1. education
2. english as a second language

International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies Vol:1, Issue: 3
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition……………..
Khodabandeh, F.
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Acquisition of syntactic
structures by students Bilingual in Persian-Azerbaijani, Persian-Armenia, and
Persian-Gilaki
Farzaneh Khodabandeh
Mobarakeh Payame Noor Universit y
Iran
Abstract
The present study builds on recent claims that investigating the L3 init ial state provides
another test case for UG's invo lvement in adult language acquisit io n (Leung, 2005, 2006,
2007; Rothman & Cabrelli, 2007). It focuses on two compet ing approaches to adult
language acquisit io n, so-called Failed Funct ional Features approaches (FFFAs) (Beck,
1998; Franceschina, 2001) and Full Access approaches (FAAs) (Duffield & White, 1999;
Schwartz & Sprouse, 1996). Crucially, each approach makes different predict ions for L2
ult imate attainment and thus indirect ly makes different predict ions for possible transfer at
the L3 init ial state. FFFAs claim that adult L2 learners are unable to acquire new
funct ional features. In contrast, FAAs claim that adult L2 learners have cont inued full
access to UG. Assuming transfer, both FFFAs and FAAs make contrasting predictions for
the init ial state of L3 acquisit io n. FFFAs predict that learners at the L3 init ial state are
restricted to transfer o f features available fro m the L1. Conversely, because FAAs claim
that it is possible for L2 learners to acquire new features, they predict that L3 learners can
start with an init ial state that demonstrates either L1 or L2 funct ional feature transfer. The
present study tests the predict ions made by these two compet ing approaches by examining
the L3 init ial state of three types o f groups of L3 learners o f English such as Azerbaijani –
Persian, Armenian –Persian and Gilaki- Persian bilinguals via knowledge of adjective
order. The instrument of this study was a grammatical test which consisted of three parts.
The findings o f this research were in accordance with the predict ions o f (FFFH)
hypothesis where L1 transfer being hypothesized. L3 learners performed significant ly
higher than L2 learners as their interlanguage grammar seemed to reflect more of the
parameter values of their L1s.
Keywords: UG, FFFA, FAFTA, L2A, L3A, Persian-mo no lingual, Azerbaijani-Persian,
Armenian –Persian and Gilaki- Persian bilinguals
Suggested Citation:
Khodabandeh, F. (2013). Cross-Linguist ic Influence in Third Language Acquisit io n:
Acquis it ion o f syntact ic structures by students Bilingual in Persian-Azerbaijani, PersianArmenia, and Persian-Gilaki . International Journal of English Language & Translational
Studies Vol-1, Issue-3 , 136-165. Retrived from http://www.eltsjournal.org
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
October-December, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org Page | 136
International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies Vol:1, Issue: 3
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition……………..
Khodabandeh, F.
1. Introduction
The role o f language transfer in second language acquisit ion has long been the focus in the
study o f cross-linguist ic influence. Much has been written about how the learner’s exist ing
linguist ic knowledge influences the course of second language development. In the last
decade, however, there have been a considerable number of books and journal art icles
dealing wit h a relat ively under-explored field: the role of language transfer during third
language acquisit io n. The quest ion arises as to how the learner’s three languages interact
with each other during the language learning process.
The present study attempts to describe the influence of Azerbaijani, Armenia and Gilaki as
L1 in third-language acquisit io n o f English and it s pedagogical implicat ions by reporting
and discussing the results of research carried out on how bilingual and mo no lingua l
students acquire the English adject ive patterns.
A brief overview of the study o f language transfer and the possible affect ing factors are
provided.
1.1 Transfer
The cross-linguist ic influence between a person’s native language and their target
language is co mmo nly referred to as transfer. Transfer can be defined as, “the carryo ver of
previous performance or knowledge to previous or subsequent learning” (Brown, 1994, p:
391). This process takes place through the use of “sounds, expressio ns, or structures” fro m
the nat ive language when performing in the target language (Yule, 2006, p: 167).
Transfer can be negat ive or posit ive, depending on the similarit y o f language features.
Negative transfer, or interference, occurs when previous learned informat ion hinders the
understanding of new informat ion features of the nat ive language are inaccurately applied
to the target language. In contrast, posit ive transfer occurs when knowledge o f a nat ive
language facilitates the learning o f a target language: past knowledge is accurately applied
to present subject matter (Brown, 1994, p: 102). During any t ype o f second language
acquisit ion, positive and negat ive transfer are likely to occur.
Discussion o f language transfer most often begin with the work of American linguists in
the 1940’s and 1950’s. The thinking o f Fries (1945), Lado (1957), and others was clearly a
major catalyst of the subsequent research.
During the last decade, scho larship on L2-L3 transfer in general has increased
considerably. Wit h the increase there has been many more recent accounts of language
transfer. Language transfer is best thought of as a cover term for a who le class of
behaviors, processes and constraints, each o f which has do wit h CLI (cross-linguist ic
influence), i.e. the influence and use of prior linguist ic knowledge, usually but not
exclusively native language (NL) knowledge (Selinker, 1992, p: 208). According to Gass
(1996, p: 321), transfer is the use o f the nat ive language (or other language) informat ion in
the acquisit io n of an L2 (or addit ional language).
Another recent development is the study of mult ilingual transfer. That is, language transfer
occurs not only in the process o f acquiring the second language but also when three or
more languages are in contact. As Murphy (2003) points out, rather than viewing the study
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
October-December, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org Page | 137
International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies Vol:1, Issue: 3
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition……………..
Khodabandeh, F.
of third language acquisit io n simply as an extension of SLA research, the current trend is
to consider the L3 learner as a learner with a unique and specific linguist ic configuration.
Evidently, cross-linguist ic influence is an important factor in the field of second language
acquisit ion and cannot be regarded as a minor pheno menon wit h slight side-effects on the
acquisit ion process. It is important not only to concentrate on the learners nat ive language
as any addit io nal languages the learner might have previously acquired are likely to play a
role in the acquisit io n process as well.
The notion o f cross-linguist ic influence was first proposed during the post-war years and
has ever since been o f interest to second language researchers. It is clear that research in
this area is on-going and the influence o f the native language as well as any possible
addit ional languages continues to attract attentio n in the fie ld of second language
acquisit ion.
1.2 Third Language Acquisition
L3A is a field which has gained great importance in recent years (Cenoz, Hufeisen &
Jessner, 2001). Jorda (2005) explains that L3A means widening one’s linguist ic system
quant itatively and qualitat ively even more. Although L3A and L2A have co mmo n
properties, L3A is more diverse and co mplex than L2A as it has its unique characteristics
which are: (1) non-linearit y, (2) language maintenance, (3) individual variat ion, (4)
interdependence and qualit y change (Jorda , 2005).
Non-linearit y is considered to be one of the main characterist ics dist inguishing L3A fro m
L2A (Herdina & Jessner 2000, cited in Jorda, 2005). In the L2A field, language
competence and development is seen as a gradual and linear process in which learners get
more proficient by time.
On the other hand, nonlinearit y here is defined as a language development which does not
fo llo w gradually and linearly. As Jorda states, non-linearit y is argued for mult ilingua l
processes by Herdina and Jessner. They say “according to bio logical principles language
development is seen as a dynamic process with phases of accelerated growth and
retardation” (Herdina & Jessner, 2000, p: 87, cited in Jorda, 2005). If the non-nat ive
language is not used, it will be quite normal for the learners to lose the previously acquired
knowledge in t ime. Therefore, language growth is not always linear in L3A as the part of
the L3 knowledge which is not actively used is easier to lose in L3 than in L2.
Non-linearit y leads us to the second feature of L3A, which is language maintenance.
Learners have to make effort to keep their proficiency levels in their non-nat ive languages.
The more languages known by the learner, the more effort is needed to be able to maintain
the proficiency levels and previously acquired knowledge in the target languages.
The third defining feature of L3A is individual variat ion. While learning the L3, learners
can be affected by many internal and external factors. The relation between these factors
and their interact ions are more complex in L3A, by virtue of the existence of more
languages, than in L2A. As Jorda states, L3A can be regarded as a dynamic process as
well with the variat ion and interaction of its defining characterist ics.
The last defining feature of L3A is interdependence and qualit y change. Interdependence
in L3A means that learners’ first, second and third languages are considered as a who le
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
October-December, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org Page | 138
International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies Vol:1, Issue: 3
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition……………..
Khodabandeh, F.
linguist ic system which operate at the same t ime meaning that all the languages a person
has acquired are regarded as a who le unit, rather than being 3 separate units. That is to say,
an addit io nal language changes the whole system by restructuring it with new links, skills,
relat ionships and learning experiences, and a qualit y change occurs. The system beco mes
more co mplex with the L3. Thus, L3A is not a straight forward pheno menon, but rather
complicated.
1.3 From L2 initial state to L3/Ln initial state
The growing interest in the “init ial state” in generat ive L2A research is quite recent
(Schwartz & Eubank, 1996), and is often t ied to the invest igat ion o f the functional do main
of interlanguage grammar (i.e. the emergence o f funct ional categories, the operation of
features and feature strength). The term “init ial state” loosely refers to the grammar at the
outset of language acquisit io n. Under the generative paradigm, the L1 init ial state is
Universal Grammar (UG), which is the “blueprint” or set of principles/constraints that
guide the process of language acquisit io n universally (Cho msky, 1981, 1986, 1995).
In L2A, however, owing to the existence o f an addit ional variable, i.e. the L1 (end-state)
grammar, the issue of the init ial state becomes more co mplicated. Generat ive L2A
researchers are divided as to whether UG st ill const itutes the L2 init ial state, or whether
the L1 grammar instead (and if so, to what extent) forms the L2 init ial state.
Generat ive theorists have proposed a number o f hypotheses wit h respect to the acquisit io n
of non-primary languages. These generally make claims about two aspects of the learners’
interlanguage grammars (ILGs); one, the nature of the init ial state of these grammars and
two, what, if any, t ype of access the learner has to the properties of UG in subsequent
development.
The current study will discuss the ro le o f the language background possessed by the
bilingual learners of English through a comparative study in light of the most recent
syntactically- based generat ive models of L2A, namely, Full Access Full Transfer (FAFT)
and the Failed Functional Feature Hypothesis (FFFH). We review these in the fo llowing
sect ions.
1.3.1 Failed Functional Features Hypothesis (FFFH)
The Failed Funct ional Features Hypothesis (FFFH) can be seen as a modern versio n o f
“no parameter resetting”, or “full transfer part ial access” (White, 2000). In more recent
termino logy, it can also be grouped under the so called “impairment” camp (White, 2003).
The Full Transfer/Partial Access (FT/PA) Hypothesis, proposes full transfer of the L1 endstate grammar for L2 learners, but further claims that they will fail to acquire specific
syntactic features of the L2 if these same features are not present in the L1 (Hawkins &
Franceschina, 2004).
Formerly known as the Failed Funct ional Features Hypothesis (Hawkins & Chan, 1997)
and mot ivated by the results of a study by Smith and Tsimpli (1995), this hypothesis
proposes a crit ical period for SLA in that if a subset of features (specifically
uninterpretable syntact ic features) is not activated during primary language acquisit io n and
thereby instant iated in the L1, L2 learners will never fully acquire them. In other words,
L2 learners are “stuck” with their L1 grammar (at least as far as formal features are
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
October-December, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org Page | 139
International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies Vol:1, Issue: 3
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition……………..
Khodabandeh, F.
concerned), and they will not be able to acquire those formal features that have not been
exemplified in their L1.
Wit h respect to L3 acquisit ion, the assumpt ion is that the FT/PA would predict full
transfer of the L1; that is, even if the L3 features are additionally present in the L2, the
init ial state will be L1 (end-state) grammar and hence the features will remain unacquirable (Leung, 2002).
1.3.2. Full Transfer/Full Access (FT/FA)
Init ially proposed by Schwartz and Sprouse (1996), this again proposes an init ial state
grammar of the ent ire L1 end-state grammar, but differs fro m the above proposal in that it
assumes full access to UG properties, including those which are not instant iated in the L1
grammar. The predict ion here is that the end-state L2 grammar may not necessarily be
target-like but it will be UG-constrained.
In relat ion to L3 acquisit io n, this proposal would predict full transfer of eit her L1 or L2
grammars, proposing that the init ial state L3 grammar is not necessarily constrained so lely
by the L1 (Flynn, Fo ley, & Vinnitskaya, 2004).
The approach taken this research is a generat ive one within the framework of UG. Much
of the earlier research referred to within this study assumes a Principles and Parameters
UG framework, as proposed by Cho msky (1981; 1986) and such an approach will be
assumed in the current study. However, the assumpt ions made in this research may be
considered to be within the minimalist spirit, as proposed in the Minimalist Program by
Cho msky (1995). The current study examines the UG properties of ordering of nouns and
adject ives.
1.4 Bilingual Studies
1.4.1 Background
Alt hough the study o f adult additive mult ilingualism or L3/Ln acquisit io n has been the
subject of a considerable amount of research from several cognit ive/psycho linguist ic
perspectives for well over two decades (Cenoz, 2001), prior to the turn of the millenniu m
there was a noticeable paucit y o f generat ive based L3/Ln research (Klein, 1995). While
this has changed in recent years (Leung 2005; 2006; 2007a; 2007b; Bardel & Falk, 2007;
Jaensch, 2008), such studies comprise an infinitesimal part of all generative studies
investigat ing adult non-primary acquisit io n.
Despite the fact that generative L3 acquisit io n as a subfield proper is still in its infancy,
much o f the work that has been done to this po int has significant implicat ions for future
research, especially those programs working to ultimately determine the role o f previous
linguist ic knowledge in the acquisit io n of non-primary languages in adult hood and how
this informs acquis it ion hypotheses and theories of the mental constitution of language and
human cognit ion. We investigate this question – determining the source and role of
transfer when there is more than one linguist ic system available for transfer – in the
present study. In light of this, this sect ion reviews the generat ive L3 studies which have
relevance to the current study.
1.5. Previous L3 research
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
October-December, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org Page | 140
International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies Vol:1, Issue: 3
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition……………..
Khodabandeh, F.
As the current research will test UG properties in the L3 acquisit io n o f English, the
findings fro m so me previous L3 or mult ilingual studies observing the acquisit io n of
specific properties will be discussed in this sect ion.
An important contribut ion to target language aquisit io n studies was made by Klein’s
(1995) study of mo no- and mult ilingual participants. She looked at the acquisit io n o f
specific properties in both lexical learning and syntact ic learning. Grammat icalit y
judgment and correction tasks were administered orally and in written form to a group of
17 L2 learners and a group of 15 mult ilingual high school learners of English. The
previous languages o f the mult ilinguals varied but all of the prior languages were similar
to English in the manner in which wh-quest ions are formed and furthermore none o f the
previous languages allowed preposit ion stranding. The participants had to make judgments
about a series of sentences fro m which the preposit ion had been o mitted. If deemed
ungrammat ical they had to correct the sentences but were not told how. Both groups of
learners made the same t ypes o f errors, which Klein interpreted as both taking the same
route leading to the acquisit io n of this parameter; however, the rate at which each group
progressed was significant ly different. The mult ilinguals significant ly outperformed the
mo no linguals both in correct sub-categorizations and in preposit ion stranding, from which
the author concluded that the attitude to learning, heightened metalinguist ic skills,
enhanced lexical knowledge and cognit ive skills of mult ilinguals are all advantageous in
triggering the setting of UG parameters.
Flynn, Fo ley and Vinnitskaya (2004) looked at the acquisit io n of relat ive clauses in L3
English by adults and children, with L1 Kazakh and L2 Russian of low, mid and high
proficiencies in English. The researchers compared the results obtained in this study wit h
those of an earlier study, which looked at the acquisit io n of L2 English by Japanese and
Spanish speakers. It was surmised that if the L1 holds a privileged role in the acquisit io n
of subsequent languages and only t ypo logical differences determine the pattern of
development, then the L3 learners should pattern with the Japanese o f the previous study
(since the head direction is the same). However, if the L1 does not hold a privileged ro le,
the predict ion for the L3 learners learning an L3 with a Co mplement izer Phrase (CP)
different to the L1, but consistent with the L2, is a pattern of acquisit io n matching that of
the Spanish L2 learners. Result s showed the nat ive Kazakh speakers contrasting strongly
with the Japanese speakers, patterning instead with the Spanish speakers. The authors
concluded that the L1 does not appear to hold a privileged role in the acquis it ion o f
subsequent languages, as the L3 learners demo nstrated that prior CP development was a
posit ive influence in the acquisit io n of the CP structure in English.
Moreover, Leung(2003) invest igates the acquisit io n o f the formal features associated with
the functional category of T(tense), namely, Finiteness, agreement and [+-past] in French
as L3 vs. L2 by Cantonese- English bilinguals and Vietnamese mo no linguals. Extending
the predict ions o f the two current L2A co mpet ing models namely, the Failed Feature
Hypothesis (FFH) and the Full Transfer Full Access (FTFA) to L3A. In general, the
results on the L3 experimental group have supported the presence of the L2 English steady
state in the L3 French init ial state. The data are inconsistent with FFH which predicted the
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
October-December, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org Page | 141
International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies Vol:1, Issue: 3
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition……………..
Khodabandeh, F.
L3 French init ial state to be L1 Chinese. Actually, the findings supported FTFA
hypothesis instead, which has predicted the possibilit y o f L2 effect: verbal features,
though absent in L1 Chinese, were acquired in the L2 English acquis it ion process and
these successfully facilitate acquisit io n in the L3 French init ial state. To sum up, L2
group’s performance was significant ly poorer than that of the L3 group especially wit h
respect to agreement features. It is argued that this is because the L3 group has acquired
the relevant properties in English (their L2) which aids the subsequent acquisit ion of
French (the L3) right at the onset; the L2 subjects, on the other hand , do not benefit fro m
this advantage because they have not acquired English as an L2 previously. This borne out
the author’s claim that L3 is different fro m L2A at least as far as the init ial state is
concerned.
Shooshtari (2009) invest igated the acquisit io n of two syntactic properties of head and
operator movements in English by L2 and L3 learners within UG framework. The
participants consisted o f 144 Persian mo no lingual and Arabic-Persian bilingual learners of
English who were assigned to three proficiency bands after taking the general proficiency
test (ECPE). The results showed no significant difference between the performance of
mo no linguals and bilinguals at each level o f proficiency. Nonetheless, significant
differences were found across the levels o f proficiency. The overall result s of the study led
to the conclusio n that bilingualis m presents no significant advantage in third language
acquisit ion. Of course, in so me cases the bilingual learners performed higher than the
mo no lingual ones but not significant ly. This means that the bilingual learners did not take
full advantage of their dist inct language background as their performance did not outweigh
that of the mono lingual learners.
As stated by Leung (2003), there are few co mparative studies that have invest igated
different combinat ions o f source/target languages wit h respect to some grammat ical
property to find out about the route of L3 development within a generat ive framework.
Accordingly, it seems worthwhile to pursue generative L3A further by looking at other
syntactic properties across different L3 populations.
1.6 Linguistic assumptions
Comparison of English, Azerbaijani, Armenian, Gilaki and Persian adjective order
1.6.1 English
In English, a noun phrase (abbreviated NP) is a phrase whose head is a noun or a
pronoun, optionally acco mpanied by a set of modifiers. Possible modifiers include:
determiners, adjectives, and modifiers which are placed before the noun.
Examples:
The red ball
Two beautiful ladies
1.6.2. Persian
In Persian language the head Noun is fo llowed by the modifiers, which usually consist of
an Adject ival Phrase (AP) construction. There can be several modifiers in a Noun Phrase.
The elements preceding the head noun are the determiner, the numeral constructions and
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
October-December, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org Page | 142
International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies Vol:1, Issue: 3
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition……………..
Khodabandeh, F.
the quant ifiers. Although adject ives always fo llow the noun, the superlat ive adject ive can
only appear before the head.
Examples:
Ketab-e kohneh
Old book
Ketabhayeh kohneh
Old books
1.6.3. Armenian
The Armenian language is an Indo-European language spoken by the Armenian people. It
is the o fficial language o f the Republic of Armenian. The language is widely spoken by
Armenian communit y living in Julfa, the Armenian quarter of Isfahan, Iran.
In Armenian language, adject ive precedes noun:
Examples:
Hin girke (հին գիրք)
Old book
Yerko hin girker
Two old books
Ice yerko hin girker
These two old books
1.6.4. Azerbaijani
Azerbaijani or Torki is a language belo nging to the Turkic language family, spoken in
southwestern Asia, primarily in Azerbaijan and northwestern Iran. Azerbaijani is
member o f the Oghuz branch o f the Turkic languages and is clo sely related to
Azerbaijani, Qashqai and Turkmen.
Azerbaijani is a very adject ival language. At a low level the adject ive always preceded its
noun, as in English.
Example: Turkish: bijah Ghara sichan
English: a black mouse
Persian: yek mooshe siyah (a mouse black)
1.6.5. Gilaki
The Gilaki language is an ancient and living Caspian language, and a member o f the
northwestern Iranian language branch, spoken in Iran's Mazanderan and Gilan Provinces.
There are some grammat ical differences between Gilaki and standard Persian, especially
in possessive and adject ives. Unlike Persian, most possessives and adjectives precede the
head noun, similar to English. In Gilaki, the modifier precedes the noun and the Ezafe
vowel is not used. The examples are as fo llows:
ābi-xodkār (Gilaki) vs. xodkār-e ābi (Standard Persian)
blue-pen pen-Ez blue
“blue pen” “blue pen”
More examples:
Kehneh ketab
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
October-December, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org Page | 143
International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies Vol:1, Issue: 3
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition……………..
Khodabandeh, F.
An Old book
Kehneh ketabha
Old books
As can be seen in the above examples, English, Gilaki, Armenian, and Azerbaijani have
the same adjective structure, in all o f them adjectives precede nouns, on the contrary in
Persian, nouns come before the adject ives.
1.7 The present study
Based on the theoretical framework presented in the previous sect ions and the parametric
similarit ies and differences amo ng the 5 languages of Persian, Turkish, Gilaki, Armenian
and English as the target language, the present study addresses the fo llowing questions:
 Do Persian mo no lingual and Azerbaijani-Persian bilinguals perform similarly
according to FAFT or different ly as predicted by FFFH in the formation o f
adject ive order due to the effect of their L1?
 Do Persian mono lingual and Gilaki-Persian bilinguals perform similarly according
to FAFT or different ly as predicted by FFFH in the format ion o f adject ive order
due to the effect of their L1?
 Do Persian mo nolingual and Armenian-Persian bilinguals perform similarly
according to FAFT or different ly as predicted by FFFH in the formation o f
adject ive order due to the effect of their L1?
To give logical answers to these quest ions, it is hypothesized:
FFFH hypothesizes that Azerbaijani, as L1, is a significant (or even more influential)
source language of transfer in t he acquis it ion of adject ive. As Turkish and English are
similar, posit ive transfer is expected to lead to the production of the correct English form.
FFFH hypothesizes that Gilaki, as L1, is a significant (or even more influent ial) source
language o f transfer in the acquis it ion o f adjective. As Gilaki and English are similar,
posit ive transfer is expected to lead to the production of the correct English form.
FFFH hypothesizes that Armenia, as L1, is a significant (or even more influent ial) source
language of transfer in the acquisit io n o f adjective. As Armenia and English are similar,
posit ive transfer is expected to lead to the production of the correct English form.
2. Data Collection and Analysis
2.1 Subjects and Tasks
The part icipants of this study were the Persian mono linguals and three groups of L3
learners of English namely Azerbaijani – Persian, Armenian –Persian and Gilaki- Persian
bilinguals. Two guidance schools were chosen rando mly for each group. The Azerbaijani
– Persian bilingual subjects were chosen fro m amo ng guidance schools in Ardebil (an
Azerbaijani speaking cit y in Iran), the Armenian – Persian subjects were selected fro m the
Armenian guidance school in Julfa, Isfahan (an Armenian speaking quarter in Iran), and
the Gilaki-Persian bilingual subjects were chosen fro m amo ng guidance schools in Rasht
(a Gilaki speaking cit y in Iran). As regards, the second group consisted of mono lingua l
Persian speakers residing in Isfahan (a Persian-speaking cit y in Iran), with no Azerbaijani,
Armenian and Gilaki knowledge.
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
October-December, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org Page | 144
International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies Vol:1, Issue: 3
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition……………..
Khodabandeh, F.
The subjects of all groups were low-intermediate students who were beginning learners of
English. The subjects were chosen fro m amo ng female guidance schools to control sex as
a variable. The participants in all groups were ho mogeneous in terms o f the socioeducational context, type of schools attended by each group, methodology used at school,
number of hours devoted to the teaching o f English, and the age o f the participants. It
needs to be added that the educat ional system in Iran is centralized; therefore the
textbooks and methodology for teaching English as a foreign language are the same
nat ionwide.
After select ing the schools, a general English test was administered among both Persian
mo no linguals and Azerbaijani – Persian, Armenian –Persian and Gilaki- Persian bilingual
students in order to get a homogeneous group. The mean and the standard deviat ion of the
subjects’ test scores were used as the criterion for their select ion. Students who had scored
‘mean- ±-one’ standard deviat ion (µ±σ) were chosen. A total of 64 Persian mono linguals,
44 Azerbaijani-Persian, 41 Gilaki-Persian, and 41 Armenian-Persian bilinguals were
selected.
It should be noted that a brief oral interview was conducted to check on the language
background o f Azerbaijani – Persian, Armenian –Persian and Gilaki- Persian bilinguals.
This interview helped the selection o f those bilingual learners who were raised in a
linguist ic co mmunit y where both parents were Azerbaijani for Azeri students, Armenian
for Armani students and Gilaki for Gilaki subjects and they used their mother tongue
among family and local linguist ic co mmunit y members.
At the end, to all groups, an English test was administered. Their performances in the task
and the mean score were compared. A T-test was conducted to test whether there was the
significant difference between the mean scores.
2.2. Procedure
Experimental tasks
A test which was consisted of 45quest ions was provided. The quest ions o f the test that
were used in the experiment are as fo llows: a sentence co mplet ion task with 10 items, a
true/false test with 10 items as well as a translat ion task with 15 items. Hence the
maximum total possible score was 35.
The quest ions just tested the students' knowledge of the order of adject ives, its posit ion
before the noun (like Azerbaijani, Armenian, Gilaki and English) or after the noun (like
Persian). My intent ion was to ascertain whether the role o f Azerbaijani, Armenian, and
Gilaki as L1was prominent in learning English L3 in terms o f place of adjectives.
Details o f each quest ion are as follows:
2.2.1 Sentence completion on use of adjectives
The first elicited written production task was a sentence complet ion task. The test items
were written in such a way that it would test students' knowledge o f adjective order. There
were a total of 10 test items. An example task is shown in (1) below:
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
October-December, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org Page | 145
International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies Vol:1, Issue: 3
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition……………..
Khodabandeh, F.
He is a……………………………………………..
2.2.2 True/false test
The second type of test to be reported in this paper is a grammat icalit y preference task.
The task invo lves pairs o f sentences; subjects were to decide whether the structure is
correct or not. There were 10 items on this kind of test. An example is given below:
She has a bag white. True/false
2.2.3 Translation test
The last kind o f quest ions were translat ion ones. 15 sentences in students' L1 were given
to them and they were asked to translate them in English. Here are the examples:
‫( ﻣﯿﻨﺎ ﻧﯿﻦ ﺑﯿﺮدﻧﮫ ﮔﯿﺮﻣﺰي ﻣﺎﺷﯿﻨﯽ وار‬Azerbaijani sentence)
(Mina has a red car.)
.‫(ﻣﯿﻨﺎ ﯾﮏ ﻣﺎﺷﯿﻦ ﻗﺮﻣﺰ دارد‬Persian sentence,)
(Mina has a red car.)
.‫(ﻣﯿﻨﺎ اﯾﺘﺎ ﻗﺮﻣﺰ ﻣﺎﺷﯿﻦ دره‬Gilaki sentence)
(Mina has a red car.)
Մինան մի կարմիր մեքենայ ուն (Armenian sentence) (Mina has a red car.)
The quest ionnaire is reproduced in the Appendix.
3. Results
This study aimed at comparing the performance of Azerbaijani – Persian, Armenian –
Persian and Gilaki- Persian bilingual groups of low-intermediate students with that of a
Persian mo nolingual group on a grammat ical test.
In order to see whether there was a difference between the groups a test which had 35
questions was given to the both groups. The test consisted of three parts, the first part,
sentence co mplet ion, the second part, true/false and the third part was translation test. The
results of the question test are as fo llows:
3.1. The comparison of Azerbaijani and Persian students at the first level of the exam
'sentence completion'
An independent samples t-test was performed to compare the mean scores of the two
groups.
Table : 3.1.1 Group Statistics
Std.
nat ionalit y
N
Mean
Deviat ion
Std. Error Mean
complete
Persian
64
3. 6563
2. 96658
. 37082
Azerbaijani
44
7. 1818
2. 92760
. 44135
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
October-December, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org Page | 146
International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies Vol:1, Issue: 3
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition……………..
Khodabandeh, F.
From the descript ive statistics o f the two groups, it can be seen that the mean of the
''Azerbaijani" group (7.19) is higher than that of the "Persian" group (3.65) in the sentence
complet ion part. That is, Bilingual students performed better than the mono lingual group.
Table : 3.1.2 Independent Sample Test
Levene's
test
for
Equality of
Variances
F
Comp
lete
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
099
t-test for Equality of Means
df
Sig.(
2tailed
)
Mean
differen
ce
Std.
Error
Differen
ce
95% Confidence
Interval of the
difference
Lower
Upper
6. 101
106
. 000
-3.52557
. 57788
4.67128
2.37986
6. 116
93. 37
8
. 000
-3.52557
. 57646
4.67023
2.38090
Sig.
. 753
t
The independent samples t-test in Table 3.1.2 reveals that the crit ical value for t at 0.05
significance or 95% significant is t (106) = -6.101 and p<0.00. Since –6.101 is less than
0.00, the result shows that the bilingual group has performed higher compared to the
mo no lingual group, in other words in the sentence complet ion part, the scores of the
bilingual group are more than the mono lingual group.
3.2. The comparison of Azerbaijani and Persian students at the second level of the
exam 'true/false'
Table: 3.2.1 Group Statistics
true
nationality
Persian
Azerbaijani
N
64
41
Std.
Deviation
1.71102
1.05171
Mean
8. 3438
9. 5122
Std. Error Mean
. 21388
. 16425
As the Table 3.2.1 shows, the mean o f the ''Azerbaijani" group (9.52) is higher than that of
the "Persian" group (8.34) in the true/false part. That is, Bilingual students performed
better than the mono lingual group.
Table: 3.2.2 Independent Sample Test
Levene's test
for Equality of
Variances
Complete
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
t-test for Equality of Means
Mean
difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
difference
Lower
Upper
F
Sig.
t
df
Sig.(2tailed)
17. 538
. 000
3. 920
103
. 000
-1.16845
. 29806
1.75958
. 57731
-
102.869
. 000
-1.16845
. 26967
-
-
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
October-December, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org Page | 147
International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies Vol:1, Issue: 3
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition……………..
variances
not
assumed
Khodabandeh, F.
4. 333
1.70328
. 63361
As the Table 3.2.2 shows the p value of the test is .000 which is less than the level of
significance 0.05. It indicates that in the true/false part, the scores of the bilingual group is
above than the mo no lingual group, in other words the students who were familiar with
Azerbaijani language performed better.
3.3. The comparison of Azerbaijani and Persian students at the third level of the
exam 'translation'
Table: 3.3.1 Group Statistics
translat ion
nationality
Persian
N
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
64
9. 8594
5.67609
. 70951
Azerbaijani
44
12.7045
4.19068
. 63177
Fro m the Table 3.3.1, it can be seen that the mean of the ''Azerbaijani" group (12.70) is
higher than that of the "Persian" group (9.8594) in the translat ion part. That is, Bilingua l
students performed better than the mono lingual group.
Table: 3.3.2
Levene's test
for Equality of
Variances
translation
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
t-test for Equality of Means
F
Sig.
t
df
Sig.(2tailed)
Mean
difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
difference
Lower
Upper
18. 281
. 000
2. 834
106
. 005
-2.84517
1.00380
4.83530
. 85504
2. 995
105.415
. 003
-2.84517
. 95002
4.72880
. 96154
The result s indicate that there was a significant difference in performance between
bilingual and mo nolingual groups, t (106) = -2.834, p = .005. Because the p-value is less
than the test score, so in the translat ion part, the scores of the bilingual group is more than
the mono lingual group, that is, the average performance score of bilinguals (M = 12.70,
SD = 4.19 was significant ly different from that of mono lingual group (M = 9.86, SD =
5. 68) .
3.4. The comparison of Azerbaijani and Persian students at the whole test
Table: 3.4.1 Group Statistics
Test
nationality
Persian
Azerbaijani
N
64
44
Mean
21.8594
27.6591
Std. Deviation
8.56139
8.92590
Std. Error Mean
1.07017
1.34563
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
October-December, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org Page | 148
International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies Vol:1, Issue: 3
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition……………..
Khodabandeh, F.
Table: 3.4.2 Independent Sample Test
Levene's test
for Equality t-test for Equality of Means
of Variances
translation
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Mean
difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
difference
Lower
Upper
F
Sig.
t
df
Sig.(2tailed)
.302
. 584
3. 400
106
. 001
-5.79972
1.70598
9.18194
2.41749
3. 373
90. 017
. 001
-5.79972
1.71930
9.21540
2.38403
A t-test was used to compare the differences in the performance o f bilingual and
mo no lingual groups on the English adject ive order test. On average, Azerbaijani students
(M = 27.65, SD = 8.92) got better results than Persian students (M = 21.85, SD = 8.57).
This difference was statistically significant, t(106) = -3.400, p < .001), indicat ing that the
bilingual students outperformed mono lingual students.
As the results show, L1 Azerbaijani speakers applied the Azerbaijani rule to English
sentences, leading to the production of the correct English form. The analysis revealed that
Azerbaijani, the participants’ L1, is by far the main source of influence on the English
(L3) for the experimental group. So, this finding seems to be in accordance wit h the
predict ions o f (FFFH) hypothesis where L1 transfer being hypothesized. L3 learners
performed significant ly higher than L2 learners as their interlanguage grammar seemed to
reflect more of the parameter values of their L1, Azerbaijani.
3.5. The comparison of Armenian and Persian students at the first level of the exam
'sentence completion'
An independent samples t-test was performed to compare the mean scores of the two
groups.
Table: 3.5.1 Group Statistics
complete
nationality
Persian
Armenian
N
64
41
Mean
3. 6563
8. 4390
Std. Deviation
2.96658
2.31353
Std. Error
Mean
. 37082
. 36131
From the descript ive statistics o f the two groups, it can be seen that the mean of the
''Armenian" group (8.44) is higher than that of the "Persian" group (3.65) in the sentence
complet ion part. That is, Bilingual students performed better than the mono lingual group.
Table: 3.5.2 Independent Sample Test
Levene's test
for Equality
of Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F
t
Sig.
df
Sig.(2tailed)
Mean
difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
October-December, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org Page | 149
International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies Vol:1, Issue: 3
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition……………..
Khodabandeh, F.
difference
Lower
Upper
Complete
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
3. 629
. 000
8. 753
103
. 000
-4.78277
. 54642
5.86647
3.69908
9. 238
98. 945 . 000
-4.78277
. 51774
5.81009
3.75546
The independent samples t-test in Table 3.5.2 reveals that the crit ical value for t at 0.05
significance or 95% significant is t (103) = -8.753 and p<0.05. Since –8.753 is less than
0.05, the result shows that the bilingual group has performed higher compared to the
mo no lingual group, in other words in the sentence complet ion part, the scores of the
bilingual group are more than the mono lingual group.
3.6. The comparison of Armenian and Persian students at the second level of the
exam 'true/false'
Table: 3.6.1 Group Statistics
true
nationality
Persian
Armenian
N
64
41
Mean
8. 3438
9. 5122
Std. Deviation
1.71102
1.05171
Std. Error Mean
. 21388
. 16425
As the Table 3.6.1 shows, the mean of the ''Armenian" group (9.52) is higher than that of
the "Persian" group (8.34) in the true/false part. That is, Bilingual students performed
better than the mono lingual group.
Table: 3.6.2 Independent Sample Test
Levene's test
for Equality of
Variances
Complete
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
t-test for Equality of Means
Mean
difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
difference
Lower
Upper
F
Sig.
t
df
Sig.(2tailed)
17. 538
. 000
3. 920
103
. 000
-1.16845
. 29806
1.75958
. 57731
4. 333
102.869
. 000
-1.16845
. 26967
1.70328
. 63361
As the Table 3.6.2 shows the p value of the test is .000 which is less than the level of
significance 0.05. It indicates that in the true/false part, the scores of the bilingual group is
above than the mo no lingual group, in other words the students who were familiar with
Armenian language performed better.
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
October-December, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org Page | 150
International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies Vol:1, Issue: 3
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition……………..
Khodabandeh, F.
3.7. The comparison of Armenian and Persian students at the third level of the exam
'translation'
Table: 3.7.1 Group Statistics
translation
nationality
Persian
Armenian
N
64
41
Mean
9. 8594
13.8780
Std. Deviation
5.67609
2.28249
Std. Error
Mean
. 70951
. 35646
Fro m the Table 3.7.1, it can be seen that the mean o f the ''Armenian" group (13.88) is
higher than that of the "Persian" group (9.8594) in the translat ion part. That is, Bilingua l
students performed better than the mono lingual group.
Table: 3.7.2
Levene's test
for Equality
of Variances
translation
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
t-test for Equality of Means
Mean
difference
Std. Error
Difference
95%
Confidence
Interval
of
th e
difference
Lower
Upper
F
Sig.
t
df
Sig.(2tailed)
71. 735
. 000
4. 310
103
. 000
-4.01867
. 93247
5.86801
. 2. 16933
5. 061
89. 806 . 000
-4.01867
. 79402
5.59619
2. 44116
The result s indicate that there was a significant difference in performance between
bilingual and mo no lingual groups, t (103) = -4.75, p = .000. Because the p-value is less
than the test score, so in the translat ion part, the scores of the bilingual group is more than
the mono lingual group, that is, the average performance score of bilinguals (M = 13.87,
SD = 2.28 was significant ly different from that of mono lingual group (M = 9.86, SD =
5. 68) .
3.8. The comparison of Armenian and Persian students at the whole test
Table:3.8.1 Group Statistics
Test
nationality
Persian
Armenian
N
64
41
Mean
21.8594
31.0244
Std. Deviation
8.56139
4.12000
Std. Error
Mean
1.07017
. 64344
Table: 3.8.2 Independent Sample Test
Levene's test
for Equality t-test for Equality of Means
of Variances
F
Sig.
t
df
Sig.(2tailed)
Mean
difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
difference
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
October-December, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org Page | 151
International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies Vol:1, Issue: 3
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition……………..
Khodabandeh, F.
Lower
translation
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
27. 113
. 000
Upper
6. 834
103
. 000
-9.98989
1.45877
12.8630
.7.07677
7. 716
100.659
. 000
-9.98989
1.29211
12.5331
7.40659
A t-test was used to compare the differences in the performance o f bilingual and
mo no lingual groups on the English adject ive order test. On average, Armenian students
(M = 31.03, SD = 4.12) got better results than Persian students (M = 21.85, SD = 8.57).
This difference was statist ically significant, t(103) = -6.389, p < .05), indicat ing that the
bilingual students outperformed mono lingual students.
As the results show, L1 Armenian speakers applied the Armenian rule to English
sentences, leading to the production of the correct English form. The analysis revealed that
Armenian, the participants’ L1, is by far the main source of influence on the English (L3)
for the experimental group. So, this finding seems to be in accordance with the predict ions
of (FFFH) hypothesis where L1 transfer being hypothesized. L3 learners performed
significant ly higher than L2 learners as their int erlanguage grammar seemed to reflect
more of the parameter values of their L1, Armenian.
3.9. The comparison of Gilaki and Persian students at the first level of the exam
'sentence completion'
An independent samples t-test was performed to compare the mean scores of the two
groups.
Table:: 3.9.1 Group Statistics
Complete the sentences
nationality
Persian
Gilaki
N
64
41
Mean
3. 6563
7. 8537
Std. Error
Mean
. 37082
. 38975
Std. Deviation
2.96658
2.49561
From the descript ive statistics o f the two groups, it can be seen that the mean of the
''Gilaki" group (7.85) is higher than that of the "Persian" group (3.65) in the sentence
complet ion part. That is, Bilingual students performed better than the mono lingual group.
Table : 3.9.2 Independent Sample Test
Levene's test
for Equality
of Variances
Complete
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
t-test for Equality of Means
Mean
difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
difference
Lower
Upper
F
Sig.
t
df
Sig.(2tailed)
1. 577
. 212
7. 512
103
. 000
-4.19741
. 55873
5.30552
3.08930
-
95. 506 . 000
-4.19741
. 53797
-
-
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
October-December, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org Page | 152
International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies Vol:1, Issue: 3
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition……………..
variances
not
assumed
Khodabandeh, F.
7. 802
5.26534
3.12947
The independent samples t-test in Table 3.9.2 reveals that the crit ical value for t at 0.05
significance or 95% significant is t (103) = -7.512 and p<0.05. Since –7.512 is less than
0.05, the result shows that the bilingual group has performed higher compared to the
mo no lingual group, in other words in the sentence complet ion part, the scores of the
bilingual group are more than the mono lingual group.
3.10. The comparison of Gilaki and Persian students at the second level of the exam
'true/false'
Table: 3.10.1 Group Statistics
t r ue
nationality
Persian
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
64
8. 3438
1.71102
. 21388
Gilaki
41
9. 0000
1.53297
. 23941
As the Table 3.10.1 shows, the mean of the ''Gilaki" group (9) is higher than that of the
"Persian" group (8.34) in the true/false part. That is, Bilingual students performed better
than the mono lingual group.
