Cover not available
Part of
L3 Development After the Initial State
Edited by Megan M. Brown-Bousfield, Suzanne Flynn and Éva Fernández-Berkes
[Studies in Bilingualism 65] 2023
► pp. 172–204

L3 acquisition of Portuguese clefts by L1-Mandarin L2-English speakers

| NOVA University of Lisbon
| CLUL, School of Arts and Humanities, University of Lisbon
| NOVA University of Lisbon
This study explored the trajectory of L3 acquisition (L3A) of three structurally different clefts in European Portuguese (EP) by L1-Mandarin Chinese (MC) L2-English learners, within the framework of the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis (Lardiere, 2008, 2009). This study also considers the predictions of L3A models that differ with respect to the role of the previously acquired languages on the acquisition of a target L3. Regarding the analyzed structures, L1 factor models (e.g., Na Ranong & Leung, 2009) would predict an early acquisition of pseudoclefts, and a delay in acquiring é-que clefts and standard clefts. Models such as the Cumulative-Enhancement Model (Flynn et al., 2004), the Typological Primacy Model (Rothman, 2011), the Scalpel Model (Slabakova, 2017) and the Linguistic Proximity Model (Westergaard et al., 2017) would predict a facilitating L2 effect on the acquisition of standard clefts and pseudoclefts. 60 MC speakers across three proficiency levels and 21 EP speakers completed an acceptability judgment task (AJT) centered on EP clefts. The learners also performed an AJT of English clefts at a later time. The results suggested a scale of difficulty (standard cleft > pseudocleft > é-que cleft) in development up to advanced stages. The syntactic structure of standard clefts, essentially the left peripheral focus, could be mapped from the L2 onto the L3 lexical items before L3ers reach low-intermediate (B1), while the association of a [+ focus] feature on specific L3 items appears to cause difficulty in acquiring é-que clefts until the learners reach a more advanced (C1) level. The results supported a facilitating L2 effect on the acquisition of standard clefts, which contradicts predictions that would be made by L1 factor models.
Keywords: third language acquisition, syntax, generative grammar, cleft structures, European Portuguese, Mandarin Chinese, English, multilingualism
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Clefts in European Portuguese, MC, and English
    • 2.1Clefts in European Portuguese
      • 2.1.1É-que cleft
      • 2.1.2Standard cleft
      • 2.1.3Pseudocleft
    • 2.2Clefts in MC
      • 2.2.1Shì … de cleft constructions
        • 2.2.1.1Shì XP V O de cleft (hereinafter, V O de cleft)
        • 2.2.1.2Shì XP V de O cleft (hereinafter, V de O cleft)
      • 2.2.2(subject) V (O) de (X) shì NP pseudocleft construction
      • 2.2.3Bare-shì subject cleft construction
    • 2.3A note on English clefts
  • 3.Feature Reassembly Hypothesis and third/additional language acquisition
  • 4.The current study
    • 4.1Working hypotheses
      • 4.1.1Hypothesis 1: É-que clefts will display a delayed development
      • 4.1.2Hypothesis 2: Learners show acquisition of standard clefts at earlier stages
      • 4.1.3Hypothesis 3: Learners show acquisition of pseudoclefts at earlier stages
    • 4.2Methodology
    • 4.3Participants
    • 4.4Experimental design
    • 4.5Results
      • 4.5.1Results of the experimental EP task
      • 4.5.2Results of the complementary English task
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 9 October 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.65.08li
References (62)
References
Ambar, M. (1999). Aspects of the syntax of focus in Portuguese. In G. Rebuschi & L. Tuller (Eds.), The grammar of focus (pp. 23–53). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aoun, J. & Li, Y.-H. A. (2003). Essays on the representational and derivational nature of grammar. The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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), 459–484. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Behind the L2 status factor: A neurolinguistic framework for L3 research. In J. Cabrelli, S. Flynn & J. Rothman (Eds.), Third language acquisition in adulthood (pp. 61–78). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berkes, É., & Flynn, S. (2012). Further evidence in support. In J. Cabrelli, S. Flynn & J. Rothman (Eds.), Third language acquisition in adulthood (pp. 143–164). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheng, L. L.-S. (2008). Deconstructing the shi…de construction. Linguistic Review, 25(3/4), 235–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1977). On wh-movement. In P. Culicover, T. Wasow, & A. Akmajian (Eds.), Formal syntax (pp. 71–132). Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1995). The minimalist program. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1993). A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24(2), 239–297.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (Ed.). (2018). The world’s major languages (3rd ed.). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costa, J., & Duarte, I. (2001a). Minimizando a estrutura: Uma análise unificada das construções de clivagem em Português [Minimizing the structure: a unified analysis of the cleft constrcutions in Portuguese.]. In Actas do XVI Encontro Nacional da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística, (pp. 627–638). APL/Colibri.Google Scholar
Costa, J. & Duarte, I. (2001b). Cleft strategies in Portuguese: A unified approach. Paper presented at The 11th Colloquium on Generative Grammar, Zaragoza, Spain.
