This study investigates how beginner and advanced Dutch learners of Mandarin process tonal information. An ABX task was adopted to investigate phonological discrimination of Mandarin tones and segment-tone integration in Dutch learners of Mandarin, with both native Mandarin and Dutch speakers (without tonal learning experience) as control groups. Results showed a developmental path in lexical tone processing. The beginner learners could not process tonal contrast adequately at the phonological level, and they processed segmental and tonal information separately, like native Dutch listeners without Mandarin experience. The advanced learners showed a good phonological discrimination of tonal contrasts. They showed a more native-like pattern in distributing their attention between segmental and tonal information, and they processed the two dimensions in an integrated manner, similar to native Mandarin listeners. This suggests that the acquisition of new tonal categories in L2 involves a redistribution of attention along perceptual dimensions and the development of segment-tone integration.

Listening to speech entails adapting to vast amounts of variability in the signal. The present study examined the relationship between flexibility for adaptation in a second language (L2) and robustness of L2 phonolexical representations. Phonolexical encoding and phonetic flexibility for German learners of English were assessed by means of a lexical decision task containing nonwords with sound substitutions and a distributional learning task, respectively. Performance was analyzed for an easy (/i/-/ɪ/) and a difficult contrast (/ε/-/æ/, where /æ/ does not exist in German). Results showed that for /i/-/ɪ/ listeners were quite accurate in lexical decision, and distributional learning consistently triggered shifts in categorization. For /ε/-/æ/, lexical decision performance was poor but individual participants’ scores related to performance in distributional learning: the better learners were in their lexical decision, the smaller their categorization shift. This suggests that, for difficult L2 contrasts, rigidity at the phonetic level relates to better lexical performance.

Previous studies have found that proficiency in a second language affects how the meanings of words are accessed. Support for this hypothesis is based on data from explicit memory tasks with bilingual participants who know two languages that are relatively similar phonologically and orthographically (e.g., Dutch–English, French–English). The present study tested this hypothesis with Chinese–English bilinguals using an implicit memory task – the cross-language repetition priming paradigm. Consistent with the result of Zeelenberg, R. and Pecher, D. (2003), we obtained reliable effects of long-term cross-language repetition priming using a conceptual implicit memory task. Overall, the four experiments support the Revised Hierarchical Model as they demonstrate that low fluency bilinguals can only access the conceptual representation of the second language via the lexical representation of the first language.

What is the time course of cross-language activation in deaf sign–print bilinguals? Prior studies demonstrating cross-language activation in deaf bilinguals used paradigms that would allow strategic or conscious translation. This study investigates whether cross-language activation can be eliminated by reducing the time available for lexical processing. Deaf ASL–English bilinguals and hearing English monolinguals viewed pairs of English words and judged their semantic similarity. Half of the stimuli had phonologically related translations in ASL, but participants saw only English words. We replicated prior findings of cross-language activation despite the introduction of a much faster rate of presentation. Further, the deaf bilinguals were as fast or faster than hearing monolinguals despite the fact that the task was in their second language. The results allow us to rule out the possibility that deaf ASL–English bilinguals only activate ASL phonological forms when given ample time for strategic or conscious translation across their two languages.

We examined how L2 exposure early in life modulates toddler word recognition by comparing German–English bilingual and German monolingual toddlers’ recognition of words that overlapped to differing degrees, measured by number of phonological features changed, between English and German (e.g., identical, 1-feature change, 2-feature change, 3-feature change, no overlap). Recognition in English was modulated by language background (bilinguals vs. monolinguals) and by the amount of phonological overlap that English words shared with their L1 German translations. L1 word recognition remained unchanged across conditions between monolingual and bilingual toddlers, showing no effect of learning an L2 on L1 word recognition in bilingual toddlers. Furthermore, bilingual toddlers who had a later age of L2 acquisition had better recognition of words in English than those toddlers who acquired English at an earlier age. The results suggest an important role for L1 phonological experience on L2 word recognition in early bilingual word recognition.

The current study examined the influence of phonological structure and language experience on the nonword repetition performance of bilingual children. Twenty-six Spanish-dominant and 26 English-dominant Spanish–English bilingual five-year-old children were matched on current exposure to the dominant language and year of first exposure to English. Participants repeated non-wordlike nonwords in English and Spanish. The Spanish-dominant group performed better than the English-dominant group for both Spanish and English nonwords. In addition, there was a main effect for test language, where Spanish nonwords were produced more accurately than English nonwords overall. The Spanish-dominant group advantage for nonwords is interpreted as emerging from the extra practice the dominant Spanish speakers had producing multisyllabic words.

Given that the linguistic articulators for sign language are also used to produce co-speech gesture, we examined whether one year of academic instruction in American Sign Language (ASL) impacts the rate and nature of gestures produced when speaking English. A survey study revealed that 75% of ASL learners (N = 95), but only 14% of Romance language learners (N = 203), felt that they gestured more after one year of language instruction. A longitudinal study confirmed this perception. Twenty-one ASL learners and 20 Romance language learners (French, Italian, Spanish) were filmed re-telling a cartoon story before and after one academic year of language instruction. Only the ASL learners exhibited an increase in gesture rate, an increase in the production of iconic gestures, and an increase in the number of handshape types exploited in co-speech gesture. Five ASL students also produced at least one ASL sign when re-telling the cartoon. We suggest that learning ASL may (i) lower the neural threshold for co-speech gesture production, (ii) pose a unique challenge for language control, and (iii) have the potential to improve cognitive processes that are linked to gesture.

People differ in their ability to perceive second language (L2) sounds. In early bilinguals the variability in learning L2 phonemes stems from speech-specific capabilities (Díaz, Baus, Escera, Costa & Sebastián-Gallés, 2008). The present study addresses whether speech-specific capabilities similarly explain variability in late bilinguals. Event-related potentials were recorded (using a design similar to Díaz et al., 2008) in two groups of late Dutch–English bilinguals who were good or poor in overtly discriminating the L2 English vowels /ε-æ/. The mismatch negativity, an index of discrimination sensitivity, was similar between the groups in conditions involving pure tones (of different length, frequency, and presentation order) but was attenuated in poor L2 perceivers for native, unknown, and L2 phonemes. These results suggest that variability in L2 phonemic learning originates from speech-specific capabilities and imply a continuity of L2 phonemic learning mechanisms throughout the lifespan.

This special issue deals with cross-linguistic priming in bilinguals, and consists of six contributions, which were all presented during the workshop on cross-linguistic priming in bilinguals at Radboud University Nijmegen (NL) in September 2013 (http://crosslingprimingconf2013.wordpress.com).

Although there is a body of work investigating code-switching (alternation between two languages in production) in the preschool period, it largely relies on case studies or very small samples. The current work seeks to extend extant research by exploring the development of code-switching longitudinally from 31 to 39 months of age in two distinct groups of bilingual children: Spanish–English children in San Diego and French–English children in Montréal. In two studies, consistent with previous research, children code-switched more often between than within utterances and code-switched more content than function words. Additionally, children code-switched more from Spanish or French to English than the reverse. Importantly, the factors driving the rate of code-switching differed across samples such that exposure was the most important predictor of code-switching in Spanish–English children whereas proficiency was the more important predictor in French–English children.

This paper examines the bilingual language development of young Korean–American children with respect to their acquisition of English grammatical morphemes and the different plural marking systems of Korean and English. We address two specific issues: (1) “do L1 and L2 learners acquire the grammatical features of a given language in the same sequence?” and (2) “do L2 learners of different L1 backgrounds learn the grammatical features of a given second language in the same sequence?” Comparison of our results with those of other morpheme acquisition studies suggests that L1 and L2 learners of English do not acquire English grammatical features in the same sequence. Furthermore, there is evidence that first language influences the course of second language acquisition. Results of an experimental study of plural marking suggest that the bilingual children in most, but not all, respects follow similar, but delayed patterns of first language acquisition of Korean and successive acquisition of English.

We explored the role of age of acquisition in picture naming with a group of unbalanced, late bilinguals and a group of monolinguals. We hypothesised that we would find effects of L2 age of acquisition on L2 picture naming performance in late bilinguals if the age of acquisition effects we and others have found in L1 picture naming are not limited to language capabilities acquired early in the lifespan. In Experiment 1, late bilingual Spanish–English participants named a large set of pictures in their L2 (English). The most important predictor of naming ability was L2 age of acquisition. In Experiment 2, monolingual English participants named the same pictures. Naming speed was predicted by L1 age of acquisition. Hence speed of picture naming in a given language was predicted by age of acquisition values for that language, that is, L2 values predicted L2 performance (Experiment 1) and L1 values predicted L1 performance (Experiment 2). On the basis of these results we conclude that age of acquisition effects are not restricted to items learned before any putative critical period, but should be observed for items learned at any age. That is, age of acquisition effects are more likely to be due to the relative order in which items are acquired within a language.

Phonological encoding is the process by which speakers retrieve phonemic segments for morphemes from memory and use the segments to assemble phonological representations of words to be spoken. When conversing in one language, bilingual speakers have to resist the temptation of encoding word forms using the phonological rules and representations of the other language. We argue that the activation of phonological representations is not restricted to the target language and that the phonological representations of languages are not separate. We advance a view of bilingual control in which condition-action rules determine what is done with the activated phonological information depending on the target language. This view is computationally implemented in the WEAVER++ model. We present WEAVER++ simulations of the cognate facilitation effect (Costa, Caramazza and Sebastián-Gallés, 2000) and the between-language phonological facilitation effect of spoken distractor words in object naming (Hermans, Bongaerts, de Bot and Schreuder, 1998).

Two major mechanisms of encoding telicity across languages are either marking the object as exhaustively countable or measurable, or utilizing a specific prefix on the verbal form. English predominantly uses the first mechanism, while Russian mostly utilizes the second. The learning task of an English speaker acquiring Russian, then, is two-fold: to learn each individual verb with its subset of perfective prefixes, and to acquire knowledge of the fact that most prefixed verbs denote telic events. Sixty-six English-speaking learners of Russian as well as 45 controls took an on-line test of semantic interpretation. Results indicate that some low intermediate learners, and the majority of high intermediate and advanced learners are highly accurate in interpreting Russian telicity marking. It is argued that the difficulty in acquiring Russian aspect lies in learning the lexical items signaling telicity, but crucially NOT in learning the grammatical mechanism for telicity marking.

To investigate whether similar control processes are used during single and dual language production, we compared register switching (formal and informal speech in the same language) vs. language switching (French and English). The results across two experiments showed a positive correlation of overall register- and language-switch costs and similar formal French switch costs across the two switching tasks. However, whereas increasing the cue-to-stimulus interval resulted in a reduction of language-switch costs, register-switch costs were unaffected by the interval manipulation. This difference in switch-cost pattern indicates that control processes are not entirely identical during single and dual language production.

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.

The present study explored the influence of language switching on both comprehension (utilizing a picture-sentence matching procedure) and word-level processing (utilizing eye movement registration) in reading simple German and English sentences. Language sequence was unpredictable and contained language switches (subsequent sentence in a different language) and language repetitions (subsequent sentence in the same language). The results revealed a substantial decrease of comprehension following language switches (with greater switch costs in L1 than in L2), likely indicating relatively long-lasting, endogenous inhibition processes affecting higher-level text integration. In contrast, there were comparatively minor and transient effects on eye movements (in terms of altered skipping probabilities and gaze durations) that were restricted to the initial words within a sentence, presumably representing short-lasting exogenous (stimulus-driven) activation effects after language switches (with greater switch costs in L2 than in L1). Overall, the results are in line with predictions from recent interactive-activation frameworks of bilingual language processing.

Code-switching is prevalent in bilingual speech, and follows specific syntactic constraints. Several theories have been proposed to explain these constraints, and in this paper we focus on the Minimalist Program and the Matrix Language Frame model. Using a determiner-noun picture naming paradigm, we tested the ability of these theories to explain determiner-noun code-switches in Spanish–English bilinguals. The Minimalist Program predicts that speakers will use the determiner from the gendered language, whereas the Matrix Language Frame model predicts that the determiner will come from the language that dominates the syntactic structure in a code-switched utterance. We observed that the bilinguals had slowest naming times and decreased accuracy in Spanish determiner - English noun conditions (‘el dog’), and that adding a Matrix Language did not modulate this pattern. Although our results do not align with either theory, we conclude that they can be explained by the WEAVER++ model of speech production.

This paper presents the results of two sentence production studies addressing the role of language exposure, prior linguistic modelling and discourse-pragmatic appropriateness on the phenomenon of cross-linguistic influence (CLI) in bilingual 5-year-olds. We investigated whether French–English bilingual children would be as likely as monolingual children to use a left-dislocation structure in the description of a target scene. We also examined whether input quantity played a role in the degree of accessibility of these syntactic constructions across languages. While the results indicate a significant effect of elicitation condition only in French, the relative amount of language exposure in each language predicted the likelihood of producing a left-dislocation in both French and English. These findings make a new contribution to the role of language exposure as a predictor of CLI. The data also support the recent proposal that CLI arises out of processing mechanisms.

This study examined behavioral and neurophysiological indices of discrimination of an English vowel contrast [ɪ–ɛ] by early and late bilingual Spanish–English speakers, compared to monolingual English speakers. Electrophysiological measures (Mismatched Negativity – MMN) and behavioral measures (AX discrimination and forced-choice identification) were employed to examine perception of a nine-step vowel continuum, re-synthesized from natural tokens. Results revealed that (i) both monolingual and early bilinguals showed similar behavioral perception while late bilinguals performed more poorly on all behavioral tasks; and (ii) monolinguals showed robust evidence of discrimination (MMN) at a pre-attentive level that was significantly larger than found for either early or late bilinguals. These findings suggested that early input of English vowels to bilinguals did not necessarily lead to robust, automatic processing, as measured at a more attention-independent neural level; but earlier experience with a second language allowed for native-like speech perception measured with behavioral tasks.