Practical Information - Generative Linguistics in the Old World

Comparative Structural Determinism and Cognitive Economy Guide Multilingual Acquisition:Transfer Evidence in Closely-Related Language PairingsJason RothmanUniversity of FloridaEmpirical research on the acquisition of a third (L3) or more (Ln) language has beenundertaken from a multitude of linguistic perspectives over the past few decades (see for reviewRothman, Cabrelli Amaro & de Bot 2013). In recent years, generative acquisition has madesignificant contributions to the growing body of literature on adult multilingual acquisition (seee.g. García Mayo & Rothman 2012; Leung 2007, 2009; Rothman et al. 2011). Starting withFlynn et al. (2004) and taken up more directly in Rothman (2010, 2011, in press), it has beenacknowledged by the emerging generative L3 literature that examining the patterns of initialstages transfer highlights in unique ways the economic underpinnings of language acquisitionmore generally. In this talk, I will focus on this latter line of argumentation, considering whatmultilingual transfer patterns at the very initial stages of L3 reveal about linguistic architectureand how economy constrains linguistic acquisition, specifically when either the L1 or the L2 isclosely related to the target L3.To be sure from the outset, there are two main objectives. The first is to introduce thereader to the emerging field of generative third language acquisition, especially as it regardsinvestigating linguistic transfer effects. In doing so, I will argue for and demonstrate that dataprovided by studying L3 acquisition make significant contributions towards a better generalunderstanding of how the mind represents language and how cognitive economy delimitsacquisition processes. The second goal is to clarify, if not update, the Typological ProximityModel (TPM) of L3 morphosyntactic transfer (Rothman 2010, 2011, in press). The TPMmaintains that structural 1 proximity between the target L3 and the previously acquired L1 and/orL2 determines which of the previous linguistic systems will provide initial stages transfer.Beyond showing the tenability of the TPM with empirical data from language triads involvingtwo Romance languages and English, a unique contribution rests in the updated proposal offeredas to how the TPM works in linguistic and cognitive terms. There is a growing body of empiricalresearch supportive of the tenets of the TPM (e.g. Foote 2009; Iverson 2010; Montrul, Dias andSantos 2011; Wrembel 2012), showing it has descriptive and (some) predictive power. Theobvious questions left largely unaddressed by proponents of the TPM to date relate to its ultimateexplanatory power: (a) What are the cognitive and linguistic explanations for why structuralsimilarity is such an influential factor for L3 transfer?, and (b) how does the mind come tounconsciously determine relative structural comparisons so early on in the multilingualacquisition process? In addressing question (a), I will argue that multilingual transfer selectionbased on structural proximity is inherently motivated by cognitive economy. In addressingquestion (b), I will offer a sketch of my developing thoughts on how the mind determinesstructural proximity based on a series of linguistic cues that are active at the earliest of L3 stages.1 I use the more precise word structural here as opposed to typological. The term’s precision will become clearestwhen the updated articulation of the TPM is laid out. However, I will also interchange the term structural withtypological for historical reasons (i.e. the name of the model itself) to remind the reader of the connection, and notbecause I believe them to be inherently interchangeable. To be clear, as pointed out to me by Roumyana Slabakova,the most accurate term to be used is indeed structural. I thank her for pointing this out; as usual, she is entirelycorrect.