English-Spanish bilingual learners of Portuguese as a third language: non-redundant acquisition and its typological nature

This chapter has two goals: (a) to discuss the Spanish-Portuguese interface in current formal language acquisition research and (b) to highlight the contributions of this language pairing in the emerging field of formal third language acquisition. The authors discuss two L3 acquisition studies (Montrul, Dias, & Santos, 2011; Giancaspro, Halloran, & Iverson, in press) examining Differential Object Marking, a morphological case marker present in Spanish but not in Portuguese, arguing that the results show how data from Spanish-English bilinguals learning Brazilian Portuguese as an L3 illuminate the deterministic role of structural and typological similarity in linguistic transfer. The data provide supportive evidence for only one of three existing L3 transfer models: the Typological Proximity Model (Rothman, 2010, 2011, 2013).

Grammatical collocations and verb-particle constructions in Brussels French: a corpus-linguistic approach to transfer

In this study the focus is on transfer in Brussels French, the variety of French spoken in Brussels. The methodology proposed in Jarvis (2000) and Jarvis and Pavlenko (2009) is followed to provide proof for the fact that grammatical collocations such as chercher après "to look for" are the result of contact with the source language, Brussels Dutch.

Formal linguistic approaches to L3/Ln acquisition: a focus on morphosyntactic transfer in adult multilingualism

The goal of this article is to introduce the reader to contemporary adult multilingual acquisition research within generative linguistics. In much the same way as monolingual and bilingual acquisition studies are approached within this paradigm, generative multilingual research focuses primarily on the psycholinguistic and cognitive aspects of the acquisition process. Herein, we critically present a panoramic view of the research questions and empirical work that have dominated this nascent field, taking the reader through several interrelated epistemological discussions that are at the vanguard of contemporary multilingual morphosyntax work. We finish this article with some thoughts looking towards the near future of adult multilingual acquisition studies.

Linguistic and cognitive motivations for the typological primacy model of third language (L3) transfer: considering the role of timing of acquisition and proficiency in the previous languages

This article elucidates the Typological Primacy Model (TPM; Rothman, 2010, 2011, 2013) for the initial stages of adult third language (L3) morphosyntactic transfer, addressing questions that stem from the model and its application. The TPM maintains that structural proximity between the L3 and the L1 and/or the L2 determines L3 transfer. In addition to demonstrating empirical support for the TPM, this article articulates a proposal for how the mind unconsciously determines typological (structural) proximity based on linguistic cues from the L3 input stream used by the parser early on to determine holistic transfer of one previous (the L1 or the L2) system. This articulated version of the TPM is motivated by argumentation appealing to cognitive and linguistic factors. Finally, in line with the general tenets of the TPM, I ponder if and why L3 transfer might obtain differently depending on the type of bilingual (e.g. early vs. late) and proficiency level of bilingualism involved in the L3 process.

Linguistic and cognitive motivations for the typological primacy model of third language (L3) transfer: timing of acquisition and proficiency considered

This article elucidates the Typological Primacy Model (TPM; Rothman, 2010, 2011, 2013) for the initial stages of adult third language (L3) morphosyntactic transfer, addressing questions that stem from the model and its application. The TPM maintains that structural proximity between the L3 and the L1 and/or the L2 determines L3 transfer. In addition to demonstrating empirical support for the TPM, this article articulates a proposal for how the mind unconsciously determines typological (structural) proximity based on linguistic cues from the L3 input stream used by the parser early on to determine holistic transfer of one previous (the L1 or the L2) system. This articulated version of the TPM is motivated by argumentation appealing to cognitive and linguistic factors. Finally, in line with the general tenets of the TPM, I ponder if and why L3 transfer might obtain differently depending on the type of bilingual (e.g. early vs. late) and proficiency level of bilingualism involved in the L3 process.

Code-switching and transfer: an exploration of similarities and differences

This handbook article gives an historical overview of the development of research into code-switching and discusses its relationship to other language contact phenomena.

Chercher pour or chercher après: arguing the case for contact-induced linguistic innovation in different varieties of French

This paper provides evidence for the claim made in Baetens Beardsmore (1971) that the grammatical collocation "chercher après" «to look for», which is very frequent in Brussels French, is the result of transfer from the contact language, Brussels Dutch. A detailed quantitative analysis of this construction in different varieties of French which have more or less contact with a Germanic language was made to investigate the likelihood of influence from the Germanic substrate. The differences between the meaning of "chercher" and "chercher après" are also analysed in some depth, to find out whether or not the particle is redundant. According to Trudgill (2004) redundant constructions are more often found in contact situations involving long-term, stable contact and child bilingualism. The particle "après" was found to add a particular shade of meaning to "chercher", and is thus not redundant. Therefore no evidence could be obtained from the current data for Trudgill’s (2004) claim.

Thinking for speaking and linguistic relativity among bilinguals: towards a new research agenda

This article evaluates how the different papers in this special issue fill a gap in our understanding of cognitive processes that are being activated when second language learners or bilinguals prepare to speak. All papers are framed in Slobin’s (1987) Thinking for Speaking theory, and aim to test whether the conceptualisation patterns that were learned in early childhood can be relearned or restructured in L2 acquisition. In many papers the focus is on identifying constraints on this restructuring process. Among these constraints, the role of typological differences between languages is investigated in great depth. The studies involve different types of learners, language combinations and tasks. As all informants were given verbal rather than non-verbal tasks, the focus is here on the effects of conceptual transfer from one language on another, and not on the effects of language on non-linguistic cognition. The paper also sketches different avenues for further research in this field and proposes that researchers working in this field might want to take up the challenge of investigating whether speakers of different languages perceive motion outside explicitly verbal contexts differently, as this will enable us to gain an understanding of linguistic relativity effects in this domain. Studying which teaching methods can help learners to restructure their conceptualisation patterns may also shed new light on the aspects of discourse organization and motion event construal that are most difficult for learners.

L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: the typological primacy model

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.

On the typological economy of syntactic transfer: word order and relative clause high/low attachment preference in L3 Brazilian Portuguese

One central question in the formal linguistic study of adult multilingual morphosyntax (i.e., L3/Ln acquisition) involves determining the role(s) the L1 and/or the L2 play(s) at the L3 initial state (e.g., Bardel & Falk, Second Language Research 23: 459–484, 2007; Falk & Bardel, Second Language Research: forthcoming; Flynn et al., The International Journal of Multilingualism 8: 3–16, 2004; Rothman, Second Language Research: forthcoming; Rothman & Cabrelli, On the initial state of L3 (Ln) acquisition: Selective or absolute transfer?: 2007; Rothman & Cabrelli Amaro, Second Language Research 26: 219–289, 2010). The present article adds to this general program, testing Rothman's (Second Language Research: forthcoming) model for L3 initial state transfer, which when relevant in light of specific language pairings, maintains that typological proximity between the languages is the most deterministic variable determining the selection of syntactic transfer. Herein, I present empirical evidence from the later part of the beginning stages of L3 Brazilian Portuguese (BP) by native speakers of English and Spanish, who have attained an advanced level of proficiency in either English or Spanish as an L2. Examining the related domains of syntactic word order and relative clause attachment preference in L3 BP, the data clearly indicate that Spanish is transferred for both experimental groups irrespective of whether it was the L1 or L2. These results are expected by Rothman's (Second Language Research: forthcoming) model, but not necessarily predicted by other current hypotheses of multilingual syntactic transfer; the implications of this are discussed.

What variables condition syntactic transfer? A look at the L3 initial state

This study investigates transfer at the third-language (L3) initial state, testing between the following possibilities: (1) the first language (L1) transfer hypothesis (an L1 effect for all adult acquisition), (2) the second language (L2) transfer hypothesis, where the L2 blocks L1 transfer (often referred to in the recent literature as the ‘L2 status factor’; Williams and Hammarberg, 1998), and (3) the Cumulative Enhancement Model (Flynn et al., 2004), which proposes selective transfer from all previous linguistic knowledge. We provide data from successful English-speaking learners of L2 Spanish at the initial state of acquiring L3 French and L3 Italian relating to properties of the Null-Subject Parameter (e.g. Chomsky, 1981; Rizzi, 1982). We compare these groups to each other, as well as to groups of English learners of L2 French and L2 Italian at the initial state, and conclude that the data are consistent with the predictions of the ‘L2 status factor’. However, we discuss an alternative possible interpretation based on (psycho)typologically-motivated transfer (borrowing from Kellerman, 1983), providing a methodology for future research in this domain to meaningfully tease apart the ‘L2 status factor’ from this alternative account.

The relationship between L3 transfer and structural similarity across L3 development: raising across an experience in Brazilian Portuguese

The present study examines three competing models of morphosyntactic transfer in third language (L3) acquisition, examining the particular domain of the feature configuration of embedded T in L3 Brazilian Portuguese (BP) at the initial stages and then through development. The methodology alternates Spanish and English as the L1 and L2 to tease apart the source of transfer to L3 BP. Results from a scalar grammaticality acceptability task show unequivocal transfer of Spanish irrespective of Spanish’s status as an L1 or L2. The data thus support the Typological Primacy Model (Rothman 2010, 2011, 2013a, 2013b), which proposes that multilingual transfer is selected by factors related to comparative structural similarity. Given that Spanish transfer at the L3 initial stages creates the need for feature reconfiguration to converge on the target BP grammar, the second part of this chapter examines the developmental consequences of what the TPM models in cases of non-facilitative initial transfer, that is, the developmental path of feature reconfiguration of embedded T in L3 BP by English/Spanish bilinguals. Given what these data reveal, we address the role of regressive transfer as a correlate of L3 proficiency gains.

Coming of age in L3 initial stages transfer models: deriving developmental predictions and looking towards the future

Aims: Over the past decade in particular, formal linguistic work within L3 acquisition has concentrated on hypothesizing and empirically determining the source of transfer from previous languages—L1, L2 or both—in L3 grammatical representations. In view of the progressive concern with more advanced stages, we aim to show that focusing on L3 initial stages should be one continued priority of the field, even—or especially—if the field is ready to shift towards modeling L3 development and ultimate attainment. Approach: We argue that L3 learnability is significantly impacted by initial stages transfer, as such forms the basis of the initial L3 interlanguage. To illustrate our point, the insights from studies using initial and intermediary stages L3 data are discussed in light of developmental predictions that derive from the initial stages models. Conclusions: Despite a shared desire to understand the process of L3 acquisition in whole, inclusive of offering developmental L3 theories, we argue that the field does not yet have—although is ever closer to—the data basis needed to effectively do so. Originality: This article seeks to convince the readership for the need of conservatism in L3 acquisition theory building, whereby offering a framework on how and why we can most effectively build on the accumulated knowledge of the L3 initial stages in order to make significant, steady progress. Significance: The arguments exposed here are meant to provide an epistemological base for a tenable framework of formal approaches to L3 interlanguage development and, eventually, ultimate attainment.