Article published In:
Journal of Second Language Studies: Online-First Articles

N-N compounds in L2 French and L3 English

Early L1 transfer and nativelike ultimate attainment

 | University Ibn Zohr, Morocco
This study considers the acquisition of nominal compounding in L2 French and L3 English among L1 Arabic speakers. Arabic N‑N compounds have the structure [NHead-NModifier]; English has the structure [NModifier-NHead]. French uses phrasal compounds [N-PP], also found in Arabic and English. The participants completed a forced-choice selection task. In L2 French, the L2 beginners converged with the L1 French speakers regarding phrasal compounds; however, they significantly transferred the Arabic N-N. L1 Arabic had (non)-facilitative influence on L2 French. In contrast, the advanced L2 learners showed nativelike performance in using both structures. In L3 English, the L3 beginners used phrasal compounds and L1 N‑N forms, supporting the L1 transfer scenario and the Linguistic Proximity Model in early L3 acquisition. In the L3 advanced stage, proficiency overrode native non-facilitative transfer. Overall, the findings support surface overlap and derivation simplicity as predictors of transfer in L2 and L3 acquisition.
Keywords: N-N compounds, L2 French, L3 English, L1 (non)-facilitative transfer, nativelike attainment
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Language background
  • 3.The surface overlap and structural complexity hypotheses
    • 3.1The structural overlap hypothesis
    • 3.2The derivational complexity hypothesis
  • 4.Compound nouns in L2 acquisition
  • 5.Accounts of multilingual transfer in L3A
  • 6.Method
    • 6.1The learning challenge and research questions
    • 6.2Participants
    • 6.3Forced-choice selection task
  • 7.Results
    • 7.1Compounding in L2 French
    • 7.2Compounding in L3 English
  • 8.Discussion
  • 9.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 December 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.00040.her
References (50)
References
Azaz, M. (2019). Structural surface overlap and derivational complexity in crosslinguistic transfer: Acquisition of English genitive alternation by Egyptian Arabic-speaking learners. Second Language Research 36 (4), 529–556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andersen, S. R. (1992). A-morphous morphology. New York: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. (1978). The Grammar of nominal compounding, with special reference to Danish, English and French. Odense, Denmark: OUP.Google Scholar
Beard, R. (1995). Lexeme-morpheme base morphology: A general theory of inflection and word formation. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Bongartz, C. (2000). Why morphology is syntax: Determiner features and complex DPs in interlanguage production. In B. Swierzbin, F. Morris, M. E. Anderson, C. A. Klee, & E. Tarone (Eds.), Social and cognitive factors in second language acquisition (pp. 167–184). Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
(2002). Noun combination in interlanguage: Typology effects in complex determiner phrases. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Falk, Y. & Bardel, C. (2011). Object pronouns in German L3 syntax: Evidence for the L2 status factor. Second Language Research, 27 (1), 59–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardel, C. & Falk, Y. (2012). 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 (pp. 61–78). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Falk, Y. (2017). On pronouns that drop (out of German). In T. Angelovska, & A. Hahn (Eds.), L3 syntactic transfer. Models, new developments and implications (pp. 127–142). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Falk, Y. & Lindqvist, C. (2019). L1 and L2 role assignment in L3 learning. Is there a pattern? International Journal of Multilingualism, 16 (4), 411–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardel, C.. & Falk, Y. (2021). L1, L2 and L3: Same or different? Second Language Research, 37 (3), 459–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foroodi-Nejad F., Paradis J. (2009). Crosslinguistic transfer in the acquisition of compound words in Persian-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , 12 (4), 411–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giegerich, H. J. (2004). Compound or phrase? English noun-plus-noun constructions and the stress criterion. English Language and Linguistics 8 (1), 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gordon, P. (1985). Level-ordering in lexical development. Cognition 21 (2), 73–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hermas, A. (2010). Language acquisition as computational resetting: Verb movement in L3 initial state. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(4), 343–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014a). L2 and L3 ultimate attainment: An investigation of two parameters. International Journal of Multilingualism, 11(2), 202–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014b). Multilingual transfer: L1 morphosyntax in L3 English. International Journal of Language Studies, 8(2), 1–24.Google Scholar
(2014c). Restrictive relatives in L3 English: L1 transfer and ultimate attainment convergence. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 34(3), 361–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Sources of article semantics in L3 English: Definiteness and specificity. The Linguistics Journal, 12 (1), 139–168.Google Scholar
Hulk, A & Müller, N. (2000). Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3 (3), 227–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakubowicz, C. (2011). Measuring derivational complexity: New evidence from typically developing and SLI learners of L1 French. Lingua 121 (3), 339–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakubowicz, C. & Strik, N. (2008). Scope-marking strategies in the acquisition of long distance wh-questions in French and Dutch. Language and Speech 51 (1–2), 101–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jin, F. (2009). Third language acquisition of Norwegian Objects: Interlanguage transfer or L1 Influence? In Y. -K. I. Leung (Ed.), Third language acquisition and universal grammar (pp. 144–161). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, A. M. (1996). Foundations of French syntax. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kupisch, T. (2007). The impact of language dominance on crosslinguistic influence in unbalanced bilingual development. In H. Chan, H. Jacob, & E. Kapia (Eds.), Boston University conference on language development (pp. 251–262). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Libben, G. & Jarema, G. (2006). The representation and processing of compound nouns. New York: OUP.Google Scholar
Libben, G., Gibson, M., Yoon, Y. B., & Sandra, D. (2003). Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language 84 (1), 50–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieber, R. (1992a). Compounding in English. Rivista di Linguistica 4 (1), 79–96.Google Scholar
(1992b). Deconstructing morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. & Štekauer, P. (2009). Introduction: Status and definition of compounding. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 3–18). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Lozano, C. (2003). Focus, pronouns and word order in the acquisition of L2 and L3 Spanish. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Essex.Google Scholar
Müller, N. & Hulk, A. (2001). Crosslinguistic influence in bilingual language acquisition: Italian and French as recipient languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4 (1), 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Na Ranong, S. & Leung, Y. -K. I. (2009). Null objects in L1 Thai-L2 English-L3 Chinese: An empirical take on a theoretical problem. In Y. -K. I. Leung (Ed.), Third language acquisition and universal grammar (pp. 162–191). Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Rainer, F. (2013). Can relational adjectives really express any relation? An on-omasiological approach. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 10 (1), 12–40.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: The typological primacy model. Second Language Research 27 (1), 107–128. DOI logoGoogle 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. Dirjkoningen, & M. Pinto (Eds.) Romance languages and linguistic theory 2011 (pp. 217–248). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothman, J., González Alonso, J., & Puig-Mayenco, E. (2020). Third language acquisition and linguistic transfer. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2017). The Scalpel Model of third language acquisition. International Journal of Bilingualism 21 (6): 651–666. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snyder, W. (2001). On the nature of syntactic variation: Evidence from complex predicates and complex word-formation. Language 77 (2), 324–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Parameter theory and motion predicates. In V. Demonte & L. McNally (Eds.) Telicity, change, and state: A cross-categorial view of event structure (pp. 279–299). Oxford, UK: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Compound word formation. In J. Lidz, W. Snyder, & J. Pater (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of developmental linguistics. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Snyder, W. & D. Chen. (1997). The syntax-morphology interface in the acquisition of French and English. In K. Kusumoto (Ed.), Proceedings of NELS 27 (North East Linguistic Society) (pp. 413–424). Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Strik, N. (2012). Wh-questions in child bilingual acquisition of French: Derivational complexity and crosslinguistic influence. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 57 (1), 133–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Westergaard, M. (2021a). L3 acquisition and crosslinguistic influence as co-activation: Response to commentaries on the keynote ‘Microvariation in multilingual situations: The importance of property-by- property acquisition’. Second Language Research 37 (3), 501–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021b). Microvariation in Multilingual Situations: The Importance of Property-by-Property Acquisition. Second Language Research, 37 (3), 379–407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Westergaard, M., Mitrofanova, N., Mykhaylyk, R., & Rodina, Y. (2017). Crosslinguistic influence in the acquisition of a third language: The Linguistic Proximity Model. International Journal of Bilingualism 21 (6), 666–682. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, E. (1981). On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word’. Linguistic Inquiry 121, 245–74.Google Scholar