Linguistic and cognitive motivations for the Typological Primacy Model (TPM) of third language (L3) transfer: Timing of acquisition and proficiency considered

Abstract

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.

Cross-Linguistic Transfer of Object Clitic Structure: A Case of L3 Brazilian Portuguese

“…Finally, the typological proximity model (TPM) [6,17] differs from the L2 status factor, in that any language can be the source of transfer, and also distances itself from the CEM by claiming that language transfer will be either facilitative or negative. According to the TPM, language acquisition is a cumulative and selective process, and operates under principles of universal economy.…”

“…This economy does not solely refer to the universal restriction of grammatical formation of individual grammars, but also to "a larger sense of general cognitive economy that employs prior knowledge to streamline subsequent processes" [6] (p. 123). The concept of cognitive economy as seen by the TPM is defined as the mind's predisposition to put forth the least amount of effort towards a cognitive task [17]. Such predisposition manifests itself in transfer patterns with the purpose of reducing processing costs at different levels, following a similar logic to the one for full L1 transfer in L2 acquisition [18,19].…”

“…On the other hand, when they refer to animate and specific objects, they are ungrammatical, as seen in (16b), and a clitic is required. 1 Contrast it with the BP counterparts in (17 There are other differences between BP and Spanish in what refers to object expression, such as the presence in the latter of the differential object marker (DOM) a, as well as the occurrence of clitic 1 I refer the reader to Rizzi [35] for a more complete analysis of null objects in Italian, but whose analysis can also be extended to Spanish, as suggested by an anonymous reviewer.…”

The Study of Learners’ Educational Level and Their Knowledge of True Cognate Words in Iran

“…Review of literature showed that there is no similar study to show that relationship. Teachers need to know which cognates facilitate learning and also, which cognates confuse or fail to help their students also many linguists and language teachers agree that dissimilarities and similarities in word meanings, word forms, syntactic structure, morphological properties in two languages play a major role in how quickly and accurately a foreign language will be learned by speakers of another language (Holmes & Ramos, 1995;Ringbom, 1987;Rothman, 2015).…”

Evidence from neurolinguistic methodologies: Can it actually inform linguistic/language acquisition theories and translate to evidence-based applications?

“…For example, it has been suggested that phenomena requiring integration of information across linguistic and domain-general cognitive modules (e.g., between discourse/pragmatics and syntax) are more problematic for L2 learners due to an emerging effect bilingualism entails for the use of finite cognitive resources (see, e.g., Sorace, 2011). Other L2 researchers investigate how multilingual speakers acquire and regulate more than one language in production and comprehension (e.g., Gullberg, Indefrey & Muysken, 2009;Rothman, 2015). Of great theoretical interest is the mental architecture of language, that is, whether linguistic knowledge is informationally encapsulated (e.g., Fodor, 1979) or part of general cognition (e.g., Tomasello, 2003), and what the nature of the relationship is between linguistic knowledge and real-time processing in comprehension and production (e.g., Dekydtspotter & Renaud, 2014;Roberts & Liszka, 2013).…”