In this commentary, I question Westergaard’s argument that third language (L3) data can be used to decide between theories such as Full Transfer Full Access, involving wholesale transfer initially, and Full Transfer Potential, involving property-by-property transfer. I suggest that much L3 data will be amenable to explanation under either theory. Furthermore, it is not clear what kind of data would constitute counter-evidence to Full Transfer Potential.
BardelCFalkY (2007) The role of the second language in third language acquisition: The case of Germanic syntax. Second Language Research23: 459–84.
2.
FinerDBroselowE (1986) Second language acquisition of reflexive-binding. In: BermanSChoeJ-WMcDonoughJ (eds) Proceedings of NELS 16. University of Massachusetts at Amherst: Graduate Linguistics Students Association, pp. 154–68.
3.
GrüterT (2006) Another take on the L2 initial state: Evidence from comprehension in L2 German. Language Acquisition13: 287–317.
4.
GrüterTConradieS (2006) Investigating the L2 initial state: Additional evidence from the production and comprehension of Afrikaans-speaking learners of German. In: SlabakovaRMontrulSPrévostP (eds) Inquiries in linguistic development: In honor of Lydia White. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 89–114.
5.
Puig-MayencoEGonzález AlonsoJRothmanJ (2020) A systematic review of transfer studies in third language acquisition. Second Language Research36: 31–64.
6.
SchwartzBDSprouseR (1994) Word order and nominative case in nonnative language acquisition: a longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage. In: HoekstraTSchwartzBD (eds) Language acquisition studies in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 317–68.
7.
WestergaardM (2021) Microvariation in multilingual situations: The importance of property-by-property acquisition. Second Language Research37(3): 379–407.
