scholarly journals The L3 syntax–discourse interface

2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 208-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROUMYANA SLABAKOVA ◽  
MARÍA DEL PILAR GARCÍA MAYO
Keyword(s):  
English Learners ◽  
Test Case ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Third Language ◽  
L3 Acquisition ◽  
Stimulus Sentence ◽  
English Syntax ◽  
Audio Stimulus ◽  
Discourse Interface ◽  
Spanish Bilinguals

This article considers the acquisition of three English syntax–discourse interface constructions: Topicalization, Focus Fronting and Left Dislocation. We use data from Basque–Spanish bilinguals learning English as a third language (L3) as a test case for the Interface Hypothesis (IH, Sorace, 2011). The IH has made specific predictions about second language (L2) acquisition and such predictions can be extrapolated to L3 on the basis of interface delay explanations. Thirty contexts and embedded test sentences with and without pronouns were used; participants had to rate the acceptability of each audio stimulus sentence in the context on a seven-point scale. We tested Basque–Spanish bilinguals dominant in Basque (n = 23), Basque–Spanish bilinguals dominant in Spanish (n = 24), Spanish L2 English learners (n = 39) as well as native English speakers (n = 24). Findings provide evidence against current L3 acquisition models and potential arguments for both cumulative enhancement as well as cumulative inhibition as possible processes in L3 acquisition.

In defense of ‘copying and restructuring’

2020 ◽  
pp. 026765832097583
Author(s):  
Bonnie D Schwartz ◽  
Rex A Sprouse
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Large Body ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Third Language ◽  
L3 Acquisition ◽  
Nonnative Language ◽  
Access Model

In her keynote article advocating the Linguistic Proximity Model for third language (L3) acquisition, Westergaard (2019) presents several arguments against ‘copying and restructuring’ in nonnative language acquisition, mechanisms central to Schwartz and Sprouse’s (1996) Full Transfer/Full Access model of second language (L2) acquisition. In this commentary, we seek to counter her arguments and also show that the results of a large body of studies on nonnative language acquisition are explained only by ‘copying and restructuring’.

Transfer at the initial stages of L3 Brazilian Portuguese: A look at three groups of English/Spanish bilinguals

2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
DAVID GIANCASPRO ◽  
BECKY HALLORAN ◽  
MICHAEL IVERSON
Keyword(s):  
First Language ◽  
Brazilian Portuguese ◽  
Mirror Image ◽  
Linguistic Features ◽  
Third Language ◽  
Heritage Speaker ◽  
L3 Acquisition ◽  
Object Marking ◽  
L1 English ◽  
Spanish Bilinguals

This study examines three formal linguistic acquisition models of third language (L3) acquisition in the context of Brazilian Portuguese (BP), specifically examining Differential Object Marking (DOM). The main goal is to determine which of the models is best able to predict and explain syntactic transfer in three experimental groups: mirror-image groups of first/second language (L1/L2) English/Spanish bilinguals (i) L1 English/L2 Spanish and (ii) L1 Spanish/L2 English, and (iii) heritage Spanish/English bilinguals. The data provide evidence to support the Typological Primacy Model (Rothman, 2010, 2011, 2013), which predicts Spanish transfer irrespective of its status as an L1, L2 or bilingual first language (2L1). Additionally, the heritage speaker and L1 English group results, taken together, provide evidence for Iverson's (2009) claim that comparing such populations adds independent supportive evidence that the acquisition of linguistic features or properties in an L2 acquired past puberty is not subject to a maturational critical period.

scholarly journals Microvariation in multilingual situations: The importance of property-by-property acquisition

2019 ◽  
pp. 026765831988411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marit Westergaard
Keyword(s):  
Information Structure ◽  
First Language ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Initial State ◽  
Third Language ◽  
L3 Acquisition ◽  
Property Transfer ◽  
Crosslinguistic Influence ◽  
L1 Acquisition ◽  
Property Acquisition

