A CIA Analysis of Metalinguistic Transfer in
L3-Japanese Translation

Ryoko Ohata1

1 Doctoral Candidate in International and Advanced Japanese Studies, University of Tsukuba

日本語を母語としない人が、日本語を別な言語に（あるいは別な言語を日本語に）翻訳する場合にどんな困難が伴うかを、『星の王子様』の一節をテキストにメタ言語レベルで解析した。

Abstract

Odlin (1989) defines linguistic transfer as ‘the influence resulting from similarities and differences between thetarget language and any other language that has been previously acquired.’ ‘Reverse transfer’ happens when the
direction of linguistic transfer is the reverse (Cook, 2003).
In the field of Third Language Acquisition (TLA), language transfer could be more complicated than that ofSecond Language Acquisition (SLA) because it involves three different languages. Different studies have investigated L1/L2/L3 transfer factors (Cabrelli Amaro et al., 2012; Cenoz et al., 2001; Hammarberg, 2009) and it has been
widely shown that L2 is preferred to L1 as a transfer source in the process of learning L3. However, most of theprevious research was performed on the transfers among European languages, with English being one of them, fromthe viewpoint of learners’ metalinguistic awareness of L1 and L2 syntax and lexicon.
The current study attempted to visualize metalinguistic transfer as well as cross-linguistic transfer among L1/
L2/L3 in L3 Japanese acquisition. Specifically, advanced-level L3-Japanese learners from different mother-tongue
backgrounds were asked to participate in a language background survey, translation tasks from their L1 into
L2-English and L3-Japanese, and follow-up interviews. Analysis suggested some evidence of metalinguistic transfer in Chinese speakers’ writing/reading production. Following Granger’s (1996, 2015) Contrastive Interlanguage
Analysis through the application of KH Coder network analysis, this study also tried to contribute to the developmentof new perspectives and strategies for Japanese-language teaching and learning in the forthcoming multicultural/multilingual/plurilingual societies.
Keywords

Metalinguistic Transfer; TLA; L3-Japanese; Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis; KH Coder

1. Introduction

Metalinguistic knowledge and skills have been studied by many researchers. Richards defines metalinguistic knowledge as “the knowledge about linguistic formand structure which learners reach when they reflect on
and analyze the target language” (Richards et al., 2013).
It is also explained as “the learners’ clear and precise
awareness about the vocabulary, syntactic, grammatical,
morphological and phonological structures of the second
language” (Roehr, 2006). According to Berry, without

essential metalinguistic awareness such as present perfect, adjective, and noun, students will have problems inunderstanding details by educators and textbooks fortesting purposes (Berry, 2005). Therefore, metalinguistic knowledge of native speakers is often used as aresource for language analysis (Richards et al., 2013).
Ever since Cummins (1979) introduced Developmental
Interdependence Hypothesis in the field of SLA, theissues related to metalinguistic awareness has become
even greater. Cummins (2001, pp. 112-113) suggested

071

Ryoko Ohatathat literacy-related aspects of a bilingual’s proficiency
in L1 and L2 are seen as common or interdependent
across languages and the “metalinguistic awareness isregarded as one specialized aspect of cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP).” In the meantime,
Clapham’s study of ‘direct object’ found evidence of
metalinguistic transfer from English to French, albeit
implying the difficulty and importance of, and the needs
for more research in the field (Clapham, 2001). Bialystok(2007) also mentions that this cross-linguistic transfer iswhat informs “literacy instruction” for teachers of bilingual learners. Although Alderson, Clapham, and Steelinvestigated and reported that the relationship between
metalinguistic knowledge of learners and linguistic proficiency was weak (1997), metalinguistic transfer from anative language to another seems worth further investigation so as to contribute to the development of new perspectives on language proficiency at the academic level.
In the present study, a group of foreign graduate students at the University of Tsukuba in Japan were asked
to translate a short passage into their second language(L2 English) and third language (L3 Japanese) in orderto observe metalinguistic transfers from their mothertongue (L1s) and between L2 and L3. There have been anumber of studies conducted on linguistic transfers andreverse transfers between L1 and L2. However, has
there never been a single study focusing on Japanese asa third language nor considering translation as a method
to delve into the influence of pre-learned languages on
the metalinguistic skills of L3-Japanese reading andwriting. Using KH Coder, a text-mining software tool,
this paper visualizes learners’ metacognitive awarenessand transfer among L1, L2, and L3 and suggests strategic implications for future Japanese-language teaching
and learning.

2. Literature Review and Research
QuestionsLinguistic Transfer and Metalinguistic Transfer
Researchers have been striving to reach the definitive
frameworks of linguistic transfer for decades. RobertLado first developed a theory called the contrastive
hypothesis that is very akin to the concept of linguistic

072

transfer. He stated that systematic comparison of languages can help predict and describe the difficult features that can face a second language learner in learning
L2 (Lado, 1957). In Chomskyan theories of language,
the linguistic transfer has been reviewed within thescope of questioning whether universal grammar (UG)
is applicable to SLA or a completely different parameteris involved (Sakota, 2020). Meanwhile, some interestingstudies have adopted the Competition Model to provide
empirical evidence (Bates and MacWhinney 1981,
Sasaki, 1991), and the others even started using theConnectionist Model to explain linguistic transfer(Shirai, 1992).
As the field of study developed, the term “transfer”
had been replaced and presented using different terminology and concepts, such as “cross-linguistic influence,” “positive transfer,” and “negative transfer”(Corder, 1973). Although some scholars were not completely in congruence with the idea of transfer at thetime (Kellerman, 1995), Odlin’s Language Transfer(1989) is the most extensive and comprehensive study ofthe field. He defined linguistic transfer as “the influence
resulting from similarities and differences between thetarget language and any other language that has beenpreviously acquired,” not only attributing the issue topositive nor negative types but rather to the linguistic
distance between target languages (e.g. L1 & L2) (Odlin,
1993, p.27). Later, “reverse transfer” was introduced by
Cook (2003) to describe the cases where the direction of
linguistic transfer (e.g. L1→L2) is the reverse [L2→L1].
It has also been proved that phonological transfers
happen more frequently than morphological and syntactic transfers (Ioup and Weinberger, 1987; Mizuno, 2000;
Takahashi, 1984).
The central discussion of this paper, however, is thetransfer in metalinguistic skills and awareness that
affects language learning proficiency especially withregard to upper-level literacy skills – reading and writing.
Koda’s Transfer Facilitation Model posits that bilingual
children naturally tend to capitalize on metalinguistic
skills gained from one language in learning the other(Koda, 2005, 2008). This cross-linguistic transfer facilitation in Malay-English bilingual reading is depicted6th AFC Best Papers

well in Zhang, Chin, and Li (Zhang et al., 2017):…metalinguistic awareness can be transferred fromthe source language as a resource to facilitate thedevelopment of reading and its related abilities in thetarget language.…Target language competencies arethus developmentally an outcome of the complex
interplay between transferred metalinguistic awareness from the source language and learners’ print
exposure or reading experience in the target language (p. 6).
Malakoff and Hakuta (1991) also maintains asfollows:
Metalinguistic awareness and bilingual proficiency
are separate but related linguistic skills…the correlation between these skills is in part the result of influence of academic experience on both skills…
Children who have a more developed sense of metalinguistic awareness are likely also to have moredeveloped language skills in general: this appears to
be particularly true for written-language skills.
Cummins argues that these meta-linguistic and written-language skills are also shared across both languages. (pp. 148-9)
Jessner defined metalinguistic awareness as a “set ofskills or abilities that the multilingual user develops
owing to his/her prior linguistic and metalinguisticknowledge” (Jessner, 2008, p. 275). Over the last 20
years, “the growing interest in multilingualism hasgiven rise to a wave of research emphasis on the role oflanguage awareness in multilingual learning and education” (Jessner, 2015). Jessner herself is one of the TLA(Third Language Acquisition) advocates and claims thatthe development of proficiency in two or more foreign
languages can lead to higher levels of metalinguistic
awareness. Despite some counterarguments that there isno difference between SLA and TLA (and so forth) andthat all the non-native languages are second languages(Mitchell and Myles, 1998; Singh & Carroll, 1979,), it istrue that TLA has gained a field in its own right reflecting the multilingualism and multiculturalism in thisglobal age. In the meantime, it may be appropriate torevisit the remaining issue (SLA vs. TLA) with theapplication of “plurilingualism” where a person’s

multilingual competence does not necessarily coincidewith the linguistic circumstances in the actual society.
Translation and Metalinguistic Skill
Translation involves various different skills. Therefore,
there is a unanimous agreement among linguists andtranslation theorists on the use of translation as a foreign
language learning and teaching strategy (Al-Kufaishy,
2004, 2006 cited in Al-Hassnawi, 2010). Some scholars
suggested that the processes involved in the comprehension of text can be better understood through translationand interpretation (Mininni, 1981; Nida, 1976).
According to Komatsu (2018), “translation is an activity
that selects out possible words and phrases that express
succinctly the meaning of the original text including
nuances. In doing so, the most important thing is to
re-construct the author’s view described in the originaltext” (p.1). Clearly, translation is different from interpretation in that translation refers to the written modality and interpretation refers to the oral modality(Malakoff and Hakuta, 1991). In this paper, the former ismainly reviewed.
Although the history of translation theory dates backto the ancient times — translation has been used to teacha second language since Roman times —, the empiricalliterature on translation was sparse until the late 20th
century (Malakoff and Hakuta, 1991, p. 144). Yet, someof the previous studies have provided interesting insights
into the theory of translation. For example, Ljudskanov(1969) divided the process of translation into two stages:(1) analysis of the source-language text; and (2) synthesis of the information into a target-language text.
Because this binary model does not consider the communicative dimension of the translation, Seleskovitch(1976) later added a third step called “(3) comprehensionof the meaning.” However, Malakoff and Hakuta claims
that Seleskovitch’s work makes no distinction between
the communicative demands and the metalinguistic
demands (p. 143). Therefore, these theories were revised
as follows:
Translation requires the manipulating of language at
two levels: it must apprehend and convey the meaning of the source text: and it must formulate an073

Ryoko Ohata

appropriate target-language sentence structure inwhich to embed this meaning…from this two-level
perspective, translation is a composite of communicative and metalinguistic skills – skills that are“translinguistic,” in the sense that they are not particular to any one language. (Malakoff and Hakuta,
1991, p. 150)
Interestingly, the above quote already implied thesignificance of the extensive study of multilingualism(or even plurilingualism). Malakoff and Hakuta continue as follows:
It is this necessity to reflect on language and language use across two languages that makes translation a metalinguistic skill, par excellence. (Caroll,
1978; Flesch, 1972; Fuchs, 1982 as cited in Malakoffand Hakuta, 1991, p. 150).
Another recent study by Someya (2010) also explains
the process of translation where metalinguistic skills are
utilized:
The comprehension at the “Text-base Model” proceeds to be elaborated into the “Situation Model,”referring to which translation is created with theaddition of known-knowledge and inference. And
this translation goes through “Monitoring” …thismonitoring is a conscious process and requires “metalinguistic judgment” that determines the mostappropriate words and phrases from possible multiple choices. (Someya, 2010, p. 4 translated by Ohata)
Research Questions
The current research explored the metalinguistic
skills and awareness of L3-Japanese learners by observing their Japanese and English (L2) writings translated
from their mother tongue (L1s). The following researchquestions were posited:
RQ1. How does the linguistic distance from L1 affecttheir L3-Japanese literacy?
RQ2. Is there evidence of linguistic/metalinguistictransfers from the learners’ mother tongue andtheir L2 English? Did the learners demonstrateawareness of those transfers in creating
Japanese texts?

074

3. Method

Research Design
This is a cross-sectional study. Subjects were foreign
students who study and use Japanese in Japan (i.e. JSL)at the academic level. All participants were first asked totranslate a chapter of a book (same amount and content)
written in their mother tongue (ST: L1s) into English(TT: L2), and then into Japanese (TT: L3)1. In this study,
the terms L1/L2/L3 followed the definitions used byWilliams and Hammarberg (2009). That is, the terms do
not necessarily indicate the learners’ proficiency levels.
They are simply used as labels for the three languages
each participant speaks. However, the terms do indicate
the order of language learning, which means all the participants had learned English before they started learning Japanese. Few of them claimed that they have morethan one mother tongue, which is not considered as afactor in this study.
During translation, participants were allowed to use
dictionaries for words and phrases but not for sentence-level structures. Functions such as auto-translation were prohibited. Malakoff and Hakuta (1991)
maintains as follows regarding the translation strategies
of language learning:
A translation strategy is a learned strategy that helps
improve performance; …the translation strategy
cannot raise performance beyond an upper limit of
performance determined by the interplay of metalinguistic skill and bilingual proficiency. However,within this limit, it can enhance performance. Adultbilinguals, because of their more developed linguistic
abilities and metalinguistic awareness, have a greater
range of strategies available to them — use of dictionary, paraphrase knowledge of morphological rules,
reliance on cognates are a few examples. (p. 149)
Participants were also asked to mark/highlight thewords and phrases which they looked up. The translation could be either literal (direct translation) or original(free translation). After the translation tasks, participants joined a one-to-one interview session held by the
1 Hereafter, ST: L1, TT: L2, and TT: L3 are used as abbreviations of“source text: L1,” “target text: L2,” and “target text: L3”.

6th AFC Best Papers

researcher and answered some questions related to theirperformance (the texts they created and the strategies
they used).
For the purpose of analyzing the content of the translated texts, KH Coder, a text-mining software tool, wasused to create co-occurrence networks. In the meantime, the text-mining was also performed on the professionally translated and officially published versions of
the material to make comparison. The final analysis was
based on the interview data and the KH Coder co-occurrence networks.
Procedure
The present study attempted to leverage Granger’s(2015) newer version of Contrastive Interlanguage
Analysis (CIA2) to uncover the linguistic and metalinguistic transfer observed in the translated texts (TT: L2
EN and TT: L3 JA)2 which were written by Japaneselearners from different L1 backgrounds. “Interlanguage,”coined by Selinker (1972), is the type of language which
language learners produce in the process of learning toreach the target language norm. Toury suggests that
“this system enjoys an intermediate status between amother tongue and a target language…and it reflects theinterference of these two codes (that is, mother tongue
and target language)” (Toury, 1979: 223). Although professional translators often argue that language used intranslation (also called “translanguage”) is a notion distinct from interlanguage (Al-Hassnawi, 2010), Tourysays interlanguage is a linguistic phenomenon which
occurs whenever and wherever one language is used insome contact with another, and one of the purest andmost common situations of this type is “translation”(Toury, 1979, p. 224).
The first version of CIA methodology was presented
in 1996 and was based on two types of comparison: 1. acomparison with native language, seen as the ultimate
attainment of learning a foreign/second language; 2. acomparison of one sample of learner language with
2 The following abbreviations are used in the analysis: target text
written in L2 English = TT: L2 EN, target text written in L3
Japanese = TT: L3 JA.

other samples of learner language, particularly fromlearners with different mother tongue backgrounds(Granger, 1996) (Figure 1). In the reappraisal, Granger
renewed her theory as CIA2 by adding the notion of“varieties” and “variables” to each branch of the dichotomy. Multiple RLV (Reference Language Varieties)
indicates that there are different reference points wherelearner data can be set. For instance, the new CIA considers dialectal variables, such as English as a Lingua
Franca, and diatypic variables which ensure text-typecomparability that accommodates academic writing.
Learners’ mother tongue are the ILVs (Interlanguage
Varieties) which have been most thoroughly investigated using CIA (Granger, 2015, p. 17).

Fig 1. Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis(Granger, 1996, p. 44)

Fig 2. CIA 2(Granger, 2015, p. 17)

In this study, the above CIA2 has been revised so as
to be fit for the purpose of third-language Japaneseacquisition analysis. The following procedures were075

Ryoko Ohata

implemented (bold arrows in Figure 3 and 43): 1. comparisons of native language (officially publishedJapanese version) with learners’ Japanese (TT: L3 JAs)
from different mother tongue backgrounds; 2. a comparison between learners’ English (TT: L2 ENs) andlearners’ Japanese (TT: L3 JAs) of different mothertongue backgrounds; 3. comparisons among interlanguage varieties of different mother tongue backgrounds.
Dotted arrows indicate the comparisons which could bemade for SLA research of learners’ English.

Fig 3. CIA revised for TLA — Reference language varieties(Ohata, 2021)

description of learners’ languages can be seriously hindered or sidetracked by a concern with the target language” (Bley-Vroman, 1983: 2, Gass & Selinker, 2008;Ōzeki, 2016) However, these discussions have mostly
been made from the viewpoint of SLA research, but notin the field of TLA where learners’ linguistic production
can be looked upon relatively in a positive light, as seenin the concept of plurilingualism. Besides, translationcompetence is not a measurement of how close thelearner is to being a target language speaker. Translation
clearly involves skills that native speakers do not naturally possess. Granger also emphasizes that CIA should
be valid on the upper stages of acquisition which SLA
research tend to lack in (Granger, 2015, p. 11).
Participants
The participants came from different national andfirst language (L1) backgrounds. There were 7 foreign
graduate students who joined this research. Each one ofthem was asked to fill out a questionnaire before completing the translation tasks. Table 1 summarizes theiryears of schooling for L1/L2/L3 in the order of age fromyoungest to oldest.
Table 1. Participants’ Language Learning Backgrounds:
Years of Schooling (YS) and JLPT Level

Fig 4. CIA revised for TLA — Interlanguage varieties(Ohata, 2021)

As Granger herself acknowledges, some scholars
argue that the CIA method, or the interlanguage pragmatics theory in SLA by itself, is viewed as part of“error analysis” and has trapped in “comparative fallacy” — the notion that the “work on the linguistic
3 Mother tongue varieties are indicated as follows: Chinese = Chi/
Ukrainian = Ukr/ German = Ger/ Tur = Turkish/ Spanish = Spn/
Ind = Indonesian.

076

At the time of survey, almost all the participants had
passed JLPT N1 except for participant #4 from Germany.
Clearly, all the participants were highly educated.
Participants #2 and #6 were studying in master’s program and the others were doctoral students at Tsukuba.
Participants #2, #6, and #7 had had experience of working as a translator or an instructor for Japanese language6th AFC Best Papers

and literature in their home countries. As for living
experiences, all the participants had lived in Japan for
more than two years, but only #4, #5, and #7 had been in
the country for more than 5 years. The longest time wasparticipant #5 (6 years). This includes the times when
they were on study-abroad programs previously.
Materials
Part of Chapter IV (two pages) of a well-known children’s book, The Little Prince (Saint-Exupéry, 1943)
was selected as a material to translate (Appendix A).
This publication is one of the most translated books inthe world, having been translated into more than 300
languages. There are several different versions andtranslations available for some languages. In the current
study, each of the participants compared the versions
and selected the ones they thought would be most convenient to translate. The reason for assigning Chapter
IV of the book was that no prior knowledge was necessary to understand the content. The chapter explains
how children’s view of the world differs from that of
adults. Especially, the first two pages of the chapter
describe the examples of seemingly idiotic ethical views
which humans start developing as they grow up. It wasalso expected that this type of content is effective formeasuring readers’ cognitive skills because it is made ofrelatively conceptual vocabulary and phrases. (Besides,
there is even a field of study called “moral cognition.”)Someya, Kawahara, and Yamamoto (2013) suggest that,in translation, we need to recover the “implied meaning” which is beyond the “linguistically embedded
meaning” in order to accurately covey the intention
expressed in the source-language text. That’s when themetalinguistic skills are in demand (Someya et al., 2013,
p.4 translated by Ohata). It is assumed that cognitively
challenging reading materials would ask for the readers
to exercise their metalinguistic skills even more in sucha manner as to read between the lines and understandthe context.

4. Results and Discussion

Table 2 is the list of tokens and types extracted fromNL (official publication in Japanese), TT: L2 ENs(L2-English translated texts) and TT: L3 JAs(L3-Japanese translated texts) using KH Coder 3.
Numbers for native English version (official publication
in English) are provided and grayed-out. Obvious is that
there are consistently more tokens and types extracted
from each Japanese text than English text. It is also
clear, from Table 2, that slightly less words are used in
all the TT: L3 JAs than NL, except for the participant #3
from Taiwan who expressed the most careful and meticulous attention to word usage and vocabulary. She was adoctoral student in Modern Japanese literature. Also,
the Indonesian participant (#7) commented, during thefollow-up interview, that she had an impression that
there is fewer words in Indonesian than in English.
Interestingly, the numbers indicate that she used theleast tokens and types among all the participants in both
English and Japanese translations.
Table 2. Extraction of Words - KH Coder 3*Tokens = extracted words, the total number of words in the target text
*Types = word types in the text
*Words such as auxiliary verbs and particles are omitted.

Co-occurrence networks were created based on Table
2. First, comparisons between NL and TT: L3 JAs(Appendix B) were made to answer RQ1. Figure 5.1 is aco-occurrence network of NL based on “centrality.”
Centrality indicates “how central the role each word
plays in the network” (Higuchi, 2017, p. 63). Words
appear within the circles called “nodes.” The bigger thenodes get, the more frequently the word occurs in the
text. The “edges” (lines) show connections of words.
The thicker the edges are, the stronger co-occurrence
the words have. The closeness of nodes does not indicate

077

Ryoko Ohatastrong co-occurrence unless the nodes are connected byedges. Figure 5.2 shows a co-occurrence network basedon “communities (sub-graphs).” Communities are used
to represent parts of the network that are more closely
associated with each other through color coding (Higuchi,
2017: 51-53). In the published Japanese version of The
Little Prince, the most frequently used word in Chapter
4 is 大人 (adult), and the word 言う (to say) takes on the
biggest role in the narrative. Indeed, “what adults say”
about the world (grown-up views) is depicted. However,from figure 5.2, the adults also seem to be involved witha series of other actions such as 話す (to talk), 見る (tosee), and 聞く (to listen). Figure 5.2 visualizes the storylines and context of the narrative more clearly.

Fig 5.1. Co-occurrence Network of NL: Centrality

Fig 5.2. Co-occurrence Network of NL: Sub-graph078

On the other hand, participants’ networks (Appendix
B) show that words are as equally randomized as figures
5.1 and 5.2 except participants #1 and #5. In the interviews, participant #1 expressed how difficult it was forher to understand the story itself. She said she felt thestory was pointless and was not making sense at all evenin her own mother tongue (Chinese). As for participant#7, she declared that she did not divide the chapter into
paragraphs. Overall, the word 大人 was one of the either
most frequently used or centralized words in all the participants’ translation.
As aforementioned, the sub-graph networks provide
more information on contextual understanding. Amongthe figures 5.10 through 5.16, only the networks of participants #3 and #4 are grouped into 4 different communities showing similar results to NL (Appendix C). Thisimplies that although participant #4 is at the lowest
Japanese proficiency-level (N2), reading and writing literacy can be supplemented and uplifted with the help of
metalinguistic strategies such as using dictionaries, as
previously suggested. Nodes without color (words on
white backgrounds enclosed in black circles) indicate
they are independent of any words or communities. Thismeans data by participant #5, which consists only of colorless nodes positioned almost equally within the network, should be treated as invalid although they arestrongly informative of the fact that paragraphs are thekey feature when performing computerized text-mining.
Although Higuchi (2017, p. 64) says “colors may change
when you select a different community detection
method,” #5 clearly fails to provide the contextual
aspects of the story. There is also similarity between the
networks of participants #6 and #7, which are made oftwo connected communities. A possible reason for thisis that participant #6 attempted to make the story moresuitable as children’s literature using simple phrases andstructures whereas participant #7 used vocabulary andexpressions translated from the Indonesian language
which is presumably made up of less vocabulary.
With regard to L2 English translation (TT: L2 ENs),
the most frequently and commonly used words among
the participants were “he,” “be,” and “they.” That is, thesame pronouns and a verb were repeatedly used

6th AFC Best Papers

regardless of their L1 backgrounds. Compared with TT:
L3 JAs, English words were found to be more evenly
scattered within the networks of all participants’ results.
Even the network of participant #1, who commented that
she had no idea of the storyline, shows similar distribution of nodes to the other participants. Again, participant #5’s data turned out to be invalid.
So far, because the contextual factors of reading andwriting seem to be more informative of learners’ translation literacy, for the observation of TT: L2 ENs, subgraphs (communities) were mainly reviewed (Appendix
D). Generally, the nodes in the networks are connected,
more or less, to other nodes, even between different
communities as if the story flowed beyond paragraphs.
However, participant #1’s network (figure 6.1) is clearlymade of multiple separate communities, which is interestingly happening in her TT: L3 JA text (figure 5.10) as
well. Since this was the most noticeable distinction fromthe other participants’ data, a comparison between participant #1 and #3 (Chinese speakers) was made basedon a network data created from the official Chinese publication (Figure 6). It is obvious that the nodes are denser
within communities than figures 5.1 and 5.2 of the official Japanese publication (NL).

represents one morpheme. In such a language, a sentence does not always consist of a subject and a verb,
and oftentimes subjects are omitted and understood by
the context. In the case of participant #1, problems inunderstanding the Japanese ST in her own mother language were observed. Upon interview, she particularly
pointed out the difficulty of choosing proximal deictic
expressions such as こ・そ・あ (this, that, that over there).
However, she was assured that she paid enough attention to the contextual flow. The question is, how could
such interference occur even though participant #3 did
not experience it at all? Interestingly and coincidentally,
these two participants were both from Taiwan, and theirages were different only by three years. They hadlearned Japanese in similar language learning and educational backgrounds compared with the other participants. The only prominent and possible distinction
between them, which may be the contribution to the difference in the data, was the fact that participant #3 wasa doctoral candidate in Japanese literature. It is assumed
that, especially in terms of literature translation, the difference in their metalinguistic awareness affected theirtranslation skills, making the communities within only
participant #1’s networks (TT: L3 JA / Figures 5.3 and5.10) more condensed and congested as the Chinese ST.

