Document Type : Original Article


Department of Foreign Languages,Yazd University, Yazd, Iran


The present study aimed to investigate Mazandarani-Persian Bilinguals' L3 learning of simple present tense to see whether their L1, L2, or dominant language of communication affect their L3 learning. To this end, 90 male and female students, with the mean age of 14.5 were selected from among the elementary L3 learners of English. The participants were assigned into three groups of L1 Mazandarani/L2 Persian/ L3 learners of English. The first group had Mazandarani as the dominant language of communication while the second and the third group had Persian as the dominant language of communication. The Grammaticality Judgment Task and Oral Translation Task were used to check the participants' production and comprehension of the target structure. The results of the Kruskal Wallis and the Mann Whitney U tests showed that the dominant language of communication, irrespective of its status as the first or second language, was the primary source of cross-linguistic influence in learning simple present tense at the initial stages of learning this tense.


Bardel, C., & Falk, Y. (2007).  The role of the second language in third language acquisition: The case of Germanic syntax. Second Language Research, 23(4), 459–84.
Bardel, C., & Falk, Y. (2012). Behind the L2 status factor: A neurolinguistic framework for L3research. In: Cabrelli Amaro, J., Flynn. S., & Rothman, J., (Eds.), Third language learning in adulthood (pp.61-78). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bialystok, E. (2005). Consequences of Bilingualism for Cognitive Development. In: Kroll, J. F., & de Groot, A. M. B., (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 417–432). Oxford University Press.
Borjian, H. (2004). Mazandaran: Language and people (The State of Research). Iran and the Caucasus, 8(2), 289–328.
Borjian, H. (2001). Farmânravâyâne Tabarestân dar sadehâye nakhostine Hejri. In: Rezâzâdeh-Langarudi, R., (Ed.), Yâd-e Pâyande: Mahmud Payande Langarudi memorial volume (pp. 435-447). Tehran: Nashr-e Sâli.
Cenoz. J. (2001). The effect of linguistic distance, L2 status, and age on cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition. In: Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U., (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 8-20). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cenoz, J. (2003). The role of typology in the organization of the multilingual lexicon. In The multilingual lexicon (pp. 103-116). Springer, Dordrecht.
Cenoz, J., & Jessner, U. (Eds.). (2000). English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language (Vol. 19). Multilingual Matters.
Falk, Y., & Bardel, C. (2010). The study of the role of the background languages in third language acquisition. The state of the art. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 48(2-3).
Falk ,Y., & Bardel, C. (2011). Object pronouns in German L3 syntax: Evidence for the L2 status factor. Second Language Research, 27(1), 59–82.
Fallah, N., Jabbari, A. A, & Fazilatfar, A. M. (2016). Source(s) of syntactic CLI: The case of L3 acquisition of English possessives by Mazanderani-Persian bilinguals. Second Language Research, 32(2), 225–245.
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. The International Journal of Multilingualism, 1(1), 3–16.
Giancaspro, D., Halloran, B., & Iverson, M. (2015). Examining L3 transfer: The acquisition of differential object marking in L3 Brazilian Portuguese. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(2),191–207.
Green, D. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(2), 67-81.
Hawkins, R., & Chan, Y-HC. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The failed functional features hypothesis. Second Language Research, 13 (3), 187–226.
Hermas, A. (2010). Language acquisition as computational resetting: Verb movement in L3 initial state. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(4) 343–62.
Hermas, A. (2014a). Multilingual transfer: L1 morphosyntax in L3 English. International Journal of Language Studies, 8(2), 1–24.
Hermas, A. (2014b). Restrictive relatives in L3 English: L1 transfer and ultimate attainment convergence. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 34(3),361–87.
Hufeisen, B. (1998). L3-Stand der Forschung-Was bleibt zu tun? In: Hufeisen, B., & Lindemann, B., (Eds.), Tertiùrsprachen. Teorien, Modelle, Methoden (pp. 169-183). Tübingen: Stauffenberg.
Iverson, P., & Evans, B. G. (2009). Learning English vowels with different first-language vowel systems II: Auditory training for native Spanish and German speakers. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126(2), 866–877.
Kellerman, E. (1983). Now you see it, now you don’t. In: Gass, S., & Selinker, L., (Eds.), Language Transfer in Language Learning (pp. 112-134). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Paradis, M. (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. John Benjamins.
Paradis, M. (2007). L1 attrition features predicted by a neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. In: Kopke, B., Schmid, M. S., Keijzer, M., & Dostert, S., (Eds.), Language attrition: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 121–134). John Benjamins.
Rothman, J. (2010). On the typological economy of syntactic transfer: Word order and relative clause high/low attachment preference in L3 Brazilian Portuguese. International Review of  Applied Linguistics in Teaching (IRAL), 48(2-3), 245–273.
Rothman, J. (2011). L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: The Typological Primacy Model. Second Language Research, 27(1), 107–27.
Rothman, J. (2013). Cognitive economy, non-redundancy and typological primacy in L3  acquisition: Evidence from initial stages of L3 Romance. In: Baauw, S., Dirjkoningen, F., & Pinto, M., (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory (pp. 217-247). Benjamins.            
Rothman, J. (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, 18(02), 1–12.
Rothman, J., & Halloran, B. (2013). Formal linguistic approaches to L3/Ln acquisition: A focus on morphosyntactic transfer in adult multilingualism. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics33 (1), 51-67.
Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, R. (1994) Word order and nominative case in nonnative language acquisition: a longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage. In: Hoekstra, T., & Schwartz, B., (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar: papers in honor of Kenneth Wexler from the 1991 GLOW workshops (pp.317–68). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 
Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, R. (1996) L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model. Second Language Research, 12(1), 40-72.
Williams, S., & Hammarberg, B. (1998). Language switches in L3 production: Implications for a polyglot speaking model. Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 295-333.
Windfuhr, G. L. (1989). New Iranian Languages. Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, 246-250.