The scalpel model of third language acquisition

Aims and Objectives: This article proposes the “scalpel model,” a new model of third and additional language (L3/Ln) acquisition. The model aims to identify and examine what happens beyond the initial state of acquisition and what factors may influence change from one state of knowledge to another. Methodology: The article briefly examines the currently proposed hypotheses and models and evaluates the existing evidence for their predictions. It highlights several cognitive and experiential factors affecting crosslinguistic influence that are not taken into account by the current models. These factors include: structural linguistic complexity; misleading input or lack of clear unambiguous evidence for some properties or constructions; construction frequency in the target L3; and prevalent language activation or use. Data and analysis: Findings of recently published research are discussed in support of the scalpel model. In particular, findings of differential learnability of properties within the same groups of learners suggest that L1 or L2 transfer happens property by property and is influenced by diverse factors. Findings: The scalpel model explicitly argues that wholesale transfer of one of the previously acquired languages does not happen at the initial stages of acquisition because it is not necessary. It also argues that transfer can be from the L1 or the L2 or both, but it is not only facilitative. Originality: The new model increases the explanatory coverage of the current experimental findings on how the L3/Ln linguistic representations develop. Implications: The model emphasizes the importance of the cognitive, experiential, and linguistic influences on the L3/Ln beyond transfer from the L1 or L2. Thus, it aligns L3/Ln acquisition with current debates within L2 acquisition theory.

[1]  Jason Rothman,et al.  L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: The typological primacy model , 2011 .

[2]  Abdelkader Hermas,et al.  The categorization of the relative complementizer phrase in third-language English: A feature re-assembly account , 2015 .

[3]  V. Cook The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multicompetence , 1991 .

[4]  L 3 INITIAL STATE : TYPOLOGICAL PRIMACY DRIVEN , L 2 FACTOR DETERMINDED , OR L 1 FEATURE ORIENTED ? , 2022 .

[5]  Jubin Abutalebi,et al.  Bilingual language production: The neurocognition of language representation and control , 2007, Journal of Neurolinguistics.

[6]  J. Rothman Linguistic and cognitive motivations for the Typological Primacy Model (TPM) of third language (L3) transfer: Timing of acquisition and proficiency considered* , 2013, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.

[7]  A. Jabbari,et al.  Source(s) of syntactic cross-linguistic influence (CLI): The case of L3 acquisition of English possessives by Mazandarani–Persian bilinguals , 2016 .

[8]  F. Grosjean Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person , 1989, Brain and Language.

[9]  Y. Rodina,et al.  Crosslinguistic influence in the acquisition of a third language: The Linguistic Proximity Model , 2017 .

[10]  Camilla Bardel,et al.  The role of the second language in third language acquisition: the case of Germanic syntax , 2007 .

[11]  María del Pilar García Mayo,et al.  The L3 syntax–discourse interface* , 2013, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.

[12]  V. Cook Evidence for Multicompetence , 1992 .

[13]  Donna Lardiere,et al.  Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition , 2009 .

[14]  Roumyana Slabakova,et al.  Object drop in L3 acquisition , 2015 .

[15]  Jason Rothman,et al.  Neurolinguistic measures of typological effects in multilingual transfer: introducing an ERP methodology , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[16]  Betty J. Birner,et al.  Information status and noncanonical word order in English , 1998 .

[17]  C. Foley,et al.  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 , 2004 .

[18]  M. Paradis A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism , 2004 .

[19]  Thomas Roeper,et al.  Multiple Grammars and Second Language Representation , 2014 .

[20]  William C. Ritchie,et al.  Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition , 1983 .

[21]  T. Dijkstra,et al.  Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , 2014 .

[22]  The Partial Access of Universal Grammar in Second Language Acquisition: An Investigation of the Acquisition of English Subjects by L1 Chinese Speakers , 2005 .

[23]  Suzanne Flynn,et al.  Enhanced L3…Ln Acquisition and its Implications for Language Teaching , 2012 .

[24]  A. Wilde,et al.  Now You See It, Now You Don't , 2004, Science's STKE.

[25]  Roumyana Slabakova,et al.  Meaning in the second language , 2008 .

[26]  S. Gass,et al.  Language transfer in language learning , 1985 .

[27]  Camilla Bardel,et al.  Object pronouns in German L3 syntax: Evidence for the L2 status factor , 2011 .

[28]  Yan-kit Ingrid Leung,et al.  Chapter 8. Null Objects in L1 Thai–L2 English–L3 Chinese: An Empiricist Take on a Theoretical Problem , 2009 .

[29]  Rex A. Sprouse,et al.  L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model , 1996 .

[30]  Jason Rothman,et al.  What variables condition syntactic transfer? A look at the L3 initial state , 2010 .

[31]  Roumyana Slabakova The effect of construction frequency and native transfer on second language knowledge of the syntax–discourse interface , 2013, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[32]  Rebecca Foote Chapter 5. Transfer in L3 Acquisition: The Role of Typology , 2009 .

[33]  Abdelkader Hermas,et al.  Language acquisition as computational resetting: verb movement in L3 initial state , 2010 .

[34]  Antonella Sorace,et al.  Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism , 2011 .

[35]  Yan-kit Ingrid Leung L2 vs. L3 Initial State: A Comparative Study of the Acquisition of French DPs by Vietnamese Monolinguals and Cantonese-English Bilinguals. , 2005 .

[36]  Christopher J. Hall,et al.  Parasitism as a Default Mechanism in L3 Vocabulary Acquisition , 2003 .

[37]  Ç. Sağın-Şimşek,et al.  The use of verbal morphology in Turkish as a third language: The case of Russian–English–Turkish trilinguals , 2015 .

[38]  Roumyana Slabakova,et al.  Features or parameters: which one makes second language acquisition easier, and more interesting to study? , 2009 .

[39]  Elaine C. Klein Second versus Third Language Acquisition: Is There a Difference? , 1995 .

[40]  Jorge González Alonso,et al.  Assessing multilingual lexical incorporation hypotheses through a primed picture-naming task , 2012 .

[41]  Michael T. Ullman,et al.  The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: the declarative/procedural model , 2001 .