International Journal of Bilingualism

in this introduction we situate the seven articles in this special issue in terms of the connections between their themes and their individual contributions to the field of third language acquisition (L3A): new theoretical models, innovative methodologies, an epistemological commentary and new perspectives related to multilingual processing and cognitive function.

we discuss important and often overlooked differences between bi- and multilingualism in the context of second language versus third or further language acquisition. We also provide a brief historical overview of the relatively young field of L3A and outline the three current models of linguistic transfer in L3 morphosyntax. Finally, we approach the issues of methodology, psychological complexity and cognitive implications that are discussed in some of these papers.

the diversity of topics in these articles endows the issue with a broad approach to the field of L3A, while individual articles offer a narrow focus on specific theoretical and methodological issues.

this special issue provides an accurate portrayal of the current interest in, and rapid expansion of, multilingualism within linguistic and psycholinguistic approaches.

This article proposes the “scalpel model,” a new model of third and additional language (L3/Ln) acquisition. The model aims to identify and examine what happens beyond the initial state of acquisition and what factors may influence change from one state of knowledge to another.

The article briefly examines the currently proposed hypotheses and models and evaluates the existing evidence for their predictions. It highlights several cognitive and experiential factors affecting crosslinguistic influence that are not taken into account by the current models. These factors include: structural linguistic complexity; misleading input or lack of clear unambiguous evidence for some properties or constructions; construction frequency in the target L3; and prevalent language activation or use.

Findings of recently published research are discussed in support of the scalpel model. In particular, findings of differential learnability of properties within the same groups of learners suggest that L1 or L2 transfer happens property by property and is influenced by diverse factors.

The scalpel model explicitly argues that wholesale transfer of one of the previously acquired languages does not happen at the initial stages of acquisition because it is not necessary. It also argues that transfer can be from the L1 or the L2 or both, but it is not only facilitative.

The new model increases the explanatory coverage of the current experimental findings on how the L3/Ln linguistic representations develop.

The model emphasizes the importance of the cognitive, experiential, and linguistic influences on the L3/Ln beyond transfer from the L1 or L2. Thus, it aligns L3/Ln acquisition with current debates within L2 acquisition theory.

The main goal of the present study is to investigate effects of crosslinguistic influence in third language acquisition by simultaneous bilinguals. We address the following research questions: Do both languages contribute to crosslinguistic influence in third language acquisition, or is one of them chosen as the sole source of influence? Is crosslinguistic influence always from the typologically more similar language? Is crosslinguistic influence always facilitative, or can it also be non-facilitative?

The paper reports on a grammaticality judgment task with two word order conditions, both related to verb movement (verb-second in Norwegian and subject-auxiliary inversion in English).

An experiment was carried out with three groups of 11-14-year-old participants, Norwegian-Russian bilinguals (n=22), Norwegian-speaking monolinguals (n=46), and Russian-speaking monolinguals (n=31). The data were analyzed using a generalized linear mixed effects logistic regression allowing us to estimate the effects of condition (Adv-V, Aux-S), language (Norwegian, Norwegian-Russian, Russian) and their interaction on the correctness of judgments.

The analysis reveals that while L1 Norwegian children over-accept ungrammatical sentences in English with a word order that reflects verb movement (V2), bilingual Norwegian-Russian children notice these errors significantly more often, just like L1 Russians. At the same time, the bilinguals score lower than L1 Russian children on grammatical trials, suggesting the presence of non-facilitative influence from Norwegian.

This study argues for the Linguistic Proximity Model, which proposes incremental property-by-property learning and allows for both facilitative and non-facilitative influence from one or both of the previously acquired languages.

The Linguistic Proximity Model and supporting experimental data contribute to existing models in third language acquisition by indicating that not just typological proximity but also structural similarity at an abstract level should be considered an important factor in third language acquisition.

Over the past decade in particular, formal linguistic work within L3 acquisition has concentrated on hypothesizing and empirically determining the source of transfer from previous languages—L1, L2 or both—in L3 grammatical representations. In view of the progressive concern with more advanced stages, we aim to show that focusing on L3 initial stages should be one continued priority of the field, even—or especially—if the field is ready to shift towards modeling L3 development and ultimate attainment.

We argue that L3 learnability is significantly impacted by initial stages transfer, as such forms the basis of the initial L3 interlanguage. To illustrate our point, the insights from studies using initial and intermediary stages L3 data are discussed in light of developmental predictions that derive from the initial stages models.

Despite a shared desire to understand the process of L3 acquisition in whole, inclusive of offering developmental L3 theories, we argue that the field does not yet have—although is ever closer to—the data basis needed to effectively do so.

This article seeks to convince the readership of the need for conservatism in L3 acquisition theory building, whereby offering a framework on how and why we can most effectively build on the accumulated knowledge of the L3 initial stages in order to make significant, steady progress.

The arguments exposed here are meant to provide an epistemological base for a tenable framework of formal approaches to L3 interlanguage development and, eventually, ultimate attainment.

We investigate the extent to which L1 versus adult L2 phonological systems resist influence from an L3. We test the Phonological Permeability Hypothesis (Cabrelli Amaro & Rothman, 2010), which states that adult L2 phonological systems are different from L1 systems with regards to instability.

To isolate the variable of age of acquisition, we examined the acquisition of L3 Brazilian Portuguese (BP) by two types of sequential bilinguals: L1 English/L2 Spanish, L1 Spanish/L2 English. We tested perception via a forced-choice goodness task and production via a delayed repetition task. First, we assessed acquisition of the phonological property in BP (in this case, word-final vowel reduction, and excluded learners’ data that was not target-like in BP. We then tested the learners’ Spanish to determine the level of BP influence.

Perception data were analyzed for accuracy and reaction time. Production data were analyzed acoustically for formant structure, duration, and intensity. We compared L1 English/L2 Spanish data (n=15) with L1 Spanish/L2 English data (n=8), and with Spanish (n=11) and BP controls (n=14).

While data from the preference task do not signal instability of perception for early or late acquirers of Spanish, L2 Spanish production data for vowel height measured differs from the L1 Spanish and Spanish control data. We take this as preliminary support for our hypothesis.

By comparing L1 and L2 vulnerability to L3 influence, this study takes a novel approach to the debate over the constitution of phonological systems acquired in childhood versus in adulthood.

The novel methodology implemented, together with these empirical findings, will afford further development of a research program dedicated to L3 bidirectional influence and the study of what L3 acquisition can tell us about language acquisition more generally.

The objectives of the present research were to examine the cognitive consequences of trilingualism and explain them relative to the cognitive consequences of bilingualism.

A comparison of cognitive abilities in trilinguals and bilinguals was conducted. In addition, we proposed a cognitive plasticity framework to account for cognitive differences and similarities between trilinguals and bilinguals.

Three aspects of cognition were analyzed: (1) cognitive reserve in older adults, as measured by age of onset of Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment; (2) inhibitory control in children and younger adults, as measured by response times on behavioral Simon and flanker tasks; and (3) memory generalization in infants and toddlers, as measured by accuracy on behavioral deferred imitation tasks. Results were considered within a framework of cognitive plasticity, which took into account several factors that may affect plasticity including the age of learning a third language and the extent to which additional cognitive resources are needed to learn the third language.

A mixed pattern of results was observed. In some cases, such as cognitive reserve in older adults, trilinguals showed larger advantages than did bilinguals. On other measures, for example inhibitory control in children and younger adults, trilinguals were found to exhibit the same advantages as bilinguals. In still other cases, such as memory generalization in infants and toddlers, trilinguals did not demonstrate the advantages seen in bilinguals.

This study is the first comprehensive analysis of how learning a third language affects the cognitive abilities that are modified by bilingual experience, and the first to propose a cognitive plasticity framework that can explain and predict trilingual-bilingual differences.

This research shows that the cognitive consequences of trilingualism are not simply an extension of bilingualism’s effects; rather, trilingualism has distinct consequences, with theoretical implications for our understanding of linguistic and cognitive processes and their plasticity, as well as applied-science implications for using second and third language learning in educational and rehabilitative contexts to foster successful cognitive development and aging.