汉—英—日三语词汇加工中的语言距离和二语效应

doi:10.12002/j.bisu.217

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

三语者掌握的语言可能有不同的距离。语言距离相近时,L3词汇加工更易受习得状态相似的L2词汇影响（二语效应）。但汉—英—日三语者的语言距离和二语效应更复杂,尚少有研究证据。本文采用同/异译词对（L3→L2）和同/异形词对（L3∩L1）的语义判断任务,考察汉—英—日三语者的L3词汇加工是否受到二语效应和语言距离的影响。结果显示,加工L3→L2同译词对的反应时显著增加、错误率稍稍降低,未见二语效应,而L3∩L1同形词对的反应时、错误率均显著降低,语言距离的作用显著。文章从二语效应、语言距离展开讨论,认为三语词汇教学须同时重视两者的语际影响。

关键词: L3→L2同译; L3∩L1同形; 语际影响; 二语效应; 语言距离

Abstract:

The languages used by a trilingual speaker can be of different linguistic distances. As for the trilinguals of closer linguistic distance, the L3 lexical processing is more significantly affected by the L2 lexical system due to the similarity of acquisition (L2 effect). Yet, the Chinese-English-Japanese (C-E-J) trilinguals encounter a more complex interactive relationship of linguistic distance and acquisition, for which there is still insufficient empirical evidence. This study employs semantic judgement tasks with word pairs of same/different L3→L2 translation and word pairs of same/different L3∩L1 orthography, so as to investigate whether and how the C-E-J trilinguals’ L3 lexical semantic processing is affected by L2 effect and linguistic distance. The results indicate that reaction times (RTs) and error rates (ERs) of L3→L2 congruent word pairs are significantly longer and slightly higher than those of the incongruent word pairs, showing no significant L2 effect; RTs and ERs of L3∩L1 orthographically similar word pairs are significantly shorter and lower than those of the orthographically different word pairs, which validates the dominant role of linguistic distance. The results are further discussed starting from the L2 effect and linguistic distance and the conclusion is drawn that close attention should be paid to the inter-lingual influence from both factors in the teaching of L3 vocabulary.

Keywords: L3→L2 congruency; L3∩L1 similar orthography; cross-linguistic influence; L2 effect; language distance

中图分类号:

H313.2

陈艳艳,张萍. 汉—英—日三语词汇加工中的语言距离和二语效应[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2019, 41(3): 74-87.

Yanyan CHEN,Ping ZHANG. Linguistic Distance and L2 Effect on the L3 Lexical Processing of Chinese-English-Japanese Trilinguals[J]. Journal of Beijing International Studies University, 2019, 41(3): 74-87.

