To review the main results of the study, beginning L3 learners actively used Korean knowledge to produce Japanese sentences orally and process correct word order of Japanese. Interestingly, the present study showed that over 95% of the participants were consciously aware that Korean is morphosyntaxtically close to Japanese. This indicates that both L1 Korean-L2 Chinese and L1 Chinese-L2 Korean learners who are learning L3 Japanese believe that Korean linguistic knowledge is applicable to Japanese because these two languages are very close. Considering the L3 learners’ awareness on closeness between Korean and Japanese, instructors are
On the other side of the coin, the belief of closeness can induce overgeneralization and subsequently cause negative transfer.
Taking the occurrence of both positive and negative transfer into consideration, instructors need to be cautioned to avoid misguiding their students to consider Korean knowledge as always applicable when processing Japanese. Seemingly, it can be claimed that the application of Korean knowledge on word order will bring positive outcomes in most cases in learning Japanese as L3, given the fact that, as researchers have generally agreed, word order of Korean is the same as that of Japanese in very large part. However, even so, instructors should not say or imply that Korean is similar to Japanese. In fact, there are morphosyntactic differences between Korean and Japanese. Once learners’ mindset is conditioned to think that linguistic knowledge on Korean is always applicable, it may cause negative transfer and overgeneralization.
One example would be the use of particles and cases. Cases vary depending on verbs.
Studies of the contrastive analysis of Korean learners’ learning Japanese have been conducted intensively and extensively, showing numerous types of errors in morphosyntax triggered by misapplication of the existing language. If instructors explicitly say or imply that Korean is similar to Japanese, learners may be misguided to think that Korean knowledge is ‘always’ available in processing Japanese in any linguistic domain. In summary, people who have acquired Korean will have high chance of transferring Korean knowledge to Japanese both in positive and negative ways. While, indeed, there are similarities between Korean and Japanese, heavy reliance on Korean linguistic knowledge will induce overgeneralization in morphosyntactic items. Hence, instructors should pay attention to avoiding misguiding the learners to think that Korean knowledge can be used all the time.
Another pedagogical implication is that instructors can allot more time to tasks for production at the relatively earlier stage for learners of L3 who have attained advanced L2. The study found that beginning L3 leaners have acquired native-level receptive skills at the L3 initial state. This implies that L3 learners who attained advanced L2 have already had sufficient ability to autonomously acquire receptive skills without much amount of instruction from an instructor. Instead of allotting class time to activities for developing learners’ receptive knowledge in the classroom teaching, it will be more beneficial for learners to spend relatively more time on activities for training their productive skills while reducing time for tasks for receptive knowledge. However, it needs to be careful that, even though L3 learners can input knowledge accurately, it does not mean that they immediately convert the receptive knowledge into production. They still require a certain amount of time in processing it and make it available to production. Even so, instructors still can incorporate more productive activities in the classroom teaching. However, to implement this, there is a problem that there are few teaching and learning materials which include activities for developing learners’ productive skills. Especially, in the Asian institutions, teaching and learning materials which do not require production are mainly used in teaching Japanese. Generally speaking, these materials present target lexical items, grammatical items, and reading passages, but very few activities requiring production are included such as conversation activities in a given situation or oral description about themselves. Due to lack in productive tasks in teaching and learning materials, instructors need to come up with productive activities on their own. However, this is a
downturn. Their heavier daily work deprives them of time to preparing for class, although they attempt to squeeze time for preparation for teaching. For this reason, instructors do not have sufficient time to design productive activities well, and subsequently, tend to avoid doing productive activities during their teaching. To solve the problem, more teaching resources need to be available to instructors more conveniently. If this problem is solved, instructors are able to allot longer time to practicing productive tasks. This will help L3 learners to develop their productive skills.
In summary, the role of instructors is two-fold. First, instructors should not simply notify of learners that Korean is similar to Japanese to avoid misguiding the learners to think that Korean is ‘exactly’ the same as Japanese in any grammatical item. Second, even at the beginning phase of teaching L3, instructors may be able to assign more time to productive activities and less time on receptive tasks, since L3 learners can process receptive knowledge as accurate as native speakers at the initial state. However, it does not mean that L3 learners’ processing has been automatized.
Still, time is needed to process target L3 grammatical structures.
References
Aarts, B., Chalker, S. and Weiner, E (2014) The Oxford dictionary of English
grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bai, C. (2011). The Use of Case Markers and Word Order Cues during Japanese
Language Sentence Comprehension -bilingual Learners and Monolingual Learners of Japanese Language. Paper presented at the 28th Annual Meeting of
the Japanese Cognitive Science Society, Tokyo. doi:http://www.jcss.gr.jp/themes/jcss2014/meetings/JCSS2011/proceedings/pdf/JCS S2011_P2-4.pdf
Banich, M. T., & Compton, R. J. (2011). Cognitive Neuroscience, 3rd Edition. Boston, MA: Wadsworth..
Bardel, C., & Falk, Y. (2007). The role of the second language in third language acquisition: the case of Germanic syntax. Second Language Research, 23(4), 459-484.
Bowerman, M. (1979). The acquisition of complex sentences. In Studies in language
acquisition (pp. 285-305). Cambridge University Press.
Cenoz, J. (2003). The role of typology in the organization of the multilingual lexicon.
In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen and U. Jessner (eds) The Multilingual Lexicon (pp.
103-116). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Chikamatsu, N. (1996). The Effects of L1 Orthography on L2 Word Recognition.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(4), 403-432.
Clahsen, H., Felser, C., Neubauer, K., Sato, M. & Silva, R. (2010), Morphological
Cui, S. (2006). Tagengowasha no nihongogakushu ni okeru gengokan no eikyo-cho, cyu, bairingaru o taisyou ni. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tohoku University, Miyagi, Japan.
De Angelis, G. (2005). Interlanguage Transfer of Function Words. Language
Learning, 55(3). 379-414.
Eubank, L. (1993/1994). On the transfer of parametric values in L2 development.
Language Acquisition 3(3),183-208.
Eubank, L. (1996). Negation in early German-English interlanguage: More valueless features in the L2 initial state. Second Language Research, 12(1), 73–106.
Falk, Y., & Bardel, C. (2010). Object pronouns in German L3 syntax: Evidence for the L2 status factor. Second Language Research, 27(1), 59-82.
Flege, J. M., & Davidian, R. D. (1984). Transfer and developmental processes in adult foreign language speech production. Applied Psycholinguistics, 5(4), 323-347.
Flynn, S., Foley, C. & Vinnitskaya, I. (2004). The cumulative-enhancement model for language acquisition: comparing adults’ and children’s patterns of development in first, second and third language acquisition of relative clauses. The
International Journal of Multilingualism, 1(1), 3-16.
Foote, R. (2009). Transfer in L3 Acquisition: The Role of Typology. In Y-k. I. Leung (Ed.), Third Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar (pp. 89-114).
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Forsyth, H. (2014). The Influence of L2 Transfer on L3 English Written Production in a Bilingual German/Italian Population: A Study of Syntactic Errors. Open
Journal of Modern Linguistics, 4(3), 429-456.
Hammarberg, B. (ed). (2009). Processes in Third Language Acquisition. Edinburgh:
EUP.
Iseki, R. (2003). An investigation of the unit of activation in on-line inferences during text processing: word-unit or proposition-unit? The Japanese Journal of
Psychology, 74(4). 362-371.
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. New York: Routlege.
Jiang, N. (2007). Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language learning. Language Learning, 57(1), 1-33.
Jiang, N. (2012). Conducting reaction time research in second language studies. New York, NY: Routledge.
Jin, F. (2009). Third language acquisition of Norwegian objects: Interlanguage transfer or L1 influence?. In Y-k. I. Leung (Ed.) Third Language Acquisition
and Universal Grammar. (pp. 144-161). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 2009
Kellerman, E. (1983). Now you see it, now you don’t. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.),Language transfer in language learning (pp. 112-134). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.Kellerman, E. (1995). Crosslinguistic Influence: Transfer To Nowhere?. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 125-150.
Khodabandeh, F. (2013). Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition:
Acquisition of syntactic structures by students Bilingual in Persian-Azerbaijani, PersianArmenia, and Persian-Gilaki. International Journal of English Language
& Translational Studies, 1(3), 136-165.
Koda, K. (2005). Learning to read across writing systems: Trasnfer, metalinguistic
Koizumi, M., & Tamaoka, K. (2006). The Canonical Positions of Adjuncts in the Processing of Japanese Sentences. Cognitive Studies, 13(3). 392-403
Kresić, M., & Gulan, T. (2012). Interlingual Identifications and Assessment of Similarities Between L1, L2, and L3: Croatian Learners’ use of Modal Particles and Equivalent Modal Elements. In Gabrys-Barker, D. (ed.) Crosslinguistic
influences in multilingual language acquisition, (pp. 63–80). Heidelberg:
Springer.
Letica, S. & Mardešić, S. (2007). Cross-linguistic transfer in L2 and L3 production. In J. Horváth & M. Nikolov (Eds.), UPRT 2007: Empirical studies in English
applied linguistics (pp. 307-318). Pécs: Lingua Franca Csoport.
Leung, Y-K. I. (2005). L2 vs. L3 initial state: a comparative study of the acquisition of French DPs by Vietnamese monolinguals and Cantonese-English bilinguals.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 8(1), 39-61
Leung, Y-K. I. (2006). Full transfer vs. partial transfer in L2 and L3 acquisition. In:
Slabakova R, Montrul S, and Prévost P (eds) Inquiries in linguistic development:
In honor of Lydia White. (pp. 157–187). Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
Lincoln, Z. P. (2004). Syntactical and morphological roots of Japanese students' commom grammatical mistakes in writing Chinese. NUCB Journal Language,
Culture and Communication, 6(1), 93-100.
Lincoln, P. Z. (2009). Transfer of Japanese in Learning Chinese. NUCB Journal of
Language, Culture and Communication, 11(1), 59-70.
Macken, M., & Ferguson, C. (1981). Phonological universals in language acquisition.
In H. Winitz (Eds.), Native language and foreign language acquisition. (pp.
110-130). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Mervis, C. B., & Crisafi, M. A. (1982). Order of Acquisition of Subordinate-, Basic-, and Superordinate-Level Categories. Child Development, 53(1), 258-266.
Montrul, S., Dias, R., & Santos, H. (2011). Clitics and object expression in the L3 acquisition of Brazilian Portuguese: Structural similarity matters for transfer.
Second Language Research, 27(1), 21-58.
Murphy, S. (2005). Second Language Transfer During Third Language Acquisition.
Teachers College, Columbia University working papers in TESOL and applied linguistics, 3(1).
Ó Laoire, M., & Singleton, D. (2009). The role of prior knowledge in L3 learning and use: Further evidence of psychotypological dimensions. In L, Aronin & B, Hufeisen (Eds.), The Exploration of Multilingualism: Development of Research
on L3, Multilingualism and Multiple Language Acquisition, (pp. 63-77).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Osgood, C. E., & Zehler A. M. (1981). Acquisition of bi-transitive sentences: Pre-linguistic determinants of language acquisition. Journal of Child Language,8(2), 367-384.
Rast, R. (2010). The use of prior linguistic knowledge in the early stages of L3 acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching,
Walter de Gruyter, 48 (2/3), 159-183.
Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods for Dealing with Reaction-Time Outliers. Psychological
Bulletin, 114(3), 510-532.
Ringbom, H. (2002). Levels of transfer from L1 and L2 in L3-acquisition. In. J.
Rothman, J. (2010). On the typological economy of syntactic transfer: Word order and relative clause high/low attachment preference in L3 Brazilian Portuguese.
International Review of Applied Linguistics, 48(3), 243-271.
Rothman, J. (2011). L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: The typological primacy model. Second Language Research, 27 (1), 107-127.
Rothman, J., & Cabrelli Amaro, J. (2010). What variables condition syntactic transfer? A look at the L3 initial state. Second Language Research, 26(2), 189-218.
Sánchez, L. (2011) Luisa and Pedrito's dog will the breakfast eat: Interlanguage Transfer and the Role of the Second Language Factor. In G. DeAngelis & J.M.
Dewaele (Eds.), New Trends in Crosslinguistic Influence and Multilingualism
Research (pp. 86-104). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Schwartz, B. D. & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12(1), 40-72.
Shin, J. A., & Christianson, K. (2009). Syntactic processing in Korean–English bilingual production: Evidence from cross-linguistic structural priming.
Cognition, 112(1), 175-180.
Shooshtari, Z. H. (2009). Generative Syntactic Transfer in L2 and L3 Acquisition via the Channel of Translation. English Language Teaching,2(1), 129-149.
Thomason, S. (2001). Language Contact: an Introduction. Georgetown University Press.
Whelan, R. (2008). Effective analysis of reaction time data. The Psychological
Record, 58(3), 475–482.
Williams, S., & Hammarberg, B. (1998). Language switches in L3 production:
Implications for a polyglot speaking model. Applied linguistics, 19 (3), 295-333.
Xu, L. (2004). Manifestation of informational focus. Lingua 114(3), 277-299.