5. Conclusion

Fig 6. Co-occurrence Network of Chinese ST 4 : Sub-graph

The Chinese language is often said to be context-based.
It is one of the isolating languages and one character
4 ST = source text

Someya et al. (2013) maintains that transfer competence in translation reflects the plurilingualism whichdeveloped upon the geopolitical characteristics of Europe.
This study attempted to answer two questions by observing linguistic and metalinguistic transfer of advanced
L3-Japanese language learners who live in Japan.
The first question was regarding language learning
backgrounds and linguistic distance between L1 and L3.
At the advanced level of proficiency (JLPT N1 and N2),
there was no evidence that linguistic distance influences
learners’ reading and writing literacy. On the contrary,
it was suggested that a learner from a Chinese motherlanguage background found the translation task to be
more challenging. In addition, it was implied by theGerman participant that reading and writing literacy
can be supplemented and uplifted with the help of met-079

Ryoko Ohata

alinguistic strategies.
The second question was about linguistic and metalinguistic transfer from learners’ mother tongue and L2
English. Again, no clear evidence was found with learners at the advanced level. One of the Chinese speakers’
network data showed that her awareness of context in L1
may be transferring to her L2 and L3 literacy. However,it needs to be noted that this does not imply Japanese
language learning is more cumbersome for Chinese
speakers especially because of the orthographic similarities between Japanese and Chinese. Despite the order oftranslation assigned (L1 → L2 ⇒ L1 → L3), none of theparticipants felt that their Japanese translation performance was being affected by L2 English. In fact, as longas the analysis on the context is concerned, no correlations between L2 and L3 was observed.
This study has a number of limitations. First, theJapanese society is still not so linguistically and ethnically diverse as the European countries. Together withthe discussion of what defines “native speakers,” thisleaves us with a question of whether the Japanese language could be considered as a third language within
the frame of plurilingualism. Besides, there are morethan one native language for some learners such as the
Ukrainian and Indonesian participants in this study. The
definition of L1, L2, and L3 as well as geographical anddialectal variations need to be reviewed. In addition,
extra interview sessions with the participants based on
the obtained network data may provide more reflective
insights. Regarding the CIA methodology, it is originally a corpus research so the subject needs to be a big
number of corpora, rather than a group of case studies.
Further investigation is needed to prove the legitimacyof the CIA methodology used in case studies. Lastly, as
Koda (2008, p. 7) mentions, “understanding transfer
facilitation requires longitudinal research to examine
how metalinguistic awareness in one language may
explain change in the other language.”

References
1) Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C. & Steel, D. (1997). Metalinguisticknowledge, language aptitude and language proficiency.
Language Teaching Research, 1 (2), 93-121.

0802) Al-Hassnawi, A. (2010) Translanguage vs. Interlanguage: Explorationin Translation Strategies. Translation Journal, 14 (3). Retrieved
from https://translationjournal.net/journal/53translanguage.htm
3) Al-Kufaishy, A. (2004) Translation as a Learning and Teaching
Strategy. Babel, 50 (1), 45-59. doi:10.1075/babel.50.1.06alk
4) Al-Kufaishy, A (2006) A Pedagogic Model of Translating
Expository Texts, Babel, 52 (1), 1-16. doi:10.1075/babel.52.1.01alk
5) Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1981). Second-language acquisition from a functionalist perspective: Pragmatic, semantic, andperceptual strategies. Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences, 379 (1), 190-214. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1981.tb42009.x
6) Berry, R. (2005). Making the most of metalanguage. Language
Awareness, 14, 3-20. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/
09658410508668817
7) Bialystok, E. (2007). Cognitive effects of bilingualism: How linguistic experience leads to cognitive change. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10 (3), 210–223. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2167/beb441.0
8) Bley-Vroman, R. (1983). The comparative fallacy in interlanguage
studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning, 33, 1-17.
9) Cabrelli Amaro. J., In Flynn, S., & Rothman, J. (2012). Third
language acquisition in adulthood. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
10) Carroll, J. B. (1978). Linguistic abilities in translators and interpreters. In D. Gerver & H. W. Sinaiko (Eds.), Language interpretation and communication, New York: Plenum Press.
11) Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (2001). Cross-linguistic
influence in third language acquisition: Psychological perspectives. Clevedon. England: Multilingual Matters.
12) Clapham, C. (2001) The assessment of metalinguistic knowledge. In C. Elder, A. Brown, E. Grove, K. Hill, N. Iwashita, T.
Lumley, T. Macnamara, & K. O’Loughlin (Eds), Experimenting
with Uncertainty: Essays in Honour of Alan Davies (pp. 31-41).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13) Cook, V. (2003). Effects of the Second Language on the First.
14) Corder, S. P. (1973). Introducing Applied Linguistics. Harmonds
worth: Penguin.
15) Corder, S. P. (1983). A role for the mother tongue. In S. M. Gass
& L. Selinker (Eds), Language Transfer in Language Learning.
(pp. 18-31). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins North America16) Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency,
linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and someother matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121-129.
17) Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language developmentin promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education (Ed.),
Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework. (pp. 3-49). Los Angeles: National Dissemination andAssessment Center.
18) Cummins, J. (2001). An introductory reader to the writings of
Jim Cummins. In Baker, C., & Hornberger, N. H. (Eds), Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters Ltd.
19) de Saint-Exupéry, A., and Woods, K. (2018). The Little Prince.
United States: Ancient Wisdom Publications.
20) de Saint-Exupéry, A., and Nishi, K. (2017). Hoshi no ōjisama

6th AFC Best Papers[The Little Prince]. Retrieved from http://www.kenkyusha.co.jp/
uploads/suppl/id32745278/The_Little_Prince.pdf21) Flesch, R. (1972). The pursuit of translation. In R. Flesch (Ed.),
The art of clear thinking. New York: Macmillan.
22) Fuchs, C. (1982). La Paraphrase [The Paraphrase]. Paris: Presse
Universitaire de France. Paris : Presses universitaires de France.
23) Gass, S. M., Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An
introductory course (3rd ed.). New York and London: Routledge.
24) Granger, S. (1996). From CA to CIA and back: An integrated
approach to computerized bilingual and learner corpora. In K.
Aijmer, B. Altenberg, & M. Johansson (Eds.), Languages inContrast. Lund: Lund University Press, 37-51.
25) Granger, S. (2015). Contrastive interlanguage analysis: A reappraisal. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 1 (1),7-24. doi:10.1075/ijlcr.1.1.01gra
26) Hammarberg, B. (2009). Processes in Third Language Acquisition.
Edinburgh University Press.
27) Higuchi, K. (2017). Shakai chosa no tame no keiryō tekisuto bunseki: Naiyō bunseki no keishō to hatten o mezashite: KH Coderofisharu bukku [Quantitative Content Analysis for Social
Research]. Tokyo: Nakanishiya Shuppan.
28) Ioup, G., & Weinberger, S. (1987). Interlanguage phonology: The
acquisition of a second language sound system. Cambridge, MA:
Newbury House Publishers.
29) Jessner, U. (2008). A DST-model of multilingualism and the roleof metalinguistic awareness. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2). 270-283.
30) Jessner, U. (2017). Language Awareness in Multilinguals:
Theoretical Trends. In Cenoz, J. Gorter, D. & May, S. (Eds.),
Language Awareness and Multilingualism. Switzerland: Springer.
31) Kawahara, K., Someya, Y., & Yamamoto, N. (2013). Eigo kyōiku
niokeru TILT (Teaching and Interpreting in Language Teaching)no igi to ichizuke: CEFR ni yoru Aratana Eigoryoku no Teigi ni
Kanren shit [The significance and role of TILT in English education: regarding the new English proficiency proposed by CEFR].
Gogaku kyōiku Expo 2013 Proceedings, 27-30.
32) Kellerman, E. (1995). Crosslinguistic Influence: Transfer toNowhere? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 125-150.
doi:10.1017/S0267190500002658
33) Koda, K. (2005). Insights into Second Language Reading: A CrossLinguistic Approach (Cambridge Applied Linguistics). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139524841
34) Koda, K. (2008). Impacts of prior literacy experience on second
language learning to read. In Koda, K. & Zehler, M. (Eds.),
Learning to Read across Languages (Cross-Linguistic
Relationships in First- and Second- Literacy Development). (pp.
80–108). New York, NY: Routledge.
35) Komatsu, A. (2018). Hon’yaku bun wo meguru hanashiai ni miru
aidea no sōhatsu – Ehon to “tabe batta” no kankokugo yaku wo
rē ni - [A Study on Emergence of Ideas in Discussion on
Translation of Picture Books : A Case study of Japanese Korean
Translation of “Tobe Batta”]. The Korean Association ofJapanese Education, 42 (0), 137-156. doi: http://dx.doi.org/
10.21808/KJJE.42.09

36) Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across Cultures: Applied Linguistics
and Language Teachers. University of Michigan Press, Ann
Arbor.
37) Ljudskanov, A. (1969). Traduction humaine et traduction
mecanique [Human Translation and Mechanical Translation].
Paris: Dunod.
38) Malakoff, M., & Hakuta, K. (1991). Translation skill and metalinguistic awareness in bilinguals. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language
Processing in Bilingual Children (pp. 141-166). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511620652.009
39) Mininni, G. (1981). On the need of psycholinguistic research ontranslation. International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 8 (2, 22),
79–107.
40) Mitchell, R. & Myles, F. (1998). Second Language Learning
Theories. London: Arnold.
41) Mizuno, M. (2000). Chūkan gengo bunseki: Eigo kanshi shūtoku
no kiseki [Interlanguage analysis: The trace of the acquisition ofEnglish articles]. Tokyo: Kaitakusha Publishing Co., Ltd.
42) Nida, E.A. (1976). A Framework for the Analysis and Evaluationof Theories of Translation. In R.W. Brislin, (Ed.), Translation
Application and Research. New York: Gardner Press.
43) Odlin, T. (1993). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influencein language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44) Ōzeki, H. (2016). Corpus-based second language acquisition
research. In Shibatani, M. & Kageyama, T. (Series Eds.),
Handbooks of Japanese Language and Linguistics: Vol. 10.
Handbook of Japanese Applied Linguistics (pp. 313-334). Berlin/
Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
45) Richards, J., Schmidt, R. W., & Takahashi, S. (2013). Ronguman
gengo kyōiku ōyō gengogaku yōgo jiten [Longman Dictionary of
Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics]. Tokyo: Nan’un-do.
46) Roehr, K. (2006). Metalinguistic knowledge and language ability
in university-level L2 learners. Applied Linguistics, 29 (2), 173199. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm037
47) Sakoda, K. (2002). Nihongo kyōiku ni ikasu daini gengo shūtoku
kenkyū [SLA Research for Japanese Language Education].
Tokyo: ALC Publishing.
48) Sasaki, Y. (1991). English and Japanese Interlanguage
Comprehension Strategies: An Analysis Based on the Competition
Model. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12 (1), 47-73.
49) Shirai, Y. (1992). Conditions on Transfer: A Connectionist
Approach. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 3 (1), 91-120.
50) Singh, R., & Carroll, S. (1979). L1, L2, and L3. Indian Journal ofApplied Linguistics, 5, 51-63.
51) Someya, Y. (2010) Daigaku ni okeru hon’yaku kyōiku no ichizuke
to sono mokuhyō [The Teaching of Translation in the Context ofCollege Education: Its Purpose and Rationale], Gaikokugo
kyōiku kenkyū, 3, 73-102.
52) Takahashi, T. (1984). A study on Lexico-semantic Transfer.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University.
53) Toury, G. (1979). Interlanguage and its Manifestations inTranslation. Meta, 24 (2), 223–231.
54) Zhang, D., Chin, C., & Li, L. (2017). Metalinguistic awareness inbilingual children’s word reading: A cross-lagged panel study on

081

Ryoko Ohata

cross-linguistic transfer facilitation. Applied Psycholinguistics,
38 (2), 395-426.

Appendix A

Text Samples excerpted from The Little Prince Chapter IV written by Antoine de Saint-Exépery
Japanese
こうして僕はとても重要な２つ目のことを知った。王子さまの故郷の星は、なんと一軒の家とほとんど変わらないくらいの大きさだ、ということだ。
（中略）この小惑星を、1909 年にトルコのある天文学者が、望遠鏡で一度だけ観測したことがある。その天文学者は国際天文学学会で自分の発見についてすばらしい発表をした。ところが、そのとき彼がトルコ風の変わった服装をしていたというので、誰も彼の言うことを信じなかった。大人というのはそういうものだ…（中略）僕がこの惑星についてこんなに詳しく話したり、番号まで言うのは、大人たちのふるまい方のせいだ。新しい友だちができたと話しても、大人はいちばん大切
なことは聞かない（中略）大人にはこう言ってやる必要がある。
「２万ドルの家を見たよ」。すると大人たちは歓声を上げて、「なんてすばらしい家なのだろう！」と言うだろう。

Japanese translation by Kyoji Nishi, 2017, published by Kenkyusha.

EnglishI had thus learned a second fact of great importance: this was that the planet the little prince came from was scarcely any
larger than a house! … This asteroid has only once been seen through the telescope. That was by a Turkish astronomer, in
1909. On making his discovery, the astronomer had presented it to the International Astronomical Congress, in a great
demonstration. But he was in Turkish costume, and so nobody would believe what he said. Grown-ups are like that…If I
have told you these details about the asteroid, and made a note of its number for you, it is on account of the grown-ups andtheir ways. When you tell them that you have made a new friend, they never ask you any questions about essential matters.…You would have to say to them: “I saw a house that cost $20,000.” Then they would exclaim: “Oh, what a pretty
house that is!’English translation by Katherine Woods, 2018, published by Ancient Wisdom Publications.

082

6th AFC Best Papers

Appendix B

Co-occurrence networks created from TT: L3 JAs based on centrality

Fig 5.3. Participant #1

Fig 5.4. Participant #2

Fig 5.5. Participant #3

Fig 5.6. Participant #4

Fig 5.7. Participant #5

Fig. 5.8. Participant #6

Fig 5.9 Participant #7

083

Ryoko Ohata

Appendix C

Co-occurrence networks created from TT: L3 JAs based on sub-graphFig 5.10. Participant #1

Fig 5.11. Participant #2

Fig 5.12. Participant #3

Fig 5.13. Participant #4

Fig 5.14. Participant #5

Fig 5.15. Participant #6

Fig 5.16. Participant #7084

6th AFC Best Papers

Appendix D

Co-occurrence networks created from TT: L2 ENs based on sub-graphFig 6.1. Participant #1

Fig 6.2. Participant #2

Fig 6.3. Participant #3

Fig 6.4. Participant #4

Fig 6.5. Participant #5

Fig 6.6. Participant #6

Fig 6.7. Participant #7085