Abstract The current study adds to research investigating the influence of bilingualism on third language (L3) acquisition, more specifically the assumption that the two previously acquired languages enhance the acquisition of an additional language. We here rely on data from 1,409 bilingual (Russian-/Turkish-German) and monolingual (German) students of grades seven and nine, sampled in schools across Germany. The relevant literature yields mixed and controversial results regarding bilingual advantages, yet it also suggests that L3 acquisition is a multidimensional process potentially affected by various linguistic and extra-linguistic factors. Thus, we examine the relationship between English proficiency (L2 or L3), reading comprehension in German and the heritage languages Turkish and Russian along with cognitive ability and socio-economic status by using several multi-group path analyses, a type of structural equation modelling. The proposed structural equation model of English proficiency can be successfully fitted for all participants investigated, i.e. for both the monolingual and bilingual learners, with the exception of the Turkish-German group when analyzed separately. Overall, the results do not suggest any obvious bilingual facilitation effects or general differences across the learner groups, yet minor differences between the monolingual and bilingual groups in various componential relationships are detected.

中文翻译：

---

遗产背景下的英语 L3 习得：通过双语争议建模路径

摘要 目前的研究增加了调查双语对第三语言 (L3) 习得影响的研究，更具体地说，假设两种先前习得的语言增强了另一种语言的习得。我们在这里依赖于来自德国各地学校的 1,409 名七年级和九年级双语（俄语-/土耳其语-德语）和单语（德语）学生的数据。相关文献产生了关于双语优势的混合和有争议的结果，但它也表明 L3 习得是一个多维过程，可能受到各种语言和语言外因素的影响。因此，我们考察了英语水平（L2 或 L3）之间的关系，通过使用几种多组路径分析（一种结构方程模型），德语和传统语言土耳其语和俄语的阅读理解以及认知能力和社会经济地位。所提出的英语熟练度结构方程模型可以成功地适用于所有被调查的参与者，即单语和双语学习者，土耳其-德语组除外，分别进行分析。总体而言，结果并未表明学习者群体之间有任何明显的双语促进效应或普遍差异，但在各种成分关系中检测到单语组和双语组之间存在细微差异。所提出的英语熟练度结构方程模型可以成功地适用于所有被调查的参与者，即单语和双语学习者，土耳其-德语组除外，分别进行分析。总体而言，结果并未表明学习者群体之间有任何明显的双语促进效应或普遍差异，但在各种成分关系中检测到单语组和双语组之间存在细微差异。所提出的英语熟练度结构方程模型可以成功地适用于所有被调查的参与者，即单语和双语学习者，土耳其-德语组除外，分别进行分析。总体而言，结果并未表明学习者群体之间有任何明显的双语促进效应或普遍差异，但在各种成分关系中检测到单语组和双语组之间存在细微差异。