Cover not available
Article published In:
Language, Interaction and Acquisition
Vol. 5:2 (2014) ► pp.279–313

Cross-linguistic influence in an oral translation task by L3 French learners

| University of Turku
This article addresses multilingual students’ lexical retrieval in L3 French at the university level. The aim was to study how Finnish L3 learners construct the meaning of cognate words that induce a high probability of cross-linguistic or intra-linguistic influence. The task was to orally translate 40 French words into L1 words (Finnish). These words were used to deliberately activate L3, L2 or L1 cognates. The corpus consisted of the productions of 12 first-year students (480 cases). The results show that participants gave the correct answer to a given word in 40% of cases. The results also show that intra-linguistic influence is the most probable source of both negative and positive effects and that cross-linguistic influence from L2 English was more important than that of L1. Nevertheless, well-learned common words seemed to resist this (combined) cross-linguistic influence. On the basis of the task, it can be concluded that cross-linguistic influence can vary considerably and that the source of the influence is not always clear. The analysis also revealed that on an oral translation task, the participants had recourse to different strategies based on form or form and meaning at various levels of success.
Keywords: meaning construction, metalinguistic strategies, cross-linguistic influence, multilingual learners, word frequency
Published online: 22 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lia.5.2.05mut
References (60)
Aronin, L. & Bawardi, B. (2012). Individual differences in the light of new linguistic dispensation. In M. Pawlak (ed.), New Perspectives on individual differences in language learning and teaching (15–32). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronin, L. & Hufeisen, B. (2009a). Crossing the second threshold. In L. Aronin & B. Hufeisen (eds.), The exploration of multilingualism: Development of research on L3, multilingualism and multiple language acquisition (155–160). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2009b). On the genesis and development of L3 research, multilingualism and multiple language acquisition. In L. Aronin & B. Hufeisen (eds.), The exploration of multilingualism: Development of research on L3, multilingualism and multiple language acquisition (1–9). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardel, C. & Falk, Y. (2007). The role of the second language in third language acquisition: The case of Germanic syntax. Second Language Research 23(4), 459–484. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bassetti, B. & Cook, V. (2011). Relating language and cognition: The second language user. In V. Cook & B. Bassetti (eds.), Language and bilingual cognition (143–190). New York and Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Bogaards, P. (1994). Le vocabulaire dans l’apprentissage des langues étrangères. Coll. LAL. Paris: Les Éditions Didier.Google Scholar
Bonin, P. (2005). Comment accède-t-on à un mot en production verbale écrite? Psychologie française 50(3), 323–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, Y.G. & Hakuta, K. (2006) [2004]. Bilingualism and second language acquisition. In T.K. Bhatia & W.C. Ritchie (eds.), The handbook of bilingualism (114–144). Malden (MA): Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cenoz, J. & Jessner, U. (2009). The study of multilingualism in educational contexts. In L. Aronin & B. Hufeisen (eds.), The exploration of multilingualism: Development of research on L3, multilingualism and multiple language acquisition (121–138). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR). Retrieved from [URL]. Visited 28.7.2014.
Chamizo Domínguez, P.J. (2008). Semantics and pragmatics of false friends. New York, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chamizo Domínguez, P.J. & Nerlich, B. (2002). False friends: Their origin and semantics in some selected languages. Journal of Pragmatics 341, 1833–1849. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Angelis, G. (2005). Multilingualism and non-native lexical transfer: An identification problem. International Journal of Multilingualism 2(1), 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2007). Third or additional language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Angelis, G. & Dewaele, J.-M. (2009). The development of psycholinguistic research on crosslinguistic influence. In L. Aronin & B. Hufeisen (eds.), The exploration of multilingualism: Development of research on L3, multilingualism and multiple language acquisition (63–77). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (eds.) (2011). New trends in crosslinguistic influence and multilingualism research. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R.M. (2009). Cognitive-psychological processes in second language learning. In M.H. Long & C.J. Doughty (eds.), The handbook of language teaching (119–138). West Sussex: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T. (2005). Bilingual visual word recognition and lexical access. In J.F. Kroll & A.M.B. De Groot (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (179–201). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (2009). Optimizing the input: Frequency and sampling in usage-based and form-focused learning. In M.H. Long & C.J. Doughty (eds.), The handbook of language teaching (139–158). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferrand, L., Bonin, P., Méot, A. & Augustinova, M. (2008). Age-of-acquisition and subjective frequency estimates for all generally known monosyllabic French words and their relation with other psycholinguistic variables. Behaviour Research Methods 40(4), 1049–1054. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filatova, K. (2010). Third language acquisition, macrostrategies and synonymy. In M. Pütz & L. Sicola (eds.), Cognitive processing in second language acquisition: Inside the learner’s mind (85–96). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flynn, S., Foley, C. & Vinnitskaya, I. (2004). The cumulative-enchancement model for language acquisition: Comparing adults’ and children’s patterns of development in first, second and third language acquisition of relative clauses. The International Journal of Multilingualism 1(1), 3–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Franceschini, R. (2009). The genesis and development of research in multilingualism: perspectives for future research. In L. Aronin & B. Hufeisen (eds.), The exploration of multilingualism: Development of research on L3, multilingualism and multiple language acquisition (27–61). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frunza, O.M. (2008). Cognates, false friends and partial cognates: Automatic identification of cognates and false friends. Partial cognate disambiguation. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.Google Scholar
Green, D.W. (2011). Bilingual words. In V. Cook & B. Bassetti (eds.), Language and bilingual cognition (229–240). New York and Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1997). Processing mixed languages: Issues, findings and models. In A.M.B. de Groot & J. Kroll (eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (225–254). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
. (2001). The bilingual’s modes. In J. Nicol (ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing (1–22). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Haastrup, K. (1991). Lexical inferencing procedures or talking about words. Receptive procedures in foreign language learning with special references to English. Tübingen: Günter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Hammarberg, B. (2001). Roles of L1 and L2 in L3 production and acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen & U. Jessner (eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (21–41). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2010). The languages of the multilingual: Some conceptual and terminological issues. IRAL48(2/3), 91–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herdina, P. & Jessner, U. (2002). A dynamic model of multilingualism: Perspectives of change in psycholinguistics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ijalba, E., Obler, L.K. & Chengappa, S. (2004). Bilingual Aphasia. In T.J. Bhatia & W.C. Ritchie (eds.), The handbook of bilingualism (71–89). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jorge, M.C. (2010). La culture de l’autre: l’enseignement des langues à l’Université. Actes 2010. Les faux-amis en français et en espagnol. Changement de sens et polysémie. La Clé des Langues. Retrieved from [URL]. Visited the 18th July 2013.
. (2012). Pour une typologie des faux-amis en français et en espagnol. Çédille. Revista de estudios franceses 81, 174–185.Google Scholar
Laufer, B. & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics 16(3), 307–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Les faux-amis. Un site sur les faux-amis de l’anglais. Retrieved from [URL]. Visited 17.03.2011.
Lindqvist, C. (2006). L’influence translinguistique dans l’interlangue française. Étude de la production orale d’apprenants plurilingues. Département de français, d’italien et de langues classiques. Stockholm: Université de Stockholm.Google Scholar
. (2010). La richesse lexicale dans la production orale de l’apprenant avancé de français. The Canadian Modern Language/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes 66(3), 393–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lowie, W., Verspoor, M. & Seton, B. (2010). Conceptual representations in the multilingual mind. In M. Pütz & L. Sicola (eds.), Cognitive processing in second language acquisition: Inside the learner’s mind (135–148). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milton, J. (2009). Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mutta, M. (2006). The impact of intercultural context on lexical development – a case study of Finnish Erasmus students learning French. In F. Dervin & E. Suomela-Salmi (eds.), Intercultural communication and education: Finnish perspectives (153–181). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Nilsson, A. (2007). Lire et comprendre en français langue étrangère: Les pratiques de lecture et le traitement des similitudes intra- et interlexicales. Stockholm: Université de Stockholm.Google Scholar
Ó Laoire, M. & Singleton, D. (2009). The role of prior knowledge in L3 learning and use: Further evidence of psychotypological dimensions. In L. Aronin & B. Hufeisen (eds.), The exploration of multilingualism: Development of research on L3, multilingualism and multiple language acquisition (79–102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Otwinowska-Kasztelanic, A. (2011). Awareness and affordances: Multilinguals versus bilinguals and their perceptions of cognates. In J. De Angelis & J.-M. Dewaele (eds.), New trends in crosslinguistic influence and multilingualism research (1–18). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (2009). Conceptual representation in the bilingual lexicon and second language vocabulary learning. In A. Pavlenko (eds.), The bilingual mental lexicon: Interdisciplinary approaches (125–160). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Picoche, J. (1992). Précis de lexicologie française: L’étude et l’enseignement du vocabulaire. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
Ringbom, H. (1987). The role of first language in second language learning. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
. (2007). Actual, perceived and assumed cross-linguistic similarities in foreign language learning. In O.-P. Salo, T. Nikula & P. Kalaja (eds.), Kieli oppimisessa - Language in Learning. AFinLA Yearbook 2007 (183–196). Jyväskylä: SOLKI.Google Scholar
Ringbom, H. & Jarvis, S. (2009). The importance of cross-linguistic similarity in foreign language learning. In M.H. Long & C.J. Doughty (eds.), The handbook of language teaching (106–118). West Sussex: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roehr, K. (2008). Linguistic and metalinguistic categories in second language learning. Cognitive Linguistics 19 (1), 67–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothman, J. (2010). L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinancy: The typological primacy model. Second Language Research 27(1), 107–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothman, J. & Cabrelli Amaro, J. (2010). What variables condition syntactic transfer? A look at the L3 initial state. Second Language Research 26(2), 189–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schepens, J., Dijkstra, T. & Grootjen, F. (2012). Distributions of cognates in Europe as based on Levenshtein distance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 15(1), 157–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
The DIALANG test server. Retrieved from [URL]. Visited 15.1.2011.
Turcotte, C. & Cloutier, E. (2014). Le rappel stimulé pour mieux comprendre les stratégies de lecture d’élèves du primaire à risque et compétents. Canadian Journal of Education/ Revue canadienne de l’éducation 37(1), 72–95.Google Scholar
Veivo, O. & Järvikivi, J. (2013). Proficiency modulates early orthographic and phonological processing in L2 spoken word recognition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16(4), 864–883. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veivo, O. & Mutta, M. (2011). Crosslinguistic influences on multilingual learners’ lexical knowledge in French L3. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Conference of the European Second Language Association (EuroSLA21), Stockholm, Sweden, September 8-10, 2011.
VocabProfile Home. Retrieved from [URL]. Visited 22.7.2013.
Williams, S. & Hammarberg, B. (1998). Language switches in L3 production: Implications for a polyglot speaking model. Applied Linguistics 19(3), 295–333. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woore, R. (2010). Thinking aloud about L2 decoding: An exploration of the strategies used by beginner learners when pronouncing unfamiliar French words. Language Learning Journal 38(1), 3–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Veivo, Outi, Eija Suomela-Salmi & Juhani Järvikivi
2015. Orthographic bias in L3 lexical knowledge. Language, Interaction and Acquisition 6:2 ► pp. 270 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.