From Interference to Architecture: Hidden Prior Knowledge (HPK) as a Curricular Framework for Harnessing Cross-Linguistic Influence in Arabic L2 Acquisition
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63053/ijrel.73Keywords:
Hidden Prior Knowledge (HPK), Cross-Linguistic Influence (CLI), Second Language Acquisition (SLA), Arabic L2 Pedagogy, Curriculum Design, Corpus LinguisticsAbstract
This paper introduces Hidden Prior Knowledge (HPK) as a pedagogical and theoretical framework in Second Language Acquisition (SLA), designed to support nonnative learners encountering Arabic for the first time with no prior exposure. The framework is grounded in the premise that learners possess, from their native language, a structured and cognitively grounded reservoir of linguistic competence — termed Latent Prior Knowledge (LPK) — that is transferable and operationalizable in the target language, and which can be activated through Latent Cross-Linguistic Competence (LCLC), a construct deliberately distinguished from related notions such as cross-linguistic influence (CLI) and Cummins' Common Underlying Proficiency, to facilitate second language acquisition. Drawing on contemporary SLA scholarship (Mackey & Gass, 2023; Gurzynski-Weiss & Kim, 2022; Slabakova et al., 2024), the study proposes a methodological principle described as "Search for Commonalities," whereby lexical, morphological, and structural correspondences between languages are systematically identified and operationalized in curriculum design. Using Arabic as a case study, the paper demonstrates that lexical familiarity is not an isolated phenomenon but is grounded in the generative system of derivation and word formation, which functions as a "master key" enabling learners to expand vocabulary through semantic and morphological networks. The analysis further shows that structural features such as Yā' al-Nisbah and Idāfah reflect unified systems that correspond to distributed forms in English, French, and Persian, thereby reducing cognitive load when approached through cross-linguistic mapping. The study also highlights the importance of Vernacularism, particularly the role of Contemporary Standard Spoken Arabic — hereafter Arabī (CSSA) — and emphasizes the potential of corpus linguistics and artificial intelligence in uncovering latent linguistic commonalities. By reframing language learning as a process of recognition, activation, and generation, HPK offers a transferable, data-informed methodology that bridges SLA theory and classroom practice.
References
1. Bialystok, E. (2009). Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(1), 3–11.
2. Cenoz, J. (2013). The influence of bilingualism on third language acquisition: Focus on multilingualism. Language Teaching, 46(1), 71–86.
3. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2011). A holistic approach to multilingual education: Introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 339–343.
4. Cook, V. (1992). Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning, 42(4), 557–591.
5. Cummins, J. (2007). The relationship between language proficiency and academic achievement. In C. D. Johnson (Ed.), Teaching English as a second language (pp. 47–63). Pearson.
6. De Angelis, G. (2007). Third or additional language acquisition. Multilingual Matters.
7. Flynn, S., Foley, C., & Vinnitskaya, I. (2004). The cumulative-enhancement model for language acquisition. Second Language Research, 20(1), 65–93.
8. Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Kim, Y. (2022). Interactional feedback and second language acquisition. In A. Mackey & S. M. Gass (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (2nd ed., pp. 211–225). Routledge.
9. Hajjaj, N. (2024). Arab Vernacularism [Al-Mahalliyya al-ʿArabiyya]. Amazon Kindle.
10. Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2002). A dynamic model of multilingualism. Multilingual Matters.
11. Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. Routledge.
12. Jessner, U. (2008). Teaching third languages: Findings and challenges. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 57–73.
13. Kroll, J. F., & Bialystok, E. (2013). Understanding the consequences of bilingualism for language processing and cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 376–394.
14. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
15. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2023). Second language research: Methodology and design (3rd ed.). Routledge.
16. Naderi, F. (2025). Cross-linguistic influence (CLI) in multilingual learners: Implications for education. International Journal of Advanced Research in Humanities and Law (IJREL), 2(2), 42–48. https://doi.org/10.63053/ijrel.54
17. Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge University Press.
18. Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. Hodder Education.
19. Rothman, J. (2010). On the typology of transfer. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(2), 1–13.
20. Schmid, M. S., & Köpke, B. (2017). First language attrition. Cambridge University Press.
21. Slabakova, R. (2016). The scalpel model of third language acquisition. International Journal of Bilingualism, 20(3), 255–269.
22. Slabakova, R., Leal, T., Liskin-Gasparro, J., & Lacorte, M. (2024). Second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
