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.

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.

Collaborative Pre-Task Planning Processes and Second-Language Task Performance

RELC Journal ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 003368822095322
Author(s):  
Paul Leeming ◽  
Scott Aubrey ◽  
Craig Lambert
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Task Performance ◽  
First Language ◽  
Task Planning ◽  
Japanese University ◽  
Stimulated Recall ◽  
Planning Processes ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Subsequent Task

Task-based language teaching research has investigated the impact of planning on task performance, but little has been reported on the processes that take place while planning is undertaken. This study builds on previous planning research by providing a detailed analysis of four Japanese university learners’ collaborative pre-task planning (two dyads) and their performance on a subsequent second language (L2) oral monologue task that required them to express their opinions on a problem and propose a solution to it. Follow-up interviews incorporating stimulated recall were also conducted to gain insight into learners’ perceptions. Results suggest that the note-taking strategies employed, the interpersonal dynamics of the pairs, the L2 proficiency of the participants, and the language of planning (first language [L1] or L2) resulted in important differences in these learners’ planning processes and subsequent task performances. The results are discussed in terms of how pre-task planning processes might be optimized in teaching and research.

Source(s) of syntactic cross-linguistic influence (CLI): The case of L3 acquisition of English possessives by Mazandarani–Persian bilinguals

2015 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nader Fallah ◽  
Ali Akbar Jabbari ◽  
Ali Mohammad Fazilatfar
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
First Language ◽  
Judgment Task ◽  
Third Language ◽  
The Third ◽  
Grammaticality Judgment ◽  
L3 Acquisition

This study investigates the role of previously acquired linguistic systems, Mazandarani and Persian, in the acquisition of third language (L3) English at the initial stages. The data have been obtained from 31 students (age 13–14 years), testing the placement of attributive possessives in a grammaticality judgment task, an element rearrangement task and an elicited oral imitation task. The participants consist of three groups: The first two groups have Mazandarani as the first language (L1) and Persian as the second language (L2), but differ from each other with respect to the language of communication, Mazandarani and Persian, respectively. The third group has Persian as the L1 and Mazandarani as the L2, with Persian as the language of communication. English and Mazandarani pattern similarly in the target structures. That is to say, possessors precede possessed nouns and possessive adjectives come before nouns. In contrast, in Persian, possessives occur post-nominally. The results of this study reveal that none of the proposals tested (e.g. the L1 Factor, Hermas, 2010, 2014a, 2014b; the L2 Status Factor, Bardel and Falk, 2007; Falk and Bardel, 2011; the Cumulative Enhancement Model (CEM), Flynn et al., 2004; the Typological Proximity Model (TPM), Rothman, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2015) could account for the results obtained. This study provides support that at the initial stages of L3 acquisition, syntactic transfer originates from the language of communication, irrespective of order of acquisition.

Transfer at the initial stages of L3 Brazilian Portuguese: A look at three groups of English/Spanish bilinguals

2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
DAVID GIANCASPRO ◽  
BECKY HALLORAN ◽  
MICHAEL IVERSON
Keyword(s):  
First Language ◽  
Brazilian Portuguese ◽  
Mirror Image ◽  
Linguistic Features ◽  
Third Language ◽  
Heritage Speaker ◽  
L3 Acquisition ◽  
Object Marking ◽  
L1 English ◽  
Spanish Bilinguals

This study examines three formal linguistic acquisition models of third language (L3) acquisition in the context of Brazilian Portuguese (BP), specifically examining Differential Object Marking (DOM). The main goal is to determine which of the models is best able to predict and explain syntactic transfer in three experimental groups: mirror-image groups of first/second language (L1/L2) English/Spanish bilinguals (i) L1 English/L2 Spanish and (ii) L1 Spanish/L2 English, and (iii) heritage Spanish/English bilinguals. The data provide evidence to support the Typological Primacy Model (Rothman, 2010, 2011, 2013), which predicts Spanish transfer irrespective of its status as an L1, L2 or bilingual first language (2L1). Additionally, the heritage speaker and L1 English group results, taken together, provide evidence for Iverson's (2009) claim that comparing such populations adds independent supportive evidence that the acquisition of linguistic features or properties in an L2 acquired past puberty is not subject to a maturational critical period.

scholarly journals A systematic review of transfer studies in third language acquisition

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eloi Puig-Mayenco ◽  
Jorge González Alonso ◽  
Jason Rothman
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
First Language ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
Transfer Data ◽  
Third Language ◽  
Third Language Acquisition ◽  
L3 Acquisition ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Methodological Considerations ◽  
Present Systematic Review

The present systematic review examines what factors determine when, how and to what extent previous linguistic experience (from the first language, second language or both languages) affects the initial stages and beyond of adult third language (L3) acquisition. In doing so, we address what a bird’s eye view of the data tells us regarding competing theoretical accounts of L3 morphosyntactic transfer. Data couple together to suggest that some factors are more influential than others. As discussed, the systematic review transcends the field of adult multilingualism precisely because of what it reveals, as a prima facie example in behavioral research, in terms of how different types of methodological considerations impact the way data are interpreted to support or not particular claims.

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.

scholarly journals A Cross-Linguistic Study of L3 Phonological Acquisition of Stop Contrasts

SAGE Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 215824402098551
Author(s):  
Jiaqi Liu ◽  
Jiayan Lin
Keyword(s):  
First Language ◽  
Target Language ◽  
Phonological Acquisition ◽  
Acoustic Feature ◽  
L2 Reading ◽  
Reading Task ◽  
Third Language ◽  
Phonetic Similarity ◽  
L3 Acquisition ◽  
Initial Stage

The research reported in this article investigated how students learning Japanese or Russian as a third language (L3) perceived and produced word-initial stops in their respective target language and the link between perception and production. The participants in the study were 39 Chinese university students who spoke Mandarin Chinese as their first language (L1), English as their second language (L2), and Japanese or Russian as their L3. An L3 identification task, an L3 reading task, and an L2 reading task were used to investigate the learners’ perception and production of word-initial stops. The results demonstrated that the phonetic similarity in different stop categories between L1, L2, and L3 contributed to learners’ confusion in perception. On the contrary, L3 learners could perceive the new acoustic feature voicing lead, but found it difficult to produce L3 voiced stops. In addition, the study found a positive relationship between the perception and production of voiceless stops in the initial stage of L3 acquisition, but there was no correlation between the perception and production of voiced stops. Pedagogical implications for L3 speech learning are discussed on the basis of the results.

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.

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 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