3. THE CEM
•proposed by Flynn et al. in 2004
•first formal L3/Ln initial state model
•based on the data presented by Vinnitskaya et
al. (2002) Flynn et al. (2004)
4. Vinnitskaya et al. (2002)
• studied 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.
** The structure of the CP is dependent on the
head directionality of a language
5. Vinnitskaya et al. (2002): FINDINGS
•Groups (1) and (2) behaved in a similar way
•Group (3) behaved in a very different way
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
6. Vinnitskaya et al. (2002) & Flynn et al. (2004)
•all previously acquired languages can have a
positive influence on the acquisition of a third
or subsequent one.
7. Two main ideas behind the CEM
•a model of the initial state as well as a theory
of developmental sequence and ultimate
attainment” (Rothman et al. 2011)
•transfer is always facilitative: any prior
linguistic system can either enhance the
acquisition process of a subsequent language
remain neutral
8. The L2 Status Factor
•First definition:
Hammarberg (2009): “a desire to suppress the
L1 as being non-foreign and rely rather on a
prior L2 as a strategy to approach the L3”
9. Bardel and Falk (2007)
•analyzed the role of the L2 in syntactic transfer
by looking at the placement of sentential
negation in an L3
**closely associated with the V2 rule
•two different groups
1. one that had an L1 with V2 and an L2 without V2
2. one that had an L1 without V2 and L2 with V2.
10. Bardel and Falk (2007): FINDINGS
•the group with an L2 with V2 correctly
transferred this structure into the L3, whereas
with V2 in their L1 only, did not transfer this
structure.
CONCLUSION
•L2 syntactic structures are transferred into an
L3 independently of typology
11. THE L2 STATUS FACTOR
MAIN CLAIM
•privileged role of the L2 in L3 transfer.
12. THE TYPOLOGICAL PROXIMITY MODEL (TPM)
•proposes multiple sources of transfer in
multilingual syntactic acquisition
•considers transfer to be conditioned by the
psychotypological factors between the
languages at play
13. Rothman and Cabrelli Amaro (2010)
•looked at the Null-Subject Parameter (NSP) in
the acquisition of French and Italian as either
the L2 or the L3
•All learners in the study had English as their L1
and one group had L2 Spanish and L3 French
14. Rothman and Cabrelli Amaro (2010): FINDINGS
•subjects did not transfer properties of the NSP
from their L1 English into the L3 French or
Italian, but rather from their L2 Spanish.
•the results show positive as well as negative
transfer.
15. Rothman (2010)
•further investigates the idea of
(psycho)typology by looking at closely related
languages:
1. one group of L3 learners of Brazilian Portuguese
with L1 English and L2 Spanish.
1. a second group with L1 Spanish, L2 English and L3
Brazilian Portuguese.
16. Rothman (2010)
•The linguistic phenomenon under investigation
in this study was noun-raising, present and
obligatory in all languages involved, with the
exception of English.
17. Rothman (2010): FINDINGS
•Results showed that all learners had
successfully acquired the noun-raising rule
CONCLUSION
•typological proximity is favoured as the
transfer source
•further support the Typological Primacy Model
