Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2009). Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second language: Listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning, 59(2), 249–306.Google Scholar

Abutalebi, J., & Green, D. W. (2007). Bilingual language production: The neurocognition of language representation and control. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20(3), 242–275.Google Scholar

Abutalebi, J., & Green, D. W. (2016). Neuroimaging of language control in bilinguals: Neural adaptation and reserve. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19, 689–698.Google Scholar

Achard, M., & Lee, S. (2016). Toward a model of multilingual usage. In Ortega, L., Tyler, A. E., Park, H. I., & Uno, M. (Eds.), The usage-based study of language learning and multilingualism (pp. 255–274). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Adger, D. (2003). Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Albert, M. L., & Obler, L. K. (1978). The bilingual brain. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Alemán Bañón, J., Fiorentino, R., & Gabriele, A. (2014). Morphosyntactic processing in advanced second language (L2) learners: An event-related potential investigation of the effects of L1-L2 similarity and structural distance. Second Language Research, 30(3), 275–306.Google Scholar

Alemán Bañón, J., Miller, D., & Rothman, J. (2017). Morphological variability in second language learners: An examination of electrophysiological and production data. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 43(10), 1509–1536.Google Scholar

Alexiadou, A., & Anagnostopoulou, E. (1998). Parametrizing AGR: Word order, V- movement and EPP checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16, 491–539.Google Scholar

Algeo, J. (2010). The origins and development of the English language. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Google Scholar

Alonso Alonso, R. (Ed.) (2016). Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Alonso Alonso, R., Cadierno, T., & Jarvis, S. (2016). Crosslinguistic influence in the acquisition of spatial prepositions in English as a foreign language. In Alonso Alonso, R. (Ed.), Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition (pp. 93–120). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Amaral, L., & Roeper, T. (2014). Multiple grammars and second language representation. Second Language Research, 30(1), 3–36.Google Scholar

Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. (2011). Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Angelovska, T. (2017). (When) do L3 English learners transfer from L2 German? Evidence from spoken and written data by L1 Russian speakers. In Angelovska, T. & Hahn, A. (Eds.), L3 syntactic transfer: Models, new developments and implications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Angelovska, T., & Hahn, A. (Eds.) (2017). L3 syntactic transfer: Models, new developments and implications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ansaldo, A., Marcotte, K., Scherer, L., & Raboyeau, G. (2008). Language therapy and bilingual aphasia: Clinical implications of psycholinguistic and neuroimaging research. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 6(21), 539–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Antón, E., Duñabeitia, J. A., Estévez, A., Hernández, J. A., Castillo, A., Fuentes, L. J., Davidson, D. J., & Carreiras, M. (2014). Is there a bilingual advantage in the ANT task? Evidence from children. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 398.Google Scholar

Antonova-Ünlü, E., & Sağın-Şimşek, Ç. (2015). The use of verbal morphology in Turkish as a third language: The case of Russian–English–Turkish trilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19(3), 347–362.Google Scholar

Aronin, L., & Singleton, D. (2012). Multilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Azevedo, M. (2005). Portuguese: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baetens Beardsmore, H. (1993). An overview of European models of bilingual education. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 6(3), 197–208.Google Scholar

Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingualism and bilingual education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Baker, C. (2007). Becoming bilingual through bilingual education. In Auer, P. & Wei, L. (Eds.), Handbook of multilingualism and multilingual communication (pp. 131–152). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Bardel, C., & Falk, Y. (2007). The role of the second language in third language acquisition: The case of Germanic syntax. Second Language Research, 23(4), 459–484.Google Scholar

Bardel, C., & Falk, Y. (2012). Behind the L2 Status Factor: A neurolinguistic framework for L3 research. In Cabrelli Amaro, J., Flynn, S., & Rothman, J. (Eds.), Third language acquisition in adulthood (pp. 61–78). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bardel, C., & Lindqvist, C. (2007). The role of proficiency and psychotypology in lexical cross-linguistic influence: A study of a multilingual learner of Italian L3. In Chini, M., Desideri, P., Favilla, M. E., & Pallotti, G. (Eds.), Atti del 6o Congresso Internazionale dell’Associazione Italiana di Linguistica Applicata (pp. 123–145). Perugia: Guerra Edizioni.Google Scholar

Bardel, C., & Sánchez, L. (2017). The L2 Status Factor hypothesis revisited: The role of metalinguistic knowledge, working memory, attention and noticing in third language learning. In Angelovska, T. & Hahn, A. (Eds.), L3 syntactic transfer: Models, new developments and implications (pp. 85–102). Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Basnight-Brown, D. M., & Altarriba, J. (2007). Differences in semantic and translation priming across languages: The role of language direction and language dominance. Memory & Cognition, 35(5), 953–965.Google Scholar

Basque Government, D.o.E. (2017). Estadísticas del sistema educativo – Matrícula 2017–2018. Retrieved from http://www.euskadi.eus/informacion/prematricula-2017-2018/web01-a2hestat/es/Google Scholar

Basque Government, D.o.E., & Government of Navarre, D.o.E. (2017). VI Encuesta Sociolingüística. Retrieved from https://bideoak2.euskadi.eus/2017/07/05/zupiria_hablantes/VI_INK_SOZLG-EH_gaz.pdfGoogle Scholar

Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar. In Warner, E. & Gleitman, L. (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 173–218). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation, and language learning. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 157–193). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 3–73). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bayley, R., Cameron, R., & Lucas, C. (Eds.) (2013). The Oxford handbook of sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bayona, P. (2009). The acquisition of Spanish middle and impersonal passive constructions from SLA and TLA perspectives. In Leung, Y. I. (Ed.), Third language acquisition and Universal Grammar (pp. 1–29). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Bayram, F., Pascual y Cabo, D., & Rothman, J. (2018). Cross-generational attrition contributions to heritage speaker competence. In Köpke, B. & Schmid, M. S. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of attrition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bayram, F., Rothman, J., Iverson, M., Kupisch, T., Miller, D., Puig-Mayenco, E., & Westergaard, M. (2017). Differences in use without deficiencies in competence: Passives in the Turkish and German of Turkish heritage speakers in Germany. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–27. doi: 10.1080/13670050.2017.1324403.Google Scholar

Beck, M. (1998). L2 acquisition and obligatory head movement: English-speaking learners of German and the local impairment hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 311–348.Google Scholar

Ben Abbes, K. (2016). The acquisition of French morpho-syntactic properties: Cross-linguistic influence in the learning of L3 French by Turkish/Spanish speakers who learned English as an L2. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Essex.Google Scholar

Benati, A., & Schwieter, J. (2017). Input processing and processing instruction: pedagogical and cognitive considerations for L3 acquisition. In Angelovska, T. & Hahn, A. (Eds.), L3 syntactic transfer: Models, new developments and implications (pp. 253–275). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Berends, S., Schaeffer, J., & Sleeman, P. (2017). Cross-linguistic influence in adult second language learners: Dutch quantitative pronoun constructions. In LaMendola, M. & Scott, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 41st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 74–87). Boston, US: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar

Berkes, É., & Flynn, S. (2012a). Further evidence in support of the Cumulative-Enhancement Model. In Cabrelli Amaro, J., Flynn, S., & Rothman, J. (Eds.), Third language acquisition in adulthood (pp. 143–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Berkes, É., & Flynn, S. (2012b). Multilingualism: New perspectives on syntactic development. In Bhatia, T. K. & Ritchie, W. C. (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism (2nd ed., pp. 137–167). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar

Berkes, É., & Flynn, S. (2016). Multi-competence and syntax. In Cook, V. & Wei, L. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic multi-competence (pp. 206–226). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Berkes, É., & Flynn, S. (2017). Toward a new understanding of syntactic CLI: Evidence from L2 and L3 acquisition. In Angelovska, T. & Hahn, A. (Eds.), L3 syntactic transfer: Models, new developments and implications (pp. 35–61). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bernaus, M., Masgoret, A.-M., Gardner, R. C., & Reyes, E. (2004). Motivation and attitudes towards learning languages in multicultural classrooms. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1(2), 75–89.Google Scholar

Bernstein, J. (1993). Topics in the syntax of nominal structure across Romance. Unpublished PhD dissertation, City University of New York.Google Scholar

Berthoud, A.-C., & Lüdi, G. (2011). Language policy and planning. In Wodak, R., Johnstone, B., & Kerswill, P. E. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 479–494). New York: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar

Berwick, R. C., & Chomsky, N. (2015). Why only us: Language and evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Berwick, R. C., & Chomsky, N. (2017). Why only us: Recent questions and answers. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 43, 166–177.Google Scholar

Berwick, R. C., Pietroski, P., Yankama, B., & Chomsky, N. (2011). Poverty of the stimulus revisited. Cognitive Science, 35(7), 1207–1242.Google Scholar

Bialystok, E. (1979). Explicit and implicit judgments of L2 grammaticality. Language Learning, 29(1), 81–103.Google Scholar

Bialystok, E. (1982). On the relationship between knowing and using linguistic forms. Applied Linguistics, 3(3), 181–206.Google Scholar

Bialystok, E. (1988). Levels of bilingualism and levels of linguistic awareness. Developmental Psychology, 24(4), 560–567.Google Scholar

Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, & cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bialystok, E. (2009). Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(1), 3–11.Google Scholar

Bialystok, E. (2011). Reshaping the mind: The benefits of bilingualism. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(4), 229–235.Google Scholar

Bialystok, E. (2016). The signal and the noise: Finding the pattern in human behavior. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 6(5), 517–534.Google Scholar

Bialystok, E. (2018). Bilingualism and executive function: What’s the connection? In D. Miller, F. Bayram, J. Rothman, & Serratrice, L. (Eds.), Bilingual cognition and language: The state of the science across its subfields (pp. 283–305). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., & Luk, G. (2008). Lexical access in bilinguals: Effects of vocabulary size and executive control. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 21(6), 522–538.Google Scholar

Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., & Luk, G. (2012). Bilingualism: Consequences for mind and brain. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 16(4), 240–250.Google Scholar

Bialystok, E., & Hakuta, K. (1994). In other words: The psychology and science of second language acquisition. New York, USA: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Bielenia-Grajewska, M. (2009). Linguistic borrowing in the English language of economics. Lexis: Journal in English Lexicography, 3, 107–135. Retrieved from http://journals.openedition.org/lexis/643Google Scholar

Birdsong, D. (1992). Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis. Language, 68, 706–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Birdsong, D., & Molis, M. (2001). On the evidence for maturational constraints in second language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 44(2), 235–249.Google Scholar

Bley‐Vroman, R. (1983). The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning, 33(1), 1–17.Google Scholar

Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? In Gass, S. & Schachter, J. (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 41–68). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bley-Vroman, R. (2009). The evolving context of the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(2), 175–198.Google Scholar

Bobb, S. C., & Kroll, J. F. (2018). Words on the brain: The bilingual mental lexicon. In Miller, D., Bayram, F., Rothman, J., & Serratrice, L. (Eds.), Bilingual cognition and language: The state of the science across its subfields (pp. 307–324). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bock, K., & Miller, C. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23(1), 45–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bohnacker, U. (2006). When Swedes begin to learn German: From V2 to V2. Second Language Research, 22(4), 443–486.Google Scholar

Borg, K. (2013). The acquisition of future of probability in L3 Spanish. In Judy, T. & Pascual, D. y Cabo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (pp. 11–21). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar

Bornstein, M. H. (1984). A descriptive taxonomy of psychological categories used by infants. In Sophian, C. (Ed.), Origins of cognitive skills (pp. 313–338). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Bornstein, M. H., Arterberry, M. E., & Mash, C. (2010). Infant object categorization transcends diverse object-context relations. Infant Behavior and Development, 33(1), 7–15.Google Scholar

Boulton, A., & Cobb, T. (2017). Corpus use in language learning: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 67(2), 345–393.Google Scholar

Bowles, M. (2011). Meaning implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 247–271.Google Scholar

Brohy, C. (2001). Generic and/or specific advantages of bilingualism in a dynamic plurilingual situation: The case of French as official L3 in the School of Samedan (Switzerland). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 4(1), 38–49.Google Scholar

Brown, A. (1991). A review of the tip-of-the-tongue experience. Psychological Bulletin, 109(2), 204–223.Google Scholar

de Garavito, Bruhn, J., & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2002). L2 acquisition of indefinite object drop. In Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition (GALA 2001) Proceedings (pp. 60–67). Lisbon, Portugal: Associação Portuguesa de Linguística.Google Scholar

de Garavito, Bruhn, J., & Perpiñán, S. (2014). Subject pronouns and clitics in the Spanish interlanguage of French L1 speakers. In Teddiman, L. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2014 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association (pp. 1–11). Montreal: Canadian Linguistic Association.Google Scholar

Bullock, B. E., & Toribio, A. J. (Eds.) (2009). The Cambridge handbook of linguistic code-switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 425–455.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bylund, E., Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2012). Does first language maintenance hamper nativelikeness in a second language? A study of ultimate attainment in early bilinguals. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(2), 215–241.Google Scholar

Bylund, E., Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamsson, N. (2013). Age of acquisition effects or effects of bilingualism in second language ultimate attainment. In Granena, G. & Long, M. (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitudes, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 69–101). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bylund, E., & Jarvis, S. (2011). L2 effects on L1 event conceptualization. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(1), 47–59.Google Scholar

Cabrelli Amaro, J. (2012). L3 Phonology: An understudied domain. In Cabrelli Amaro, J., Flynn, S., & Rothman, J. (Eds.), Third language acquisition in adulthood (pp. 33–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Cabrelli Amaro, J. (2013a). Methodological issues in L3 phonological acquisition research. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 6(1), 101–117.Google Scholar

Cabrelli Amaro, J. (2013b). Raising across experiencers in L3 Portuguese: Further evidence for psychotypological transfer. In Stavrakaki, S., Konstantinopoulou, P., & Lalioti, M. (Eds.), Advances in language acquisition (pp. 272–281). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar

Cabrelli Amaro, J. (2015). Does the source of transfer affect the rate of L3 morphosyntactic development? Paper presented at the 40th Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD 40). Boston, MA.Google Scholar

Cabrelli Amaro, J. (2017a). L3 morphosyntactic effects on L1 versus L2 systems: The Differential Stability Hypothesis. In Hahn, A. & Angelovska, T. (Eds.), L3 syntactic transfer: Models, new developments and implications (pp. 173–193). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Cabrelli Amaro, J. (2017b). Testing the Phonological Permeability Hypothesis: L3 phonological effects on L1 versus L2 systems. International Journal of Bilingualism, 21(6), 698–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cabrelli Amaro, J., Amaro, F., & Rothman, J. (2015). The relationship between L3 transfer and structural similarity across development. In Peukert, H. (Ed.), Transfer effects in multilingual language development (pp. 2–23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Cabrelli Amaro, J., Flynn, S., & Rothman, J. (2012). Third language (L3) acquisition in adulthood. In Cabrelli Amaro, J., Flynn, S., & Rothman, J. (Eds.), Third language acquisition in adulthood (pp. 1–6). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Cabrelli Amaro, J., & Iverson, M. (2018). Third language acquisition. In Geeslin, K. L. (Ed.), Handbook of Spanish linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cabrelli Amaro, J., Iverson, M., Giancaspro, D., & Halloran, B. (2018). Implications of L1 versus L2 transfer in L3 rate of morphosyntactic acquisition. In Molsing, K., Becker Lopes, C. Perna, & Tramunt Ibaños, A. M. (Eds.), Linguistic approaches to Portuguese as an additional language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Cabrelli Amaro, J., Iverson, M., & Judy, T. (2009). Informing adult acquisition debates: N-drop at the initial state of L3 Brazilian Portuguese. In Pires, A. & Rothman, J. (Eds.), Minimalist inquiries into child and adult language acquisition: Case studies across Portuguese (pp. 177–196). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Cabrelli Amaro, J., Pichan, C., Rothman, J., & Serratrice, L. (2018). Initial transfer across domains in L3 Italian by Spanish Heritage Speakers. Paper presented at the 28th European Second Language Association Conference (EUROSLA 28). Münster, Germany.Google Scholar

Cabrelli Amaro, J. & Rothman, J. (2007). The Psychotypological Syntactic Transfer Hypothesis of the L3 initial state: Evidence from comparing L3 French and L3 Italian. Talk presented at the 5th International Conference on Third Language Acquisition and Multilingualism. Stirling, UK, September 2007.Google Scholar

Cabrelli Amaro, J., & Rothman, J. (2010). On L3 acquisition and phonological permeability: A new test case for debates on the mental representation of non-native phonological systems. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 48(2–3), 273–294.Google Scholar

Cabrelli Amaro, J., & Wrembel, M. (2016). Investigating the acquisition of phonology in a third language – a state of the science and an outlook for the future. International Journal of Multilingualism, 13(4), 395–409.Google Scholar

Calvo, A., & Bialystok, E. (2014). Independent effects of bilingualism and socioeconomic status on language ability and executive functioning. Cognition, 130(3), 278–288.Google Scholar

Camacho, J. (2014). Null subjects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Campbell, T., Dollaghan, C., Needleman, H., & Janosky, J. (1997). Reducing bias in language assessment: Processing-dependent measures. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40(3), 519–525.Google Scholar

Campos, H. (1986). Indefinite object drop. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 354–359.Google Scholar

Caramazza, A., & Brones, I. (1979). Lexical access in bilinguals. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 13(4), 212–214.Google Scholar

Carminati, M. N. (2002). The processing of Italian subject pronouns. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar

Castro, T., Rothman, J., & Westergaard, M. (2017). On the directionality of cross-linguistic effects in bidialectal bilingualism. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1382. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01382.Google Scholar

Cattell, J. M. (1887). Experiments on the association of ideas. Mind, 12, 68–74.Google Scholar

Cenoz, J. (2001). The effect of linguistic distance, L2 status and age on cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition. In Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 8–20). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Cenoz, J. (2003). The additive effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition: A review. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7(1), 71–87.Google Scholar

Cenoz, J. (2009). Towards multilingual education: Basque educational research from an international perspective. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: the same or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 8–24.Google Scholar

Cenoz, J., & Genesee, F. (Eds.) (1998). Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (Eds.) (2015). Multilingual education: Between language learning and translanguaging. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (Eds.) (2001). Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Cenoz, J., & Jessner, U. (Eds.) (2000). English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Cenoz, J., & Valencia, J. (1994). Additive trilingualism: Evidence from the Basque Country. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 195–207.Google Scholar

Chamot, A. (1973). Phonological problems in learning English as a third language. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 11(3), 243–250.Google Scholar

Cheung, S. C., Matthews, S., & Tsang, W. L. (2011). Transfer from L3 German to L2 English in the domain of tense/aspect. In Dewaele, J.-M. & De Angelis, G. (Eds.), New trends in crosslinguistic influence and multilingualism research (pp. 53–73). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Chin, D. H. (2009). Language transfer in the acquisition of the semantic contrast in L3 Spanish. In Leung, Y. I. (Ed.), Third language acquisition and Universal Grammar (pp. 30–54). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on language. New York: Random House.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2001). Beyond explanatory adequacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chondrogianni, V. (2018). Child L2 acquisition. In Miller, D., Bayram, F., Serratrice, L., & Rothman, J. (Eds.), Bilingual cognition and language: The state of the science across its subfields (pp. 103–126). Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Clahsen, H., Balkhair, L., Schutter, J.-S., & Cunnings, I. (2013). The time course of morphological processing in a second language. Second Language Research, 29(1), 7–31.Google Scholar

Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006a). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.Google Scholar

Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006b). How native-like is non-native language processing? TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 564–570.Google Scholar

Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2018). Some notes on the Shallow Structure Hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(3), 693–706.Google Scholar

Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1986). The availability of universal grammar to adult and child learners: A study of the acquisition of German word order. Second Language Research, 2(2), 93–119.Google Scholar

Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1989). The UG paradox in L2 acquisition. Second Language Research, 5(1), 1–29.Google Scholar

Clark, E. (2003). First language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Clements, J. (1994). Notes on topicalization and object drop in Spanish. In Mazzola, M. (Ed.), Issues and theory in Romance linguistics: Selected papers from the XXIII symposium on Romance languages (pp. 219–237). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Clements, J. (2006). Null direct objects in Spanish. In Clements, J. & Yoon, J. (Eds.), Functional approaches to Spanish syntax (pp. 134–150). New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar

Clements, M., & Domínguez, L. (2018). Testing the predictions of the Scalpel Model in L3/Ln Acquisition: The acquisition of null and overt subjects in L3 Chinese. In Cho, J., Iverson, M., Judy, T., Leal, T. L., & Shimanskaya, E. (Eds.), Meaning and structure in second language acquisition: In honor of Roumyana Slabakova. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Clyne, M. (1998). Multilingualism. In Coulmas, F. (Ed.), The handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 301–314). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar

Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407–428.Google Scholar

Cook, V. (1991). The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multicompetence. Second Language Research, 7(2), 103–117.Google Scholar

Cook, V. (1992). Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning, 42(4), 557–591.Google Scholar

Cook, V. (Ed.) (2003a). Effects of the second language on the first. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Cook, V. (2003b). Introduction: The changing L1 in the L2 user’s mind. In Cook, V. (Ed.), Effects of the second language on the first (pp. 1–18). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Cook, V. (2016). Premises of multi-competence. In Cook, V. & Wei, L. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic multi-competence (pp. 1–25). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cook, V., & Wei, L. (Eds.) (2016). The Cambridge handbook of linguistic multi-competence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cornips, L. (1998). Syntactic variation, parameters and their social distribution. Language Variation and Change, 10(1), 1–21.Google Scholar

Cornips, L. (2018). Bilingual child acquisition through the lens of sociolinguistic approaches. In Miller, D., Bayram, F., Serratrice, L., & Rothman, J. (Eds.), Bilingual cognition and language: The state of the science across its subfields (pp. 15–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Costa, A. (2005). Lexical access in bilingual production. In Kroll, J. F. & de Groot, A. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 308–325). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Costa, A., & Caramazza, A. (1999). Is lexical selection in bilingual speech production language-specific? Further evidence from Spanish–English and English–Spanish bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2(3), 231–244.Google Scholar

Costa, A., Miozzo, M., & Caramazza, A. (1999). Lexical selection in bilinguals: Do words in the bilingual’s two lexicons compete for selection? Journal of Memory and Language, 41(3), 365–397.Google Scholar

Coulmas, F. (Ed.) (1998). The handbook of sociolinguistics. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Crain, S., & Lilo-Martin, D. (1999). An introduction to linguistic theory and language acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar

Croft, W. (2000). Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Culy, C. (1996). Null objects in English recipes. Language Variation and Change, 8, 91–124.Google Scholar

Cummings, S., & Roberge, Y. (2003). Null objects in French and English. Paper presented at the 33rd Linguistics Symposium on Romance Languages. Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar

Cummins, J. (2003). Bilingual education: Basic principles. In Dewaele, J., Housen, A., & Wei, L. (Eds.), Bilingualism: Beyond basic principles (pp. 56–66). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Cummins, J. (2010). Bilingual and immersion programs. In Long, M. & Doughty, C. (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 161–181). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Cunnings, I. (2017). Interference in native and non-native sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(4), 712–721.Google Scholar

Cunnings, I., Patterson, C., & Felser, C. (2015). Structural constraints on pronoun binding and coreference: Evidence from eye movements during reading. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 840. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00840.Google Scholar

Daoust, D. (1998). Language planning and language reform. In Coulmas, F. (Ed.), The handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 436–452). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar

Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of the species. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Davis, C., Sánchez-Casas, R., García-Albea, J. E., Guasch, M., Molero, M., & Ferré, P. (2010). Masked translation priming: Varying language experience and word type with Spanish–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(2), 137–155.Google Scholar

De Angelis, G. (2005). Multilingualism and non-native lexical transfer: An identification problem. International Journal of Multilingualism, 2(1), 1–25.Google Scholar

De Angelis, G. (2007). Third or additional language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

De Angelis, G., & Dewaele, J.-M. (Eds.) (2011). New trends in crosslinguistic influence and multilingualism research. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

De Angelis, G., Jessner, U., & Kresic, M. (Eds.) (2015). Crosslinguistic influence and crosslinguistic interaction in multilingual language learning. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar

De Angelis, G., & Selinker, L. (2001). Interlanguage transfer and competing linguistic systems in the multilingual mind. In Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 42–58). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

De Bot, K. (2000). Sociolinguistics and language processing mechanisms. Sociolinguistica, 14(1), 74–78.Google Scholar

De Bot, K. (2004). The multilingual lexicon: Modelling selection and control. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1(1), 17–32.Google Scholar

De Bot, K. (2016). Multi-competence and dynamic/complex systems. In Cook, V. & Wei, L. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic multi-competence (pp. 125–141). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

De Bot, K., & Jaensch, C. (2015). What is special about L3 processing? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(2), 130–144.Google Scholar

De Bot, K., Lowie, W., Thorne, S. L., & Verspoor, M. (2013). Dynamic Systems Theory as a comprehensive theory of second language development. In García Mayo, M. P., Gutiérrez Mangado, M. J., & Martínez-Adrián, M. (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 199–220). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

De Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A Dynamic Systems Theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(2), 7–21.Google Scholar

De Groot, A. M. B. (1992). Bilingual lexical representation: A closer look at conceptual representations. In Frost, R. & Katz, L. (Eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning (pp. 389–412). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

De Groot, A. M. B. (2010). Language and cognition in bilinguals and multilinguals: An introduction. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

De Groot, A. M. B., Delmaar, P., & Lupker, S. J. (2000). The processing of interlexical homographs in translation recognition and lexical decision: Support for non-selective access to bilingual memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53(2), 397–428.Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 499–533.Google Scholar

Dekydtspotter, L., McGuire, M., & Mossman, S. (2013). Movement and binding-driven efficiencies in L2 sentence processing: On the role of UG-constrained acquisition in L2 acquisition. In Voss, E., Shu-Ju, D., & Zhi, L. (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 2012 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 104–117). Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

DeLuca, V., Miller, D., Pliatsikas, C., & Rothman, J. (2019). Brain adaptations and neurological indices of processing in adult second language acquisition: Challenges for the Critical Period Hypothesis. In Schwieter, J. W. (Ed.), The handbook of the neuroscience of bilingualism (pp. 170–196). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

De Mejía, A.-M. (2002). Power, prestige and bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Deumert, A. (2011). Multilingualism. In Mesthrie, R. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 261–282). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dewaele, J.-M. (1998). Lexical inventions: French interlanguage as L2 versus L3. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 471–490.Google Scholar

Dewaele, J.-M. (2002). Psychological and sociodemographic correlates of communicative anxiety in L2 and L3 production. International Journal of Bilingualism, 6(1), 23–38.Google Scholar

Dewaele, J.-M. (2005). Sociodemographic, psychological and politicocultural correlates in Flemish students’ attitudes towards French and English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 26(2), 118–137.Google Scholar

Dewaele, J.-M. (2007). The effect of multilingualism, sociobiographical, and situational factors on communicative anxiety and foreign language anxiety of mature language learners. International Journal of Bilingualism, 11(4), 391–409.Google Scholar

Dewaele, J.-M., Petrides, V. K., & Furnham, A. (2008). Effects of trait emotional intelligence and sociobiographical variables on communicative anxiety and foreign language anxiety among adult multilinguals: A review and empirical investigation. Language Learning, 58(4), 911–960.Google Scholar

Dijkstra, T. (2003). Lexical processing in bilinguals and multilinguals: The word selection problem. In Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (Eds.), The multilingual lexicon (pp. 11–26). Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar

Dijkstra, T. (2005). Bilingual word recognition and lexical access. In Kroll, J. F. & de Groot, A. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 179–201). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(4), 496–518.Google Scholar

Dijkstra, T., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (1998). The BIA-model and bilingual word recognition. In Grainger, J. & Jacobs, A. M. (Eds.), Localist connectionist approaches to human cognition (pp. 189–225). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Dijkstra, T., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(3), 175–197.Google Scholar

Dijkstra, T., van Jaarsveld, H., & ten Brinke, S. (1998). Interlingual homograph recognition: Effects of task demands and language intermixing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(1), 51–66.Google Scholar

Dimitropoulou, M., Duñabeitia, J. A., & Carreiras, M. (2011). Masked translation priming effects with low proficient bilinguals. Memory & Cognition, 39(2), 260–275.Google Scholar

Dirac, P. A. M. (1930). Note on exchange phenomena in the Thomas atom. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 26(3), 376–385.Google Scholar

Dodsworth, R. (2011). Social class. In Wodak, R., Johnstone, B., & Kerswill, P. E. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 192–206). New York: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar

Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 273–284.Google Scholar

Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar

Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation (2nd ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar

Doyle, A., Champagne, M., & Segalowitz, N. (1978). Some issues in the assessment of linguistic consequences of early bilingualism. In Paradis, M. (Ed.), Aspects of bilingualism (pp. 13–21). Columbia: Hornbeam Press.Google Scholar

