Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorWestergaard, Marit
dc.date.accessioned2019-11-14T12:02:38Z
dc.date.available2019-11-14T12:02:38Z
dc.date.created2019-09-16T01:32:54Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.citationSecond Language Research. 2019, .nb_NO
dc.identifier.issn0267-6583
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11250/2628537
dc.description.abstractIn this article, I argue that first language (L1), second language (L2) and third language (L3) acquisition are fundamentally the same process, based on learning by parsing. Both child and adult learners are sensitive to fine linguistic distinctions, and language development takes place in small steps. While the bulk of the article focuses on crosslinguistic influence in L2/Ln acquisition, I first briefly outline the Micro-cue Model of L1 acquisition (Westergaard, 2009a, 2014), arguing that children build their I-language grammars incrementally, paying attention to small distinctions in syntax and information structure from early on. They are also shown to be conservative learners, generally not producing overt elements or performing movement operations unless there is positive evidence for this in the input, thus minimizing the need for unlearning. I then ask the question how this model fares with respect to multilingual situations, more specifically L2 and L3 acquisition. Discussing both theoretical and empirical evidence, I argue that, although L2 and L3 learners are different from L1 children in that they are not always conservative learners, they are also sensitive to fine linguistic distinctions, in that transfer/crosslinguistic influence takes place on a property-by-property basis. Full Transfer is traditionally understood as wholesale transfer at the initial state of L2 acquisition. However, I argue that it is impossible to distinguish between wholesale and property-by-property transfer in L2 acquisition on empirical grounds. In L3 acquisition, on the other hand, crosslinguistic influence from both previously acquired languages would provide support for property-by-property transfer. I discuss a few such cases and argue for what I call Full Transfer Potential (FTP), rather than Full (wholesale) Transfer, within the Linguistic Proximity Model (LPM) of L3 acquisition. Thus, rather than assuming that ‘everything does transfer’, I argue that ‘anything may transfer’.nb_NO
dc.language.isoengnb_NO
dc.publisherSAGE Publicationsnb_NO
dc.relation.urihttps://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/SQEQXRXRZ2C3AIU3D6HC/full
dc.titleMicrovariation in Multilingual Situations: The Importance of Property-by-Property Acquisitionnb_NO
dc.typeJournal articlenb_NO
dc.typePeer reviewednb_NO
dc.description.versionacceptedVersionnb_NO
dc.source.pagenumber29nb_NO
dc.source.journalSecond Language Researchnb_NO
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1177/0267658319884116
dc.identifier.cristin1724868
dc.relation.projectNorges forskningsråd: 250857nb_NO
dc.description.localcode© 2019. This is the authors' accepted and refereed manuscript to the article. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0267658319884116nb_NO
cristin.unitcode194,62,60,0
cristin.unitnameInstitutt for språk og litteratur
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextpostprint
cristin.qualitycode2


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel