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.

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/JCSS2011_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 Structure in Native and Nonnative Language Processing. Language Learning, 60(1), 21–43
Crystal, D. (2004). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell.
108
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.
109
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 awareness, and second language reading development. In V. J. Cook (Ed.), Second language writing systems (pp. 311-334). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
110
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.
111
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. Ytsma and M. Hooghiemstra (eds) Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Trilingualism. Leeuwaarden: Fryske Ahademie (CD Rom).
112
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.
113
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.