Cover not available
Part of
L3 Development After the Initial State
Edited by Megan M. Brown-Bousfield, Suzanne Flynn and Éva Fernández-Berkes
[Studies in Bilingualism 65] 2023
► pp. 236–271

Property-by-property transfer in L3 Italian

| University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
| University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

According to the Linguistic Proximity Model (Westergaard et al., 2017), linguistic structure is the chief factor which conditions transfer on a property-by-property basis in L3 acquisition. The present study examined the predictions of this model in the L2 and L3 acquisition of Italian by Spanish- and English-speaking L2 and L3 learners. The structures of interest were dative experiencer psych verbs and animate specific direct objects. Crucially, dative experiencer psych verbs from the piacere/gustar “like” class are similar in Italian and Spanish in that they cannot be passivized; these same verbs have nominative experiencers and can be passivized in English. Italian and English both lack Differential Object Marking (DOM), which is instantiated in Spanish, meaning that objects which are both animate and specific are morphologically marked. In this way, the language selected for transfer could be precisely identified. Results, overall, from a written acceptability judgment task found that the L3 groups transferred from distinct previously acquired languages, either their L1 or L2 (English and Spanish), to different extents for the two main properties tested, supporting the validity of the Linguistic Proximity Model and property-by-property transfer as a post initial state theoretical model of L3 interlanguage development.

Keywords: Italian, Spanish, English, psych verbs, passives, differential object marking, L2 acquisition, L3 acquisition
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The Linguistic Proximity Model
  • 3.Psych verbs and differential object marking in English, Spanish and Italian
    • 3.1Psych verbs
    • 3.2Differential object marking
  • 4.Research question and hypotheses
  • 5.Experimental design
    • 5.1Participants
    • 5.2Acceptability judgment task
    • 5.3Procedures
  • 6.Results
  • 7.Discussion
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 9 October 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.65.10gal
References
Aissen, J.
(2003) Differential Object Marking : Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21, 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardel, C., & Falk, Y.
(2007) The role of the second language in third language acquisition: The case of Germanic syntax. Second Language Research. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L.
(1988) Psych-verbs and θ-Theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 6(3), 291–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cabrelli, J., & Puig-Mayenco, E.
(2020) Theoretical and methodological considerations for a robust evaluation of the Linguistic Proximity Model. Second Language Research, 37(3). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christinsen, R. H. B.
(2018) Ordinal: Regression models for ordinal data. CRAN. Retrieved on 6 June 2023 from [URL]
Fernández-Berkes, É., & Flynn, S.
(2021) Vindicating the need for a principled theory of language acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 11(1), 30–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flynn, S., Foley, C., & Vinnitskaya, I.
(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. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1(1), 3–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gallardo, M.
(2022) Periphrastic passives and aspect in Italian. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giancaspro, D., Halloran, B., & Iverson, M.
(2015) Transfer at the initial stages of L3 Brazilian Portuguese: A look at three groups of English/Spanish bilinguals. Bilingualism, 18(2), 191–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, M., & Marantz, A.
(1994) Some key features of distributed morphology. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 21, 275–288.Google Scholar
Jensen, I. N., Mitrofanova, N., Anderssen, M., Rodina, Y., Slabakova, R., & Westergaard, M.
(2021) Crosslinguistic influence in L3 acquisition across linguistic modules. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kraš, T.
(2008) L2 acquisition of the lexicon-syntax interface and narrow syntax by child and adult Croatian learners of Italian. University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D.
(2007) Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition : A case study. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A., Schifano, N., & Silvestri, G.
(2019) Differential Object Marking and the properties of D in the dialects of the extreme south of Italy. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1), 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
López, L.
(2012) Indefinite objects: Scrambling, choice functions, and differential marking. The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. A.
(1998) The L2 acquisition of dative experiencer subjects. Second Language Research, 14(1), 27–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., & Slabakova, R.
(2003) Competence similarities between native and near-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(3), 351–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team
(2020) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R. Foundation. Retrieved on 6 June 2023 from [URL]
Rothman, J.
(2011) L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: The Typological Primacy Model. Second Language Research. 37(1), DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A.
(1996) L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model. Second Language Research, 12(1), 40–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020) In defense of “copying and restructuring.” Second Language Research. 37(3), DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. A. F.-U.
of H. A. F.-I. U. (2021) The Full Transfer/Full Access Model and L3 cognitive states. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 11(1), 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharwood Smith, Michael, & Truscott, J.
(2006) Full transfer full access: A Processing-oriented interpretation. In S. Unsworth, T. Parodi, A. Sorace, & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), Paths of development in L1 and L2 acquisition (pp. 201–216). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharwood Smith, Mike, & Truscott, J.
(2008) MOGUL and crosslinguistic influence. In D. Gabryś-Barker (Ed.), Morphosyntactic issues in second language acquisition (pp. 63–85). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Westergaard, M.
(2019) Microvariation in multilingual situations: The importance of property-by-property acquisition. Second Language Research, 37(3), DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Westergaard, M., Mitrofanova, N., Mykhaylyk, R., & Rodina, Y.
(2017) Crosslinguistic influence in the acquisition of a third language: The Linguistic Proximity Model. International Journal of Bilingualism, 21(6), 666–682. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Westergaard, M., Mitrofanova, N., Rodina, Y., & Slabakova, R.
(2023) Full Transfer Potential in L3/Ln Acquisition: Crosslinguistic Influence as a Property-by-Property Process. In J. Cabrelli, A. Chaouch-Orozco, J. González Alonso, S. Pereira Soares, E. Puig-Mayenco, & J. Rothman (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Third Language Acquisition (Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics, pp. 219–242). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar