Chapter published in:
L3 Syntactic Transfer: Models, new developments and implications
Edited by Tanja Angelovska and Angela Hahn
[Bilingual Processing and Acquisition 5] 2017
► pp. 63–84

Testing the current models of third language acquisition

| University of Southampton, University of Iowa
| Universidad del País Vasco (UPV/EHU)
In this chapter, we argue that another factor should be brought into the general picture of third and additional language acquisition: the comprehensible linguistic input. Predictions of current models have been predominantly based on the cognitive-psychological prominence of the three languages (native or not, adult-onset or not, naturalistic or instructed, proficient or not) as well as on the structural linguistic properties to be acquired, which may overlap or contrast. We argue that even keeping these two factors constant, discrepancies in learning outcomes still arise, which have to be explained by the linguistic experience of the learners. We support our arguments with results from two recently published studies, which document diverging developmental paths for two properties that should have been acquired in a similar manner.
Keywords: third language acquisition, cross-linguistic influence, null objects, Topicalization, comprehensible input
Published online: 15 August 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.5.04sla
References

References

Anagnostopoulou, E.
(1997) Clitic left dislocation and contrastive left dislocation. In E. Anagnostopoulou, H. van Riemsdijk, & F. Zwarts (Eds.), Materials on left dislocation (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 14) (pp. 151–192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bardel, C. & Falk, Y.
(2007) The role of the second language in third language acquisition: The case of Germanic syntax. Second Language Research, 23(4), 459–484. Crossref.Google Scholar
Barnes, J. D.
(2006) Early trilingualism. A focus on questions. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Benincà, P., & Munaro, N.
(Eds.) (2010) Mapping the left periphery. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Birner, B. J.
(2013) Introduction to pragmatics. Oxford: Willey-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Birner, B. J., & G. Ward
(1998) Information status and noncanonical word order in English (Studies in Language Companion Series 40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Büring, D.
(1999) Topic. In P. Bosch & R. van der Sand (Eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive and computational perspectives (pp. 142–165). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Campos, H.
(1986) Indefinite object drop. Linguistic Inquiry, 17(2), 354–359.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1972) Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In Studies on semantics in generative grammar (pp. 69–119). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Clements, J. C.
(1994) Notes on topicalization and object drop in Spanish. In M. Mazzola (Ed.), Issues and theory in Romance linguistics: Selected papers from the XXIII symposium on Romance languages (pp. 219–237). Washington, DC: Georgetown University PressGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G.
(1990) Types of A-bar dependencies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Duguine, M.
(2008) Silent arguments without pro. In T. Biberauer (Ed.) The limits of syntactic variation (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 132) (p. 311–329). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, S. D., Flynn, S. & Martohardjono, G.
(1996) Second language acquisition: Theoretical and experimental is-sues in contemporary research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 677–758. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eubank, L.
(1996) Negation in early German-English interlanguage: More valueless features in the L2 initial state. Second Language Research, 12, 73–106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Falk, Y., & Bardel, C.
(2011) Object pronouns in German L3 syntax: Evidence for the L2 status factor. Second Language Research, 27, 59–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, S., Foley, C., & Vinnitskaya, I.
(2004) The cumulative enhancement model for language acquisition: Comparing adults’ and children’s patterns of development in first, second and third language acquisition. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1, 3–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Rothman, J.
(2012) L3 morphosyntax in the generative tradition: The initial stages and beyond. In J. Cabrelli Amaro, S. Flynn & J. Rothman (eds.), Third language acquisition in adulthood (Studies in Bilingualism 46) (pp. 9–32). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Slabakova, R.
(2015) Object drop in L3 English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19(5), 483–498. Crossref.Google Scholar
Hermas, A.
(2015) The categorization of the relative complementizer phrase in third-language English: A feature re-assembly account. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19(5), 587–607. Crossref.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R.
(1986) Presupposition, theme and variations. In A. M. Farley, P. T. Farley, & K.-E. McCullough (Eds.), Proceedings of Chicago Linguistics Society, (Vol. 22; pp. 168–192). Chicago, IL: CLS.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S.
(1972) Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Landa, A.
(2008) De la presión psicolingüística a la convergencia estructural. Oihenar, 23, 349–370.Google Scholar
Leal Méndez, T., Rothman, J., & Slabakova, R.
(2015) Discourse-sensitive clitic-doubled dislocations in heritage Spanish. Lingua, 155, 85–97. Crossref.Google Scholar
Na Ranong, S., & Leung, Y-k. I.
(2009) Null objects in L1 Thai-L2 English-L3 Chinese: An empiricist take on a theoretical problem. In Y. I. Leung (Ed.), Third language acquisition and Universal Grammar (pp. 162–191). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F.
(1984) Topicalization and left-dislocation: A functional analysis. In S. White & V. Teller (Eds.), Discourses in reading and linguistics (pp. 213–225). New York, NY: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T.
(1981) Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica, 27(1), 53–93.Google Scholar
Rothman, J.
(2010) On the typological economy of syntactic transfer: Word order and relative clause attachment preference in L3 Brazilian Portuguese. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 48(2–3), 245–273. Crossref.Google Scholar
(2011) L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: The Typological Primacy Model. Second Language Research, 27(1), 107–127. Crossref.Google Scholar
(2015) Linguistic and cognitive motivation for the Typological Primacy Model of third language (L3) transfer: Considering the role of timing of acquisition and proficiency in the previous languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(2), 179–190. Crossref.Google Scholar
Rothman, J., Cabrelli Amaro, J., & de Bot, K.
(2013) Third language (L3) acquisition. In J. Herschensohn & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 372–393). Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & R. Sprouse
(1996) L2 Cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access Hypothesis. Second Language Research, 12(1), 40–72. Crossref.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R.
(2015) The effect of construction frequency and native transfer on L2 knowledge of the syntax-discourse interface. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(3), 671–699. Crossref.Google Scholar
(2016) The scalpel model of third language acquisition. International Journal of Bilingualism. Crossref.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R., & García Mayo, M. P.
(2015) The L3 syntax-discourse interface. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(2), 208–226. Crossref.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A., & M. Young-Scholten
(1996) Gradual development of L2 phrase structure. Second Language Research, 12(1), 7–39. Crossref.Google Scholar
Vallduví, E.
(1992) The informational component. New York, NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Ward, G.
(1988) The semantics and pragmatics of preposing. New York, NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Ward, G., & Birner, B. J.
(2005) Information structure and non-canonical syntax. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 153–174). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Westergaard, M., Mitrofanova, N., Mykhaylyk, R., & Rodina, Y.
(2016) Crosslinguistic influence in the acquisition of a third language: The Linguistic Proximity Model. International Journal of Bilingualism, 1367006916648859. Crossref.Google Scholar
White, L.
(1989) Universal Grammar and second language acquisition (Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 1). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L.
(1998) Prosody, focus, and word order. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Angelovska, Tanja
2017.  In L3 Syntactic Transfer [Bilingual Processing and Acquisition, 5], ► pp. 195 ff. Crossref logo
Angelovska, Tanja & Angela Hahn
2017.  In L3 Syntactic Transfer [Bilingual Processing and Acquisition, 5], ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Foryś-Nogala, Małgorzata, Olga Broniś, Marcin Opacki & Agnieszka Otwinowska
2020. Cross-linguistic influences, language proficiency and metalinguistic knowledge in L3 Italian subject placement. International Journal of Multilingualism ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Imaz Agirre, Ainara & María del Pilar García Mayo
2018.  In Meaning and Structure in Second Language Acquisition [Studies in Bilingualism, 55], ► pp. 203 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 december 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.