图/表 5

参考文献 35

[1]	Aitchison J . Words in the Mind:An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon[M]. 4th ed. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.
[2]	Bardel C & Sánchez L . The L2 status factor hypoconfproc revisited:the role of metalinguistic knowledge,working memory,attention and noticing in third language learning [C]//Angelovska T & Hahn A. L3 Syntactic Transfer:Models,New Developments and Implications. Amsterdam:John Benjamins, 2017: 85~ 101.
[3]	Cenoz J. The effect of linguistic distance,L2 status and age on cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition [C]//Cenoz J,Hufeisen B & Jessner U. Cross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition:Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters, 2001: 8~ 20.
[4]	Cenoz J . The influence of bilingualism on third language acquisition:Focus on multilingualism[J]. Language Teaching, 2013,46(1):71~ 86.
[5]	Cenoz J & Gorter D . A holistic approach to multilingual education:Introduction[J]. The Modern Language Journal, 2011,95(3):339~ 343.
[6]	Costa A & Santesteban M . Lexical access in bilingual speech production:Evidence from language switching in highly proficient bilinguals and L2 learners[J]. Journal of Memory and Language, 2004,50(4):491~ 511.
[7]	De Angelis G . Third or Additional Language Acquisition[M]. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 2007.
[8]	De Angelis G & Selinker L . Interlanguage transfer and competing linguistic systems in the multilingual mind [C]//Cenoz J,Hufeisen B & Jessner U. Cross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition:Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters, 2001: 42~ 58.
[9]	De Bot K . The multilingual lexicon:modelling selection and control[J]. International Journal of Multilingualism, 2004,1(1):17~ 32.
[10]	De Bot K & Jaensch C . What is special about L3 processing?[J]. Bilingualism:Language and Cognition, 2015,18(2):130~ 144.
[11]	Deconinck J, Boers F & Eyckmans J . ‘Does the form of this word fit its meaning?’:The effect of learner-generated mapping elaborations on L2 word recall[J]. Language Teaching Research, 2017,21(1):31~ 53.
[12]	Ecke P . Parasitic vocabulary acquisition,cross-linguistic influence,and lexical retrieval in multilinguals[J]. Bilingualism:Language and Cognition, 2015,18(2):145~ 162.
[13]	Falk Y & Bardel C . Object pronouns in German L3 syntax:Evidence for the L2 status factor[J]. Second Language Research, 2011,27(1):59~ 82.
[14]	González Alonso J, Rothman J, Berndt D, Castro T & Westergaard M . Broad scope and narrow focus:On the contemporary linguistic and psycholinguistic study of third language acquisition[J]. International Journal of Bilingualism, 2017,21(6):639~ 650.
[15]	Hammarberg B. Roles of L1 and L2 in L3 production and acquisition [C]//Cenoz J,Hufeisen B & Jessner U. Cross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition:Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters, 2001: 21~ 39.
[16]	Jessner U. Metacognition in Multilingual Learning: A DMM Perspective [C]//Haukås Å, Bjørke C & Dypedahl M. Metacognition in Language Learning and Teaching. New York / London:Routledge, 2018: 31~ 47.
[17]	Jiang N . Form-meaning mapping in vocabulary acquisition in a second language[J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2002,24(4):617~ 637.
[18]	Meisel J M . Transfer as a second-language strategy[J]. Language & Communication, 1983,3(1):11~ 46.
[19]	Puig-Mayenco E & Marsden H . Polarity-item anything in L3 English:Where does transfer come from when the L1 is Catalan and the L2 is Spanish?[J]. Second Language Research, 2018,34(4):487~ 515.
[20]	Rothman J . Linguistic and cognitive motivations for the Typological Primacy Model(TPM)of third language(L3)transfer:Timing of acquisition and proficiency considered[J]. Bilingualism:Language and Cognition, 2015,18(2):179~ 190.
[21]	Van Heuven W J B, Conklin K, Coderre E L, Guo Taomei & Dijkstra T . The influence of cross-language similarity on within- and between-language Stroop effects in trilinguals[J]. Frontiers in Psychology, 2011,2:374.
[22]	Vildomec V . Multilingualism[M]. Netherlands: Sythoff-Leyden, 1963.
[23]	陈建林, 张聪霞, 刘晓燕, 程蓉 . 二语水平对藏—汉—英三语者英语词汇语义通达的影响[J]. 外语教学与研究, 2018,50(5):727~ 737.
[24]	戴炜栋, 王雪梅 . “双一流”背景下外语类院校的发展定位、特征与战略[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2017,39(1):1~ 17.
[25]	范莉 . 量化在儿童早期语言中的萌芽[J]. 外国语, 2017,40(1):30~ 44.
[26]	高立群, 黎静 . 日本留学生汉日同形词词汇通达的实验研究[J]. 世界汉语教学, 2005(3):96~ 105.
[27]	李利, 张扬, 李璇, 郭红婷, 伍丽梅, 王瑞明 . 三语者语义通达中的跨语言重复启动效应[J]. 心理学报, 2016,48(11):1401~ 1409. DOI
[28]	孙鑫, 李伟 . 不同三语学习者的语义通达机制对比研究[J]. 外语与外语教学, 2014(3):49~ 54.
[29]	王瑞明, 张洁婷, 李利, 莫雷 . 二语词汇在双语者三语词汇语义通达中的作用[J]. 心理科学, 2010,33(4):853~ 856.
[30]	王悦, 张积家 . 不熟练中—日双语者同形词和非同形词的隐蔽翻译启动效应[J]. 心理学报, 2014,46(6):765~ 776. DOI
[31]	王震 . 汉—英—日三语者的跨语言长时重复启动效应研究[J]. 现代外语, 2016,39(1):64~ 73.
[32]	温忠麟, 范息涛, 叶宝娟, 陈宇帅 . 从效应量应有的性质看中介效应量的合理性[J]. 心理学报, 2016,48(4):435~ 443. DOI
[33]	张鹏, 朱虹, 雷鸣 . 中国日语学习者“自—他对应动词”习得的实证研究[J]. 外语教学与研究, 2012,44(1):95~ 104.
[34]	张萍, 卢雅睿 . 同译效应对汉—英—日三语者心理词库语义加工的影响[J]. 解放军外国语学院学报, 2016,39(3):1~ 11.
[35]	赵琛新 . 多语视角下的德英外语学习成效相关性研究[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2016,38(3):122~ 133.

受试类型	人数	年龄	L1 汉语			L2 英语			L3日语
受试类型	人数	年龄	统测	自评	方式	统测	自评	方式	统测	自评	方式
L3高水平	20	21~23	（母语）	6.15	家庭	CET4	4.20	课堂	N₁¹	4.56	课堂
L3低水平	23	19~21	（母语）	6.65	家庭	CET4	3.91	课堂	/	3.04	课堂

受试类型	人数	年龄	L1 汉语			L2 英语			L3日语
受试类型	人数	年龄	统测	自评	方式	统测	自评	方式	统测	自评	方式
L3高水平	20	21~23	（母语）	6.15	家庭	CET4	4.20	课堂	N₁¹	4.56	课堂
L3低水平	23	19~21	（母语）	6.65	家庭	CET4	3.91	课堂	/	3.04	课堂

类型		基础数据				词对示例
类型		词对数量	平均笔画数	平均熟悉度	平均同形性	L3实验词		L2翻译词
同译	同形	15	24.8	6.3	6.8	返事	反応	reply
同译	异形	15	21.2	6.1	4.2	カット	切る	cut
异译	同形	15	26.4	6.3	6.2	基準	準則	standard	rule
异译	异形	15	20.4	6.0	3.6	過失	ミス	fail	miss
无关		60	23.5	6.1	6.0	お焼	託する	bake	rely

类型		基础数据				词对示例
类型		词对数量	平均笔画数	平均熟悉度	平均同形性	L3实验词		L2翻译词
同译	同形	15	24.8	6.3	6.8	返事	反応	reply
同译	异形	15	21.2	6.1	4.2	カット	切る	cut
异译	同形	15	26.4	6.3	6.2	基準	準則	standard	rule
异译	异形	15	20.4	6.0	3.6	過失	ミス	fail	miss
无关		60	23.5	6.1	6.0	お焼	託する	bake	rely

受试类型	同译词对		异译词对
受试类型	反应时	错误率	反应时	错误率
L3低水平	1 015（157）	23.2（10.6）	933（167）	22.8（10.8）
L3高水平	927（110）	13.5（6.31）	855（79.7）	16.8（7.00）