Content uploaded by Daniil M. Ozernyi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Daniil M. Ozernyi on Apr 09, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
Chomskian framework
What are the initial assumptions concerning the nature
of language that the child brings to language learning, and
how detailed and specific is the innate schema (the general
definition of a “grammar”) that gradually becomes more
explicit and differentiated as the child learns the language?
(Chomsky, 2014/1965, p. 27)
[UG] is taken to be the set of properties, conditions, or
whatever that constitute the “initial state” of the language
learner, hence the basis on which knowledge of language
develops. (Chomsky, 1980, p. 69)
UG, then, can be taken to be the genetically determined
initial state of the language faculty, shared among humans
to a very close approximation. (Chomsky, 2014, p. xiii)
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 3 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
A more formal view
Universal Grammar is a 6-tuple: ⟨PHON-F, SYN-F,
SEM-F, Select, Merge, Transfer⟩. [...] PHON-F, SYN-
F, and SEM-F are universal sets of features.
(Def 1 and forth, p. 44 of Collins and Stabler, 2016)
Note that ⟨PHON-F, SYN-F, SEM-F, Select, Merge, Transfer⟩=
⟨⟨⟨⟨⟨PHON-F, SYN-F⟩, SEM-F⟩, Select⟩, Merge⟩, Transfer⟩.
C&S do not consider the structure of the sets relevant to us. Say,
some S=⟨⟨PHON-F, SYN-F⟩, SEM-F⟩. And so we are interested
in S⊂UG.
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 4 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
A more formal view
Universal Grammar is a 6-tuple: ⟨PHON-F, SYN-F,
SEM-F, Select, Merge, Transfer⟩. [...] PHON-F, SYN-
F, and SEM-F are universal sets of features.
(Def 1 and forth, p. 44 of Collins and Stabler, 2016)
Note that ⟨PHON-F, SYN-F, SEM-F, Select, Merge, Transfer⟩=
⟨⟨⟨⟨⟨PHON-F, SYN-F⟩, SEM-F⟩, Select⟩, Merge⟩, Transfer⟩.
C&S do not consider the structure of the sets relevant to us. Say,
some S=⟨⟨PHON-F, SYN-F⟩, SEM-F⟩. And so we are interested
in S⊂UG.
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 4 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
L1
The term “Initial State” does not involve a temporal or
age-based notion, but rather refers to the state of being
prior to experience. (Lust, 2006, p. 31)
The network is invariant, but each switch can be in one
of two positions, on or off. Unless the switches are set,
nothing happens. But when the switches are set in one
of the permissible ways, the system functions, yielding the
entire infinite array of interpretation for linguistic expres-
sions. A slight change in switch settings can yield complex
and varied phenomenal consequences as its effects filter
through the network [...] To acquire a language, children’s
mind must determine how the switches are set.
(Chomsky, 1987, p. 68 in Lust, 2006, p. 56f)
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 5 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
L1
The term “Initial State” does not involve a temporal or
age-based notion, but rather refers to the state of being
prior to experience. (Lust, 2006, p. 31)
The network is invariant, but each switch can be in one
of two positions, on or off. Unless the switches are set,
nothing happens. But when the switches are set in one
of the permissible ways, the system functions, yielding the
entire infinite array of interpretation for linguistic expres-
sions. A slight change in switch settings can yield complex
and varied phenomenal consequences as its effects filter
through the network [...] To acquire a language, children’s
mind must determine how the switches are set.
(Chomsky, 1987, p. 68 in Lust, 2006, p. 56f)
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 5 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
L1cont’d (formal)
So, the child starts with S0(both in terms of “initial state”) and
in terms of set Sdefined above. Let’s “undorder”
S0={SEMF, SY NF, P HONF}. The purposes for undordering
are not to disobey the Y-schema, but to simplify what follows1.
Then, an assumption that is not at all unreasonable is that each
of subsets of S0, call them generitcally ⊂S0, comprises in some
form binary parameters (“switches”), so ⊂S0={p:v(p)∈B}such
that p∈B2. The structure is again very unclear, subject to future
invetigations.
1Also, it’s not entirely clear why ⟨⟨PHON-F, SYN-F⟩, SEM-F⟩and not ⟨⟨SYN-F,
SEM-F⟩, PHON-F⟩or ⟨⟨SYN-F, PHON-F⟩, SEM-F⟩.
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 6 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
L1cont’d (formal)
So, the child starts with S0(both in terms of “initial state”) and
in terms of set Sdefined above. Let’s “undorder”
S0={SEMF, SY NF, P HONF}. The purposes for undordering
are not to disobey the Y-schema, but to simplify what follows1.
Then, an assumption that is not at all unreasonable is that each
of subsets of S0, call them generitcally ⊂S0, comprises in some
form binary parameters (“switches”), so ⊂S0={p:v(p)∈B}such
that p∈B2. The structure is again very unclear, subject to future
invetigations.
1Also, it’s not entirely clear why ⟨⟨PHON-F, SYN-F⟩, SEM-F⟩and not ⟨⟨SYN-F,
SEM-F⟩, PHON-F⟩or ⟨⟨SYN-F, PHON-F⟩, SEM-F⟩.
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 6 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
More formal stuff
We can, however, say that there is some changes in structure
when L1acquisition happens. For example, those ps get valuated,
setting the v(p)∈⊂S0(for each of members if S0).
This could be formalized in multiple ways. I think perhaps one
way to go is to say that each of ⊂S0consists of a set of UG-style
parameters on the one hand, and the valuated ones on the other.
So, S0=
{{pSEMF, v(p)SEMF},{pSY NF, v(p)SY NF},{pP HO NF, v(p)P HO NF}}.
Perhaps one achieves this sort of state for each of ⊂S0first by
obtaining three (⊂S0)2, some members of second element of
⟨⊂S0,⊂S0⟩“get valuated” becoming ⟨⊂S0, v(⊂S0)⟩(an axiom
perhaps to be established for that). This leaves a lot of problems.
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 7 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
More formal stuff
We can, however, say that there is some changes in structure
when L1acquisition happens. For example, those ps get valuated,
setting the v(p)∈⊂S0(for each of members if S0).
This could be formalized in multiple ways. I think perhaps one
way to go is to say that each of ⊂S0consists of a set of UG-style
parameters on the one hand, and the valuated ones on the other.
So, S0=
{{pSEMF, v(p)SEMF},{pSY NF, v(p)SY NF},{pP HO NF, v(p)P HO NF}}.
Perhaps one achieves this sort of state for each of ⊂S0first by
obtaining three (⊂S0)2, some members of second element of
⟨⊂S0,⊂S0⟩“get valuated” becoming ⟨⊂S0, v(⊂S0)⟩(an axiom
perhaps to be established for that). This leaves a lot of problems.
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 7 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
More formal stuff
We can, however, say that there is some changes in structure
when L1acquisition happens. For example, those ps get valuated,
setting the v(p)∈⊂S0(for each of members if S0).
This could be formalized in multiple ways. I think perhaps one
way to go is to say that each of ⊂S0consists of a set of UG-style
parameters on the one hand, and the valuated ones on the other.
So, S0=
{{pSEMF, v(p)SEMF},{pSY NF, v(p)SY NF},{pP HO NF, v(p)P HO NF}}.
Perhaps one achieves this sort of state for each of ⊂S0first by
obtaining three (⊂S0)2, some members of second element of
⟨⊂S0,⊂S0⟩“get valuated” becoming ⟨⊂S0, v(⊂S0)⟩(an axiom
perhaps to be established for that). This leaves a lot of problems.
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 7 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
More formalism
One of the problems is that while we obtain what we need, viz.
some mapping from parameters to their valuations v:p→v(p)
(those valuated in v(⊂S0)) – we are perhaps left with a lot of
p→pmappings because not everything in ⊂S0gets valuated.
Perhaps there is a (⊂S0)2↾A(Abeing the codomain of v).
Then, we get possibilities for valuations of parameters: either
⟨{0,1},0⟩or ⟨{0,1},1⟩. (Here’s also possibility that v(⊂S0) is
exhausted by means of ⟨B,0⟩s.) Then, what can happen is further
acquisition or attrition... (to be continued)
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 8 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
More formalism
One of the problems is that while we obtain what we need, viz.
some mapping from parameters to their valuations v:p→v(p)
(those valuated in v(⊂S0)) – we are perhaps left with a lot of
p→pmappings because not everything in ⊂S0gets valuated.
Perhaps there is a (⊂S0)2↾A(Abeing the codomain of v).
Then, we get possibilities for valuations of parameters: either
⟨{0,1},0⟩or ⟨{0,1},1⟩. (Here’s also possibility that v(⊂S0) is
exhausted by means of ⟨B,0⟩s.) Then, what can happen is further
acquisition or attrition... (to be continued)
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 8 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
L2
For some reason, there’s what seems to be a persistent ambiguity
in L2literature as to what “initial state”.
On the one hand, there’s the debate as to “accessibility of UG”
(whatever that is). Those debates were prominent in the 1990s2.
This is essentially about “accessiblity” of
S0={SEMF, SY NF, P HONF}. That is, the radical version of
no accessiblity would state that after L1“steady state” (again,
whatever it is – never defined well), all our (⊂S0)2get restricted
to those in v(⊂S0) with the valuation of 1 and all ⊂S0just
somehow vanish.
2(For some perspectives, see Vainikka and Young-Scholten, 1998, Bley-Vroman, 1989,
Schwartz and Sprouse, 1996, etc. – and also Epstein et al., 1996 which I hold correct.)
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 9 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
L2
For some reason, there’s what seems to be a persistent ambiguity
in L2literature as to what “initial state”.
On the one hand, there’s the debate as to “accessibility of UG”
(whatever that is). Those debates were prominent in the 1990s2.
This is essentially about “accessiblity” of
S0={SEMF, SY NF, P HONF}. That is, the radical version of
no accessiblity would state that after L1“steady state” (again,
whatever it is – never defined well), all our (⊂S0)2get restricted
to those in v(⊂S0) with the valuation of 1 and all ⊂S0just
somehow vanish.
2(For some perspectives, see Vainikka and Young-Scholten, 1998, Bley-Vroman, 1989,
Schwartz and Sprouse, 1996, etc. – and also Epstein et al., 1996 which I hold correct.)
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 9 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
More L2
Those vanishing hypotheses seem unlikely to me. This, however,
is not the end. A totally, entirely, absolutely, utterly different
issue is that of “mental representations”.
Just for a minute, though, let’s take “mental representations” to
be on the computational level (sensu Marr et al., 1979). The
“initial state” in the sense of “mental representations” is not (and
perhaps not even related – or the relation has not been made
explicitly clear, other than being constrained by) to UG in broad
sense.
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 10 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
More L2
Those vanishing hypotheses seem unlikely to me. This, however,
is not the end. A totally, entirely, absolutely, utterly different
issue is that of “mental representations”.
Just for a minute, though, let’s take “mental representations” to
be on the computational level (sensu Marr et al., 1979). The
“initial state” in the sense of “mental representations” is not (and
perhaps not even related – or the relation has not been made
explicitly clear, other than being constrained by) to UG in broad
sense.
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 10 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
Ln
An initial state such that it is a state of mental representations of
Lnwere advocated for L3by a series of papers under the
Typological Proximity Model3.
Within the (quasi-)formalism developed above, the approach
taken by TPM, as well as by most of other models which look at
“initial state”, is that there is a set of what was v(p) for every
“language”.
3Cf. Rothman and Cabrelli Amaro, 2010; Rothman, 2011; Rothman, 2013; Rothman
and Halloran, 2013; Rothman, 2015; Alonso and Rothman, 2017; Rothman et al., 2019;
Gonz´alez Alonso and Rothman, 2021, etc.
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 11 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
Ln
An initial state such that it is a state of mental representations of
Lnwere advocated for L3by a series of papers under the
Typological Proximity Model3.
Within the (quasi-)formalism developed above, the approach
taken by TPM, as well as by most of other models which look at
“initial state”, is that there is a set of what was v(p) for every
“language”.
3Cf. Rothman and Cabrelli Amaro, 2010; Rothman, 2011; Rothman, 2013; Rothman
and Halloran, 2013; Rothman, 2015; Alonso and Rothman, 2017; Rothman et al., 2019;
Gonz´alez Alonso and Rothman, 2021, etc.
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 11 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
Lncont’d
NB: I focus on TPM because of the concept of “initial state” was
employed and – in the sense of L3– pioneered by that model.
So, what will happen (my interpretation) – according to a number
of models (TPM within them) – is the following: initial state for
some L3is S3={SL1, SL2, SL1⊻0}4. (Or a version of this.)
I do not find that this is likely or following the principles of
computational efficiency (since we’re at the level of computation,
trivially). Moreover,
4That is,
{SEMF, SY NF, P H ONF}L1,{SEMF, SY NF, P HO NF}L2,{SEMF, SY NF, P H ONF}L1⊻2
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 12 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
Lncont’d
NB: I focus on TPM because of the concept of “initial state” was
employed and – in the sense of L3– pioneered by that model.
So, what will happen (my interpretation) – according to a number
of models (TPM within them) – is the following: initial state for
some L3is S3={SL1, SL2, SL1⊻0}4. (Or a version of this.)
I do not find that this is likely or following the principles of
computational efficiency (since we’re at the level of computation,
trivially). Moreover,
4That is,
{SEMF, SY NF, P H ONF}L1,{SEMF, SY NF, P HO NF}L2,{SEMF, SY NF, P H ONF}L1⊻2
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 12 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
Lncont’d
NB: I focus on TPM because of the concept of “initial state” was
employed and – in the sense of L3– pioneered by that model.
So, what will happen (my interpretation) – according to a number
of models (TPM within them) – is the following: initial state for
some L3is S3={SL1, SL2, SL1⊻0}4. (Or a version of this.)
I do not find that this is likely or following the principles of
computational efficiency (since we’re at the level of computation,
trivially). Moreover,
4That is,
{SEMF, SY NF, P H ONF}L1,{SEMF, SY NF, P HO NF}L2,{SEMF, SY NF, P H ONF}L1⊻2
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 12 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
Initiality
The framework of initiality of the TPM is that there is some time
period – undefinable universally but subjective depending on
circumstances of acquisition setting — when the decision of L1⊻2
is made and the copy SLnis made as a copy of either SL1or SL2.
NB: After initial state or stages (state was expanded to stages in
about 2019, perhaps to accommodate the fact that stages are
durative), transfer is not necessarily wholesale, but can occur
property-by-property.
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 13 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
Initiality
The framework of initiality of the TPM is that there is some time
period – undefinable universally but subjective depending on
circumstances of acquisition setting — when the decision of L1⊻2
is made and the copy SLnis made as a copy of either SL1or SL2.
NB: After initial state or stages (state was expanded to stages in
about 2019, perhaps to accommodate the fact that stages are
durative), transfer is not necessarily wholesale, but can occur
property-by-property.
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 13 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
Some risen objections
[The framework of initial stages gives] the TPM wiggle-
room to provide alternative accounts of any counterevi-
dence of property-by-property transfer. Citing the need
for ‘cognitive economy’ to explain wholesale transfer just
for those stages of acquisition after the initial stage but
prior to more advanced acquisition falls short of actual
evidence against property-by-property transfer throughout
the L3 acquisition process. (Stringer, 2021)
Indeed, the notion of “cognitive economy” cannot be applied to
the level of computation – only the notion of computational
economy can. Unlike cognitive economy, computational economy
has to be defined and deals with rigid measurement systems as
opposed to vague cognitive loads, &c.
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 14 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
Some risen objections
[The framework of initial stages gives] the TPM wiggle-
room to provide alternative accounts of any counterevi-
dence of property-by-property transfer. Citing the need
for ‘cognitive economy’ to explain wholesale transfer just
for those stages of acquisition after the initial stage but
prior to more advanced acquisition falls short of actual
evidence against property-by-property transfer throughout
the L3 acquisition process. (Stringer, 2021)
Indeed, the notion of “cognitive economy” cannot be applied to
the level of computation – only the notion of computational
economy can. Unlike cognitive economy, computational economy
has to be defined and deals with rigid measurement systems as
opposed to vague cognitive loads, &c.
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 14 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
The principal point
I fail to see the reason and/or motivation to stipulate
{SL1, SL2, SLn}system.
The options of a multilingual speaker are acquisition/attrition, as
mentioned above (to which we now come):
acquisition
⟨B,0⟩⇝⟨B,⟨0,1⟩⟩
⟨B,1⟩⇝⟨B,⟨1,0⟩⟩
attrition
⟨B,1⟩⇝⟨B,0⟩5
acquisition reversed
5I can think of no case where ⟨B,0⟩⇝⟨B,1⟩would be applicable for attrition.
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 15 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
The principal point
I fail to see the reason and/or motivation to stipulate
{SL1, SL2, SLn}system.
The options of a multilingual speaker are acquisition/attrition, as
mentioned above (to which we now come):
acquisition
⟨B,0⟩⇝⟨B,⟨0,1⟩⟩
⟨B,1⟩⇝⟨B,⟨1,0⟩⟩
attrition
⟨B,1⟩⇝⟨B,0⟩5
acquisition reversed
5I can think of no case where ⟨B,0⟩⇝⟨B,1⟩would be applicable for attrition.
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 15 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
Cont’d
These options listed, as opposed to initiality framework, seem to
provide a significantly simpler system than triple-S system.
Further, no troublesome initial state is stipulated. UG is
accessible (otherwise acquisition is impossible), and acquisition
proceeds cumulatively, explaining interlanguage interferences even
for native n-linguals, which is otherwise just computationally
inconsistent (in the TPM, that is).
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 16 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
Previous work
The cumulativity framework of adjusting n⇝⟨n, 0⊻1⟩comes
from Ozernyi, 2022b.
The intermediate (Ozernyi, 2022b p. 11)
∀sE∀sT(sE=sT→(∀vs(E)∈sE)(∀vs(T)∈sT)
((vs(E)=vs(T)→(C{vs(E), vs(T)}=⟨vs(E), vs(T)⟩))
←→ (vs(E)=vs(T)→(I{vs(E), vs(T)}=v⟨E,T ⟩))))
Further remarks on “transfer” are in Ozernyi, 2022a.
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 17 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
Conclusive remarks
Indeed, perhaps initial state or initial stages are somehow
intuitive, or even can be taken as supported by certain
interpretations of the data.
It appears that the multilingual brain somehow makes the big
decision for Ln(L3in particular) (which I argue there is no need
to make) before evaluating the actual data (Ln’s PLD), but
instead based on some experience, hunch, or something to that
effect.
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 18 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
Conclusive remarks
Indeed, perhaps initial state or initial stages are somehow
intuitive, or even can be taken as supported by certain
interpretations of the data.
It appears that the multilingual brain somehow makes the big
decision for Ln(L3in particular) (which I argue there is no need
to make) before evaluating the actual data (Ln’s PLD), but
instead based on some experience, hunch, or something to that
effect.
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 18 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
Cont’d
Perhaps this is an interesting framework to entertain, perhaps it
accommodates some of the data in the papers out there (which
are to be evaluated separately), but until it is computationally
(emphatically – not implementationally; nobody is looking for
actual time frames) adequate, I do not think it can serve as a
viable model for L3/Lnacquisition. Rather, perhaps, as a useful
heuristic.
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 19 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
References I
Alonso, J. G., & Rothman, J. (2017). Coming of age in L3 initial stages transfer models: Deriving
developmental predictions and looking towards the future. International Journal of
Bilingualism,21(6), 683–697.
Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? In J. Schachter &
S. M. Gass (Eds.), Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition (pp. 41–68).
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524544.005
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations.Columbia University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1987). Language and Problems of Knowledge: The Managua Lectures (S. J. Keyser, Ed.). MIT
Press.
Chomsky, N. (2014). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (50th Anniversary Edition). MIT Press.
