Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (2013), 33, 51–67.

© Cambridge University Press, 2013, 0267-1905/13 $16.00

doi: 10.1017/S0267190513000032

Formal Linguistic Approaches to L3/Ln

Acquisition: A Focus on Morphosyntactic
Transfer in Adult Multilingualism

Jason Rothman and Becky Halloran

The goal of this article is to introduce the reader to contemporary adult multi-
lingual acquisition research within generative linguistics. In much the same way
as monolingual and bilingual acquisition studies are approached within this
paradigm, generative multilingual research focuses primarily on the psycholin-
guistic and cognitive aspects of the acquisition process. Herein, we critically
present a panoramic view of the research questions and empirical work that
have dominated this nascent field, taking the reader through several interre-
lated epistemological discussions that are at the vanguard of contemporary
multilingual morphosyntax work. We finish this article with some thoughts look-
ing towards the near future of adult multilingual acquisition studies.

In an article whose goal is to provide a critical and comprehensive introduction

to (some aspects of) an emerging field of inquiry, we believe it useful to provide
some clear definitions from the outset. Indeed, the world is inhabited by more
multilinguals than monolinguals (see Potowski & Rothman, 2011; Wolff, 2000).
Nevertheless, as is clear from other articles that comprise this volume, not all
multilinguals or instances of multilingualism are the same. To be sure, herein we
will be engaging research on a subset of multilinguals, limiting ourselves to those
that are acquiring a third (L3) or more (Ln) language in adulthood. Therefore,
when we refer to L3/Ln multilinguals in this article, we are making reference to
individuals who are successive language learners, that is, people brought up in
either monolingual environments that have successfully acquired a nonnative
second language or adult by-products of childhood bilingualism now acquiring
an L3/Ln in adulthood. By adulthood, we are referring to a maturational time
period after which people are, cognitively and linguistically speaking, adults;
that is, we are referring to people whose first significant exposure with the
target L3/Ln is after the offset of puberty.
Over the last few decades, several acquisition paradigms have empirically
examined adult L3/Ln acquisition (for a review, see de Bot & Jaensch, 2012;
Rothman, Cabrelli Amaro, & de Bot, 2013), each assigning to this undertaking its
own set of assumptions and pursuing (sometimes vastly) different questions.

51
52 JASON ROTHMAN AND BECKY HALLORAN

One area, however, that seemingly transcends several paradigms examining

L3/Ln acquisition is the shared interest in determining what previous language
acquisition or knowledge brings to bear on the processes of L3/Ln acquisition
and how this differs from linguistic transfer in the case of adult L2 acquisition
(e.g., Cabrelli Amaro, Flynn, & Rothman, 2012; Cenoz, 2003; Cenoz, Hufeisen,
& Jessner, 2001; De Angelis, 2005, 2007; De Angelis & Selinker, 2001; Falk &
Bardel, 2010; Rothman, Iverson, & Judy, 2011). As one might expect, different
scientific approaches to L3/Ln understand the significance of available data—
those providing insights on source(s) of L3/Ln transfer (the L1, L2, or both) and
the hypothesized conditions or variables that delimit selection of the L1, L2, or
both— differently, depending on paradigmatic interests. For example, cognitive
and/or formal linguistic approaches use L3/Ln transfer studies as yet another
test case for investigating issues related to mental linguistic representation and
its formation in adulthood as well as questions related to linguistic process-
ing such as inhibition and control processes. Sociolinguistic approaches, on
the other hand, focus on the use of L3/Ln studies to identify unique sociolin-
guistic variables that arise in multilingual acquisition as well as to understand
nonunique variables in new ways, whereas pedagogical approaches utilize L3
transfer studies to determine how L3/Ln learning is distinct from L1 and L2
learning in an effort towards developing L3-specific pedagogies.
Given our focus, however, here we exclusively consider cognitive or linguistic
acquisition studies and questions; more specifically, contemporary questions in
the emerging generative tradition of L3/Ln acquisition (e.g., Leung, 2007a; Roth-
man et al., 2011). The majority of our discussion will revolve around morphosyn-
tactic transfer at the very initial stages of L3/Ln acquisition and its continued
effect in L3/Ln development. Our focus is limited to this area as a natural by-
product, we believe, of articles of this type. The trend of L3/Ln transfer studies
reflects the dominant theme of work currently done in generative L3/Ln mor-
phosyntax studies, which provides us with a relative wealth of studies to cover.
It is also worth noting that transfer is the only area within generative L3/Ln that
has articulated independent L3/Ln models. For these reasons, we feel justified
in our choice of focus. At the same time, we acknowledge that issues related
to L3 development, ultimate attainment, and multilingual processing across all
stages of L3/Ln proficiency and independent of the question of linguistic transfer
are important to the formal linguistic study of L3/Ln acquisition and will be of
increasing importance as this field continues to develop (see Garcı́a Mayo &
Rothman, 2012; Jaensch, 2013; Leung, 2007a).1
Before delving into the specific research program as defined above, we will
begin with an epistemological discussion, which is at the core of generative
L3/Ln studies and which should be of interest to everyone studying adult mul-
tilingualism, irrespective of theoretical tradition. In the next section, we will
make the case for the need to treat adult L3/Ln acquisition independently from
adult L2 acquisition, a practice that historically has not been regularly done in
all traditions of adult second language acquisition (SLA; see De Angelis, 2007).2
In the third section, we take a historical look at L3/Ln acquisition, beginning
with some exemplary early work, followed by a discussion of the growing em-
phasis placed on transfer in L3/Ln acquisition studies. In the fourth section,
 MORPHOSYNTACTIC TRANSFER IN ADULT MULTILINGUALISM 53

we outline in detail the three prominent models for L3/Ln transfer, along with
evidence that has been provided for each and a brief discussion of how these
have developed. We conclude with a theoretical discussion of the implication
of morphosyntactic transfer and what this can potentially tell us about mental
linguistic representations and, finally, share some thoughts for future research.

WHY L3/LN ACQUISITION MUST NOT BE REGARDED AS ANOTHER

INSTANCE OF L2

Despite compelling reasons to do so, many researchers have not distinguished,

at least consistently, between different instances of adult nonnative learners,
including L3/Ln learners in populations that are reported as L2 adult learners.
Such a practice essentially operationalizes the term L2 acquisition to cover any
instance of nonnative adult language acquisition. However, just like the terms
native speaker and monolingual are unwittingly confused and misapplied in the
literature (i.e., they are not synonymous) with serious methodological and epis-
temological consequences, so too has the over-encompassing term L2 learner.
Failing to properly differentiate true L2 from L3/Ln acquisition can have an
inadvertently damaging impact for important questions studied within a more
broadly defined SLA (De Angelis, 2007). Putting aside the important discussion of
which variables should be factored in when determining L3/Ln status, (for a dis-
cussion, see Hammarberg, 2010) it should be relatively uncontroversial to claim
for chronological reasons alone that an individual who has already acquired
an L2 would be different in crucial, deterministic ways during L3 acquisition as
compared to a novice L2 adult learner. For example, if there is any credence
to the so-called additive effect of bilingualism on L3 learning (Cenoz, 2003), the
superior metalinguistic skills and knowledge of bilinguals are a variable that
must be considered as a possible source of some knowledge in L3 research.
From a generative linguistic perspective that assumes adult Universal Grammar
(UG) continuity, it follows that L3 learners have access to more grammatical op-
tions (the underlying feature representations of two languages) when it comes
to initial hypotheses of L3 interlanguage development.
So, why have so many researchers not differentiated L2 from L3/Ln learners
in many studies of SLA? Consider one of the two main historical questions
within the generative SLA paradigm, that is, the recurrent question regarding
UG accessibility in adulthood (see White, 2003). It is not necessarily the case that
combining data of L2 and L3 learners invalidates the claims made from them.3
However, it is possible that lumping true L2 and L3/Ln acquisition into a single
group might have inadvertent complicating effects for this and other relevant
questions. Let’s examine a tangible example to illustrate the possible effects.
To do so, we will consider possible developmental implications stemming from
what Rothman and Cabrelli Amaro’s (2010) L3 study revealed.
Rothman and Cabrelli Amaro (2010) tested four groups of adult English-
speaking nonnative learners of French or Italian at a point in which they all
had had the same amount of exposure to the L2/L3 target languages (for specific
details, see Rothman & Cabrelli Amaro). Groups 1 and 2 consisted of L2 learners
of French and Italian, respectively. Groups 3 and 4 were true L3 learners of
54 JASON ROTHMAN AND BECKY HALLORAN

the same target languages; however, these learners started the L3 process as
highly advanced learners of L2 Spanish. The properties under investigation were
related to the null-subject parameter (NSP), for example, referential subjects,
expletive subjects, and semantic constraints on anaphora resolution (e.g., re-
strictions on co-reference between main clause and embedded clause subjects
that are delimited by so-called universal constraints such as the ones described
by the overt pronoun constraint (OPC); Montalbetti, 1984). These languages
made for an interesting scenario since despite the clear structural or typological
proximity of the Romance languages, French is actually different from Spanish
and Italian as it relates to these properties. Whereas Spanish and Italian are
null-subject grammars—they have null and overt referential subjects; expletive
subjects are obligatorily null and the restrictions on co-reference captured under
the OPC obligatorily apply—English and French are nonnull subject languages.
Rothman and Cabrelli Amaro (2010) hypothesized that typological proximity
between the languages would determine initial stages transfer whether or not
such transfer would be facilitative. In the case of the L2 groups, transfer, if
relevant at all, could only come from English. For the L3 groups, the authors
predicted that both groups would transfer the Spanish positive setting of the
NSP given the overall structural and typological proximity of Spanish to Italian
and French, which would only be facilitative for L3 Italian. The rationale of having
all four groups was the following: The true L2 groups would serve as controls for
what transfer effects would look like if English were the only language available
for transfer. The prediction, then, was not only that both L3 groups would behave
similarly reflecting Spanish transfer, but that both would differ significantly
from their counterpart L2 groups (who did not have access to a typologically
related null-subject grammar). Both L3 learner groups did in fact demonstrate
unambiguous Spanish transfer of the NSP, differing from their L2 counterparts
significantly and not differing from each other in the L3. Rothman and Cabrelli
Amaro’s goal was to determine the source of transfer at the initial stages of L3
acquisition. Nevertheless, their findings have implications for L3 interlanguage
development and ultimate attainment, and display how the presence of an L2
and its transfer into L3 can have consequences for determining accessibility to
UG if L3 learners are not differentiated from L2 learners.
Following from the predictions of the full transfer/full access (FT/FA) model
of the initial state (Schwartz & Sprouse, 1996), Judy and Rothman (2010) and
Judy (2011) tested Spanish native speakers of highly advanced L2 English profi-
ciency with the same NSP properties. Their prediction was that Spanish natives
would not be able to reset the NSP, despite what has been robustly shown
in the opposite direction (for review of the many studies that show this, see
Rothman, 2009), not because UG is inaccessible, but rather because the Spanish
setting of the NSP constitutes a proper superset to the English subset value.
FT/FA maintains that L2 parameter resetting is in principle always possible,
but not inevitable. One of these inevitabilities follows from the subset principle
(Wexler & Manzini, 1987). Accordingly, if transfer of a superset applies, then a
learnability obstacle arises in the very same way it would for child learners, since
transfer of the superset value would effectively block the parsing failure needed
for grammatical restructuring towards the target grammar. In other words,
 MORPHOSYNTACTIC TRANSFER IN ADULT MULTILINGUALISM 55

having transferred a superset from the L2 may prevent the L3 learner from being
able to reduce that superset into the subset relevant to the L3 grammar. Judy
and Rothman (2010) and Judy (2011) showed that the predictions of the subset
principle and FT/FA were supported. Despite high proficiency in L2 English,
the Spanish natives did not show consistent evidence of NSP resetting for L2
English, ultimately continuing to accept null expletives in English, especially in
embedded contexts, and misapplying the OPC in anaphora resolution.
Based on the above studies, let’s consider the implications this has for the L3
learners in the Rothman and Cabrelli Amaro (2010) study. Recall that both L3
groups transferred Spanish into the initial stages of L3 Italian and French. As it
relates to the L3 Italian group, this was facilitative, whereas for the L3 French,
it was not. If we take seriously the claims of Judy and Rothman (2010) and Judy
(2011) and the general claims of the FT/FA model, we now have a case in which
the same learnability problem for native Spanish speakers of L2 English arises
for the case of L1 English/L2 Spanish/L3 French. Having transferred the Spanish
NSP setting into the initial stages of L3 French, this group’s ability to reset the
NSP should be subject to the tenets of the subset principle. We might expect,
then, that if we were to track this L3 French group through development, they,
like what was shown of native Spanish learners of L2 English, would not be able
to reset the NSP as a consequence of the subset–superset relationship between
the grammar they initially transferred (Spanish) based on typological proximity
and the target L3 (French). This is predicted to be so despite the fact that their
L1, like the L3, is a nonnull subject grammar.
Of course, the above scenario embodies an empirical question that can and
should be investigated directly. However, if we are on the right track here, we
have uncovered a situation in which collapsing L2 and L3 learners into a single
group (or having a group of claimed L2 learners that in fact have at least some
L3 learners) could obscure our understanding of UG accessibility. Let’s imagine
that we did have a mixed group of Anglophone L2 French learners where some
or all are actually L3 learners with Spanish as an L2. At the level of the aggregate,
we would likely find artificial levels of variation from which some might argue
that UG is inaccessible. But if this variation actually stems from influence of
the L2, Spanish, and this influence is predicted to not subside because of the
subset–superset relationship of the grammars, then this would simply mean
that the so-called L2 group was not a well-chosen one for the question of UG
accessibility. At this point we might begin to ponder the extent to which some,
perhaps much, of the ubiquitous individual differences in SLA morphosyntax
studies could be better explained by taking into account previous experience
with other languages for some of the learners functionally overlooked or not
reported at all within so-called L2 groups.

L3/LN ACQUISITION FROM A FORMAL LINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVE:

AN OVERVIEW

Having justified the need to distinguish between L3/Ln acquisition research and
strict SLA, and moving towards the narrow focus of this article, in this section
56 JASON ROTHMAN AND BECKY HALLORAN

we will review the genesis of generative L3/Ln morphosyntax studies through

the present day. Again, as mentioned and justified above, our main focus will be
on studies of morphosyntactic transfer at the initial stages of L3 acquisition.

Early Research
Klein (1995) was one of the first to demonstrate an interest in L3/Ln and to make
a clear distinction between L2 and L3/Ln acquisition. Looking at the acquisition
of lexical items (specifically those with prepositional complements) and the
syntax of preposition stranding in L2 and multilingual learners of English, Klein
found that the multilingual learners (whose English proficiency matched the
L2 learners) outperformed the L2 learners in both subcategorization of lexical
verbs and in preposition stranding. Klein identified several factors as potential
contributors to the increased success of the multilingual learners in these tasks,
including heightened metalinguistic skills, enhanced lexical knowledge, attitude
to learning, and enhanced cognitive skills. This seminal work highlights impor-
tant potential differences between L2 and L3/Ln acquisition, and although here
we will focus almost solely on the cognitive factors as they relate to morphosyn-
tactic transfer in L3/Ln acquisition, Klein’s work can attest to the importance
of considering both cognitive and sociolinguistic factors as they relate to L3/Ln
acquisition.
Turning to our main focus, morphosyntactic transfer in L3/Ln acquisition
and what this can tell us about mental representations of grammar, Leung’s
(2007b) study looked specifically at transfer in the L3 and was also significant in
distinguishing multilingual acquisition from L2 acquisition. Leung looked at the
acquisition of articles and related nominal functional properties in L2 English
and L3 French, both by the same native speakers of Cantonese. Leung’s results
suggest that these speakers did not transfer from their L1 to the L3, confirming
that L3 acquisition is different from L2 acquisition in terms of potential for
syntactic transfer, with L3/Ln learners having two or more previously acquired
grammars from which to transfer. Of course, just because the L1 does not trans-
fer to the L3 in a specific situation does not imply it cannot transfer to the L3; this
simply serves to indicate that, differently than in L2 acquisition, the L1 is not the
only possible source of transfer. As we will discuss further, determining how,
when, and if the L1 and/or the L2 transfer in L3/Ln acquisition are fundamental in
answering one of several major empirical questions currently being addressed
in generative L3/Ln acquisition.

FORMAL MODELS FOR L3 TRANSFER (INITIAL STAGES)4

More recent research on L3/Ln acquisition has produced several formal models
that attempt to explain the source and selection of transfer at the L3 initial stages.
Here, we outline these formal models for transfer along with some exemplary
empirical studies providing evidence for each of the models.5
 MORPHOSYNTACTIC TRANSFER IN ADULT MULTILINGUALISM 57

The Cumulative Enhancement Model

The cumulative enhancement model (CEM; Flynn, Foley, & Vinnitskaya, 2004),
claims that morphosyntactic transfer at the L3 initial state can come from either
of the previously acquired grammars, but will only materialize when transfer is
facilitative; that is, when transfer has a positive effect on the acquisition of the
L3. As such, the model purports that neither the L1 nor the L2 has a special status
for transfer. Instead, it suggests that language acquisition is nonredundant and
accumulative. Nonredundancy in acquisition is taken to be a reflex of cognitive
economy, essentially the mind’s way of avoiding the redoing of any task previ-
ously done. In other words, the mind avoids acquiring anything that has been
previously acquired through the course of L1, or in the case of L3, L2 acquisition
(see Rothman, 2013). Although all previously acquired properties are available
to the L3 learner, transfer of properties from previously acquired languages
will only manifest in the case when this transfer is facilitative to L3 acquisition.
Consequently, then, the model predicts that transfer will not materialize in cases
where it is nonfacilitative.
Flynn et al.’s (2004) study looked at branching in relative clause structures
in the acquisition of L3 English by L1 Kazakh/L2 Russian speakers. In this case,
as Kazakh is a language with left branching6 relative clause structure and En-
glish and Russian are languages with right branching relative clause structure,
transfer of this property from Russian would be facilitative, and therefore would
be predicted by the CEM. Transfer from Kazakh would be nonfacilitative, and
thus should not occur, based on the model’s predictions. Results show facilita-
tive transfer from Russian at the initial state of L3 acquisition, confirming the
predictions of the CEM and demonstrating that the L1 is not the only source
for transfer. The authors noted, however, that the patterns of the L3 learners
mirror those of L1 Spanish/L2 English learners presented with identical tasks, so
it is possible that there is a last-language-learned effect at play. Also, as we will
continue to discuss methodological concerns in L3/Ln studies, it is important
to mention that in this case, as there is only one experimental L3 group, these
results (showing transfer exclusively from the L2) are also consistent with the
predictions of the L2 status factor.
Furthermore, although logical, to date the CEM has not articulated how the
internal parser would determine at early stages of acquisition relative facilita-
tiveness. In other words, how would the grammar building mechanisms know
that transfer of X would be nonfacilitative (which must happen if transfer is
blocked if nonfacilitative)? It seems to us, although again this is not clear, that
the CEM would have to claim that transfer in L3/Ln acquisition is not done holis-
tically, but rather on a property-by-property basis as this is the only reasonable
way to maintain that transfer from the L1, L2, or both could be neutralized, if
not facilitative, for any given domain of grammar. While certainly possible, it
seems to us that doing so seems unnecessarily complex and lacks harmony with
general principles of cognitive economy. This would also mean that transfer in
multilingualism is different from in L2 acquisition, if full transfer at the initial
state is largely accepted as the correct model. Proponents of the CEM would do
well in future research to address these and related concerns for this model.
58 JASON ROTHMAN AND BECKY HALLORAN

The L2 Status Factor

The L2 status factor (Bardel & Falk, 2007) predicts that morphosyntactic transfer
at the L3 initial state defaults to the L2, regardless of typology or facilitativeness.
The L2 status factor assumes that the L2 is the preferred source of transfer in
L3 acquisition due mainly to proposed cognitive differences between L1 and
L2 acquisition in terms of representation and storage. Among other differences
between L1 and L2 such as age of onset, outcome, naturalistic versus nonnat-
uralistic environment, and degree of metalinguistic knowledge, Falk and Bardel
(2011) follow Paradis’s (2004) claim that L2 grammar is stored in declarative
memory (as compared to the L1 grammar, which is theoretically stored in both
declarative and procedural memory). Therefore, they claim, the L2 is more read-
ily accessible, resulting in preferred status to the L2 during L3 acquisition. Unlike
the CEM, the L2 status factor predicts that transfer from the L2 will materialize
regardless of its facilitativeness to L3 acquisition.
Bardel and Falk’s (2007) study on the placement of postverbal negation in L3
Dutch and Swedish (both V2 languages), tested two groups of bilingual learners:
one group whose L1 was a V2 language and whose L2 was a non-V2 language,
and vice versa. The study’s tasks were designed to test (a) the non-transfer
hypothesis, (b) The L1 transfer hypothesis, (c) the L2 transfer hypothesis, and
(d) the CEM. Results show that the group with a non-V2 L1 performed signifi-
cantly better in post-verbal negation than the group with a V2 L1. The authors
argued that these results suggested that the syntactic structure of negation was
more easily transferred from the L2 than from the L1, supporting the L2 transfer
hypothesis. Importantly, participants were not tested for successful acquisition
of the relevant property in the L1/L2, nor were they tested for proficiency in
the L1/L2, which are possible confounds when considering the results demon-
strated.
Subsequent evidence for the L2 status factor comes from Falk and Bardel’s
(2011) study of L3 German with mirror-image7 groups of L1 English/L2 French
and L1 French/L2 English speakers. Unlike Bardel and Falk’s (2007) study, par-
ticipants in both mirror-image groups had intermediate proficiency in the L3.
According to Falk and Bardel (2011), given that the learners were at an inter-
mediate level, it is possible that they had not mastered the structure under
investigation in the L3, and therefore if the L2 status factor does indeed play a
role in acquisition, the L2 could still interfere with acquisition of the L3 target
structure (in this case, the placement of object pronouns in main and subordi-
nate clauses). Results of the two groups differed, displaying both facilitative and
nonfacilitative transfer. They conclude that these results suggest that learners
who have obtained a certain level of proficiency in the L2 will transfer interlan-
guage structures into the L3 regardless of whether this transfer is facilitative to
acquisition and, therefore, provide further evidence for the L2 status factor.
One obvious criticism of this model is its assumption of the difference of L1
and L2 representation in line with Paradis’s (2004) proposal. Indeed, accepting
this allows them, perhaps too conveniently, to offer a psycholinguistic basis
for their model; however, Paradis’s claims are far from uncontroversial. In fact,
there is plenty of evidence that complicates Paradis’s claims, behavioral and
 MORPHOSYNTACTIC TRANSFER IN ADULT MULTILINGUALISM 59

neurolinguistic alike. As we will see in the next section, there also seems to be
ample evidence from other studies showing that while some L3/Ln transfer can
and does come from the L2, there seem to be more principled reasons for when
the L2 is selected and that it is not the default.

The Typological Primacy Model

The typological primacy model (TPM; Rothman, 2010, 2011), unlike the previous
models outlined, does not consider facilitativeness or order of acquisition as
deterministic factors in L3/Ln transfer. Instead, the TPM, which is based on
general linguistic economy and cognitive-processing factors (for a detailed pro-
posal showing this, see Rothman, 2013), argues that morphosyntactic transfer
at the L3 initial stages is determined by linguistic structural similarities of the
languages at play. This does not refer to surface-level similarities, but rather
underlying linguistic similarities that are parsed subconsciously by the linguis-
tic parser. Rothman (2013) has presented a continuum of four factors that are
processed by the internal parser to determine these structural similarities at
the earliest of stages of L3/Ln: (1) the lexicon (and its feature composition),
(b) syntactic structure, (c) functional morphology (and its semantic import),
and (d) phonological or phonotactic cues. Essentially, the L3/Ln input is filtered
through the parser, which makes structural comparisons hierarchically in the
order of the preceding list, (a)–(d), resulting in the selection for transfer of the
entire L1 or L2 system (advocating a version of full transfer; i.e., Schwartz &
Sprouse, 1996). Like the CEM, the TPM predicts that transfer can come from any
previously acquired linguistic system. However, the TPM predicts that transfer
can be either facilitative or nonfacilitative, as languages that are structurally
closer based on whatever the linguistic parser can glean early on in the L3/Ln
process do not necessarily behave in the same way at the level of each and every
specific syntactic domain.
Rothman’s (2010) study on L3 Brazilian Portuguese (BP; building upon Roth-
man & Cabrelli Amaro, 2010; see the second section above) tested word order
restrictions in declaratives and interrogatives in two groups of L3 BP learners:
L1 English/L2 Spanish and L1 Spanish/L2 English, with all participants having
achieved a high level of proficiency in their L2. Spanish and BP are very close ty-
pologically; however, BP and English share structure in terms of the word order
restrictions tested here. In both BP and English, subject-verb-object (SVO) word
order is relatively fixed in both declaratives and interrogatives, differing from
Spanish, which has generalized subject-verb inversion in interrogatives with
all lexical verbs. Results show that transfer from participants in both groups
comes from Spanish (the language that is more typologically similar to BP),
despite the fact that this transfer is nonfacilitative and the order of acquisition
is ambiguous, with transfer yielding from both L1 and L2 Spanish. This provides
crucial support for the TPM and is inconsistent with predictions made by the
L2 status factor (as the L2 did not have a special status for transfer) and the
CEM (as transfer was nonfacilitative). Rothman and Cabrelli Amaro’s (2010)
earlier work also provided similar results, although they were unable to fully
differentiate typology from the L2 status factor due to the fact that the L2 of
60 JASON ROTHMAN AND BECKY HALLORAN

their participants was also the language more typologically similar to the L3.
Rothman (2011) showed further support examining adjectival placement and its
semantic entailments.
The TPM is supported by other studies on L3 BP, including Giancaspro and
Halloran (2012), which looked at the potential transfer of differential object mark-
ing (DOM) in three groups of learners (L1 English/L2 Spanish, L1 Spanish/L2 En-
glish, and Spanish heritage/English bilinguals) in the initial stages of acquisition,
as well as work by Montrul, Dias, and Santos (2011), which provided evidence
of developmental consequences of Spanish transfer in L3 BP in stages beyond
the initial stage. Giancaspro and Halloran’s results suggest evidence of transfer
from Spanish not only in mirror-image L1/L2 groups, but also in heritage Spanish
speaker L3 BP learners. As English and BP share a lack of DOM, which is present
in Spanish (in specific cases where the direct object is +animate/+specific, see
Guijarro-Fuentes & Marinis, 2007; Montrul, 2004; Montrul & Bowles, 2009), this
transfer is not facilitative to the acquisition of BP. These data demonstrate that
transfer of the more typologically similar language (in this case, Spanish) occurs
regardless of a number of other factors that can be considered here, including
order of acquisition, age of acquisition, facilitativeness, or manner of acquisition
(naturalistic vs. nonnaturalistic).
To date, evidence for the TPM is provided by combinations of Germanic
and Romance languages, typically L3 Romance with L1/L2 Germanic/Romance
combinations. This is an obvious limitation for testing its claims as being more
general, following Rothman’s (2013) articulation of how internal mechanisms
always evaluate structural similarity whether or not so-called typological prox-
imity is obvious. Moving forward, it is necessary to select more unique and less
closely related language pairings in order to test the empirical predictions and
ecological validity of the TPM. Only with more such studies will we be able to
determine how generalizable its claims truly are.

FINAL THOUGHTS: ON THE DYNAMICS OF MULTILINGUAL TRANSFER

AND WHAT IT TELLS US

In summarizing generative research with a particular emphasis on transfer at

the L3/Ln initial stages, we have made reference to some latent potential that
such study has beyond contributing to the understanding of the dynamics of
multilingual acquisition alone. Abstracting away from L3/Ln acquisition per se,
it seems reasonable to argue in the general study of linguistic transfer that only
in the case of multilingualism can one begin to test and understand its real
dynamic nature. In the case of L2 acquisition, where transfer has been seriously
investigated for decades, complex questions of what transfer patterns might
reveal cannot be as meaningfully contextualized to the extent they can be in
the case of multilingualism. This is so because in L2 acquisition, transfer either
materializes or it does not. When it does, there is no mystery about what the
source of transfer is; it must be the L1.8 However, in the case of multilingualism
there exists the possibility of several sources of linguistic transfer. Modeling
and predicting the patterns of this transfer relates to larger questions. These
 MORPHOSYNTACTIC TRANSFER IN ADULT MULTILINGUALISM 61

questions pertain to what L3 transfer can tell us about mental architecture,

linguistic representation, and design as well as the interface of principles of
cognitive economy and language in ways that cannot be explored by looking at
transfer in various instances of bilingualism (cf. Rothman, 2013).
The formal linguistic models of L3 transfer reviewed in this article exemplify
this very point. The L2 status factor, the TPM, and the CEM, despite important
differences, all embrace the idea that transfer in multilingual acquisition scenar-
ios is dynamic but ultimately predictable, and, by extension, logical, based on
cognitive factors. At a substrate level, it seems that all three models take seri-
ously the notions first offered by Flynn et al. (2004): (a) that language acquisition
is inherently nonredundant, (b) that nonredundancy has a cognitive economic
drive, and (c) that L3/Ln transfer patterns are the nonredundant surface reflex
of internal mechanisms or processes of some kind. As we see it, the models can
be taken to stem from these basic tenets, yet their respective interpretations on
how these underlying driving factors play out differ, resulting in their partially
overlapping, yet crucially distinctive predictions (see above for details). Which
of these models are ultimately correct is of no consequence to our point here,
though. The argument we wish to make is that each of them proposes, albeit
in different manifestations and with distinct stipulations, that cognitive econ-
omy drives selection when multiple options are present. Simply put, language
acquisition is taken by all three models as nonredundant in the sense that each
model maintains that L3/Ln does not start over again from a tabula rasa devoid
of previous acquisition experience, although logically speaking it could, and that
selection and deployment of previous linguistic knowledge is constrained. If the
general tenets are on the right track, this shows how L3/Ln transfer research em-
bodies unique and independent evidence for the connection general cognition
has with acquisition processes.
On the purely linguistic side, the study of L3 acquisition allows us to in-
vestigate theoretical notions important to linguists, cognitive scientists, and
developmental psychologists interested in language. L3 studies provide data
that come to bear on questions of the structure and composition of linguistic
representation in the mind as well as the formal complexity of specific linguistic
structures. Take, for example, the CEM and TPM, both based somewhat differ-
ently on the proposal that the mind is especially attuned to linguistic function
and form, forcing learners to naturally take advantage of the full array of lin-
guistic knowledge (functional features in generative terms) they have in order
to facilitate the cumulative process of language acquisition in adulthood (even
if this leads to nonfacilitative results; see the TPM). As such, these models
make sense in formal linguistic terms of what has been anecdotally observed
previously as the additive effect of bilingualism (e.g., Cenoz, 2003). The very fact
that all three of the existing models are based on the notion that the L1 and L2
are separate systems in the mind or brain informs debates on bilingual language
representation. After all, if both L1 and L2 grammars can be deterministic in
L3/Ln acquisition, this must mean that each of these grammars has its own
reality of mental representation in the mind that is, at least partially, unique
from the other. If it can also be shown that some L2 properties are transferred
in L3/Ln that embody properties predicted by some theories of L2 acquisition
62 JASON ROTHMAN AND BECKY HALLORAN

to be unattainable (e.g., evidence of transferred new L2 uninterpretable features

and their associated functional categories), this would mean that L3/Ln transfer
informs most directly debates related to formal linguistic approaches to the
critical period (see Iverson, 2010).
Finally, we wish to point out that the descriptive facts of L3/Ln acquisition
need to be captured under linguistic theory to the same extent and for the same
reasons the facts of bilingual acquisition must. It seems that the human mind,
both in childhood and adulthood, is capable of multilingual acquisition. These
multilingual grammars have to be accounted for by the human language faculty
and fit within a harmonious model of linguistic design and architecture that
covers more than the idealized monolingual standard. Alternatively, linguistic
theory needs to address how the empirical facts of multilingual grammars are
commensurable with hypotheses of how the by-products of acquisition filtered
through and delimited by the same biological linguistic endowment (i.e., UG)
can result in differences related to factors outside the scope of linguistic do-
main specificity. In principle, this is not a hard task. Linguistic nativism and its
hallmark of linguistic modularity are not at all in conflict here.
In psychological literature on mental modularity, language being one module
of the mind, the claim has always been that the encapsulation of a modular
subsystem entails that the specific design itself cannot be altered by external
systems, but it has always maintained that modular systems themselves can
provide output to other systems and use, if not need, input from other systems
(e.g., Fodor, 1983; Jackendoff, 2002). Thus, linguistic theory must come to terms
with the reality of multilingual grammars and what the facts of their development
and outcomes bring to bear on larger notions.
We have highlighted just some of the reasons why we believe much can be
learned from the linguistic study of multilingualism beyond questions belonging
solely to the provenance of multilingual acquisitionists. We predict that future
generative work examining the L3 initial stages and its developmental route will
help linguists to better understand linguistic architecture and representational
constitution by demonstrating how multiple languages are positioned in the
mind relative to one another, how and to what degree they are independent,
and, finally, where and why they interact.
Much more research is needed in the domain of formal linguistic L3/Ln ac-
quisition of morphosyntax. We predict that in a few years’ time new foci will
emerge, especially as models of L3/Ln development and ultimate attainment
are articulated as they have been for L3/Ln transfer models in recent years.
Generative acquisition research with adults is largely experimentally based and
thus requires significant numbers of participants. However, difficulty in finding
significant numbers of L3 learners, especially for language pairings beyond Ger-
manic and Romance, is a real obstacle imposed by reality within the Western
world. Moving formal linguistic L3/Ln studies forward, given this, also embodies
an opportunity for collaborations where we actively engage the multilingual
world outside of the traditional loci for such research, that is, the majority of
the world in geographical terms, in which multilingual acquisition is not the
exception but the rule. Some interesting work is already emerging in this regard,
for example, Hermas’s (2010) work in Morocco involving Arabic-French-English
 MORPHOSYNTACTIC TRANSFER IN ADULT MULTILINGUALISM 63

L3 acquisition. We look forward to the near future when experimental method-

ologies are brought to these interesting language combinations, this being ex-
actly what our present models need to be tested and refined and what will spawn
the creation of the next generation of multilingual morphosyntactic models and
hypotheses.

NOTES
1 For example, work by Leung (2005, 2006), Jaensch (2008), and Garcı́a Mayo (2006)
among a few others have utilized L3 data to weigh in uniquely on debates within L2
generative studies related to what is and is not acquirable in the domain of morphosyn-
tactic representation after the so-called critical period (i.e., models of UG accessibility)
and to add novel evidence to questions related to specific hypotheses purported to
explain L2 production patterns (e.g., evidence in support of prosodic transfer or the
missing surface inflection hypothesis).
2 In De Angelis’s (2007) words, “the field of SLA lacks a clear working distinction be-
tween those who are learning a second language and those who are learning third or
additional languages . . . it is usually up to the researcher to decide whether learners’
prior knowledge has the potential to bias the result of a study or not. Such freedom of
choice, needless to say, conflicts with the most basic principles of methodological rigor
in language acquisition research. While it may seem obvious to many that the prior
knowledge of a non-native language is a variable that needs to be properly controlled,
the reality is that the control for this specific variable is often poor, inadequate, if not
lacking altogether”(pp. 5–6).
3 Although in such cases, it still should be acknowledged that not all participants are in
fact true L2 learners, and detailing the experience they have with other languages might
prove crucial towards understanding some interesting differences at the nonaggregate,
individual level.
4 Due to space limitations, we restrict ourselves to the following three models of mor-
phosyntactic transfer: the CEM, the L2 status factor, and the typological primacy
model, which are the only officially proposed models in the published literature. It
might seem like an obvious omission to not consider absolute L1 transfer or an L1
factor. Indeed, some suggestions in this direction have been advanced (see Hermas,
2010; Lozano, 2002), but this has not been offered in terms of a formal model like the
others focused on herein. Moreover, there is ample evidence, as will be reviewed, to
show that the L1 is definitively not the only source of L3 morphosyntactic transfer.
5 We wish to acknowledge a study of L3 acquisition of gender concord marking on
attributive adjectives in German L3 by L1 Japanese/L2 English subjects. Jaensch (2011)
made some convincing arguments for a weak version of the CEM and L2 status factor
to account for her data in light of the fact that a strong version of either could not.
What Jaensch’s more nuanced approach to these hypotheses pays homage to is the
gray area that inherently exists when dealing with L3 data in contrast to the fairly
black-and-white ways that the issues at play have been discussed in the literature to
date and, by necessity and extension, here. We acknowledge this type of research
and put it aside only because of the scope and remit of this article, which serves to
introduce the field for what it is at present.
6 Branching refers to where certain types of clauses are attached to other structural
elements of a given sentence. For example, right branching languages, like English,
attach adjuncts to the right of a phrasal head, whereas left branching languages, such
as Japanese, attach to the left. This gives rise to interesting differences in word orders
across the world’s languages.
7 Mirror-image groupings allow for the unique predictions of the three major transfer
models of L3 acquisition to be testable against one another, provided language group-
ings and target L3 structures are selected accordingly. Obviously, regardless of the
64 JASON ROTHMAN AND BECKY HALLORAN

groupings or structures, the L2 status factor would predict that transfer would stem
from the L2 in both cases. However, in order to test the predictions of the CEM and the
TPM, both the L3 language and the target property must be selected carefully. In order
to tease apart the predictions made by these two models (the CEM and the TPM), the
L3 must either be (a) a language that is typologically more similar to the L1, but shares
the target structure with the L2, or (b) vice versa. In the case of (a), for example, the
CEM would predict facilitative transfer from the L2, whereas the TPM would predict
transfer from the L1 (based on typology) regardless of the target structures selected.
Ultimately, only one of the models will be able to accurately predict the source of
transfer for both sets of bilingual L3 learners.
8 Of course, there are multiple models of transfer in generative SLA—for example, mini-
mal trees (Vainikka & Young Scholten, 1996), the basic variety (Klein & Perdue, 1997),
and full transfer (Schwartz & Sprouse, 1996) to name a few—offering different propos-
als with regard to the extent to which and at what levels of grammatical representation
the L1 transfers at the initial state. However, these models do not delve into how such
patterns directly engage questions we are referring to here.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (Eds.). (2001). Cross-linguistic influence in third lan-
guage acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

This volume addresses cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition

from a psycholinguistic perspective, focusing on the role of all previously acquired
languages and how the established L1 and L2 systems interact with and affect L3
acquisition. Research within this volume considered factors previously found to con-
tribute to cross-linguistic influence in SLA and investigated them in an L3 context, in
some cases with preliminary data and in some cases with previous published work. As
a whole, it serves to generate discussion of L3/Ln acquisition from a psycholinguistic
perspective and provides ample possibilities for further research in this area.

Garcı́a Mayo, M., & Rothman, J. (2012). L3 Morphosyntax in the generative tradition:
the initial stages and beyond. In J. Cabrelli Amaro, S. Flynn, & J. Rothman (Eds.),
Third language acquisition in adulthood (pp. 9–32). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John
Benjamins.

This chapter introduces in detail third language (L3) morphosyntactic ac-

quisition research from a generative perspective. The authors began by introducing
generative linguistic theory and its historical application to L1 and L2 acquisition and
provide justification for the treatment of L3/Ln learners as an independent case rather
than another instance of SLA. They presented a selection of valuable empirical studies
done on L3 morphosyntactic acquisition in recent years, and finally discussed how
the study of L3 acquisition is beneficial in terms of answering important empirical
questions related to generative acquisition theory.

Hammarberg, B. (2010). (Ed.) Processes in third language acquisition. Edinburgh, Scot-

land: Edinburg University Press.

This book is a collection of previously published articles featuring case stud-

ies of adult multilingual acquisition. The data used comes from a longitudinal corpus
of data of nonnative and native speakers who acquired second and third languages
through social interaction. It provides a comprehensive look at a series of linguistic
phenomena, including patterns and functions of language switching, word search
in interaction, hypothetical word construction, and articulatory settings in speech.
 MORPHOSYNTACTIC TRANSFER IN ADULT MULTILINGUALISM 65

These phenomena are examined from a cognitive perspective in relation to current

models of the speaking process.

Leung, Y.-K. I. (2009). Third language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.

This book is composed of nine chapters on adult L3/Ln acquisition from

the UG perspective and includes empirical studies carried out in North America,
Europe, and Asia, with a wide range of language pairings. It is a comprehensive as-
sessment of the research agenda of the time, discussing how L3 acquisition poses
new theoretical questions, and also making important connections between bilingual-
ism/multilingualism and SLA.

Rothman, J., Cabrelli Amaro, J., & de Bot, K. (2013). Third language (L3) acquisition.
In J. Herschensohn & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second
language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

This article provides an overview of the fields of L3 acquisition, covering

educational, cognitive/processing, formal, and sociolinguistic research done on L3/Ln
acquisition over the past few decades with a special emphasis on work within the last
decade in particular. In addition to concisely covering the main trends of research, it
highlights the contributions multilingual research has made beyond the study of L3/Ln
acquisition alone. It also discusses epistemological issues of significant importance
to all multilingual researchers; for example, the need for independent proficiency
measures for multilingualism as well as the criteria used for inclusion and exclusion
for empirical multilingual studies. Finally, it discusses future directions the authors
feel the field will and/or should take.

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.
Cabrelli Amaro, J., Flynn, S., & Rothman, J. (2012). Third language acquisition in adult-
hood. In J. Cabrelli Amaro, S. Flynn, & J. Rothman (Eds.), Third language acquisition in
adulthood (pp. 1–6). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Cenoz, J. (2003). The role of typology in the organization of the multilingual lexicon.
In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), The multilingual lexicon (pp. 103–116).
Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (Eds.). (2001). Cross-linguistic influence in third lan-
guage acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
de Bot, K., & Jaensch, C. (2012). What is so special about multilingualism? Plenary talk at
the Third Language Acquisition: A Focus on Cognitive Approaches, University of the
Basque Country, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain.
De Angelis, G. (2005). Multilingualism and non-native language transfer: An identification
problem. International Journal of Multilingualism, 2, 1–25.
De Angelis, G. (2007). Third or additional language acquisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
De Angelis, G., & Selinker, L. (2001). Interlanguage transfer and competing linguistic
systems in the multilingual mind. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), Cross-
linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 42–58).
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Falk, Y., & Bardel, C. (2010). The study of the role of the background languages in third
language acquisition: The state of the art. International Review of Applied Linguistics in
Language Teaching, 48, 185–220.
66 JASON ROTHMAN AND BECKY HALLORAN

Falk, Y., & Bardel, C. (2011). Object pronouns in German L3 syntax: Evidence for the L2
status factor. Second Language Research, 27, 59–82.
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. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1,
3–17.
Fodor, J. (1983). Modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Garcı́a Mayo, M. P. (2006). Synthetic compounding in the English interlanguage of Basque-
Spanish bilinguals. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3, 231–257.
Garcı́a Mayo, M., & Rothman, J. (2012). L3 Morphosyntax in the generative tradition:
the initial stages and beyond. In J. Cabrelli Amaro, S. Flynn, & J. Rothman (Eds.),
Third language acquisition in adulthood (pp. 9–32). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John
Benjamins.
Giancaspro, D., & Halloran, B. (2012). Examining L3 transfer models: The acquisition of
differential object marking in L3 Brazilian Portuguese. Presentation at the Third Lan-
guage Acquisition: A Focus on Cognitive Approaches, University of the Basque Country,
Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain.
Guijarro-Fuentes, P., & Marinis, T. (2007). Acquiring phenomena at the syntax/semantics
interface in L2 Spanish: The personal preposition a. EUROSLA Yearbook, 7, 67–
88.
Hammarberg, B. (2010). The languages of the multilingual: Some conceptual and termi-
nological issues. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 48, 91–104.
Hammarberg, B. (2010). (Ed.) Processes in third language acquisition. Edinburgh, Scot-
land: Edinburg University Press.
Hermas, A. (2010).Language acquisition as computational resetting: Verb movement in
L3 initial state. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7, 343–362.
Iverson, M. (2010). Informing the age of acquisition debate: L3 as a litmus test. International
Review of Applied Linguistics, 48, 221–243.
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Ox-
ford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Jaensch, C. (2008). Defective adjectival inflection in non-native German: Prosodic transfer
or missing surface inflection? EUROSLA Yearbook, 8, 259–286.
Jaensch, C. (2011). L3 acquisition of German adjectival inflection-a generative account.
Second Language Research, 27, 83–105.
Jaensch, C. (2013). Third language acquisition: Where are we now? Linguistic Approaches
to Bilingualism, 3, 73–93.
Judy, T. (2011). L1/L2 parametric directionality matters: More on the null subject param-
eter in L2 acquisition. EUROSLA Yearbook, 11, 165–190.
Judy, T., & Rothman, J. (2010). From a superset to a subset grammar and the semantic
compensation hypothesis: Subject pronouns and anaphora resolution evidence in L2
English. In K. Franich, K. M. Iserman, & L. L. Keil (Eds.), BUCLD 34: Proceedings of
the 34th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 197–208).
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Klein, C. (1995). Second versus third language acquisition: Is there a difference? Language
Learning, 45, 419–465.
Klein, W., & Perdue, C. (1997). The basic variety (or: Couldn’t natural languages be much
simpler?). Second Language Research, 13, 301–347.
Leung, Y.-K. I. (2005). L2 vs. L3 initial state: A comparative study of the acquisition of
French DPs by Vietnamese monolinguals and Cantonese–English bilinguals. Bilingual-
ism: Language and Cognition, 8, 39–61.
Leung, Y-K. I. (2006). Full transfer vs. partial transfer in L2 and L3 acquisition. In R.
Slabakova, S. Montrul, & P. Prévost (Eds.), Inquiries in linguistic development: In honor
of Lydia White (pp. 157–187). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Leung, Y-K. I. (2007a). L3 acquisition: Why it is interesting to generative linguists. Second
Language Research, 23, 95–114.
 MORPHOSYNTACTIC TRANSFER IN ADULT MULTILINGUALISM 67

Leung, Y-K. I. (2007b). Second language (L2) and third language (L3) French article ac-
quisition by native speakers of Cantonese. International Journal of Multilingualism, 4,
117–149.
Leung, Y.-K. I. (2009). Third language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Lozano, C. (2002). The interpretation of overt and null pronouns in non-native Spanish.
Durham Working Papers in Linguistics, 8, 53–66.
Montalbetti, M. (1984). After binding. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT, Cam-
bridge, MA.
Montrul, S. (2004). Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of
morpho-syntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 125–142.
Montrul, S., & Bowles, M. (2009). Back to basics: Differential object marking under incom-
plete acquisition in Spanish heritage speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,
12, 363–383.
Montrul, S., Dias, R., & Santos, H. (2011). Clitics and object expression in the L3 acquisition
of Brazilian Portuguese: Structural similarity matters for transfer. Second Language
Research, 27, 21–58.
Paradis, M. (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam, the Netherlands:
John Benjamins.
Potowski, K., & Rothman, J. (2011). Bilingual youth: Spanish in English-speaking societies
(Preface). In K. Potowski & J. Rothman (Eds.), Bilingual youth: Spanish speakers in
English-speaking societies (pp. 3–6). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Rothman, J. (2009). Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences: L2 pronominal sub-
jects and the syntax-pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 951–973.
Rothman, J. (2010). On the typological economy of syntactic transfer: Word order and
relative clause attachment preference in L3 Brazilian Portuguese. International Review
of Applied Linguistics, 48, 245–273.
Rothman, J. (2011). L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: The
typological primacy model. Second Language Research, 27, 107–128.
Rothman, J. (2013). Cognitive economy, non-redundancy and typological primacy in L3
acquisition: Evidence from initial stages of L3 romance. In S. Baauw, F. Dirjkoningen, &
M. Pinto (Eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2011 (pp. 217–247). Amster-
dam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Rothman, J., & Cabrelli Amaro, J. (2010). What variables condition syntactic transfer? A
look at the L3 initial state. Second Language Research, 26, 189–218.
Rothman, J., Cabrelli Amaro, J., & de Bot, K. (2013). Third language (L3) acquisition.
In J. Herschensohn & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second
language acquisition (pp. 372–393). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rothman, J., Iverson, M., & Judy, T. (2011). Some notes on the generative study of L3
acquisition. Second Language Research, 27, 5–19.
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access
model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72.
Vainikka, A., & Young Scholten, M. (1996). The early stages in adult L2 syntax: Additional
evidence from Romance speakers. Second Language Research, 12, 140–176.
Wexler, K., & Manzini, R. (1987). Parameters and learnability in binding theory. In T.
Roeper & E. Williams (Eds.), Parameter setting (pp. 41–76). Dordrecht, the Netherlands:
Reidel.
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
Wolff, E. (2000). Language and society. In B. Heine & D. Nurse (Eds.), African languages:
An introduction (pp. 298–247). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.