Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Third Language Acquisition in Adulthood Studies in Bilingualism (SiBil) The focus of this series is on psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic aspects of bilingualism This entails topics such as childhood bilingualism, psychological models of bilingual language users, language contact and bilingualism, maintenance and shift of minority languages, and sociopolitical aspects of bilingualism For an overview of all books published in this series, please see http://benjamins.com/catalog/sibil Editors Dalila Ayoun Robert DeKeyser University of Arizona University of Maryland Editorial Board Kees de Bot Aneta Pavlenko Thom Huebner Suzanne Romaine Kenneth Hyltenstam Núria Sebastián-Gallés Judith F Kroll Merrill Swain Johanne Paradis G Richard Tucker Christina Bratt Paulston Li Wei University of Groningen San José State University Stockholm University Temple University Merton College, Oxford University of Barcelona Pennsylvania State University University of Alberta Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Carnegie Mellon University University of Pittsburgh University of London Volume 46 Third Language Acquisition in Adulthood Edited by Jennifer Cabrelli Amaro, Suzanne Flynn and Jason Rothman www.ebook777.com Third Language Acquisition in Adulthood Edited by Jennifer Cabrelli Amaro University of Florida Suzanne Flynn MIT Jason Rothman University of Florida and University of Ottawa John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdamâ•›/â•›Philadelphia TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the╯American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Third language acquisition in adulthood / edited by Jennifer Cabrelli Amaro, Suzanne Flynn, Jason Rothman p cm (Studies in Bilingualism, issn 0928-1533 ; v 46) Includes bibliographical references and index Multilingualism Adult education Language acquisition Language and languages Study and teaching Language transfer (Language learning) I. Cabrelli Amaro, Jennifer II Flynn, Suzanne III Rothman, Jason P115.T57 2012 404’.2 dc23 isbn 978 90 272 4187 (Hb ; alk paper) isbn 978 90 272 7303 (Eb) 2012033116 © 2012 – John Benjamins B.V No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher John Benjamins Publishing Co · P.O Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa www.ebook777.com Table of contents Acknowledgements Introduction Third language (L3) acquisition in adulthood Jennifer Cabrelli Amaro, Suzanne Flynn and Jason Rothman vii part 1.╇ Theory L3 morphosyntax in the generative tradition: The initial stages and beyond María del Pilar García Mayo and Jason Rothman L3 phonology: An understudied domain Jennifer Cabrelli Amaro 33 The L2 status factor and the declarative/procedural distinction Camilla Bardel and Ylva Falk 61 Rethinking multilingual processing: From a static to a dynamic approach Kees de Bot 79 Multilingual lexical operations: Keeping it all together and apart David Singleton 95 L3/Ln acquisition: A view from the outside Roumyana Slabakova 115 part 2.╇ Empirical studies Further evidence in support of the Cumulative-Enhancement Model: CP structure development Éva Berkes and Suzanne Flynn Acquisition of L3 German: Do some learners have it easier? Carol Jaensch 143 165  Third Language Acqusisition in Adulthood Examining the role of L2 syntactic development in L3 acquisition: A look at relative clauses Valeria Kulundary and Alison Gabriele 195 Variation in self-perceived proficiency in two ‘local’ and two foreign languages among Galician students Jean-Marc Dewaele 223 Advanced learners’ word choices in French L3 Christina Lindqvist 255 Foreign accentedness in third language acquisition: The case of L3 English Magdalena Wrembel 281 Index 311 www.ebook777.com Acknowledgments The papers included in this volume were presented at the Obermann Center Summer Seminar Third Language Acquisition: Developing a Research Base held at the University of Iowa in conjunction with MIT in the summer of 2010 The workshop was mainly funded by an extremely generous grant awarded by the Obermann Center for Advanced Studies, and supplemental monies for the workshop were also provided by MIT We are extremely grateful for all the support from the Obermann Center, but especially to the then director Jay Semel and the current director of operations Neda Hatami Without their generous support (financial, logistical and more) this workshop would have been impossible We are also very grateful for the help of the many graduate students, colleagues and friends who helped to make the workshop run so smoothly We are indebted to Felipe Amaro, who organized the vast majority of the event logistics and so much more Finally, we would like to acknowledge and thank all of the participants for sharing their insightful research and the many colleagues who served as peer reviewers for the papers included in this volume In alphabetical order, these colleagues were: Irma Alarcón, Larissa Aronin, Mariana Bono, José Luis Blas Arroyo, Walcir Cardoso, Peter Ecke, Claire Foley, Rebecca Foote, Britta Hufeisen, Michael Iverson, Carol Jaensch, Scott Jarvis, Jaehuyn Jo, Usha Lakshmanan, Diane Larsen-Freeman, Gillian Lord, Cristóbal Lozano, Gita Martohardjono, Nicole Marx, Grit Mehlhorn, Terrence Odlin, Roumyana Slabakova, Rex Sprouse, Whitney Tabor, Marie-Claude Tremblay, Ineke van de Craats and Mary Zampini Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com www.ebook777.com Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com introduction Third language (L3) acquisition in adulthood*1 Jennifer Cabrelli Amaro1, Suzanne Flynn2 and Jason Rothman1 University of Florida1 and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)2 As in all other domains of language acquisition, the study of third language (L3) or subsequent (Ln) acquisition demands converging evidence derived from a wide range of theoretical frameworks And, such investigation from multiple theoretical perspectives will inevitably lead to debates within the L3/Ln community of researchers Clearly, as in all fields of science, we may not always agree on, for example, what constitutes evidence or the theoretical implications of such data Each paradigm begins with a certain set of assumptions that then leads to the development of specific hypotheses to be experimentally investigated In this context, one hopes that eventually convergence emerges with respect to the hypotheses generated across paradigms Extant studies attempt to lessen paradigmatic divides by, for example, challenging the macro-field to agree on inclusion and exclusion criteria for what constitutes an L3/Ln In addition, attempts are made to establish a common set of factors that need to be consistently controlled for in empirically based studies (see, e.g Cabrelli Amaro in press; Falk & Bardel 2010; Hammarberg 2010; Leung 2007; Rothman, Iverson & Judy 2011; Rothman, Cabrelli Amaro & de Bot in press) In this way, ‘clandestine’ commonalities might be revealed across paradigms and fields, providing suggestions for future research where empirical gaps are uncovered Historically, most research in L3 acquisition has focused on the structure of the mental lexicon, education and sociolinguistics More recently, the field has witnessed a sharp increase in the domain of L3/Ln acquisition of morphosyntax However, in spite of these recent trends during the last two decades, we believe that it is fair to say that the linguistic study of L3/Ln acquisition is still in its infancy For example, as noted by Cabrelli Amaro (this volume), L3/Ln phonology is notably understudied, making Cabrelli Amaro’s and Wrembel’s contributions to this volume even more welcome * The authors’ names appear in alphabetical order; each contributed equally to the chapter Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com  Magdalena Wrembel judges (M = 4.7); however, this time the non-native judges found the speech samples more intelligible irrespective of the lower foreign accent ratings assigned to them Moreover, the non-native raters appeared significantly more confident about their accent judgements (M = 5.6) than their native counterparts (M = 5.2) As far as the phonetic training variable is concerned, statistically different results were obtained in the case of intelligibility and confidence ratings The phonetically trained judges evaluated intelligibility significantly higher (M = 4.5) than the raters who did not have any previous phonetic training (M = 3.9) Furthermore, the phonetically trained raters were more confident about their accent judgments (M = 5.5) than their non-trained counterparts (M = 5.1) To analyze the impact of the length of EFL teaching experience on the accent ratings, Spearman’s correlation was performed (see Table 5) The results pointed to a relatively strong correlation between intelligibility ratings and the judges’ years of teaching experience, i.e the longer the experience, the higher their ratings for speakers’ intelligibility There was a weak correlation between years of experience and the degree of irritation, i.e more experienced judges tended to rate speech samples as more acceptable A weak inverse correlation was also observed between the years of teaching experience and foreign accent ratings, i.e more experienced judges passed more severe accent judgments (i.e they assigned lower points for foreign accent) There was no correlation between the length of teaching experience and the certainty of judgment A 2-way ANOVA was also performed to confirm the effects of raters’ variables on the performed ratings The test of between-subjects effects revealed a statistically significant difference for all the dependent variables (i.e rating parameters) with respect to the native vs non-native factor (accent: F = 8.1, p < 01, intelligible F = 6.05, p < 01, certain F = 8.03, p < 01, irritating F = 52.5, p < 01) The length of the teaching experience also demonstrated between-subject effects for parameters, namely accent (F = 4.3, p < 05), intelligibility (F = 86, p < 01) and acceptability (F = 42, p < 01), but not for the certainty of judgment The pairwise comparisons did not point to any significant effects of phonetic training on the judges’ ratings The analysis corroborates the results of the previous analysis for the variable of native status and the teaching experience; however, the results differ with Table 5.╇ Spearman’s correlation between the raters’ years of teaching experience and their respective ratings (*p < 05, **p < 01) Accent rho Spearman r Years of teaching correlation coefficient sig N –0.11* 0.02 400 Intelligible Certain Irritating 0.42** 0.74 0.19** 0.00 400 0.14 400 0.00 400 www.ebook777.com Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Foreign accentedness in third language acquisition  respect to the effect of phonetic training on the performed ratings, possibly due to different sensitivity of the performed statistical tests 3.4 Speakers’ variables This section continues the discussion of data variability addressed in the third research question by focusing on the effects of the subjects’ different proficiency levels and performance modes on the accent ratings and L1 identification 3.4.1 Accent ratings vs proficiency level and performance mode The results of accent judgements were further analyzed with respect to the speakers’ variables, that is, their proficiency level in English (elementary vs intermediate) and their performance mode (read text vs spoken speech) The respective mean scores are presented in Table The comparison of means calculated on the basis of a two tailed T-test pointed to statistically significant differences (p < 05) for three rating parameters (i.e foreign accent, intelligibility and irritability) with respect to the speakers’ level of proficiency in English and for two parameters, i.e foreign accent and certainty, when the performance mode was concerned The intermediate level speakers received significantly higher ratings on accent (M = 2.9) than their lower level counterparts (M = 1.9), which gives further validity to the foreign accent ratings performed as they were consistent with the speakers’ proficiency levels As could be expected, also in the intelligibility ratings the higher proficiency subjects (M = 4.6) outscored the less proficient ones (M = 4.1) Moreover, in terms of irritability, the intermediate learners were found more acceptable (M = 3.9) than the elementary subjects (M = 3.1) However, there was no difference observed in the judges’ degree of certainty, as for both proficiency levels it totalled M = 5.4 As far as the performance mode was concerned, the spoken samples received higher accent ratings (M = 2.6) than the read samples (M = 2.2) However, the Table 6.