1887
Volume 8, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1879-9264
  • E-ISSN: 1879-9272
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lab.16003.fal
2016-10-12
2019-10-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bardel, C. , & Falk, Y.
    (2007) The role of the second language in third language acquisition: The case of Germanic syntax. Second Language Research, 23, 459–484. doi: 10.1177/0267658307080557
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658307080557 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bialystok, E.
    (2005) Consequences of bilingualism for cognitive development. In J.F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds), Handbook of bilingualism (pp.417–432). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Cabrelli Amaro, J. , Amaro J. F. , & Rothman, J.
    (2015) The relationship between L3 transfer and structural similarity across development: Raising across an experiencer in Brazilian Portuguese. In H. Peukert (Ed), Transfer effects in multilingual language development (pp.21–52). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Cinque, G.
    (1995) Italian syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Dabir-Moghaddam, M.
    (2006) Internal and external forces in typology: Evidence from Iranian languages. Journal of Universal Language, 7, 29–47.10.22425/jul.2006.7.1.29
    https://doi.org/10.22425/jul.2006.7.1.29 [Google Scholar]
  6. Dopke, S.
    (1992) One parent one language: An interactional approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sibil.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.3 [Google Scholar]
  7. Falk, Y. , & Bardel, C.
    (2011) Object pronouns in German L3 syntax: Evidence for the L2 status factor. Second Language Research, 27, 59–82. doi: 10.1177/0267658310386647
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658310386647 [Google Scholar]
  8. Fallah, N. , Jabbari, A. A , & Fazilatfar, A. M.
    (2016) Source(s) of syntactic CLI: The case of L3 acquisition of English possessives by Mazanderani-Persian bilinguals. Second Language Research, 32, 225–245. doi: 10.1177/0267658315618009
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658315618009 [Google Scholar]
  9. 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 of relative clauses. The International Journal of Multilingualism, 1, 3–16. doi: 10.1080/14790710408668175
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14790710408668175 [Google Scholar]
  10. Ghomeshi, J.
    (1997) Non-projecting nouns and the Ezafe construction in Persian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 15, 729–788. doi: 10.1023/A:1005886709040
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005886709040 [Google Scholar]
  11. Giancaspro. D. , Halloran, B. , & Iverson, M.
    (2015) Examining L3 transfer: The acquisition of differential object marking in L3 Brazilian Portuguese. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18, 191–207. doi: 10.1017/S1366728914000339
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728914000339 [Google Scholar]
  12. Green, D. W.
    (1998) Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 67–81. doi: 10.1017/S1366728998000133
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728998000133 [Google Scholar]
  13. Grosjean, F.
    (1982) Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hawkins, R. , & Chan, Y-HC.
    (1997) The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The ‘failed functional features hypothesis’. Second Language Research, 13, 187–226. doi: 10.1191/026765897671476153
    https://doi.org/10.1191/026765897671476153 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hermas, A.
    (2010) Language acquisition as computational resetting: Verb movement in L3 initial state. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7, 343–362. doi: 10.1080/14790718.2010.487941
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2010.487941 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2014a) Multilingual transfer: L1 morphosyntax in L3 English. International Journal of Language Studies, 8, 1–24.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (2014b) Restrictive relatives in L3 English: L1 transfer and ultimate attainment convergence. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 34, 361–387. doi: 10.1080/07268602.2014.898227
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2014.898227 [Google Scholar]
  18. Iverson, M.
    (2009) N-drop at the initial state of L3 Portuguese: Comparing simultaneous and additive bilinguals of English/Spanish. In A. Pires & J. Rothman (Eds.), Minimalist inquiries into child and adult language acquisition: Case studies across Portuguese (pp.221–244). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  19. Kayne, R.
    (1994) The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Kellerman, E.
    (1983) Now you see it, now you don’t. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp.112–134). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Klausen, T. , Subritzky, M. , & Hayashi, M.
    (1993) Initial production of inflections in bilingual children. In D. J. Messer , & G. J. Turner (Eds.), Critical influences on child language acquisition and development (pp.65–92). New York: St Martin’s Press. doi: 10.1007/978‑1‑349‑22608‑5_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-22608-5_4 [Google Scholar]
  22. Larson, R. K.
    (2009) Chinese as a reverse ezafe language. Yuyaxue Luncong (Journal of Linguistics), 39, 30–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Lozano, C.
    (2003) Focus pronouns and word order in the acquisition of L2 and L3 Spanish. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Essex, England.
  24. Moinzadeh, A.
    (2006) The Ezafe phrase in Persian: How complements are added to N°s and A°s?Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities of Shiraz University, 23, 45–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Na Ranong, S. , & Leung, Y- K.
    (2009) Null objects in L1 Thai-L2 English-L3 Chinese: An empirical take on a theoretical problem. In Y-K. Leung (Ed.), Third language acquisition and universal grammar (pp.162–191). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Paradis, M.
    (2004) A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sibil.18
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.18 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2007) L1 attrition features predicted by a neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. In B. Köpke , M. S. Schmid , M. Keijzer , & S. Dostert (Eds.), Language attrition: Theoretical perspectives (pp.121–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sibil.33.09par
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.33.09par [Google Scholar]
  28. Radford, A.
    (1997) Syntactic theory and the structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139166706
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166706 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2004) Minimalist syntax: Exploring the structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511811319
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811319 [Google Scholar]
  30. Rothman, J.
    (2010) On the typological economy of syntactic transfer: Word order and relative clause high/low attachment preference in L3 Brazilian Portuguese. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Teaching (IRAL), 48, 245–273.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (2011) L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: The Typological Primacy Model. Second Language Research, 27, 107–127. doi: 10.1177/0267658310386439
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658310386439 [Google Scholar]
  32. (2013) Cognitive economy, non-redundancy and typological primacy in L3 acquisition: Evidence from initial stages of L3 Romance. In S. Baauw , F. Dirjkoningen , & M. Pinto (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory (pp.217–247). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. (2015) Linguistic and cognitive motivations for the Typological Primacy Model (TPM) of third language (L3) transfer: Timing of acquisition and proficiency considered. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18, 1–12. doi: 10.1017/S136672891300059X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891300059X [Google Scholar]
  34. Rothman, J. , & Cabrelli Amaro, J.
    (2010) What variables condition syntactic transfer? A look at the L3 initial state. Second Language Research, 26, 189–218. doi: 10.1177/0267658309349410
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658309349410 [Google Scholar]
  35. Rothman, J. , & Halloran, B.
    (2013) Formal linguistic approaches to L3/Ln acquisition: A focus on morphosyntactic transfer in adult multilingualism. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 51–67. doi: 10.1017/S0267190513000032
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190513000032 [Google Scholar]
  36. Rothman, J. , & Iverson, M.
    (2013) Strong islands and null objects in L2 Spanish of Brazilian Portuguese natives: Do you know the learners who drop___?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(4), 589–618. doi: 10.1017/S0272263113000387
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263113000387 [Google Scholar]
  37. Samiian, V.
    (1983) Structure of phrasal categories in Persian: An X-Bar analysis. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). UCLA, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Schlyter, S.
    (1993) The weaker language in bilingual Swedish-French children. In K. Hyltenstam & A. Viberg (Eds.), Progression and regression in language (pp.289–308). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Treffers-Daller, J.
    (2011) Operationalizing and measuring language dominance. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15(2), 147–163. doi: 10.1177/1367006910381186
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006910381186 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lab.16003.fal
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.16003.fal
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): CLI , the CEM , The L1 Factor , the TPM and third language acquisition
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error