What variables condition syntactic transfer? A look at the L3 initial state

2010 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Rothman ◽  
Jennifer Cabrelli Amaro
Keyword(s):  
English Learners ◽  
First Language ◽  
Linguistic Knowledge ◽  
Future Research ◽  
State Testing ◽  
Initial State ◽  
L1 Transfer ◽  
Third Language ◽  
Null Subject Parameter ◽  
English Speaking

This study investigates transfer at the third-language (L3) initial state, testing between the following possibilities: (1) the first language (L1) transfer hypothesis (an L1 effect for all adult acquisition), (2) the second language (L2) transfer hypothesis, where the L2 blocks L1 transfer (often referred to in the recent literature as the ‘L2 status factor’; Williams and Hammarberg, 1998), and (3) the Cumulative Enhancement Model (Flynn et al., 2004), which proposes selective transfer from all previous linguistic knowledge. We provide data from successful English-speaking learners of L2 Spanish at the initial state of acquiring L3 French and L3 Italian relating to properties of the Null-Subject Parameter (e.g. Chomsky, 1981; Rizzi, 1982). We compare these groups to each other, as well as to groups of English learners of L2 French and L2 Italian at the initial state, and conclude that the data are consistent with the predictions of the ‘L2 status factor’. However, we discuss an alternative possible interpretation based on (psycho)typologically-motivated transfer (borrowing from Kellerman, 1983), providing a methodology for future research in this domain to meaningfully tease apart the ‘L2 status factor’ from this alternative account.

Genericity in third language English: Acquisition pattern and transfer in ultimate attainment

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 266-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdelkader Hermas
Keyword(s):  
Noun Phrase ◽  
First Language ◽  
Judgment Task ◽  
L1 Transfer ◽  
Third Language ◽  
Bare Plurals ◽  
Existential Interpretation ◽  
Sentence Level ◽  
Ultimate Attainment ◽  
Acceptability Judgment

This study investigates the acquisition of genericity in advanced third language (L3) English. The learners are first language (L1) Moroccan Arabic–second language (L2) French adults. They completed an acceptability judgment task testing the interpretation of five count nominal types in noun phrase (NP)-level and sentence-level genericity: definite, indefinite and bare singulars, definite and bare plurals. The study defines the generic or non-generic status of every NP form in the learners’ L3 interlanguage. The results show that the L3 learners are target-like on the generic interpretation of bare plurals, although these are strictly existential in their native language and illicit in L2 French. Definite and bare singulars do not pose any difficulty either. In contrast, non-facilitative L1 transfer induces the generic interpretation of definite plurals and restricts indefinite singulars to the existential interpretation. The results show that the L3 learners do not distinguish NP-level from sentence-level genericity, reflecting L1 Arabic grammar where the two merge. They use the same pattern of NP types for the two types. Thus, knowledge of genericity in L3 English is a patchwork of target-like and non-target-like exponents.

scholarly journals Response article Full transfer vs. developmentally moderated transfer: a reply to Bohnacker

2007 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 485-493 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manfred Pienemann ◽  
Gisela HÅkansson
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Native Language ◽  
First Language ◽  
Target Language ◽  
Verb Second ◽  
Initial State ◽  
L1 Transfer ◽  
Underlying Theory ◽  
Key Aspects

Ute Bohnacker's (2006) article on the acquisition of the verb second (V2) property in German by native speakers of Swedish (also a V2 language) is an attempted rebuttal of Håkansson et al.'s (2002) work on first language (L1) transfer and aspects of the underlying theory on which the work is based: Processability Theory (Pienemann, 1998). The article by Håkansson et al. presented empirical evidence from a similar population of learners (native language Swedish, target language German), showing that V2 is not transferred at the initial state. Unfortunately, Bohnacker misrepresents key aspects of our work on L1 transfer and, paradoxically, her own data constitute empirical evidence supporting our position, as we show in this response.

Grammatical gender-marking ability of multilingual children in French immersion

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 968-983 ◽  
Author(s):  
Klaudia Krenca ◽  
Kathleen Hipfner-Boucher ◽  
Xi Chen
Keyword(s):  
English Learners ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
First Language ◽  
French Immersion ◽  
Minority Languages ◽  
Linguistic Feature ◽  
Third Language ◽  
Bilingual Advantage ◽  
Language Groups ◽  
Significant Difference

Aims and objectives/purpose/research questions: We explored the advantage of bilingualism and the effect of linguistic proximity on the acquisition of determiner-noun agreement, an aspect of inflectional morphology, in a French immersion setting. To our knowledge, third language acquisition literature has yet to provide evidence of a bilingual advantage in learning a particular feature of morphology in an additional language among young children. Design/methodology/approach: We compared accuracy in determiner-noun agreement on a narrative task in three groups of grade 1 and 2 students ( n = 15 in each group): a group of third language French learners whose first language marked gender, a group of third language French learners whose first language did not mark gender, and a group of English learners learning French as a second language. Data and analysis: If the determiner and the noun agreed in gender, gender on the determiner was considered correct. A repeated measures factorial ANCOVA was carried out to compare the performance among the three language groups on the proportion of correctly marked masculine and feminine nouns. Findings/conclusions: All of the children achieved high levels of accuracy on masculine nouns with no difference among the three language groups on the proportion of correctly marked masculine nouns. There was a significant difference in the proportion of correctly marked feminine nouns in favour of the group whose first language marks gender compared to the other two groups. Originality: The current study supports transfer in the domain of morphology among primary-school-aged children (who are first language speakers of diverse minority languages) in the early stages of third-language French acquisition. Significance/implications: This finding provides preliminary evidence of a bilingual advantage in the domain of morphology among young, emergent trilinguals whose first language and third language share gender marking as a linguistic feature, supporting the linguistic proximity model.

scholarly journals What Motivates L3 Learners’ Investment and/or Divestment in Arabic? Understanding Learning Motivation in terms of “Identity”

2020 ◽  
Vol 84 ◽  
pp. 27-39
Author(s):  
Jing Liao ◽  
Ning An ◽  
Yongyan Zheng
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
First Language ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Sample Population ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Third Language ◽  
Material Resources ◽  
Perspective Drawing ◽  
Chinese Learners ◽  
The Relationship

The study extends our understanding of the relationship between identity and Arabic learning in the Chinese context from a sociolinguistic perspective. Drawing on Darvin and Norton’s (2015) model of investment, the study explores the interplay between identity and investment in the context of Chinese learners’ motivation to learn Arabic. The sample population comprises 25 adult Arabic learners with Chinese as their first language, English as their second language, and Arabic as their third language. Qualitative data from learners’ retrospective narrative accounts and complementary semi-structured interviews were analyzed in terms of identity and investment. The findings show that these Chinese Arabic learners’ constitutive orientation towards language learning is highly related to their multifaceted and fluid identities (inherited identities, competitive identities, and imagined identities), which are complex and dynamic and can be negotiated and constructed over time, involving learners’ perceptions of affordances in capital resources and their goals of acquiring symbolic and material resources. Therefore, investment/divestment is influenced by the interconnections between identities and perceptions. The study concludes with some methodological and theoretical implications for future research on learning LOTEs (languages other than English) and investment.

L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: The typological primacy model

2010 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Rothman
Keyword(s):  
Present Article ◽  
English Learners ◽  
First Language ◽  
Brazilian Portuguese ◽  
The Other ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Third Language ◽  
Proficiency Level ◽  
L2 Spanish ◽  
L1 English

The present article addresses the following question: what variables condition syntactic transfer? Evidence is provided in support of the position that third language (L3) transfer is selective, whereby, at least under certain conditions, it is driven by the typological proximity of the target L3 measured against the other previously acquired linguistic systems (cf. Rothman and Cabrelli Amaro, 2007, 2010; Rothman, 2010; Montrul et al., 2011). To show this, we compare data in the domain of adjectival interpretation between successful first language (L1) Italian learners of English as a second language (L2) at the low to intermediate proficiency level of L3 Spanish, and successful L1 English learners of L2 Spanish at the same levels for L3 Brazilian Portuguese. The data show that, irrespective of the L1 or the L2, these L3 learners demonstrate target knowledge of subtle adjectival semantic nuances obtained via noun-raising, which English lacks and the other languages share. We maintain that such knowledge is transferred to the L3 from Italian (L1) and Spanish (L2) respectively in light of important differences between the L3 learners herein compared to what is known of the L2 Spanish performance of L1 English speakers at the same level of proficiency (see, for example, Judy et al., 2008; Rothman et al., 2010). While the present data are consistent with Flynn et al.’s (2004) Cumulative Enhancement Model, we discuss why a coupling of these data with evidence from other recent L3 studies suggests necessary modifications to this model, offering in its stead the Typological Primacy Model (TPM) for multilingual transfer.

THE INTERACTION OF INSTRUCTION AND LEARNER-INTERNAL FACTORS IN THE ACQUISITION OF L2 MORPHOSYNTAX

2000 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul D. Toth
Keyword(s):  
Native Speaker ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
First Language ◽  
Judgment Task ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Internal Factors ◽  
L1 Transfer ◽  
Verb Classes ◽  
Grammaticality Judgment ◽  
English Speaking

This study considers the role of instruction, second language (L2) input, first language (L1) transfer, and Universal Grammar (UG) in the development of L2 morphosyntactic knowledge. Specifically, it investigates the acquisition of the Spanish morpheme se by English-speaking adult learners. Participants included 91 university students and 30 Spanish native-speaker controls. Learners received form-focused, communicative instruction on se for one week and were tested before, immediately following, and 24 days after the treatment period. Assessment consisted of a grammaticality judgment task and two production tasks using se in a variety of verb classes. The results showed that se had been added to many learners' grammars, but also that L1-derived forms and overgeneralization errors had not been completely preempted. These findings are taken as evidence that the development of L2 grammars is affected by a number of independent, yet cooperating, knowledge sources, which thus supports a modular account of L2 acquisition.

scholarly journals Investigating the acquisition of the Split-IP parameter and the V2 parameter in second language Afrikaans

2006 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Conradie
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
English Learners ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
First Language ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Parameter Resetting ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Parameter Values

Researchers who assume that Universal Grammar (UG) plays a role in second language (L2) acquisition are still debating whether L2 learners have access to UG in its entirety (the Full Access hypothesis; e.g. Schwartz and Sprouse, 1994; 1996; White, 1989; 2003) or only to those aspects of UG that are instantiated in their first language (L1) grammar (the No Parameter Resetting hypothesis; e.g. Hawkins and Chan, 1997). The Full Access hypothesis predicts that parameter resetting will be possible where the L1 and L2 differ in parameter values, whereas the No Parameter Resetting hypothesis predicts that parameter resetting will not be possible. These hypotheses are tested in a study examining whether English-speaking learners of Afrikaans can reset the Split-IP parameter (SIP) (Thráinsson, 1996) and the V2 parameter from their L1 ([-SIP], [-V2]) to their L2 ([+SIP], [+V2]) values. 15 advanced English learners of Afrikaans and 10 native speakers of Afrikaans completed three tasks: a sentence manipulation task, a grammaticality judgement task and a truth-value judgement task. Results suggest that the interlanguage grammars of the L2 learners are [+SIP] and [+V2] (unlike the L1), providing evidence for the Full Access hypothesis.

scholarly journals Polarity-item anything in L3 English: Where does transfer come from when the L1 is Catalan and the L2 is Spanish?

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 487-515 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eloi Puig-Mayenco ◽  
Heather Marsden
Keyword(s):  
First Language ◽  
Age Of Acquisition ◽  
Judgment Task ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Polarity Item ◽  
L1 Transfer ◽  
Third Language ◽  
L3 Acquisition ◽  
Different Response

This study explores the source of transfer in third language (L3) English by two distinct groups of Catalan–Spanish bilinguals, simultaneous bilinguals and late bilinguals. Our study addresses two research questions: (1) Does transfer come from the first language (L1), the second language (L2), or both? and (2) Does age of acquisition of the L2 affect how transfer occurs? We compare beginner and advanced English speakers from both L3 groups with beginner and advanced L1-Spanish L2-English speakers, and find that, on an acceptablity judgment task that investigates knowledge of the distribution of polarity item anything, the two L3 groups demonstrate a different response pattern from the L2 group. The results suggest that both L3 groups transfer from Catalan, and not from their L2, Spanish. Additionally, the cross-sectional nature of the study shows that negative transfer from the initial stages of acquisition is overcome to different extents by the L3 vs. the L2 groups. We conclude that the results show strong evidence against the L2 status factor (Bardel and Falk, 2007, 2012) and the cumulative enhancement (Flynn et al., 2004) models of L3 acquisition, while they can be accounted for by the typological primacy model (Rothman, 2010, 2011, 2015), although other models that predict L1 transfer in L3 acquisition are not ruled out. Further, our findings show no effect of age of acquisition of the L2 on L3 development.

Using Audio Prompting to Assist Monolingual Speech-Language Pathologists to Teach English–Spanish Vocabulary to English Learners

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-11
Author(s):  
Jean F. Rivera Pérez ◽  
Nancy A. Creaghead ◽  
Karla Washington ◽  
Ying Guo ◽  
Lesley Raisor-Becker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
English Learners ◽  
First Language ◽  
Control Group ◽  
English Only ◽  
Speech Language Pathologist ◽  
Vocabulary Growth ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
L2 Vocabulary ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
English Instruction

This research investigates the effectiveness of using a child’s first language (L1), specifically Spanish, with Audio Prompting (AP) delivered via a tablet computer by monolingual English-speaking clinicians to enhance vocabulary growth in the L1 and second language (L2) of children who are English Learners (ELs). Outcomes of vocabulary instruction for Spanish-speaking preschoolers assigned to one of three groups: (a) Spanish–English instruction ( n = 14) with Spanish delivered through AP, (b) English-only instruction ( n = 14), and (c) control group ( n = 15) indicates that both Spanish–English instruction and English-only instruction may result in greater gains in English naming when compared with no instruction. Importantly, Spanish–English instruction may produce greater gains in English definition as well as Spanish naming and definition when compared with no instruction, with outcomes maintained post instruction. AP can be useful to increase L1 and L2 vocabulary and definition in ELs, once monolingual English-speaking speech-language pathologist is trained in the use of AP.

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’.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document