The study considers (1) the nature of multilingual transfer in the pre-intermediate 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.
BardelC.FalkY. (2007). The role of the second language in third language acquisition: The case of Germanic syntax. Second Language Research, 23, 459–484.
2.
BellettiA.BennatiE.SoraceA. (2007). Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: Evidence from near-native Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25, 657–689.
3.
BolotinN. (1996). Arabic speakers’ resetting of parameters. In EidM. (Ed.), Perspectives on Arabic linguistics VIII (pp. 135–155). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
4.
ButlerY. G. (2002). Second language learners’ theories on the use of English articles: An analysis of the metalinguistic knowledge used by Japanese students in acquiring the English article system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 451–480.
5.
ChomskyN.LasnikH. (1995). The theory of principles and parameters. In ChomskyN. (Ed.), The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
CohenH.LefebvreC. (2005). Bridging the category divide. In CohenH.LefebvreC. (Eds.), Handbook of categorization in cognitive science (pp. 1–15). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
7.
ComrieB. (2002). Typology and language acquisition: The case of relative clauses. In GiacaloneR. A. (Ed.), Typology and second language acquisition (pp. 19–37). New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
8.
De AngelisG. (2007). Third or additional language acquisition. Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
9.
DoughtyC. J. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431–469.
10.
DuffieldN. (2003). Measures of competent gradience. In van HoutR.HulkA.KuikenF.TowellR. (Eds.), The interface between syntax and the lexicon in second language acquisition (pp. 98–127). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
11.
FalkY.BardelC. (2011). Object pronouns in German L3 syntax: Evidence for the L2 status factor. Second Language Research, 27, 9–82.
12.
FlynnS.FoleyC.VinnitskayaI. (2004). The cumulative-enhancement model for language acquisition: Comparing adults’ and children’s patterns of development in first, second and third language acquisition of relative clauses. The International Journal of Multilingualism, 1, 3–16.
13.
García MayoM.RothmanJ. (2012). L3 morphosyntax in the generative tradition: From the initial state and beyond. In Cabrelli AmaroJ.FlynnS.RothmanJ. (Eds), Third language acquisition in adulthood (pp. 9–32). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
14.
HamiltonR. (1994). Is implicational generalization unidirectional and maximal? Evidence from relativization instruction in a second language. Language Learning, 44, 123–157.
15.
HawkinsJ. A. (1999). Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammarsLanguage, 75, 244–285.
16.
HawkinsR. (2001). Second language syntax: A generative introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
17.
HawkinsR.ChanC. Y.-H. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The failed functional features hypothesis. Second Language Research, 13, 187–226.
18.
IoninT. (2003). The interpretation of ‘the’: A new look at articles in L2-English. In BeachleyB.BrownA.ConlinF. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 346–357). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
19.
IoninT.KoH.WexlerK. (2004). Article semantics in L2-acquisition: The role of specificity. Language Acquisition, 12, 3–69.
20.
IoninT.WexlerK. (2003). The certain uses of ‘the’ in L2-English. In LicerasJ. M.ZoblH.GoodluckH. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2002) (pp. 150–160). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
21.
IoninT.ZubizarretaM. L.Bautista-MaldonadoS. (2007). Sources of linguistic knowledge in the second language acquisition of English articles. Lingua, 118. 554–576.
22.
KannoK. (2001). On-line processing of Japanese by English L2 learners. Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language, 4, 23–38.
23.
KannoK. (2007). Factors affecting the processing of Japanese relative clauses by L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 197–218.
24.
LardiereD. (1998a). Case and tense in the ‘fossilized’ steady state. Second Language Research, 14, 1–26.
25.
LardiereD. (1998b). Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent L2 end-state grammar. Second Language Research, 14, 359–375.
26.
LardiereD. (2000). Mapping features to forms in second language acquisition. In ArchibaldJ. (Ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 102–129). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
27.
LardiereD. (2005). On morphological competence. In DekydtspotterL.SprouseRex A.LiljestrandA. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2004), (pp. 178–192). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
28.
LardiereD. (2007) Acquiring (or assembling) functional categories in second language acquisition. In BelikovaA.MeroniL.UmedaM. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA 2), (pp. 233–244). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
29.
LardiereD. (2008). Feature-assembly in second language acquisition. In LicerasJ.ZoblH.GoodluckH. (Eds.), The role of features in second language acquisition (pp. 107–139). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
30.
LardiereD. (2009). Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 25, 173–227.
31.
LozanoC. (2006). Focus and split intransitivity: The acquisition of word order alternations and unaccusativity in L2 Spanish. Second Language Research, 22, 145–187.
32.
O’GradyW.LeeM.ChooM. (2003). A subject-object asymmetry in the acquisition of relative clauses in Korean as a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 433–448.
33.
OzekiH.ShiraiY. (2007). Does the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy predict the difficulty order in the acquisition of Japanese relative clauses?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 169–196.
34.
ParadisJ.NavarroS. (2003). What is the role of the input?Journal of Child Language, 30, 1–23.
35.
RadfordA. (1997). Syntactic theory and the structure of English: A minimalist approach. Cambridge, UK: CUP.
36.
RadfordA. (2004). Minimalist syntax: Exploring the structure of English. Cambridge, UK: CUP.
37.
RizziL. (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38.
RothmanJ. (2008). Aspectual selection in adult L2 Spanish and the Competing Systems Hypothesis: When pedagogical and linguistic rules conflict. Languages in Contrast, 8, 74–106.
39.
RothmanJ. (2010). On the typological economy of syntactic transfer: Word order and relative clause attachment preference in L3 Brazilian Portuguese. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 48, 243–71.
40.
RothmanJ. (2011). L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: The typological primacy model. Second Language Research, 27, 107–127.
41.
RothmanJ. (2013). Cognitive economy, non-redundancy and typological primacy in L3 acquisition: Evidence from initial stages of L3 Romance. In BaauwS.DirjkoningenF.PintoM. (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2011. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
42.
RowlettP. (2007). The syntax of French. Cambridge, UK: CUP.
43.
SarkoG. (2009). L2 English article production by Arabic and French speakers. In del Pilar García MayoM.HawkinsR. (Eds.), Second language acquisition of articles: Empirical findings and theoretical implications (pp. 37–66). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamin Publishing.
TellierC. (2003). Éléments de syntaxe du français : méthodes d‘analyse en grammaire générative. Montréal, Canada: Presses de l‘Université de Montréal.
46.
ThomsonA. J.MartinetA. V. (1986). A Practical English Grammar. Oxford: OUP.
47.
TravisL. (2005). Lexical, functional, crossover, and multifunctional categories. In CohenH.LefebvreC. (Eds.), Handbook of categorization in cognitive science (pp. 319–346). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
48.
TravisL. (2008). The role of features in syntactic theory and language variation. In LicerasJ.ZoblH.GoodluckH. (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition (pp. 22–47). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
49.
ValenzuelaE. (2006). L2 end state grammars and incomplete acquisition of Spanish CLLD constructions. In SlabakovaR.MontrulS.PrévostP. (Eds.), Inquiries in linguistic development: Special volume in honour of Lydia White (pp. 283–304). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
50.
WhiteL. (2005). Syntactic categories in second language acquisition. In CohenH.LefebvreC. (Eds.), Handbook of categorization in cognitive science (pp. 515–533). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
51.
YuanB.ZhaoY. (2005). Resumptive pronouns in English-Chinese and Arabic-Chinese interlanguages. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43, 219–237.
