The categorization of the relative complementizer phrase in third-language English: A feature re-assembly account

Abstract

Research questions:The study considers (1) the nature of multilingual transfer in the preintermediate stage of third-language (L3) English and (2) the upper limit of L3 ultimate attainment with respect to the acquisition of definite and indefinite restrictive relative clauses. Methodology: The methodology used was four-point scale acceptability judgment tasks testing (un)-grammatical relative sentences. Data and analysis: The accuracy scores of two control groups of French (n = 15) and English (n = 12) natives and two groups of pre-intermediate (n = 11) and advanced (n = 15) adult learners of L3 English are submitted to parametric statistical analysis. Findings: The results of the pre-intermediate L3 learners indicate that the relative complementizer phrase structure is available as a block from the earlier stages, while the feature matrix of the complementizer is a hybrid of first-language (L1) Arabic and second-language (L2) French features [EPP, ±definite, -wh]. The L3 interlanguage at this stage presents simultaneous L1 non-facilitative and L2 facilitative transfer effects. The performance of the advanced L3 learners shows that they can successfully re-assemble the features of the complementizer matrix substituting the target [-wh] for the native [±definite]. Originality: This article uses a novel language triplet L1 Arabic-L2 French-L3 English to investigate the L3 acquisition of restrictive relatives in a formal foreign language context. The focus is on the interplay between the (in)-definiteness of the head noun and the nature of the complementizer. Significance/implications: The study extends the viability of Lardiere's feature re-assembly account of L2 acquisition to L3 acquisition. The (in)-definiteness of the head noun of the relative clause needs adequate attention in language teaching, like the much-highlighted aspects of resumption.

The influence of L1 Dutch and L2 English on L3 French: A longitudinal study

“…Therefore, the decrease in L1 transfer after the initial stages are in favour of L2 English facilitative transfer (but maybe L3 acquisition). These findings are in line with Hermas (2015), who found L2 transfer in later stages of development. Although we have to be cautious with the interpretation of accuracy rates, since positive transfer could also indicate L3 knowledge, it is still relevant to highlight that there is a large increase in positive L2 influence with respect to the XSVO word order from Y1 to Y2 (34.1% to 67.5% in the GJT and 20.1% to 86.8% in the GFT).…”

The scalpel model of third language acquisition

“…If this is indeed the case, no previously learned grammar would have an a priori privileged position with respect to influencing the next grammar, although predominance of communicative use, hence activation, may certainly modulate this influence. L1 transfer seems to be exclusive only in cases where the particular L2 property has not been successfully acquired, as in Hermas's (2015) study. While there is ample evidence for this view, it does not mean that we should disregard the data in support of the L1 transfer hypothesis and the L2 status factor model, but that we have to find a place for those findings in the increasingly complicated picture of crosslinguistic influence in multilingualism.…”

A systematic review of transfer studies in third language acquisition

“…Some of the work on L3 grammar acquisition seemed to support the idea of a dominant role of the native language (e.g., Hermas, 2010Hermas, , 2015Jin, 2009;Na Ranong and Leung, 2009). That is, that the default source of transfer or the only source of possible transfer is the native, firstacquired language.…”