Moroccan Arabic has two competing syntactic constructions for possessive marking: a synthetic one and an analytic one. The distribution of these constructions is investigated in semi-spontaneous narratives (frog stories) from four Moroccan cities and from the diaspora community in the Netherlands. This distribution is found to depend very much on the individual lexical items that head the construction, and on the form of the dependent, pronominal dependents favouring the synthetic form. Regional variation in Morocco is linked to the sociolinguistic history of the regions. The northern town of Tangier, where language contact with Berber (and Late Latin) had the greatest impact on the formation of Arabic dialects, shows the greatest preference for the analytic genitive. The immigrant community in the Netherlands shows an increased preference for the analytic form in comparison with their peers in Morocco. This concerns possessives with NP dependents in particular, which suggests a direct influence of Dutch as the socially dominant language.

Maze use appears to be higher in bilingual speakers than in their functionally monolingual peers. One question is whether this is due to the speaker's bilingual status or to the characteristics of the bilingual's language(s). Narratives for 22 Spanish–English bilingual 4–6-year-olds and their functionally monolingual age-matched peers were analyzed for maze use. Bilingual and functionally monolingual children used similar percentages and patterns of mazes. Children produced more grammatical revisions in Spanish than English. Bilingual and functionally monolingual children used similar grammatical revision strategies in Spanish and English. Children's maze use in each language was correlated with measures of language productivity such as mean length of utterance and number of words used in the sample. These findings suggest that the role of language is important in maze use and that bilingual children do not necessarily have greater levels of linguistic uncertainty than do their functionally monolingual peers.

Research has begun to address the question of transfer of language usage patterns beyond the idea that people's native language (L1) can influence the way they produce a second language (L2). This study investigated bidirectional transfer, of both lexical and grammatical features, in adult speakers of English and Spanish who varied in age of L2 acquisition. Early and late learners of English watched and orally described video depictions of motion events. Findings suggest bilinguals' patterns of motion description lexically and grammatically resemble those of monolinguals in each language. However, although participants showed bidirectional lexical transfer, they displayed only L1-to-L2 grammatical transfer. Furthermore, learning L2 post-puberty affected L2 lexical choice, but both early and late L2 learners showed L2 influence on L1 lexical choice. Finally, the findings of grammatical transfer and age of acquisition were mixed. We discuss results with reference to theories of cross-language transfer.

This paper investigates object omission in French longitudinal production from two English-speaking children (Lightbown, 1977). Similar patterns of object omission are observed: direct objects start being dropped as transitive verbs are emerging and licit and illicit null objects occur in all recordings thereafter. Moreover, the incidence of illicit null objects drops at about the same time in both children (month 20), which corresponds to the moment object clitics start being used productively and to the end of the root infinitive period (Prévost, 1997). I argue that object omission is an instance of clitic-drop and is related to processing difficulties. In particular, both the projection of full-fledged representations and the production of object clitics (which occupy non-canonical object positions in French) increase computational complexity for children. Object-drop in child L2 French does not seem to be affected by L1 transfer nor to be related to significant difficulties with properties at the syntax/pragmatics interface.

To investigate decision level processes involved in bilingual word recognition tasks, Dutch–English participants had to name Dutch–English homographs in English. In a stimulus list containing items from both languages, interlingual homographs yielded longer naming latencies, more Dutch responses, and more other errors in both response languages if they had a high-frequency Dutch reading. Dutch naming latencies were slower than or equally slow as English naming latencies. In a stimulus list containing only English words and homographs, there was no homograph effect in naming latencies, although homographs did elicit more errors than control words. The results are interpreted as the consequence of list-induced variability in the competition between lexical items of the two languages involved. In addition, two additional decision processes have to be assumed: a language check, and a response deadline for non-target-language responses.

Cross-language (L1-to-L2) syntactic priming is the repetition of utterance structure from one language to another independently of meaning and has motivated models of language-shared representations of L1-L2 equivalent structures (Salamoura and Williams, submitted; Schoonbaert, Hartsuiker and Pickering, submitted). These models assume that the phenomenon is the result of residual activation of syntactic features encoding verb structural preferences and they, therefore, predict its initiation by a single verb prime (cf. Pickering and Branigan, 1998, for L1). This prediction was confirmed in a sentence completion task where we obtained syntactic priming from L1 Dutch to L2 English with Prepositional Object (PO) and Double Object (DO) datives upon presentation of single Dutch verbs that take either PO or DO only.

This study examined Australian English (AE) and Thai–English bilingual (TE) speakers' ability to perceive word-final stops in their native and non-native languages. In the perception experiment, the TE listeners were able to discriminate stop contrasts differing only in place of articulation (/p/–/t/, /p/–/k/, /t/–/k/) in both English and Thai accurately, but the AE listeners' discrimination was accurate only for English. The listeners' discrimination accuracy was differentially influenced by the type of stop contrast they heard. The Thai /p/–/t/ contrast was most discriminable for both groups of listeners, in particular, the AE listeners. Acoustic analyses of the Thai stimuli presented in the perception experiment were conducted in order to search for cues that led to different response patterns for the AE and TE listeners. There was a clear effect of the final stop on the formant trajectories of /a/ and /u/, suggesting that these acoustic differences may be audible to the listeners. The results provide further evidence that first language (L1) transfer alone is insufficient to account for listeners' response patterns in cross-language speech perception and that it is necessary to take into account phonetic realization of sounds and/or the amount of acoustic information contained in the speech signal to predict accuracy with which sound contrasts are discriminated.

Anecdotal reports provide evidence of so called “hybrid” gesturer whose non-verbal behavior of one language/culture becomes visible in the other. The direction of this gestural transfer seems to occur from a high to a low frequency gesture language. The purpose of this study was therefore to test systematically 1) whether gestural transfer occurs from a high frequency gesture language to a low frequency gesture language, 2) if the frequency of production of some gesture types is more likely to be transferred than others, and 3) whether gestural transfer can also occur bi-directionally. To address these questions, we investigated the use of gestures of English–Spanish bilinguals, French–English bilinguals, and English monolinguals while retelling a cartoon. Our analysis focused on the rate of gestures and the frequency of production of gesture types. There was a significant difference in the overall rate of gestures: both bilingual groups gestured more than monolingual participants. This difference was particularly salient for iconic gestures. In addition, we found that French–English bilinguals used more deictic gestures in their L2. The results suggest that knowledge of a high frequency gesture language affects the gesture rate in a low-frequency gesture language.

The Editors and members of the Editorial Board wish to thank the following guest consultants for having reviewed manuscripts submitted to the journal this past year.