Home The acquisition of L3 French present simple and present progressive by adult L1 Chinese speakers of L2 English
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

The acquisition of L3 French present simple and present progressive by adult L1 Chinese speakers of L2 English

  • Stano Kong EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: March 9, 2023
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching
From the journal International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching Volume 61 Issue 2

Abstract

The study examines the acquisition of L3 French present form by advanced L2 English learners of L1 Chinese within the framework of the Typological Primacy Model (TPM) of Rothman (2011) and the Interpretability Hypothesis of Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou (Tsimpli, Ianthi-maria & Maria Dimitrakopoulou. 2007. The Interpretability Hypothesis: Evidence from wh-interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Research 23. 215–242. The meaning-form distinction of the present form in relation to habitual and event-in-progress interpretations varies between French, English, and Chinese, but is constrained by the presence/absence of tense and agreement features. Thirty-two adult L1 Chinese speakers of high proficiency L2 English/low proficiency L3 French and thirty adult L1 Chinese speakers of low proficiency L2 English together with a native English control group and a French control group were invited to take part in an acceptability judgement test. The results provide partial support to the TPM, which posits that the perceived typological similarity between L3 and the previously acquired languages conditions transfer in L3 initial state. The findings are, instead, more consistent with the Interpretability Hypothesis, which assumes the inaccessibility of uninterpretable syntactic features in subsequent language acquisition. What remain available in adult multilingual acquisition are interpretable syntactic features, computational devices, and other aspects of Universal Grammar (UG).

Keywords: event-in-progress/existential interpretation; habitual/generic interpretation; Interpretability hypothesis; present; progressive; typological primacy model; uninterpretable features
Corresponding author: Stano Kong, Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, Tunghai University, 1727, Section 4, Taiwan Boulevard, Taichung, 40704, Taiwan, E-mail:

Funding source: Ministry of Science and Technology, Republic of China

Award Identifier / Grant number: MOST 109-2410-H029-046

  1. Research funding: Ministry of Science and Technology (Republic of China), (Grant/Award Number: ‘MOST 109-2410-H-029-046’).

Appendix I

Distribution of test items in the English test

Habitual interpretation (Activity)

1.
Whenever John and Susan see each other,…
a. they always talk about movie stars.
b. they are always talking about movie stars.
2.
Each time Peter visits his parents,…
a. he is usually bringing them presents.
b. he usually brings them presents.
3.
When Jane argues with her brother,…
a. he often apologies afterwards.
b. he is often apologizing afterwards.
4.
Whenever Andy and his wife go out,…
a. they are usually hiring a babysitter for their toddler.
b. they usually hire a babysitter for their toddler.
5.
Whenever Mary and David order flowers,…
a. they usually pay cash.
b. they are usually paying cash.

Event-in-progress interpretation (Activity)

1.
Peter can’t be in touch with Mary now.
a. She takes a walk in the park.
b. She is taking a walk in the park.
2.
Jenny can’t answer Lily’s call at the moment.
a. She is driving now.
b. She drives now.
3.
The doctor can’t see her patient immediately.
a. She sees to another patient now.
b. She is seeing to another patient now.
4.
Jimmy can hardly hear what his wife says.
a. He is listening to music now.
b. He listens to music now.
5.
Ellen enjoys cooking.
a. She cooks for her family now.
b. She is cooking for her family now.

Habitual interpretation (Achievement)

1.
Because Susan practises tennis 3 h per day,…
a. she wins most games.
b. she is winning most games.
2.
James is very good in mathematics.
a. He is solving lots of mathematical questions.
b. He solves lots of mathematical questions.
3.
Since most children like to play with Legos,…
a. they often use Lego blocks to make things.
b. they are often using Lego blocks to make things.
4.
My young daughter is very creative.
a. She is usually building toy houses.
b. She usually builds toy houses.
5.
Flora is a very smart person.
a. She often spots problems before everyone else does.
b. She is often spotting problems before everyone else does.

Event-in-progress interpretation (Achievement)

1.
As a result of poor quarterly performance,…
a. John’s company is finding a way to solve the problem.
b. John’s company finds a way to solve the problem.
2.
One of John’s hobbies is music.
a. He plays piano now.
b. He is playing piano now.
3.
In order to impress his father-in-law,…
a. Ian is building a business.
b. Ian builds a business.
4.
The police want to search the suspect’s home.
a. They try to obtain a search warrant from a judge.
b. They are trying to obtain a search warrant from a judge.
5.
Lucy is very artistic person.
a. She is creating an artificial house.
b. She creates an artificial house.

Habitual interpretation (Stative)

1.
Warren lives a simple life.
a. He owns an old flat.
b. He is owning an old flat.
2.
Nikki is a very naïve person.
a. She always believes what other people say.
b. She is believing what other people say.
3.
Sam doesn’t trust his wife.
a. He iss knowing she lies very often.
b. He knows she liedsvery often.
4.
To avoid upsetting her parents,…
a. Esther usually agrees with them.
b. Esther is usually agreeing with them.
5.
Steven is a very cautious person.
a. He is thinking a lot.
b. He thinks a lot.
Appendix II

Distribution of test items in the French test

Habitual interpretation (Activity)

1.
Quand John et Susan se voient,
a. ils toujours sont entrain de parler des stars du cinéma.
b. ils parlent toujours des stars du cinéma.
2.
Chaque fois que Peter rend visite à ses parents,
a. il leur apporte généralement des cadeaux.
b. il leur généralement apporte des cadeaux.
3.
Quand Jane se dispute avec son frère,
a. il s’excuse souvent après.
b. il souvent s’excuse après.
4.
Chaque fois qu’Andy et sa femme sortent,
a. ils généralement engagent une baby-sitter pour leur tout-petit.
b. ils engagent généralement une baby-sitter pour leur tout-petit.
5.
Chaque fois que Mary et David commandent des fleurs
a. ils paient généralement comptant.
b. ils généralement paient comptant.

Event-in-progress interpretation (Activity)

1.
Peter ne peut pas contacter Mary.
a. Elle est en train se promener dans le parc.
b. Elle se proméne dans le parc.
2.
Jenny ne peut pas répondre à l’appel de Lily pour le moment
a. Elle conduit maintenant.
b. Elle maintenant conduit.
3.
Le médecin ne peut pas voir son patient immédiatement
a. Elle maintenant s’occupe d’un autre patient.
b. Elle s’occupe d’un autre patient maintenant.
4.
Jimmy peut à peine entendre ce que dit sa femme
a. Il écoute de la musique maintenant.
b. Il maintenant écoute de la musique.
5.
Ellen aime cuisiner.
a. Elle cuisine maintenant pour sa famille.
b. Elle maintenant cuisine pour sa famille.

Habitual interpretation (Achievement)

1.
Parce que Susan pratique le tennis trois heures par jour,…
a. elle gagne la plupart de jeu.
b. elle gagne la plupart des matchs.
2.
James est très bon en mathématiques.
a. Il résout beaucoup de questions mathématiques.
b. Il résout beaucoup de mathématiques questions.
3.
Comme la plupart des enfants aiment jouer avec des Legos,…
a. ils souvent utilisent des blocs Lego pour fabriquer des choses.
b. ils utilisent souvent des blocs Lego pour fabriquer des choses.
4.
Ma petite fille est très créative.
a. Elle construit généralement des maisons de jouets.
b. Elle généralement construit des maisons de jouets.
5.
Flora est une personne très intelligente.
a. Elle souvent repère les problèmes avant tout le monde.
b. Elle repère souvent les problèmes avant tout le monde.

Event-in-progress interpretation (Achievement)

1.
En raison d’une mauvaise performance trimestrielle,…
a. L’entreprise de John cherche un moyen de résoudre le problème.
b. L’entreprise de John cherche a résoudre le problème.
2.
L’un des passe-temps de John est la musique.
a. Il joue du piano maintenant.
b. Il maintenant joue du piano.
3.
Afin d’impressionner son beau-père,…
a. Ian construit une entreprise.
b. Ian crée une entreprise.
4.
La police a voulu perquisitionner le domicile du suspect.
a. Elle a tenté d’obtenir un mandat de perquisition d’un juge.
b. Ils tentaient d’obtenir un mandat de perquisition d’un juge.
5.
Lucy est une personne très artistique.
a. Elle crée une maison artificielle.
b. Elle crée une maison artificielle ?

Habitual interpretation (Stative)

1.
Warren mène une vie simple.
a. Il possède un appartement vieil.
b. Il est propriétaire d’un vieil appartement.
2.
Nikki est une personne très naïve.
a. Elle toujours croit ce que disent les autres.
b. Elle croit toujours ce que disent les autres.
3.
Sam ne faisait pas confiance à sa femme.
a. Il savait qu’elle mentait très souvent.
b. Il savait qu’elle très souvent mentait.
4.
Pour éviter de contrarier ses parents,…
a. Esther était généralement d’accord avec eux.
b. Esther était d’accord avec généralement eux.
5.
Steven était une personne très prudente.
a. Il beaucoup a réfléchi.
b. Il réfléchissait beaucoup.

References

Adger, David. 2003. Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford: OUP.10.1093/oso/9780199243709.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Allan, Dave. 1992. The Oxford placement test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Al-Hamad, Mawlood, Eidhah Al-Malki, Gabriela Casillas, Florencia Franceschina, Roger Hawkins, James Hawthrone, Daniela Karadzovska, Kazuo Kato, Sarah Liszka, Cristbal Lozano, Shiro Ojima, Natsumi Okuwaki & Emma Thomas. 2002. Interpretation of English tense morphophonology by advanced L2 speakers. In Susan Foster-Cohen, Tanja, Ruthenberg & Marie, Louise Poschen (eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook, vol. 2, 49–69. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/eurosla.2.06alhSearch in Google Scholar

Bardel, Camilla & Ylva Falk. 2007. The role of the second language in third language acquisition: The case of Germanic syntax. Second Language Research 23. 459–484. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658307080557.Search in Google Scholar

Bardel, Camilla & Laura Sánchez. 2017. The L2 status factor hypothesis revisited: The role of metalinguistic knowledge, working memory, attention and noticing in third language learning. In Tanja Angelovska & Angela Hahn (eds.), L3 Syntactic Transfer: Models, New Developments and Implications, 85–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/bpa.5.05barSearch in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Chu, Wei & Bonnie D. Schwartz. 2005. Another look at‚ Verb raising’ in the L2 English of Chinese speakers. In Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (GASLA 2004), 68–85. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Search in Google Scholar

Clancy Clements, Joseph. 2003. The tense-aspect system in pidgins and naturalistically learned L2. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25. 245–281. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263103000111.Search in Google Scholar

Emonds, Joseph. 1978. The verbal complex V’-V in French. Linguistic Inquiry 9. 49–77.Search in Google Scholar

Ernst, Thomas. 1995. Chinese adjuncts and phrase structure theory. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 22. 41–71.Search in Google Scholar

Falk, Ylva & Camilla Bardel. 2011. Object pronouns in German L3 syntax: Evidence for the L2 status factor. Second Language Research 27. 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658310386647.Search in Google Scholar

Fallah, Nader & Ali Akbar Jabbari. 2018. L3 acquisition of English attributive adjectives: Dominant language of communication matters for syntactic cross-linguistic influence. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8. 193–216. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.16003.fal.Search in Google Scholar

Flynn, Suzanne, Claire Foley & Inna Vinnitskaya. 2004. The cumulative-enhancement model for language acquisition: Comparing adults’ and children’s patterns of development in first, second and third language acquisition of relative clauses. International Journal of Multilingualism 1. 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790710408668175.Search in Google Scholar

Gabriele, Alison & Alonso Canales. 2011. No time like the present: Examining transfer at the interfaces in second language acquisition. Lingua 121. 670–687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.07.010.Search in Google Scholar

Gass, Susan & Josh Ard. 1984. Second language acquisition and the ontology of language universals. In William Rutherford (ed.), Language Universals and Second Language Acquisition, 33–65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.5.05gasSearch in Google Scholar

Hermas, Abdelkader. 2020. Genericity in third language English: Acquisition pattern and transfer in ultimate attainment. International Journal of Bilingualism 24. 266–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006919826865.Search in Google Scholar

Hawkins, Roger, Gabriela Casillas, Hajime Hattori, James Hawthorne, Ritta Husted, Cristobal Lozano, Aya Okamoto, Emma Thomas & Kazumi Yamada. 2008. The semantic effects of verb raising and its consequences in second language grammars. In Juana Liceras, Helmut Zobl & Helen Goodluck (eds.), The Role of Formal Features in Language Acquisition. Second Language Acquisition Research Series, 328–351. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.10.4324/9781315085340-11Search in Google Scholar

Jamali, Maryam, Ali Akbar Jabbari & Mohammad Hasan Razmi. 2021. Acquisition of attributive adjectives and noun adjectives by L3 learners of French and German: Further evidence for the typological primacy model (TPM). International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2020-0013.Search in Google Scholar

Kong, Stano. 2015. L3 initial state: typological primacy driven, L2 factor determined, or L1 feature oriented? Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 13. 79–117.Search in Google Scholar

Kong, Stano. 2016a. The role of formal features in the acquisition of early L3 French DPs by adult Chinese speakers of L2 English. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 54. 171–199. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2015-9995.Search in Google Scholar

Kong, Stano. 2016b. The thematic verb movement in initial L3 French acquisition. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 14. 77–103.Search in Google Scholar

Kong, Stano. 2017. The thematic and non-thematic verbs asymmetry in L2 Chinese: An abstract features non-droppability account. Lingua 188. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2016.07.009.Search in Google Scholar

Leung, Yan-kit Ingrid. 2005. L2 vs. L3 initial state: A comparative study of the acquisition of French DPs by Vietnamese monolingual and Cantonese-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 8. 39–61. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728904002044.Search in Google Scholar

Leung, Yan-kit Ingrid. 2007. L3 acquisition: Why is it interesting to generative linguists. Second Language Research 23. 95–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658307071604.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Ping & Yasuhrio Shirai. 2000. The acquisition of lexical and grammatical aspect. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110800715Search in Google Scholar

Montrul, Silvinia, Rejanes Dias & Helade Santos. 2011. Clitics and object expression in the L3 acquisition of Brazilian Portuguese: Structural similarity matters for transfer. Second Language Research 27. 21–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658310386649.Search in Google Scholar

Pollock, Jean. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 365–424.Search in Google Scholar

Roberts, Leah & Sarah Liszka. 2013. Processing tense/aspect-agreement violations on-line in the second language: A self-paced reading study with French and German L2 learners of English. Second Language Research 29. 413–439. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658313503171.Search in Google Scholar

Rotham, Jason. 2011. L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinancy: The typological primacy model. Second Language Research 27. 107–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658310386439.Search in Google Scholar

Rotham, Jason. 2015. Linguistic and cognitive motivation for the typological primacy model of third language (l3) transfer: Considering the role of timing of acquisition and proficiency in the previous languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 18. 179–190. https://doi.org/10.1017/s136672891300059x.Search in Google Scholar

Rothman, Jason & Cabrelli Amaro. 2010. What variables condition syntactic transfer? A look at the L3 initial state. Second Language Research 26. 189–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658309349410.Search in Google Scholar

Sánchez, Laura & Camilla Bardel. 2017. Transfer from an L2 in third language learning. In Tanja Angelovska & Angela Hahn (eds.), L3 Syntactic Transfer: Models, New Developments and Implications, 85–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/bpa.5.11sanSearch in Google Scholar

Slabakova, Roumyana. 2016. The scapel model of third language acquisition. International Journal of Bilingualism 21. 1–15.10.1177/1367006916655413Search in Google Scholar

Slabakova, Roumyana & Silvina Montrul. 2003. Genericity and aspect in L2 acquisition. Language Acquisition 11. 165–196. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la1103_2.Search in Google Scholar

Tsimpli, Ianthi-maria & Maria Dimitrakopoulou. 2007. The Interpretability Hypothesis: Evidence from wh-interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Research 23. 215–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658307076546.Search in Google Scholar

Westergaard, Marit, Natalia Mitrofanova & Yulia Rodina. 2017. Crosslinguistic influence in the acquisition of a third language: The Linguistic Proximity Model. International Journal of Bilingualism 21. 666–682. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006916648859.Search in Google Scholar

Yuan, Boping. 2001. The status of thematic verbs in the second language acquisition of Chinese: Against inevitability of thematic-verb raising in second language acquisition. Second Language Research 17. 248–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765830101700302.Search in Google Scholar
Received: 2022-09-12
Accepted: 2023-02-15
Published Online: 2023-03-09
Published in Print: 2023-06-27

© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Exploring ESOL teachers’ perspectives on the language learning experiences, challenges, and motivations of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK
  4. Thai tonal confusion patterns in the production of L1 Chinese Zhuang students
  5. Lexical measures as a proxy for bilingual language dominance?
  6. Elicited metaphoric competence in a second language: a construct associated with vocabulary knowledge and general proficiency?
  7. Model texts in collaborative and individual writing among EFL children: noticing, incorporations, and draft quality
  8. Investigating Indonesian EFL learners’ knowledge and use of English causative constructions
  9. The relationship between university EFL teachers’ oral feedback beliefs and practices and the impact of individual differences
  10. “We thought about it together and the solution came to our minds”: languaging linguistic problem-solving in multilingual Finnish classrooms
  11. Lexical stress assignment preferences in L2 German
  12. Focus on form in task repetition through oral and written task modeling
  13. Prior processing, foreign language classroom anxiety, and L2 fluency
  14. Analyzing trends in the aural decoding errors of Japanese EFL learners
  15. Effects of task complexity on the learning of genre specific rhetorical moves and linguistic forms: the case of contrast and argumentative essays
  16. Glossing and incidental vocabulary learning in L2 reading: a cognitive load perspective
  17. Factor structures of speed and breakdown fluency in EFL learners’ story retelling performances
  18. The acquisition of L3 French present simple and present progressive by adult L1 Chinese speakers of L2 English
https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2022-0178
Keywords for this article
event-in-progress/existential interpretation; habitual/generic interpretation; Interpretability hypothesis; present; progressive; typological primacy model; uninterpretable features

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Exploring ESOL teachers’ perspectives on the language learning experiences, challenges, and motivations of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK
  4. Thai tonal confusion patterns in the production of L1 Chinese Zhuang students
  5. Lexical measures as a proxy for bilingual language dominance?
  6. Elicited metaphoric competence in a second language: a construct associated with vocabulary knowledge and general proficiency?
  7. Model texts in collaborative and individual writing among EFL children: noticing, incorporations, and draft quality
  8. Investigating Indonesian EFL learners’ knowledge and use of English causative constructions
  9. The relationship between university EFL teachers’ oral feedback beliefs and practices and the impact of individual differences
  10. “We thought about it together and the solution came to our minds”: languaging linguistic problem-solving in multilingual Finnish classrooms
  11. Lexical stress assignment preferences in L2 German
  12. Focus on form in task repetition through oral and written task modeling
  13. Prior processing, foreign language classroom anxiety, and L2 fluency
  14. Analyzing trends in the aural decoding errors of Japanese EFL learners
  15. Effects of task complexity on the learning of genre specific rhetorical moves and linguistic forms: the case of contrast and argumentative essays
  16. Glossing and incidental vocabulary learning in L2 reading: a cognitive load perspective
  17. Factor structures of speed and breakdown fluency in EFL learners’ story retelling performances
  18. The acquisition of L3 French present simple and present progressive by adult L1 Chinese speakers of L2 English
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 20.11.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/iral-2022-0178/html
Scroll to top button