Cover not available
Part of
L3 Syntactic Transfer: Models, new developments and implications
Edited by Tanja Angelovska and Angela Hahn
[Bilingual Processing and Acquisition 5] 2017
► pp. 103–124

Chapter 5
Transfer or no transfer; that is the question

The role of the L1 & L2 in L3 acquisition

Over the past two decades, various theories have been put forward regarding the role of cross-linguistic influence (CLI) in third language (L3) acquisition. This study aims to test the validity of these hypotheses by investigating the syntactic development from a processing perspective. It examines two different learner groups, the first group consists of English L3 learners with Turkish as their L1 and German as their L2 and the second group consists of English L2 learners with German as their L1. In line with the DMTH, it is predicted that the learners will transfer features from their L1 or their L2 to English, only when they are developmentally ready to acquire the features to be transferred, but not before that.
Keywords: L3 acquisition, L2 acquisition, syntax, cross-linguistic influence, Turkish, German, English
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Literature review
    • L2 Transfer
    • L1 Transfer
    • L1 & L2 transfer (Mixed Transfer Theories)
    • Summary
    • The Developmentally Moderated Transfer Hypothesis
  • The study
    • Research questions
    • Data
    • Data analysis
  • Results and discussion
    • Comparison between English L3 and L2 acquisition from a processability perspective
    • CLI in English L3 acquisition
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 15 August 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.5.06wir
References (24)
References
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), 459–84. DOI logo.Google Scholar
(2012). What’s behind the L2 status factor? A neurolinguistic framework for L3 research. In J. Cabrelli Amaro, S. Flynn, & J. Rothman (Eds.), Third language acquisition in adulthood (Studies in Bilingualism 46) (pp. 61–78). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bohnacker, U. (2006). When Swedes begin to learn German: From V2 to V2. Second Language Research, 22(4), 1–44. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Dentler, S. (2000). Deutsch und Englisch – das gibt immer Krieg! In S. Dentler, B. Hufeisen, & B. Lindemann (Eds.), Tertiär- und Drittsprachen: Projekte und empirische Untersuchungen (pp. 77–97). Stauffenburg: Tübingen.Google Scholar
Falk, Y., Lindqvist, C., & Bardel, C. (2015). The role of L1 explicit metalinguistic knowledge in L3 oral production at the initial state. Bilingualism,18(2), 227–235. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Flynn, S., Foley, C., & Vinnitskaya, I. (2004). The Cummulative Enhancement Model for language acquisition: Comparing adults’ and children’s patterns of development in first, second and third language acquisition of relative clauses. Journal of Multilingualism, 1(1), 3–16. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Haberzettl, S. (2005). Der Erwerb der Verbstellung in der Zweitsprache Deutsch durch Kinder mit typologisch verschiedenen Muttersprachen: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Theorien zum Syntaxerwerb anhand von vier Fallstudien. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Håkansson, G., Pienemann, M., & Sayehli, S. (2002). Transfer and typological proximity in the context of second language processing. Second Language Research, 18(3), 250–273. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Kawaguchi, S. (2005). Argument structure and syntactic development in Japanese as a second language. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (Studies in Bilingualism 30J) (pp. 253–298). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kjär, U. (2000). Deutsch als L3. Zur Interimsprache schwedischer Deutschlerner (unter Berücksichtigung des Einflusses des Englischen als L2). In S. Dentler, B. Hufeisen, & B. Lindemann (Eds.), Tertiär- und Drittsprachen. Projekte und empirische Untersuchungen (pp. 41–56). Stauffenburg: Tübingen.Google Scholar
Lenzing, A. (2006). Lehrwerke für den frühen Fremdsprachenunterricht: Eine sprachwissenschaftliche Analyse. In M. Pienemann, E. Roos, & J.-U. Keßler (Eds.), Englischerwerb in der Grundschule (pp. 185–196). Paderborn: Schöningh/UTB.Google Scholar
Leung, Y.-k. (2006). Full transfer vs. partial transfer in L2 and L3 acquisition. In R. Slabakova, S. Montrul, & P. Prévost (Eds.), Inquiries in linguistic development. In honor of Lydia White (pp. 157–188). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. M., Clahsen, H. & Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3(2), 109–135. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1985). Learnability and syllabus construction. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modeling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 23–75). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
(1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory (Studies in Bilingualism 15). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Discussing PT. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (Studies in Bilingualism 15J) (pp. 61–83). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Håkansson, G. (2007). Full transfer vs. developmentally moderated transfer. Second Language Research, 23(4), 485–494. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Keßler, J.-U. (Eds). (2011). Studying Processability Theory (Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching 1). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., Keßler, J.-U., & Lenzing, A. (2013). Developmentally Moderated Transfer and the role of the L2 in L3 acquisition. In A. Flyman Attsson & C. Norrby (Eds.), Language acquisition and use in multilingual contexts: Theory and practice (pp. 142–159). Lund: Media-Tryck.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. (2015). When L1 becomes an L3: Assessing grammatical knowledge in heritage speakers/learners. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18, 163–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 (IRAL), 48(2–3), 245–273. DOI logo.Google Scholar
(2013). Cognitive economy, non-redundancy and typological primacy in L3 acquisition: Evidence from initial stages of L3 romance. In S. Baauw, F.A.C. Drijkoningen, & M. Pinto (Eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2011 (Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 5) (pp. 217–248). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logo.Google Scholar
Sanchez, L. (2011). Against ‘canonical word order’: Evidence of basic word order transfer at the initial state of LnA. Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics, 17, 220–222Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Plötner, Kathleen
2023. Chapter 14. Construction grammar and foreign language learning (L3). In Constructions in Spanish [Constructional Approaches to Language, 34], ► pp. 375 ff. DOI logo
Angelovska, Tanja & Angela Hahn
2017. L3 syntactic transfer – an integrative approach. In L3 Syntactic Transfer [Bilingual Processing and Acquisition, 5], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 august 2024. 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.