Chapter published in:
Linguistic Approaches to Portuguese as an Additional Language
Edited by Karina Veronica Molsing, Cristina Becker Lopes Perna and Ana Maria Tramunt Ibaños
[Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 24] 2020
► pp. 11–33

The roles of L1 Spanish versus L2 Spanish in L3 Portuguese morphosyntactic development

| University of Illinois at Chicago
| Indiana University
| University of Richmond
| University of Iowa
This study explores the rate of L3 development among learners that transfer their L1 versus L2, via examination of differential object marking (DOM) by English/Spanish bilingual learners of L3 Brazilian Portuguese (BP). At the L3 initial stages, L1 English/L2 Spanish and L1 Spanish/L1 English speakers transfer non-facilitative DOM from Spanish (Giancaspro et al., 2015). We compare these groups with advanced L3 BP learners to test the hypothesis that L2 transfer is overcome faster than L1 transfer. Data from advanced L3 BP groups show that the L1 Spanish group patterns with both initial stages Spanish groups. However, the L2 Spanish group patterns with BP controls, suggesting that the L2 Spanish group has overcome non-facilitative transfer, while the L1 Spanish group has not.
Keywords: third language (L3) acquisition, multilingualism, transfer, differential object marking (DOM), morphosyntax, Portuguese, Spanish
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Differential object marking
    • 2.1 dom in Spanish
    • 2.2Acquisition of dom in Spanish
    • 2.3Transfer of dom at the initial stages: Giancaspro et al. (2015)
  • 3.Research question and predictions
  • 4.Methodology
    • 4.1Participants
    • 4.2Judgment task
  • 5.Results
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 March 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.24.01cab
References
Aissen, J.
(2003) Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21, 435–483. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J.
(2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Benjamini, Y., & Yekutieli, D.
(2001) The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Annals of Statistics, 29, 1165–1188.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E.
(1987) Influences of bilingualism on metalinguistic development. Second Language Research, 3(2), 154–166.Google Scholar
(1988) Levels of bilingualism and levels of linguistic awareness. Developmental Psychology, 24(4), 560. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E., & Hakuta, K.
(1994) In other words: The science and psychology of second-language acquisition. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R.
(1989) The logical problem of second language learning. In S. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 41–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bowles, M., & Montrul, S.
(2008) The role of explicit instruction in the L2 acquisition of the a-personal. In J. Bruhn de Garavito & E. Valenzuela (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 10th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 25–35). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Cabrelli Amaro, J.
(2015a, March). Looking both ways: Examining bidirectional transfer in third language acquisition. Paper presented at the Workshop on Multilingual Acquisition, Processing, and Use, Tromso, Norway.
(2015b, November). Does the source of transfer affect the rate of L3 morphosyntactic development? Poster session presented at the 40th Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA.
(2016) Testing the Phonological Permeability Hypothesis: L3 phonological effects on L1 versus L2 systems. International Journal of Bilingualism. Advance online publication. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cabrelli Amaro, J., Iverson, M., & Judy, T.
(2009) N-drop at the L3 initial state and its relationship to the L2 steady state. In A. Pires & J. Rothman (Eds.), Minimalist inquiries into child and adult language acquisition: Case studies across Portuguese (pp. 177–198). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cabrelli Amaro, J., & Rothman, J.
(2010) On L3 acquisition and phonological permeability: A new test case for debates on the mental representation of non-native phonological systems. IRAL, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 48, 275–296.Google Scholar
Carvalho, A. M., & Silva, A. J. B.
(2006) Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: The case of Spanish-English bilinguals’ acquisition of Portuguese. Foreign Language Annals, 39(2), 185–202. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Child, M.
(2014) Cross-linguistic influence in L3 Portuguese acquisition: Language learning perceptions and the knowledge and transfer of mood distinctions by three groups of English-Spanish bilinguals (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.Google Scholar
Cook, V.
(1997) The consequences of bilingualism for cognitive processing. In A. de Groot & J. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 279–299). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
García-Mayo, M. D. 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 (pp. 9–32). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giancaspro, D.
(2015) Code-switching at the auxiliary-VP boundary: A comparison of heritage speakers and L2 learners. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5(3), 379–407. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giancaspro, D., Halloran, B., & Iverson, M.
(2015) Transfer at the initial stages of L3 Brazilian Portuguese: A look at three groups of English/Spanish bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18, 191–207. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guijarro-Fuentes, P.
(2012) The acquisition of interpretable features in L2 Spanish: Personal a. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(4), 701–720. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guijarro-Fuentes, P., & Marinis, T.
(2007) Acquiring phenomena at the syntax/semantics interface in L2 Spanish: The personal preposition a. Eurosla Yearbook, 7, 67–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guijarro-Fuentes, P., Pires, A., & Nediger, W.
(2015) Delay in the acquisition of Differential Object Marking by Spanish monolingual and bilingual teenagers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 21(2), 159–177. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hammarberg, B.
(2001) Roles of L1 and L2 in L3 production and acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 21–41). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hermas, A.
(2014) Multilingual transfer: L1 morphosyntax in L3 English. International Journal of Language Studies, 8.Google Scholar
Hopp, H., & Arriaga, M. E. L.
(2016) Structural and inherent case in the non-native processing of Spanish: Constraints on inflectional variability. Second Language Research, 32(1), 75–108. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kiyono, M., & Tsujii, J.
(1993) Linguistic knowledge acquisition from parsing failures. In Proceedings of the sixth conference of the European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 222–231). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Leonetti, M.
(2004) Specificity and differential object marking in Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 3, 75–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Linck, J. A., Kroll, J. F., & Sunderman, G.
(2009) Losing access to the native language while immersed in a second language: Evidence for the role of inhibition in second-language learning. Psychological Science, 20(12), 1507–1515. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S.
(2004) The acquisition of Spanish: Morphosyntactic development in monolingual and bilingual L1 acquisition and adult L2 acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., & Sánchez-Walker, N.
(2013) Differential object marking in child and adult Spanish heritage speakers. Language Acquisition, 20(2), 109–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., Bhatt, R., & Girju, R.
(2015) Differential object marking in Spanish, Hindi, and Romanian as heritage languages. Language, 91(3), 564–610. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., Dias, R., & Santos, H.
(2011) Clitics and object expression in the L3 acquisition of Brazilian Portuguese: Structural similarity matters for transfer. Second Language Research, 27, 21–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nediger, W., Pires, A., & Guijarro-Fuentes, P.
(2016a) An experimental study of the L2 acquisition of Spanish Differential Object Marking. In D. Stringer, J. Garrett, B. Halloran, & S. Mossman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2015) (pp. 151–160). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
(2016b) Variable L2 acquisition of Spanish Differential Object Marking by L1 English speakers. In J. Scott & D. Waughtal (Eds.), Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) 40 Online Proceedings Supplement. Retrieved from http://​www​.bu​.edu​/bucld​/files​/2016​/09​/NedigerPiresGF16DOML2SpanishEnglishL1​_BUProc​_Final​.pdf
Perini, M.
(2002) Modern Portuguese: A reference grammar. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ramos, J.
(1989) O emprego das preposições no português do Brasil. In F. Tarallo (Ed.), Fotografias sociolinguísticas (pp. 83–93). Campinas: Editorial Pontes.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, M.
(2007) The syntax of objects. Agree and differential object marking (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.Google Scholar
(2008) The acquisition of differential object marking in Spanish. Probus, 20, 111–145. CrossrefGoogle 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 in Language Teaching (IRAL), 48, 245–273.Google Scholar
(2011) L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: The Typological Primacy Model. Second Language Research, 27, 107–128. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Cognitive economy, non-redundancy and typological primacy in L3 acquisition: Evidence from initial stages of L3 Romance. In S. Baauw, F. Drijkoningen, & M. Pinto (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2011 (pp. 217–247). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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(2), 179–190. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rothman, J., & Iverson, M.
(2009) Beyond morphological use: What semantic knowledge tells us about aspect in L2 Portuguese. Estudos da Linguagem, 7(2), 233–260. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Flexionar ou não flexionar, eis a questão: Infinitivos no português como segunda língua. Letras de Hoje, 46(3), 28–43.Google Scholar
Schmid, M. S.
(2011) Language attrition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. & Sprouse, R.
(1996) L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12: 40-72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwenter, S.
(2014) Two kinds of differential object marking in Portuguese and Spanish. In A. Carvalho & P. Amaral (Eds.), Portuguese-Spanish interfaces: Diachrony, synchrony, and contact (pp. 237–260). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R.
(2016) The Scalpel Model of third language acquisition. International Journal of Bilingualism. Advance online publication. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R., & Mayo, M. D. P. G.
(2015) The L3 syntax-discourse interface. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(02), 208–226. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Torrego, E.
(1998) The dependency of objects. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2002) Aspect in the prepositional system of Romance. In T. Satterfield, C. Tortora, & D. Cresti (Eds.), Current issues in Romance languages (pp. 337–357). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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. Advance online publication. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wiedemann, L.
(2009, July). Portuguese for Spanish speakers – What research tells us. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese. Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
Yang, C.
(2016) The price of linguistic productivity: How children learn to break the rules of language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zagona, K.
(2002) The syntax of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Cabrelli, Jennifer & Eloi Puig-Mayenco
2021. Theoretical and methodological considerations for a robust evaluation of the Linguistic Proximity Model. Second Language Research 37:3 ► pp. 465 ff. Crossref logo
Puig-Mayenco, Eloi, Jason Rothman & Susagna Tubau
2020. Language dominance in the previously acquired languages modulates rate of third language (L3) development over time: a longitudinal study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 april 2022. 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.