In this article, I argue that first language (L1), second language (L2) and third language (L3) acquisition are fundamentally the same process, based on learning by parsing. Both child and adult learners are sensitive to fine linguistic distinctions, and language development takes place in small steps. While the bulk of the article focuses on crosslinguistic influence in L2/Ln acquisition, I first briefly outline the Micro-cue Model of L1 acquisition (Westergaard, 2009a, 2014), arguing that children build their I-language grammars incrementally, paying attention to small distinctions in syntax and information structure from early on. They are also shown to be conservative learners, generally not producing overt elements or performing movement operations unless there is positive evidence for this in the input, thus minimizing the need for unlearning. I then ask the question how this model fares with respect to multilingual situations, more specifically L2 and L3 acquisition. Discussing both theoretical and empirical evidence, I argue that, although L2 and L3 learners are different from L1 children in that they are not always conservative learners, they are also sensitive to fine linguistic distinctions, in that transfer/crosslinguistic influence takes place on a property-by-property basis. Full Transfer is traditionally understood as wholesale transfer at the initial state of L2 acquisition. However, I argue that it is impossible to distinguish between wholesale and property-by-property transfer in L2 acquisition on empirical grounds. In L3 acquisition, on the other hand, crosslinguistic influence from both previously acquired languages would provide support for property-by-property transfer. I discuss a few such cases and argue for what I call Full Transfer Potential (FTP), rather than Full (wholesale) Transfer, within the Linguistic Proximity Model (LPM) of L3 acquisition. Thus, rather than assuming that ‘everything does transfer’, I argue that ‘anything may transfer’.

Interpretation of NPs in generic and existential contexts in L3 Brazilian Portuguese

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 215-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tania Ionin ◽  
Elaine Grolla ◽  
Hélade Santos ◽  
Silvina A. Montrul
Keyword(s):  
English Learners ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
First Language ◽  
Brazilian Portuguese ◽  
Judgment Task ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Romance Language ◽  
Third Language ◽  
L3 Acquisition ◽  
L1 English

This paper examines the interpretation of NPs in generic and existential contexts in the acquisition of Brazilian Portuguese (BrP) as a third language (L3) by learners who speak English and a Romance language (Spanish, French or Italian). The paper examines whether transfer / cross-linguistic influence is from English, Spanish/French/Italian, or both, and whether it matters which language is the learners’ first language (L1) vs. their second language (L2). An Acceptability Judgment Task of NP interpretation in BrP is administered to L1-English L2-Spanish/French/Italian and L1-Spanish L2-English learners of BrP as an L3, as well as to a control group of native speakers of BrP. The findings point to a nuanced picture of transfer in L3 acquisition, in which both languages can serve as the source of transfer, but transfer from a previously learned Romance language is more pronounced than transfer from English, both for L1-English L2-Romance and L1-Spanish L2-English L3-learners of BrP.

scholarly journals Uncovering transfer effects of dominance and proficiency in L3 English acquisition using the visual moving window paradigm and grammaticality judgments

2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tanja Angelovska ◽  
Dietmar Roehm ◽  
Sabrina Weinmüller
Keyword(s):  
English Learners ◽  
Judgment Task ◽  
Moving Window ◽  
Third Language ◽  
Third Language Acquisition ◽  
Task Effects ◽  
Grammaticality Judgment ◽  
L3 Acquisition ◽  
Russian Speakers ◽  
Key Factor

AbstractUsing a novel combination of visual moving window paradigm and timed grammaticality judgment task, this study examines how third language (L3) learners (beginners and intermediate) with L2 German and different non-verb-second L1s process violated and non-violated main declarative sentences with fronted adverbials in L3 English. It examines the extent to which so far less-explored predictors (language dominance and proficiency) modulate non-facilitative word order transfer from the L2. Our results from experiment 1 corroborate existing (offline data) results (Angelovska, Tanja. 2017. (When) do L3 English learners transfer form L2 German? Evidence from spoken and written data by L1 Russian speakers. In Tanja Angelovska & Angela Hahn (eds.), L3 syntactic transfer: Models, new developments and implications (Bilingual Processing and Acquisition 5), 195–222. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins; Fallah, Nader & Ali Akbar Jabbari. 2018. L3 acquisition of English attributive adjectives dominant language of communication matters for syntactic cross-linguistic influence. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8. 193–216) and are in support of a hybrid transfer suggesting that neither proficiency nor dominance plays a role in transfer selection. Results from experiment 2 reveal that L1-dominance was the determining key factor for accuracy performance for low proficiency L3 subjects but higher L3 proficiency tended to neutralize this strong influence - providing evidence for the Scalpel Model (Slabakova, Roumyana. 2017. The scalpel model of third language acquisition. International Journal of Bilingualism 21. 651–665). We explain the contradictory results from the two experiments as a function of task effects.

