Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jul 11;19(7):e0304572.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304572. eCollection 2024.

Memory systems modulate crosslinguistic influence on third language morphosyntactic acquisition

Emily Shimeng Xu  1   2   3 , Stephen Matthews  4 , Virginia Yip  1 , Patrick C M Wong  1   5
Affiliations

Memory systems modulate crosslinguistic influence on third language morphosyntactic acquisition

Emily Shimeng Xu et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Previous studies on crosslinguistic influence (CLI) on third language (L3) morphosyntactic acquisition have provided support for competing theories about the source(s) of CLI. The present study aimed to test if both L1 and L2 can be the source of CLI, and whether they influence L3 learning in similar or different ways. In particular, we aimed to add to our knowledge of the neural correlates of CLI by conducting an exploratory EEG study to investigate how L1 and L2 CLI affect L3 neural processing. Predictions based on the D/P model, which posited different memory systems sustaining L1 and L2, were tested. The findings confirmed both L1-sourced and L2-sourced facilitation on L3 morphosyntactic acquisition. Specifically, we suggest that L1-similarity showed a consolidating effect on L3 implicit knowledge and neurocognitive internalization, whereas L2-similarity contributed to enhanced L3 metalinguistic knowledge. This preliminary study is the first to investigate the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying CLI in L3 learning by natural language learners.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Trial demonstration of the SPRT.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Trial demonstration of the untimed GJT.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Native Koreans’ RT for the past-tense verbs (Verb) and for the present verbs (Case).
Fig 4
Fig 4. All learners’ GJT results by group (dot indicates the group-level mean).
Fig 5
Fig 5. Low proficiency learners’ accuracy (%).
Fig 6
Fig 6. High proficiency learners’ accuracy (%).
Fig 7
Fig 7. Learners’ accuracy (%) for the ADJ structure, dots indicate group-level means.
Fig 8
Fig 8. Learners’ accuracy (%) for the Verb structure, dots indicate group-level means.
Fig 9
Fig 9. Learners’ accuracy (%) for the Case structure, dots indicate group-level means.
Fig 10
Fig 10. All groups’ RT, colored for grammaticality.
Fig 11
Fig 11. Native speakers’ RT, colored for grammaticality.
Fig 12
Fig 12. Low proficiency group’s RT, colored for grammaticality.
Fig 13
Fig 13. High proficiency group’s RT, colored for grammaticality.
Fig 14
Fig 14. Trial demonstration of the EEG grammaticality judgement task.
Fig 15
Fig 15. Channel location map.
Fig 16
Fig 16. Neighbour plot for the cluster-based permutation analysis (Cz highlighted).
Fig 17
Fig 17. Native Korean speakers’ timed GJT accuracy (%) in the three conditions.
Fig 18
Fig 18. Learners’ timed GJT accuracy (%) in the three conditions.
Fig 19
Fig 19. Native Koreans’ grand averaged waveforms on Fz, Cz and Pz regions.
(a) the ADJ condition. (b) the Verb condition. (c) the Case condition. Blue: Grammatical; Red: Violation. Bars indicate time windows with a significant effect of grammaticality, with marked early negativity (yellow box) and P600 (green box) components.
Fig 20
Fig 20. Learners’ grand averaged waveforms for Word_3 of the ADJ condition.
Fig 21
Fig 21. Learners’ grand averaged waveforms for Word_4 of the ADJ condition.
Fig 22
Fig 22. Learners’ grand averaged waveforms for the Verb condition.
Fig 23
Fig 23. Learners’ grand averaged waveforms for the Case condition.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. MacWhinney B. The competition model: Past and future. In: Language, Cognition, and Mind. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2022. p. 3–16.
    1. Ullman MT. The Declarative/Procedural Model: A Neurobiologically-Motivated Theory of First and Second Language. In: Vanpatten B, Keating GD, Wulff S, editors. Theories in Second Language Acquisition. 2020. p. 128–61.
    1. Murphy S. Second language transfer during third language acquisition. Studies in Applied Linguistics and TESOL [Internet]. 2003;3(2). Available from: 10.7916/SALT.V3I2.1625. - DOI
    1. Puig-Mayenco E, González Alonso J, Rothman J. A systematic review of transfer studies in third language acquisition. Second Lang Res [Internet]. 2020;36(1):31–64. Available from: 10.1177/0267658318809147. - DOI
    1. Sánchez L. L2 activation and blending in third language acquisition: Evidence of crosslinguistic influence from the L2 in a longitudinal study on the acquisition of L3 English. Biling (Camb Engl) [Internet]. 2015;18(2):252–69. Available from: 10.1017/s1366728914000091. - DOI