt.v7n4p516 

Yamaguchi, Y., & Usami, H. (2017a). Japanese learners’ use of English grammar in speaking and 

writing: A Processability Approach. Proceedings of Pacific Second Language Research Forum, 

2016, 237-242. 

Yamaguchi, Y., & Usami, H. (2017b). Plural marking in spoken and written narratives: A corpus-based 

study of Japanese learners of English. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English 

Literature, 6(5), 224-234. http://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.6n.5p.224  

 

98 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 


	Original Paper
	Acknowledgments

