Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T01:56:16.929Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transfer at the initial stages of L3 Brazilian Portuguese: A look at three groups of English/Spanish bilinguals*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2014

DAVID GIANCASPRO ,
BECKY HALLORAN  and
MICHAEL IVERSON
DAVID GIANCASPRO
Affiliation:
Rutgers University
BECKY HALLORAN*
Affiliation:
Indiana University
MICHAEL IVERSON
Affiliation:
Macquarie University
*
Address for correspondence: Becky Halloran, Indiana University, Department of Second Language Studies, 1021 E. Third St., Memorial Hall 315, Bloomington, IN 47405, USAhallorar@indiana.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines three formal linguistic acquisition models of third language (L3) acquisition in the context of Brazilian Portuguese (BP), specifically examining Differential Object Marking (DOM). The main goal is to determine which of the models is best able to predict and explain syntactic transfer in three experimental groups: mirror-image groups of first/second language (L1/L2) English/Spanish bilinguals (i) L1 English/L2 Spanish and (ii) L1 Spanish/L2 English, and (iii) heritage Spanish/English bilinguals. The data provide evidence to support the Typological Primacy Model (Rothman, 2010, 2011, 2013), which predicts Spanish transfer irrespective of its status as an L1, L2 or bilingual first language (2L1). Additionally, the heritage speaker and L1 English group results, taken together, provide evidence for Iverson's (2009) claim that comparing such populations adds independent supportive evidence that the acquisition of linguistic features or properties in an L2 acquired past puberty is not subject to a maturational critical period.

Keywords

L3 acquisitionmultilingualismSpanishPortuguesetransferDifferential Object Markingheritage acquisition
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 18 , Special Issue 2: L3 Acquisition: A Focus on Cognitive Approaches , April 2015 , pp. 191 - 207
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

*

We would like to thank Jason Rothman for his insight and encouragement, especially in the early stages of this project. We thank Jennifer Cabrelli Amaro and Diego Pascual y Cabo for their valuable input and Felipe Amaro for his contributions to the methodology. We thank Dr. Ana Maria Carvalho, Dr. Peggy Sharpe, Dr. Celia Davies, and Dr. Richard Vernon for their assistance in data collection. We are grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Finally, we wish to thank María del Pilar García Mayo for the invitation to contribute to this special issue and for her continuous support. Any and all oversights are, of course, our own.

References

Aissen, J. (2003). Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21, 435–483.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkes, E., & Flynn, S. (2012). Further evidence in support of the Cumulative-Enhancement Model: CP structure development. In Cabrelli Amaro, J., Flynn, S. & Rothman, J. (eds.), Third language acquisition in adulthood, pp. 143–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1983). The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning, 33, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). The logical problem of second language learning. In Gass, S. & Schachter, J. (eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition, pp. 41–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20, 3–49.Google Scholar
Bowles, M., & Montrul, S. (2008). The role of expicit instruction in the L2 acquisition of the a-personal. In Bruhn de Garavito, J. & Valenzuela, E. (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 10th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, pp. 25–35. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Cabrelli Amaro, J., Iverson, M., & Judy, T. (2009). Informing adult acquisition debates: N-drop at the initial state of L3 Brazilian Portuguese. In Pires, A. & Rothman, J. (eds.), Minimalist inquiries into child and adult language acquisition: Case studies across Portuguese, pp. 177–197. Berlin & New York: Mouton DeGruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Hong, U. (1995). Agreement and null subjects in German L2 development: New evidence from reaction time experiments. Second Language Research, 11, 57–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1986). The availability of universal grammar to adult and child learners: A study of the acquisition of German word order. Second Language Research, 2, 93–119.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1989). The UG paradox in L2 acquisition. Second Language Research, 5, 1–29.Google Scholar
Company, C. (2002). El avance diacrónico en la marcación prepositiva en objetos directos inanimados. In Bernabé, A., Berenguer, J. A., Cantarero, M. & de Torres, J. C. (eds.), Presente y futuro de la lingüística en España (vol. II), pp. 146–154. Madrid: SEL.Google Scholar
Cotton, E. G., & Sharp, J. M. (2001). Spanish in the Americas. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
De Angelis, G. (2007). Third or additional language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falk, Y., & Bardel, C. (2010). The study of the role of the background languages in third language acquisition: The state of the art. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 48, 185–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, Y., & Bardel, C. (2011). Object pronouns in German L3 syntax: Evidence for the L2 Status Factor. Second Language Research, 27, 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finney, M. (2005). Perception of errors in second language syntax: Acquisition or processing difficulties? In Cohen, J., McAlister, K., Rolstad, K. & MacSwan, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism, pp. 751–767. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.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. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1, 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franceschina, F. (2001). Morphological or syntactic deficit in near-native speakers? An assessment of some current proposals. Second Language Research, 17, 213–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franceschina, F. (2005). Fossilized second language grammars: The acquisition of grammatical gender. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Slabakova, R. Object drop in L3 acquisition. International Journal of Bilingualism, doi:10.1177/1367006914524643. Published online by Sage, March 27, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Villareal Olaizola, I. (2011). The development of suppletive and affixal tense and agreement morphemes in the L3 English of Basque–Spanish bilinguals. Second Language Research, 27, 129–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2012). The acquisition of interpretable features in L2 Spanish: Personal a . Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 701–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guijarro-Fuentes, P., Iverson, M., Judy, T., & Rothman, J. (2008). Non-convergence at advanced levels, learnability and the preemption problem in L2 semantics: DP and bare nominal interpretations in L2 Portuguese. Presented at The Romance Turn, University of Southampton, 18 September.Google Scholar
Guijarro-Fuentes, P., & Marinis, T. (2007). Acquiring phenomena at the syntax/semantics interface in L2 Spanish: The personal preposition a . EUROSLA Yearbook, 7, 67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guijarro-Fuentes, P., & Marinis, T. (2009). The acquisition of the personal preposition a by Catalan–Spanish and English–Spanish bilinguals. In Collentine, J. (ed.), Selected proceedings of the 11th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, pp. 81–92. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R. (2005). Revisiting wh-movement: The availability of an uninterpretable [wh] feature in interlanguage grammars. In Dekydtspotter, L., Sprouse, R. & Liljestrand, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference, pp. 124–137. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermas, A. (2010). Language acquisition as computational resetting: Verb movement in L3 initial state. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7, 343–362.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 & New York: Mouton DeGruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, M., & Rothman, J. (2011). L1 preemption and L2 learnability: The case of object drop in Brazilian Portuguese native learners of L2 Spanish. In Danis, N., Mesh, K. & Sung, H. (eds.), BUCLD 35: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, pp. 296–307. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Jaensch, C. (2011). L3 acquisition of German adjectival inflection: A generative account. Second Language Research, 27, 83–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leal-Méndez, T., & Slabakova, R. The Interpretability Hypothesis again: A partial replication of Tsimpli & Dimitrakopoulou (2007). International Journal of Bilingualism, doi:10.1177/1367006912448125. Published online by Sage, September 10, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonetti, M. (2004). Specificity and Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 3, 75–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López, L. (2012). Indefinite objects: Scrambling, choice function and Differential Object Marking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lozano, C. (2002). The interpretation of overt and null pronouns in non-native Spanish. In Mardsen, H., Pourcel, S. & Whong-Barr, M. (eds.), Durham Working Papers in Linguistics, 8, 53–66.Google Scholar
Missler, B. (2000). Previous experience of foreign language learning and its contribution to the development of learning strategies. In Dentler, S., Hufeisen, B. & Lindemann, B. (eds.), Tertiär- und Drittsprachen, pp. 7–21. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2004). Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morphosyntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. (2008). Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism: Reexamining the age factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. (2009). Incomplete acquisition of tense-aspect and mood in Spanish heritage speakers. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 13, 239–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., & Bowles, M. (2009). Back to basics: Differential Object Marking under incomplete acquisition in Spanish heritage speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 363–383.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., Foote, R., & Perpiñán, S. (2008). Gender agreement in adult second language learners and Spanish heritage speakers: The effects of age and context of acquisition. Language Learning, 58, 503–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., & Sánchez-Walker, N. (2013). Incomplete acquisition of Differential Object Marking in child and adult Spanish heritage speakers. Language Acquisition, 20, 109–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, V. (1997). The effect of modality on a grammaticality judgment task. Second Language Research, 13, 34–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2004). Input modality and remembering name-referent associations in vocabulary learning. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics (CJAL)/Revue canadienne de linguistique appliquée (RCLA), 7, 39–55.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pires, A., & Rothman, J. (2009). Disentangling sources of incomplete acquisition: An explanation for competence divergence across heritage grammars. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 13, 211–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, M. (2007). The syntax of objects: Agree and Differential Object Marking. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, M. (2008). The acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Probus, 20, 111–145.CrossRefGoogle 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, 245–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothman, J. (2011). L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: The Typological Primacy Model. Second Language Research, 27, 107–128.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 & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothman, J. 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, doi:10.1017/S136672891300059X. Published by Cambridge University Press, November 13, 2013. [this issue]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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothman, J., Cabrelli Amaro, J., & de Bot, K. (2013). Third language (L3) 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., & Iverson, M. (2013). Strong islands and null objects in L2 Spanish of Brazilian Portuguese natives: Do you know the learners who drop ___? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 589–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulz, B. (2006). Wh-scope marking in English interlanguage grammars: Transfer and processing effects on the second language acquisition of complex wh-questions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access Model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slavkov, N. (2008). Medial wh-words and inversion phenomena in complex questions: The case of Canadian French speakers acquiring L2 English. In Slabakova, R., Rothman, J., Kempchinsky, P. & Gavruseva, E. (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2007), pp. 218–232. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (1988). The role played by metalinguistic awareness in second and third language learning. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 9, 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torrego, E. (1998). The dependency of objects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trahey, M., & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M., & Dimitrakopoulou, M. (2007). The Interpretability Hypothesis: Evidence from wh-interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 23, 215–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, M. (2001). The Declarative/Procedural Model of lexicon and grammar. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 37–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ullman, M. (2005). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition: Declarative/procedural model. In Sanz, C. (ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition: Methods, theory, and practice, pp. 141–178. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Vainnika, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1996). Gradual development of L2 phrase structure. Second Language Research, 12, 7–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Heusinger, K., & Kaiser, G. (2003). Animacy, specificity, and definiteness in Spanish. In von Heusinger, K. (ed.), Proceedings of the workshop Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Specificity in Romance Languages (Arbeitspapier 113), pp. 67–101. Konstanz: Universitat Konstanz.Google Scholar
Zagona, K. (2002). The syntax of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zapata, G., Sánchez, L., & Toribio, A. L. (2005). Contact and contracting Spanish. International Journal of Bilingualism, 3, 377–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar