IRAL 2022; 60(2): 143–168

Michael W. Child*
Transfer in L3 cognate language acquisition:
The role of language background on instructed
L3 Portuguese acquisition
https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2017-0113

Abstract: Research on L3 acquisition has highlighted the importance of cross-

linguistic influence in adult language acquisition. Specifically, the Typological
Primacy Model (TPM) for L3 acquisition predicts full transfer from the most structu-
rally similar background language at the initial stages of acquisition. However, it is
unclear how language background might affect transfer. Furthermore, it is not
known how applicable the TPM is to instructed L3 language acquisition.
Consequently, this study examines Spanish/English bilinguals, their knowledge of
mood distinctions in subjunctive-dominant contexts in Spanish and their transfer of
that knowledge at the beginning stages of instructed L3 Portuguese acquisition. Data
from eight L1 Spanish, 22 L2 Spanish, and 38 Spanish heritage bilinguals were
analyzed to determine if the groups differed in their knowledge of mood distinctions,
first in Spanish and subsequently in Portuguese. Results indicate a significant role of
language background on all tasks.

Keywords: L3 acquisitio, Typological Primacy Model, Portuguese acquisition,

Spanish heritage speaker, instructed SLA

1 Introduction
L3 acquisition research over the last decade and a half has attempted to under-
stand how cross-linguistic influence (CLI, or transfer) plays out in L3 acquisition
from both generative and cognitive/psycholinguistic perspectives (for recent
summaries, see, e. g. Slabakova 2016; Westergaard et al. 2016 regarding work
within the generative framework; for psycholinguistic approaches to L3 acquisi-
tion see García-Mayo 2012). Perhaps the most tested among the principal L3
acquisition theories from a generative perspective, the Typological Primacy
Model (TPM) posits that at the initial stages, and for reasons of general cognitive
economy, an L3 learner’s internal language parser necessarily transfers over the
language system that is, structurally, most similar to the target language (e. g.

*Corresponding author: Michael W. Child, Department of Spanish and Portuguese, Brigham

Young University, Provo, UT, USA, E-mail: michael_child@byu.edu

Published online April 17, 2019

144 Michael W. Child

Rothman 2011, Rothman 2013, Rothman 2015; Rothman and Cabrelli Amaro
2010).1 This transfer, Rothman argues, is done globally and explains how
learners’ production can be non-target like, even with structures that they
have already acquired in one of their background languages. In other words,
although the learner may have already acquired a specific structure in one of his
or her background languages, if that structure is not present in the language that
the parser “recognizes” as most similar to the target language, it will not get
transferred in the initial stages. Notwithstanding, it is unclear if the predictions
of the TPM will differ for different types of bilinguals depending on their
language background (Rothman 2015). In addition, although the TPM’s predic-
tions are focused on the initial stages of naturalistic L3 acquisition, there is
evidence from L3 Portuguese studies to assume that transfer still obtains in
instructed L3 environments after the initial stages (e. g. Almeida Filho, 2004;
Azevedo 1978; Carvalho 2002; Carvalho and Da Silva 2006; Montrul et al. 2011).
Consequently, the present study will assume the TPM as a theoretical framework
while simultaneously seeking to shed additional light on how language background,
including having learned an L2 in an instructed learning environment, affects transfer
in instructed L3 acquisition. Specifically, the study examines three groups of Spanish/
English bilinguals and their knowledge of indicative/subjunctive distinctions in the
present tense in volitional noun clauses and adverbial clauses introduced by a
purpose clause or a temporal subordinate clause in Spanish, as well as the transfer
of this knowledge in the first few months of instructed L3 Portuguese acquisition.

2 Literature review

2.1 L3 acquisition

L3 acquisition has been shown to be qualitatively different from L2 acquisition,

with bilinguals tending to acquire new languages faster and more successfully
than monolinguals (e. g. Cenoz 2001, Cenoz 2003; Cenoz and Valencia 1994;
Klein 1995; Sanz, 2000). Not only do bilinguals use language in qualitatively
different ways than monolinguals (Cenoz 2003, Cenoz 2011; Valdés 2005), but
they can draw on both their L1 and L2, as well as implicit and explicit language
learning skills gained during L2 acquisition in the process of learning a third
language (Falk and Bardel 2010).

1 See Section 6 below for more discussion on the other initial stage L3 acquisition theories.
 Transfer in L3 cognate language acquisition 145

Recently, L3 acquisition research from a generative framework has focused

on the role of CLI/transfer in the initial stages of L3 acquisition. One theory, the
Cumulative Enhancement Model (CEM), proposes that transfer can come from all
background languages to facilitate L3 acquisition (Flynn et al. 2004).
Alternately, the L2 Status Factor suggests that the most recently learned lan-
guage plays a privileged role in transfer to the L3 (e. g. Bardel and Falk 2007,
Bardel and Falk 2012; Falk and Bardel 2010), while the Typological Primacy
Model predicts transfer from the most typologically similar background lan-
guage. Importantly, all of these theories privilege the role of CLI in L3 acquisi-
tion and view it as one of the prime differentiators between L2 and L3
acquisition. Notwithstanding, it is not clear how applicable these theories are
to instructed L3 acquisition or to post-initial state acquisition.
There is no a priori reason that transfer of implicit grammatical knowledge,
or CLI, would not obtain in instructed environments. However, it is clear that
that is not the only type of transfer. One possibility is that there are different
types of transfer being attested to in L3 acquisition, especially in instructed
environments. As mentioned above, many have argued convincingly that bilin-
guals acquiring a third language bring language learning strategies with them
(e. g. Cenoz 2003; Falk and Bardel 2010). In addition, Selinker (1972) has argued
that there can be a “transfer of training”, particularly in instructed learning
environments (see also Odlin 1989). Indeed much of the literature on cognate2 L3
acquisition, notably in the field of Portuguese for Spanish-speakers, assumes
multiple types of transfer.

2.2 Role of transfer in the learning of Portuguese among

Spanish speakers

Like the recent work in L3 acquisition, studies on the acquisition of Portuguese

by Spanish-speakers have been preoccupied with the idea of both facilitative
and non-facilitative transfer due to the typological similarity between the two
languages. Carvalho (2002, 2011) mentions how a weak form of contrastive

2 For the purposes of this study, “cognate L3” refers to a typologically similar language to one
of the background languages (for uses of the term “cognate language”, see, e. g. Child 2017;
Bernhardt et al. 2015; Broersma 2009). Typological similarity can refer to both structural
similarity between the languages and a perceived (either consciously or subconsciously) simi-
larity between the languages, which has been referred to as “psycho-typology” (see, e. g.
Kellerman 1983; Rothman 2015). For the purposes of the present study, “cognate” relates to
overall similarity between the structures of the languages.
146 Michael W. Child

analysis has influenced both the teaching and the study of Portuguese for
Spanish-speakers from the beginning. Undoubtedly, the underlying assumption
of a quicker acquisition process presupposes at least some facilitative transfer
(see, e. g. Azevedo 1978; Grannier, 2000; Júdice 2000). However, although many
Spanish speakers do indeed exhibit rapid gains in L3 Portuguese acquisition,
most likely due to facilitative transfer of grammatical features (see, e. g.
Carvalho et al. 2010; Simões et al. 2004), there is evidence that language back-
ground may play a mediating role in this transfer (e. g. Child 2013; Carvalho and
da Silva 2006; Johnson 2004; Koike and Gualda 2008).
It is with regard to the effect of language background that research in this area
has begun to highlight the importance of how the background languages, particu-
larly Spanish, have been acquired/learned in the United States. Multiple studies
have identified at least three distinct populations of Spanish/English bilinguals
who typically enroll in Portuguese courses in the U.S.: (1) native Spanish (L1S)
bilinguals, (2) native English (L2S) bilinguals, and (3) heritage Spanish (HS) bilin-
guals (e. g. Carvalho and da Silva 2006; Child 2013; Johnson 2004). As many in the
field of Spanish as a heritage language point out, there is huge variation in the
proficiencies and characteristics in this last group alone (see, e. g. Alarcón 2010;
Beaudrie 2009; Beaudrie and Ducar 2005; Potowski 2005; Valdés 2005). Studies by
Carvalho and da Silva (2006) and Koike and Gualda (2008) give support for the idea
that these three groups of bilinguals behave differently when learning L3
Portuguese in a classroom setting, showing that the L2S speakers benefited more
from contrastive analysis and explicit instruction, respectively, than the other two
groups did. In addition, Johnson (2004) reported that the L1S and HS groups tended
to make certain orthographic errors that the L2S group did not make. Thus, these
studies suggest that language background and explicit language instruction in the
L2 may play a role in the transfer of Spanish knowledge in instructed L3 Portuguese
acquisition, although how, and to what extent is not known.

2.3 The subjunctive mood

Because this paper will report on the transfer of knowledge of mood distinctions
in Spanish in instructed L3 Portuguese acquisition, this section will give a brief
overview of mood in the two languages and research on L2 and heritage speak-
ers’ knowledge of mood distinctions. Mood has been described as the “gramma-
tical expression of modality, and refers to the probability, obligation or necessity
of what is stated, according the point of view of the speakers” (Montrul, 2004, p.
100). In Spanish and Portuguese, grammatical mood is expressed with indica-
tive, subjunctive and imperative verbal forms. The subjunctive mood mainly
 Transfer in L3 cognate language acquisition 147

occurs in complement clauses, relative clauses, adjunct clauses, and some if

clauses (Mikulski 2010) and can be triggered lexically, syntactically or semanti-
cally (c.f. Blake 1983; Mikulski 2010; Montrul 2009).
Whereas both Spanish and Portuguese have a productive subjunctive mood
with present and past forms, only Portuguese has retained a productive future
form (Castilho 2010; Perini 2010; Wheatley 2006). The future subjunctive in
Spanish, in contrast, is no longer commonly used, although it can still be
found in some older literature, legal documents, and in some idioms (Azevedo
2005). The use of the subjunctive in both Portuguese and Spanish can vary
depending on age, education level, speech register, and dialect (see, for exam-
ple, Blake 1983; Montrul 2009; Perini 2002; Sanchez-Naranjo and Perez-Leroux
2010). Notwithstanding, the usage of the present subjunctive in formal varieties
is very similar in both Spanish and Portuguese. This is especially true for those
contexts that native speakers master earlier in the acquisition process and that
tend to show the least amount of variability, namely, the subjunctive in voli-
tional contexts in noun clauses (desires/wishes/indirect commands) and in
adverbial clauses with purpose and temporal conjunctions (see, for example,
Blake 1983; Studerus 1995; Mikulski 2010; Montrul 2009). It is for this reason that
these two contexts are described here as “subjunctive-dominant” and were
chosen for the present study.3

2.3.1 HS bilinguals’ knowledge of mood distinctions

Many studies have shown that HS speakers show a reduced use of the subjunc-
tive, a fact that has been ascribed to incomplete acquisition, language attrition, or
a combination of both (e. g. Merino 1983; Montrul 2007, Montrul 2009; Potowski
2005; Silva-Corvalán 1994a, Silva-Corvalán 1994b, Silva-Corvalán 2000).4 Similar

3 Perini (2002, 2010) mentions that the present subjunctive “tends to disappear” (p. 202) in
some informal varieties of spoken Portuguese. However, he explains that this phenomenon is
regional and register specific. The present study’s participants’ principal input in Portuguese
was in the classroom and from class materials, which focused on a formal/standard variety of
the language where present subjunctive usage closely mirrors that of formal/standard varieties
of Spanish.
4 A Spanish heritage language speaker/learner has been defined in a number of ways, includ-
ing a person with membership in a specific community (with no proficiency “requirement”, per
se, in the heritage language) to someone with a personal or affective connection to a heritage
culture or language (see, for example, Byrnes 2005; Carreira, 2004; Potowski 2005; Valdés,
1995; Valdés 2005). Thus, Spanish heritage speaker/learners comprise a heterogeneous group
ranging from those who have only basic receptive skills (see Beaudrie 2009; Beaudrie and Ducar
148 Michael W. Child

to other findings, Silva-Corvalán (1994a, 1994b) found that Spanish speakers in

Los Angeles at the low end of the bilingual continuum did not productively use
the subjunctive outside of fixed expressions, whereas among more proficient
bilinguals the loss of the subjunctive was more extensive in variable contexts
than in subjunctive-dominant contexts such as volitional noun clauses and adver-
bial clauses containing purpose clauses and temporal clauses referring to a future
event. However, one study (Mikulski 2010) showed that HS speakers recognize
native-like usage of the subjunctive in volitional contexts more readily than
the L2S learners, although this may be task-dependent (see Montrul and
Perpiñán 2011).

2.3.2 L2/L3 acquisition of mood in Spanish

Collentine (2010) reviewed studies conducted between 2003 and 2010 on the
acquisition of the Spanish subjunctive by L2 learners and concluded that all
studies showed the difficulty that L2 speakers face in acquiring the indicative/
subjunctive distinction, especially outside of subjunctive-dominant contexts.
There is some evidence that highly proficient L2 speakers use the subjunctive in
certain semantically and pragmatically triggered contexts, although their usage
does not mirror that of native speakers (see, for example, Borgonovo et al. 2008;
Gudmestad 2012a, Gudmestad 2012b). With regard to L3 acquisition, Carvalho and
da Silva (2006) used think-aloud exercises to study the acquisition of the
Portuguese subjunctive by English/Spanish (i. e. L2S) and Spanish/English (i. e.
L1S) bilinguals. In their study the L2S bilinguals used more target-like structures
than the L1S bilinguals, whose non-target-like production tended to be related to
morphology and hypercorrection. The data showed that both groups of learners
were on the path to acquiring the subjunctive in Portuguese and that typological
distance played a stronger role in transfer than order of acquisition. In other
words, regardless of order of acquisition, both groups transferred from Spanish.
In summary, existing research seems to suggest that most HS speakers exhibit
reduced knowledge of mood in Spanish (as compared to monolingual speakers of
Spanish), with a possible exception being that HS learners’ ability to recognize
native-like usage of the subjunctive in volitional (obligatory) contexts. It seems that
only highly proficient L2S and HS speakers approximate native speaker norms with
regard to the subjunctive in volitional and lexically triggered adverbial clauses, but
L2S speakers generally do not mirror native speaker patterns regarding subjunctive

2005) to highly proficient users who principally desire instruction in advanced writing and
literature (Alarcón 2010).
 Transfer in L3 cognate language acquisition 149

usage in more variable contexts. Consequently, to measure transfer from Spanish

into L3 Portuguese, it is imperative to measure the knowledge that each bilingual
has of grammatical structures in Spanish to know what they might have available to
transfer to L3 Portuguese.

3 Research questions and hypotheses

To review, it is not known if Spanish grammatical knowledge or language back-
ground are correlated with English/Spanish bilinguals’ transfer patterns when
acquiring L3 Portuguese, especially in instructed environments. Moreover, as men-
tioned above, it is not known how much knowledge participants in each language
background group have of certain grammatical concepts in Spanish to begin with.
Consequently, the present study seeks to answer two principal questions: (1) Do L1S,
advanced5 L2S, and HS bilinguals in L3 Portuguese courses significantly differ in
their knowledge of mood distinctions in subjunctive-dominant contexts in Spanish?
(2) Are there significant differences between participants’ transfer of their knowledge
of mood distinctions in Spanish to Portuguese as measured by two fill-in-the-blank
tasks and two modified grammaticality judgment (GJ) tasks in the two languages and,
if so, are these differences significantly correlated with language background?
Based on previous studies mentioned above, it was hypothesized that L2S
bilinguals would score significantly lower on the Spanish tasks than the other
two groups, showing significantly less target-like knowledge of mood distinctions
in Spanish than the other two groups. Regarding the second research question, the
TPM would predict that all participants, regardless of language background, would
transfer equally from Spanish. However, seeing as all participants were in the
beginning weeks of an instructed L3 Portuguese course, it is an open question
whether or not the L2S bilinguals’ will transfer their knowledge to L3 Portuguese in
a similar manner as the HS and L1S bilinguals’ on these language tasks. Previous
studies (e. g. Carvalho and da Silva 2006; Johnson 2004) have provided evidence
that L1S and HS bilinguals seem to struggle more than L2S bilinguals when acquir-
ing similar L3 Portuguese grammatical concepts in instructed acquisition environ-
ments, suggesting that part of what is transferred in these environments may be
either explicit language knowledge or language learning techniques. In other

5 The use here of the term “advanced” does not refer to the ACTFL proficiency levels. However,
it refers to the fact that the participants in the present study were all enrolled in a Portuguese
for Spanish speakers course that required students to have taken at least three years of college
level courses in Spanish or to have “native fluency” in Spanish.
150 Michael W. Child

words, the language background of the HS and L1S bilinguals (i. e. having Spanish
as either a heritage or first language) may play a mediating role in their transfer of
mood distinctions in instructed L3 acquisition settings.

4 Method

4.1 Participants

4.1.1 Experimental group

Participants in the experimental group consisted of students enrolled in four

different sections of a beginning Portuguese for Spanish-speakers course
taught by three different instructors (one instructor taught two separate sec-
tions) at a university in the southwestern United States. All participants spoke
both English and Spanish and most were pursuing either a major or minor in a
Spanish-related field (e. g. Latin American Studies, Translation and
Interpretation, etc.). There were a total of 68 participants consisting of 13
females, 53 males, and two who did not indicate their biological sex. The
average age of the participants was 21 years with a range of 18–45 years (two
participants did not indicate their age).
After taking into account the language usage patterns of the participants as
children and adults as indicated on the Language Background Questionnaire, as
well as their proficiency self-ratings and scores on the Spanish Grammatical
Knowledge Pretest, participants were divided into three groups: (1) L1S bilinguals
who learned English after age 5; (2) HS bilinguals who learned and used both
Spanish and English before age 5; (3) L2S bilinguals who were exposed to Spanish
after age 5, but who rarely used it before high school or college.6 In total, there
were eight L1S participants, 38 HS participants, and 22 L2S participants.7

6 This was determined by the other responses on the questionnaire that indicated that they
rarely, if ever, spoke with anyone (friends, family, acquaintances, etc.) in Spanish before
studying it in high school or beyond. In addition, their scores on the Spanish Grammatical
Knowledge Pretest were similar to those who learned Spanish as adults, supporting the decision
to put them with the L2S bilingual group.
7 Due to the fact that most participants had spent a considerable portion, if not all of their lives,
in the United States and were studying at a U.S. university, it was assumed that English
proficiency did not play a significant role in participants’ scores. However, just to be sure,
students were asked to complete a 40-item English grammaticality judgment task in order to
test for any significant differences in English proficiency. Of the sixty-eight participants in the
 Transfer in L3 cognate language acquisition 151

4.1.2 Comparison group

Although the present study’s focus is on the comparison between the scores in
Spanish and Portuguese of the experimental group’s participants, a group of
native speakers of Spanish and Portuguese from Mexico and Brazil were
recruited for comparison purposes. Nine native Spanish speakers from
Mexico (6 females, 3 males, avg. age = 32 years) and 12 native Portuguese
speakers from Brazil (10 females, 2 males, avg. age = 35 years) completed the
fill-in-the-blank mood tasks in their respective languages. Seven of the nine
Mexicans who completed the fill-in-the-blank task and all 12 Brazilians com-
pleted the GJ task in their respective languages. Of the Brazilian participants,
one had completed high school (ensino médio), four had a bachelor’s degree,
four had a master’s degree, and three had doctorate degrees. Of the Mexican
participants, one had completed an advanced high-school diploma (educación
media-superior), six had bachelor’s degrees, one had a master’s degrees and
one had a doctorate. In addition, all control participants indicated that they
were bilingual in English to some degree.

4.2 Tasks

Participants completed six different tasks over a two-month period: a language

background questionnaire, a Spanish grammatical knowledge pretest, two fill-
in-the-blank mood tasks in Spanish and Portuguese, respectively, and two GJ
tasks in Spanish and Portuguese, respectively.8 Tasks and activities were part of
the planned activities for the course and students were asked for their consent to
use their task results in the study.

4.2.1 Language background questionnaire and Spanish grammatical knowledge

pretest

The language background questionnaire contained questions regarding parti-

cipants’ exposure to and use of English and Spanish throughout their lives.

present study, one L1S bilingual, two L2S bilinguals, and three HS bilinguals did not complete
the tasks for the English pretest. For the remaining 62 participants who did complete the English
pretest, no significant effect of Language Background Group on participants’ scores on the
English pretest were found (Language Background Group: F(2,59) = 0.146, p > 0.05).
8 A copy of all of these tasks can be found in the appendices.
152 Michael W. Child

The questionnaire sought to determine in what social contexts participants

used each language, with whom, and participants’ proficiency in Spanish. In
addition, participants took a Spanish Grammatical Knowledge Pretest that
consisted of a fill-in-the-blank section of a Diploma del Español como
Lengua Extranjera (DELE) test and a multiple-choice vocabulary section of an
old Modern Language Association test. This measure of grammatical knowl-
edge in Spanish has been used as a proxy for Spanish proficiency in several
other studies (e. g. Montrul 2010; Montrul and Perpiñán 2011) although, admit-
tedly, it is only a rough measure. Each participant received a numerical score
out of 50 on the Spanish Grammatical Knowledge Pretest.

4.2.2 Fill-in-the-blank mood tasks

The Spanish Fill-in-the-blank Mood Task consisted of a paragraph with 20

spaces where participants had to fill in the correct form of the verb in par-
entheses, with ten spaces each of the subjunctive and indicative. This Spanish
task was borrowed directly from Montrul and Perpiñán (2011) with the excep-
tion that in Montrul & Perpiñán’s study the task had two conjugated versions
of the verb (one each in the indicative and the subjunctive) that participants
could choose from; for the present study, the task was modified so that
participants had to write in a finite form of the infinitive verb in parentheses.
The Portuguese Fill-in-the-blank Mood Task was developed for this study and
contained 20 blanks (10 each of indicative and subjunctive) and was of a
similar length and language type as the Spanish task. Many of the blanks in
these two tasks occur in volitional and adverbial contexts, although the
Spanish task included other noun clause “triggers” that are not related to
volitional contexts such as no creo que…, es posible que…, me preocupa que…
and es importante que…. On the other hand, Portuguese task included three
verbs/conjunctions not fitting into this description, but that lexically trigger
the subjunctive, including talvez and oxalá, and a verb in a dubitative context
(duvidar). Finally, some of the subjunctive usages appear in the matrix clause
on both the Spanish and Portuguese task and, as such, are not measures of
subjunctive usage in volitional or adverbial/purpose clause contexts. In rea-
lity, the purpose of the Fill-in-the-blank Mood Tasks was to get a rough
estimate of participants’ knowledge and use of present tense mood distinctions
in general, and not solely of their use in volitional and purpose clauses. As
such, these tasks serve as a rough indicator of knowledge of mood distinctions
in the two languages.
 Transfer in L3 cognate language acquisition 153

4.2.3 Modified grammaticality judgment tasks

Finally, the study used two modified grammaticality judgment (GJ) tasks, one
each in Spanish and Portuguese, that consisted of 20 pairs of identical sen-
tences with only one difference between the two sentences: the target verb was
either conjugated in the present indicative or the present subjunctive.9
Participants were given three choices from which to choose: Sentence A,
Sentence B, or Both and were asked to choose the answer that “sounded
best” to them or “what they would most likely use”. In cases where they felt
that either one could be correct depending on the situation, they were
instructed to choose Both as the answer. Participants were encouraged to
respond quickly and go with their initial reaction and instinct to discourage
them from thinking about grammar rules. Two examples of the stimuli are
included below in both Spanish and Portuguese.10

Ex. 1 (noun clauses – volitional)

Spanish A. Juan quiere que usted le da un regalo para su
cumpleaños.
B. Juan quiere que usted le dé un regalo para su
cumpleaños.
Portuguese A. João quer que Joana lhe dê um presente.
B. João quer que Joana lhe dá um presente.
Ex. 2 (adverbial clauses –purpose clause and temporal clause)

Spanish A. Les digo esto para que saben la verdad.

B. Les digo esto para que sepan la verdad.
Portuguese A. Só digo isto para que sabem a verdade.
B. Só digo isto para que saibam a verdade.

Spanish A. Por favor, no salgan antes de que lleguemos.

B. Por favor, no salgan antes de que llegamos.
Portuguese A. Por favor, não saiam antes que chegamos.
B. Por favor, não saiam antes que cheguemos.

9 This task was based on Ayoun’s (2000) innovative Preference/Grammaticality Judgment task,
although with a slight difference. In the present study, participants were allowed to choose
between three options: Sentence A, Sentence B, or Both. In contrast, Ayoun asked if participants
preferred Sentence A or Sentence B and then, after the choice had been made, asked if they
considered the sentence not chosen as grammatical or not.
10 All of the ‘triggers’ and sentences used in the GJ task can be seen in Appendix 4.
154 Michael W. Child

The entire GJ task included a total of 50 pairs of sentences belonging to 5

different syntactic/semantic categories. Each syntactic/semantic category con-
tained ten pairs of sentences, with two pairs each of the first person singular and
plural, second person singular, and third person singular and plural conjugated
forms in the subordinate clause. All sentence pairs were counterbalanced and
digitally randomized. Finally, six native-speaker language instructors of Spanish
from Mexico, Uruguay, Argentina, Venezuela, Spain, and the United States,
respectively, checked the sentence pairs for grammatical accuracy. As stated
before, the present paper is only reporting on the results from two of the
syntactic/semantic contexts (a total of 20 sentence pairs): volitional noun
clauses and adverbial clauses. The other 30 sentence pairs contained verbs in
more variable subjunctive contexts and served as distractors (see Child 2017 and
Section 7 in the present study).
The Portuguese version of the GJ task was very similar to the Spanish
version (translated into Portuguese, of course) with many sentences only
containing very small changes concerning the names of people, places or
objects in the sentences so that participants would not recognize that they
were, in effect, taking, essentially, the same test again.11 As before, each
syntactic/semantic group of sentence pairs was counterbalanced for person
and number and all sentence pairs were digitally randomized when pre-
sented to the participants. To ensure grammatical accuracy, the sentence
pairs were double-checked for grammatical accuracy by a native
Portuguese-speaking professor of linguistics. As with the Spanish task, the
20 sentence pairs reported on in the present paper were presented with 30
other sentence pairs (containing verbs in variable contexts) that served as
distractor items.

11 An anonymous reviewer expressed concern that there may have been some cross-linguistic
practice effects due to the tests being so similar. This was a concern from the beginning, but to
be able to compare the two tests as if they were, essentially, a pretest and posttest, it was
thought that the sentence pairs on the two languages tests had to be as close as possible.
Although the risk of practice effects was real, I believe that the risk was mitigated by the
following: (1) Participants took the first (Spanish) test a full four weeks before the Portuguese
task, (2) each grammaticality judgment task included 50 pairs of sentences, of which only 10
were in a volitional noun clauses and 10 contained adverbial/purpose clauses (the other 30
pairs functioning as distractors) and (3) all 50 test items were randomized so that it would
have been difficult for participants to categorize each pair of 50 sentences into the subjunc-
tive-dominant category (those included in this present analysis) and the variable/ context-
dependent categories analyzed in a previous paper (see Child 2017).
 Transfer in L3 cognate language acquisition 155

4.3 Procedure

Participants completed all six tasks mentioned above over a two and a half-
month period. The preliminary tasks (Spanish Grammatical Knowledge Pretest
and the language background questionnaire) were administered on the third day
of the course. The Spanish fill-in-the-blank task and the Spanish GJ task were
administered to participants in a computer lab during the sixth week of class
before the instructors introduced the subjunctive in the course. Then, four weeks
later (after the Portuguese present subjunctive had been taught and practiced in
class), the Portuguese fill-in-the-blank task and the Portuguese GJ task were
administered to participants.
For the Fill-in-the-blank Mood Tasks, responses that contained the correct
verbal morphology were considered correct and received one point. This
included misspelled words and words that contained incorrect root forms
such as *empece and *empieze for empiece and *tosso, *tozco, and *tueso for
toso on the Spanish test and *dudo for duvido, *lleve for leve, and *respete for
respeite in Portuguese. In addition, verbal forms were considered correct that
contained standard modal morphology but were conjugated in the wrong
grammatical person. There were relatively few of the examples mentioned
above found among participants’ responses on the Spanish task; however,
the Portuguese task contained myriad examples. However, in some cases it
was impossible to tell whether or not the participant was attempting to use
subjunctive or indicative morphology, such as in *te for both tenho and tenha
or *se/*seu for both sou and seja. No points were given for these and other
ambiguous responses.
For the GJ tasks, responses were given one point when the correct form of
the verb was chosen and a half point if Both sentences were selected (since
they at least recognized that the subjunctive was possible in these sentences).
Obviously, this scoring system assumes a prescriptive/normative perspective
assuming a standard dialect. There were three reasons for this: (1) This is
generally how students are taught and graded in post-secondary schooling;
(2) Standard dialects of Portuguese and Spanish are similar with regards to
the prescriptive usage of present indicative/subjunctive distinctions12;

12 Again, these forms can be variable in everyday usage in non-standard varieties of both Spanish
and Portuguese. See Perini (2002, pp. 202–203) for a discussion on how the present subjunctive can
be quite variable in some regional varieties of colloquial Portuguese, even in contexts that would be
subjunctive-dominant in standard Brazilian Portuguese (e. g. volitional).
156 Michael W. Child

(3) Volitional and adverbial/purpose clauses that are lexically triggered are
considered to be the most common and consistent usages of the subjunctive
in Mexican Spanish and in standard varieties of Portuguese (Blake 1983;
Montrul 2009).

4.4 Analysis procedure

Because of the number of tasks involved in the study, multiple analyses were
performed. First, a one-way ANOVA was run with Language Background Group
and the scores from the Spanish Grammatical Knowledge Pretest as variables.
Then, the answers on the Fill-in-the-blank Mood tasks were analyzed using a
multivariate within-subjects analysis of variance with Language Test as the
within-subjects variable and Language Background Group and Instructor as
the between-subjects variables. Finally, to analyze the judgments on the GJ
tasks, a three-factor (2 x 2x 3) mixed-design repeated measures multivariate
analysis was performed with Language Test (Spanish and Portuguese) and
Clause Type of the task (Volitional and Adverbial/Purpose Clause) as within-
subjects factors and Language Background Group (L1S, L2S, HS) as a between-
subjects factor.

