Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

While research on third language (L3) and multilingualism has recently shown remarkable growth, the fundamental question of what makes trilingualism special compared to bilingualism, and indeed monolingualism, continues to be evaded. In this contribution we consider whether there is such a thing as a true monolingual, and if there is a difference between dialects, styles, registers and languages. While linguistic and psycholinguistic studies suggest differences in the processing of a third, compared to the first or second language, neurolinguistic research has shown that generally the same areas of the brain are activated during language use in proficient multilinguals. It is concluded that while from traditional linguistic and psycholinguistic perspectives there are grounds to differentiate monolingual, bilingual and multilingual processing, a more dynamic perspective on language processing in which development over time is the core issue, leads to a questioning of the notion of languages as separate entities in the brain.

This study investigates English-mediated cross-linguistic influence in Chinese learners of Portuguese as a foreign language. Using a corpus of forty written compositions across CEFR levels A1–B2, each text was manually annotated for four interference types, namely lexical, ortho-phonological, grammatical, and pragmatic/discourse, following a predefined coding scheme. Overall interference frequency declined from 4.93 per 100 tokens at A1 to 1.56 at B2, representing a 68.3% reduction, with 95% confidence intervals confirming the downward trend. Analysis of error composition revealed significant developmental patterns (χ 2  = 19.752, p  = 0.020): grammatical interference predominated at lower levels, while lexical interference became increasingly salient at higher levels; ortho-phonological and pragmatic/discourse interference remained relatively stable. These results indicate property-sensitive L3 transfer dynamics, highlighting the developmental shift from grammatical to lexical interference, and offer practical implications for proficiency-sensitive Portuguese as a foreign language instruction.

This chapter contains sections titled: Introduction Review of the Literature Praxis: Research on Adult L3 Instruction A Case Study of USG L3 Programs References

This paper examines the factors influencing syntactical transfer in TLA. There are several factors that influence syntactic transfer in TLA: linguistic (such as typology); individual (such as learners’ “attention control” and age); psycho-linguistic (such as psychotypology and the learners’ awareness of cognates); and other factors (such as L2 type and amount of instruction). In summary, it was found that negative syntactic transfer from both L1 and L2 to L3 occurs when (a) languages are typologically dissimilar (b) learners’ “attention control ability” is low, and (c) L2 level of proficiency and exposure is advanced and L3 level of proficiency is low. In contrast, positive syntactic transfer from L1 and L2 to L3 occurs when (a) languages are typologically similar, (b) students perceive these languages as similar, and (c) L1 and L2 level of proficiency is high and L3 level of proficiency is low. Additionally, the learners’ age was found to potentially influence the language (L1 or L2) from which the transfer occurs into L3: L3 adult learners may count more on their L2 as a source of positive syntactic transfer into L3 whereas children may count more on their L1 as a source of positive syntactic transfer into L3. Finally, it was found that when L1, L2, and L3 are equally proximate, it is the L2 that has the primary influence on positive and negative syntactic transfer in TLA.

This volume brings together six case studies of an adult multilingual speaker who acquires a new language through social interaction. The book deals especially with the multilingual situation, the learner’s acquisitional activities, and the involvement of background languages in the process of speaking. It offers a coherent study of various linguistic phenomena in one individual, including patterns and functions of language switching, word search in interaction, hypothetical construction of words, and articulatory settings in speaking. The main languages involved are English (L1), German (L2) and Swedish (L3). The activation of these languages in the learner’s speech is examined in a cognitive perspective in relation to current models of the speaking process. A longitudinal corpus of NNS–NS conversations covering 21 months from the beginner stage provides the main data for these studies._x000B_Key Features:_x000B_*Presents an example of an active and purposeful language acquirer_x000B_*Explores cross-linguistic influence in a multilingual setting_x000B_*Highlights the significance of prior L2 knowledge in L3 performance_x000B_*Useful for students and researchers interested in second and third language acquisition, individual multilingualism and the human speaking process._x000B_

The present paper examines the factors influencing lexical transfer in third language acquisition (TLA) by examining studies devoted to lexical transfer from L1 and L2 into L3 that were mainly conducted in Europe. There are several factors that have influence on lexical transfer: linguistic (such as typology), contextual (such as naturalistic setting vs. formal setting), psycho-linguistic (such as psychotypology and the learners’ awareness of cognates), individual (such as learners’ age) and other factors (such as L2/L3 proficiency level). The results of the survey indicate that negative lexical transfer from both L1 and L2 to L3 occurs (a) in naturalistic contexts, (b) when languages are typologically similar, (c) when students perceive these languages as similar, and (d) when L2 proficiency level is high and L3 proficiency level low. In contrast, positive lexical transfer from L2 to L3 occurs (a) in formal settings, (b) when students perceive these languages as similar, (c) when learners’ awareness of true cognates is high, and (d) when both L2 and L3 proficiency level are high. Additionally, the learners’ age was found to potentially predict the relative weight of lexical transfer in TLA in the following manner: negative lexical transfer from L1 and L2 to L3 may increase with age. Finally, it was found that when L1, L2, and L3 are equally proximate, it is the L1 that has the primary influence on lexical transfer in TLA.

This study investigates typological distance and order of acquisition (i.e, the order in which languages were acquired) in the context in which Spanish‐English bilingual students, whose first language is English or Spanish, are learning Portuguese as a third language (L3). Participants were asked to think aloud as they worked on pedagogical tasks involving the present and future subjunctive in Portuguese, followed by stimulated recalls. Findings indicate that both groups rely heavily on Spanish when performing both tasks, leading us to conclude that linguistic similarity between the languages overrides order of acquisition. Data derived from learners' reflections elucidated some dqferences in transfer patterns between the groups that would not be revealed otherwise, contributing to a better understanding of these variables in L3 acquisition in general and the acquisition of Portuguese by Spanish speakers in particular.