This chapter examines the behaviour of reflexives in L2 Chinese, primarily focusing on ziji, which can take both long-distance and local antecedents. A distinction is made between anaphoric and logophoric uses of ziji, with the former subject to a syntactic constraint and the latter regulated by pragmatic conditions. While L2 learners can easily acquire the local binding of ziji, acquiring its long-distance reading poses more challenges, particularly for English-speaking learners, whose L1 does not have a comparable reflexive. Japanese-speaking learners, whose L1 includes a similar reflexive, show better acquisition of the long-distance reading of ziji. The roles played by pragmatics and semantics in interpreting ziji are highlighted, demonstrating that Japanese-speaking learners benefit from the logophoric use of reflexives in their L1, while English-speaking learners struggle due to the lack of such a reflexive. The chapter emphasises the significance of L1 transfer in L2 acquisition of Chinese reflexives, suggesting that morphologically complex reflexives align cross-linguistically while the simplex reflexive ziji poses unique challenges due to its dual anaphoric and logophoric uses. This distinction is crucial for understanding the varied success rates among learners from different L1 backgrounds in acquiring Chinese reflexives.

This chapter discusses the Ontogeny Phylogeny Model (OPM), which focuses on the formation and development of second language phonological systems. It proposes an interrelationship between L2 native-like productions, L1 transfer, and universal factors. The model argues that chronologically, and as style becomes increasingly formal, L2 native-like processes increase, L1 transfer processes decrease, and universal processes increase and then decrease. It further claims that the roles of universals and L1 transfer are mediated by markedness and similarity, both of which slow L2 acquisition. Specifically, in similar phenomena L1 transfer processes persist, while in marked phenomena universal processes persist. The OPM also argues that these same principles obtain for learners acquiring more than one L2, monolingual and bilingual acquisition, and L1 attrition. In addition to the chronological stages and variation of the individual learner, the model claims that these relationships hold true for language variation and change, including pidgins and creoles.

Chapter 4 discusses foundational studies linking theoretical findings in second language acquisition and classroom research. The first part of the chapter presents the linguistic background for adverb placement in English and in French within the Principles and Parameters framework of Universal Grammar and then focuses on intervention studies on the acquisition of verb movement and adverb placement in English as a second language by Francophone children in Montreal. The second part of the chapter focuses on question formation in English, the developmental sequences learners of English go through in the acquisition of questions in English, and Pienemann’s Processability Theory, which has been the impetus for important studies on the acquisition of question formation in English as a second language.

This paper studies the genitive alternation in British English and Sri Lankan English on the basis of more than 4,000 annotated cases of of- and s-genitives from the British and Sri Lankan components of the International Corpus of English. Specifically, we explore the effects of a variety of language-internal and language-external effects, focusing in particular on how these factors affect genitive choices both on their own, but also in interaction with each other and, a first in this kind of variety research, with the gender of the speakers. Our results corroborate previous findings regarding the language-internal factors, but we also obtain a variety of statistical effects representing interactions of those with variety and gender: for instance, animacy effects are stronger in Sri Lankan English, but animacy and length/weight effects are moderated by speaker gender; we discuss these and other findings with regard to processing, language contact and gender (in-)equality. Methodologically, we are developing two innovations for variationist research, namely a principled way to identify and then also visualise the effect of interactions in random forests.

As we saw in great detail in Chapter 4, interest in the L3/Ln acquisition of morphosyntax is thriving. It is not surprising that a substantial amount of research in this emerging field has focused on transfer and/or cross-language effects (CLE) in L3/Ln learning. Examining how previous linguistic experience affects subsequent learning has been a staple topic in nonnative language acquisition for as long as people have been examining L2 acquisition seriously. This curiosity likely springs from both theoretical interests and personal reflection. Even as young lay people – before we were linguists studying this – we recall having some conscious, if not intuitive, feelings that our native languages both propelled and restricted our learning of the additional languages we were studying. Of course, research over many decades – many hundreds, if not thousands of well-designed studies – has shown how far beyond intuitive anecdote the effects that previous linguistic knowledge has on additional language learning go.

The aim of this chapter is to offer the reader a panoramic yet comprehensive view of the theoretical issues and models that have attracted the most attention within generative approaches to L3/Ln morphosyntactic acquisition, with a particular emphasis on how transfer selection from previously acquired languages is hypothesized to apply. To the best of our ability, all models will be treated in an equal fashion. This does not mean that the description of each model will have or could possibly have the same level of detail, for justifiable reasons. To begin, models have appeared at different times, which correlates with more or less temporal opportunity to have been tested and to have gathered a critical mass of evidence. Moreover, not all models have had an equal amount of support from the published literature – a detailed analysis of which is the focus of Chapter 5 – and/or have had the same level of updating by their authors over time.