L2 acquisition of Bulgarian clitic doubling: A test case for the Interface Hypothesis

2012 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 345-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan P. Ivanov
Keyword(s):  
Native Speakers ◽  
First Language ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Test Case ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Clitic Doubling ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Interface Hypothesis ◽  
Discourse Interface

The purpose of this study is to expand the testing ground of the Interface Hypothesis (Sorace, 2006) by investigating the degree to which second language (L2) learners of Bulgarian with English as their first language (L1) had acquired the pragmatic function of clitic doubling as a topicality marker. Advanced and intermediate L2 speakers of Bulgarian, as well as a control group of Bulgarian native speakers, participated in the experiment. The experimental materials included a proficiency test and a pragmatic felicity task. The results showed that the intermediate participants did not differentiate between the felicitous and the infelicitous options in the pragmatic felicity task in a target-like manner as their responses either did not exhibit a statistically significant difference or favored the response closest to the L1. However, the advanced L2 learners had successfully acquired the pragmatic meaning of clitic doubling in Bulgarian and performed in a native-like manner. The study highlights the fact that successful learning at the syntax–discourse interface cannot be excluded, and more research – exploring as many interface conditions as possible – needs to be carried out in order to validate the Interface Hypothesis as a legitimate constraint that permanently hinders native-like performance.

The computation and suspension of presuppositions by L1-Mandarin Chinese L2-English speakers

2021 ◽  
pp. 026765832199387
Author(s):  
Shuo Feng
Keyword(s):  
Mandarin Chinese ◽  
First Language ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Similar Response ◽  
Response Patterns ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Precise Understanding ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
External Interface ◽  
Discourse Interface

The Interface Hypothesis proposes that second language (L2) learners, even at highly proficient levels, often fail to integrate information at the external interfaces where grammar interacts with other cognitive systems. While much early L2 work has focused on the syntax–discourse interface or scalar implicatures at the semantics–pragmatics interface, the present article adds to this line of research by exploring another understudied phenomenon at the semantics–pragmatics interface, namely, presuppositions. Furthermore, this study explores both inference computation and suspension via a covered-box picture-selection task. Specifically, this study investigates the interpretation of a presupposition trigger stop and stop under negation. The results from 38 native English speakers and 41 first language (L1) Mandarin Chinese learners of English indicated similar response patterns between native and L2 groups in computing presuppositions but not in suspending presuppositions. That is, L2 learners were less likely to suspend presuppositions than native speakers. This study contributes to a more precise understanding of L2 acquisition at the external interface level, as well as computation and suspension of pragmatic inferences.

Commitment in L3 relationships: Sacred vows or polyamory?

2021 ◽  
pp. 026765832098804
Author(s):  
David Stringer
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
First Language ◽  
Acquisition Process ◽  
Third Language ◽  
L3 Acquisition ◽  
Acquisition Device ◽  
Crosslinguistic Influence ◽  
The Mind ◽  
N Acquisition ◽  
Full Copy

Westergaard (2019) presents an updated account of the Linguistic Proximity Model and the micro-cue approach to the parser as an acquisition device. The property-by-property view of transfer inherent in this approach contrasts with other influential models that assume that third language (L3) acquisition involves the creation of a full copy of only one previously existing language in the mind. In this commentary, I review Westergaard’s proposal that first language (L1), second language (L2), and L3 acquisition proceed on the basis of incremental, conservative learning and her view of the parser as the engine of the acquisition process. I then provide several arguments in support of her position that crosslinguistic influence in L n acquisition may flow from any previously acquired language.

scholarly journals VOICE ONSET TIME IN MULTILINGUAL SPEAKERS: ITALIAN HERITAGE SPEAKERS IN GERMANY WITH L3 ENGLISH

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Miriam Geiss ◽  
Sonja Gumbsheimer ◽  
Anika Lloyd-Smith ◽  
Svenja Schmid ◽  
Tanja Kupisch
Keyword(s):  
Heritage Language ◽  
Voice Onset Time ◽  
Onset Time ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Heritage Speakers ◽  
Third Language ◽  
Bilingual Advantage ◽  
L3 Acquisition ◽  
Crosslinguistic Influence

Abstract This study brings together two previously largely independent fields of multilingual language acquisition: heritage language and third language (L3) acquisition. We investigate the production of fortis and lenis stops in semi-naturalistic speech in the three languages of 20 heritage speakers (HSs) of Italian with German as a majority language and English as L3. The study aims to identify the extent to which the HSs produce distinct values across all three languages, or whether crosslinguistic influence (CLI) occurs. To this end, we compare the HSs’ voice onset time (VOT) values with those of L2 English speakers from Italy and Germany. The language triad exhibits overlapping and distinct VOT realizations, making VOT a potentially vulnerable category. Results indicate CLI from German into Italian, although a systemic difference is maintained. When speaking English, the HSs show an advantage over the Italian L2 control group, with less prevoicing and longer fortis stops, indicating a specific bilingual advantage.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document