Duguine, M. (2008). Silent arguments without pro. In Biberauer, T. (Ed.), The limits of syntactic variation (pp. 311–329). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Duñabeitia, J. A., Hernández, J. A., Antón, E., Macizo, P., Estévez, A., Fuentes, L. J., & Carreiras, M. (2014). The inhibitory advantage in bilingual children revisited: Myth or reality? Experimental Psychology, 61(3), 234–251.Google Scholar

Duñabeitia, J. A., Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. (2010). Masked translation priming effects with highly proficient simultaneous bilinguals. Experimental Psychology, 57(2), 98–107.Google Scholar

DuPlessis, J., Solin, D., Travis, L., & White, L. (1987). UG or not UG, that is the question: A reply to Clahsen and Muysken. Second Language Research, 3(1), 56–75.Google Scholar

Dussias, P. E. (2003). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in L2 learners: Some effects of bilinguality on L1 and L2 processing strategies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 529–557.Google Scholar

Dussias, P. E. (2004). Parsing a first language like a second: The erosion of L1 parsing strategies in Spanish-English Bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism, 8(3), 355–371.Google Scholar

Dussias, P. E., & Sagarra, N. (2007). The effect of exposure on syntactic parsing in Spanish-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 101–116.Google Scholar

Duyck, W. (2005). Translation and associative priming with cross-lingual pseudohomophones: Evidence for nonselective phonological activation in bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(6), 1340–1359.Google Scholar

Duyck, W., van Assche, E., Drieghe, D., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2007). Visual word recognition by bilinguals in a sentence context: Evidence for nonselective lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(4), 663–679.Google Scholar

Duyck, W., & Warlop, N. (2009). Translation priming between the native language and a second language. Experimental Psychology, 56(3), 173–179.Google Scholar

Ecke, P. (2004). Words on the tip of the tongue: A study of lexical retrieval failures in Spanish-English bilinguals. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 23(2), 33–63.Google Scholar

Ecke, P. (2015). Parasitic vocabulary acquisition, cross-linguistic influence, and lexical retrieval in multilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(2), 145–162.Google Scholar

Ecke, P., & Hall, C. J. (2013). Tracking tip-of-the-tongue states in a multilingual speaker: Evidence of attrition or instability in lexical systems? International Journal of Bilingualism, 17(6), 734–751.Google Scholar

Ecke, P., & Hall, C. J. (2014). The Parasitic Model of L2 and L3 vocabulary acquisition: Evidence from naturalistic and experimental studies. Fórum Linguístico, 11(3), 360–372.Google Scholar

Edwards, J. (2007). Societal multilingualism: Reality, recognition and response. In Auer, P. & Wei, L. (Eds.), Handbook of multilingualism and multilingual communication (pp. 447–467). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Einstein, A. (1905). Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content? Annalen Der Physik, 323(13), 639–641.Google Scholar

Ellis, N. C. (1993). Rules and instances in foreign language learning: Interactions of explicit and implicit knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5, 289–318.Google Scholar

Ellis, N. C. (1998). Emergentism, connectionism and language learning. Language Learning, 48(4), 631–664.Google Scholar

Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 305–352.Google Scholar

Ellis, N. C., & Wulff, S. (2015). Usage-based approaches in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 75–93). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 141–172.Google Scholar

Ennaji, M. (2005). Multilingualism, cultural identity, and education in Morocco. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Epstein, S., Flynn, S., & Martohardjono, G. (1996). Second language acquisition: Theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 677–714.Google Scholar

Escudero, P., Boersma, P., Rauber, A. S., & Bion, R. A. H. (2009). A cross-dialect acoustic description of vowels: Brazilian and European Portuguese. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126(3), 1379–1393.Google Scholar

Ettlinger, M., Morgan-Short, K., Faretta-Stutenberg, M., & Wong, P. (2016). The relationship between artificial and second language learning. Cognitive Science, 40, 822–847.Google Scholar

Eubank, L. (1994). On the transfer of parametric values in L2 development. Language Acquisition, 3, 183–208.Google Scholar

Evans, V. (2014). The language myth: Why language is not an instinct. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Falk, Y. (2017). On pronouns that drop (out of German). In Angelovska, T. & Hahn, A. (Eds.), L3 syntactic transfer: Models, new developments and implications (pp. 127–142). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Falk, Y., & Bardel, C. (2010). The study of the role of the background languages in third language acquisition. The state of the art. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 48(2–3), 185–220.Google Scholar

Falk, Y., & Bardel, C. (2011). Object pronouns in German L3 syntax: Evidence for the L2 Status Factor. Second Language Research, 27(1), 59–82.Google Scholar

Falk, Y., & Lindqvist, C. (2018). L1 and L2 role assignment in L3 learning. Is there a pattern? International Journal of Multilingualism. doi:10.1080/14790718.2018.1444044.Google Scholar

Falk, Y., Lindqvist, C., & Bardel, C. (2015). The role of L1 explicit metalinguistic knowledge in L3 oral production at the initial state. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(2), 227–235.Google Scholar

Fallah, N., & Jabbari, A. A. (2018). L3 acquisition of English attributive adjectives: Dominant language of communication matters for syntactic cross-linguistic influence. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(2), 193–216.Google Scholar

Fallah, N., Jabbari, A. A., & Fazilatfar, A. (2016). Source(s) of syntactic CLI: The case of L3 acquisition of English possessives by Mazandarani–Persian bilinguals. Second Language Research, 32(7), 825–843.Google Scholar

Fassi Fehri, A. (1993). Issues in the structure of Arabic clauses and words. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2003). The way we think. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Fedzechkina, M., Jaeger, T. F., & Newport, E. (2012). Language learners restructure their input to facilitate efficient communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 17897–17902.Google Scholar

Fedzechkina, M., Jaeger, T. F., & Newport, E. (2013). Communicative biases shape structures of newly acquired languages. In Knauff, M., Pauen, M., Sebanz, N., & Wachsmuth, I. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 430–435). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Fedzechkina, M., Newport, E., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016). Miniature artificial language learning as a complement to typological data. In Ortega, L., Tyler, A. E., Park, H. I., & Uno, M. (Eds.), The usage-based study of language learning and multilingualism (pp. 211–232). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Felix, S. (1985). More evidence on competing cognitive systems. Second Language Research, 1, 47–72.Google Scholar

Ferguson, C. A. (1959). Diglossia. Word, 15, 325–340.Google Scholar

Fernández, E. M. (2003). Bilingual sentence processing: Relative clause attachment in English and Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Fessi, I. (2013). Cross-linguistic influence in tense-aspect Spanish L3 acquisition: A study of Arabic Tunisian learners of L3 Spanish. Revista Nebrija de Lingüística Aplicada a La Enseñanza de Lenguas, 20. Retrieved from https://www.nebrija.com/revista-linguistica/files/articulosPDF/articulo_56fb9ec59aecb.pdfGoogle Scholar

Feynman, R. (1965). The character of physical law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Finkbeiner, M., Forster, K., Nicol, J., & Nakamura, K. (2004). The role of polysemy in masked semantic and translation priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(1), 1–22.Google Scholar

Fishman, J. A. (1964). Language maintenance and language shift as a field of inquiry. Linguistics, 2(9), 32–70.Google Scholar

Fishman, J. A. (1967). Bilingualism with and without diglossia; diglossia with and without bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues, 23(2), 29–38.Google Scholar

Fishman, J. A. (1991). Reversing language shift. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Fitch, W. T., & Hauser, M. D. (2004). Computational constraints on syntactic processing in a nonhuman primate. Science, 303(5656), 377–380.Google Scholar

Fitch, W. T., Hauser, M. D., & Chomsky, N. (2005). The evolution of the language faculty: Clarifications and implications. Cognition, 97(2), 179–210.Google Scholar

Flege, J. E. (1987). The production of “new” and “similar” phones in a foreign language: Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of Phonetics, 15, 47–65.Google Scholar

Flege, J. E., & Port, R. F. (1981). Cross-language phonetic interference: Arabic to English. Language and Speech, 24(2), 125–146.Google Scholar

Flynn, S. (1983). Differences between first and second language acquisition. In Rogers, D. & Sloboda, J. A. (Eds.), Acquisition of symbolic skills (pp. 485–500). London: Plenum Press.Google Scholar

Flynn, S. (1987). Contrast and construction in a theory of second language acquisition. Language Learning, 36, 1–37.Google Scholar

Flynn, S. (2009). UG and L3 acquisition: New insights and more questions. In Leung, Y. I. (Ed.), Third language acquisition and Universal Grammar (pp. 71–88). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Flynn, S., Foley, C., & Vinnitskaya, I. (2004). The Cumulative-Enhancement model for language acquisition: Comparing adults’ and children’s patterns of development in first, second and third language acquisition. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1(1), 3–16.Google Scholar

Flynn, S., Vinnitskaya, I., & Foley, C. (2008). Complementizer phrase features in child L1 and adult L3 acquisition. In Liceras, J. M., Zobl, H., & Goodluck, H. (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition (pp. 519–533). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Foley, C., & Flynn, S. (2013). The role of the native language. In Herschensohn, J. R. & Young-Scholten, M. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 97–113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Foote, R. (2009). Transfer in L3 acquisition: The role of typology. In Leung, Y-K. I. (Ed.), Third language acquisition and Universal Grammar (pp. 89–114). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Forster, K. I., & Davis, C. J. (1984). Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 680–698.Google Scholar

Fouser, R. J. (1997). Pragmatic transfer in advanced language learners: Some preliminary findings. CLCS Occasional Paper, 50, 1–44.Google Scholar

Fouser, R. J. (2001). Too close for comfort? Sociolinguistic transfer from Japanese into Korean as an L3. In Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 149–169). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Fuchs, E., & Flügge, G. (2014). Adult neuroplasticity: More than 40 years of research. Neural Plasticity, 14, 1–10.Google Scholar

Fung, K.-T. D., & Murphy, V. A. (2016). Cross linguistic influence in adult L2/L3 learners: The case of French on English morphosyntax. GSTF Journal on Education (JED), 3(2), 6–15.Google Scholar

Gagarina, N., Klop, D., Kunnari, S., Tantele, K., Välimaa, T., Balciuniene, I., Bohnacker, U., & Walters, J. (2012). MAIN: Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives. ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 56.Google Scholar

Galves, C. (2001). Ensaios sobre as gramáticas do português. Lisbon: Unicamp.Google Scholar

García, O. (1998). Bilingual education. In Coulmas, F. (Ed.), The handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 405–420). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

García, O. (2008). Introducing bilingual education. In García, O. (Ed.), Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective (pp. 3–17). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

García Lecumberri, M. L., & del Puerto, Gallardo, F. (2003). English FL sounds in school learners of different ages. In García Mayo, M. P. & García Lecumberri, M. L. (Eds.), Age and the acquisition of English as a foreign language (pp. 115–135). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

García Mayo, M. P. (Ed.) (2015). Special Issue – L3 acquisition: A focus on cognitive approaches. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(2), 127–129.Google Scholar

García Mayo, M. P., & Rothman, J. (2012). L3 morphosyntax in the generative tradition: From the initial state and beyond. In Cabrelli Amaro, J., Flynn, S., & Rothman, J. (Eds.), Third language acquisition in adulthood (pp. 9–32). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

García Mayo, M. P., & Slabakova, R. (2015). Object drop in L3 acquisition. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19(5), 483–498.Google Scholar

Gardner, N., Puigdevall i Serralvo, M., & Williams, C. H. (2000). Language revitalization in comparative context: Ireland, the Basque Country and Catalonia. In Williams, C. H. (Ed.), Language revitalization: Policy and planning in Wales (pp. 311–361). Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar

Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingual education. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar

Genesee, F. (2008). What do we know about bilingual education for majority‐language students? In T. Bhatia, K. & Ritchie, W. C. (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism (pp. 547–576). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W. M., & Christian, D. (Eds.) (2006). Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gershkoff-Stowe, L. & Hahn, E. (2013). Word comprehension and production asymmetries in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 114, 489–509.Google Scholar

Ghezlou, M., Koosha, M., & Lotfi, A. R. (2018). Acquisition of adjective placement by L3 learners of English: Evidence for the L2 Status Factor. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 7(2), 175.Google Scholar

Giancaspro, D., Halloran, B., & Iverson, M. (2015). Transfer at the initial stages of L3 Brazilian Portuguese: A look at three groups of English/Spanish bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(2), 191–207.Google Scholar

Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y., & Taylor, D. M. (1977). Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. In Giles, H. (Ed.), Language, ethnicity and intergroup relations (pp. 207–348). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Ginsborg, J. (2006). The effects of socio-economic status on children’s language acquisition and use. In Clegg, J. & Ginsborg, J. (Eds.), Language and social disadvantage: Theory into practice (pp. 9–27). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Givón, T. (1979). On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Goad, H., & White, L. (2006). Ultimate attainment in interlanguage grammars: A prosodic approach. Second Language Research, 22, 243–268.Google Scholar

Godfroid, A., Loewen, S., Jung, S., Park, J.-H., Gass, S., & Ellis, R. (2015). Timed and untimed grammaticality judgments measure distinct types of knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37(2), 269–297.Google Scholar

Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219–224.Google Scholar

Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gollan, T. H., Bonanni, M., & Montoya, R. I. (2005). Proper names get stuck on bilingual and monolingual speakers’ tip-of-the-tongue equally often. Neuropsychology, 19, 278–287.Google Scholar

Gollan, T. H., Montoya, R. I., Cera, C., & Sandoval, T. C. (2008). More use almost always means a smaller frequency effect: Aging, bilingualism, and the weaker links hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(3), 787–814.Google Scholar

Gollan, T. H., Montoya, R. I., Fennema-Notestine, C., & Morris, S. K. (2005). Bilingualism affects picture naming but not picture classification. Memory & Cognition, 33(7), 1220–1234.Google Scholar

Gollan, T. H., Montoya, R. I., & Werner, G. A. (2002). Semantic and letter fluency in Spanish–English bilinguals. Neuropsychology, 16, 562–576.Google Scholar

Gollan, T. H., Slattery, T. J., Goldenberg, D., Van Assche, E., Duyck, W., & Rayner, K. (2011). Frequency drives lexical access in reading but not in speaking: The frequency-lag hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(2), 186–209.Google Scholar

González Alonso, J. (2012). Assessing multilingual lexical incorporation hypotheses through a primed picture-naming task. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2(1), 91–107.Google Scholar

González Alonso, J., Alemán Bañón, J., DeLuca, V., Miller, D., Pereira Soares, S., Puig-Mayenco, E., Slaats, S., & Rothman, J. (2019). ERPs and artificial mini-grammars in third language transfer/learning. Talk presented at the 32nd Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado,.Google Scholar

González Alonso, J., & Rothman, J. (2017a). Coming of age in L3 initial stages transfer models: Deriving developmental predictions and looking towards the future. International Journal of Bilingualism, 21(6), 683–697.Google Scholar

González Alonso, J., & Rothman, J. (2017b). From theory to practice in multilingualism: What theoretical research implies for third language learning. In Angelovska, T. & Hahn, A. (Eds.), L3 syntactic transfer: Models, new developments and implications (pp. 277–298). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

González Alonso, J., Rothman, J., Berndt, D., Castro, T., & Westergaard, M. (2017). Broad scope and narrow focus: On the contemporary linguistic and psycholinguistic study of third language acquisition. International Journal of Bilingualism, 21(6), 639–650.Google Scholar

Gorter, D., Zenotz, V., & Cenoz, J. (Eds.) (2014). Minority languages and multilingual education. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Graena, G., & Long, M. (2013). Age of onset, length of residence, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment in three linguistic domains. Second Language Research, 29(3), 31–43.Google Scholar

Grainger, J., & Dijkstra, T. (1992). On the representation and use of language information in bilinguals. In Harris, R. J. (Ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals (pp. 207–220). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

Grainger, J., & Frenck-Mestre, C. (1998). Masked priming by translation equivalents in proficient bilinguals. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13(6), 601–623.Google Scholar

Granena, G., & Long, M. (Eds.) (2013). Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Green, D. W. (1986). Control, activation, and resource: A framework and a model for the control of speech in bilinguals. Brain and Language, 27(2), 210–223.Google Scholar

Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(2), 67–81.Google Scholar

Green, D. W., & Abutalebi, J. (2013). Language control in bilinguals: The adaptive control hypothesis. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 515–530.Google Scholar

Green, D. W., & Wei, L. (2014). A control process model of code-switching. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(4), 499–511.Google Scholar

Greenberg, J. H. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J. H. (Ed.), Universals of language (pp. 73–113). London: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Grey, S., Sanz, C., Morgan-Short, K., & Ullman, M. (2018). Bilingual and monolingual adults learning an additional language: ERPs reveal differences in syntactic processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(5), 970–994.Google Scholar

Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36(1), 3–15.Google Scholar

Grosjean, F. (1998). Transfer and language mode. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(3), 175–176.Google Scholar

Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual’s language modes. In Nicol, J. (Ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing (pp. 1–22). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Grüter, T. (2005/2006). Another take on the L2 initial state: Evidence from comprehension in L2 German. Language Acquisition, 13(4), 287–317.Google Scholar

Grüter, T., & Rohde, H. (2013). L2 processing is affected by RAGE: Evidence from reference resolution. Paper presented at the 12th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA). Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida.Google Scholar

Grüter, T., Rohde, H., & Schafer, A. (2017). Coreference and discourse coherence in L2: The role of grammatical aspect and referential form. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7(2), 199–229.Google Scholar

Guasti, M. T. (2002). Language acquisition: The growth of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Guasti, M. T. (2017). Language acquisition: The growth of grammar (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Gürel, A. (2003). Is the Overt Pronoun Constraint universal? Evidence from L2 Turkish. In Liceras, J. M., Zobl, H., & Goodluck, H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition Conference. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar

Gut, U. (2010). Cross-linguistic influence in L3 phonological acquisition. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(1), 19–38.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. (2007). Subject omission in present-day written English: On the theoretical relevance of peripheral data. Rivista Di Grammatica Generativa, 32, 91–124.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L., & Ihsane, T. (1999). Subject ellipsis in embedded clauses in English. English Language and Linguistics, 3(1), 117–145.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L., & Ihsane, T. (2001). Adult null subjects in the non-pro-drop languages: two diary dialects. Language Acquisition, 9(4), 329–346.Google Scholar

Hahn, A., & Angelovska, T. (2017). Input-practice-output: A method for teaching L3 English after L2 German with a focus on syntactic transfer. In Angelovska, T. & Hahn, A. (Eds.), L3 syntactic transfer: Models, new developments and implications (pp. 299–320). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Håkansson, G., Pienemann, M., & Sayehli, S. (2002). Transfer and typological proximity in the context of second language processing. Second Language Research, 18(3), 250–273.Google Scholar

Hakuta, K., Bialystok, E., & Wiley, E. (2003). Critical evidence: A test of the Critical-Period Hypothesis for second-language acquisition. Psychological Science, 14(1), 31–38.Google Scholar

Hall, C. J. (1992). Morphology and mind. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hall, C. J. (2002). The automatic cognate form assumption: Evidence for the parasitic model of vocabulary development. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 40(2), 69–87.Google Scholar

Hall, C. J., & Ecke, P. (2003). Parasitism as a default mechanism in L3 vocabulary acquisition. In Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (Eds.), The multilingual lexicon (pp. 71–85). Kluwer.Google Scholar

Hall, C. J., Newbrand, D., Ecke, P., Sperr, U., Marchand, V., & Hayes, L. (2009). Learners’ implicit assumptions about syntactic frames in new L3 words: The role of cognates, typological proximity, and L2 status. Language Learning, 59(1), 153–202.Google Scholar

Hammarberg, B. (2001). Roles of L1 and L2 in L3 production and acquisition. In Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 21–41). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Hammarberg, B. (2006). Activation de L1 et L2 lors de la production orale en L3. Étude comparative de deux cas. Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Étrangère (AILE), 24, 45–74.Google Scholar

Hammarberg, B. (Ed.) (2009). Processes in third language acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Hammarberg, B. (2010). The languages of the multilingual: Some conceptual and terminological issues. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 48(2–3), 91–104.Google Scholar

Hammarberg, B. (2018). L3, the tertiary language. In Bonnet, A. & Siemund, P. (Eds.), Foreign language education in multilingual classrooms (pp. 127–150). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Hammarberg, B., & Hammarberg, B. (1993). Articulatory re-setting in the acquisition of new languages. Phonum, 2, 61–67.Google Scholar

Hammarberg, B., & Hammarberg, B. (2005). Re-setting the basis of articulation in the acquisition of new languages: A third-language case study. In Hufeisen, B. & Fouser, R. J. (Eds.), Introductory readings in L3 (pp. 11–18). Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar

Harnad, S. (1987). Psychophysical and cognitive aspects of categorical perception: A critical overview. In Harnad, S. (Ed.), Categorical perception: The groundwork of cognition (pp. 1–27). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298(5598), 1569–1579.Google Scholar

Hawkins, R., & Casillas, G. (2008). Explaining frequency of verb morphology in early L2 speech. Lingua, 118, 595–612.Google Scholar

Hawkins, R., & Chan, C. Y. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 13(3), 187–226.Google Scholar

Hawkins, R., & Liszka, S. (2003). Locating the source of defective past tense marking in advanced L2 English speakers. In van Hout, R., Aafke, H., Kuiken, F., & Towel, R. (Eds.), The interface between syntax and lexicon in second language acquisition (pp. 21–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Haznedar, B. (2013). Child second language acquisition from a generative perspective. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 3(1), 26–47.Google Scholar

Haznedar, B., & Schwartz, B. (1997). Are there optional infinitives in child L2 acquisition? In Hughes, E. & Greenhill, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 257–268). Somerville, MA, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

Hendriks, P. (2014). Asymmetries between language production and comprehension. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Hendricks, A. E., & Adlof, S. M. (2017). Language assessment with children who speak nonmainstream dialects: examining the effects of scoring modifications in norm-referenced assessment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 48(3), 168–182.Google Scholar

Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2002). A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism: Perspectives of change in psycholinguistics. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Hermans, D., Bongaerts, T., de Bot, K., & Schreuder, R. (1998). Producing words in a foreign language: Can speakers prevent interference from their first language? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(3), 213–229.Google Scholar

Hermas, A. (2010). Language acquisition as computational resetting: verb movement in L3 initial state. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(4), 343–362.Google Scholar

Hermas, A. (2014). Multilingual transfer: L1 morphosyntax in L3 English. International Journal of Language Studies, 8(2), 1–24.Google Scholar

Hermas, A. (2015). The categorization of the relative complementizer phrase in third-language English: A feature re-assembly account. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19(5), 587–607.Google Scholar

Hernandez, A. E., Hofmann, J., & Kotz, S. A. (2007). Age of acquisition modulates neural activity for both regular and irregular syntactic functions. NeuroImage, 36(3), 912–923.Google Scholar

Herschensohn, J. (2000). The second time around: Minimalism and L2 acquisition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Hervais-Adelman, A., Moser-Mercer, B., & Golestani, N. (2011). Executive control of language in the bilingual brain: Integrating the evidence from neuroimaging to neuropsychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 15(2), 234.Google Scholar

Herwig, A. (2001). Plurilingual lexical organisation: Evidence from lexical processing in L1-L2-L3-L4 translation. In Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 90–114). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Hochmann, J., Azadpour, M., & Mehler, J. (2008). Do humans really learn AnBn artificial grammars from exemplars? Cognitive Science, 32(6), 1021–1036.Google Scholar

Hopp, H. (2006). Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing. Second Language Research, 22(3), 369–397.Google Scholar

Hopp, H. (2014). Working memory effects in the L2 processing of ambiguous relative clauses. Language Acquisition, 21(3), 250–278.Google Scholar

Hopp, H. (2018). Cross-linguistic influence in the child third language acquisition of grammar: Sentence comprehension and production among Turkish-German and German learners of English. International Journal of Bilingualism. doi:10.1177/1367006917752523.Google Scholar

Hopper, P. (1987). Emergent grammar. In Aske, J., Beery, N., Michaelis, L., & Filip, H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 139–157). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

Hornberger, N. H. (1991). Extending enrichment bilingual education: Revisiting typologies and redirecting policy. In García, O. (Ed.), Bilingual education (pp. 215–234). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Hornberger, N. H. (2007). Continua of biliteracy. In Creese, A., Martin, P., & Hornberger, N. H. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education. Vol. 9: Ecology of language (pp. 275–290). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Hudson Kam, C. L., & Newport, E. (2005). Regularizing unpredictable variation: The roles of adult and child learners in language formation and change. Language Learning and Development, 1, 151–195.Google Scholar

Huguet, À. & Llurda, E. (2001). Language attitudes of school children in two Catalan/Spanish bilingual communities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 4(4), 267–282.Google Scholar

Hui, B. (2010). Backward transfer from L3 French to L2 English production of relative clauses by L1 Cantonese speakers in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 45–60.Google Scholar

Imaz Aguirre, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2017). Transfer effects in the acquisition of double object constructions in English as an L3. In Angelovska, T. & Hahn, A. (Eds.), L3 syntactic transfer: Models, new developments and implications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ionin, T., Grolla, E., Santos, H., & Montrul, S. (2015). Interpretation of NPs in generic and existential contexts in L3 Brazilian Portuguese. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5, 215–251.Google Scholar

Ivanova, I., & Costa, A. (2008). Does bilingualism hamper lexical access in speech production? Acta Psychologica, 127(2), 277–288.Google Scholar

Iverson, M. (2009a). Competing SLA hypotheses assessed: Comparing heritage and successive Spanish bilinguals of L3 Brazilian Portuguese. In Pires, A. & Rothman, J. (Eds.), Minimalist Inquiries into Child and Adult Language Acquisition: Case Studies across Portuguese (pp. 221–244). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Iverson, M. (2009b). N-drop at the initial state of L3 Portuguese: Comparing simultaneous and additive bilinguals of English/Spanish. In Pires, A. & Rothman, J. (Eds.), Minimalist inquiries into child and adult language acquisition: Case studies across Portuguese (pp. 221–244). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Iverson, M. (2010). Informing the age of acquisition debate: L3 as a litmus test. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 48(2–3), 221–243.Google Scholar

Iverson, M. (2012). Advanced language attrition of Spanish in contact with Brazilian Portuguese. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Iowa.Google Scholar

Iverson, M., & Miller, D. (2017). Language attrition and maintenance. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7(6), 704–708.Google Scholar

Izzo, G., Cenni, I., & De Smet, J. (2017). Third language acquisition and its consequences for foreign language didactics: The case of Italian in Flanders. In van Spaandonk, M., McCracken, M., Maes, K., De Wachter, L., Heeren, J., & Speelman, D. (Eds.), Proceedings Van Schools tot Scriptie III: Een colloquium over universitair taalvaardigheidsonderwijs (pp. 61–72). Leiden: University of Leiden.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jacob, G., & Felser, C. (2016). Reanalysis and semantic persistence in native and non-native garden-path recovery. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(5), 907–925.Google Scholar

Jacobs, A. M. (2000). Five questions about cognitive models and some answers from three models of reading. In Kenney, A., Radach, R., Heller, D., & Pynte, J. (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process (pp. 721–732). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Jacobs, K., & Cross, A. (2001). The seventh generation of Kahnawà:ke: Phoenix or dinosaur. In Christian, D. & Genesee, F. (Eds.), Bilingual education (pp. 109–121). Alexandria: TESOL.Google Scholar

Jaeggli, O., & Safir, K. (1989). The Null Subject Parameter. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Jaensch, C. (2008). L3 acquisition of articles in German by native Japanese speakers. In Slabakova, R. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 9th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2007) (pp. 81–89). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar

Jaensch, C. (2012). L3 Acquisition of German: Do some learners have it easier? In Cabrelli Amaro, J., Flynn, S., & Rothman, J. (Eds.), Third language acquisition in adulthood (pp. 165–193). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Jared, D., & Kroll, J. F. (2001). Do bilinguals activate phonological representations in one or both of their languages when naming words? Journal of Memory and Language, 44(1), 2–31.Google Scholar

Jarvis, S. (1998). Conceptual transfer in the interlingual lexicon. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Jarvis, S. (2000). Methodological rigor in the study of transfer: Identifying L1 influence in the interlanguage lexicon. Language Learning, 50(2), 245–309.Google Scholar

Jarvis, S. (2002). Topic continuity in L2 English article use. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(3), 387–418.Google Scholar

Jarvis, S. (2016). Clarifying the scope of conceptual transfer. Language Learning, 66(3), 608–635.Google Scholar

Jarvis, S., O’Malley, M., Jing, L., Zhang, J., Hill, J., Chan, C., & Sevostyanova, N. (2013). Cognitive foundations of crosslinguistic influence. In Schwieter, J. W. (Ed.), Innovative research and practices in second language acquisition and bilingualism (pp. 287–308). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar