Third Language Acquisition in Adulthood -- Editorial page -- Title page -- LCC data -- Table of contents -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction. Third language (L3) acquisition in adulthood -- References -- Part 1. Theory -- L3 morphosyntax in the generative tradition -- 1. Generative theory and acquisition: A concise overview of relevant issues -- 2. Why L3 as opposed to adult L2 acquisition? -- 3. The initial state and different proposals for L3/Ln -- 3.1 Absolute L1 transfer -- 3.2 The L2 status factor -- 3.3 The Cumulative-Enhancement Model (CEM) -- 3.4 The Typological Primacy Model -- 4. Beyond the initial state -- 5. Final thoughts and future directions -- References -- L3 phonology -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Existing research -- 2.1 Facilitation of additional language learning -- 2.2 Factors in L3 phonological transfer -- 3. Theoretical issues -- 3.1 Generative L3 morphosyntax models -- 3.2 The L3 initial stages and Optimality Theory -- 4. Methodological issues -- 4.1 Overview -- 4.2 Perception studies -- 4.3 Selection of properties -- 4.4 Proficiency measurement -- 4.5 Subject pools and language groups -- 4.6 Data analysis -- 5. Conclusion -- References -- The L2 status factor and the declarative/procedural distinction -- 1. Introduction -- 2. A short overview of important factors for transfer into L3 -- 3. The L2 status factor: Background -- 4. A model for L3 learning (Falk & Bardel 2010, 2011) -- 5. A neurolinguistic approach to L3 learning -- 6. Implications and future directions -- References -- Rethinking multilingual processing -- 1. Main characteristics of current models of multilingual processing -- 2. Characteristics of complex dynamic systems -- 3. A different perspective on processing models -- 3.1 Language processing is modular -- 3.2 Language processing is incremental, and there is no internalfeedback or feedforward.

3.3 Isolated elements can be studied without taking into account the largerlinguistic and social context of which they are a part -- 3.4 Individual monologue, rather than interaction,is the default speaking situation -- 3.5 Language processing is seen primarily as operations on invariantand abstract representations -- 3.6 Language processing can be described using a steady state model -- 3.7 Various experimental techniques will provide us with reliableand valid data on the workings of the model -- 3.8 Characteristics of DST-based models of bilingual processing -- 3.9 From group studies to individual case studies of multilinguals -- 4. Multilingualism and DST -- 5. Conclusion -- References -- Multilingual lexical operations -- 1. The general notion of cross-linguistic influence:A historical thumbnail sketch -- 2. Debates concerning cross-lexical connectivity -- 3. Cross-lexical interaction as integrated blur -- 4. Conclusion -- References -- L3/Ln acquisition -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Four theoretical proposals explaining linguistic difficulty -- 2.1 The Interpretability Hypothesis -- 2.2 The Interface Hypothesis -- 2.3 The Feature Reassembly Hypothesis -- 2.4 The Bottleneck Hypothesis -- 3. L3A data meet the L2A hypotheses -- 3.1 Chin (2008) -- 3.2 Foote (2009) -- 3.3 Montrul, Dias & Santos (2011) -- 4. Discussion and conclusions -- References -- Part 2. Empirical studies -- Further evidence in supportof the Cumulative-Enhancement Model -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Background studies and the CEM -- 3. Motivation for our study and research focus -- 4. German and Hungarian: Syntactic background -- 5. Predictions -- 5.1 L2 Study: German L1/English L2 acquisition -- 5.2 L3 Study: Hungarian L1/German L2/English L3 acquisition -- 6. Design, method, and subjects -- 7. Results -- 7.1 L2 Study: German L1/English L2 Group.

7.2 L3 Study: HungarianL1/GermanL2/EnglishL3 -- 8. Discussion -- References -- Acquisition of L3 German -- 1. Introduction -- 2. L3A research -- 3. Research on grammatical gender -- 4. Research on articles -- 5. Cross-linguistic information -- 5.1 German -- 5.2 English -- 5.3 Spanish -- 5.4 Japanese -- 6. The current study -- 6.1 Research questions (RQs) and predictions -- 6.2 Predictions according to the Cumulative-Enhancement Model (CEM) -- 6.3 Predictions according to the L2 Status Model -- 6.4 Predictions according to the Typological Primacy Model (TPM) -- 6.5 Participants -- 6.6 Methodology -- 7. Results -- 7.1 Task 1: Gender assignment task -- 7.2 Task 2: Definiteness and gender concord - articles -- 7.3 Task 3: Gender concord - adjectives -- 8. Discussion -- 8.1 Results summary -- 8.2 Results in relation to the Cumulative-Enhancement Model (CEM) -- 8.3 Results in relation to the L2 status factor -- 8.4 Results in relation to the Typological Primacy Model (TPM) -- 8.5 Further discussion -- 9. Conclusion -- References -- Appendix -- Examining the role of L2 syntacticdevelopment in L3 acquisition -- 1. Introduction -- 2. The present study -- 2.1 Linguistic properties of Tuvan, Russian and English -- 2.2 Research questions and predictions -- 3. Methods -- 3.1 Participants -- 3.2 Materials -- 4. Results -- 4.1 Division of participants -- 4.2 The Michigan Listening Comprehension Test -- 4.3 Comprehension tests in English and Russian -- 5. Discussion -- 5.1 Residual difficulty in Russian -- 5.2 Relative clauses in L3 English -- 5.3 The relationship between the L2 and the L3 -- 6. Conclusion -- References -- Variation in self-perceived proficiencyin two 'local' and two foreign languagesamong Galician students -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Literature review -- 2.1 The context: Galicia -- 2.2 Dependent variable: Self-perceived proficiency.

2.3 Independent variable 1: Monolingual or bilingual upbringing -- 2.4 Independent variable 2: Monolingual or bilingual schooling -- 2.5 Independent variable 3: Age of Onset of Acquisition (AOA) -- 2.6 Independent variable 4: Total language knowledge -- 2.7 Independent variable 5: Typological distance and affordances -- 2.8 Independent variable 5: Language attitudes -- 2.9 Independent variable 6: Type and intensity of contactwith the foreign language -- 2.10 Independent variables 7 and 8: Gender and age -- 3. Method -- 3.1 Participants -- 3.2 Research design -- 3.3 Dependent variable: Self-perceived proficiency -- 4. Hypotheses -- 5. Results -- 5.1 Hypothesis 1: Monolingual versus bilingual upbringing -- 5.2 Hypothesis 2: Monolingual versus bilingual schooling -- 5.3 Hypothesis 3: The effect of AOA -- 5.4 Hypothesis 4: The effect of knowing more languages -- 5.5 Hypothesis 5: The effect of language attitudes -- 5.6 Hypotheses 6a and 6b: The effect of knowing an extra Romanceor Germanic language -- 5.7 Hypothesis 7: The effect of contact with English and French -- 5.8 Hypothesis 8: The effect of gender and age -- 6. Discussion -- 7. Conclusion -- Acknowledgements -- References -- Advanced learners' word choicesin French L3 -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Background -- 2.1 CLI and vocabulary knowledge in Swedish learners' French L3 -- 2.2 Word choice and word choice transfer studies -- 3. Methodology -- 3.1 Informants -- 3.2 Tasks -- 3.3 Procedure -- 4. Research questions and hypotheses -- 5. Results -- 5.1 Le lanceur de couteaux -- 5.2 Le bac à sable -- 6. Discussion and conclusions -- References -- Appendix: Summaries of the two films -- Foreign accentedness in thirdlanguage acquisition -- 1. Theoretical background -- 1.1 Cross-linguistic influence in L3 phonological acquisition -- 1.2 Overview of research on third language phonological acquisition.

2. Experiment - foreign accent ratings -- 2.1 Research design -- 2.2 Participants -- 2.3 Language biographies -- 2.4 Rating consistency -- 3. Results of the experiment -- 3.1 Accent ratings -- 3.2 Identification of speakers' L1 -- 3.3 Raters' variables -- 3.4 Speakers' variables -- 4. Discussion -- 5. Conclusions -- References -- Index.