Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T13:15:20.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

L3 acquisition: A focus on cognitive approaches*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2014

MARÍA DEL PILAR GARCÍA MAYO  and
JORGE GONZÁLEZ ALONSO
MARÍA DEL PILAR GARCÍA MAYO*
Affiliation:
Universidad del País Vasco (UPV/EHU)
JORGE GONZÁLEZ ALONSO
Affiliation:
Universidad del País Vasco (UPV/EHU)
*
Address for correspondence: María del Pilar García Mayo, Departamento de Filología Inglesa, Paseo de la Universidad 5, 01006 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spainmariapilar.garciamayo@ehu.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Interest in third language (L3) acquisition has increased exponentially in recent years, due to its potential to inform long-lasting debates in theoretical linguistics, language acquisition and psycholinguistics. From the very beginning, researchers investigating child and adult L3 acquisition have considered the many diverse cognitive factors that constrain and condition the initial state and development of newly acquired languages, and their models have duly evolved to incorporate insights from the most recent findings in psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics and cognitive psychology. The articles in this Special Issue of Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, in dealing with issues such as age of acquisition, attrition, relearning, cognitive economy or the reliance on different memory systems – to name but a few – provide an accurate portrayal of current inquiry in the field, and are a particularly fine example of how instrumental research in language acquisition and other cognitive domains can be to each other.

Keywords

L3 acquisitionattritioncognitive approachesheritage speakerslexiconmultilingualismsyntax
Type
Introduction
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 18 , Special Issue 2: L3 Acquisition: A Focus on Cognitive Approaches , April 2015 , pp. 127 - 129
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

With the exception of the paper by Cristina Sanz, Hae In Park and Beatriz Lado, all the papers collected in this Special Issue were presented at the seminar Third Language (L3) Acquisition: A Focus on Cognitive Approaches, which took place at the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU) in Vitoria-Gasteiz on May 24–25, 2012. The seminar could not have been organised without the funding support provided by two grants, from the Basque Government (IT311–10) and from the University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU (UFI 11/06), respectively.

References

Bardel, C., & Falk, Y. (2007). The role of the second language in third language acquisition: The case of Germanic syntax. Second Language Research, 23, 459–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation, and language learning. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Mec-hanisms of language acquisition, pp. 157–193. Hilsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
de Bot, K. (2012). Rethinking multilingual processing: From a static to a dynamic approach. In Cabrelli Amaro, J., Flynn, S. & Rothman, J. (eds.), Third language acquisition in adulthood, pp. 79–93. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, Y., & Bardel, C. (2011). Object pronouns in German L3 syntax: Evidence for the L2 Status Factor. Second Language Research, 27, 59–82.Google 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. The International Journal of Multilingualism, 1, 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, C. J. (2002). The automatic cognate form assumption: Evidence for the parasitic model of vocabulary development. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 40, 69–87.Google Scholar
Hall, C. J., & Ecke, P. (2003). Parasitism as a default mechanism in L3 vocabulary acquisition. In Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B. & Jessner, U. (eds.), The multilingual lexicon, pp. 71–85. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Iverson, M. (2009). N-drop at the initial state of L3 Portuguese: Comparing simultaneous and additive bilinguals of English/Spanish. In Pires, A. & Rothman, J. (eds.), Mini-malist inquiries into child and adult language acquisition: Case studies across Portuguese, pp. 221–244. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, M. (1994). Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory: Implications for bilingualism. In Ellis, N. C. (ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of second languages, pp. 393–419. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothman, J. (2010). On the typological economy of syntactic transfer: Word order and relative clause high/low attachment preference in L3 Brazilian Portuguese. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 48, 245–273.Google Scholar
Rothman, J. (2013). Cognitive economy, non-redundancy and typological primacy in L3 acquisition: Evidence from initial stages of L3 Romance. In Baauw, S., Dirjkoningen, F. & Pinto, M. (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2011, pp. 217–247. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar