Part of
Developing, Modelling and Assessing Second LanguagesEdited by Jörg-U. Keßler, Anke Lenzing and Mathias Liebner
[Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching 5] 2016
► pp. 79–98
Edited by Jörg-U. Keßler, Anke Lenzing and Mathias Liebner
[Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching 5] 2016
► pp. 79–98
Testing the Developmentally Moderated Transfer Hypothesis
The initial state and the role of the L2 in L3 acquisition*
This paper focuses on one specific aspect of the Developmentally Moderated Transfer Hypothesis (Pienemann et al. 2005), namely the role of the L2 in L3 acquisition. The research presented in this paper was prompted by the L2 transfer hypothesis put forward by Bohnacker (2006) and Bardel and Falk (2007). According to this hypothesis, learners transfer features from the L2 to the L3, but not from the L1 to the L3. This proposal is partly in conflict with the Developmentally Moderated Transfer Hypothesis which predicts that learners transfer features from the L1 or the L2 to the new language when they are developmentally ready to acquire the features to be transferred, but not before.The articles by Bohnacker (2006) and Bardel and Falk (2007) are attempted rebuttals of Håkansson, et al.’s (2002) work on L1 transfer and aspects of the underlying theory: Processability Theory (Pienemann 1998). The article by Håkansson, et al. presented empirical evidence showing that Swedish learners of L2 German do not transfer V2 at the initial state although both are V2 languages. Bohnacker (2006) and Bardel and Falk (2007) claim that the non-transfer of V2 is due to the influence of the L2. They further claim to have shown in their own study that the initial L3 word order is determined by the L2, irrespective of the structure of the L1 and independently from constraints on processability.In their response to Bohnacker (2006), Pienemann and Håkansson (2007) demonstrated that Bohnacker’s informants had reached an advanced level of acquisition and that this set of data was not suitable to test hypotheses about transfer in the initial state.In this paper we review the study by Bardel and Falk (2007) and present the gist of an extensive replication of this study. We show that Bardel and Falk’s study is based on a very limited database and on theoretical concepts that lack validity, in particular the notion of a “strongest L2” which is crucial to Bardel and Falk’s approach.Our replication study shows that the initial L3 word order and the initial position of negation is neither determined by the L1 nor by the L2 and that it can be predicted on the basis of processability.
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].
References (15)
Aguado, K. (2002). Formelhafte Sequenzen und ihre Funktionen für den L2-Erwerb. Zeitschrift für angewandte Linguistik, 37, 27-49.
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), 459–84. 
Bohnacker, Ute. (2006). When Swedes begin to learn German: From V2 to V2. Second Language Research, 22, 1-44.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
de Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual processing model: Levelt’s ‘speaking’ model adapted. Applied Linguistics, 13: 1-24.
Grotjahn, R. (Ed.). (1992). Der C-Test. Theoretische Grundlagen und praktische Anwendungen. Bochum: AKS-Verlag.
Hakansson, G., Pienemann, M., & Sayehli, S. (2002). Transfer and typological proximity in the context of second language processing. Second Language Research, 18(3), 250-273.
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking. From intention to articulation. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Meisel, J., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental sequences in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3(2), 109-135.
Pienemann, M., & Keßler, J.-U. (2007). Measuring bilingualism. In P. Auer & L. Wei (Eds.), Handbook of applied linguistics. Multilinguism. Vol. 5. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. (2002). Unanalysierte Einheiten und Sprachverarbeitung im Zweitsprachenerwerb. Zeitschrift für angewandte Linguistik, 37, 3-26.
Pienemann, M., & Keßler, J.-U. (2007). Measuring bilingualism. In Auer & Wei (Eds.), pp. 247-275.
Pienemann, M., DiBiase, B., Kawaguchi, S., & Håkansson, G. (2005). Processability, typological distance and L1 transfer. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processablity Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pienemann, M., & Håkansson, G. (2007). Full Transfer vs. Developmentally Moderated Transfer. Second Language Research, 23(4), 485-494.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Eibensteiner, Lukas
2023. L3 acquisition of aspect: the influence of structural similarity, analytic L2 and general L3 proficiency. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 61:4 ► pp. 1827 ff. 
Saturno, Jacopo
2022. Production of inflectional morphology in intercomprehension-based language teaching: the case of Slavic languages. International Journal of Multilingualism 19:3 ► pp. 383 ff.
Rothman, Jason, Jorge González Alonso & Eloi Puig-Mayenco
2019. Third Language Acquisition and Linguistic Transfer,
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 december 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.