Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T13:10:44.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A functional approach to cross-linguistic influence in ab initio L3 acquisition*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 December 2014

CRISTINA SANZ Open the ORCID record for CRISTINA SANZ [Opens in a new window] ,
HAE IN PARK  and
BEATRIZ LADO
CRISTINA SANZ*
Affiliation:
Georgetown University, Washington DC
HAE IN PARK
Affiliation:
Georgetown University, Washington DC
BEATRIZ LADO
Affiliation:
Lehman College at the City University of New York
*
Address for correspondence: Cristina Sanz, Department of Spanish and Portuguese, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057, USA[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study follows the role of the first (L1, English) and second (L2, Japanese or Spanish) languages in ab initio third language (L3, Latin) acquisition. Participants (N = 25) were L2 classroom learners without immersion experience. In order to complement previous generativist studies and to offer a fuller developmental account of how transfer operates at the morphosyntactic level, the Competition Model (CM) was adopted as theoretical framework. Positive changes in overall accuracy and sentence processing patterns in role assignment in L3 Latin show L3 development as largely modulated by the L1, suggesting that higher levels of L2 resonance are necessary for integrated patterns of L1 and L2 cues to emerge.

Keywords

cross-linguistic influencethird language acquisitionmorphosyntactic transferprocessing strategiesCompetition Modelagency assignment
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 18 , Special Issue 2: L3 Acquisition: A Focus on Cognitive Approaches , April 2015 , pp. 236 - 251
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Initial reports of the data were presented at the 2012 American Association for Applied Linguistics in Boston, USA. The study is part of The Latin Project, developed by Cristina Sanz with Catherine Stafford and Harriet Bowden; funding to Sanz from the Spencer Foundation and Georgetown's Graduate School made it possible. The authors would like to thank Professors Mori and Doak, Sarah Grey, German Zarate, Bill Garr, Ru San Chen, and instructors and colleagues in the Spanish and Portuguese and East Asian Languages Departments at Georgetown University for their help with data collection. We would also like to thank Lourdes Ortega and Rebecca Sachs for their insightful comments on earlier versions of this paper. Any remaining errors are exclusively the responsibility of the authors.

References

Antonova-Ünlü, E., & Sağın-Şimşek, C. (2014). The use of verbal morphology in Turkish as a third language: The case of Russian–English–Turkish trilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism, doi:1367006914526953. Published online by SAGE, April 2, 2014.Google 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, 459–484.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1981). Second language acquisition from a functionalist perspective: Pragmatic, semantic and perceptual strategies. In Winitz, H. (ed.), Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences Conference on Native and Foreign Language Acquisition, pp. 190–214. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation, and language learning. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition, pp. 157–193. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the Competition Model. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (eds.), pp. 3–73.Google Scholar
Cabrelli Amaro, J., Flynn, S., & Rothman, J. (eds.) (2012). Third language acquisition in adulthood. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cenoz, J. (2003). The additive effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition: A review. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7, 71–87.Google Scholar
Cenoz, J. (2013). The influence of bilingualism on third language acquisition: Focus on multilingualism. Language Teaching, 46, 71–86.Google Scholar
De Angelis, G. (2007). Third or additional language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
De Bot, K. (2012). Rethinking multilingual processing: From a static to a dynamic approach. In Amaro, Cabrelli, et al. (eds.), pp. 79–94.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006a). The associative-cognitive CREED. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction, pp. 77–96. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006b). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in SLA: Salience, contingency, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 164–194.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006c). Cognitive perspectives on SLA: The associative-cognitive CREED. AILA Review, 19, 100–121.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2008). Usage-based and form-focused language acquisition: The associative learning of constructions, learned-attention, and the limited L2 endstate. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. C. (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, pp. 372–405. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Sagarra, N. (2010). The bounds of adult language acquisition: Blocking and learned attention. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 553–580.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Sagarra, N. (2011). Learned attention in adult language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 589–624.Google Scholar
Epstein, S., Flynn, S., & Martohardjono, R. (1996). The strong continuity hypothesis: Some evidence concerning functional categories in adult L2 acquisition. In Flynn, S., Martohardjono, G. & O’Neil, W. (eds.), The generative study of second language acquisition, pp. 61–77. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Falk, Y., & Bardel, C. (2011). Object pronouns in German L3 syntax: Evidence for the L2 status factor. Second Language Research, 27, 59–82.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, 3–16.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P. (2012). Cognitive approaches to L3 acquisition. International Journal of English Studies, 12, 129–146.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Rothman, J. (2012). L3 morphosyntax in the generative tradition: The initial status and beyond. In Amaro, Cabrelli, et al. (eds.), pp. 9–32.Google Scholar
Hakuta, K. (1981). Grammatical description versus configurational arrangement in language acquisition: The case of relative clauses in Japanese. Cognition, 9, 197–236.Google Scholar
Hakuta, K. (1982). Interaction between particles and word order in the comprehension and production of simple sentences in Japanese children. Developmental Psychology, 18, 62–76.Google Scholar
Hakuta, K., & Cancino, H. (1977). Trends in second-language-acquisition research. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 294–316.Google Scholar
Hale, W. G., & Buck, C. D. (1903). A Latin grammar. Chicago, IL: Atkinson, Mentzer & Grover.Google Scholar
Harrington, M. (1987). Processing transfer: Language-specific processing strategies as a source of interlanguage variation. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 351–377.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Hattori, H. (2006). Interpretation of English multiple wh-questions by Japanese speakers: A missing uninterpretable feature account. Second Language Research, 22, 269–301.Google Scholar
Hernandez, A. E., Bates, E. A., & Avila, L. X. (1994). On-line sentence interpretation in Spanish–English bilinguals: What does it mean to be “in between”? Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 417–417.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kail, M., & Charvillat, A. (1988). Local and topological processing in sentence comprehension by French and Spanish children. Journal of Child Language, 15, 637–662.Google Scholar
Kellerman, E. (1983). Now you see it, now you don’t. In Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (eds.), Language transfer in language learning, 112–134. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Kempe, V., & MacWhinney, B. (1998). The acquisition of case marking by adult learners of Russian and German. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 543–587.Google Scholar
Kilborn, K. (1989). Sentence processing in a second language: The timing of transfer. Language and Speech, 32, 1–23.Google Scholar
Kilborn, K., & Ito, T. (1989). Sentence processing strategies in adult bilinguals. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing, pp. 257–291. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lado, B., Bowden, H. W., Stafford, C. A., & Sanz, C. A fine-grained analysis of the effects of more vs. less explicit feedback on language development. Language Teaching Research, doi:10.1177/1362168813510382. Published online by SAGE, November 21, 2013.Google Scholar
Lenet, A. E., Sanz, C., Lado, B., Howard, J. H. Jr., & Howard, D.V. (2011). Aging, pedagogical conditions, and differential success in SLA: An empirical study. In Sanz, C. & Leow, R. P. (eds.), Implicit and explicit language learning: Conditions, processes, and knowledge in SLA and bilingualism, pp. 73–84. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Li, P., Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1993). Processing a language without inflections: A reaction time study of sentence interpretation in Chinese. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 169–169.Google Scholar
Liu, H., Bates, E., & Li, P. (1992). Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers of English and Chinese. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 451–484.Google Scholar
Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. M. (eds.), Task and language learning: Integrating theory and practice, pp. 123–167. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Luk, Z. P. S., & Shirai, Y. (2009). Is the acquisition order of grammatical morphemes impervious to L1 knowledge? Evidence from the acquisition of plural-s, articles, and possessive's. Language Learning, 59, 721–754.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2001). The Competition Model: The input, the context, and the brain. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction, pp. 69–90. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2005). A unified model of language acquisition. In Kroll, J. F. & de Groot, A. M. B. (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, pp. 49–67. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2008). A Unified Model. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. C. (eds.), pp. 341–371.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2012). The logic of the Unified Model. In Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, pp. 211–227. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E. (1989). The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., Bates, E., & Kliegl, R. (1984). Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 127–150.Google Scholar
Master, P. (1997). The English article system: Acquisition, function, and pedagogy. System, 25, 215–232.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. L. (1986). The development of sentence comprehension strategies in English and Dutch. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41, 317–335.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. L. (1987). Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers of English and Dutch. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 379–413.Google Scholar
Morett, L. M., & MacWhinney, B. (2012). Syntactic transfer in English-speaking Spanish learners. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 132–151.Google Scholar
Pak, Y. (1987). Age difference in morpheme acquisition among Korean ESL learners: Acquisition order and acquisition rate. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas.Google Scholar
Ringbom, H. (2007). Cross-linguistic similarity in foreign language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.Google 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, 245–273.Google Scholar
Rothman, J. (2011). L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: The typological primacy model. Second Language Research, 27, 107–127.Google Scholar
Rothman, J. Linguistic and cognitive motivations for the Typological Primacy Model (TPM) of third language (L3) transfer: Timing of acquisition and proficiency considered. Bilingulism: Language and Cognition, doi:10.1017/S136672891300059X. Published online by Cambridge University Press, November 13, 2013.Google Scholar
Rothman, J., & Cabrelli Amaro, J. (2010). What variables condition syntactic transfer? A look at the L3 initial state. Second Language Research, 26, 189–218.Google Scholar
Sanz, C., Lin, H.-J., Lado, B., Bowden, H. W., & Stafford, C. A. (2009). Concurrent verbalizations, pedagogical conditions, and reactivity: Two CALL studies. Language Learning, 59, 33–71.Google Scholar
Schmid, M. S. (2013). First language attrition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4, 117–123.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. (1998). The second language instinct. Lingua, 106, 133–160.Google Scholar
Stafford, C. A., Bowden, H. W., & Sanz, C. (2012). Optimizing language instruction: Matters of explicitness, practice, and cue learning. Language Learning, 62, 741–768.Google Scholar
Tokowicz, N., & MacWhinney, B. (2005). Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to violations in second language grammar: An event-related potential investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 173–204.Google Scholar
Treffers-Daller, J., & Sakel, J. (2012). Why transfer is a key aspect of language use and processing in bilinguals and L2-users. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16, 3–10.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2005). Processing instruction. In Sanz, C. (ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition, pp. 267–281. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, S., & Hammarberg, B. (1998). Language switches in L3 production: Implications for a polyglot speaking model. Applied Linguistics, 19, 295–333.Google Scholar
Year, J. (2003). Sentence processing within the Competition Model. TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 3, 1–27.Google Scholar
Yoshimura, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (2010a). Honorifics: A sociocultural verb agreement cue in Japanese sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 551–569.Google Scholar
Yoshimura, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (2010b). The use of pronominal case in English sentence interpretation. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 619–633.Google Scholar