5 Results

5.1 Spanish grammatical knowledge pretest

Group means from the Spanish Grammatical Knowledge Pretest show a large
difference between the scores of the L2S bilinguals when compared with the
L1S bilinguals and the HS bilinguals, with L2S bilinguals scoring much lower,
on average, than the other two groups. The role of Language Background
Group on Spanish Grammatical Knowledge Pretest scores was tested using a
one-factor between subjects ANOVA with language background group being
significant (F(2,65) = 41.96, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.564). Planned comparisons indi-
cated that the difference between the L2S group and the other two groups was
significant at the 0.05 level; the difference between the L1S and HS groups,
however, was not significant. Table 1 shows the mean Spanish Grammatical
Knowledge Pretest score for each of the three language background groups
with ranges, standard errors and standard deviations.
 Transfer in L3 cognate language acquisition 157

Table 1: Mean span. Grammar pretest scores, std. Deviations, range by lang. Background
group.

Lang. Background N Mean % Confidence Max Min Std. Std.

Group Interval Error Deviation

LS Bilinguals  . .–.   . .

HS Bilinguals  . .–.   . .
LS Bilinguals  . .–.   . .
TOTAL  .   . .

As would be expected, the Spanish Grammatical Knowledge Pretest scores

positively correlate with scores on both the Portuguese fill-in-the-blank task,
(r(66) = 0.423, p < 0.001), as well as on the adverbial contexts of the GJ task in
Portuguese (r(66) = 0.462, p < 0.001). However, Spanish Grammatical Knowledge
Pretest scores do not positively correlate with scores on the volitional portion of
the GJ in Portuguese (r(66) = 0.223, p > 0.05). Looking at the scatterplots it is clear
that there is something else interacting with these correlations, since there are
multiple participants with very high Spanish Grammatical Knowledge Pretest
scores and very low scores on the tasks in Portuguese. As will be shown below,
it appears that language background group interacts with Spanish grammar
knowledge in the language scores of these bilinguals.

5.2 Spanish and Portuguese fill-in-the-blank mood tasks

The Spanish and Portuguese Fill-in-the-blank Mood Tasks were analyzed using a
multivariate within-subjects analysis of variance with Language Test as the
within-subjects variable and Language Background Group and Instructor as
the between-subjects variables.13 The variable Instructor was included to test
for any instructor effects on participants’ performance on the Portuguese task.
Results of the analysis showed significant main effects for Language
Background Group (Language Background Group: F(2,63) = 5.749, p = 0.005)
and Language Test (Language Test: F(1,63) = 6.15, p = 0.016) and no significant
main effect for Instructor (Instructor: F(2,63) = 1.108, p = 0.337). In addition, there
was a significant two-way interaction of Language Background Group and
Language Test (Language Background Group*Score: F(2,63) = 4.558, p = 0.014).

13 The Spanish Grammatical Knowledge Pretest scores were not included as a factor in this or
the following analysis because they would be significantly correlated with the Spanish Fill-in-
the-blank Mood Task and the Spanish GJ task (both being, essentially, measures of grammatical
knowledge).
158 Michael W. Child

The interaction between Language Test and Instructor was not significant
(Language Test*Instructor: F(2,63) = 0.212, p = 0.810).
Post hoc comparisons showed that the difference between the L2S group’s
scores and the scores of both the L1S group and the HS group were significant,
but that the L1S and HS groups’ scores were not significantly different from each
other. Means and standard deviations for each language task for the three
groups are shown in Figure 1.

19.78
Mean Score (20 Points Possible)

19.17 19

17.61

16.39
15.88
15.55
14.91 Spanish

Portuguese

Native Speaker L1S Bilinguals HS Bilinguals L2S Bilinguals

Controls
Language Background Group

Figure 1: Mean scores on the Spanish and Portuguese Fill-in-the-blank Mood tasks by language
background group (total of 20 points possible).
*The native speaker participants only took the test that corresponded with their respective
native languages; hence, there were 9 native Spanish speakers and 12 native Portuguese
speakers. Since the purpose of this study was to compare responses of bilinguals in Spanish
and Portuguese, these native speaker controls were not included in the statistical analysis but
their descriptive statistics are included here for comparison purposes. A one way ANOVA
indicated that the scores for the Spanish and Portuguese native speakers were not significantly
different from each other (F(1,19) = 1.447, p > 0.05).

5.3 Spanish and Portuguese modified grammaticality judgment

tasks
The scores on the Spanish and Portuguese GJ tasks for volitional and adverbial
clauses were analyzed using a three-factor (2x2x3) mixed-design repeated mea-
sures multivariate analysis (Wilks Lambda) with Language Test (Spanish and
Portuguese) and Clause Type of the task (Volitional and Adverbial/Purpose
Clause) as within-subjects factors and Language Background Group (L1S, L2S,
 Transfer in L3 cognate language acquisition 159

HS) as a between-subjects factor. Although Instructor was included in an initial

analysis, it was not found to be significant and was therefore excluded in the
final test.
The analysis showed significant main effects of Language Background
(F(2,65) = 3.488, p = 0.036), Language Test (Wilks Lambda = 0.712, F(1,65) =
26.319, p < 0.001) and Clause Type (Wilks Lambda = 0.909, F(1,65) = 6.540,
p = 0.013). In addition, there were significant two-way interactions of Language
Test by Language Background (Wilks Lambda = 0.708, F(2,65) = 13.404, p <
0.001) and Clause Type by Language Background (Wilks Lambda = 0.870,
F(2,65) = 4.846, p = 0.011). Neither the two-way interaction of Language Test by
Clause Type (Wilks Lambda = 0.977, F(1,65) = 1.562, p > 0.05) or the three-way
interaction of Language Test by Clause Type by Language Background (Wilks
Lambda = 0.982, F(2,65) = 0.590, p > 0.05) was significant. Pairwise comparisons
indicated that the difference in scores between the Spanish and Portuguese
tasks were significant for both the L1S group (MD = 2.625, SE = 0.541, p < 0.001)
and for the HS group (MD = 1.224, SE = 0.248, p < 0.001), but not for the L2S
group (MD = −0.364, SE = 0.326). That is, both the L1S and HS groups scored
significantly higher on the Spanish task than on the Portuguese task. In addi-
tion, pairwise comparisons showed that the difference in scores between the
Volitional category and the Adverbial category was significant for the L2S group
(MD = 1.114, SE = 0.275) (F(1,65) = 16.345, p < 0.001) but not for the other two
groups. In other words, L2S participants scored significantly higher, as a
group, on the volitional category than they did on the adverbial clause category.
However, there was no statistically significant difference between the scores on
the two categories for both the L1S and HS groups. Figures 2 and 3 show the
mean scores by Language Background Group for the Volitional and Adverbial
contexts, respectively.

6 Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to test Spanish/English bilinguals’ knowledge
of mood distinctions in subjunctive-dominant contexts in Spanish, specifically the
present indicative/subjunctive distinction in volitional and adverbial contexts, and
subsequently to examine their transfer of this knowledge to L3 Portuguese. As
hypothesized, L2S bilinguals show less target-like knowledge of mood distinctions
in Spanish than the L1S and HS bilinguals. Specifically, there was a significant
difference between the scores of the L2S group and the other two groups on both the
Spanish Fill-in-the-blank Mood task as well as on the Spanish GJ task. In contrast,
160 Michael W. Child

9.79
Mean Scores (10 Points Possible)

9.54
9.31
8.95

7.91
7.72
7.39
7.13
Spanish
Portuguese

Native Speaker L1S Bilinguals HS Bilinguals L2S Bilinguals

Controls
Language Background Group

Figure 2: Mean scores for “volitional” category by language background group (total of 10
points possible).
Mean Score (10 Points Possible)

9.79
9.44
9.13
8.91

7.68

6.64 Spanish
6.38 6.43
Portuguese

Native Speaker L1S Bilinguals HS Bilinguals L2S Bilinguals

Controls
Language Background Group

Figure 3: Mean scores for “adverbial/purpose clause” category by language background group
(total of 10 points possible).
*Like the fill-in-the-blank task above, the native speaker participants only took the test that
corresponded with their respective native languages; for the GJ task there were 7 native
Spanish speakers and 12 native Portuguese speakers. Since the purpose of this study was to
compare responses of bilinguals in Spanish and Portuguese, these native speaker controls
were not included in the statistical analysis but their descriptive statistics are included here for
comparison purposes. A one way ANOVA was done for both the “Volitional” category and the
“Adverbial/Purpose Clause” category and indicated that the scores for the Spanish and
Portuguese native speakers were not significantly different from each other (F(1,17) = 0.791,
p > 0.05) and (F(1,17) = 3.284, p > 0.05) respectively.
 Transfer in L3 cognate language acquisition 161

there was no significant difference between the L1S and HS groups’ scores. In fact,
these results for the HS participants are similar to results reported in Mikulski (2010)
that show that HS bilinguals show more knowledge of mood distinctions in sub-
junctive-dominant contexts than do L2S bilinguals.
Regarding the transfer of knowledge of mood distinctions to L3
Portuguese, the results broadly support the predictions of the TPM in that all
groups of Spanish-speaking bilinguals appeared to have transferred their
knowledge of mood distinctions from Spanish; the relatively high scores in
Portuguese would be difficult to explain without invoking transfer of previous
knowledge. However, the transfer of knowledge of mood distinctions from
Spanish to Portuguese, at least as measured by the difference in scores
between the Spanish and Portuguese tasks, was indeed significantly correlated
with Language Background Group; the L2S group showed no significant dif-
ference between their scores on the Spanish and Portuguese tasks, suggesting
full transfer. In contrast, there was a significant difference between the
Spanish and Portuguese scores for both the L1S group and the HS bilinguals,
suggesting something other than full transfer of knowledge.
What is most striking is that the L2S group is different from the other two
groups. The difference in their scores compared with the L1S and HS bilinguals
can be viewed in a couple of different ways. First, it is evident from the L1S and
HS participants’ scores on the Spanish tasks that they have an underlying
knowledge of mood distinctions in volitional noun clause and adverbial clause
contexts in Spanish. It could be that, as the Missing Surface Inflection
Hypothesis suggests (e. g. Haznedar 2003; Haznedar and Schwartz 1997;
Prévost and White 1999, Prévost and White 2000), the L1S and HS bilinguals
simply did not produce or recognize which morphological ending indicated the
subjunctive and which indicated the indicative. However, this does not explain
why this same discrepancy between the scores is not evident among the L2S
bilinguals.
Another explanation for the group differences seen in the present study
may be the interaction between how Spanish was acquired (instructed vs.
naturalistic environments), the relatively formal feature being tested (indica-
tive/subjunctive distinctions), the fact that these tests were in a written mod-
ality, and the formal classroom environment in which the L3 Portuguese was
being acquired. Most, if not all, of the participants in the L2S group learned
Spanish in an instructed environment similar to how they were learning L3
Portuguese and would presumably be familiar with not only the linguistic
terminology frequently used in explaining mood distinctions, but also the
“rules” to aid in recognizing and using the morphological endings associated
with the subjunctive (i. e. “take the first person singular form in the present
162 Michael W. Child

tense, take off the o, and add the opposite ending”). In learning L3 Portuguese
in a similar context as they learned Spanish, and in contrast with the L1S and
HS bilinguals, these participants would have been exposed previously to the
relevant terminology and to similar rule-oriented explanations, not to mention
similar types of tests and grammar activities (although, admittedly, grammati-
cality judgments tasks are not common in the L2/L3 classroom). By compar-
ison, in their study comparing L1S/HS bilinguals and L2S bilinguals acquiring
Portuguese, Carvalho and da Silva (2006) concluded that L2S speakers “con-
sciously [apply] more rules directly transferred from Spanish, while native
Spanish speakers will count more on their intuition through the use of analo-
gies, generalizations, and even avoidance” (p. 195; see also Johnson 2004, who
cites similar reasons for the differences found in these same groups in his
study). In short, the L2S bilinguals may have had greater explicit foreign
language learning skills and were thus able to perform better on these formal,
written tasks.
The assumption that some CLI can be traced to explicit foreign language learn-
ing skills is not new. In fact, more than four decades ago Selinker (1972) proposed the
ideas of “strategies of second-language learning” and “transfer of training”, which
describe how formal language instruction can produce both positive and negative
transfer in students that would not otherwise occur. Meisel (1983) mentions that
learners may develop different “learner orientations” (comparable to Selinker’s idea
of “strategies of second-language learning”) based on either structural or functional
learning (p. 28–29). Similarly, Odlin (1989) noted that, “The existence of differences
in acquisition patterns seen in comparative studies may not in all cases be due to CLI
alone. It is conceivable, for example, that some of the differences reflect transfer of
training” (p. 34). Both “transfer of training” and transfer of learner orientations and
strategies could account for the differences seen in the present study’s results.
Indeed, Thomas (1988) found evidence that explicit instruction in a cognate L2
facilitates L3 acquisition in instructed environments.
Additionally, as reported in Child (2013), questionnaire data from most of
these same participants indicated that those in the L1S group viewed the role of
Spanish in L3 Portuguese learning as less facilitative and more confusing than
did those in the L2S and HS groups. In fact, when mentioning what aspects of
the language were difficult or easy for them because they were Spanish speak-
ers, participants in the L2S group routinely mentioned “grammar” and “verb
conjugations” whereas the L1S group never mentioned the term “verb conjuga-
tions”. It seems that this lack of an explicit language learning framework (i. e.
familiarity with classroom meta-analyses of language) made it more difficult for
participants in the L1S group to perceive the similarities between the two
languages and take advantage of their knowledge of Spanish, which, to
 Transfer in L3 cognate language acquisition 163

reiterate, was demonstrably greater than the knowledge of the participants in

the L2S group (who, in comparison, viewed the role of Spanish in learning
Portuguese as largely facilitative).
Thus, if the present study had tested participants acquiring Portuguese in an
informal, immersion environment in an oral register, using a more common
grammatical feature, the outcome might have been different. But it is precisely
because many Spanish-speakers in the United States have acquired Spanish in
an informal context, are learning Portuguese in a formal context, and are
regularly assessed in a written register using standard/formal varieties of the
language that the present study was designed in this way. This, of course, has
implications not only for the way that these different populations are tested and
assessed, but also for teaching of cognate L3 acquisition courses. Specifically, a
focus on more naturalistic assessments as well as more time spent on the
explicit teaching of grammar rules and metalinguistic terminology in general
may particularly benefit HS and L1S bilinguals.
In relation to the broader issue of the role of typology in L3 acquisition, the
results broadly support the main predictions of the TPM. The fact that all groups
scored relatively high on the Portuguese tasks measuring subjunctive knowledge is
consistent with the TPM’s predictions of transfer from Spanish. As mentioned before,
it is difficult to explain the relatively high scores of these participants after only two
months of instruction in Portuguese without acknowledging some influence of
Spanish on their L3 Portuguese learning. Furthermore, the results support the
prediction (Rothman 2015) that transfer will occur even from L2 grammars that are
still in development. However, what is not consistent with the TPM is the significant
difference between the groups’ scores on the Spanish and Portuguese tasks.
Although this difference may be indicative of a task effect or a reflection of transfer
of explicit learning rather than of pure transfer of acquired grammatical features, at
the very least it shows that the language background interacts with language
knowledge and typology on structured language tasks and may in fact be indicative
of a more meaningful role of language background on general transfer patterns.
Finally, Slabakova’s proposed “scalpel model of L3 acquisition” (Slabakova
2016; see also Slabakova 2012), which is another theory within the generative
framework, posits that L3 acquisition can differ property by property and that
the related (i. e. enhancing) aspects of the L1 and/or L2 can be used to facilitate
transfer (see also Westergaard et al. 2016 for their Linguistic Proximity Model, or
LPM, that also proposes that transfer occurs on a property-by-property basis). In
addition, this theory allows for other factors, including the linguistic property in
question (and its frequency in the L3), language activation and use, misleading
input, and processing complexity to play a mediating, and non-facilitative, role.
The present study suggests that language background may be another mediating
164 Michael W. Child

factor in L3 acquisition, having the potential to interact with task type, register,
and the linguistic property in question.

7 Conclusion
Even though there were differences in participants’ transfer patterns from Spanish
to Portuguese, all participant groups scored high on the Portuguese tasks. This is
notable considering that they were novice learners of L3 Portuguese and mood
acquisition has been shown to be difficult for adult learners (Collentine 2010).
Thus, the results of the present study broadly support the TPM, although it is not
clear that the tasks measured pure cross-linguistic influence of implicit gramma-
tical knowledge. The unique contribution of this present study, however, is found
in the results showing that language background can play a significant role in
transfer in instructed L3 environments. In particular, having learned a foreign
language in a formal, classroom environment seems to facilitate L3A in a similar
environment. Future studies could be conducted to measure learners’ metalin-
guistic knowledge and how that may interact with transfer in formal L3 learning
(see Thomas 1988) and more informal L3 acquisition. Although difficult to assess,
metalinguistic awareness could be measured through terminology tests (Correa
2011), tests that require participants to recognize, correct, and explain non-target-
like language production (Galambos and Goldin-Meadow 1990), tests requiring
think-alouds (Carvalho and da Silva 2006), and tests requiring subjects to label
grammatical features in a sentence (Alderson et al. 1997).
Finally, L3 acquisition studies would do well to include a variety of formal
and naturalistic tasks, including elicited oral responses, grammaticality judg-
ments of recordings of native speech, spontaneous production from oral inter-
views, and written production from multiple registers (i. e. essays, letters,
emails, etc. – see Geeslin 2010). This would take into account register, language
variety and previous language experience to see if the differences observed in
the present study still obtain.

References
Alarcón, I. 2010. Advanced heritage learners of Spanish: A sociolinguistic profile for pedago-
gical purposes. Foreign Language Annals 43. 269–288.
Alderson, J. C., C. Clapham & D. Steel. 1997. Metalinguistic knowledge, language aptitude and
language proficiency. Language Teaching Research 1. 93–121.
 Transfer in L3 cognate language acquisition 165

Almeida Filho, J. C. P. de. 2004. Questões de interlíngua de aprendizes de português a partir ou

com a interposição do Espanhol (língua muito próxima). In A. R. M. Simões, A. M. Carvalho
& L. Wiedemann (eds.), Português para falantes de espanhol, 183–191. Campinas: Pontes.
Ayoun, D. 2000. Web-based elicitation tasks in SLA research. Language Learning and
Technology 3. 78–98.
Azevedo, M. 1978. Identifying Spanish interference in the speech of learners of Portuguese.
Modern Language Journal 62(1–2). 18–23.
Azevedo, M. M. 2005. Introducción a la lingüística Española, 2nd edn. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bardel, C. & Y. Falk. 2007. The role of the second language in third language acquisition: The
case of German syntax. Second Language Research 23. 459–484.
Bardel, C. & Y. Falk. 2012. The L2 status factor and the declarative/procedural distinction.
In J. Cabrelli Amaro, S. Flynn & J. Rothman (eds.), Third language acquisition in adulthood,
61–78. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Beaudrie, S. 2009. Spanish receptive bilinguals: Understanding the cultural and linguistic
profile of learners from three different generations. Spanish in Context 6. 85–104.
Beaudrie, S. & C. Ducar. 2005. Beginning level university heritage language programs: Creating
a space for all heritage language learners. Heritage Language Journal 3(1). 1–26. Retrieved
from http://www.heritagelanguages.org/ViewPaper.ashx?ID=OoIgFmamZEvZWCVGQtiSQg
%3d%3d.
Bernhardt, E., J. Molitoris, K Romeo, L. Nina & P. Valderrama. 2015. Designing and sustaining a
foreign language writing proficiency assessment program at the postsecondary level.
Foreign Language Annals 48. 329–349.
Blake, R. 1983. Mood selection among Spanish-speaking children, ages 4 to 12. Bilingual
Review/La Revista Bilingu¨E 10(1). 21–32.
Borgonovo, C., J. Bruhn de Garavito & P. Prévost. 2008. Methodological issues in the L2
acquisition of a syntax/semantics phenomenon: How to assess L2 knowledge of mood in
Spanish relative clauses. In J. Bruhn de Garavito & E. Valenzuela (eds.), Selected pro-
ceedings of the 10th Hispanic linguistics symposium, 13–24. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
Proceedings Project.
Broersma, M. 2009. Triggered codeswitching between cognate languages. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition 12. 447–462.
Byrnes, H. 2005. Perspectives. The Modern Language Journal 89(4). 582–585.
Carreira, M. 2004. Seeking explanatory adequacy: A dual approach to understanding the term
“heritage language learner”. Heritage Language Journal 2. 1–25. http://www.heritagelan
guages.org/.
Carvalho, A. M. 2002. Português para falantes de espanhol: Perspectivas de um campo de
pesquisa. Hispania 85. 597–608.
Carvalho, A. M. (2011). Português para falantes de espanhol: Trajetória de um campo de
pesquisa. Plenary address given March 12, 2001 at the Quarto Simpósio sobre Ensino de
Português Para Falantes de Espanhol. Georgetown University.
Carvalho, A. M. & A. J. B. Da Silva. 2006. Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisi-
tion: The case of Spanish-English bilinguals’ acquisition of Portuguese. Foreign Language
Annals 39. 185–202.
Carvalho, A. M., J. L. Freire & A. J. B. Da Silva. 2010. Teaching Portuguese to Spanish speakers:
A case for trilingualism. Hispania 93. 73–75.
Castilho, A. T de. 2010. Gramática do português brasileiro. São Paulo, SP: Editora Contexto.
166 Michael W. Child

Cenoz, J. 2001. The effect of linguistic distance, L2 status and age on cross-linguistic influence
in third language acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen & U. Jessner (eds.), Cross-linguistic
influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives, 149–169. Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Cenoz, J. 2003. The additive effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition: A review.
International Journal of Bilingualism 7(1). 71–87.
Cenoz, J. 2011. The influence of bilingualism on third language acquisition: Focus on multi-
lingualism. Language Teaching 46. 71–86. doi:10.1017/S0261444811000218.
Cenoz, J. & J. F. Valencia. 1994. Additive trilingualism: Evidence from the Basque country.
Applied Psycholinguistics 15. 195–207.
Child, M. W. 2013. Language learning perceptions: The role of Spanish in L3 Portuguese
acquisition. Portuguese Language Journal 7. 1–55. http://www.ensinoportugues.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/11/Child-2013-Language-Learning-Perceptions-The-Role-of-
Spanish-in-L3-Portuguese-Acquisition.pdf.
Child, M. W. 2017. The typological primacy model and bilingual types: Transfer differences
between Spanish/English bilinguals in L3 Portuguese acquisition. In K. Bellamy,
M. W. Child, P. González, A. Muntendam & M. C. Parafita Couto (eds.), Multidisciplinary
approaches to bilingualism in the Hispanic and Lusophone world. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Collentine, J. 2010. The acquisition and teaching of the Spanish subjunctive: An update on
current findings. Hispania 93. 39–51.
Correa, M. 2011. Subjunctive accuracy and metalinguistic knowledge of L2 learners of Spanish.
Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 8. 39–56.
Falk, Y. & C. Bardel. 2010. The study of the role of the background languages in third language
acquisition: The state of the art. International Review of Applied Linguistics 48. 185–219.
Flynn, S., C. Foley & I. Vinnitskaya. 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. 3–16.
Galambos, S. J. & S. Goldin-Meadow. 1990. The effects of learning two languages on levels of
metalinguistic awareness. Cognition 34. l–56.
García-Mayo, M. P. 2012. Cognitive approaches to L3 acquisition. International Journal of
English Studies 12(1). 129–146.
Geeslin, K. 2010. Beyond “naturalistic”: On the role of task characteristics and the importance
of multiple elicitation methods. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 3. 501–520.
Grannier, D. M. 2000. Uma proposta heterodoxa para o ensino de português a falantes de
espanhol. In N. Júdice (ed.), Português para estrangeiros: perspectivas de quem ensina,
57–80. Niterói: Intertexto.
Gudmestad, A. 2012a. Acquiring a variable structure: An interlanguage analysis of second
language mood use in Spanish. Language Learning 62. 373–402.
Gudmestad, A. 2012b. Toward an understanding of the relationship between mood use and
form regularity: Evidence of variation across tasks, lexical items, and participant groups.
In K. Geeslin & M. Díaz-Campos (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 14th Hispanic lin-
guistics symposium, 214–227. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Haznedar, B. 2003. Missing surface inflection in adult and child L2 acquisition. In J. M. Liceras,
H. Zobl & H. Goodluck (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th generative approaches to second
language acquisition conference, 140–149. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings
Project.
 Transfer in L3 cognate language acquisition 167

Haznedar, B. & B. D. Schwartz. 1997. Are there optional infinitives in child L2 acquisition? In E.
Hughes, M. Hughes & A. Greenhill (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st annual Boston university
conference on language development, 257–268. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Johnson, K. 2004. What is a Spanish speaker? In R. M. Simões, A. M. Carvalho & L. Wiedmann
(eds.), Português para falantes de Espanhol—Portuguese for Spanish Speakers, 49–66.
Campinas: Pontes.
Júdice, N. 2000. Ensino de português para hispanofalantes: Transparências e opacidades. In N.
Júdice (ed.), Português para estrangeiros: Perspectivas de quem ensina, 37–56. Niterói:
Intertexto.
Kellerman, E. 1983. Now you see it, now you don’t. In S. M. Gass & L. Selinker (eds.), Language
transfer in language learning, 112–134. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Klein, E. C. 1995. Second versus third language acquisition: Is there a difference? Language
Learning 45(3). 419–465.
Koike, D. & R. Gualda. 2008. The effects of explicit or implicit teaching of grammatical form in
Portuguese as a third language. In L. Wiedemann & M. Scaramucci (eds.), Português para
falantes de espanhol: Ensino e aquisição, 47–67. Campinas: Pontes.
Meisel, J. M. 1983. Transfer as a second-language strategy. Language & Communication 3. 11–46.
Merino, B. J. 1983. Language loss in bilingual Chicano children. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology 4. 277–294.
Mikulski, A. M. 2010. Receptive volitional subjunctive abilities in heritage and traditional
foreign language learners of Spanish. The Modern Language Journal 94(2). 217–233.
Montrul, S. 2004. The acquisition of Spanish: Morphosyntactic development in monolingual
and bilingual L1 acquisition and adult L2 acquisition. Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Pub.
Montrul, S. 2007. Interpreting mood distinctions in Spanish as a heritage language. In K.
Potowski & R. Cameron (eds.), Spanish contact: Policy, social and linguistic inquiries,
23–40. John Benjamins: Amsterdam.
Montrul, S. 2009. Knowledge of tense-aspect and mood in Spanish heritage speakers.
International Journal of Bilingualism 13. 239–269.
Montrul, S. 2010. Dominant language transfer in adult second language learners and heritage
speakers. Second Language Research 26. 293–327.
Montrul, S., R. Dias & H. Santos. 2011. Clitics and object expression in the L3 acquisition of
Brazilian Portuguese: Structural similarity matters for transfer. Second Language Research
27. 21–58.
Montrul, S. & S. Perpiñán. 2011. Assessing differences and similarities between instructed
heritage language learners and L2 learners in their knowledge of Spanish tense-aspect
and mood (TAM) morphology. Heritage Language Journal 8(1). 90–133.
Odlin, T. 1989. Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Perini, M. A. 2002. Modern Portuguese: A reference grammar. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Perini, M. A. 2010. Gramática do português brasileiro. São Paulo, SP: Parábola.
Potowski, K. 2005. Fundamentos de la enseñanza del español a hispanohablantes en los EE.UU.
Madrid: Arco/Libros.
Prévost, P. & L. White. 1999. Accounting for morphological variation in second language
acquisition: Truncation or missing inflection? In M. A. Friedemann & L. Rizzi (eds.), The
acquisition of syntax, 202–235. London: Longman.
Prévost, P. & L. White. 2000. Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language
acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research 16. 103–133.
168 Michael W. Child

Rothman, J. 2011. L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: The Typological
Primacy Model. Second Language Research 27. 107–127.
Rothman, J. 2013. Cognitive economy, non-redundancy and typological primacy in L3 acquisi-
tion: Evidence from initial stages of L3 romance. In S. Baauw, F. A. C. Dirjkoningen &
M. Pinto (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2011: Selected papers from
‘Going Romance’, 217–248. John Benjamins: Amsterdam.
Rothman, J. 2015. Linguistic and cognitive motivations for the Typological Primacy Model (TPM)
of third language (L3) transfer: Timing of acquisition and proficiency considered.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 18. 179–190. doi:10.1017/S136672891300059X.
Rothman, J. & J. Cabrelli Amaro. 2010. What variables condition syntactic transfer? A look at the
L3 initial state. Second Language Research 26. 189–218. doi:10.1177/0267658309349410.
Sanchez-Naranjo, J. & A. T. Perez-Leroux. 2010. In the wrong mood at the right time: Children’s
acquisition of the Spanish subjunctive in temporal clauses. Canadian Journal of Linguistics
55. 227–255.
Sanz, C. 2000. Bilingual education enhances third language acquisition: Evidence from
Catalonia. Applied Psycholinguistics 21. 23–44.
Selinker, L. 1972. Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching 10. 209–231.
Silva-Corvalán, C. 1994a. Language contact and change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Silva-Corvalán, C. 1994b. Gradual loss of mood distinctions in Los Angeles Spanish. Language
Variation and Change 6. 255–272.
Silva-Corvalán, C. 2000. Sociolingüística y Pragmática del Español. Washington D.C:
Georgetown University Press.
Simões, A. R. M., A. M. Carvalho & L. Wiedemann (eds.). 2004. Português para falantes de
espanhol. Campinas, Brasil: Pontes Editores.
Slabakova, R. 2012. L3/Ln acquisition: A view from the outside. In J. Cabrelli Amaro, S. Flynn &
J. Rothman (eds.), Third language acquisition in adulthood, 115–139. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Slabakova, R. 2016. The scalpel model of third language acquisition. International Journal of
Bilingualism. doi:10.1177/1367006916655413.
Studerus, L. 1995. Some unresolved issues in Spanish mood use. Hispania 78. 94–104.
Thomas, J. 1988. The role played by metalinguistic awareness in second and third language
learning. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 9. 235–246.
Valdés, G. 1995. The teaching of minority languages as academic subjects: Pedagogical and
theoretical challenges. The Modern Language Journal 79. 299–328.
Valdés, G. 2005. Bilingualism, heritage language learners, and SLA research: Opportunities lost
or seized? The Modern Language Journal 89(3). 410–426.
Westergaard, M., N. Mitrofanova, M. Roksolana & Y. Rodina. 2016. Crosslinguistic influence in
the acquisition of a third language: The linguistic proximity model. International Journal of
Bilingualism. doi:10.1177/1367006916648859.
Wheatley, K. 2006. Sintaxis y morfología de la lengua española. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

Supplemental Material: The online version of this article offers supplementary material
(https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2017-0113).