scholarly journals L3 acquisition and crosslinguistic influence as co-activation: Response to commentaries on the keynote ‘Microvariation in multilingual situations: The importance of property-by-property acquisition’

2021 ◽  
pp. 026765832110078
Author(s):  
Marit Westergaard
2019 ◽  
pp. 026765831988411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marit Westergaard

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’.


Author(s):  
Helen Engemann

Abstract Simultaneous bilingual children sometimes display crosslinguistic influence (CLI), widely attested in the domain of morphosyntax. It remains less clear whether CLI affects bilinguals’ event construal, what motivates its occurrence and directionality, and how developmentally persistent it is. The present study tested predictions generated by the structural overlap hypothesis and the co-activation account in the motion event domain. 96 English–French bilingual children of two age groups and 96 age-matched monolingual English and French controls were asked to describe animated videos displaying voluntary motion events. Semantic encoding in main verbs showed bidirectional CLI. Unidirectional CLI affected French path encoding in the verbal periphery and was predicted by the presence of boundary-crossing, despite the absence of structural overlap. Furthermore, CLI increased developmentally in the French data. It is argued that these findings reflect highly dynamic co-activation patterns sensitive to the requirements of the task and to language-specific challenges in the online production process.


2021 ◽  
pp. 026765832098804
Author(s):  
David Stringer

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.


Author(s):  
Miriam Geiss ◽  
Sonja Gumbsheimer ◽  
Anika Lloyd-Smith ◽  
Svenja Schmid ◽  
Tanja Kupisch

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.


2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 252-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
LAURA SÁNCHEZ

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.


2020 ◽  
pp. 026765832093452
Author(s):  
Tania Ionin

This commentary discusses the recent keynote article in Second Language Research by Westergaard (2019), which extends the Micro-cue Model to second language (L2) and third language (L3) acquisition. The commentary comments on such questions as: What makes a given property easy or hard to acquire? How do learners determine similarity? What exactly is the role of UG, on a non-parametric view? And what explains the differences between L1 and L2/subsequent acquisition?


2020 ◽  
pp. 026765832094103
Author(s):  
Camilla Bardel ◽  
Ylva Falk

This text comments on the Keynote article ‘Microvariation in multilingual situations: The importance of property-by-property acquisition’ by Marit Westergaard, who argues for Full Transfer Potential within the Linguistic Proximity Model in third language (L3) acquisition. The commentary points at some theoretical and methodological issues related to the Linguistic Proximity Model, e.g. the age factor in language learning, the role of metalinguistic knowledge and proficiency in L3 learning, and the lack of predictive power of the model.


2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nader Fallah ◽  
Ali Akbar Jabbari

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.


Author(s):  
Isabel Nadine Jensen ◽  
Natalia Mitrofanova ◽  
Merete Anderssen ◽  
Yulia Rodina ◽  
Roumyana Slabakova ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
pp. 026765832094576
Author(s):  
Suzanne Flynn

This provocative article raises many important issues that need to be addressed and in so doing will advance the fields of second language (L2) and third language (L3) acquisition in several important ways. Fundamental questions concerning multilingual development persist especially with respect to the role of Universal Grammar in this language learning process. This response article has a dual role: It first outlines those areas of agreement with the proposals made in this article and, second, it discusses those areas of the proposed model that need to be confronted in order to have the model evaluated as a fully viable one.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document