Crosslinguistic influence in L3 acquisition across linguistic modules

Abstract

In this study, we investigated crosslinguistic influence (CLI) at developmental stages of third language (L3) acquisition of English by Russian-Norwegian children (N = 31). We tested seven linguistic properties within three linguistic modules (morphology, syntax and syntax-semantics). We compared the L3 learners to Norwegian (N = 90) and Russian (N = 74) second language (L2) learners of English. We predicted simultaneous facilitative and non-facilitative CLI in the L3 group within all modules, as the previously acquired languages offered conflicting options. Our predictions were partly supported. On one property, the L3 learners were different from both L2 groups, which is in line with cumulative CLI from both previously acquired languages. On four conditions, the L3 learners performed like the more accurate L2 group, indicating facilitative influence. On two conditions, all groups performed alike, showing high rates of accuracy. Taken together, the results indicate that CLI obtains on a property-byproperty basis, with none of the L1s being the sole or primary source of CLI. Finally, we found CLI in all linguistic domains, but the developmental slopes for the properties were not equal, which suggests that factors such as complexity and saliency needs to be taken into account when we compare CLI.

Full Transfer Potential in L3/Ln Acquisition

“…If the L3 group scores in between the two L2 groups on either of the properties, and significantly differently from both groups, this can be interpreted as strong evidence in favor of cumulative activation of both previously acquired languages and combined (facilitative and non-facilitative) crosslinguistic influence. This is what is observed in Westergaard et al (2017), Jensen et al (2021), and Kolb et al (2022); see section 5.…”

“…More substantial evidence in support of the LPM and the Scalpel Model is reported in Jensen et al (2021) from the acquisition of L3 English by Norwegian-Russian bilinguals across three linguistic modules: syntax (word order), morphology (subject-verb agreement and copula) and the syntax-semantics interface (genericity and definiteness). In each domain, at least one condition targeted a property that was similar in Norwegian and English (while Russian was different) or similar in Russian and English (while Norwegian was different).…”

Syntax Matters: Exploring the Effect of Linguistic Similarity in Third Language Acquisition

“…This means that crosslinguistic influence can come from the L1, from the L2, or from both previously acquired languages. This has been argued, for example, by Listhaug et al (2021), who found influence from both L1 Norwegian and L2 English in L3 French, as well as by Westergaard et al (2017), Jensen et al (2021), and Kolb et al (2022), who found empirical evidence for simultaneous facilitative and nonfacilitative crosslinguistic influence in L3 English, both from a lexically similar language-Norwegian or German-and a more distant language-Russian-which shares a particular property with the L3.…”

“…(2017), Jensen et al. (2021), and Kolb et al. (2022), who found empirical evidence for simultaneous facilitative and nonfacilitative crosslinguistic influence in L3 English, both from a lexically similar language—Norwegian or German—and a more distant language—Russian—which shares a particular property with the L3.…”

Segmental and Prosodic Evidence for Property-by-Property Transfer in L3 English in Northern Africa

“…Westergaard (2021), Westergaard et al (2017), andJensen et al (2021) work within the Linguistic Proximity Model (LPM). This model has recently been espoused by ) using phonological data.…”