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’.

This study uses a Q methodology to track the changing motivational profiles of 15 Chinese university students simultaneously engaged in second‐language (L2) English and third‐language (L3) Spanish learning over 1.5 years. Guided by complex dynamic systems theory (CDST), the study aims to investigate the initial trigger that propelled the Chinese learners to engage in intensive L3 learning and to chart the different routes of multilingual self‐development. Over the 1.5 years, Q sort tasks were administered at 3 time points, and retrospective interviews elicited data to complement the Q sort analysis. A nonspecific multilingual posture was found to be the initial trigger for voluntary investment in intensive L3 learning. A motivational profile with a dominating translingual and transcultural orientation develops into either more constitutive ideal multilingual selves or more language‐specific integrative ideal selves, continuously exerting motivational forces. Another profile, which has a dominating instrumental orientation, generates diminishing motivational forces. We argue that different aspects of multilingual learning motivation may be operating in parallel through correlative associations in the holistic, dynamic, and relational system of multilingual self. The article concludes by discussing pedagogical implications for learning and teaching multiple foreign languages for university students.

The present systematic review examines what factors determine when, how and to what extent previous linguistic experience (from the first language, second language or both languages) affects the initial stages and beyond of adult third language (L3) acquisition. In doing so, we address what a bird’s eye view of the data tells us regarding competing theoretical accounts of L3 morphosyntactic transfer. Data couple together to suggest that some factors are more influential than others. As discussed, the systematic review transcends the field of adult multilingualism precisely because of what it reveals, as a prima facie example in behavioral research, in terms of how different types of methodological considerations impact the way data are interpreted to support or not particular claims.

This article elucidates the Typological Primacy Model (TPM; Rothman, 2010, 2011, 2013) for the initial stages of adult third language (L3) morphosyntactic transfer, addressing questions that stem from the model and its application. The TPM maintains that structural proximity between the L3 and the L1 and/or the L2 determines L3 transfer. In addition to demonstrating empirical support for the TPM, this article articulates a proposal for how the mind unconsciously determines typological (structural) proximity based on linguistic cues from the L3 input stream used by the parser early on to determine holistic transfer of one previous (the L1 or the L2) system. This articulated version of the TPM is motivated by argumentation appealing to cognitive and linguistic factors. Finally, in line with the general tenets of the TPM, I ponder if and why L3 transfer might obtain differently depending on the type of bilingual (e.g. early vs. late) and proficiency level of bilingualism involved in the L3 process.

Phoneme discrimination is believed to be less accurate in non-native languages compared to native ones. What remains unclear is whether differences in pre-attentive phonological processing emerge between the first foreign language (L2) and additional ones (L3/L n ), and whether they might be influenced by the acquisition setting (formal vs. naturalistic). We conducted an event-related brain potential oddball study with native Polish learners of English (L2) and Norwegian (L3/L n ). The results revealed a graded amplitude of the mismatch negativity (MMN) effect, which was largest in L1, smaller in L2, and smallest in L3/L n . Considering the previously obtained results for naturalistic/mixed learners with the same language combination, we believe that the acquisition setting is an important factor influencing the perception of phonemic contrasts. In the naturalistic group, no difference was observed between L1 and L2, while the instructed group exhibited more fine-grained distinctions between all tested languages.

Motivated by the present dominance of online education worldwide during the COVID‐19 pandemic, the present study employed a process‐tracing approach to explore the causal mechanisms of boredom in an online L3 learning. The present case study was done on an adult learner of German and analyzed her accounts of experiencing boredom throughout a whole semester, 13 sessions in length. The trajectory of boredom throughout the course showed that the beginning of the course was the most boring though the learner continued to experience boredom until the end of the semester. Among the theoretical explanations of boredom, under‐stimulation, low perceived control over tasks and attention deficit were found to be the most dominant until the end of the course. Among the nontheoretical explanations of boredom, user‐unfriendly requirements of online learning prevailed mostly in the beginning of the course until the middle but they were found to be less influential in the end of the course. The process tracing approach showed to be effective in unpacking the black box of the causal mechanisms involved in the boredom experienced in the online L3 learning. Suggestions were made on how to make an online language course less boring and more communicative, which seems essential today due to the unrivaled use of online education during the pandemic. The Challenge COVID‐19 pandemic is followed by an unprecedented popularity of online education. But, does online language learning create any particular source of boredom? What levels of boredom does an L3 learner experience in an online course and what are the underlying reasons? The present case study aims to unravel these causal mechanisms using process‐tracing which is an innovative qualitative research method.

The present article addresses the following question: what variables condition syntactic transfer? Evidence is provided in support of the position that third language (L3) transfer is selective, whereby, at least under certain conditions, it is driven by the typological proximity of the target L3 measured against the other previously acquired linguistic systems (cf. Rothman and Cabrelli Amaro, 2007, 2010; Rothman, 2010; Montrul et al., 2011). To show this, we compare data in the domain of adjectival interpretation between successful first language (L1) Italian learners of English as a second language (L2) at the low to intermediate proficiency level of L3 Spanish, and successful L1 English learners of L2 Spanish at the same levels for L3 Brazilian Portuguese. The data show that, irrespective of the L1 or the L2, these L3 learners demonstrate target knowledge of subtle adjectival semantic nuances obtained via noun-raising, which English lacks and the other languages share. We maintain that such knowledge is transferred to the L3 from Italian (L1) and Spanish (L2) respectively in light of important differences between the L3 learners herein compared to what is known of the L2 Spanish performance of L1 English speakers at the same level of proficiency (see, for example, Judy et al., 2008; Rothman et al., 2010). While the present data are consistent with Flynn et al.'s (2004) Cumulative Enhancement Model, we discuss why a coupling of these data with evidence from other recent L3 studies suggests necessary modifications to this model, offering in its stead the Typological Primacy Model (TPM) for multilingual transfer.

This study brings together two previously largely independent fields of multilingual language acquisition: heritage language and third language (L3) acquisition. We investigate the production of fortis and lenis stops in semi-naturalistic speech in the three languages of 20 heritage speakers (HSs) of Italian with German as a majority language and English as L3. The study aims to identify the extent to which the HSs produce distinct values across all three languages, or whether crosslinguistic influence (CLI) occurs. To this end, we compare the HSs’ voice onset time (VOT) values with those of L2 English speakers from Italy and Germany. The language triad exhibits overlapping and distinct VOT realizations, making VOT a potentially vulnerable category. Results indicate CLI from German into Italian, although a systemic difference is maintained. When speaking English, the HSs show an advantage over the Italian L2 control group, with less prevoicing and longer fortis stops, indicating a specific bilingual advantage.

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.