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’.

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.

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 The scalpel model of third language acquisition

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 651-665 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roumyana Slabakova
Keyword(s):  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Initial State ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
New Model ◽  
Third Language ◽  
Third Language Acquisition ◽  
Linguistic Representations ◽  
Language Activation ◽  
Experimental Findings ◽  
Crosslinguistic Influence

Aims and Objectives: This article proposes the “scalpel model,” a new model of third and additional language (L3/Ln) acquisition. The model aims to identify and examine what happens beyond the initial state of acquisition and what factors may influence change from one state of knowledge to another. Methodology: The article briefly examines the currently proposed hypotheses and models and evaluates the existing evidence for their predictions. It highlights several cognitive and experiential factors affecting crosslinguistic influence that are not taken into account by the current models. These factors include: structural linguistic complexity; misleading input or lack of clear unambiguous evidence for some properties or constructions; construction frequency in the target L3; and prevalent language activation or use. Data and analysis: Findings of recently published research are discussed in support of the scalpel model. In particular, findings of differential learnability of properties within the same groups of learners suggest that L1 or L2 transfer happens property by property and is influenced by diverse factors. Findings: The scalpel model explicitly argues that wholesale transfer of one of the previously acquired languages does not happen at the initial stages of acquisition because it is not necessary. It also argues that transfer can be from the L1 or the L2 or both, but it is not only facilitative. Originality: The new model increases the explanatory coverage of the current experimental findings on how the L3/Ln linguistic representations develop. Implications: The model emphasizes the importance of the cognitive, experiential, and linguistic influences on the L3/Ln beyond transfer from the L1 or L2. Thus, it aligns L3/Ln acquisition with current debates within L2 acquisition theory.

‘I me Mine’ The Acquisition of Dutch Pronominal Possessives by L1 Children, L2 Children and L2 Adults

2008 ◽  
Vol 155 ◽  
pp. 23-52
Author(s):  
Elma Nap-Kolhoff ◽  
Peter Broeder
Keyword(s):  
Adult Learners ◽  
Young Children ◽  
First Language ◽  
Spontaneous Speech ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Possessive Constructions ◽  
Speech Data ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Dutch Language ◽  
L1 Acquisition

Abstract This study compares pronominal possessive constructions in Dutch first language (L1) acquisition, second language (L2) acquisition by young children, and untutored L2 acquisition by adults. The L2 learners all have Turkish as L1. In longitudinal spontaneous speech data for four L1 learners, seven child L2 learners, and two adult learners, remarkable differences and similarities between the three learner groups were found. In some respects, the child L2 learners develop in a way that is similar to child L1 learners, for instance in the kind of overgeneralisations that they make. However, the child L2 learners also behave like adult L2 learners; i.e., in the pace of the acquisition process, the frequency and persistence of non-target constructions, and the difficulty in acquiring reduced pronouns. The similarities between the child and adult L2 learners are remarkable, because the child L2 learners were only two years old when they started learning Dutch. L2 acquisition before the age of three is often considered to be similar to L1 acquisition. The findings might be attributable to the relatively small amount of Dutch language input the L2 children received.

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.

Acquisition of attributive adjectives and noun adjuncts by L3 learners of French and German: further evidence for the typological primacy model (TPM)

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Maryam Jamali ◽  
Ali Akbar Jabbari ◽  
Mohammad Hasan Razmi
Keyword(s):  
Task Performance ◽  
First Language ◽  
Facilitative Effect ◽  
Third Language ◽  
L3 Acquisition ◽  
Proficiency Level ◽  
Attributive Adjective ◽  
French Group ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Attributive Adjectives

Abstract This investigation explored the impact of prior acquired languages in the acquisition of third language (L3) at initial stages. The required data were gathered via two groups of L3 learners: 27 learners of L3 French and 26 learners of L3 German during a grammaticality judgement task (GJT) and an element rearrangement task (ERT) to test the placement of noun adjuncts and attributive adjectives. Both groups had acquired Persian as the first language and English as the second language. The participants were assigned to two L2 proficiency level groups (intermediate and advanced). The findings revealed that L3 German participants outperformed L3 French learners in the attributive adjective placement in both tasks as well as the noun adjunct in the GJT task. The L3 groups showed similar levels of performance in the ERT noun adjunct task. Additionally, the effect of L2 level of proficiency was not significant. The results also indicated that the typological similarity of L2 English to German rather than French rendered a facilitative effect on task performance in the L3 German group and a non-facilitative effect in the L3 French group. This study provides evidence for the Typological Primacy Model (TPM) of L3 acquisition suggesting that L3 learners are influenced by the typological similarities of the previous languages they have already acquired.

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’.

scholarly journals Understanding individual variation in levels of second language attainment through the lens of critical period mechanisms

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 930-931 ◽  
Author(s):  
REBECCA REH ◽  
MARIA ARREDONDO ◽  
JANET F. WERKER
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Category Learning ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
First Language ◽  
Visual Language ◽  
Phonetic Category ◽  
Critical Periods ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Language Discrimination ◽  
L1 Acquisition

Mayberry and Kluender (2017) present an important and compelling argument that in order to understand critical periods (CPs) in language acquisition, it is essential to disentangle studies of late first language (L1) acquisition from those of second language (L2) acquisition. Their primary thesis is that timely exposure to an L1 is crucial for establishing language circuitry, thus providing a foundation on which an L2 can build. They note that while there is considerable evidence of interference from the L1 on acquisition of the L2 – especially in late L2 learners (as in our work on cascading influences on phonetic category learning and visual language discrimination, e.g., Werker & Hensch, 2015 and Weikum, Vouloumanos, Navarra, Soto-Faraco, Sebastián-Gallés & Werker, 2013, respectively) – there are other examples of ways in which the L1 can scaffold L2 acquisition. Mayberry and Kluender take this evidence of L1 scaffolding L2 as undermining the value of considering CPs as useful in understanding L2 acquisition.

Turtles all the way down: Micro-cues and piecemeal transfer in L3 phonology and syntax

2020 ◽  
pp. 026765832094103
Author(s):  
John Archibald
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
First Language ◽  
Theoretical Models ◽  
Third Language ◽  
Third Language Acquisition ◽  
The One ◽  
Crosslinguistic Influence ◽  
The Way

There are several theories which tackle predicting the source of third language (L3) crosslinguistic influence. The two orthogonal questions that arise are which language is most likely to influence the L3 and whether the influence will be wholesale or piecemeal (property-by-property). To my mind, Westergaard’s Linguistic Proximity Model (LPM) is preferable to other theoretical models (say Rothman’s Typological Primacy Model) insofar as it is consistent with many aspects of L2/L3 phonological learnability that I am familiar with. Westergaard proposes a structure-based piecemeal approach to the explanation of third language acquisition (L3A). The model is driven by parsing and dictates that the first language (L1) or second language (L2) structure which is hypothesized to be most similar to the L3 structure will be the one to transfer.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document