Transfer vs. dynamic cross-linguistic interactions

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Magdalena Wrembel
Keyword(s):  
Third Language ◽  
Cognitive States ◽  
L3 Acquisition ◽  
Keynote Paper ◽  
Data Support ◽  
Binary Approach ◽  
Property Transfer ◽  
Cross Language ◽  
Access Model ◽  
Transfer Models

Abstract In their keynote paper “The Full Transfer/Full Access model and L3 cognitive states” Schwartz & Sprouse (2021, henceforth S&S) present a thorough overview of third language (L3) acquisition transfer models by pinpointing their strong points as well as flaws of a conceptual and empirical nature. Their analysis is anchored in a principled distinction between models that are classified as representing wholesale transfer vs. those that are referred to as piecemeal or property-by-property transfer models. S&S side with the former, and level their criticism towards the latter approach. In this commentary, I would like to challenge this binary approach to debating the nature of transfer by taking an outsider’s position, i.e. that of a researcher working in a framework other than the generative one, in which the keynote paper is embedded. I will start by addressing some of the controversial points raised by S&S and then broaden the perspective by discussing the concept of transfer in L3 acquisition in the light of dynamic cross-language interactions and exploring alternative avenues in L3 research with data support from various linguistic domains.

Expanding the scope of l3 transfer study designs

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Juncal Gutierrez-Mangado
Keyword(s):  
Point Of View ◽  
Transfer Effects ◽  
Cognitive States ◽  
L3 Acquisition ◽  
Wh Questions ◽  
Study Designs ◽  
Transfer Study ◽  
Access Model ◽  
Transfer Models

Abstract This commentary discusses Schwartz and Sprouse’s (2020) (henceforth S&S) keynote article entitled “The Full Transfer/Full Access model and L3 cognitive states”, which presents an overview of transfer models in L3 acquisition. The present commentary focuses on the issue of transfer itself from the point of view of the language combinations that are argued in the keynote article are suitable for investigating transfer effects by drawing on data from the phenomenon known as medial wh-questions.

The Full Transfer/Full Access model and L3 cognitive states

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bonnie D. Schwartz ◽  
Rex A. Sprouse
Keyword(s):  
Transfer Model ◽  
Third Language ◽  
Cognitive States ◽  
Open Questions ◽  
Content Acquisition ◽  
Language L ◽  
Access Model ◽  
Transfer Models

Abstract This paper offers an overview of current models of third language (L3) acquisition, classifying each as a Wholesale Transfer model or as a Piecemeal Transfer model. We discuss what we consider to be some conceptual and empirical problems for the Piecemeal Transfer approaches and then discuss some advantages we see in Wholesale Transfer. Next, we home in on Wholesale Transfer models, arguing that one of them in particular seems to us to be the most promising, viz., the Typological Primacy Model (TPM – e.g., Rothman, 2011, 2015). Finally, we take up some open questions associated with the TPM and suggest some possible directions for future L3 research.

scholarly journals PERAN BAHASA INGGRIS SEBAGAI BAHASA KEDUA DALAM PEMEROLEHAN BAHASA INDONESIA SEBAGAI BAHASA KETIGA

Paramasastra ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdul Kholiq
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Sentence Production ◽  
Research Subject ◽  
Third Language ◽  
Third Language Acquisition ◽  
L3 Acquisition ◽  
Cross Language ◽  
Language Influence

Cross language influence in third language (L3) acquisition is related to the first (L1) and second language (L2) acquisition. Cross-language influence in third language acquisition studies can be analyzed from the first and second language role in the third language acquisition. Each acquisition Indonesian language as L3 is always English as L2 so that the role of English in acquiring Indonesian as B3 be worth studying. It is a qualitative approach based research. This study focuses on (1) the role of English of articulation and (2) the role of English as the provider acquiring vocabulary in Indonesian as L3. Data used in this research is the conversation conducted by the researcher and research subject; and sentence production based on picture by the research subject. Data analysis result finds 1) the role of English as an addition to the mastery of the sound that is not owned B1 of pemeroleh Indonesian as L3 and English influence language sounds in pronunciation Indonesian, and 2) The role of English as a provider of vocabulary in language acquisition Indonesia as B3 is as a language bridge in language acquisition Indonesia if the Indonesian pemeroleh not master words in Indonesian. 

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’.

Microvariation and transfer in L2 and L3 acquisition

2020 ◽  
pp. 026765832094106
Author(s):  
Alison Gabriele
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
First Language ◽  
Comprehensive Model ◽  
Third Language ◽  
L3 Acquisition ◽  
Open Questions ◽  
Language Research ◽  
Property Transfer

This commentary discusses Westergaard (2019), a keynote article in Second Language Research, which presents a comprehensive model of first language (L1), second language (L2), and third language (L3) acquisition. The commentary presents evidence from a previous study of L3 learners that provides support for Westergaard’s property-by-property transfer proposal. The commentary highlights strengths of the proposal, such as its focus on microvariation, and also outlines open questions, such as whether the model can predict in advance whether specific properties will be easier or harder to acquire.

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’.

Choosing between theories: Can L3 acquisition really decide?

2020 ◽  
pp. 026765832094104
Author(s):  
Lydia White
Keyword(s):  
Third Language ◽  
L3 Acquisition ◽  
Property Transfer ◽  
Transfer Potential

In this commentary, I question Westergaard’s argument that third language (L3) data can be used to decide between theories such as Full Transfer Full Access, involving wholesale transfer initially, and Full Transfer Potential, involving property-by-property transfer. I suggest that much L3 data will be amenable to explanation under either theory. Furthermore, it is not clear what kind of data would constitute counter-evidence to Full Transfer Potential.

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