4.1 Results of OT
4.1.1 Scores of OT (Translation of Korean into Japanese)
Subsection 4.4.1 encompassed the mean scores of OT of four varying types of complexity and descriptive statistics. Figure 5 shows the mean scores of OT in the 3-word sentences. To reiterate the scoring method, sentences consisting of three 3-words were based on a position of a verb. If they spoke Japanese sentences in the SOV word order, one point was added to Korean word order. If they utter Japanese sentences in the SVO word order, one point was added to Chinese word order. Since each participant was given five sentences, the maximum score is five. In the OT task, all of the participants used either SOV or SVO. Utterances of other word order were not observed.
3 Previous studies did not confirm this issue. Researchers required the participants to listen to question only in their L1 during OT. This decreases validity of OT. In fact, it is possible that beginning learners may simply use their L1 to process L3 word order because they are exposed to L1. If OT from L2 into L3 is conducted, the result may or may not be different. It may be possible that L3 learners may use L2 knowledge to process L3 simply because they are exposed to L2. Since previous studies (e.g., Khodabandeh, 2013; Letica & Mardešić, 2007; Shooshtari, 2009) did not confirm this problem, the present study implemented two types of OT, one Korean being given and the other Chinese being given.
Note. Max = 5
Figure 5. The mean scores of OT (Korean into Japanese): 3-word sentences
As seen in Figure 5, L1 Taiwanese learners attained the mean score of 5.00 on the Korean word order while the mean score of Chinese word order was 0.00. On the other hand, the mean score of L1 Korean learners reached 3.83 in Korean word order while their the mean score for Chinese word order was 1.13. Descriptive statistics of within-subjects in Table 6 showed no statistical significant difference (F(1,62) = 1.102; p>.05), indicating the performance of OT between L1 Taiwanese and L1 Korean was not significantly different. On the other hand, descriptive statistics showed that there was a significant difference (F(1,61) = 119.826, p < .05) as show in Table 7. As supported by descriptive statistics of within-subjects, both L1 Taiwanese and L1 Korean spoke Japanese sentences consisting of a subject, an object, and a verb in the Korean word order than the Chinese word order. However, the statistical analysis found that there was an interaction between the word order and participants
0
Unlike the 3-word sentences, the maximum score of OT with the 4-word sentences is ten. This is because two criteria were set up to score the participants’
performance in the 4-word sentences: one is the order of IO and DO and the other is the position of a verb. For example, if they speak a Japanese sentence with the word order of S IO DO V, two points are added to Korean word order because IO-DO is a Korean word order and a verb is placed at the end of a sentence. If their Japanese utterance takes the word order of S DO IO V, one point is added to Chinese word
Table 6
Between-subjects effects of OT (Korean into Japanese): 3-word sentences
Source
df
SS MS Fp
Intercept 1 780.485 780.485 98502.580 .000**
Group 1 .009 .009 1.102 .298
Error 61 .483 .008
Note.* p<.05. **p<.01
Table 7
Within-subjects effects of OT (Korean into Japanese): 3-word sentences
word order
df
SS MS Fp
word order 1 465.850 465.850 119.826 .000**
word order * group
1 41.564 41.564 10.691 .002**
Error(source) 61 237.150 3.888
Note.* p<.05. **p<.01
order and so is Korean word order. This is because DO-IO is a Chinese word order, where a verb is put at the end of a sentence. In addition to the above-mentioned two word orders, the participants also uttered the S V DO IO and S DO V IO word order.
In the former utterance, two points were given to Chinese word order while, in the latter word order, no point was given. Figure 6 illustrates that both L1 Taiwanese and L1 Korean learners have attained higher the mean scores in the Korean word order (9.15 and 6.77, respectively) than in the Chinese word order (0.09, 1.77, respectively), which showed the same pattern as seen in the 3-word sentences.
Note. Max = 10
Figure 6. The mean scores of OT (Korean into Japanese): 4-word sentences
0 2 4 6 8 10
Korean word order Chiense word order
mean score
Taiwanese learners Korean learners
Table 8 and Table 9 show the descriptive statistics of the 4-word sentences.
Between L1 Taiwanese and L1 Korean learners, no statistical significant difference was found (F(1,61) = 1.490, p > .05) as shown in Table 8. Overall, the result of the four-word sentences revealed the identical pattern as the 3-word sentences. On the contrary, descriptive statistics in Table 9 has confirmed that both L1 Taiwanese and L1 Korean learners spoke more Japanese sentences in the Korean word order than those in the Chinese word order significantly (F(1,61) = 153.340, p < .05). The interaction effect was detected in sentences with four words (F(1,61) = 12.789, p
< .05).
Table 8
Between-subjects effects of OT (Korean into Japanese): 4-word sentences
Source
df
SS MS Fp
Intercept 1 2482.681 2482.681 936.203 .000**
Group 1 3.951 3.951 1.490 .227
Error 61 161.764 2.652
Note.* p<.05. **p<.01
Table 9
Within-subjects effects of OT (Korean into Japanese): 4-word sentences
word order
df
SS MS Fp
word order 1 1553.362 1553.362 153.340 .000**
word order * group
1 129.553 129.553 12.789 .001**
Error(source) 61 617.939 10.130
Note.* p<.05. **p<.01
Next is the 5-word sentence. The sentences with five words are more complex in sentence structure than the sentences consisting of three and four words in that they
illustrated in Figure 7, the tendency of the mean scores in sentences consisting of five words is the same as the one in sentences consisting of three and four words. Both Taiwanese and Korean participants gained higher scores in the Korean word order (8.82 and 5.97, respectively) while those in the Chinese word order was low (0.42 and 3.43, respectively).
Table 10 and Table 11 show descriptive statistics of the 5-word sentences. As verified by the descriptive statistics in Table 10, there was no significant difference in the mean score between L1 Taiwanese and L1 Korean (F(1,61) = .187, p > .05). In terms of within-subjects seen in Table 11, both L1 Taiwanese and L1 Korean scored higher in the Japanese sentences in the Korean sentences than those in the Chinese sentences (F(1,61) = 54.007, p < .05). The result also showed that the interaction effect was found (F(1,61) = 15.535, p < .05).
Note. Max = 10
Figure 7. The mean scores of OT (Korean into Japanese): 5-word sentences
0
Table 10
Between-subjects effects of OT (Korean into Japanese): 5-word sentences
Source
df
SS MS Fp
Intercept 1 2730.671 2730.671 2617.793 .000**
Group 1 .195 .195 .187 .667
Error 61 63.630 1.043
Note.* p<.05. **p<.01
Table 11
Within-subjects effects of OT (Korean into Japanese): 5-word sentences
word order
df
SS MS Fp
word order 1 938.184 938.184 54.007 .000**
word order * group
1 269.867 269.867 15.535 .000**
Error(source) 61 1059.673 17.372
Note.* p<.05. **p<.01
Finally, Figure 8 shows the mean score of the 6-word sentences. The maximum score is 15 because there are three criteria to quantify the learners’
performance: (1) position of a verb in a main clause, (2) position of a verb in a
Korean word order whilst, in the Chinese word order, Taiwanese and Korean learners revived 0.818 and 4.933 respectively.
Note. Max = 15
Figure 8. The mean scores of OT (Korean into Japanese): 6-word sentences
In terms of the between-subjects effects, Table 12 showed that statistical significant difference was not observed between L1 Taiwanese and L1 Korean learners as well (F(1,61) = 1.476, p > .05). Table 13 shows that both L1 Taiwanese and L1 Korean learners significantly spoke more Japanese sentences in the Korean word order than those in the Chinese word order (F(1,61) = 44.280, p < .05). The interaction effect was found (F(1,61) = 13.231, p < .05).
0 3 6 9 12 15
Korean word order Chiense word order
mean score
Taiwanese learners Korean learners
Table 12
Between-subjects effects of OT (Korean into Japanese): 6-word sentences
Source
df
SS MS Fp
Intercept 1 5216.523 5216.523 1320.273 .000**
Group 1 1.475 1.475 .373 .543
Error 61 241.017 3.951
Note.* p<.05. **p<.01
Table 13
Within-subjects effects of OT (Korean into Japanese): 6-word sentences
word order
df
SS MS Fp
word order 1 1598.546 1598.546 44.280 .000**
word order * group
1 477.657 477.657 13.231 .001**
Error(source) 61 2202.168 36.101
Note.* p<.05. **p<.01
In summary, both L1 Taiwanese and L1 Korean learners uttered Japanese sentences in the Korean word order more frequently than those in the Chinese word
groups, no significant difference was identified. The results of OT from Korean into Japanese were summarized in Table 14 below.
Table 14
Summary of p values of between- and within- subjects in OT (Korean into Japanese)
Number of words Between-subjects Within-subjects
3 words
p = .298 p = .000**
4 words
p = .227 p = .000**
5 words
p = .667 p = .000**
6 words
p = .543 p = .000**
Note.* p<.05. **p<.01