Table: 3.10.2 Independent Sample Test
Levene's test
for Equality of
Variances
Complete
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
t-test for Equality of Means
Mean
Std. Error
difference Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
difference
Lower
Upper
F
Sig.
t
df
Sig.(2tailed)
3. 142
. 079
1. 995
103
. 049
-.65825
. 32890
1.30854
. 00398
2. 044
92. 084
. 044
-.65625
. 32103
1.29384
. 01866
As the Table 3.10.2 shows the p value of the test is .049 which is less than the level of
significance 0.05. It indicates that in the true/false part, the scores of the bilingual group is
above than the mo no lingual group, in other words the students who were familiar with
Gilaki language performed better.
3.11. The comparison of Gilaki and Persian students at the third level of the exam
'translation'
Table: 3.11.1 Group Statistics
translation
nationality
Persian
Gilaki
N
64
41
Mean
9. 8594
14.1707
Std. Deviation
5.67609
1.44745
Std. Error
Mean
. 70951
. 22605
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
October-December, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org Page | 153
International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies Vol:1, Issue: 3
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition……………..
Khodabandeh, F.
From the Table 3.11.1, it can be seen that the mean of the ''Gilaki" group (14.1705) is
higher than that of the "Persian" group (9.8594) in the translat ion part. That is, Bilingua l
students performed better than the mono lingual group.
Table 3.11.2 Independent Sample Test
Levene's test
for Equality of
Variances
Complete
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
t-test for Equality of Means
Mean
difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
difference
Lower
Upper
F
Sig.
t
df
Sig.(2tailed)
106.360
. 000
4. 758
103
. 000
-4.31138
. 90615
6.10849
.2.51423
5. 790
75. 219
. 000
-4.31138
. 74465
5.79471
2.82800
The result s indicate that there was a significant difference in performance between
bilingual and mo no lingual groups, t (103) = -4.75, p = .000. Because the p-value is less
than the test score, so in the translat ion part, the scores of the bilingual group is more than
the mono lingual group, that is, the average performance score of bilinguals (M = 14.18,
SD = 1.45 was significant ly different from that of mono lingual group (M = 9.86, SD =
5. 68) .
3.12. The comparison of Gilaki and Persian students at the whole test
Table: 3.12.1 Group Statistics
Test
nationality
Persian
Gilaki
N
64
41
Mean
21.8594
31.0244
Std. Deviation
8.56139
4.12000
Std. Error
Mean
1.07017
. 64344
Table 3.12.2 Independent Sample Test
Com
plete
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed
Levene's test for
Equality
of
Varia nces
t-test for Equality of Means
F
Sig.
t
df
Sig.(2 tailed)
Mea n
differ ence
Std.
Err or
Differ ence
95% Confidence Inter val of the
differ ence
Lower
Upper
28.838
.000
-6.389
103
.000
-9.16502
1.43449
-12.0099
-6.32004
-7.340
98.84
8
.000
-9.16502
1.24871
-11.6434
-6.68662
A t-test was used to compare the differences in the performance o f bilingual and
mo no lingual groups on the English adject ive order test. On average, Gilaki students (M =
31.03, SD = 4.12) got better results than Persian students (M = 21.85, SD = 8.57). This
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
October-December, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org Page | 154
International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies Vol:1, Issue: 3
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition……………..
Khodabandeh, F.
difference was statist ically significant, t(103) = -6.389, p < .05), indicat ing that the
bilingual students outperformed mono lingual students.
As the results show, L1 Gilaki speakers applied the Gilaki rule to English sentences,
leading to the production o f the correct English form. The analysis revealed that Gilaki,
the participants’ L1, is by far the main source of influence on the English (L3) for the
experimental group. So, this finding seems to be in accordance wit h the predict ions o f
(FFFH) hypothesis where L1 transfer being hypothesized. L3 learners performed
significant ly higher than L2 learners as their int erlanguage grammar seemed to reflect
more of the parameter values of their L1, Gilaki.
4. Discussion
Ellis (1994) mentions that in so me cases, the learner’s L1 can facilitate L2 acquisit io n.
This t ype o f effect is known as “posit ive transfer”. Selinker (1972) also reconceptualized
transfer within a cognit ive framework. He claims that learners do not construct rules in a
vacuum; rather they work with whatever information is at their disposal. This includes
knowledge of their L1. The L1 can be viewed as a kind o f “input” fro m the inside.
Learners draw on their L1 in forming interlanguage hypothesis. According to this view,
transfer is not “interference”, but a cognitive process.
One relevant factor which should be mentioned is Kellerman’s (1983) psychotypo logy,
which considers language transfer as a conscious process based on the learner’s percept ion
of language typo logy between the source language and the target language and his/her
linguist ic awareness o f particular features. That is, if the two languages are perceived as
similar, transfer will more likely occur, whereas a perceived dissimilarit y will tend to lead
to avoidance.
In our case of acquisit io n o f the adject ive order, the results showed a significant difference
between the bilingual groups (Azerbaijani – Persian, Armenian –Persian and GilakiPersian bilinguals learning English) and the monolingual group (Persian L1 speakers
learning English). As the background quest ionnaire results showed, over 90% of the
students transferred from their L1 Azerbaijani, Armenian and Gilaki due to the similarit y
in these languages and English.
To be more concrete, in the first place, the overall results of tasks revealed that at each
level o f the test, the bilingual and mo no lingual learners performed significant ly different
fro m each other. That is to say, at the first level of the test "sentence co mplet ion" the L3
and L2 learners performed differently fro m each other. This finding supports the
predict ion of FFFH model which claims that L2 learners have access only to those
funct ional features instant iated in their L1. The extension of this claim to L3/Ln situat ion
implies that the L1 steady state partially affects the L3/Ln interlanguage patterns in case
the L1 and subsequent languages share the same parameters. It shows that L1 had an
exclusive role in the acquis it ion o f language(s) other than the first, the Azerbaijani –
Persian, Armenian –Persian and Gilaki- Persian bilinguals outperformed their mo no lingua l
counterparts as the formers enjo y a first language background which is part ly similar to
English in the formation of adject ive order.
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
October-December, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org Page | 155
International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies Vol:1, Issue: 3
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition……………..
Khodabandeh, F.
The same results also showed that at the second and third levels, the bilingual and
mo no lingual learners performed different ly. These findings highlight that the
interlanguage patterns o f the L3 learners beyo nd the init ial state are significantly different
fro m the L2 learners’ grammar with respect to the adject ive order.
As the results o f the study show the mono lingual group’s performance (Persian nat ive
speakers learning English as L2) was significant ly poorer than that of the L3 group
(Azerbaijani – Persian, Armenian –Persian and Gilaki- Persian bilinguals, learning Englis h
as L3). We argue that this is because the L3 groups have acquired the relevant properties
in their L1s which aid the subsequent acquisit ion of English (the L3) right at the outset;
the L2 subjects, on the other hand, do not have this advantage.
What we have found was that the results obtained using the written translat ion tests with
mo no lingual and bilingual learners of English are compat ible wit h FFFH theory but failed
to support the FAFT stand po int. The main justificat ion for this claim turns to be the
overall finding that Azerbaijani – Persian, Armenian –Persian and Gilaki- Persian
bilinguals outperformed significant ly their mo no lingual counterparts.
5. Conclusion
In this paper it is argued that bilingualism can have certain advantages for the individual.
Bilingual students would achieve better results in their foreign language studies compared
to mono lingual students.
Judging by the overall results, the bilingual group did perform better in the exercises than
the monolingual group. With the test the bilinguals’ scores were higher in all parts of the
test, and thus also in the total. As we see, the bilingual group outperformed better than the
mo no lingual group. In other words, those who were familiar wit h the second language
performed better.
It can be concluded that posit ive transfer can simplify the process o f acquisit io n of Englis h
for Azerbaijani – Persian, Armenian –Persian and Gilaki- Persian speakers. Regardless o f
the prevalence o f similarit ies or differences between the languages, a person’s knowledge
of his nat ive language direct ly impacts his acquisit io n of a second language. Knowledge of
the similarit ies and differences between Azerbaijani, Armenian, Gilaki and English is
crucial in regards to establishing connect ions between the languages and in facilitat ing
posit ive transfer from Azerbaijani, Armenian, and Gilaki to English.
Wit h regard to the role o f language background in L3A, the overall results o f the study led
to the conclusio n that bilingualism presents a significant advantage in third language
acquisit ion. In other words the bilingual learners performed higher than the mo no lingual
ones significant ly. This means that the bilingual learners took full advantage of their
dist inct language background as their performances outweighed that of the mono lingual
learners. The L3 learners benefited fro m their unique language experience at init ial state in
two ways: the privilege o f having knowledge of two separate grammar systems and the
availabilit y o f the parametric similarit y between the target language, English, and their
first language.
The L3 learners outperformed their mo no lingual counterparts due to the very fact that they
already had access to the knowledge of more than one language system which possibly
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
October-December, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org Page | 156
International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies Vol:1, Issue: 3
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition……………..
Khodabandeh, F.
results in ‘mult i co mpetence’ defined by Cook as ‘the co mpound state of a mind wit h two
grammars.’ (1992: 12). Cook’s notion o f ‘multi co mpetence’ refers to mult ilingual
linguist ic co mpetence characterized by the increased metalinguist ic awareness, greater
creativit y and cognit ive flexibilit y and more diversified mental abilit ies. The findings
ident ified a facilitat ive role for this unique knowledge in the enhancement of the L3
learners’ performance and acquisit io n processes with regard to the above-ment ioned
features.
The resent research also proves the claim t hat transfer is more likely fro m the first
language than those learned later on (Ringbo m, 2001). Furthermore, it confirms the
predict ion o f FFFH which argues for the resetting of only those parameters instant iated in
the L2/Ln learner’s L1.
To sum up, the findings of the study wit h respect to language transfer in L3A give rise to
the conclusio n that the source of cross-linguist ic influence in L3A is probably more of the
learners’ L1. The other logical conclusio n is that the bilinguals’ unique language
experience plays a facilitat ive role in the enhancement of the L3 interlanguage grammar.
Taken together, these results suggest that experience in any prior language can be drawn
upon in subsequent acquisit io n
6. Pedagogical implications
Similarit ies, or perceived similarit ies, between languages can exist to varying degrees in
languages, in grammat ical structures of sentences, in word order, tense usage, verb
inflect ions, in their pragmatics and st yle, and in the way they deal wit h quest ions and
negat ives, to name just a few, as well as in the spelling and morpho logy o f individual
words. It is important to be aware of these similarities when we are learning a language as
it is to learn the differences and in so me cases these similarit ies can be capitalized upon to
good effect.
An important implicat ion that is nonetheless borne out in our findings wit h respect to
foreign (mult iple) language learning is that, the more languages one has acquired, the
more beneficial it would be for the acquisit io n o f addit ional no n-native languages, so far
as the rate of (successful) acquisit io n is concerned.
7. Further study
This study is a limited survey conducted with a small number of samples. A larger sample
in a lo ngitudinal study could provide more informat ion on the influence o f L1 and L2
(Persian) on the acquisit io n o f English at different developmental stages. Further
investigat ion on subjects with different L1s and ident ical L2 (Persian) learning English as
L3 could give us a better understanding o f the mult ilingual mind, which will benefit
mult ilingual educat ion.
About the Author:
Farzaneh Khodabandeh is affiliated with Mobarakeh Payame Noor Universit y in Iran.
Her major areas of research interest include: ELT, TEFL and Linguist ics.
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
October-December, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org Page | 157
International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies Vol:1, Issue: 3
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition……………..
Khodabandeh, F.
Works Cited:
Ahukanna, G. W. J., Lund, N. J., & Gent ile, J. R. (1981). Inter- and intra-lingual
interference effects in learning a third language. Modern Language Journal, 65,
281- 87.
Bardel, C. & Falk, Y. (2007) "The Role of the Second Language in Third Language
Acquisit io n: The Case of Germanic syntax." Second Language Research 23, 4, p:
459- 484.
Brown, D.B. (1994). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall Regents.
Cenoz, J. (2001). The effect of linguist ic distance, L2 status and age on cross-linguist ic
influence in third language acquisit io n. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner
(eds.), Crosslinguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic
perspectives (pp. 8-20). Clevedon, UK: Mult ilingual Matters.
Cenoz, J.; Hufeisen, B.& Jessner, U. (2001) Cross-linguistic Influence in Third Language
Acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives. Bilingual Educat ion and Bilingualis m
31. Mult ilingual Matters Ltd.
Cho msky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding theory. Dordrecht: Foris.
Cho msky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.
Cho msky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cook, V. (1992). Evidence for mult i-co mpetence. Language Learning 42 (4), 557-591.
Ellis. R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford Universit y
Press.
Flynn, S., Foley, C. and Vinnitskaya, I. (2004). The cumulat ive-enhancement model for
language acquisit io n: Comparing adults’ and children’s patterns of development in
first, second and third language acquisit ion of relative clauses. International
Journal of Multilingualism 1: 1-14.
Fries, C. (1945). Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language. Ann Arbor:
Universit y of Michigan.
Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (1994). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory
Course. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gass, S. (1996). Second language acquisit io n and linguist ic theory: the role of
language transfer. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhat ia, (eds), The Handbook of Second
Language Acquisition. (pp. 317-345) San Diego: Academic Press.
Hawkins, R. & Chan, Y.-H. (1997). The partial availabilit y o f Universal Grammar in second
language acquisit io n: the ‘failed functional features hypothesis’. Second Language
Research 13: 187-226.
Hawkins, R.& Franceschina, F. (2004). Explaining the acquisit ion and non-acquit ion of
determiner-noun gender concord in French and Spanish. In The acquisition of
French in different contexts, J. Paradis and P. Prévost (eds.), 175-205. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Jaensch, C. (2008). L3 acquisit ion o f articles in German by nat ive Japanese speakers. In
Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition 9, R. Slabakova, J.
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
October-December, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org Page | 158
International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies Vol:1, Issue: 3
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition……………..
Khodabandeh, F.
Rothman, P. Kempchinsky and E. Gavruseva (eds.), 81-89. Somerville, Mass.:
Cascadilla Press.
Jorda, M.P.S. (2005) Third Language Learners: Pragmatic Function and Awareness. Second
Language Acquis it ion 12, Mult ilingual Matters Ltd.
Klein, E. C. (1995). Second versus third language acquisit ion: is there a difference?
Language Learning 45: 419-465.
Kellerman, E. (1983). Now you see it, now you don’t. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (eds.),
Language transfer in language learning (pp. 112-134). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor: Universit y o f Michigan Press.
Leung,Y.-k. I. (2002). L2 vs. L3 init ial state: Evidence from the acquisit io n of FrenchDPs
byVietnamese mo no linguals and Cantonese–English bilinguals. Proceedings of the
Second International Conference on Third Language Acquisition on Trilingualism.
Ljouwert/Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy.
Leung, Y.-k. I. (2003). Functional categories in second and third Language acquisition: a
cross linguistic study of the acquisition of English and French by Chinese and
Vietnamese Speakers. PhD dissertation, McGill Universit y, Montreal, Quebec.
Leung, Y.-k. I. (2005). L2 vs. L3 init ial state: A comparat ive study of the acquisit ion of
French DPs by Vietnamese mono linguals and CantoneseFEnglish bilinguals.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 8, 39F61.
Leung, Y.-k. I. (2006). Full transfer vs. partial transfer in L2 and L3 acquisit io n. In R.
Slabakova, S. Montrul, & P. Prévost (Eds.), Inquiries in Linguistic Development: In Honor of
Lydia White, (pp. 157F187). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Leung, Y.-k. I. (2007a). L3 acquisit ion: Why it is interesting to generative linguists. Second
Language Research, 23, 95- 114.
Leung, Y.-k. I. (2007b). Second language (L2) English and third language (L3)) French
article acquisit io n by nat ive speakers of Cantonese. International Journal of
Multilingualism, 4, 83-116
Murphy, S. (2003). Second Language Transfer during Third Language Acquisition.
<http://www.tc.columbia.edu/academic/teso l/Webjournal/Murphy.pdf>
Odlin, T. (1989). Language Transfer: Cross-linguistic Influence in Language Learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge Universit y Press.
Odlin, T. (2003).Cross-linguist ic influence. In C. Doughty & M.H. Long (EDs), The
handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 436-486). Madlen, MA:
Blackwell Publishing.
Ringbo m, H. (2001). Lexical transfer in L3 production. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U.
Jessner (eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition:
Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 59-68). Clevedon, UK: Mult ilingual Matters.
Rothman J. & Cabrelli J. (2007). The Psychotypo logical Syntactic Transfer Hypothesis of the
L3 init ial state: Evidence from co mparing L3 French and L3 Italian. Paper
presented at the 5th International Conference on Third Language Acquisit io n and
Mult ilingualis m, Stirling, UK, September.
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
October-December, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org Page | 159
International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies Vol:1, Issue: 3
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition……………..
Khodabandeh, F.
Selinker, L. (1992). Rediscovering Interlanguage London: Longman.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics. X(3),
209- 231.
Schwartz, B.D.&Eubank, L. (1996). Introduction. Special Issue o f Second Language
Research, 12, 1–5.
Schwartz, B. & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access
model. Second Language Research, 12, 40F72.
Shanon, B. (1991). Fault y language selection in polyglots. Language and cognitive
processes 6 (4), 339-350.
Smith, N. & Tsimpli, I. (1995). The mind of a savant: Language, learning and modularity.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Shooshtari, Z.(2009). Generative Syntact ic Transfer in L2 and L3 Acquisit io n via the
Channel of Translation. English Language Teaching, 2,(1), pp.123-129.
White, L. (2000). Second language acquisit io n: From init ial to final state. In J. Archibald
(ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory, pp. 130–155. Oxford:
Blackwell.
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge:
Cambridge Universit y Press.
Yule, G.(2006). The Study of Language: Third Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge Universit y
Press.
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
October-December, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org Page | 160
International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies Vol:1, Issue: 3
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition……………..
Khodabandeh, F.
Appendix
A: Complete the following sentences.
She is an ………………………………………..
He is an ………………………………………………………
He is a ………………………………………
It is a…………………………………………
He is a……………………………………………..
He is a ……………………………………..
It is a …………………………………….
He is a…………………………………….
It is a ………………………………….
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
October-December, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org Page | 161
International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies Vol:1, Issue: 3
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition……………..
Khodabandeh, F.
It is a……………………………………..
B: Which one of the following sentences is in the correct order?
correct
Incorrect
This is a red hat.
This is table square.
She is a woman beaut iful.
She has a chair blue.
This is a small glass.
He has a dirt y tie.
He is a man thin.
He has a fat sister.
His father is an old man.
Sarah has eyes blue.
C: Translate the following sentences into English. (For Azeri students)
‫ﻣﯿﻨﺎ ﻧﯿﻦ ﺑﯿﺮدﻧﮫ ﮔﯿﺮﻣﺰي ﻣﺎﺷﯿﻨﯽ وار‬
........................................................................................................................................
.‫ﻋﻠﯿﻨﯿﻦ ﺑﯿﺮدﻧﮫ ﺳﺎري ﮔﻮﻟﯽ وار‬
...................................................................................................................................
.‫ﻣﯿﻨﺎ ﻧﯿﻦ ﺑﯿﺮدﻧﮫ ﮐﮭﻨﮫ ﮐﯿﺘﺎﺑﯽ وار‬
...................................................................................................................................
.‫او ﻧﻮن ﺑﯿﺮدﻧﮫ ﮔﺠﺎ دده ﺳﯽ وار‬
........................................................................................................................................
.‫رﺿﺎ ﻧﯿﻦ ﺑﯿﺮدﻧﮫ ﯾﮑﮫ اوی وار‬
..........................................................................................................................................
.‫ﺑﯿﺮدﻧﮫ ﺑﺰ ﻣﯿﺰ اﺗﺎﻗﺪادي‬
.....................................................................................................................................
.‫ﻣﯿﻨﺎ ﻧﯿﻦ ﺑﯿﺮدﻧﮫ ﮐﯿﭽﯿﺞ ﺻﻨﺪﻟﯿﺴﯽ وار‬
..................................................................................................................................................
.‫ﻋﻠﻲ ﺑﯿﺮدﻧﮫ ﺗﺰه ﺗﻠﻮﯾﺰون آﻟﯿﺐ‬
...................................................................................................................................
. ‫ﻣﯿﻨﺎﻧﯿﻦ ﺑﯿﺮدﻧﮫ ﮔﺮه ﺗﯿﻠﻔﻨﯽ وار‬
.......................................................................................................................................
.‫او ﺑﯿﺮدﻧﮫ اﯾﺴﺘﻲ ﺑﻠﮫ ﯾﺪي‬
..........................................................................................................................................
.‫او ﺑﺰﻟﻮ ﺳﻮ اﯾﺸﯿﺪي‬
.......................................................................................................................................
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
October-December, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org Page | 162
International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies Vol:1, Issue: 3
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition……………..
Khodabandeh, F.
.‫او ﻧﯿﻦ ﺑﯿﺮدﻧﮫ ﮔﻮي ﺗﭙﻲ وار‬
....................................................................................................................................
.‫او ﭘﯿﺲ ﮔﺰ دي‬
.......................................................................................................................................
.‫او ﻧﯿﻦ ﺑﯿﺮدﻧﮫ ﮐﯿﭽﯿﺞ ﺑﺎﺟﯿﺴﯽ وار‬
......................................................................................................................................
.‫او ﻧﯿﻦ ﺑﯿﺮدﻧﮫ ﮔﺰل ﮐﻮﯾﻨﮕﯽ وار‬
......................................................................................................................................
Translate the following Gilaki sentences into English (For Gilaki students).
.‫ﻣﯿﻨﺎ اﯾﺘﺎ ﻗﺮﻣﺰ ﻣﺎﺷﯿﻦ دره‬
......................................................................................................................................................
...............
.‫ﻋﻠﻲ اﯾﺘﺎ زرد ﮔﻮل دره‬
......................................................................................................................................................
.................
.‫ﻣﯿﻨﺎ اﯾﺘﺎ ﮐﮭﻨﮫ ﮐﯿﺘﺎب ﺑﯿﮫ‬
......................................................................................................................................................
...............
. ‫اون اﯾﺘﺎ ﭘﯿﺮ ﭘﺮ دره‬
......................................................................................................................................................
.................
.‫رﺿﺎ اﯾﺘﺎ ﭘﯿﻠﮫ ﺧﺎﻧﮫ دره‬
......................................................................................................................................................
....................
.‫اﯾﺘﺎ ﻗﮭﻮه اي ﻣﯿﺰ اﺗﺎق درون ﻧﮫ‬
......................................................................................................................................................
...........
.‫ﻣﯿﻨﺎ اﯾﺘﺎ ﮐﻮچ ﺻﻨﺪﻟﻲ دره‬
......................................................................................................................................................
..............
.‫ﻋﻠﻲ اﯾﺘﺎ ﺗﺎزه ﺗﻠﻮﯾﺰون ﺑﯿﮫ‬
......................................................................................................................................................
...................
.‫ﻣﯿﻨﺎ اﯾﺘﺎ ﺳﯿﺎه ﺗﻠﻔﻦ دره‬
......................................................................................................................................................
....................
.‫اون اﯾﺘﺎ ﮔﺮم ﺳﺎﻧﺪوﯾﭻ ﺑﻮﺧﻮرد‬
......................................................................................................................................................
......................
.‫اون ﺳﺮد آب ﺑﻮﺧﻮرد‬
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
October-December, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org Page | 163
International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies Vol:1, Issue: 3
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition……………..
Khodabandeh, F.
......................................................................................................................................................
......................
.‫اون اﯾﺘﺎ آﺑﻲ ﺗﻮپ دره‬
......................................................................................................................................................
......................
. ‫اون اﯾﺘﺎ ﻋﺠﺎﯾﺐ دﺧﺘﺮه‬
......................................................................................................................................................
.....................
.‫اون اﯾﺘﺎ ﮐﻮج ﺧﺎﺧﻮر دره‬
......................................................................................................................................................
...................
. ‫اون اﯾﺘﺎ ﻗﺸﻨﮓ ﭘﯿﺮان دره‬
......................................................................................................................................................
.....................
Translate the following sentences into English (for Armenian students).
Մինան մի կարմիր մեքենայ ունի:
……………………………………………………………………….
Ալին մի դեղին ծաղիկ ունի:
………………………………………………………………………. .
Մինան մի հին գիրք գնեց:
………………………………………………………………………
Նա մի ծեր հայր ունի:
……………………………………………………………………….
Ռեզան մի մեծ տուն ունի:
……………………………………………………………………. .
Մի սրեգոյն սեղան կայ սենեակում:
………………………………………………………………….
Մինան մի փոքր աթոռ ունի:
……………………………………………………………………. .
Ալին մի նոր հեռուստացոյց գնեց:
……………………………………………………………………. .
Մինան մի սեւ հեռախօս ունի:
…………………………………………………………………………….
Նա մի տաք պատառ կրաւ:
………………………………………………………………………………. .
Նա պաղ ջուր խմեց:
………………………………………………………………………………. .
Նա մի կապոյտ գնդակ ունի:
……………………………………………………………………………….
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
October-December, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org Page | 164
International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies Vol:1, Issue: 3
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition……………..
Khodabandeh, F.
Նա մի տգեղ աղջիկ է:
………………………………………………………………………………
Նա մի փոքր քոյր ունի:
………………………………………………………………………………….
Նա մի սիրուն շոր ունի:
……………………………………………………………………………….
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
October-December, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org Page | 165