Yamato, Y., & Tamaoka, K. (2013). Chugokugowashato Kankokugowashano Nihongotekisutono Yomishoriniokeru Gengotekiruijiseino Eikyo. Papers of the
Japanese language teaching association in honor of professor Fumiko Koide, 21,
61-73.Appendix A Script of OT
3 words 4 words
Korean
하야시씨는 컴퓨터를 수리합니다 하야시씨는 야마다씨에게 펜을 돌려줍니다
다나카씨는 기타를 연습합니다
다나카씨는 하야시씨에게 스케줄을 설명합나다
하야시씨는 호텔을 예약합니다
하야시씨는 야마다씨에게 남자친구를 소개합니다
야마다씨는 테이블을 준비합니다 하야시씨는 다나카씨에게 도쿄를 안내합니다
하야시씨는 아이디어를
정리합니다 다나카씨는 하야시씨에게 카드를 보냅니다
Chinese
Tanaka 先生整理報告 Hayashi 要 寄 email 給 Yamada 先生
Yamada 準備紅葡萄酒 Yamada 先生要還 DVD 給 Tanaka 先生
Yamada 先生要修理門 Yamada 先生要介紹媽媽給 Tanaka 先生
Yamada 先生練習鋼琴 Tanaka 先生要說明新聞給 Hayashi 先生
Hayashi 先生要訂票 Hayashi 先生要導覽大阪給 Tanaka 先生
5 words
Korean
야마다씨는 다나카씨가 데이터를 정리한다고 말했습니다 다나카씨는 하야시씨가 버스를 수리한다고 말했습니다 하야시씨는 야마다씨가 레스토랑을 예약 한다고 말했습니다 저는 다나카씨가 스케이트를 연습한다고 생각합니다
다나카씨는 하야시씨가 맥주를 준비한다고 말했습니다
Chinese
我覺得 Yamada 先生要修理照相機 Tanaka 說 Yamada 先生要練習滑雪 Hayashi 說 Yamada 先生要預約卡拉 OK 我覺得 Tanaka 先生要準備蛋糕
Hayashi 說 Yamada 先生要整理文件
6 words
Korean
저는 다나카씨가 하야시씨에게 pdf 를 보낸다고 생각합니다
다나카씨는 하야시씨가 야마다씨에게 룰을 설명한다고 말했습니다 하야시씨는 야마다씨가 다나카씨에게 어머니를 소개한다고 말했습니다 하야시씨는 야마다씨가 다나카씨에게 iphone 를 돌려준다고 말했습니다 야마다씨는 다나카씨가 하야시씨에게 타이페이을 안내한다고 말했습니다
Chinese
我覺得 Tanaka 先生要還 USB 給 Hayashi 先生
Yamada 先生說 Tanaka 先生要寄情書給 Hayashi 先生 我覺得 Hayashi 先生要說明故事給 Yamada 先生
Tanaka 先生說 Yamada 先生要介紹女朋友給 Hayashi 先生 Tanaka 先生說 Yamada 先生要導覽首爾給 Hayashi 先生
Appendix B Sentences used in GJT
3 words 4 words
1 山田さんは 研究室を 使う 山田さんは 田中さんに 傘を 貸す
2 林さんは 論文を 読む 山田さんは 田中さんに 西瓜を 送る
3 田中さんは 教材を 選ぶ 林さんは 田中さんに 成績を 見せる
4 田中さんは 音楽を 聴く 林さんは 田中さんに 車を 売る
5 山田さんは 単語を 忘れる 田中さんは 林さんに 文化を 紹介する
6 山田さんは 切る 肉 山田さんは 返す 林さんに 漫画
7 田中さんは 閉める 箱 林さんは 買う 山田さんに 小龍包
8 田中さんは 持つ 眼鏡 山田さんは 書く 田中さんに 報告書
9 林さんは 植える 木 田中さんは 説明する 林さんに 漢字
10 林さんは 飲む お酒 田中さんは 案内する 林さんに 京都
fillers fillers
1 研究する 山田さん 英語 相談する 山田さんは 宿題を 田中さん
2 予習する 山田さん 教科書 教える 林さんは 中国語を 山田さん
3 設計する 田中さん 百貨店 習う 田中さんは 林さんに 運動
4 利用する 銀行を 林さん 見せる 本を 山田さんは 林さん
5 計算する 予算を 林さん 払う 学費を 田中さんに 山田さん
5 words
1 わたしは 林さんが 辞書を 使うと思う 2 田中さんは 林さんが 小説を 読むと言った 3 林さんは 田中さんが 学校を 選ぶと言った 4 わたしは 山田さんが CD を 聴くと思う
5 田中さんは 山田さんが 名前を 忘れたと言った 6 林さんは 言った 田中さんが 切る 紙
7 山田さんは 言った 林さんが 閉める 店 8 わたしは 思う 林さんが 持つ 薬
9 わたしは 思う 田中さんが 植える 花 10 山田さんは 言った 田中さんが 飲む 水
fillers
1 思う わたしは 田中さんが 歌を 歌う 2 思う わたしは 山田さんが 門を 閉める 3 思う わたしは 休む 学校を 林さん
4 言った 田中さんは 飛行機を 林さんが 作る 5 言った 林さんは 衣服を 山田さんが 洗濯する
6 words
1 山田さんは 田中さんが 林さんに 電話を 貸すと言った 2 田中さんは 林さんが 山田さんにお茶を 送ると言った 3 わたしは 林さんが 田中さんに 同意書を 書くと 思う
1 山田さんは 田中さんが 林さんに 電話を 貸すと言った 2 田中さんは 林さんが 山田さんにお茶を 送ると言った 3 わたしは 林さんが 田中さんに 同意書を 書くと 思う