Del Maschio, N., & Abutalebi, J. (2019). Language organization in the bilingual and multilingual brain. In J. W. Schwieter & M. Paradis (Eds.), The handbook of the neuroscience of multilingualism (pp. 197–213). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dikken, M. D., Meinunger, A., & Wilder, C. (2000). Pseudoclefts and ellipsis. Studia Linguistica, 54(1), 41–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Falk, Y., Lindqvist, C., & Bardel, C. (2015). The role of L1 explicit metalinguistic knowledge in L3 oral production at the initial state. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(2), 227–235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Berkes, É. & Flynn, S. (2021). Vindicating the need for a principled theory of language acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 11(1), 30–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2023). Grammatical mapping in L3 acquisition: A theory of development. In M. M. Brown-Bousfield, S. Flynn, & É. Fernández-Berkes (Eds.), L3 development after the initial state (pp. 8–28). John Benjamins. (this volume).Google Scholar
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. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1(1), 3–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friedmann, N., Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L. (2009). Relativized relatives: Types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies. Lingua 119(1), 67–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heggie, L. (1993). The range of null operators: Evidence from clefting. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 11(1), 45–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hermas, A. (2014). Multilingual transfer: L1 morphosyntax in L3 English. International Journal of Language Studies, 8(2), 1–24.Google Scholar
Heycock, C., & Kroch, A. (1999). Pseudocleft connectedness: Implications for the LF interface level. Linguistic Inquiry, 30(3), 365–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Topic, focus, and syntactic representations. In L. Mikkelsen & C. Potts (Eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL [West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics] (Vol. 21, pp. 101–125). Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Higgins, F. R. (1979). The pseudo-cleft construction in English. Garland.Google Scholar
Hole, D. (2011). The deconstruction of Chinese shì… de clefts revisited. Lingua, 121(11), 1707–1733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hu, G. (2005). English language education in China: Policies, progress, and problems. Language policy, 4(1), 5–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. (1988). Shuo shi he you [On ‘be’ and ‘have’ in Chinese]. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 59 (part 1), 43–64.Google Scholar
(1998). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Garland.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J., Li, Y., & Li, Y. (2009). The syntax of Chinese. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (1994). The antisymmetry of syntax. The MIT press.Google Scholar
Kiss, K. É. (1998). Identificational focus versus information focus. Language, 74, 245–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kou, K. (2021). The L2 acquisition of European Portuguese sluicing by L1 Mandarin Chinese speakers (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Lisbon.
Lardiere, D. (2008). Feature assembly in second language acquisition. In J. M. Liceras, H. Zobl, & H. Goodluck (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition (pp. 106–140). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Some thoughts on a contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 25(2), 173–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, X. (2021). Acquisition of European Portuguese cleft structures by L1 Mandarin learners (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Lisbon.
Lobo, M. (2006). Assimetrias em construções de clivagem do português: Movimento vs. geração na base [Asymmetries in Portuguese cleft constructions: Movement vs. base generation]. In F. Oliveira & J. Barbosa (Eds.), XXI Encontro Nacional da APL. Textos selecionados (pp. 457–473). Lisboa: APL/Colibri.Google Scholar
Lobo, M., Santos, A. L., & Soares-Jesel, C. (2016). Syntactic structure and information structure: The acquisition of Portuguese clefts and be-fragments. Language Acquisition, 23(2), 142–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lobo, M., Santos, A. L., Soares-Jesel, C., & Vaz, S. (2019). Effects of syntactic structure on the comprehension of clefts. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1), 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Education (2001) English Curriculum Standards for Compulsory Education. Beijing Normal University Publishing Group, Beijing.Google Scholar
Na Ranong, S., & Leung, Y-k. I. (2009). Null objects in L1 Thai-L2 English-L3 Chinese: An empiricist take on a theoretical problem. In Y-k. I. Leung (Ed.), Third language acquisition and Universal Grammar (pp. 162–191). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, M. (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paris, M.-C. (1979). Nominalization in Mandarin Chinese (Unpublished manuscript). Université Paris 7.Google Scholar
Paul, W. (2002). Proxy categories in phrase structure theory and the Chinese VP. Cahiers de Linguistique – Asie Orientale, 31, 137–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Low IP area and left periphery in Mandarin Chinese. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes, 33, 111–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paul, W., & Whitman, J. (2008). Shi…de focus clefts in Mandarin Chinese. Linguistic Review 25(3/4), 413–451. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reeve, M. (2011). The syntactic structure of English clefts. Lingua, 121(2), 142–171. 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 in Language Teaching, 48(2–3), 245–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: The Typological Primacy Model. Second Language Research, 27, 107–127. 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. Drijkoningen, & M. Pinto (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2011 (pp. 217–247). 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
Santos, A. L. (2006). Minimal answers. Ellipsis, syntax and discourse in the acquisition of European Portuguese (Doctoral dissertation). University of Lisbon. Published as Santos, A. L. (2009). Minimal answers. Ellipsis, syntax and discourse in the acquisition of European Portuguese. John Benjamins. DOI logo
Schütze, C. T. (2016). The empirical base of linguistics grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schütze, C. T., & Sprouse, J. (2014). Judgment data. In R. Podesva & D. Sharma (Eds.), Research methods in linguistics (pp. 27–50). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2017). The scalpel model of third language acquisition. International Journal of Bilingualism, 21(6), 651–665. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2023). A shared linguistic system of multilingual representations. In M. M. Brown-Bousfield, S. Flynn, & É. Fernández-Berkes (Eds.), L3 development after the initial state (pp. 29–48). John Benjamins. (this volume).Google Scholar
Soares, C. (2006). La syntaxe de la périphérie gauche en portugais européen et son acquisition [The syntax of left periphery in European Portuguese and its acquisition] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Paris 8.
Ullman, M. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: The Declarative/procedural Model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(2), 105–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vercauteren, A. M. W. (2010). Como é que é com o é que? Análise de estruturas com é que em variedades não standard do português europeu [How about “é que”? Analysis of “é que” structures in non-standard varieties of European Portuguese] (Unpublished master’s thesis). NOVA University of Lisbon.
(2014). Linguistic variation and micro-cues in first language acquisition. Linguistic Variation, 14(1), 26–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). 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, 666–682. DOI logoGoogle Scholar