Transfer refers to the influence of one language on another resulting Hannah Neuser from the presence of multiple languages in the mind. It is such an Source Language of Lexical all-pervasive phenomenon that every bi- or multilingual speaker and Transfer in Multilingual Learners language learner will have experienced it, whether they are aware of it or not. In language production, the phenomenon is especially A Mixed Methods Approach prominent at early stages of acquisition, with learners producing utterances such as “The boy lost his frosh” (from German “Frosch”, Hannah Neuser meaning frog). In the case of multilinguals, transfer is particularly in Multilingual Learners Transfer of Lexical Source Language interesting, as the number of potential sources increases with the number of languages a person knows. This thesis explores how, when, and why one language is chosen over another as source for transfer of lexical items. A number of different factors are considered and a mixed-methods approach is used in order to best serve the particularities of each of the factors under investigation. Research on transfer and its underlying mechanisms engages with questions of how languages are organised in the multilingual mind, how we access them, and how prior knowledge affects the acquisition of a new language. The present thesis aims to contribute to this line of enquiry. Hannah Neuser holds a degree in English linguistics from UCL (UK). Her main research interests are multilingual language learning and crosslinguistic influence in the acquisition of English. She likes travelling and discovering new cultures. ISBN 978-91-7649-795-1 Department of English Doctoral Thesis in English at Stockholm University, Sweden 2017 !"#$%& %'($$ ) &* * +%$( , ( - *. * * /# * (, ( - - * ( 0 - (1 - - * (, - * ( * * /% - * /# (2 * - ( * - * - * 3 ( 4 * * ( #$%& 5..(( . 6755 5 5%8#$9$ 21:!&;!%&<8!&!9% 21:!&;!%&<8!&!<; ! " *%$<!% SOURCE LANGUAGE OF LEXICAL TRANSFER IN MULTILINGUAL LEARNERS Hannah Neuser Source Language of Lexical Transfer in Multilingual Learners A Mixed Methods Approach Hannah Neuser ©Hannah Neuser, Stockholm University 2017 ISBN print 978-91-7649-795-1 ISBN PDF 978-91-7649-796-8 Cover image: ©edX Printed in Sweden by Universitetsservice US-AB, Stockholm 2017 Distributor: Department of English, Stockholm University To my parents. Acknowledgements I feel absolutely blessed by the amount of people that have shown me kindness and support over the past four years. With these words, I hope to express my gratitude to those who have helped me on this journey. First, I would like to thank my supervisor Philip Shaw, who has been there since the very beginning and who stuck it out till the very end. His feedback challenged me to be rig- orous, to excise unsubstantiated claims and to restrain Neuserisms. Whatever strengths can be found in the writing are the result of his influence. I am also most grateful to my supervisors Camilla Bardel, for sharing her expertise in the field, Raffaella Negretti, for guiding me in my very first steps as a PhD student, and Maria Kuteeva, for keeping me on track and getting me to the finish line. I would also like to offer my sincere thanks to Nils-Lennart Johan- nesson, who had the patience to proofread this text. Many others have guided me along the way. Richard Young offered me the opportunity to be a Visiting Scholar to the University of Wisconsin-Madison, which gave me insight into a new multilingual environment. My stay in the US also led me to Doug Hemken, who taught me everything I know about statistics and made me believe in the greatness of my data. I owe the core of this study to him. I would also like to offer a warm thank you to David Sin- gleton for his continuous encouragement along the way, as well as to Jean- Marc Dewaele for agreeing to be the opponent at my mock defence and his valuable feedback at such a crucial point in time. I also would like to extend my whole-hearted thanks to Simone Pfenninger, who was the discussant at my 50% seminar and who welcomed me as Visiting Scholar to the University of Zurich. She has not only become an invaluable mentor and role-model, but also a friend, who has gone above and beyond to help me navigate my thesis and the world of SLA. Finally, the work I have been inspired by the most throughout my doctoral studies is that of Scott Jarvis and it is thus an honour and privilege that he has agreed to be the opponent at my final defence. While the decisive turning points of your PhD lie in some few moments, the bulk of the work lies in the many weeks and days and hours spent at your desk. I therefore would like to thank everyone at the Department of English at Stock- holm University for being so welcoming, kind, and engaging. And I would like to thank my fellow PhD student Andrew Cooper in particular, for answer- ing my many questions about linguistics and life in general. To all my friends, thank you for the many fika breaks, walks, lunches, pub quizzes, dinners, squash games, comedy nights, long conversations and everything else that kept me sane during this time. Finally, I would like to thank my parents for their endless patience, as well as their unconditional love and support in every adventure I have ever embarked on, including this one. For my dad’s unfailing help with all things program- ming and my mum’s unfailing visits to the cold north. I could not have done it without you. Thank you. What you seek is seeking you. Rumi Contents 1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 1 2 Theoretical Background......................................................................... 6 2.1 Terminology and constructs .............................................................. 6 2.1.1 Multilingualism ........................................................................ 6 2.1.2 Interference, transfer, CLI ....................................................... 8 2.1.3 L1, L2, and L3 ....................................................................... 11 2.1.4 Source and target language .................................................... 13 2.1.5 Types of transfer .................................................................... 14 2.1.6 Types of lexical transfer ........................................................ 17 2.2 The bi- and multilingual mental lexicon ......................................... 22 2.2.1 Bilingual lexical organization ................................................ 23 2.2.2 Bilingual lexical access .......................................................... 29 2.2.3 Bilingual language activation ................................................ 35 2.2.4 Theoretical models of multilingualism .................................. 42 2.3 Conclusion ...................................................................................... 45 3 Previous Research into the Source Language of Transfer ................... 47 3.1 Predictive factors............................................................................. 47 3.1.1 Proficiency ............................................................................. 49 3.1.2 Recency.................................................................................. 55 3.1.3 Psychotypology ...................................................................... 59 3.1.4 L2 status ................................................................................. 69 3.1.5 Item-specific transferability ................................................... 79 3.2 Justification for the present study ................................................... 83 3.2.1 A Mixed Methods analysis .................................................... 85 3.2.2 A comparative analysis .......................................................... 91 3.3 Research Questions ......................................................................... 93 4 Method ................................................................................................. 95 4.1 Setting ............................................................................................. 95 4.1.1 Luxembourgish ...................................................................... 96 4.1.2 Triglossia ............................................................................... 98 4.1.3 Education system ................................................................... 99 4.1.4 Typology .............................................................................. 100 4.2 Participants .................................................................................... 101 4.3 Instrumentation ............................................................................. 104 4.3.1 Empirical task ...................................................................... 106 4.3.2 Questionnaire ....................................................................... 108 4.4 Data collection procedure ............................................................. 123 4.5 Coding procedure .......................................................................... 125 4.5.1 Transcription conventions...................................................