The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Neurolinguistics

Page 1

289

DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-27

CROSS- LINGUISTIC TRANSFER

IN SECOND LANGUAGE

NEUROCOGNITION

Laura Sabourin and Gabrielle Manning

Introduction

By definition, second language (L2) acquisition requires that speakers possess a first language (L1).

This previously established L1 and its similarities and/ or differences with the L2 has been shown

to greatly impact the learning of the latter (e.g., Odlin, 2003; Serratrice, 2013), which is known as

cross- linguistic transfer.1 Similarities in structure and concepts often result in positive transfer and

ease of L2 acquisition and processing, whereas differences result in negative transfer and processing

difficulty (Kotz, 2009).2 In addition to transfer from L1 to L2 and other known languages (Ln), cross-

linguistic effects can also be found from the L2 and Ln on to the L1 (this is sometimes referred to as

L1 attrition; see Keijzer & Seton, this volume; also for more on cross- linguistic transfer to languages

subsequent to L2, see Xu & Wong, this volume).

Cross- linguistic transfer is widely studied from a behavioral perspective, with a focus on effects

found after processing has occurred and not on what effects are occurring as decisions are made.

Although valuable information regarding the transfer of knowledge and how it relates to language

acquisition has been gained from such research, measures of L2 neural processing can provide insight

into the underlying neural mechanisms that regulate how and when our brains process cross- linguistic

transfer. L2 speakers of a language similar to their L1 may benefit from positive cross- linguistic

transfer effects to acquire and use the language to a highly proficient degree. Thus, speakers can

appear to have reached native- like skills in areas such as production, comprehension, and grammar.

However, the possibility exists that these positive transfer effects that result in native- like behavior

by L2 learners may be regulated by different neurological underpinnings (D�az et al., 2016; Mueller,

2005; Wartenburger et al., 2003). For example, it might be possible to see native- like performance in

L2 acceptability judgments, but for participants whose L1 is more like the L2, it may reflect transfer

of linguistic mechanisms (suggesting cross- linguistic transfer of the structure of interest). On the

other hand, participants who have a less similar L1 may be recruiting working memory mechanisms

suggesting that cross- linguistic transfer is not at play (e.g., Sabourin & Stowe, 2008). These effects

may occur at all levels of linguistic processing from phonetic level processing up to and including the

processing of pragmatic information. We will, however, limit our present discussions to the phono-

logical, lexical, and syntactic linguistic levels.

The present chapter focuses on transfer from L1 to L2, with emphasis on the neurological

underpinnings associated with these effects. Below, we provide a brief overview of historical

perspectives that have helped guide current empirical investigations of cross- linguistic transfer.

Page 2

Laura Sabourin and Gabrielle Manning

290

Next, we introduce the critical issues and topics surrounding cross- linguistic transfer in relation to

neurocognition and summarize the current empirical knowledge in the field. Finally, we provide

current trends in transfer research and introduce avenues and considerations for future research.

Historical Perspectives

Cross- linguistic transfer has been studied extensively in the field of second language acquisition

(SLA) research with a focus both on facilitation (positive transfer) and interference (negative transfer)

effects on the learning and processing of an L2. This section outlines and evaluates a set of earlier

views based on behavioral data sets that have had a great influence on the field of language transfer

effects in SLA.

Many models and theories of SLA have directly or indirectly focused on the role of transfer from

the L1. For instance, at the phonological level, models such as the perceptual assimilation model

(Best et al., 2001) and the speech learning model (Flege, 1995; Flege & Bohn, 2021) assume that the

ability to acquire L2 speech sounds is related to the degree of similarity between the speech sounds

of the L1 and L2. At the syntax level, models such as those incorporating markedness (Eckman et al.,

1986) suggest that similarity between the L1 and L2 can predict the outcomes of L2 learning.

One of the earliest approaches to transfer, known as contrastive analysis (Lado, 1957), compared

the degree of similarity between L1 and L2 surface forms to predict the outcome of language

learning. Specifically, similarities between the L1 and L2 were predicted to facilitate the process of

L2 learning, whereas differences were expected to make those aspects more difficult to learn. This

approach treated language learning as consisting of a set of habits that needed to be learned, espe-

cially for aspects that were dissimilar (Flynn, 2019). Although this approach to language highlighted

potential areas of learning difficulty, evidence from language learners did not always support these

predictions: differences between the L1 and L2 did not always result in difficulty, and not all errors

produced by L2 learners were due to L1 transfer effects (Whitman & Jackson, 1972). Alternatively,

the error analysis approach viewed L2 grammatical errors as a window into the process of language

learning (Corder, 1967). The source of these errors was thought to reflect language transfer from

the L1. Over time, focus thus shifted from more behaviorist views of language as habit formation

to an internal focus on the rules of grammar and linguistic structure representing competence; SLA

researchers began to investigate the underlying processes of language learning.

Interest in grammatical competence can be linked to the seminal theories of Chomsky (1965).

According to this view of L1 acquisition, children possess an innate language learning mechanism

(a “Language Acquisition Device” or LAD) rooted in a Universal Grammar (UG). UG is a system of

principles (i.e., universal statements that specify properties shared by all languages) and parameters

(i.e., universal options available within the principles of UG that explain language variation) and is

considered to be innate (Dabrowska, 2015; Towell & Hawkins, 1994). Dulay and Burt (1974) argued

that SLA may be analogous in its usage of the LAD and UG. Within this perspective, there are various

views on the degree of access to specific UG elements that L2 learners are privy to, beyond what is

accessible from L1 grammar via transfer, resulting in different views of transfer: (a) The Full Access

account argues that speakers have the ability to reset their UG parameters when learning a new lan-

guage (White, 1985a; Flynn, 1996), and that all UG mechanisms from the L1 are made available

for transfer and access when utilizing the L2 (Schwartz & Sprouse, 1994); (b) The Partial Access

account states that a subset of UG knowledge is available to L2 speakers during language acquisition

(Hawkins & Chan, 1997; Tsimpli & Roussou, 1991); although the precise aspects of UG knowledge

that is readily available is a matter of debate; and (c) The No Access account claims that speakers

cannot access any UG- related mechanisms that are not present in the established L1 (Bley- Vroman,

1989, 1990; Clahsen & Felser, 2006).

