This study examined whether L1-Mandarin learners of L2-English use verb bias and complementizer cues to process temporarily ambiguous English sentences the same way native speakers do. SVO word order places verbs early in sentences in both languages, allowing the use of verb-based knowledge to anticipate what could follow. The two languages differ, however, in whether an optional complementizer signals embedded clauses. In a self-paced reading experiment, native English speakers and L1-Mandarin learners of L2-English read sentences containing temporary ambiguity about whether a noun was the direct object of the verb preceding it or the subject of an embedded clause. Native speakers replicated previous work showing an optimally efficient interactive pattern of cue use, while non-native learners showed additive effects of the two cues, consistent with predictions of the Competition Model about learning how to use multiple cues in a second language that sometimes agree and sometimes do not.

The masked translation priming effect was examined in Chinese–English bilinguals using lexical decision and semantic categorization tasks in an effort to understand why the two tasks seem to produce different patterns of results. A machine-learning approach was used to assess the participant-based factors that contribute to the sizes of translation priming effects in these tasks. As expected, the participant-based factors that predicted translation priming effects did vary across tasks. Priming effects in lexical decision were associated with higher self-rated listening, reading, and writing abilities in English. Priming effects in semantic categorization were associated with more frequent use of English in daily life, spoken English proficiency, and self-rated listening proficiency in English. These results are discussed within the framework of Multilink, the logic of which is then expanded in an attempt to account for these task differences.

We examined the effect of word stress position on bilingual auditory cognate processing. Turkish–Dutch early bilinguals who are dominant in their L2 (Dutch) performed an auditory lexical decision task in Turkish or Dutch. While Dutch has variable word stress, with a tendency for penultimate stress, stress in Turkish is mostly predictable and usually falls on the ultimate syllable. Our tasks included two-syllable cognates with penultimate stress in both languages, ultimate stress in both languages, or ultimate stress in Turkish and penultimate stress in Dutch. Some cognate facilitation effects arose in Dutch, while inhibition was found in Turkish. Cognates with ultimate stress were processed faster than cognates with penultimate stress, in both languages. This shows that in Turkish–Dutch early bilinguals, cognate processing depends on Turkish stress position, although Dutch is dominant. Together, the findings support the view that cognates have separate, though linked representations.

The present study explored whether emergent bilingual children showed enhanced abilities to learn L3 vocabulary including written, spoken and conceptual forms compared to monolinguals, and the impact of L2/L3 cross-language similarities on such an effect. To this end, we contrasted the English word learning performance of French fifth-graders attending either a monolingual school program or a classroom-immersion program with German as an L2. Half of the items to be learned were German/English (L2/L3) cognate words while the other half were monolingual English (L3) words. Learning was assessed with a forced-choice recognition task, a go/no-go auditive recognition task and an orthographic judgment task. Results yielded a generalized bilingual advantage, with classroom-immersion children outperforming monolinguals on all tasks, irrespective of cognateness, except for the orthographic task. These findings advocate for a bilingual advantage in children that is globally not driven by the specific language properties of cognates, except for the written modality.

Interest in third language (L3) acquisition has increased exponentially in recent years, due to its potential to inform long-lasting debates in theoretical linguistics, language acquisition and psycholinguistics. From the very beginning, researchers investigating child and adult L3 acquisition have considered the many diverse cognitive factors that constrain and condition the initial state and development of newly acquired languages, and their models have duly evolved to incorporate insights from the most recent findings in psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics and cognitive psychology. The articles in this Special Issue of Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, in dealing with issues such as age of acquisition, attrition, relearning, cognitive economy or the reliance on different memory systems – to name but a few – provide an accurate portrayal of current inquiry in the field, and are a particularly fine example of how instrumental research in language acquisition and other cognitive domains can be to each other.

In an impressive review of recent research on the L2 processing of syntactic and anaphoric dependencies and ambiguities, Cunnings (Cunnings) convincingly demonstrates that the evidence from studies conducted within the last decade is not compatible with the Shallow Structures Hypothesis (SSH) which posits that L2 readers engage in structurally less detailed parses than native speakers. He also concludes that invoking capacity limitations in working memory in L2 learners cannot account for the full range of findings. Instead, he puts forth a novel approach to non-native processing in the context of cue-based models of memory retrieval. Cunnings assumes (i) L2 learners are more susceptible to interference, and (ii) L2 learners weight retrieval cues differently from native speakers.

