關於第三語言習得的形態句法轉移的語言類型與心理類型的相對權重

Abstract

第三語言習得(TLA)相對而言是較新穎的研究領域。早先開創的第三語言習得相關研究發現，類型差異是決定轉移來源的因素(Rothman, 2010, 2011)。然而，以往的研究並未明示，究竟是何種類型差異，決定第三語言初學情境中的轉移來源。有些學者將類型學研究聚焦於客觀的語言近似，而有些學者則擴展其研究範疇至學習者對於類型的感知覺察，意即所謂的心理類型(Kellerman, 1983)。儘管已知兩種類型差異皆具影響力，兩者的相對權重卻仍有待探究。因此，本研究旨在明察當第三語言初學者思考目標語的形態句法知識時，語言類型差異與心理類型差異的相對權重。數據資料取自於兩個實驗組。第一個實驗組由33位已習得進階韓文的台灣人所組成，第二個實驗組由30位已習得進階中文的韓國人所組成。兩個實驗組皆需接受(1)口說翻譯測驗(OT)、(2)文法判讀測驗(GJT)以及(3)心理類型差異問卷調查。除此之外，另召集30位日文母語人士，作為文法判讀測驗數據資料分析之對照組。研究結果顯示，不論接收性的聽讀能力、產出性的說寫能力，或文句的複雜度，兩個實驗組皆較多仰賴語言類型近似之語言(韓文)，而較少仰賴心理類型近似之語言(中文)。又，第三語言初學者無法同日文母語人士般自然地思考目標第三語言─日文。最後根據本研究結果，細述第三語言習得之教學內涵。

Research in third language acquisition (TLA) is relatively a new field. The pioneering TLA research has found out that typological distance is a factor that determines the source of transfer (Rothman, 2010, 2011). However, the previous research did not specify which kind of ‘typological distance’ plays a role in determining the source of transfer at the L3 initial state. Some researchers have directed their research focus to typology as objective linguistic similarities whilst others have expanded their research scope to learners’ perception on typology, so-called psychotypology (Kellerman, 1983). Despite pointing out the two sorts of ‘typological distance’ playing a role, their relative weight has yet to be unveiled. Hence, the present study aims to examine the relative weight of a linguistic typological distance and psychotypological distance when the beginning L3 learners process morphosyntactic knowledge in the target language. The data were obtained from the two experimental groups. The first experimental group is composed of 33 Taiwanese individuals who have acquired advanced L2 Korean. The second experimental group includes 30 Korean individuals with advanced L2 Chinese. The two experimental groups were assigned to take a(n) (1) oral translation task (OT), (2) grammaticality judgment task (GJT), and (3) survey of their psychotypological distance. Additionally, 30 native speakers of Japanese were recruited, serving as a control group for the data analysis of GJT. The results show that both groups relied more on a linguistically-typologically-closer language (i.e., Korean) than a psychotypologically-closer language (i.e., Chinese) irrespective of productive/receptive skills or complexity of sentences. Also, L3 beginning learners were not able to process the target L3 Japanese as automatically as native Japanese speakers. Based on the findings, pedagogical implications are discussed.