Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this article, I argue that first language (L1), second language (L2) and third language (L3) acquisition are fundamentally the same process, based on learning by parsing. Both child and adult learners are sensitive to fine linguistic distinctions, and language development takes place in small steps. While the bulk of the article focuses on crosslinguistic influence in L2/Ln acquisition, I first briefly outline the Micro-cue Model of L1 acquisition (Westergaard, 2009a, 2014), arguing that children build their I-language grammars incrementally, paying attention to small distinctions in syntax and information structure from early on. They are also shown to be conservative learners, generally not producing overt elements or performing movement operations unless there is positive evidence for this in the input, thus minimizing the need for unlearning. I then ask the question how this model fares with respect to multilingual situations, more specifically L2 and L3 acquisition. Discussing both theoretical and empirical evidence, I argue that, although L2 and L3 learners are different from L1 children in that they are not always conservative learners, they are also sensitive to fine linguistic distinctions, in that transfer/crosslinguistic influence takes place on a property-by-property basis. Full Transfer is traditionally understood as wholesale transfer at the initial state of L2 acquisition. However, I argue that it is impossible to distinguish between wholesale and property-by-property transfer in L2 acquisition on empirical grounds. In L3 acquisition, on the other hand, crosslinguistic influence from both previously acquired languages would provide support for property-by-property transfer. I discuss a few such cases and argue for what I call Full Transfer Potential (FTP), rather than Full (wholesale) Transfer, within the Linguistic Proximity Model (LPM) of L3 acquisition. Thus, rather than assuming that ‘everything does transfer’, I argue that ‘anything may transfer’.

The present study explored whether emergent bilingual children showed enhanced abilities to learn L3 vocabulary including written, spoken and conceptual forms compared to monolinguals, and the impact of L2/L3 cross-language similarities on such an effect. To this end, we contrasted the English word learning performance of French fifth-graders attending either a monolingual school program or a classroom-immersion program with German as an L2. Half of the items to be learned were German/English (L2/L3) cognate words while the other half were monolingual English (L3) words. Learning was assessed with a forced-choice recognition task, a go/no-go auditive recognition task and an orthographic judgment task. Results yielded a generalized bilingual advantage, with classroom-immersion children outperforming monolinguals on all tasks, irrespective of cognateness, except for the orthographic task. These findings advocate for a bilingual advantage in children that is globally not driven by the specific language properties of cognates, except for the written modality.

Previous studies on crosslinguistic influence (CLI) on third language (L3) morphosyntactic acquisition have provided support for competing theories about the source(s) of CLI. The present study aimed to test if both L1 and L2 can be the source of CLI, and whether they influence L3 learning in similar or different ways. In particular, we aimed to add to our knowledge of the neural correlates of CLI by conducting an exploratory EEG study to investigate how L1 and L2 CLI affect L3 neural processing. Predictions based on the D/P model, which posited different memory systems sustaining L1 and L2, were tested. The findings confirmed both L1-sourced and L2-sourced facilitation on L3 morphosyntactic acquisition. Specifically, we suggest that L1-similarity showed a consolidating effect on L3 implicit knowledge and neurocognitive internalization, whereas L2-similarity contributed to enhanced L3 metalinguistic knowledge. This preliminary study is the first to investigate the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying CLI in L3 learning by natural language learners.

We examined whether and how L1-L2 crosslinguistic formal lexical similarity influences L2 word choice. Our sample included two learner subcorpora, containing 8,500 and 6,390 English texts, written in an educational setting, by speakers of diverse L1s in the A1–B2 CEFR range of L2 proficiency. We quantified similarity based on phonological overlap between L1 words and their L2 (English) translations. This similarity relates to psycholinguistic cognancy , which occurs when words and their translations share a high level of formal similarity, often due to historical cognancy from shared etymology or language contact. We then used mixed-effects statistical models to examine how this similarity influences the rate of use of the L2 words; essentially, we checked whether L2 words that are more similar to their L1 translations are used more often. We also controlled for potential confounds, including the baseline L1 frequency of the English words. The type of crosslinguistic similarity that we examined did not influence learners’ choice of L2 words in their writing in the present sample, which represents a type of educational setting that many learners encounter. This suggests that the influence of such similarity is constrained, and that communicative needs can override transfer from learners’ L1 to their L2, which raises questions regarding when and how else situational factors can influence transfer.

The relationship between first and second language in early vocabulary acquisition in bilingual children is still debated in the literature. This study compared the expressive vocabulary of 39 equivalently low-SES two-year-old bilingual children from immigrant families with different heritage languages (Romanian vs. Nigerian English) and the same majority language (Italian). Vocabulary size, vocabulary composition and translation equivalents (TEs) were assessed using the Italian/L1 versions of the CDI. Higher vocabulary in Italian than in the heritage language emerged in both groups. Moreover, Romanian-Italian-speaking children produced higher proportions of TEs than Nigerian English-Italian-speaking children, suggesting that L1-L2 phonological similarity facilitates the acquisition of cross-linguistic synonyms.

Cognates are orthographically, semantically, and syntactically identical (or similar) words in two languages. The English and Spanish languages share more than 20,000 cognates, and many are essential academic vocabulary. Research has shown that cognates facilitate vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension for language learners (when compared to non-cognate words). In Experiment 1, orthographic transparency ratings for 440 English-Spanish cognate nouns drawn from the Paivio et al. imagery norms were collected from 41 college students. Our participants were presented with lists of English-Spanish cognate word pairs presented side-by-side and were asked to rate the orthographic similarity of the pairs on a Likert scale of 1 to 7. The analysis of the ratings suggests that the earlier an English word deviates from its Spanish equivalent (its “point of differentiation”), the lower the cognate transparency rating it is assigned (extending the generalizability of the “initial letter effect” previously reported). In Experiment 2, we validated these ratings by having 43 new participants quickly judge whether English-Spanish word pairs were or were not cognates. We found that reaction times were strongly correlated with transparency ratings and the points of differentiation, supporting the usefulness of the transparency ratings obtained in Experiment 1. A limitation of Experiment 1 was that the cognate pairs varied only by page number, and the individual cognate pairs were not ordered differently. Additionally, we recommend a larger participant sample to include persons other than college students. Plain language summary The number ratings for spelling similarity of English-Spanish cognate words taken from the Paivio, Yuille, and Madigan imagery types Why is this Topic Important? Cognates are words that are spelled the same or similarly, mean the same or similarly, and have the same grammatical part of speech in two languages. The English and Spanish languages share more than 20,000 cognates, and many are essential academic vocabulary. Research has shown that cognate words help second language learners acquire vocabulary and comprehend what they read (when compared to non-cognate words). Experiment 1. What did the researchers do? 440 English-Spanish cognate nouns from the Paivio et al. imagery word types were rated for how similarly the cognate word pairs are spelled. There were 41 college students who rated the cognate pairs. The college students were presented with lists of English-Spanish cognate word pairs presented side-by-side and were asked to rate from 1 to 7 their spelling similarity. What did the Researchers find? The results suggest that the earlier an English word differs from its Spanish word pair (its “point of differentiation”), the lower the rating the participants assigned it (this extends it generalizability of the “initial letter effect” reported previously). Experiment 2. What did the researchers do? We had 43 new participants quickly judge whether word pairs were or were not cognates. Our goal was to compare the results of ratings in Experiment 1 with how quickly these college students noted their spelling similarities. What did the Researchers find? We found that reaction times were strongly connected to the spelling similarity ratings. The position of the letters at which they differed, supported the usefulness of the spelling ratings found in Experiment 1. What were the limitations? In Experiment 1 the cognate pairs varied only by page number, and the individual cognate pairs were not in different orders. Additionally, we recommend a larger participant sample to include persons other than college students.

Arabic and Hebrew belong to the Semitic branch of the Afroasiatic language family, and thus, they are semantically and phonetically similar in many lexical aspects. This study examined the benefits of Malaysian university students having prior knowledge of Arabic while learning Hebrew. A two-page questionnaire was administered to two groups of 30 and 40 students at advanced and fundamental Arabic proficiency levels, respectively. Page 1 contained a checklist with Yes/No columns about 30 Hebrew words to examine the participants’ prior knowledge. If participants answered yes, they were asked to write the meaning of the word in English or Malay. They then answered multiple-choice questions about the 30 Hebrew words on Page 2. Arabic counterparts were not shown on the questionnaire to prevent cuing the participants. The first group of participants, 30 Malaysian students with advanced Arabic proficiency, learned an average of 23.07 Hebrew words. The vocabulary items most correctly identified by Group 1 were ‘olam “world” (30 correct answers), katavti “I wrote” (28), mavet “death” (28), melekh “king” (27), moakh “brain” (27), shabat “Saturday” (27), shen “tooth” (27), shamayim “sky” (26), shana “year” (26), ahavti “I loved” (26), and ozen “ear” (26). The second group, 40 Malaysian students with basic Arabic knowledge, acquired 12.83 words on average. The scores of the two groups differed with statistical significance at the 5% level (p < 0.001, df = 68, t = 14.26). From these results, it appears that Arabic lexical knowledge significantly facilitates Malaysian students’ acquisition of Hebrew vocabulary.

Because both spelling and reading abilities tap orthographic knowledge, improvements in one ability may lead to improvements in the other. Here, we test whether spelling performance in a second-language (L2) can be improved by a short L2 reading task, as brief exposure to an L2 can increase the activation of L2 representations, making orthographic conventions more available. Participants were 89 adult native Hebrew speakers who were advanced learners of English as an L2. They performed a dictation task on 80 English words, before and after a brief exposure phase. In the Reading Aloud condition participants orally read two stories during the exposure phase, whereas in the Reading while Listening condition, participants silently read the same stories while listening to a recorded narration of the text. Of relevance, words targeted in the dictation task did not appear in the text, such that exposure effects could not be the result of item-specific learning. Results showed better spelling performance post-exposure than pre-exposure in the Reading Aloud condition. Further, analysis of spelling errors revealed that participants in the Reading while Listening condition preserved the phonology of the spelled words, more so post-exposure than pre-exposure. Critically, participants in a control nonlinguistic condition, who were not exposed to English during the exposure phase, did not show such spelling gains. Together, the findings reveal that spelling performance may be dynamically modulated by brief language exposure and suggest that brief reading experience may affect subsequent access to orthographic knowledge required for spelling.

Fifty-six Portuguese speakers born and raised in Brazil produced Portuguese words beginning in one of four plosives, /p b k ɡ/. Twenty-eight of them were monolinguals (controls), and the rest were learners of English as a foreign language (EFL). The learners were also asked to produce English words beginning with one of four plosives, /p b k ɡ/. We measured the plosives’ voice onset times (VOT) to address the following research questions: Do foreign-language learners, whose exposure to native English oral input is necessarily limited, form new sound categories specific to their additional language? Does engaging in the learning of a foreign language affect the phonetics of one’s native language? The EFL learners were found to differ from the controls in their production of Portuguese voiced (but not voiceless) plosives—prevoicing was longer in learner speech. The learners displayed different VOT targets for voiced (but not voiceless) consonants as a function of the language they were speaking—prevoicing was longer in Portuguese. In EFL learners’ productions, English sounds appear to be fundamentally modeled on phonologically similar native sounds, but some phonetic development (or reorganization) is found. Phonetic development induced by foreign-language learning may lead to a minor reconfiguration of the phonetics of native language sounds. EFL learners may find it challenging to learn the pronunciation patterns of English, likely due to the reduced access to native oral input.

Learners of Chinese as a foreign language (CFL) tend to swap the two characters within a coordinative compound word in verbal identification and written production. This mixed methods study not only investigated how CFL learners identified intercharacter orthographic and semantic relationships within two‐morpheme coordinative compound words, but also explored how they used decoding strategies to resolve confusion related to constituent characters within compound words. Thirty‐two English‐speaking learners of Chinese participated in this study. The quantitative strand using a lexical decision task revealed significant character transposition effects and intercharacter semantic similarity effects but nonsignificant intercharacter orthographic similarity effects. Such effects were supported and further complemented by qualitative findings from a semistructured interview on learners' thought processes for compound word recognition. The nonsignificant intercharacter orthographic similarity effects were attributable to the meaning relationships between the constituent characters that shared the same radicals. Taken together, the results suggested that CFL learners tended to perceive compound words as whole units. For pedagogical recommendations, this study emphasized the importance of sublexical radical knowledge, morphological awareness for self‐sufficient vocabulary building, and character handwriting for CFL learners' efficient reading development. The Challenge “I know this word! It's 船舶! Wait, 舶船?” Learners of Chinese as a foreign language tend to transpose the two characters within a coordinative compound word in verbal identification and written production. Is it the shape or meaning similarity between the two characters that confused them?