To examine script effects, monoscriptal Spanish–English (SE) bilinguals, who use two similar Roman alphabetic systems, were compared to biscriptal Chinese–English (CE) bilinguals, who use logographs and Roman alphabets. On the Attention Network Test, script effects were most evident in global processing efficiency (i.e., inverse efficiency and reaction time) and in the local network of executive control in favor of biscriptal CE bilinguals over matched monoscriptal SE counterparts. Literacy effects were found on the executive control network among Chinese–English bilinguals of high L1-literacy skills over their script- and immersion-matched counterparts, who varied only in low L1 literacy. In a similar vein, results of the multiple regression analysis demonstrated that script and literacy are significant predictors of executive control capacities. Our results suggest that script variation in a bilingual's language pair is an important modulating factor that enhances overall attention efficiency.

In the last decade there has been a surge of interest in the use of neuroimaging tools such as event-related potentials (ERP) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to examine critical issues in the representation and processing of multiple languages in the brain. In 2001, David Green edited a special issue for Bilingualism: Language and Cognition on the cognitive neuroscience of bilingualism that involved studies of bilingual populations in English, German, Italian, and Japanese. According to a review by Vaid and Hull (2002), by 2001, there were at least 25 fMRI studies and 13 PET (positron emission tomography) studies of bilingual language processing in healthy individuals. This number has grown more rapidly since 2001. Many of these neuroscience studies of bilingualism have also appeared in top science journals and attracted widespread attention.

Previous studies revealed language-switching costs (LSC) in bilingual learning settings, consisting of performance decreases when problems are solved in a language different from that of instruction. Strong costs have been found for arithmetic fact knowledge. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether LSC in arithmetic also emerge in an auditory learning task and in pure fact learning. Furthermore, we tested whether LSC are influenced by the direction of language-switching. Thirty-three university students learned arithmetic facts of three different operations (i.e., multiplication, subtraction, artificial facts) over a period of four days. The training was either in German or English. On day five, participants solved problems in both languages. Results revealed LSC in response latencies for all three types of problems, independent of the direction of language-switching. These findings suggest that LSC are modality-unspecific and occur independent of the type of arithmetic fact knowledge.

This Special Issue (SI) is dedicated to early bilinguals, who acquire two languages during early childhood, before age 6, simultaneously (2L1 bilinguals) or sequentially (cL2 bilinguals). Recently, the notion of heritage speakers (HSs) − bilinguals who grow up speaking a minority language at home − has become prominent in this context. HS research has typically targeted bilinguals at a mature (adult) state, but early developing bilinguals may of course be HSs too, though not uniformly labelled as such. HSs of a moribund language or variety are another type of early bilingual, representing the final or penultimate, often 4th or 5th, generation of speakers. Unfortunately, ‘deficiency’ or ‘incompleteness’ is a common thread linking much HS research − despite a wealth of evidence demonstrating HSs’ maintenance of complexity in many grammatical domains along with differences to monolinguals (see, e.g., Kupisch & Rothman, 2016; Putnam & Sánchez, 2013). This SI brings together studies on how and why the morphosyntax and phonology of early bilinguals might differ from that of monolinguals.

Topics in psycholinguistics and the neurocognition of language rarely attract the attention of journalists or the general public. One topic that has done so, however, is the potential benefits of bilingualism for general cognitive functioning and development, and as a precaution against cognitive decline in old age. Sensational claims have been made in the public domain, mostly by journalists and politicians. Recently (September 4, 2014) The Guardian reported that “learning a foreign language can increase the size of your brain”, and Michael Gove, the UK's previous Education Secretary, noted in an interview with The Guardian (September 30, 2011) that “learning languages makes you smarter”. The present issue of BLC addresses these topics by providing a state-of-the-art overview of theoretical and experimental research on the role of bilingualism for cognition in children and adults.

This study investigated the unresolved issue of potential sources of heritage language attrition. To test contributing effects of three learner variables – age of second language acquisition, length of residence, and language input – on heritage children's lexical retrieval accuracy and speed, we conducted a real-time word naming task with 68 children (age 11–14 years) living in South Korea who spoke either Chinese or Russian as a heritage language. Results of regression analyses showed that the participants were less accurate and slower in naming target words in their heritage language as their length of residence in Korea and the amount of Korean input increased. The age of Korean acquisition did not significantly influence their performance. These findings support the claim that heritage speakers’ language experience is a more reliable predictor of first language attrition than age of acquisition. We discuss these findings in light of different approaches to explaining language attrition.

The present study examines the effect of cross-varietal prosodic characteristics of two German varieties, Northern Standard German (NG) and Swiss German (SG), on the production and perception of foreign accent in L2 Belfast English. The analysis of production data revealed differences in the realisation of nuclear pitch accents in L1 German and L2 English produced by the two groups of speakers. Foreign accent ratings of L2 English sentences produced by NG speakers with no or extensive experience, native Belfast English speakers and SG speakers were obtained from native Belfast English listeners. The findings showed that segmental and prosodic characteristics play a role in the perception of foreign accent. In addition, they can be more similar across languages than across varieties of the same language. This in turn affects which and how cross-varietal differences in L1 impact on the degree of perceived foreign accentedness. The results are consistent with a usage-based account.

In two experiments, we examined the hypothesis that bilingual speakers modulate their cognitive control settings dynamically in the presence of different interlocutors, and this can be captured through performance on a non-linguistic attention task. We introduced Malayalam–English bilinguals to interlocutors with varying L2 dominance through a pre-experiment familiarisation and interaction phase. Later, participants did the Flanker task while the interlocutors appeared before each trial. While in experiment one participants did the Flanker task with equal distribution of trials, in experiment two we manipulated the monitoring demands by changing the frequency of trials. Results showed that high-L2 proficient bilinguals had lower conflict effect on the Flanker task in the presence of balanced interlocutors in both the experiments. The results provide strong evidence of dynamic adaptation of control settings in bilinguals with regard to different passively present interlocutors. The results further extend the predictions of the adaptive control hypothesis with novel manipulation.

At its best, the field of bilingualism is a dynamic discipline informed by diverse perspectives. Carroll's critical review – situated within a linguistics framework – contends that current research on bilingual exposure and language development suffers from a lack of theoretical clarity, and makes little contribution to our understanding of bilingual acquisition. Carroll's push (Carroll) towards greater precision in our thinking about the relation between input and outcomes is an important and welcome challenge. However, it is also critical to keep in mind the social context that motivates much of the current research on bilingual development, and to leave room for studies whose main goal is to provide answers to societally important questions about bilingual children's health and development.

In her acknowledgments Valian (2014) speculates that some of her colleagues may agree with at least some of her conclusions. I agree with most. These include that bilingualism is inconsistently correlated with superior executive function, that the overall benefits of bilingualism reported in some experiments may signify benefits unrelated to executive function (EF), that all speakers have non-linguistic ways of improving EF, and that tests for bilingual advantages should be aimed at specific mechanisms of bilingual experience and their corresponding components of EF. The remainder of my 1,000 words will be devoted to rather subtle points of disagreement.

In their paper De Bot, Lowie and Verspoor (henceforth DBL&V) attempt to recast SLA research from a non-modular and psychometric position that is based on the assumption that “all variables are interrelated and therefore changes in one variable will have an impact on all other variables that are part of the system” (p. 8). In such grand endeavour their paper naturally raises a large number of issues in SLA research.

Both bilingualism and attention contribute to the development of executive functioning (EF), with higher levels of both leading to better outcomes. The present study treats bilingualism and attention as continuous variables to investigate their impact on EF. Eighty-two 9-year-olds who were attending a French school in an anglophone community completed a flanker task. Children's progress in French represented their level of bilingualism, and attention was assessed through a standard standardized instrument. Degree of bilingualism and degree of attention were both positively related to performance, but exposure to a third language in the home did not further affect outcomes.