╇ Mean ratings with respect to the subjects’ proficiency level in English and their performance mode (* p < 0.05) TOTAL Accent Intelligible Certain Irritating LEVEL M SD element 2.4 4.3 5.4 3.4 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.7 1.9 4.1 5.4 3.1 MODE intermed read speak 2.9* 4.6* 5.4 3.9* 2.2 4.2 5.5* 3.4 2.6* 4.5 5.3 3.5 Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com  Magdalena Wrembel degree of certainty was slightly higher with respect to the read speech (M = 5.5) than the spoken one (M = 5.3) No significant differences were observed in the case of the remaining two rating parameters and their relation to the speakers’ performance style To test the validity of the t-test results, a 2-way ANOVA was performed to confirm the effects of speakers’ variables on the performed ratings The test of between-subjects effects revealed a statistically significant differences in the case of three dependent variables (i.e the rating parameters) with respect to the speakers’ proficiency level (accent: F = 65.5, p < 01, intelligible F = 10.6, p < 01, irritating F = 35, p < 01) The presentation mode (read vs spoken text) also demonstrated between-subject effects for parameters, namely, accent (F = 11.7, p < 01), and certainty (F = 3.7, p = 05) This analysis fully corroborated the results of the previous T-test analysis 3.4.2 Identification vs proficiency level and performance mode The results of the correct identification of the speakers’ L1 and their identification as French was further analyzed with respect to the speakers’ proficiency level and the performance mode A Pearson Chi-square test pointed to a significant difference between the performance style and identification type, that is, read samples were more often identified correctly (69%) than spoken samples (57%) (see Tables and 8) On the Table 7.╇ Percentage of L1 identification with respect to proficiency level and performance mode in L3 English (*p < 01) LEVEL MEAN Identification as Polish Identification as French 63% 16% element 59% 20% MODE intermed read speak 68% 11% 69%* 13% 57% 19%* Table 8.╇ Pearson’s chi-square test (*p < 01) for L1 identification vs proficiency level and performance mode Identification as Polish Identification as French χ2 df sig χ2 df sig LEVEL MODE 4.7 0.09 5.4 0.07 12 â•⁄ 0.002* www.ebook777.com â•⁄ 0.003* Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Foreign accentedness in third language acquisition  other hand, the spoken samples were more often identified as L1 French (19%) than the read text (13%) As for the proficiency level, the Chi-square test only approached significance, with intermediate-level subjects being relatively more frequently identified correctly, whereas elementary-level subject tended to be relatively more often identified as French Discussion The present section aims to discuss the results presented above by relating them to other findings outlined in the literature section and interpreting them in the light of the theoretical underpinnings of the models proposed for third language acquisition The purpose of the study was to further explore the issue of foreign accentedness and possible sources of cross-linguistic influence in third language phonology The first research question investigated how different rating parameters of the degree of foreign accent, intelligibility, acceptability and raters’ confidence are related in accent judgments performed on L3 Some interesting patterns of correspondence emerged between the L3 accent scores on rating tasks as the lowest mean scores were assigned for the degree of foreign accent in L3 English (M = 2.4), with the majority of the intermediate subjects scoring significantly higher than the elementary ones The scores for acceptability/irritability were on average higher (M = 3.4) and they corresponded closely to the accent scores, that is, the same intermediate speakers were rated as more acceptable as those who received higher accent ratings The mean intelligibility scores were the highest (M = 4.3) of these three rating parameters and it appeared that on the whole speakers were rated as highly intelligible irrespective of their lower ratings on accent The level of rating confidence remained fairly high and stable (M = 5.4), thus providing validity for the remaining accent rating Furthermore, it did not demonstrate any variation related to the subjects’ proficiency level The accent rating patterns generated in the present study show a considerable level of consistency with the author’s previous studies (see Wrembel 2010 in press), with the exception of the present intelligibility ratings for L3 English, which did not demonstrate previously attested variability related to the proficiency level This can be partially accounted for when considering a smaller difference between the L3 English proficiency levels of the subjects in the present study On the whole, the present accent ratings performed on L3 speech samples proved to be fairly consistent with the general findings reported in the SLA literature (e.g Flege 1988; Gallardo del Puerto et al 2007; Piske et al 2001), according to which the degree of foreign accent is the most severely Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com  Magdalena Wrembel judged rating measure and where a lower degree of foreign accent is usually associated with higher intelligibility and lower irritation Moreover, it was found that the foreign accent scores assigned by the judges reflected the subjects’ actual command of L3 English as the ratings corresponded to their respective proficiency levels in English based on the group placement tests The foreign accent ratings for the elementary level subjects totaled on average M = 1.9 (1.8 for reading, 2.0 for speaking), whereas the accent ratings for the intermediate learners were significantly higher M = 2.9 (2.6 for reading, 3.2 for speaking) These findings confirm the reliability and validity of the results obtained in the whole investigation The major research question in the study addressed the problem of a source for phonological cross-linguistic influence in L3 acquisition and the investigation was intended to elucidate whether it is the native or non-native language that causes the stronger interference in L3 interphonology Cross-linguistic influence was operationalized in the present study as referring to the accentedness as perceived by the raters and to their identification of the subjects’ first language on the basis of the performance in L3 English The results of the L1 identification task show that the native Polish appeared to exert the strongest influence on L3 English phonology since the majority of subjects were correctly identified as having Polish as their L1 in spite of their dominant proficiency in L2 French (63% correct identification vs 16% identification as French) The findings substantiate the second hypothesized general outcome (see Section 2), namely, that the native L1 Polish influence would override the non-native influence resulting in L1-accented performance in L3 English This is in line with the traditional view of the basic constraint of phonological transfer from the first language to any foreign languages learned as second, third or additional ones and the prevailing L1 interference in multilingual learners as attested by Ringbom (1987) or Pyun (2005), for example However, the results provide partial support also for the third option (see Section 2), namely, that both the native and non-native languages have some impact on the perceived foreign accent in L3, although of a varying strength, thus substantiating the assumption of a combined cross-linguistic influence (see de Angelis 2007) Such an interpretation of the results also lends validity to the Cumulative-Enhancement Model for language acquisition (Flynn et al 2004), according to which all the previously learned languages may influence the acquisition of the third language with the proviso that such transfer is of a facilitative nature Admittedly, the present results provide only weak support for this claim because of a small percentage of L2-accented speech identifications as compared to the mirror design study on L3 French (Wrembel in press) which generated a www.ebook777.com Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Foreign accentedness in third language acquisition  more balanced pattern of mixed interference (47% identification as L1 Polish vs 30% identification as L2 English, and 23% identification as other) The patterns of identification with respect to the subjects’ proficiency level in the present study followed the general trends reported in the literature, that is, more L2-accented performance in L3 was observed at the initial stages of acquisition and this tendency diminished with the increased proficiency in the third language (e.g Hammarberg & Hammarberg 1993, 2005; Wrembel 2010) As in the previous studies, the percentage of correct identification as Polish was higher at the L3 English intermediate level (68%) than at the elementary level (59%); however, this difference was not statistically significant in the present results Similarly, although the identification as French was higher at the L3 English elementary level (20%) compared to the intermediate level (11%), the difference did not prove significant The above trend was not corroborated, however, in the mirror design accent study on L3 French (Wrembel in press), which, unexpectedly generated the opposite identification patterns (i.e the perception of L2-accented speech in L3 was significantly more frequent at a more advanced proficiency level) These mixed results may thus call into question Hammarberg and Hammarberg’s (1993, 2005) assumption that the proficiency level in L3 is a significant factor in determining the source of cross-linguistic influence in L3 phonological acquisition All in all, the present results of L3 accent ratings, unlike my previous ones (see Wrembel 2010), not provide support to the first hypothesized outcome (see Section 2) that the non-native influence of L2 French, or the so called ‘L2 status’, would be a prevailing source of cross-linguistic influence leading to a perceived L2-accented speech in L3 English By the same token, this accent study disconfirms the assumptions of the L2 status factor (Bardel & Falk 2007; Falk & Bardel 2011) and does not provide further strong evidence to the primacy of the non-native influence reported in the literature (Hammarberg & Hammarberg 1993, 2005; Llama et al 2010) A potential explanation for these conflicting results may relate to the limitation of the present study, namely, a slightly questionable status of the subjects’ L3 English since chronologically it had been acquired as the first foreign language (L2); however, in the course of time, English was dominated by a later acquired French due to the intensity of its use and more advanced proficiency level This early contact with English as a foreign language could have led to establishing the basics of the English phonological system, and thus could have prevented the later dominant L2 French from exerting a strong impact on this less proficient foreign language Furthermore, in the mirror design accent study on L3 French (Wrembel in press) in which the L3 status of French was based both on the chronology of acquisition and lower proficiency level, the influence of the second language (L2 English) on the perceived accentedness in L3 proved to be more significant, although it still did not override the native influence (L1 Polish) Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com  Magdalena Wrembel It may be interesting to try to apply the tenets of Rothman’s (2011) Typological Primacy Model in an attempt to add further depth to the analysis of the obtained results According to the TPM, the unconscious internal mechanisms operating in the acquisition of the L3 are intended to transfer knowledge from the previously acquired languages based on an internal set of diagnostics that determine the optimal choice for similarity This process has economic motivation which can be interpreted as the universal principle of the least effort at play Although the languages selected for the present study are relatively unrelated, some predictions can be made about the L3 transfer mechanisms on the basis of the phonetic and phonological commonalities between them As highlighted in the literature (see Cutler, Mehler, Norris & Segui 1986), the features that are of particular importance in structuring oral comprehension, thus which may