Page 3

Cross-Linguistic Transfer in Second Language Neurocognition

291

Other models that may also provide explanations of transfer effects are usage- based models in

which language learning is determined by the properties of input. One such model, MacWhinney’s

Unified Competition Model (1987, 2012), states that children acquire their L1 based on the presence

of cues in the target language. How frequently the cue is encountered by the learner as well as

whether the cue reliably signals the form being learned are both determinants of acquisition (Janssen

& Meir, 2019; MacWhinney, 1987, 2012). These L1 forms become entrenched and create competi-

tion with the L2 patterns being learned. This results in transfer effects that are stronger in adult than

child L2 learners as the L1 patterns have had longer to consolidate in the adult learners (Bates &

MacWhinney, 1981).

Moving forward from the historical perspectives to cross- linguistic transfer, current psycholinguistic

outlooks on this topic and its processes fall under two distinct approaches to language acquisition.

The first was largely influenced by the UG framework and assumes that L2 acquisition, including lan-

guage transfer effects, is constrained by an interlanguage (i.e., the current state between the L1 and the

target L2) that follows UG. This approach led to many studies comparing different types of languages

with contrasting parameter settings and how different parametric values are treated during the pro-

cess of L2 learning (e.g., White, 1985b) and investigating, more generally, the effect of syntactic

differences between L1 and L2. In contrast, the second approach applies a functionalist perspective.

Specifically, it looks at how the L2 learner can process and learn regularities (based on frequency)

provided in the input (Agebj�rn, 2021; MacWhinney, 2012; Shirai, 2019). These different approaches

to transfer have led to several successful research avenues with largely behavioral research methods.

With the use of methods that investigate neural processing, we can pinpoint the locus of transfer

effects. In the section that follows we discuss these methodological issues.

Critical Issues and Topics

There are a number of issues related to the study of cross- linguistic transfer that has made it dif-

ficult to adequately describe the role of transfer in SLA. Current research attempts to document

transfer in terms of positive vs. negative effects and explain whether these effects are modulated by

various factors, such as the underlying grammar of the L1 system being applied during the process

of L2 learning, more strategic processing (i.e., working memory or other cognitive effects), or the

frequency of structures in the input. To distinguish between these explanations of cross- linguistic

transfer, we need to ensure that an adequate methodology is implemented alongside appropriate

research questions. The remainder of this section focuses on methodological considerations and

research considerations in relation to linguistic and non- linguistic processing.

Methodological Considerations

Historically, issues in the field of SLA, and subsequently cross- linguistic transfer, have been studied

using behavioral experimental techniques. These have allowed for the collection of information

regarding accuracy and speed during the production or comprehension of an L2. Although such

results are valuable, we argue that additional neurocognitive evidence is required to obtain a well-

rounded understanding of the impact of cross- linguistic transfer on L2 acquisition and use. Whereas

behavioral techniques have contributed to our knowledge on the final state of processing and surface-

level effects, a neurocognitive approach allows for a deeper investigation into the neurological

underpinnings associated with cross- linguistic transfer, including whether L2 acquisition makes use

of the same or related processing routines and mechanisms as those employed by L1 speakers.3

Although the neurocognitive techniques have yet to provide a definitive answer regarding the precise

mechanisms of transfer effects in SLA, they show promising results (Rothman et al., 2015) and have

started to contribute to a clearer and more complex understanding of cross- linguistic transfer. The

Page 4

Laura Sabourin and Gabrielle Manning

292

remainder of this section discusses two (neuro)cognitive experimental approaches, and how they can

be used to investigate cross- linguistic transfer.

One useful method for investigating the neural underpinnings of language processing and cross-

linguistic transfer is the event- related brain potentials (ERPs) technique (see, for example, Sabourin

et al., 2013; Dickson & Pelzl, this volume). By measuring the electrical currents produced in the

brain, ERPs allow us to see how and when the brain reacts with high temporal resolution. Therefore,

ERPs are useful for investigating the time- course of a reaction as well as automatic processing of

language- related stimuli (Luck, 2014). Certain ERP components are strongly associated with lan-

guage processing including the mismatch negativity (MMN), N400, and P600. The MMN is a nega-

tive deflection peaking between 100 and 250 ms post- stimulus that indicates that a change in sound

has been detected in a stream of otherwise similar sounds (N��t�nen, 2001). The N400 is a nega-

tive deflection peaking at 400 ms post- stimulus onset reflective of semantic integration and access

of words into context (Kutas & Hillard, 1980; Kutas & Federmeier, 2011). Finally, the P600 is a

positive deflection peaking at 600 ms post- stimulus onset demonstrating syntactic integration and

reanalysis (Osterhout & Holcomb, 1992). Several aspects of ERP components can be considered

and compared, such as latency (when an effect starts), amplitude (how strong an effect is), polarity

(whether the deflection is negative or positive) and scalp topography (where on the scalp the effect

is seen). In studies of cross- linguistic transfer effects, we can identify which neural mechanisms

are being recruited for each language by comparing how ERP components differ in L1 and L2 pro-

cessing. Thus, researchers can determine if there is simply a quantitative difference between the L1

and L2, as reflected by modulations in the timing and strength of a particular component. This can

be further differentiated from a qualitative difference showing the presence of a different component

altogether, which may be reflective of the use of distinct mechanisms.

Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) is another brain- imaging technique. It allows

researchers to determine where language processes occur at a neural level via changes in blood flow

(Sabourin & Stowe, 2008a; see also Kousaie & Klein, this volume). Due to its excellent spatial reso-

lution, fMRI can help pinpoint when and if L2 speakers use typical L1 language- related areas in

the brain for processing or whether they rely on alternative neural resources. Although there seems

to be fewer studies utilizing fMRI (likely due to less access to the technique for cost and expertise

reasons) to test cross- linguistic transfer, they provide essential information regarding underlying

neurocognitive processes and add complementary data to ERP findings.

