3. VOGEL (1992)
L1 Mandarin / L2 English speaker,
acquiring German as an L3
Chinese and German: verb final
languages (V fin)
English is not (V nonfin )
4. VOGEL (1992): FINDINGS
one of first studies to identify syntactic
transfer from a non-native language onto
an L3
evidence of L2 English influence on the
acquisition of L3 German: the subject in
the study produced [SV fin V nonfin O]
structures
5. ZOBL (1992)
One of the first studies to investigate
multilingualism from a generative
perspective.
MAIN QUESTION:
Does prior linguistic knowledge lead to
the creation of more or less conservative
grammars in multilinguals?
6. GENERAL ASSUMPTION AT THE TIME
ZOBL (1992)
wide grammars
multilinguals tend to overgeneralize
hypothesis about the language and
therefore have a higher acceptance rate
with respect to ungrammatical sentences
7. ZOBL (1992)
based on various judgment tests
Results:
multilinguals are in fact, less restrictive
in a new language (than monolinguals)
multilinguals seem to create less
conservative and therefore more
powerful grammars
8. KLEIN (1995)
further investigates whether multilingual
grammars are in fact different from
those of monolinguals
THE STUDY
acquisition of verbs and their
prepositional elements particularly the
case of preposition fronting and
stranding
9. KLEIN (1995)
English allows two options:
the preposition is stranded and fronted
Eg: [At what i] are you looking [ PP t i]?]
the preposition is stranded and only the
object is extracted and fronted
Eg: [What i] are you looking [ PPat [ti]]?
11. KLEIN (1995): FINDINGS
multilinguals acquired this specific
characteristic of English faster than
monolinguals did, even though they had
not previously acquired a language with
this structure
12. KLEIN (1995): CONCLUSIONS
multilinguals benefit from higher
multilingual awareness
Multilinguals follow a less “conservative”
learning process (confirming Zobl, 1992)
13. MILESTONE IN L3 SYNTAX STUDIES
the 2001 conference on multilingualism
that took place in the Netherlands
Four key papers:
Bardel 2002;
Leung 2002;
Sjorgen 2002
Vinnitskaya et al. 2002
14. VINNITSKAYA ET AL. (2002)
the acquisition of the English
Complementizer Phrase (CP) by three
different groups of learners:
1.L1 Kazakh and L2 Russian,
2.L1 Spanish
3.L1 Japanese
15. VINNITSKAYA ET AL. (2002)
The structure of the CP is dependent on
the head directionality of a language
English, Spanish and Russian are head-
initial languages and Kazakh and
Japanese are head-final languages.
16. VINNITSKAYA ET AL. (2002) FINDINGS
Groups (1) and (2) behaved in a similar
way
Group (3) behaved in a very different way
17. VINNITSKAYA ET AL. (2002) CONCLUSION
this difference was due to the fact that
the L1Japanese group had not yet
acquired the head-initial parameter
whereas the first two groups had done so
either in their L1 or their L2.
18. GENERATIVE L3: LEUNG (2002, 2005)
addressed the question of UG access and
transfer of morphosynax in L3
acquisition by studying features
associated with the Number and the
Determiner Phrase
19. LEUNG (2005)
continuation of the 2002 study with two
groups of learners of French:
1.One L1 Cantonese/L2 English group
2.one L1 Vietnamese with no L2 group
21. LEUNG (2006)
further extended the 2005 study to
include the acquisition of tense and
agreement features
TESTED
Full Transfer Full Access (FTFA)
hypothesis (Schwartz and Sprouse,
1996)
22. LEUNG (2006): FINDINGS
there is a difference between acquiring
French as a second language and
acquiring it as a third one.
found transfer from L2 English into L3
French, but not transfer from L1
Cantonese onto L2 French
23. LEUNG (2006): CONCLUSIONS
this difference is due to typological
proximity between one of the
background languages and the target
language.
HOWEVER,
if there is no evidence in the input of a
specific feature, it will not be transferred
from any background language.
24. NA RANONG AND LEUNG (2009)
challenge the findings of Leung (2006)
by looking at two different groups of
speakers:
L1 Thai, L2 English and L3 Chinese
L1 English and L2 Chinese.
25. NA RANONG AND LEUNG (2009):
FINDINGS
no clear instance of L2 transfer
CONCLUSION
L1 plays a privileged role in both L2 and
L3 acquisition of syntax
it might be the case that transfer from
the language that is typologically closer
to the target language is favoured
26. NA RANONG AND LEUNG (2009): NOTE
findings from this study are in
contradiction with those by Leung (2005,
2006) where the author found no
preference for L1 transfer.
