The Typological Primacy Model

Rothman (2011) proposed the TPM as a modification to the CEM. Unlike the CEM, the TPM suggests that transfer will occur from the closest (psycho)typological language, regardless of whether or not the transfer is facilitative. The CEM was disproved in a study by Rothman and Cabrelli Amaro (2010) that showed transfer of null-subject-related properties from L2 Spanish to L3 Italian and French in L1 English L2 Spanish learners. Spanish alone was transferred, in spite of the fact that French and English, and Spanish and Italian (respectively) are more alike for this parameter. Whilst these results disproved the CEM, it did not rule out the L2 status factor. Rothman (2011) subsequently conducted research testing adjectival placement and semantic interpretation by L1 Italian L2 English learners of Spanish and L1 English L2 Spanish learners of Portuguese. Rothman (2011: 107) clarifies that of the abovementioned languages, English is the most typologically distant to the L3s in question in that, unlike the other languages, it does not permit noun-raising. Accordingly, on the grounds of typology alone there should be no transfer of English, either as a L1 or L2. The results confirmed this, as only transfer from Italian (as a L1) and Spanish (as a L2) occurred. Because transfer did not occur exclusively from the learners’ L2, the L2 status factor too was ruled out, proving that typology rather than language acquisition order is the more reliable predictor of transfer.

In subsequent years, Rothman (2013) clarified some fundamental points pertaining to how the TPM should be interpreted. He claims any similarity between languages is determined subconsciously and very early on in the L3 acquisition process. Rothman (2013: 2) maintains that there is a brief transitory stage where initially both/all the previous linguistic systems are accessible for transfer, after which one of these systems is chosen as the one which will serve as the basis for the initial hypotheses

39  _{Or, in the L1 isiXhosa-speaking participants’ case, the L3 (Afrikaans). Cf. section 3.5 below for an} explanation for why Afrikaans is most likely not the language transferred from.

65   about the L3 system. This subconscious “decision” occurs only when the language learner is able to identify enough linguistic information about the L3 based on the input available to them. As such, the initial transitory period has no specific time frame, but rather is determined by the time it takes for the L3 input to become sufficient for identifying which system is seemingly typologically closest to it.

It should be noted that not all “linguistic cues”, as Rothman (2013: 7) explains, are equally identifiable. Rothman (2013: 7) suggests that there is a hierarchy in place in which certain factors are identifiable (and influential) above others. These factors form a mutual dependency on one another, resulting in a given characteristic only being identifiable once certain others have been recognised. Rothman’s (2013) hierarchy of factors is represented below:

Lexicon è Phonological èFunctional Morphology èSyntactic Structure

Rothman (2013: 7) clarifies that “syntactic structure clearly depends on functional morphology, which in turn is determined in the lexicon and interfaces with phonology”. Rothman (2013: 7) continues to explain that identifying lexical similarities poses less of a challenge than identifying (in the following order) phonological similarities, morphological similarities and finally syntactic similarities. This is in part due to the fact that identifying the latter two types of similarities requires more L3 experience (input) and knowledge about the L3 than the former two do. Rothman (2013: 7) does, however, briefly mention that he is investigating the possibility that syntax might follow more closely after lexicon in that syntactic macro- parameter similarity might be a noticeable cue very early on in language acquisition. Rothman (2013) does not elaborate on this, but were this to be the case, it could be assumed that a macro-parameter such as the wh-parameter would be acquired early in the acquisition process. (Chapter 5 will show whether or not this was the case in this study.) As this is yet to be investigated further, the above hierarchy of factors will be assumed.

With regard to identifying similarities between given linguistic systems, the TPM predicts that where there is not sufficient similarity at a lower level (lexical similarity

for example) the next level is “called upon” (Rothman, 2013: 8). As such, hierarchical levels can be skipped if no correlation between languages at that level can be established. Finally, once a specific linguistic system is identified as the one which is closest to the TL, language transfer occurs in its entirety and not on a structure-by- structure basis (Rothman, 2013: 2). As a result, the learner “takes the bad with the good”, resulting in both facilitative and non-facilitative transfer. Rothman (2013: 8) elaborates by stating that although two languages may in fact be structurally most similar with regard to a specific aspect, the language that is perceived as being the most typologically similar overall is the one that is transferred. Consequently, attempting to make predictions about which system a learner will transfer from is not without challenges. To further complicate matters, recall that the TPM’s primary proposal is that transfer is resultant of (psycho)typological distance. This means that, as opposed to language combinations in which lexical similarities (predicted as the most important factor) or any other similarities are obvious, languages with obscure similarities, say similarities of a syntactic nature, do not allow for such easy parallels to be drawn between them. In such cases, the learner’s (often unfounded) perception of similarity becomes the primary factor in determining language transfer, making predictions about which language a learner is likely to transfer from near impossible.

The accuracy of the assumptions that underlie Rothman’s TPM will be considered by: (i) investigating whether a learner’s conscious psychotypological perception of language distance (as opposed to only the subconscious perception as Rothman suggests) can determine which language is transferred in the process of L3/L4 acquisition and; (ii) whether syntactic similarities between languages are indeed particularly difficult to identify, or whether as Rothman suggests (and is yet to investigate) syntax possibly follows more closely after the lexicon in the hierarchy of linguistic cues, making syntactic structures a noticeable cue very early on in L3/L4 acquisition.

67