International Journal of English Linguistics; Vol. 6, No. 7; 2016 ISSN 1923-869X E-ISSN 1923-8703 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 36 The Acquisition of French (L3) Wh-question by Persian (L1) Learners of English (L2) as a Foreign Language: Optimality Theory Azam Mollaie 1 , Ali Akbar Jabbari 1 & Mohammad Javad Rezaie 1 1 College of English Literature, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran Correspondence: Azam Mollaie, College of English Literature, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran. Tel: 98-917-878-6390. E-mail: a.mollaie.6655@gmail.com Received: July 2, 2016 Accepted: November 6, 2016 Online Published: December 1, 2016 doi:10.5539/ijel.v6n7p36 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v6n7p36 Abstract Recent decade has been prominent in investigating third language acquisition (L3). This study presents an Optimality theoretic account of French wh-question by learners whose first and second language are Persian and English respectively. Additionally, it investigates transfer at the initial stage based on the three dominant transfer hypotheses namely, L1 transfer hypothesis, L2 status factor, Cumulative Enhancement Model (CEM) in the domain of L3 acquisition. First, in French and Persian wh- question structure, the wh-word move to pre subject position (Spec-CP & Spec-FOCP) but the interrogative verb do not raise to C. This is the indicator of L1 Factor hypothesis. Second, in French and English the wh-word follows by an interrogative verb in French or by subject-auxiliary inversion in English so in these languages the wh-word occupies the Spec-CP and the verb occupies the C position. This is an evidence for L2 status factor. Third, in English and Persian the wh-word remains in original position for echo questions, this feature triggers this parallel structure in French; this confirms Cumulative Enhancement Model hypothesis. Two groups of Persian native speakers with different English proficiency levels (the lower-intermediate & advanced) that were at the initial stage of acquiring L3 French were asked to complete two test namely, grammar judgment task and translation test. The results showed that the main source of transfer was L1 transfer hypothesis and partially CEM. Regarding OT, although the advanced learners transferred their L2 knowledge in the L3 acquisition in GJT, there was not any significant difference between L1 transfer and L2 transfer context. Therefore, the following constraint hierarchies were obtained for TT and GJT respectively, Q-Scope>> Lex-V>Stay>>Q-Mark and Stay>>Lex-V>>Q-Mark>>Q-Scope. In fact, these ranking, particularly the former one, advocated the L1 transfer hypothesis. Keywords: Cumulative Enhancement Model hypothesis, L3 acquisition, L2 status factor, L1 transfer hypothesis, optimality theory, wh-question 1. Introduction During the last decade, third language acquisition (TLA) has developed as another field to focus on the transfer of L1 and L2 to L3 (Cenoz, Hufeisen, & Jessener 2001; Clyne, Hunt, & Isaakidis, 2004; Ringbom, 2007; Rothman, 2011). One of the main issues in this field is the topic of crosslinguistic influence (CLI). TLA research studies crosslinguistic influences with the purpose of identifying the underlying principles that might determine the learner’s preferences at a given time for utilizing an element crosslinguistically. These studies have determined that there is a difference between L2 and L3/Ln acquisition. The method for distinguishing L3 acquisition from L2 acquisition is diverse and complex. It has been pointed out by many that the acquisition of a true L2 and an L3 is not the same. A significant factor is the plurality of possible interactions between the linguistic systems in the multilingual learner’s mind. Second language learners have two frameworks that can independently impact each other (L1→L2). Two other bidirectional relationships can occur in third language acquisition: the L3 can impact the L1 and be affected by the L1 (L1→L3) and cross-linguistic influence can also occur between the L2 and the L3 (L2→L3) (Cenoz, Hufeisen, & Jessner, 2001). The L3 acquisition of wh-questions has broadly been examined by researchers. All languages have distinctive procedures or strategies which enable speakers to ask wh-constituents, but these strategies vary cross-linguistically. With respect to experimental evidence all languages are distinct on the surface. For instance, there are languages which move question words to the sentence’s front and languages which allow question