prove significant in foreign accent studies, are temporal patterns The languages under investigation differ in their prosodic structure; English is stress-timed and French syllable-timed, while Polish is classified either as mixed or as stress-timed, although it does not exhibit vowel reduction (Grabe & Low 2002) Consequently, in terms of temporal patterns one may expect relatively more similarity between L1 Polish and L3 English, leading to potential transfer, provided the proximity is diagnosed as such However, the phonemic structure points to more commonalities between French and English, as these languages have much larger vocalic repertoires than Polish and both exhibit vowel lengthening in certain consonantal contexts These mixed predictions reflect to some extent the character of the findings generated in the L3 accent ratings The author hypothesizes that maybe another factor may account for the discrepancy in the results, namely, the actual L2 proficiency level If we assume that a prerequisite for L2-accented speech in L3 is a sufficiently high level of L2 proficiency rather than the initial stage of L3 acquisition (as proposed by e.g Hammarberg & Hammarberg 1993, 2005), this could explain the mixed results of the author’s series of accent studies In Wrembel (2010) the subjects’ L2 German was advanced and generated prevailingly perceived L2-accented speech in L3 English performance, whereas in the present study the subjects’ L2 French was at an upper-intermediate level, which potentially was not sufficient to result in a non-native perceived accent in L3 English The third research question focused on those factors which could have a potential bearing on the results, including the L3 proficiency level, L3 performance mode and the raters’ variables Firstly, the performed foreign accent ratings evidenced significant inter-rater variability Two out of three raters’ variables were found to exert some influence on their accent ratings Visible differences were observed between native vs non-native judges in all four parameters The non-native raters were more severe and assigned significantly lower scores for accentedness than the natives, which is consistent with some previous findings (e.g Scheuer www.ebook777.com Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Foreign accentedness in third language acquisition  2000; Wrembel 2010) Moreover, their scores for acceptability were lower compared with the native judges On the other hand, the non-native raters found the speakers more intelligible, possibly also on account of the shared L1, and they proved more confident in their accent judgments There was also an effect of the length of EFL teaching experience on the performed ratings Mixed results, however, were reported as far as the effect of phonetic training is concerned when two different statistical analyses were compared Secondly, the observed variability in the accent ratings was also proficiency-related As could have been expected, the intermediate level subjects scored significantly higher on the degree of foreign accent, intelligibility and acceptability than their lower level counterparts, which gives further validity to the study as the performed foreign accent ratings proved consistent with the subjects’ actual proficiency levels Moreover, the results of accent ratings performed on L3 English demonstrated an overall consistency with the findings of L2 accent studies reported in the SLA literature (see Flege 1988; Gallardo del Puerto et al 2007; Piske et al 2001) Thirdly, the effect of the L3 performance mode (i.e read vs spoken speech) was significant for the identification of speakers’ L1 as the difference between the correct identification as L1 Polish reached statistical significance for the reading (69%) as compared to the speaking mode (57%) It can be interpreted that the read text in L3 English exhibited more phonetic features transferred from L1 Polish On the other hand, the subjects’ spoken speech in L3 English evidenced relatively more traces of L2 French accent than the read passage, as the identification as French totalled 18% for speaking and 13% for reading These findings corroborate, to some extent, previous tendencies as reported by Wrembel (2010), according to which the less monitored performance mode (i.e speaking) exhibits more traces of an L2 rather than L1 accent, thus lending some support to the hypothesized unconscious switch to a ‘foreign language mode’ (see Cohen 1995) that is less evident in a more controlled mode (i.e reading) Recapitulating, the present results based on foreign accent ratings lead to the conclusion that it is the native rather than non-native language that prevails as the source of cross-linguistic influence in the phonological acquisition of an L3 that is typologically unrelated to neither L1 nor L2 as was the case in this study The analyzed data provide more support for the claim that it is the motor routine of the mother tongue that dominates the acquisition of the third language phonology rather than a previously learned other foreign language (see Gut 2010; Ringbom 1987) There are some indications based on the patterns of L1 identification, however, that L2 French exerted some impact on the L3 English interphonology, yet the strength of this influence did not prove to be significant as the percentage as L2 French identification was relatively low This conflicting evidence from the present accent study on L1 Polish/L2 French/L3 English and the mirror design study of Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com  Magdalena Wrembel L1Polish/L2English/L3 French (Wrembel in press) as compared to Wrembel’s 2010 investigation on L1 Polish/L2 German/L3 English points to the potential role played by typological proximity As the perceived non-native accentedness in the third language performance was much more salient in the case of typologically related German and English than English and French, the author concludes that it is the factor of language distance rather than foreign language effect (or ‘L2 status’) alone that is significant in determining the source and extent of cross-linguistic influence in L3 phonological acquisition This finding is consistent with Rothman’s Typological Primacy Model (2011), according to which the selection of the native vs nonnative