Linguistic vs. Non- linguistic Processing

By investigating transfer from a neurocognitive perspective, we can determine if L2 learners can learn

different structures and whether they make use of the same neural mechanisms as native speakers or

more general cognitive mechanisms. Ultimately, this refers to whether the L2 is learned linguistic-

ally (with primarily the use of linguistic knowledge and strategies) or whether the same processes

and mechanisms that are used in other cognitive domains (e.g., attention, memory, learning) are used

in the learning of the L2. In the case of positive transfer from the L1 to L2, we expect to see similar

ERP components modulated in comparable ways. For example, if grammatical gender information is

transferred from the L1 to the L2, and gender in the target language results in P600 effects by native

speakers, then P600 effects would also be expected when gender must be processed in the L2. On the

other hand, if native- like behavioral level use of the L2 (thought to be the result of positive linguistic

transfer effects) is in fact reflecting the use of the L1 in a strategic, non- linguistic way, we could

observe the absence of language- related ERP components or the presence of components relating

to general cognitive processes (e.g., memory). As discussed below, this distinction in L2 gender

processing can be seen in the comparison of German and Romance learners of Dutch (Sabourin &

Page 5

Cross-Linguistic Transfer in Second Language Neurocognition

293

Stowe, 2008). The German speakers can transfer an almost identical gender agreement system to

show similar ERP patterns to gender violations as L1 Dutch speakers (a modulation of the P600

component). On the other hand, Romance speakers show that they can process L2 gender violations,

although their ERP patterns are suggestive of a more general cognitive strategy to perform like native

speakers (a late frontal negativity).

Likewise, by using an oddball paradigm to modulate the MMN component it may be possible

to distinguish between whether L2 speakers discriminate non- native speech sounds acoustically

(suggestive of non- linguistic processing of the L2 stimuli) or at a phonological level (representing

linguistic ability to discriminate L2 sounds). An acoustic change in the MMN is seen at bilateral

scalp sites whereas a phonological MMN is larger in amplitude and left lateralized (N��t�nen, 2001;

N��t�nen, Ilmoniemi & Alho, 1994). In short, tracking the presence versus absence of different lin-

guistic ERP components as well as the topography across the development of the L2 should allow for

an exploration of when and how information from the L1 affects L2 processing.

Current Empirical Knowledge

Using ERPs and fMRI, researchers have begun to test when and how cross- linguistic transfer

influences the neurocognitive process of language learning. As previously discussed, transfer from

the L1 to the L2 can be deemed positive or negative (resulting in facilitation or interference) and has

been studied primarily at the syntactic, lexical, and phonological levels of language acquisition and

processing. We will now discuss the current neurocognitive literature in relation to varied linguistic

cross- linguistic phenomena resulting in positive or negative transfer.

Cross- Linguistic Influence Resulting in Positive Transfer

Language similarity plays a considerable role in cross- linguistic transfer resulting in positive

effects. In particular, related languages that are also typologically similar (e.g., French and Spanish)

greatly overlap in regard to lexical items and grammatical rules. When an L2 is closely related to

the established L1, it is argued to result in simpler L2 acquisition. An example of this stems from

research on cognates, which are words with similar or overlapping phonological/ orthographic form

and meaning. Cognates have been shown to easily map from form to meaning in the L2, displayed

through ERPs by the presence of a smaller N400 amplitude, suggesting less cognitive effort to recog-

nize or access the item in the L2 (Midgley et al., 2011). Likewise, L2 speech sounds with equivalents

or near- equivalents in the L1 are easier to produce and perceive (e.g., Werker & Tees, 1984a; 1984b),

indicating that the processing of non- native speech contrasts is heavily influenced by the phono-

logical system of the native language (Best, McRoberts & Goodell, 2001). In fact, it is possibly such

an overlapping phonological system that is partly responsible for the cognate effects. There seems to

be some evidence that both cross- language cognates and cross- language homophones make use of a

shared L1– L2 language specific network (Ghazi- Saidi & Ansaldo, 2017). In contrast, words that are

not phonologically similar across the L1 and L2 seem to activate neural structures associated with

the L1 but also rely on neural regions that are more typically found to be active in working memory

and attention tasks.

Linguistic overlap of syntactic systems has also been shown to result in positive transfer effects.

Using fMRI, Jeong and colleagues (2007) found that Korean L1 speakers show similar neural acti-

vation patterns for Korean and Japanese (languages that share a flexible subject– verb– object word

order), whereas different neural activation was exhibited for Korean and English (languages with

different syntactic structures).4 The lack of substantial difference between Korean and Japanese is

attributed to the languages’ shared syntactic structure, resulting in speakers using Japanese L2 effi-

ciently during processing due to positive transfer.

Page 6

Laura Sabourin and Gabrielle Manning

294

Additional evidence for positive transfer effects at the syntactic level is seen when investigating

syntactic violations. Kotz and colleagues (2008) studied a group of L1 Spanish– L2 English speakers

and monolingual English speakers’ neural responses to English sentences containing phrasal

violations or syntactic ambiguities that would require additional syntactic elements in either lan-

guage to be made unambiguous or syntactically sound. A P600 response was elicited in both groups

of speakers, consistent with L1 Spanish speakers having positively transferred structural syntactic

knowledge to their L2. Of particular interest is that similarities in processing were only seen at a

neurological level during the online ERP task and were not reflected in an offline judgment task,

reinforcing the importance of using neurocognitive techniques in studies of cross- linguistic transfer.

Similar transfer effects were found in an earlier study looking at L1 Spanish– L2 English (Tokowicz

& MacWhinney, 2005).

Further effects of positive word order transfer are seen in Swedish L2 acquisition, a verb-

second (V2) language. Andersson et al. (2019) studied L1 English (non- V2 language)– L2 Swedish,

L1 German (V2 language)– L2 Swedish, and L1 Swedish speakers. The L1 German participants

showed an overall pattern of processing like the L1 Swedish speakers. Indeed, the L1 German

group exhibited fully native- like ERP responses to the stimuli, whereas the L1 English group only

showed partially similar processing effects. This was attributed to the fact that the L1 German

speakers were able to transfer their L1 knowledge of V2 word order along with the required pro-

cessing mechanisms.

More examples of positive transfer are found in studies of predictive processing. Alem�n Ba��n

and Martin (2021) studied the processing of possessive pronouns in L2 English learners with either

Spanish or Swedish as an L1. English and Swedish contain possessive pronouns providing refer-

ence to the natural gender of the antecedent (e.g., his/ her), whereas in Spanish possessive pronouns

refer to syntactic features (e.g., number, syntactic gender), of the possessed noun. Therefore, when

accessing possessive pronouns, Spanish activates representations different from those of English

and Swedish. Accordingly, native English and L1 Swedish- L2 English speakers showed an N400

effect when presented with unexpected possessive pronouns (i.e., a mismatch between the possessor

and possessive pronoun), reflective of integration and access difficulties. This was not observed for

Spanish L1 learners, showing that only Swedish L1 learners benefit from potential positive cross-

linguistic transfer in processing the gender of English possessive pronouns.

Studies focusing on the grammatical property of gender are often used as a tool to investigate

cross- linguistic transfer, especially as regards gender agreement and gender congruency (e.g.,

Sabourin et al., 2006; Sabourin & Stowe, 2008b). Gender congruency refers to a noun bearing the

same gender in two languages (e.g., the table in French, la table, and Spanish, la mesa, both possess

feminine gender). Using ERPs, it was found that positive transfer effects at the level of linguistic pro-

cessing only hold when the gender categories are similar across the L1 and L2 (Sabourin & Stowe,

2008b), in contrast to behavioral findings via acceptability judgements (Sabourin et al., 2006).

The studies presented above showed effects of positive transfer at all levels of linguistic pro-

cessing. It seems to be the case that the ability to transfer information from the L1 and have that

information be successfully used to guide L2 learning facilitates may result in the earlier appearance

of native- like processing in the L2.

Cross- Linguistic Influence Resulting in Negative Transfer

In contrast to facilitation because of positive cross- linguistic transfer, negative effects are found when

conflicting information is transferred at various linguistic levels. In studies aimed at determining

whether L2 learners can acquire and discriminate new speech sounds (e.g., Dehaene- Lambertz, 1997;

Rivera- Gaxiola et al., 2000), the focus has been on whether speech sounds that are present, or more

to the point, those that are not present in the learner’s L1 will cause difficulty in the acquisition of a

Page 7

Cross-Linguistic Transfer in Second Language Neurocognition

295

new speech contrast. For example, using ERPs, Dehaene- Lambertz (1997) showed that non- native

contrasts did not elicit a MMN (neither within- category nor between category) demonstrating that the

MMN is not simply an index of acoustic similarity but that it is modulated by the phonemic status of

the contrast. On the other hand, Rivera- Gaxiola et al. (2000) did find electrophysiological evidence

(in the absence of behavioral evidence) that both native and non- native contrasts can elicit an MMN.

Both studies, however, do not place a primary focus on transfer effects, but instead on the presence

vs. absence of speech sounds in the L1 vs. L2.

Negative transfer effects are commonly observed at the syntactic level of cross- linguistic

transfer, particularly in relation to variation in word order between the L1 and L2 (e.g., Foucart

& Frenck- Mestre, 2012). For instance, Erdocia and Laka (2018) studied whether word order in

the L1 (Spanish) influences the processing of word order in the L2 (Basque). Specifically, they

investigated the processing of subject– verb– object (SVO) and object– verb– subject (OVS) word

orders. The canonical word order in Spanish is SVO, whereas for Basque it is subject– object– verb

(SOV); OVS word order is possible but non- canonical in both languages. Native speakers of

Basque showed a P600 effect to non- canonical (but grammatical) SVO sentences reflecting the

idea that non- canonical word orders are processed, at least initially, as ungrammatical. However,

L2 speakers did not show a P600 effect to the non- canonical SVO word order, which is standard in

their L1. Specifically, L2 speakers processed this word- order using the grammatical restrictions of

their L1, consistent with the negative transfer causing them to fail to recognize the non- canonical

nature of the SVO order in Basque. Likewise, another ERP study (Mickan & Lemh�fer, 2020) also

showed that L2 word order processing remained difficult for learners when there were differences

between the L1 and the L2 and that this was the case for even advanced L2 users. Importantly, they

provided data suggesting that, even for the same participants, comparable L1 and L2 structures

resulted in native- like L2 processing whereas structures that are conflicting do not result in native-

like processing.

A handful of studies have focused on the processing of negative cross- linguistic transfer in con-

junction with predictive processing (e.g., Van Bergen & Flecken, 2017). In the previously mentioned

Alem�n Ba��n and Martin (2021) study, whereas positive transfer effects were seen for L1 Swedish–

L2 English speakers, L1 Spanish– L2 English speakers provided evidence for negative transfer effects

by displaying a P600, suggesting that speakers relied on the structure of their L1 in relation to antici-

patory processing of the gender of possessive pronouns.

Further evidence for negative transfer has been found with agreement relations between languages

with comparable or conflicting adjective placement. For example, both French and German allow pre-

posed adjectives, but only French permits post- posed adjectives. Foucart and Frenck- Mestre (2011)

tested L1 French and L1 German– L2 French learners: participants were read French plural sentences

containing pre- posed adjectives and plural sentences with post- posed adjectives where the gender of

the adjective either agreed (matched) or disagreed (mismatched) with the corresponding noun. L1

French speakers exhibited a P600 to gender agreement violations between pre- posed adjectives and

the noun, as well as post- posed adjectives and the noun. In contrast, German– French learners did not

show an effect of agreement errors in either adjective condition. Although the researchers acknow-

ledge that their study was not intended to directly probe transfer effects, and therefore cannot assert

any strong conclusions, they do discuss the possibility that negative transfer effects from German

may hinder gender agreement processing. As opposed to French, grammatical gender is not overtly

marked when the plural is used in German and, consequently, L1 German speakers potentially relied

on this construction, resulting in processing differences.

In all, research suggests that differences between languages that may cause negative transfer

effects do seem to result in differences in the processing of the L2. This non- native like performance

in the L2 is likely due to the interference of the L1 structures.

Page 8

Laura Sabourin and Gabrielle Manning

296

Current Trends and Future Directions

As the field of SLA and cross- linguistic transfer continues to grow and evolve, new methodo-

logical and experimental considerations surface. For instance, various neuroimaging techniques are

becoming increasingly implemented not only within the fields of psycholinguistics and L2 processing

but in the more specific research interest of cross- linguistic transfer. This is allowing researchers

to investigate more than just the effects of positive and/ or negative linguistic processing strategies

at a surface level. For example, Wang and colleagues (2022) investigated morphosyntactic cross-

linguistic influence from the L1 (Spanish or Mandarin) to L2 (English) using functional near infrared

spectroscopy (fNIRS).

Additionally, researchers are adopting newer trends, such as artificial language learning paradigms.

Artificial languages are useful tools to investigate how natural languages are learned, as they are

made up of linguistic rules and constraints that can mimic those found in natural language while con-

trolling the number of variables learners are exposed to (e.g., Ferman, et al., 2009; Morgan- Short,

2020). Artificial languages are taught in a controlled environment where researchers can ensure that

all participants have received equal amounts of input (Braine et al., 1990), and that they have not had

previous exposure to the language (Hulstijn, 1997). L2 learning provides a logical application for the

artificial language learning approach, as all participants would necessarily already have a native lan-

guage and be L2 (or Ln) learners (e.g., Ettlinger, et al., 2016; Robinson, 2005). Thus, these studies are

able to model what is likely to happen during natural SLA in a controlled manner. Studies combining

artificial language learning techniques with investigations of cross- linguistic transfer are gaining in

importance (e.g., Berthelsen et al., 2021; Havas et al., 2017). For instance, Berthelsen and colleagues

(2020) found that speakers of Swedish, a language with word accents (an aspect of some types of

tonal languages) show positive transfer of morphosyntactic tone when learning a novel artificial lan-

guage. Such approaches could be incorporated into neurocognitive studies of cross- linguistic transfer.

Common methods of testing for cross- linguistic transfer effects utilize stimuli items such as

sentences, determiner phrases, and single words. Despite the valuable insight these constructions

provide, it is rarely the case that they are thus spoken, heard, or read in isolation during natural-

istic communication. Therefore, these widely implemented methods are not necessarily ecologic-

ally valid (i.e., representative of natural language comprehension and use). Research has begun to

incorporate more ecologically valid measures (Blanco- Elorrieta & Pylkk�nen, 2018); for example,

Alem�n Ba��n and Martin (2021) implemented a measure that is more reflective of conversational

practices and interactions by providing participants with stories consisting of contextual information

and potential responses.

Recent studies are also touching on the importance of investigating non- linguistic cognitive

processes in conjunction with cross- linguistic transfer (e.g., Verbeek et al., 2022). Inhibitory con-

trol is of particular interest, as speakers are required to contend with interference from the L1 that

may hinder processing in the L2. In addition, by investigating non- linguistic processing, we can

detect what kind of strategies are being used during L2 acquisition and processing. For example, Von

Grebmer Zu Wolfsthurn and colleagues (2021) suggest investigating ERP components such as the

P300, which is thought to underlie more general inhibitory processes. It would also be worthwhile to

determine the precise roles of other cognitive mechanisms like working memory and cognitive flexi-

bility (Diamond, 2013; Valian, 2015) on the process of cross- linguistic transfer from the L1 to the L2

and in the ultimate attainment of the L2.

Lastly, there are several other psycholinguistic factors, such as metalinguistic awareness, pro-

cessing demands, age of acquisition, and proficiency, that often play important roles in the ultimate

attainment of the L2. These factors are often reflected in L2 learning strategies (Bialystok, 1990;

Kellerman, 1995, Lago et al., 2021) and have been shown to interact with cross- linguistic transfer.

Page 9

Cross-Linguistic Transfer in Second Language Neurocognition

297

For example, increased proficiency in the L2 can counter negative transfer effects, such that highly

proficient non- native speakers show native- like processing patterns (Hopp, 2007). Future studies

determining the strength of these effects, how they interact with language similarity and their time-

line in affecting L2 processing are desirable in contributing to a full- fledged understanding of the

mechanisms of cross- linguistic transfer.

Notes

1 Various terms are used throughout the literature to refer to cross- linguistic transfer: transfer, cross- linguistic

influence, language transfer, etc. For the purpose of this chapter, we will refer to this phenomenon as cross-

linguistic transfer, or transfer for short.

2 It should be noted that language- specific structures may also exist: these are not expected to participate in

transfer effects, neither positive nor negative.

3 Falling between behavioral and neurocognitive methods is eye- tracking, which can reveal information

regarding cognitive load and the time- course of processes.

4 It should be noted that participants in this study were L1 Korean, L2 English, L3 Japanese speakers; the

researchers refer to both English and Japanese as L2s.

Further Readings

This article examines behavioral and ERP effects of proficiency and syntactic structure similarity (positive

transfer) and conflict (negative transfer).

Mickan, A., & Lemh�fer, K. (2020). Tracking syntactic conflict between languages over the course of L2 acqui-

sition: A cross- sectional event- related study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 32(5), 822– 846. https:// doi.

org/ 10.1162/ jocn_ a_ 01 528

This article uses an artificial language learning paradigm to investigate cross- linguistic transfer effects with bilin-

gual heritage speakers.

Perreira Soares, S.M., Kupisch, T., & Rothman, J. (2022). Testing potential transfer effects in heritage and adult

L2 bilinguals acquiring a mini grammar as an additional language: An ERP approach. Brain Sciences, 12(5),

669. https:// doi.org/ 10.3390/ brain sci1 2050 669

This article utilizes a more recent neuroimaging technique to provide valuable neurological information regarding

cross- linguistic transfer.

Wang, D., Wang, S., Zinszer, B., Sheng, L., & Jasińska, K. (2022). Cross- linguistic influences of L1 on L2 mor-

phosyntactic processing: An fNIRS study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 63, 101063. https:// doi.org/ 10.1016/

j.jne urol ing.2022.101 063

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Ariane Sen�cal for her thoughtful edits and suggestions, and the editors of this edition for their

comments.

References

Agebj�rn, A. (2021). Swedish noun- phrase structure in Russian- speaking learners: An explorative study of L1

influence and input- frequency effects. Journal of the European Second Language Association, 5(1), 16– 29.

http:// doi.org/ 10.22599/ jesla.70

Alem�n Ba��n, J., & Martin, C. (2021). The role of crosslinguistic differences in second language anticipa-

tory processing: An event- related potentials study. Neuropsychologia, 155, 107797. https:// doi.org/ 10.1016/

j.neuro psyc holo gia.2021.107 797

Andersson, A., Sayehli, S., & Gullberg, M. (2019). Language background affects online word order processing

in second language but not offline. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(4), 802– 825. http:// doi.org/

10.1017/ S13667 2891 8000 573

Page 10

Laura Sabourin and Gabrielle Manning

298

Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1981). Second language acquisition from a functional perspective. Annals of the

New York Academy of Sciences, 379(1), 190– 210.

Berthelsen, S.G., Horne, M., Shtyrov, Y., & Roll, M. (2020). Different neural mechanisms for rapid acquisition

of words with grammatical tone in learners from tonal and non- tonal backgrounds: ERP evidence. Brain

Research, 1729, 146614. https:// doi.org/ 10.1016/ j.brain res.2019.146 614

Berthelsen, S.G., Horne, M., Shtyrov, Y., & Roll, M. (2021). Phonological transfer effects in novice learners: A

learner’s brain detects grammar errors only if the language sounds familiar. Bilingualism: Language and

Cognition, 24(4), 656– 669. http:// doi.org/ 10.1017/ S13667 2892 1000 134

Best, C., McRoberts, G., & Goodell, E. (2001). Discrimination of non- native consonant contrasts varying in

perceptual assimilation to the listener’s native phonological system. Journal of the Acoustical Society of

America, 109(2), 775– 794. https:// doi.org/ 10.1121/ 1.1332 378

Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication strategies: A psychological analysis of second language use. Basil

Blackwell.

Blanco- Elorrieta, E., & Pylkk�nen, L. (2018). Ecological validity in bilingualism research and the bilingual

advantage. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(12), 1117– 1126. https:// doi.org/ 10.1016/ j.tics.2018.10.001

Bley- Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? In S. Gass & J. Schacter

(Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 41– 68. Cambridge University Press.

Bley- Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20, 3– 49. http://

doi.org/ 10.1017/ CBO9781139524544.005

Braine, M.D.S., Brody, R.E., & Brooks, P.J. (1990). Exploring language acquisition in children with miniature

artificial language: Effects of item and pattern frequency, arbitrary subclasses, and correction. Journal of

Memory and Language, 29, 591– 610. https:// doi.org/ 10.1016/ 0749- 596X(90)90054- 4

Chomsky, N. (1995). Bare phrase structure. In G. Webelhuth (Ed.), Government and binding theory and the min-

imalist program (pp. 71– 132). Blackwell.

Clashen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1),

3– 42. http:// doi.org/ 10.1017/ S01427 1640 6060 024

Corder, S.P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language

Teaching, 5, 161– 170.

Dabrowska, E. (2015). What exactly is Universal Grammar, and has anyone seen it? Frontiers in Psychology, 6,

852. http:// doi.org/ 10.3389/ fpsyg.2015.00852

Dehaene- Lambertz, G. (1997). Electrophysiological correlates of categorical phoneme perception in adults.

NeuroReport, 8, 919– 924.

Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135– 168. http:// doi.org/ 10.1146/

annu rev- psych- 113 011- 143 750

D�az, B., Erdocia, K., de Menezes, R.F., Mueller, J.L., Sebasti�n- Gall�s, N., & Laka, I. (2016). Electrophysiological

correlates of second- language syntactic processes are related to native and second language distance regard-

less of age of acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(7), 133. https:// doi.org/ 10.3389/ fpsyg.2016.00133

Dickson, D., & Pelzl, E. (this volume). Using time- based electro encephalography to investigate second lan-

guage. In K. Morgan- Short & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition

and neurolinguistics. Routledge.

Dulay, H.C., & Burt, M.K. (1974). Natural sequences in child language acquisition. Language Learning, 24,

37– 53. https:// doi.org/ 10.1111/ j.1467- 1770.1974.tb00 234.x

Eckman, F., Moravcsik, E., & Writh, J. (1986). Markedness. Plenum Press.

Erdocia, K., & Laka, I. (2018). Negative transfer effects on L2 word order processing. Frontiers in Psychology,

9, 337. https:// doi.org/ 10.3389/ fpsyg.2018.00337

Ettlinger, M., Morgan- Short, K., Faretta- Stutenberg, M., & Wong, P.C.M. (2016). The relationship between arti-

ficial and second language learning. Cognitive Science, 40(4), 822– 847. https:// doi.org/ 10.1111/ cogs.12257

Ferman, S., Olshtain, E., Schechtman, E., & Karni, A. (2009). The acquisition of a linguistic skill by

adults: Procedural and declarative memory interact in the learning of an artificial morphological rule. Journal

of Neurolinguistics, 22, 384– 412. https:// doi.org/ 10.1016/ j.jne urol ing.2008.12.002

Flege, J.E. (1995). Second- language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In W. Strange (Ed.),

Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross- linguistic research (pp. 229– 273). York Press.

Flege, J.E., & Bohn, O.- S. (2021). The revised speech learning model (SLM- r). In R. Waylands (Ed.), Second

language speech learning: Theoretical and empirical progress (pp. 3– 83). Cambridge University Press.

Flynn, S. (1996). A parameter setting approach to second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.),

Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 121– 158). Academic Press.

Flynn, S. (2019). Foreword. In J.M. Gutierrez- Mangado, M. Martinez- Adri�n & F. Gallardo- del- Puerto. (Eds.),

Cross- linguistic influence: From empirical evidence to classroom practice (pp. vii– vix). Springer Cham.

https:// doi.org/ 10.1007/ 978- 3- 030- 22066- 2

Page 11

Cross-Linguistic Transfer in Second Language Neurocognition

299

Foucart, A., & Frenck- Mestre, C. (2011). Grammatical gender processing in L2: Electrophysiological evidence

of the effect of L1– L2 syntactic similarity. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(3), 379– 399. http://

doi.org/ 10.1017/ S13667 2891 0000 12X

Foucart, A., & Frenck- Mestre, C. (2012). Can late L2 learners acquire new grammatical features? Evidence

from ERPs and eye- tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(1), 226– 248. https:// doi.org/ 10.1016/

j.jml.2011.07.007

Ghazi- Saidi, L., & Ansaldo, A.I. (2017). The neural correlates of semantic and phonological transfer

effects: Language distance matters. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(5), 1080– 1094. http:// doi.org/

10.1017/ S13667 2891 6000 64X

Havas, V., Laine, M., & Fornells, A.R. (2017). Brain signatures of early lexical and morphological learning of a

new language. Neuropsychologia, 101, 47– 56. https:// doi.org/ 10.1016/ j.neuro psyc holo gia.2017.04.005

Hawkins, R., & Chan, C.Y.- H. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acqui-

sition: The “failed functional features hypothesis.” Second Language Research, 13, 187– 226. https:// doi.org/

10.1191/ 026 7658 9767 1476 153

Hopp, H. (2007). Ultimate attainment at the interfaces in second language acquisition: Grammar and pro-

cessing. (Publication No. 9789088910234). [Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen]. University of

Groningen.

Hulstijn, J.H. (1997). Second language acquisition research in the research lab: Possibilities and limitations.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 131– 144. http:// doi.org/ 10.1017/ S02722 6319 7002 015

Janssen, B., & Meir, N. (2019). Production, comprehension and repetition of accusative case by monolingual

Russian and bilingual Russian- Dutch and Russian- Hebrew- speaking children. Linguistic Approaches to

Bilingualism, 9(4– 5), 736– 765. https:// doi.org/ 10.1075/ lab.17021.jan

Jeong, H., Sugiura, M., Sassa, Y., Haji, T., Usui, N., Taria, M., Horie, K., Sato, S., & Kawashima, R. (2007).

Effect of syntactic similarity on cortical activation during second language processing: A comparison of

English and Japanese among native Korean trilinguals. Human Brain Mapping, 28, 194– 204. https:// doi.org/

10.1002/ hbm.20269

Keijzer, M., & Seton, B. (this volume). Second language neurocognition and first language attrition. In K. Morgan-

Short & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and neurolinguistics.

Routledge.

Kellerman, E. (1995). Crosslinguistic influence: Transfer to nowhere? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15,

125– 150. http:// doi.org/ 10.1017/ S02671 9050 0002 658

Kotz, S.A. (2009). A critical review of ERP and fMRI evidence on L2 syntactic processing. Brain & Language,

109, 68– 74. https:// doi.org/ 10.1016/ j.bandl.2008.06.002

Kotz, S.A., Holcomb, P.J., & Osterhout, L. (2008). ERPs reveal comparable syntactic sentence processing in

native and non- native readers of English. Acta Psychologia, 128(3), 514– 527. https:// doi.org/ 10.1016/ j.act

psy.2007.10.003

Kousaie, S., & Klein, D. (this volume). Using functional neuroimaging to investigate second language organiza-

tion. In K. Morgan- Short & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of second language acquisition

and neurolinguistics. Routledge.

Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K.D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: finding meaning in the N400 component of

the event- related brain potential (ERP). Annual review of psychology, 62, 621– 647. https:// doi.org/ 10.1146/

annu rev.psych.093 008.131 123

Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S.A. (1980). Event- related brain potentials to semantically inappropriate and surprisingly

large words. Biological Psychology, 11(2), 99– 116. https:// doi.org/ 10.1016/ 0301- 0511(80)90046- 0

Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across Cultures. Ann Arbor, MI. University of Michigan Press.

Lago, S., Mosca, M., & Stutter Garcia, A. (2021). The role of crosslinguistic influence in multilingual pro-

cessing: Lexicon versus syntax. Language Learning, 71(S1), 163– 192. https:// doi.org/ 10.1111/ lang.12412

Luck, S.J. (2014). An introduction to the event- related potential technique. MIT Press.

MacWhinney, B. (1987). Applying the competition model to bilingualism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8(4), 315–

327. https:// doi.org/ 10.1017/ S01427 1640 0000 357

MacWhinney, B. (2012). The logic of the Unified Model. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), Handbook of second

language acquisition (pp. 211– 227). Routledge.

Mickan, A., & Lemh�fer, K. (2020). Tracking syntactic conflict between languages over the course of L2 acqui-

sition: A cross- sectional event- related study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 32(5), 822– 846. https:// doi.

org/ 10.1162/ jocn_ a_ 01 528

Midgley, K.J., Holcomb, P.J., & Grainger, J. (2011). Effects of cognate status on word comprehension in second

language learners: An ERP investigation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(7), 1634– 1647. https:// doi.

org/ 10.1162/ jocn.2010.21463

Page 12

Laura Sabourin and Gabrielle Manning

300

Morgan- Short, K. (2020). Insights into the neural mechanisms of becoming bilingual: A brief synthesis of second

language research with artificial linguistic systems. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(1), 87– 91.

https:// doi.org/ 10.1017/ S13667 2891 9000 701

Mueller, J.L. (2005). Electrophysiological correlates of second language processing. Second Language Research,

21(2), 152– 172. https:// doi.org/ 10.1191/ 026765 8305 sr25 6oa

N��t�nen, R. (2001). The perception of speech sounds by the human brain as reflected by the mismatch nega-

tivity (MMN) and its magnetic equivalent (MMNm). Psychophysiology, 38, 1– 21. http:// doi.org/ 10.1111/

1469- 8986.3810 001

N��t�nen, R., Ilmoniemi, R.J., & Alho, K. (1994). Magnetoencephalography in studies of human cognitive brain

function. Trends in Neuroscience, 17, 389– 395. https:// doi.org/ 10.1016/ 0166- 2236(94)90048- 5

Odlin, T. (2003). Cross- linguistic influence. The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.

Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P.J. (1992). Event- related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of

Memory and Language, 31(6), 785– 806. https:// doi.org/ 10.1016/ 0749- 596X(92)90039- Z

Perreira Soares, S.M., Kupisch, T., & Rothman, J. (2022). Testing potential transfer effects in heritage and adult

L2 bilinguals acquiring a mini grammar as an additional language: An ERP approach. Brain Sciences, 12(5),

669. https:// doi.org/ 10.3390/ brain sci1 2050 669

Rivera- Gaxiola, M., Csibra, G., Johnson, M.H., & Karmiolff- Smith, A. (2000). Electrophysiological correlates

of crosslinguistic speech perception in native English speakers. Behavioral Brain Research, 111, 13– 23.

https:// doi.org/ 10.1016/ S0166- 4328(00)00139- X

Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive abilities, chunk- strength and frequency effects in implicit artificial grammar and

incidental second language learning: Replications of Reber, Walkenfeld, and Hernstadt (1991) and Knowlton

and Squire (1996) and their relevance for SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 235– 268. http://

doi.org/ 10.1017/ S02722 6310 5050 126

Rothman, J., Alem�n Ba��n, J., & Gonz�lez Alonso, J. (2015). Neurolinguistic measures of typological effects

in multilingual transfer: Introducing an ERP methodology. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1087. https:// doi.org/

10.3389/ fpsyg.2015.01087

Sabourin, L., Brien, C., & Tremblay, M.- C. (2013). Electrophysiology of second language processing: The

past, present and future. In M.P. Garc�a Mayo, M. Junkal Gutierrez- Mangado, & M. Mart�nez Adri�n (Eds.)

Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 221– 242). John Benjamins.

Sabourin, L., & Stowe, L.A. (2008a). Neurobiology of language learning. In B. Spolsky & F.M. Hult (Eds.),

The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 25– 37). Blackwell. https:// doi.org/ 10.1002/ 978047 0694 138.ch3

Sabourin, L., & Stowe, L.A. (2008b). Second language processing: When are first and second languages processed

similarly. Second Language Research, 24(3), 397– 430. https:// doi.org/ 10.1177/ 02676 5830 8090 186

Sabourin, L., Stowe, L.A., & de Haan, G.J. (2006). Transfer effects in learning a second language grammatical

gender system. Second Language Research, 22(1), 1– 29. https:// doi.org/ 10.1191/ 026765 8306 sr25 9oa

Schwartz, B.D., & Sprouse, R. (1994). Word order and nominative case in nonnative language acquisition. In T.

Hoekstra & B. Schwartz (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (pp. 317– 368). John

Benjamins.

Serratrice, L. (2013). Cross- linguistic influence in bilingual development: Determinants and mechanisms.

Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 3, 3– 25. https:// doi.org/ 10.1075/ lab.3.1.01ser

Shirai, Y. (2019). Connectionism and second language acquisition. Routledge.

Tokowicz, N., & MacWhinney, B. (2005). Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to violations in second

language grammar: An event- related potential investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2),

173– 204. http:// doi.org/ 10.1017/ S02722 6310 5050 102

Towell, R., & Hawkins, R. (1994). Approaches to second language acquisition. Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Tsimpli, I.M., & Roussou, A. (1991). Parameter resetting in L2? UCL Working Paper in Linguistics, 3, 149– 169.

Valian, V. (2015). Bilingualism and cognition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(1). 3– 24. http:// doi.

org/ 10.1017/ S13667 2891 4000 522

Van Bergen, G., & Flecken, M. (2017). Putting things in new places: Linguistic experience modulates the pre-

dictive power of placement verb semantics. Journal of Memory and Language, 92, 26– 42. https:// doi.org/

10.1016/ j.jml.2016.05.003

Verbeek, L., Vissers, C., Blumenthal, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2022). Cross- language transfer and attentional con-

trol in early bilingual speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 6(2), 450– 468. 1– 19.

https:// doi.org/ 10.1044/ 202 1_ JS LHR- 21- 00104

Von Grebmer Zu Wolfsthurn, S.V.G., Robles, L.P., & Schiller, N.O. (2021). Cross- linguistic interference

in late language learners: An ERP study. Brain and Language, 221, 104993. https:// doi.org/ 10.1016/

j.bandl.2021.104 993

Page 13

Cross-Linguistic Transfer in Second Language Neurocognition

301

Wang, D., Wang, S., Zinszer, B., Sheng, L., & Jasińska, K. (2022). Cross- linguistic influences of L1 on L2 mor-

phosyntactic processing: An fNIRS study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 63, 101063. https:// doi.org/ 10.1016/

j.jne urol ing.2022.101 063

Wartenburger, I., Heekeren, H.R., Abutalebi, J., Cappa, S.F., Villringer, A., & Perani, D. (2003). Early

setting of grammatical processing in the bilingual brain. Neuron, 37, 159– 170. https:// doi.org/ 10.1016/

S0896- 6273(02)01150- 9

Werker, J.F., & Tees, R.C. (1984a). Cross- language speech perception: Evidence for perceptual reorganiza-

tion during the first year of life. Infant Behavior and Development, 7(1), 49– 63. https:// doi.org/ 10.1016/

S0163- 6383(84)80022- 3

Werker, J.F., & Tees, R.C. (1984b). Phonemic and phonetic factors in adult cross- language speech perception.

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 75, 1866– 1878. https:// doi.org/ 10.1121/ 1.390 988

White, L. (1985a). The acquisition of parameterized grammar: subjacency in second language acquisition.

Second Language Research, 1, 1– 17. https:// doi.org/ 10.1177/ 026765 8385 0010 010

White, L. (1985b). The “pro- drop” parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 35,

47– 62. https:// doi.org/ 10.1111/ j.1467- 1770.1985.tb01 014.x

Whitman, R., & Jackson, K. (1972). The unpredictability of contrastive analysis. Language Learning, 22, 29– 41.

https:// doi.org/ 10.1111/ j.1467- 1770.1972.tb00 071

Xu, E.S., & Wong, P.C.M. (this volume). First language/ second language cross- linguistic influence on third

language acquisition via neurocognitive memory systems. In K. Morgan- Short & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The

Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and neurolinguistics. Routledge.