Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T19:07:30.764Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Linguistic and cognitive motivations for the Typological Primacy Model (TPM) of third language (L3) transfer: Timing of acquisition and proficiency considered*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2013

JASON ROTHMAN
JASON ROTHMAN*
Affiliation:
University of Reading, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Jason Rothman, School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Harry Pitt Building, Early Gate, Reading, Berkshire RG6 7BE, UK[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article elucidates the Typological Primacy Model (TPM; Rothman, 2010, 2011, 2013) for the initial stages of adult third language (L3) morphosyntactic transfer, addressing questions that stem from the model and its application. The TPM maintains that structural proximity between the L3 and the L1 and/or the L2 determines L3 transfer. In addition to demonstrating empirical support for the TPM, this article articulates a proposal for how the mind unconsciously determines typological (structural) proximity based on linguistic cues from the L3 input stream used by the parser early on to determine holistic transfer of one previous (the L1 or the L2) system. This articulated version of the TPM is motivated by argumentation appealing to cognitive and linguistic factors. Finally, in line with the general tenets of the TPM, I ponder if and why L3 transfer might obtain differently depending on the type of bilingual (e.g. early vs. late) and proficiency level of bilingualism involved in the L3 process.

Keywords

third language (L3) acquisitionTypological Primacy Model (TPM)multilingual transferinitial stagesstructural proximity
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 18 , Special Issue 2: L3 Acquisition: A Focus on Cognitive Approaches , April 2015 , pp. 179 - 190
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

*

I would like to thank María del Pilar García Mayo for organizing the workshop from which this paper derives as well as her editorial expertise and invaluable content comments on several versions of this paper. I am grateful to the wonderful comments from the audiences of Going Romance 2011 and the workshop in Victoria, where parts of the ideas enumerated within this article were first presented as well as the three anonymous reviewers whose comments definitively sharpened the ideas presented and resulted in a much clearer finished product. I am also extremely thankful to Roumyana Slabakova for her very acute suggestions on various topics related to the argumentation herein, especially for discussions on the non-trivial difference between the meaning of “typological” and “structural”, to Sergey Avrutin for comments on a related manuscript which formed the basis of some of the argumentation discussed in this paper and to Jennifer Cabrelli Amaro for comments on and other help with this manuscript. Any and all errors are, nonetheless, completely my own.

References

Alemán Bañón, J., & Rothman, J. (to appear). Psycholinguistic measures of typological effects in multilingual transfer: Introducing an ERP/EEG methodology. In Valenzuela, E. (ed.), Generative linguistics and Hispanic language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins 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
Bardel, C., & Falk, Y. (2012). Behind the L2 Status Factor: A neurolinguistic framework for L3 research. In Cabrelli Amaro et al. (eds.), pp. 61–78.Google Scholar
Berkes, É., & Flynn, S. (2012). Further evidence in support of the Cumulative-Enhancement Model: CP structure development. In Cabrelli Amaro et al. (eds.), pp. 143–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E. (2009). Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 3–11.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E., Craik, F., & Ryan, J. (2006). Executive control in a modified antisaccade task: Effects of aging and bilingualism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 1341–1354.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E., & Shapero, D. (2005). Ambiguous benefits: the effect of bilingualism on reversing ambiguous figures. Developmental Science, 8, 595–604.Google Scholar
Cabrelli Amaro, J., Flynn, S., & Rothman, J. (eds.) (2012). Third language acquisition in adulthood. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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. The International Journal of Multilingualism, 1, 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1983). Modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Google Scholar
Foote, R. (2009). Transfer and L3 acquisition: The role of typology. In Leung (ed.), pp. 89–114.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Rothman, J. (2012). Generative L3: From the initial stages and beyond. In Cabrelli Amaro et al. (eds.), pp. 9–32.Google Scholar
Giancaspro, D., Halloran, B., & Iverson, M. (in press). Examining L3 transfer: The acquisition of differential object marking in L3 Brazilian Portuguese. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.Google Scholar
Hermas, A. (2010). Language acquisition as computational resetting: Verb movement in L3 initial state. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7, 343–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ionin, T., Montrul, S., & Santos, H. (2011). An experimental investigation of the expression of genericity in English, Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese. Lingua, 121, 963–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, M. (2009). N-drop at the initial state of L3 Portuguese: Comparing simultaneous and additive bilinguals of English/Spanish. In Pires, A. & Rothman, J. (eds.), Minimalist inquiries into child and adult language acquisition: Case studies across Portuguese, pp. 221–244. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Iverson, M. (2010). Informing the age of acquisition debate: L3 as a litmus test. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Teaching (IRAL), 48, 221–243.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jaensch, C. (2011). L3 acquisition of German adjectival inflection – A generative account. Second Language Research, 27, 83–105.Google Scholar
Kellerman, E. (1983). Now you see it, now you don't. In Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (eds.), Language transfer in language learning, pp. 112–134. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Kellerman, E. (1986). An eye for an eye: Crosslinguistic constraints on the development of the L2 lexicon. In Kellerman, E. & Smith, M. S. (eds.), Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition, pp. 35–48. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Kulundary, V., & Gabriele, A. (2012). Examining the role of L2 syntactic development in L3 acquisition: A look at relative clauses. In Cabrelli Amaro et al. (eds.), pp. 195–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leung, Y.-k. I. (ed.) (2009). Third language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Lozano, C. (2002). The interpretation of overt and null pronouns in non-native Spanish. In Marsden, H., Pourcel, S. & Whong-Bharr, M. (eds.), Durham Working Papers in Linguistics 8, pp. 53–66. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google 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.Google 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 Leung (ed.), pp. 162–191.Google Scholar
Özçelik, Ö. (2013). Selectivity in L3 transfer: Effects of typological and linguistic similarity in the L3Turkish of Uzbek–Russian bilinguals. Presented at the 36th Conference of Generative Linguistics in the Old World (GLOW 36), Lund.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.Google Scholar
Potowski, K., & Rothman, J. (2011). Bilingual youth: Spanish in English-speaking societies. In Potowski, K. & Rothman, J. (eds.), Bilingual youth: Spanish in English-speaking societies, pp. 3–6. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.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 Teaching (IRAL), 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothman, J. (2013). Cognitive economy, non-redundancy and typological primacy in L3 acquisition: Evidence from initial stages of L3 Romance. In Baauw, S., Dirjkoningen, F. & Pinto, M. (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2011, pp. 217–247. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle 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
Rothman, J., Cabrelli Amaro, J., & de Bot, K. (2013). Third language acquisition. In Herschensohn, J. & Young-Scholten, M. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition, pp. 372–393. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google 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.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Teaching (IRAL), 10, 209–241.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R., & García Mayo, M.P. The L3 syntax–discourse interface. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, doi:10.1017/S1366728913000369. Published online by Cambridge University Press, July 24, 2013.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I., & Dimitrakopoulou, M. (2007). The Interpretability Hypothesis: Evidence from wh-interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 23, 215–242.Google Scholar
White, L. (1989). Universal Grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wrembel, M. (2012). Foreign accentedness in third language acquisition. In Cabrelli Amaro et al. (eds.), pp. 281–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar