Cross-linguistic influence in unbalanced bilingual heritage speakers on subsequent language acquisition: Evidence from pronominal object placement in ditransitive clauses

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 1410-1430
Author(s):  
Eliane Lorenz ◽  
Richard J Bonnie ◽  
Kathrin Feindt ◽  
Sharareh Rahbari ◽  
Peter Siemund

Aims and objectives: The main objective of this study is to find evidence for the Linguistic Proximity Model, which allows for facilitative and non-facilitative cross-linguistic influence (CLI) from all previously known languages in third language (L3) acquisition. We target CLI in L3 English based on bilingual heritage speakers (Russian-German and Turkish-German) in comparison with second language acquisition of monolingual German speakers. Methodology: We examine the outcome of an English word order test. The participants produced sentences based on randomly ordered words. The focus of this study is the placement of direct and indirect pronominal objects with varying ditransitive verbs. Data analysis: 195 students in school years 7 and 9, separated into three language groups, participated in the study: German monolinguals ( nG7 = 47; nG9 = 64), Russian-German bilinguals ( nR7 = 19; nR9 = 30) and Turkish-German bilinguals ( nT7 = 19; nT9 = 16). The placement of pronominal objects in the sentence task is compared to results from equivalent word order tests in English, German, Russian and Turkish that were repeated with native speakers. Findings: We find some support for the Linguistic Proximity Model because the outcome shows that facilitative and non-facilitative CLI is possible from both the heritage language and the majority language. Determining factors are the background languages, the age of the participants and frequency. However, the majority language, German, displays the strongest influence of both background languages due to its dominant status. Originality: This study provides further support for the Linguistic Proximity Model, by using a sentence completion task with unbalanced bilingual heritage speakers. Significance/implications: We provide evidence for showing that both facilitative and non-facilitative influence from all previously known languages of bilingual heritage speakers is possible and verifiable. We therefore add to the field of L3 acquisition and the discussion about current models of CLI.

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 567-583 ◽  
Author(s):  
Holger Hopp

Aims and Objectives/Purpose/Research Questions: This paper investigates the extent to which current formal models of third language (L3) grammatical acquisition extend to sequential child L3 acquisition. We examine whether heritage speakers learning a foreign language as an early L3 transfer grammatical properties from the heritage language or the dominant second language (L2). Design/Methodology/Approach: We used a sentence repetition task and a picture story retelling task. The tasks focussed on grammatical phenomena that were either different between English and German, that is, verb-second and adverb order, or between English and German, on the one hand, and Turkish, on the other, that is, verb-complement order as well as subject and article realization. Data and Analysis: We tested matched groups of 31 Turkish-German and 31 monolingual German children learning English in grades 3 and 4, and we compared sentence repetitions as well as oral sentence production across different grammatical phenomena using parametric statistics. Findings/Conclusions: In both tasks, the two groups perform indistinguishably from each other, and both groups show selective transfer of grammatical properties from German. These findings suggest L2 transfer from a typologically related language in sequential child L3 acquisition. Originality: This paper breaks new ground by testing the applicability of formal models of adult L3 acquisition of grammar to sequential child L3 learners. It uses aural comprehension and oral production tasks with carefully matched groups of L2 and L3 learners of English to isolate the source of grammatical transfer in L3 acquisition. Significance/Implications: The research advances our understanding of cross-linguistic influence and unravels the dynamics of grammatical transfer in early child multilingualism. It adjudicates between current models of transfer in L3 acquisition in a multiple-methods design, it shows that these models apply to early L3 acquisition of heritage speakers, and it highlights that these models need to be expanded to include factors such as dominance and proficiency in prior languages.


2010 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Rothman ◽  
Michael Iverson ◽  
Tiffany Judy

This article serves as a state-of the-science review of the blossoming field of generative third language (L3) acquisition as well as an introduction to this special issue on the same topic. We present and argue for the relevance of adult L3/L n acquisition for many perennial questions that have sat at the core of linguistic approaches to adult language acquisition since the Principles and Parameters framework was first adopted into second language acquisition (SLA; e.g. Flynn, 1985, 1987; Liceras, 1985; White, 1985a, 1985b; Schwartz, 1986). Furthermore, we highlight the unique, specific questions that have emerged from studying L3/L n from a generative perspective thus far while suggesting refinements to these questions and additional ones that should emerge in future inquiry.


Languages ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 45
Author(s):  
Adriana Picoral ◽  
Ana Maria Carvalho

This paper sheds light on the paths of third language (L3) acquisition of Portuguese by Spanish–English speakers whose first language is Spanish (L1 Spanish), English (L1 English), or both in the case of heritage speakers of Spanish (HL). Specifically, it looks at the gradual acquisition of a categorical rule in Portuguese, where some prepositions are invariably contracted with the determiner that follows them. Based on a corpus of 1910 written assignments by Portuguese L3 learners, we extracted 21,879 tokens in obligatory contraction contexts and submitted them to a multivariate analysis. This analysis allowed for the investigation of the impact of linguistic (type of preposition and definite article number and gender) and extra-linguistic factors (course level and learner’s language background), with logistic regression modeling with sum contrasts and individual as a random effect. While results point to some clear similarities across the three language groups—all learners acquired the contractions in a u-shaped progression and used more contractions with the a preposition and fewer with the por preposition—participants acquire contractions at a higher rate when the article is singular than when it is plural, and in the case of HL speakers, more so when the article is masculine than when it is feminine. These results confirm the facilitatory role of a previously acquired language (i.e., Spanish) that is typologically similar to the target language (i.e., Portuguese) in transfer patterns during L3 acquisition.


2007 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yan-kit Ingrid Leung

The present article reviews three collections of papers edited by Cenoz and colleagues on the topic of third language (L3) acquisition from perspectives including psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics and education. Our focus is on psycholinguistics, in particular, lexical acquisition studies, and with particular reference to two central notions in the study of L3, namely, language-selectiveness and cross-linguistic influence. The article also discusses expansion of the study of L3 acquisition into the Universal Grammar/Second Language Acquisition (UG/SLA) paradigm, and closes by looking at future directions for the L3 field.


2016 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristina Sanz ◽  
Jessica G. Cox

Multilingualism is now seen as the norm rather than the exception in an age of migration and supranational entities, and where minority language rights and the consequent educational policies have become more common. The field of applied linguistics reflects that transition: second language acquisition (sla) research is slowly being replaced by research on multilingualism, which includes third language (L3) acquisition. Indeed, there is a growing list of studies that are ‘normalizing’ third language acquisition by studying bilinguals learning a new language but not considering bilingualism a variable (e.g. Stafford, Sanz & Bowden 2012; Lado et al. 2014; Pérez-Vidal 2014; Cox & Sanz 2015). In this modern global context, researchers have produced empirical research on L3 acquisition that can be divided into three main categories depending on its focus: (a) classroom studies conducted in bilingual communities and schools with students learning a third language as part of the school curriculum (Cenoz 2013); (b) research on cross-linguistic influence investigating sources of transfer from L1 or L2 into the L3 (e.g. Sanz, Park & Lado 2014) and other possible directions for transfer (González Alonso et al. 2016); and (c) laboratory research – that is, studies outside of classroom or immersion contexts, in which dependent and independent variables can be tightly controlled by the researcher – conducted within a cognitive approach, the focus of this timeline. Despite its potential diminished ecological validity, this last strand is characterized by the robustness of its design and its improved overall validity, and by the manipulation of external conditions and the measurement of internal variables related to cognition.


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.


Paramasastra ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdul Kholiq

Cross language influence in third language (L3) acquisition is related to the first (L1) and second language (L2) acquisition. Cross-language influence in third language acquisition studies can be analyzed from the first and second language role in the third language acquisition. Each acquisition Indonesian language as L3 is always English as L2 so that the role of English in acquiring Indonesian as B3 be worth studying. It is a qualitative approach based research. This study focuses on (1) the role of English of articulation and (2) the role of English as the provider acquiring vocabulary in Indonesian as L3. Data used in this research is the conversation conducted by the researcher and research subject; and sentence production based on picture by the research subject. Data analysis result finds 1) the role of English as an addition to the mastery of the sound that is not owned B1 of pemeroleh Indonesian as L3 and English influence language sounds in pronunciation Indonesian, and 2) The role of English as a provider of vocabulary in language acquisition Indonesia as B3 is as a language bridge in language acquisition Indonesia if the Indonesian pemeroleh not master words in Indonesian. 


2010 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Jaensch

Studies testing the knowledge of syntactic properties have resulted in two potentially contrasting proposals in relation to third language acquisition (TLA); the Cumulative Enhancement Model (Flynn et al., 2004), which proposes that previously learned languages will positively affect the acquisition of a third language (L3); and the ‘second language (L2) status factor’ hypothesis (Bardel and Falk, 2007), which proposes that the primacy of the L2 can block the potential positive effects that may be transferable from the first language (L1). This article attempts to extend these hypotheses to the domain of morphosyntax, in relation to the TLA of the properties of grammatical number and gender concord marking on German attributive adjectives; these properties not present in the L1 of Japanese, or the L2 of English. Two further factors are of interest in the current study; first, the performance of the learners according to their L3 and their L2 proficiency levels, a variable not discussed in the above-mentioned studies; and, second, the role that the type of task has on the performance of these learners. Three groups of Japanese native speakers (matched for proficiency within each German group), but with differing English proficiencies, completed a carefully balanced gap-filling task, together with two oral elicitation tasks in the form of games; both of these elicited tokens of adjectival inflection. Initial results offer partial support for weaker versions of the two hypotheses mentioned above. However, neither of the L3 models tested can fully account for the results obtained, which are more consistent with a feature-based account of the organization of grammar in the domain of morphosyntax, such as that of Distributed Morphology (DM) (Halle and Marantz, 1993). DM is a model for language acquisition which — coupled with a view that the Subset Principle proposed by this account is not observed by non-primary language learners — has recently been proposed to explain the optionality observed in L2 learners’ production (Hawkins et al., 2006). The data presented here suggest that it could be extended to L3 learners’ production.


2020 ◽  
pp. 026765832097583
Author(s):  
Bonnie D Schwartz ◽  
Rex A Sprouse

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’.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document