source of transfer in the acquisition of a third language is determined by the typological proximity perceived by the learner’s internal mechanisms between the target language and L1 or L2 rather than by the order of acquisition alone Conclusions When trying to account for native vs non-native influence in third language acquisition two major factors have been identified in research, including language distance (i.e typology) and foreign language effect (i.e ‘L2 status’) Wrembel’s (2010) previous accent study demonstrated a significant effect of the second language phonology on the acquisition of the third language particularly at the initial stages of L3 learning; however, the non-native languages under investigation were typologically related Germanic languages (i.e L2 German and L3 English; L1 Polish) Therefore, the major goal of the present study was to control for the variable of language distance in order to investigate the source of the cross-linguistic influence and the potential impact of the so-called ‘foreign language effect’ or L2 status To this end, a similar study was performed on typologically unrelated languages (i.e L2 French and L3 English; L1 Polish) aimed to verify whether trilingual speakers have a tendency to be perceived as being L1- or L2-accented in L3 accent ratings and to analyze different factors that determine the observed variability The present results did not confirm previous findings (e.g Hammarberg & Hammarberg 2005; Wrembel 2010) concerning a significant effect of L2 on L3 phonological acquisition resulting in a partial reliance on L2 rather than L1 phonetic encoding The transfer from the subjects’ L1 Polish phonology dominated in their performance in L3 English irrespective of the stage of L3 phonological acquisition or the language proficiency It may be thus concluded that the non-native influence on L3 phonology, operationalized as perceived accentedness, is conditioned or facilitated by the language distance between non-native languages Furthermore, the actual L3 status could have some bearing on the nature of www.ebook777.com Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Foreign accentedness in third language acquisition  cross-linguistic influence and the L2 transfer may be expected to be more prominent in the subsequent foreign language acquisition when this language can be classified as an L3 both in terms of the order of acquisition and language dominance (i.e L3 being less proficient than L2), which is not always the case in complicated language biographies of multilingual speakers Further research on a larger sample of subjects and involving different language combinations is necessary to corroborate the source and strength of the native vs non-native cross-linguistic influence in the process of acquisition of L3 phonology Moreover, it is advisable to further investigate the linguistic and nonlinguistic factors that may have a bearing on determining the directions and variability of L3 transfer patterns The present author also intends to conduct a thorough contrastive analysis of articulatory settings in the multilingual speakers’ language systems to shed more light on the processes involved in cross-linguistic influence in phonological third language acquisition Finally, it should be pointed out that the investigation into cross-linguistic influence in the acquisition of a third language cannot be limited to accent studies only and L1 identification based on L3 performance The examination of selected specific phonetic dimensions of multilingual speech such as VOT or vowel quality may prove to be a more reliable measure and may add an extra perspective to the discussion on the complexity of L3 transfer The author intends to continue this line of investigation as started in Wrembel (2011) Traditionally, the influence of a native or non-native language on the acquisition of a third language has been conceptualized as a limiting and restricting factor based on negative transfer or interference; however, it is important to go beyond this conceptualization and to perceive potential positive aspects of transfer as indicated by Marx and Mehlhorn (2010), among others Therefore, pedagogical implications for the learning process of third language speech should involve raising awareness of the complexity of the acquisition of L3 phonology, acknowledging other influencing factors, rather that the traditionally attested L1 transfer, and relying on the potential for positive phonetic interference from another non-native language, i.e the L2 References Bardel, C & Falk, Y 2007 The role of the L2 in L3 acquisition: The case of Germanic syntax Second Language Research 23(4): 459–484 Cabrelli Amaro, J & Rothman, J 2010 On L3 acquisition and phonological permeability: A new test case for debates on the mental representation of non-native phonological systems IRAL, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 48: 275–296 Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com  Magdalena Wrembel CEFR, Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment, Council of Europe, Education and Languages, (9 June 2011) Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B & Jessner, U (eds) 2001 Cross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Chamot, A 1973 Phonological problems in learning English as a third language IRAL, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 11(3): 243–250 Cohen, A.D 1995 In which language do/should multilinguals think? Language, Culture and Curriculum 8: 93–98 Cutler, A., Mehler, J., Norris, D & Segui, J 1986 The syllable’s defining role in the segmentation of French and English Journal of Memory and Language 25: 385–400 De Angelis, G 2005 Interlanguage transfer of function words Language Learning 55: 379–414 De Angelis, G 2007 Third or Additional Language Acquisition Clevedon: Multilingual Matters de Bot, K 2004 The multilingual lexicon: Modelling selection and control The International Journal of Multilingualism 1(1): 17–32 Falk, Y & Bardel, C 2011 Object pronouns in German L3 syntax: Evidence for the L2 status factor Second Language Research 27(1): 59–82 Flege, J.E 1988 Factors affecting degree of perceived foreign accent in English sentences Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 84: 70–79 Flynn, S., Foley, C & Vinnitskaya, I 2004 The cumulative-enhancement model for language acquisition: Comparing adults’ and children’s patterns of development in L1, L2 and L3 acquisition of relative clauses The International Journal of Multilingualism 1(1): 3–16 Gallardo del Puerto, F., Gómez Lacabex, E & García Lecumberri, M.L 2007 The assessment of foreign accent by native and non-native judges PTLC Proceedings, London, CD-ROM Grabe, E & Low, E.L 2002 Durational variability in speech and the rhythm class hypothesis In Laboratory Phonology 7, C Gussenhoven & N Warner (eds), 515–546 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter Gut, U 2010 Cross-linguistic influence in L3 phonological acquisition International Journal of Multilingualism 7(1): 19–38 Hammarberg, B 2001 Roles of L1 and L2 in L3 production and acquisition In Cross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives, J Cenoz, B Hufeisen & U Jessner (eds), 21–41 Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Hammarberg, B & Hammarberg, B 1993 Articulatory re-setting in the acquisition of new languages Phonum 2: 61–67 Hammarberg, B & Hammarberg, B 2005 Re-setting the basis of articulation in the acquisition of new languages: A third-language case study In Introductory Readings in L3, B Hufeisen & R Fouser (eds), 11–18 Tübingen: Stauffenburg Højen, A.D 2000 Detection of Danish accent in English by native speakers of Danish In Proceedings of 4th International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second-Language Speech, New Sounds 2000, A James & J Leather (eds), 80–86 Klagenfurt: University of Klagenfurt Kellerman, E 1984 The empirical evidence for the influence of the L1 in interlanguage In Interlanguage, A Davies, C Criper & P.R Howatt (eds), 98–122 Edinburgh: EUP Kuhl, P.K & Iverson, P 1995 Linguistic experience and the ‘perceptual magnet effect’ In Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-language Research, W Strange (ed), 121–154 Baltimore MD: York Press Llama, R., Cardoso, W & Collins, L 2010 The influence of language distance and language status on the acquisition of L3 phonology International Journal of Multilingualism 7(1): 39–57 www.ebook777.com Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Foreign accentedness in third language acquisition  Llisterri, J & Poch-Olivé, D 1987 Phonetic interference in bilingual’s learning of a third language In Proceedings of the XIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 134–147 Tallinn: Academy of Sciences of the Estonian SSR Marx, N & Mehlhorn, G 2010 Pushing the positive: Encouraging phonological transfer from L2 to L3 International Journal of Multilingualism 7(1): 4–18 Missaglia, F 2010 The acquisition of L3 English vowels by infant German-Italian bilinguals International Journal of Multilingualism 7(1): 58–74 Piske, T., MacKay, I.R.A & Flege, J.E 2001 Factors affecting degree of foreign accent in an L2 A review Journal of Phonetics 29: 191–215 Pyun, K-S 2005 A model of interlanguage analysis – The case of Swedish by Korean speakers In Introductory Readings in L3, B Hufeisen & R Fouser (eds), 55–70 Tübingen: Stauffenberg Ringbom, H 1987 The Role of the Mother Tongue in Foreign Language Learning Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Rivers, W 1979 Learning a sixth language: an adult learner’s daily diary The Canadian Modern Language Review 36: 67–82 Rothman, J 2010 On the typological economy of syntactic transfer: Word order and relative clause attachment preference in L3 Brazilian Portuguese IRAL, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 48(2–3): 245–273 Rothman, J 2011 L3 Syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: The typological primacy model Second Language Research 27(1): 107–127 Rothman, J & Cabrelli Amaro, J 2010 What variables condition syntactic transfer? A look at the L3 initial state Second Language Research 26(2): 219–218 Scheuer, S 2000 What makes foreign accent sound foreign? In Proceedings of 4th International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second-Language Speech, New Sounds 2000, A James & J Leather (eds), 306–314 Klagenfurt: University of Klagenfurt Sharwood-Smith, M 1983 On first language loss in the second language acquirer: Problem of transfer In Language Transfer in Language Learning, S Gass & L Selinker (eds), 222–231 Rowley MA: Newbury House Singh, R & Carroll, S 1979 L1, L2 and L3 Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics 5: 51–63 Tremblay, M.C 2011 Voice onset time in the L3 Japanese of L1 English-L2 French bilinguals Ms Williams, S & Hammarberg, B 1998 Language switches in L3 production: Implications for a polyglot speaking model Applied Linguistics 19: 295–333 Wrembel, M 2010 L2-accented speech in L3 production International Journal of Multilingualism Special Issue 7(1): 75–90 Wrembel, M 2011 Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition of voice onset time In Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences ICPhS, 17–21 August, Hong Kong, L Wai-Sum & E Zee (eds), 2157–2160 Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong (CD-Rom) Wrembel, M in press Foreign accent ratings in third language acquisition; the case of L3 French In Teaching and Researching English Accents in Native and Non-native Speakers, E WaniekKlimczak & L Shockey (eds), 29–45 Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Verlag Wrembel, M., Gut, U & Mehlhorn, G (eds) 2010 Special Issue on L3 Phonology International Journal of Multilingualism 7(1): 1–90 Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com www.ebook777.com Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Index A Accomplishments╇ 121–126 Achievements╇ 120–125, 127 Advanced learner(s)╇ 257–259, 263–269, 270, 272–277 Age of onset of acquisition╇ 3, 62, 68, 72, 73, 167, 228, 234, 235 Article(s)╇ 25, 26, 116, 167, 168, 170–177, 179, 182–184, 186–189 Attrition╇ 87 Awareness╇ 35, 68, 69, 75, 91, 105, 106, 108, 230, 231, 307 B Background language(s)╇ 63–65, 74, 75, 257, 258, 262, 275, 276 Blur╇ 101, 102, 107 Bottleneck hypothesis╇ 119, 128, 129, 135–137 Brazilian Portuguese╇ 21, 25, 40–42, 47, 64, 65, 129–134, 169, 286 C Chinese╇ 26, 120–125, 227 Clitic(s)╇ 25, 129–135 Clitic climbing╇ 130–135 Code-switch/Code-switching╇ 87, 227, 230, 256, 257, 261, 276 Cognate(s)╇ 101, 104–107, 166, 167, 176, 231, 258 Combined transfer╇ 40–42, 46, 47 Complementizer phrase (CP)╇ 145–151, 153, 157, 159, 162, 168, 169, 197, 198 Complexity╇ 40, 82, 91, 116 Coordinate clauses╇ 196, 199, 201, 209, 210, 218 Cross-lexical╇ 97–103, 106–108 Cross-linguistic influence (CLI)╇ 37, 255, 284, 290 Cumulative-Enhancement Model╇ 2, 18, 19, 45, 63, 144–148, 157, 162, 163, 167–169, 176, 183, 184, 196, 199, 219, 283, 302, 308 D Declarative memory╇ 61, 70–74, 228 Development╇ 2, 4, 5, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 27–29, 37, 39, 41, 44, 45, 53, 63, 66, 81–83, 86, 88, 90–92, 96, 100, 135–137, 143–151, 153, 154, 157, 159–163, 168, 169, 183, 188, 190–192, 196, 199–201, 213, 218–220, 224, 227, 233, 282, 283, 286 Distributed Morphology (DM)╇ 185 Dynamic Systems Theory╇ 81, 82, 84, 88–92 E Elicited imitation╇ 152, 168 English╇ 2, 17–19, 21–27, 35–41, 46–49, 51, 52, 55, 63–67, 98, 99, 102–107, 118–121, 124, 125, 127, 131–134, 145–163, 166–171, 173, 174, 176–178, 180–184, 189, 193, 196–219, 221, 222, 224–249, 259–265, 267, 268, 270, 273, 282–293, 295–297, 299–306 F Feature Reassembly hypothesis╇ 118, 119, 125, 129, 135–137 Foreign accent/Foreign accentedness╇ 51, 282, 288–292, 294–299, 301, 302, 304, 305 Foreign language anxiety╇ 226, 230, 231, 246, 247 Free relative(s)╇ 19, 146, 147, 150, 154–158, 161, 162, 168, 169 French╇ 17, 18, 25, 37–41, 46–49, 63, 66, 67, 74, 82, 87, 95, 99, 102–104, 106, 107, 125, 131, 170, 171, 186, 187, 224–227, 229, 231–249, 256–259, 262–277, 282, 284, 285, 288–297, 300–306 Full access╇ 16, 45, 59, 166, 188 G Galician╇ 224–226, 234–243, 245–249 Generative╇ 2, 10–16, 19, 24, 26–29, 40, 42–45, 48, 49, 68, 116, 148, 165, 166, 168, 170 German╇ 2, 18, 26, 27, 38, 39, 41, 65–67, 74, 97, 98, 148–152, 154, 155, 157, 158, 160–163, 166–169, 171–174, 176–178, 181, 183–186, 188, 189, 193, 225, 229, 231, 233, 234, 240, 243, 247, 263, 264, 285–288, 290, 296, 304, 306 Grammatical aspect╇ 120–129 Grammatical gender╇ 26, 117, 149, 166–168, 170–189, 198, 204, 217, 263 H Headed relative(s)╇ 19, 146, 147, 155, 158, 162 Headed relative clause╇ 19, 147, 158 Head-final╇ 64, 145, 147–151, 168, 197 Head-initial╇ 64, 145, 147–150, 168, 197 Hungarian╇ 149–152, 157–162, 169 I Imperfect╇ 120–129 Implicit linguistic competence╇ 70–75 Individual differences╇ 223, 224 Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com  Third Language Acqusisition in Adulthood Initial state model(s)╇ 2, 3, 14–21, 27, 28, 44–49, 62–67, 144, 166–170, 176, 177, 196, 219, 283, 284, 302–304 Integration╇ 100, 101, 104 Interface Hypothesis╇ 117, 118, 125, 128, 129, 135, 136 Interference╇ 41, 42, 64, 95, 96, 282, 284–286, 288–289, 290, 302, 303, 307 Interlanguage╇ 9, 11, 14, 15, 23–25, 44, 48, 65, 117, 233, 263, 286 Interpretability Hypothesis╇ 117, 125, 128, 129, 134–136 L L1 transfer╇ 16, 17, 25, 37, 38, 67, 75, 128, 168, 260, 261, 283 L2 status factor╇ 17, 18, 20, 21, 28, 30, 45, 46, 62–75, 103, 104, 144, 151, 168, 169, 177, 184, 199, 277, 284, 303 L3 phonology╇ 33–55, 284–307 Last learned language╇ 64, 144, 145, 149, 151, 157, 163 Learning situation╇ 68, 73, 100, 128 Lexical choices╇ 260–262 Lexically specified headed relatives╇ 143 Lexically unspecified headed relatives╇ 143 Lexical transfer╇ 255–277 M Memory╇ 70–74, 83, 228 Mental lexicon╇ 71, 98–100, 104, 107, 284 Metalinguistic knowledge╇ 69– 75 Modular Transfer hypothesis╇ 137 Morphology╇ 23, 24, 118–129, 137, 170–176, 178–189, 197, 219, 228, 263, 265 Multicompetence╇ 100, 101, 109, 224 O Optimality Theory╇ 48, 49 Outcome╇ 68, 72, 73, 82, 88, 89, 290, 302, 303 P Preferred L1 option╇ 269, 276 Preterit╇ 120–129 Procedural memory╇ 70–74 Proficiency╇ 3–5, 13, 26, 36, 39, 41, 42, 51–53, 68, 72, 73, 83, 100, 153, 176, 177, 183, 184, 196, 199, 212, 213, 218, 224, 226, 234, 236–238, 240, 243, 247–249, 256, 257, 276, 290, 292, 299–305 Psycholinguistic models╇ 92 Psychotypology╇ 17–21, 38, 39, 47, 63, 65, 74, 75, 134, 137, 144, 199 R Regressive transfer╇ 42 Relative clause(s)╇ 145–162, 168, 169, 196–199, 201–219, 221, 222 Representation(s)╇ 4, 5, 11, 16, 17, 24, 25, 28, 42, 70–72, 81, 84, 86–88, 90, 91, 119, 143, 144, 166, 186, 188, 189 Representational deficit╇ 25, 166, 186, 188, 189 Retelling╇ 259–261, 265, 277 Romance╇ 20, 21, 24–26, 51, 65, 106, 125–128, 131, 230, 231, 234, 235, 237, 238, 243, 246, 247, 285, 288 Russian╇ 19, 35, 64, 146–148, 150, 151, 157, 161, 168, 171, 196–201, 203–219, 221, 222, 231, 263, 264, 283 S Separation╇ 101, 107, 108 SOV word order╇ 145–150, 197, 198 Spanish╇ 2, 17, 19, 21–25, 27, 35–38, 40–42, 46, 47, 52, 63–65, 102, 103, 119–121, 124, 125, 129–135, 145–147, 150, 151, 157, 159, 162, 167–172, 174, 176–178, 180–189, 193, 224–227, 231, 232, 234–243, 245–249, 257, 263, 264, 284–286, 288, 296 States╇ 120–129 Syntax╇ 10–29, 62–75, 85, 117–137, 143, 144–163, 166, 170–173, 185–187, 196–221 Syntactic development╇ 196, 199, 201, 213 T Transfer╇ 4, 5, 11–28, 34, 36–51, 53, 61–68, 73–75, 96–108, 116, 117, 128, 131, 132, 134–137, 144, 157, 160, 163, 166, 168–170, 176, 177, 183–185, 196, 198–219, 231, 255, 256, 258, 259, 269, 271, 275–277, 282–289, 293, 302, 304, 306, 307 Tuvan╇ 196–209, 213–216, 218, 221, 222 Typology/typological╇ 9, 18–21, 25, 26, 39, 47, 49, 53, 62–65, 134, 137, 144, 167–170, 176, 184, 196, 197, 199, 219, 230, 231, 247, 284, 288, 290, 304–306 Typological Primacy Model╇ 3, 16, 19–21, 26, 28, 47, 49, 64, 65, 134, 144, 167, 169, 170, 177, 184, 189, 192, 196, 199, 284, 304, 306 U Universal Grammar (UG)╇ 10– 15, 22, 24, 25, 43–45, 48, 49, 143, 165, 166, 170, 188, 189 V Variability hypothesis╇ 136, 137 Variation╇ 51–53, 82, 88, 101, 224, 226, 227, 236, 247, 265, 269, 294 W Word choice╇ 256, 258–262, 264, 266–277 Word choice transfer╇ 258–262 Word construction attempts╇ 256, 257, 266, 275, 276 Word naming task╇ 88 www.ebook777.com ... (Studies in Bilingualism, issn 0928-1533 ; v 46) Includes bibliographical references and index Multilingualism Adult education Language acquisition Language and languages Study and teaching Language. .. childhood bilingualism, psychological models of bilingual language users, language contact and bilingualism, maintenance and shift of minority languages, and sociopolitical aspects of bilingualism.. .Third Language Acquisition in Adulthood Studies in Bilingualism (SiBil) The focus of this series is on psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic aspects of bilingualism This entails