Collins, C., & Stabler, E. (2016). A Formalization of Minimalist Syntax. Syntax,19(1), 43–78.
https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12117
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 20 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
References II
Epstein, S. D., Flynn, S., & Martohardjono, G. (1996). Second language acquisition: Theoretical and
experimental issues in contemporary research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,19(4), 677–714.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00043521
Gonz´alez Alonso, J., & Rothman, J. (2021). Avoiding the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy: Comments
and questions regarding Full Transfer Potential [Publisher: SAGE Publications Sage UK:
London, England]. Second Language Research, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658320934135
Lust, B. C. (2006). Child Language: Acquisition and Growth.Cambridge University Press. Retrieved June
5, 2021, from doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803413
Marr, D., Poggio, T., & Brenner, S. (1979). A computational theory of human stereo vision [Publisher:
Royal Society]. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences,
204(1156), 301–328. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1979.0029
Ozernyi, D. M. (2022a). The Rise and Fall of Linguistic Transfer. Manuscript. Northwestern University..
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6237257
Ozernyi, D. M. (2022b). Some remarks on the history of transfer in language studies. Proceedings of the
Linguistic Society of America,7(1), 5206. https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v7i1.5206
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 21 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
References III
Rothman, J. (2011). L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: The typological
primacy model [Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd]. Second Language Research,27(1), 107–127.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658310386439
Rothman, J. (2013). Cognitive economy, non-redundancy and typological primacy in L3 acquisition:
Initial stages of L3 Romance and beyond. In S. Baauw, F. Drijkoningen, L. Meroni, &
M. Pinto (Eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2011: Selected papers from ’Going
Romance’ Utrecht 2011 (pp. 217–248). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Retrieved
October 1, 2021, from https://benjamins.com/catalog/rllt.5
Rothman, J. (2015). Linguistic and cognitive motivations for the Typological Primacy Model (TPM) of
third language (L3) transfer: Timing of acquisition and proficiency considered [Publisher:
Cambridge University Press]. Bilingualism: language and cognition,18(2), 179–190.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jason Rothman2/publication/
264295396 Linguistic and cognitive motivations for the Typological Primacy Model TPM of
third language L3 transfer Timing of acquisition and proficiency considered/links/
53d7b01f0cf2a19eee7fcc40/Linguistic-and- cognitive-motivations-for- the-Typological- Primacy-
Model-TPM- of- third-language- L3-transfer- Timing-of- acquisition-and- proficiency-
considered.pdf
Rothman, J., Alonso, J. G., & Puig-Mayenco, E. (2019). Third language acquisition and linguistic transfer
(Vol. 163). Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/third-
language-acquisition- and-linguistic- transfer/BD115728CB52289D96AFB04D26DD1175
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 22 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
References IV
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.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658309349410
Rothman, J., & Halloran, B. (2013). Formal linguistic approaches to L3/Ln acquisition: A focus on
morphosyntactic transfer in adult multilingualism [Publisher: Cambridge University Press].
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,33, 51–67.
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model.
Second language research,12(1), 40–72.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/026765839601200103
Stringer, D. (2021). Commitment in L3 relationships: Sacred vows or polyamory? [Publisher: SAGE
Publications Ltd]. Second Language Research,37(3), 495–500.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658320988045
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1998). The Initial State in the L2 Acquisition of Phrase Structure
[Num Pages: 18]. In S. Flynn, G. Martohardjono, & W. O’Neil (Eds.), The Generative Study of
Second Language Acquisition. Psychology Press.
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 23 / 24
Gist L1L2LnConclusive remarks References
Thanks!
Acknowledgements: I’m very grateful to Jason for very fruitful
discussions (not of this presentation, but of L3/Lngenerally)! –
and to Suzanne for her support of my recalcitrant views.
Daniil M. Ozernyi
Benjamin W. Slivka Hall
2332 Campus Dr.
Northwestern University
Evanston, IL 60208
doz@u.northwestern.edu
Slides available at dozernyi.com
Daniil M. Ozernyi UC Berkeley April 9, 2022 24 / 24
