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.

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’.

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.

The role of the second language in third language acquisition: the case of Germanic syntax

2007 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 459-484 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camilla Bardel ◽  
Ylva Falk
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Qualitative Difference ◽  
Initial State ◽  
Syntactic Structures ◽  
Considerable Evidence ◽  
Third Language ◽  
Third Language Acquisition ◽  
L3 Acquisition

In this study of the placement of sentence negation in third language acquisition (L3), we argue that there is a qualitative difference between the acquisition of a true second language (L2) and the subsequent acquisition of an L3. Although there is considerable evidence for L2 influence on vocabulary acquisition in L3, not all researchers believe that such influence generalizes to morphosyntactic aspects of the grammar. For example, Håkansson et al. (2002) introduce the Developmentally Moderated Transfer Hypothesis (DMTH), which incorporates transfer in Processability Theory (PT). They argue against syntactic transfer from L2 to L3. The present study presents counter-evidence to this hypothesis from two groups of learners with different L1s and L2s acquiring Swedish or Dutch as L3. The evidence clearly indicates that syntactic structures are more easily transferred from L2 than from L1 in the initial state of L3 acquisition. The two groups behave significantly differently as to the placement of negation, a difference that can be attributed to the L2 knowledge of the learners in interaction with the typological relationship between the L2 and the L3.

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 An Inquiry into the Role of L3 Proficiency on Crosslinguistic influence in Third Language Acquisition.

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Sánchez
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Native Language ◽  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Specific Interaction ◽  
Third Language ◽  
Third Language Acquisition ◽  
Proficiency Levels ◽  
Crosslinguistic Influence ◽  
Cloze Test

Abstract: With the rise of multilingualism, studies have proliferated that investigate the interaction of the different languages. The study presented here sets out to examine the role that proficiency plays on the occurrence of a specific interaction, namely interlanguage transfer from a prior non–native language (L2 German) upon another non–native language (L3 English) at the level of syntax in Spanish/ Catalan bilinguals. Data were collected from 80 learners of L3 English who were at different proficiency levels (as indicated by a 30-item cloze test), while data for the analysis of transfer was elicited using a story telling task. Statistical tests revealed significant differences across proficiency levels, i.e. low and pre–intermediate (p= .032), low and intermediate levels (p= .000), and pre–intermediate and intermediate levels (p= .018). Título en español: “Una indagación sobre el papel de la proficiencia en L3 sobre la influencia transversal en la adquisición de terceras lenguas”Resumen: Con el crecimiento del multilingüismo, han proliferado los estudios que investigan la interacción entre diferentes lenguas. El presente estudio se plantea examinar el rol que desempeña la proficiencia en la ocurrencia de un tipo específico de interacción, a saber, transferencia entre interlenguas de una lengua no nativa (L2 Alemán) a otra lengua no nativa (L3 Inglés) a nivel sintáctico en bilingües Castellano/ Catalán. Se recogieron datos de 80 aprendices de L3 Inglés que estaban en diferentes niveles de proficiencia (como indicó un cloze test de 30 ítems), mientras que los datos para el análisis de la transferencia se elicitaron empleando una tarea narrativa. Los tests estadísticos realizados revelaron diferencias significativas entre niveles bajo y pre–intermedio (p= .032), bajo e intermedio (p= .000) y pre–intermedio e intermedio (p= .018).

Tweede-Taalverwerving in Discussie

1998 ◽  
Vol 58 ◽  
pp. 77-85
Author(s):  
Aafke Hulk ◽  
Peter Jordens
Keyword(s):  
Native Speaker ◽  
Target Language ◽  
Negative Evidence ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Minimal Tree ◽  
Initial State ◽  
Developmental Processes ◽  
Nonnative Speaker ◽  
Intrinsic Factors ◽  
Crosslinguistic Influence

Universal aspects of L2 learner varieties are currently being discussed with respect to the issue of the 'L2-initial state'. Minimal Tree (Vainikka & Young-Scholten, 1996), Full Transfer/ Full Access (Schwartz & Sprouse, 1996) and Valueless Features approach (Eubank, 1996) are three approaches that provide theoretical linguistic explanations of L2 acquisition based on UG. They differ with respect to the way in which LI-instantiated knowledge is assumed to influence L2 acquisition. The aim of the Basic Variety approach (Klein & Perdue, 1997) is to explain cross-linguistically similar phenomena of L2 learning on the basis of universal of semantic, pragmatic and configurational constraints. It claims to account for both the simplicity and stability of learner varieties. One can expect these approaches to contribute to our knowledge of L2 developmental processes in the following areas of research. First, there is the question of the relation between the data and linguistic theory. Are native-speaker and nonnative-speaker knowledge of the same knowledge type? Schwartz (1994) argues that both LI and L2 acquisition are UG based. The question, however, is how to determine UG involvement in L2 acquisition on empirical grounds. Second, universality of developmental processes of L2 acquisition is a matter of discussion. UG-based approaches differ with respect to the degree to which the presence of the instantiated LI grammar influences the acquisition of L2 syntax. In Basic Variety approach, universal principles are determined crosslinguistically. They are of a pragmatic, semantic, and configurational nature. Third, Basic Variety provides an explicit account of what constitutes a simple language system. It represents a 'potential fossilization point' because it is not only a simple but also a stable system. Conflicts between constraints, i.e., possible sources of instability, are avoided. In the Full Transfer/Full Access approach, fossilization is due to problems of learnability. Restructuring an LI-induced grammar is problematic because negative evidence seems to be irrelevant, and in some cases, L2 input is highly obscure, i.e., very complex and/or very rare. Fourth, UG-based approaches differ with respect to the role of the LI. In the Minimal Tree and the Valueless Features approach, it is restricted to the initial stages, i.e., the structure of lexical projections. For Full Transfer/ Full Access, it may be relevant in every stage of L2 acquisition. Basic Variety leaves room for crosslinguistic influence only in the early stages of acquisition. When more options are available, L2 learners seem to take the alternative closest to their LI. Fifth, the question of the driving force has never been explicitly posed within UG-based approaches. This is probably because triggering, parameter setting, and feature strengthening exposure to the target language is regarded as trivial. Development in the Basic Variety approach is caused by intrinsic factors, such as discourse contexts where constraints come into conflict. In such situations, the learner has two possibilities: either to 'override' one of the constraints or develop specific means to accommodate the 'competition'. In addition, another motivation is suggested: the need to solve structural ambiguities. Categorization in terms of syntactic functions such as subject, object, predicate, noun, verb, adjective, etc., solves ambiguity through hierarchical structuring.

scholarly journals Crosslinguistic influence in the acquisition of a third language: The Linguistic Proximity Model

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 666-682 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marit Westergaard ◽  
Natalia Mitrofanova ◽  
Roksolana Mykhaylyk ◽  
Yulia Rodina
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Structural Similarity ◽  
Sole Source ◽  
Judgment Task ◽  
Verb Movement ◽  
Third Language ◽  
Third Language Acquisition ◽  
Generalized Linear Mixed Effects ◽  
Crosslinguistic Influence

Aims and Objectives: The main goal of the present study is to investigate effects of crosslinguistic influence in third language acquisition by simultaneous bilinguals. We address the following research questions: Do both languages contribute to crosslinguistic influence in third language acquisition, or is one of them chosen as the sole source of influence? Is crosslinguistic influence always from the typologically more similar language? Is crosslinguistic influence always facilitative, or can it also be non-facilitative? Methodology: The paper reports on a grammaticality judgment task with two word order conditions, both related to verb movement (verb-second in Norwegian and subject-auxiliary inversion in English). Data and Analysis: An experiment was carried out with three groups of 11-14-year-old participants, Norwegian-Russian bilinguals ( n=22), Norwegian-speaking monolinguals ( n=46), and Russian-speaking monolinguals ( n=31). The data were analyzed using a generalized linear mixed effects logistic regression allowing us to estimate the effects of condition ( Adv-V, Aux-S), language (Norwegian, Norwegian-Russian, Russian) and their interaction on the correctness of judgments. Findings: The analysis reveals that while L1 Norwegian children over-accept ungrammatical sentences in English with a word order that reflects verb movement (V2), bilingual Norwegian-Russian children notice these errors significantly more often, just like L1 Russians. At the same time, the bilinguals score lower than L1 Russian children on grammatical trials, suggesting the presence of non-facilitative influence from Norwegian. Originality: This study argues for the Linguistic Proximity Model, which proposes incremental property-by-property learning and allows for both facilitative and non-facilitative influence from one or both of the previously acquired languages. Significance: The Linguistic Proximity Model and supporting experimental data contribute to existing models in third language acquisition by indicating that not just typological proximity but also structural similarity at an abstract level should be considered an important factor in third language acquisition.

scholarly journals The Crosslinguistic Influence of First and Second Language on Third Language Acquisition

2019 ◽  
pp. 84-94
Author(s):  
Kirsten Lindegaard Helms
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Language Transfer ◽  
Second Languages ◽  
Third Language ◽  
Third Language Acquisition ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Crosslinguistic Influence ◽  
Dominant Influence

This paper explores the crosslinguistic influences of first and second language on third language acquisition. While it has earlier been argued that Universal Grammar is lost with subsequent language acquisition, some studies indicate that Universal Grammar is not lost and is also applied when acquiring other languages. By drawing on two studies of third language acquisition where the third languages are V2, it is shown that when it comes to acquiring a third language, transfer can happen from both the first and second languages. One study showed that both the first and second languages can influence the acquisition of a third language while another argued in favor of the second language being the most dominant influence. On the basis of an examination of different theoretical approaches to language transfer, this paper argues that the Typological Primacy Model provides the most convincing and pragmatic explanation in that language transfer depends on linguistic circumstances.

FACTORS AFFECTING THIRD LANGUAGE ACQUISITION: A CASE OF CHINESE STUDENTS

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Darina Dudkova ◽  
Ksenia Grigorieva ◽  
Marina Lukoyanova ◽  
Nailya Batrova ◽  
Eleonora Chugunova
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Chinese Students ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Third Language ◽  
Third Language Acquisition
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document