Cover not available

Article published In: Language, Interaction and Acquisition
Vol. 16:2 (2025) ► pp.263–280

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

The impact of L1 and L2 on the use of relative clauses in L3 English

Evidence from Persian, Sorani Kurdish, and Azerbaijani speakers

ORCiD logo with link | University of Siegen
 | University of Siegen
Published online: 9 January 2026
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lia.24009.bah
Abstract
This study examines the use of English relative clauses (RCs) in third language (L3) learners by analyzing 144 argumentative essays written by native speakers of Persian (L2 English learners) and native speakers of Azerbaijani and Sorani Kurdish (L3 English learners, with Persian as their L2). We investigated how learners’ first (L1) and second (L2) languages influence L3 RC formation, focusing on typological and structural relationships among the languages. Results revealed that L2 Persian facilitated L3 RC acquisition, but its effect depended on L1 background: L1 Azerbaijani speakers, whose L1 is typologically more distant from Persian, outperformed L1 Sorani Kurdish speakers, indicating that greater L1-L2 distance enhances L2 transfer. Structural proximity between L2 and L3 further promoted accurate RC production, and specific syntactic properties of RCs in L2 were transferred to L3, improving both accuracy and variety. These findings underscore the complex interplay of crosslinguistic influences in multilingual acquisition and highlight the role of L1-L2 typology and L2 structural experience in shaping L3 development.
Résumé
Cette étude examine l’utilisation des propositions relatives (PR) dans l’acquisition d’une troisième langue (L3), en analysant les PR dans 144 essais argumentatifs rédigés en anglais par des locuteurs natifs du persan (apprenants de l’anglais en tant que L2) et par des locuteurs natifs de l’azéri et du kurde sorani (apprenants de l’anglais en tant que L3, avec le persan comme L2). La recherche explore la manière dont la première (L1) et la deuxième langue (L2) facilitent ou entravent la formation des PR en L3, tout en tenant compte des similarités et des différences typologiques entre la L1, la L2 et la L3 susceptibles d’influencer l’acquisition des PR. Des différences significatives ont été observées entre les apprenants de L3 partageant la même L2. Les résultats suggèrent que la distance typologique entre la L1 et la L2, ainsi que la proximité structurelle entre la L2 et la L3, jouent un rôle déterminant dans le développement des PR en L3. En outre, les propriétés syntaxiques des PR en L2 semblent faciliter leur acquisition en L3. Cette analyse met en évidence l’interaction complexe entre les antécédents linguistiques et le processus plurifactoriel d’acquisition des propositions relatives dans des contextes multilingues.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Brief background of RCs in the languages investigated in the study
  • 3.Objectives of the study
  • 4.Methodology
    • 4.1Participants
    • 4.2Materials
    • 4.3Procedure and coding
  • 5.Results
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • References
References (30)
References
Aydin, Ö. (2007). The comprehension of Turkish relative clauses in second language acquisition and agrammatism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 281, 295–315. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bardel, C., & Falk, Y. (2007). The role of the second language in third language acquisition: The case of Germanic syntax. Second Language Research, 231, 459–484. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). The L2 status factor and the declarative/procedural distinction. In J. Cabrelli Amaro, S. Flynn & J. Rothman (Eds.), Third language acquisition in adulthood (pp. 61–78). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bardel, C. (2019). Syntactic transfer in L3 learning. What do models and results tell us about learning and teaching a third language? In M. Gutierrez-Mangado, M. Martínez-Adrián & F. Gallardo-del-Puerto (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence: From empirical evidence to classroom practice (pp. 101–120). Springer.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bahar, G. (2023). Acquisition of English relative clauses by native speakers of Kurdish Sorani. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique, 68(3), 414–434. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bahar, G., & Kunter, G. (2025). Impact of the intrinsic complexity and prior linguistic knowledge on the acquisition of relative clauses. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 80–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berkes, É., & Flynn, S. (2012). Multilingualism: New perspectives on syntactic development. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), The Handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism (pp. 137–67). Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cenoz, J. (2001). The effect of linguistic distance, L2 status, and age on cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen & U. Jessner (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 8–20). Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feys, J. (2016). Nonparametric tests for the interaction in two-way factorial designs using R. The R Journal, 8(1), 367–378. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flynn, S., Foley C., & Vinnitskaya, I. (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(1), 3–16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flynn, S., & Fernández-Berkes, É. (2017). Toward a new understanding of syntactic CLI: Evidence from L2 and L3 acquisition. In T. Angelovska & A. Hahn (Eds.), L3 Syntactic transfer models, new developments and implications (pp. 35–61). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fox, B., & Thompson, S. (1990). A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language, 66(2), 297–316. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hammarberg, B. (2001). Roles of L1 and L2 in L3 production and acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen & U. Jessner (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 21–41). Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. Taylor and Francis. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kay M., Elkin, L., Higgins, J., & Wobbrock, J. (2021). ARTool: Aligned rank transform for nonparametric factorial ANOVAs. R package version 0.11.1, [URL].
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Puig-Mayenco, E., González Alonso, J., & Rothman, J. (2020). A systematic review of transfer studies in third language acquisition. Second Language Research, 36(1), 31–64.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria. URL [URL].
Rah, A. (2009). Transfer in L3 sentence processing: Evidence from relative clause attachment ambiguities. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(2), 147–161. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rothman, J. (2010). L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: The typological primacy model. Second Language Research, 27(1), 107–127. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: The typological primacy model. Second Language Research, 271, 107–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Linguistic and cognitive motivations for the typological primacy model (TPM) of third language (L3) transfer: Timing of acquisition and proficiency considered. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 181, 179–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rothman, J., & Cabrelli Amaro, J. (2010). What variables condition syntactic transfer? A look at the L3 initial state. Second Language Research, 261, 189–218. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schepens, J., van der Slik, F., & van Hout, R. (2015). L1 and L2 distance effects in learning L3 Dutch. Language Learning, 66(1), 224–256. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schepens, J., Van der Slik, F., & van Hout, R. (2013). The effect of linguistic distance across Indo-European mother tongues on learning Dutch as a second language. In L. Borin & A. Saxena (Eds.), Approaches to measuring linguistic differences (pp. 199–230). De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2017). The scalpel model of third language acquisition. International Journal of Bilingualism, 21(6), 651–665. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taghvaipour, M. A. (2004). An HPSG analysis of Persian relative clauses. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp. 274–293). CSLI Publications. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van der Slik, F. (2010). Acquisition of Dutch as a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 321, 401–432. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Westergaard, M., Mitrofanova, N., Mykhaylyk, R., & Rodina, Y. (2017). Crosslinguistic influence in the acquisition of a third language: The linguistic proximity model. International Journal of Bilingualism, 21(6), 666–682. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue