scholarly journals Crosslinguistic influence in L3 acquisition across linguistic modules

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Isabel Nadine Jensen ◽  
Natalia Mitrofanova ◽  
Merete Anderssen ◽  
Yulia Rodina ◽  
Roumyana Slabakova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
L3 Acquisition ◽  
Crosslinguistic Influence

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.

L2 activation and blending in third language acquisition: Evidence of crosslinguistic influence from the L2 in a longitudinal study on the acquisition of L3 English

2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 252-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
LAURA SÁNCHEZ
Keyword(s):  
Longitudinal Study ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Linguistic Knowledge ◽  
Third Language ◽  
Third Language Acquisition ◽  
Source Language ◽  
L3 Acquisition ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Crosslinguistic Influence

This paper reports the findings of a four-year longitudinal study that examined the role of prior linguistic knowledge on the written L3 production of 93 Spanish/Catalan learners. Two research questions guided the study: the first asked whether a background language (L1s Spanish/Catalan, L2 German) would activate in parallel with L3 English during word construction attempts involving verbal forms, and if so, which would be the source language of blending. The second addressed the progressive readjustments of L2 activation and blending in the course of the first 200 hours of instruction. The elicitation technique was a written narrative based on a story telling task. Data were collected first when the learners were on average 9.9 years old (T1), and again at the ages of 10.9 (T2), 11.9 (T3) and 12.9 (T4). The focus of analysis was on word construction attempts that involved verbal forms. The results suggest that a background language, the L2, did indeed activate, especially at early stages of L3 acquisition.

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’.

L3 acquisition of English attributive adjectives

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nader Fallah ◽  
Ali Akbar Jabbari
Keyword(s):  
Judgment Task ◽  
Dominant Language ◽  
Grammaticality Judgment ◽  
L3 Acquisition ◽  
Crosslinguistic Influence ◽  
Attributive Adjectives

Abstract This study examines three L3 transfer proposals, namely the L1 Factor (Hermas, 2010, 2014a, 2014b), the CEM (Flynn et al., 2004) and the TPM (Rothman, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2015) as well as investigates the role of the language of dominance in L3 acquisition of English attributive adjectives. Three groups of bilinguals took part in this study: L1 Mazandarani/L2 Persian, with Mazandarani as the dominant language of communication, L1 Mazandarani/L2 Persian, with Persian as the dominant language of communication and L1 Persian/L2 Mazandarani, with Persian as the dominant language of communication. The results of a grammaticality judgment task and an element rearrangement task show that the predictions of the above-mentioned L3 transfer proposals were not realized. Instead, the dominant language of communication turns out to be the main source of syntactic crosslinguistic influence at the initial stages of L3 acquisition, irrespective of its status as an L1 or L2.

scholarly journals First Language Attrition

Linguistics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monika Schmid
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
Second Language Learners ◽  
Reverse Direction ◽  
Language Attrition ◽  
Daily Lives ◽  
Use Patterns ◽  
L3 Acquisition ◽  
The One ◽  
Crosslinguistic Influence

The term “language attrition” refers to any process by which a language which an individual commands may be restructured, modified, or otherwise affected by another language in such a way that it less closely resembles the idealized version known and used by monolingual speakers than it did before this crosslinguistic influence started. The phenomena seen under such circumstances are often similar to those experienced in the acquisition of a second or other language (L2), where pre-existing language knowledge or habits interfere with the establishment and use of newly acquired knowledge, comprising features such as a reduction in complexity, accuracy, and/or fluency. They differ from such phenomena in that, in language attrition, the traffic occurs in the “reverse” direction, from the new to the established language. While language attrition has been investigated most often in the context of changes and modifications experienced in the native language (L1) by speakers who have acquired a second language after puberty and who have shifted their language use patterns until this new language is the one they use most often in their daily lives (i.e., among adult migrants), other kinds of situations—such as the attrition of a second language due to non-use or due to the acquisition of further languages (L3 acquisition), or changes to the L1 that occur in instructed second language learners at low levels of proficiency and early stages of development—also fall under the umbrella of language attrition. As such, the term “attrition” has sometimes been considered misleading, suggesting structural or representational alterations away from the “monolingual standard,” while research has shown that the differences observed between monolinguals and attriters in all of these contexts usually occur at the level of processing/use and do not affect underlying knowledge. The term “attrition” here is used without prejudice to the nature of crosslinguistic influence, but where not otherwise indicated, it will refer to traffic from L2 or Lx to L1.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document