The study investigates the effects of grammatical gender on bilingual processing. Native speakers of Russian (a gendered language) learning English and monolingual English controls performed a self-paced reading task in English (a non-gendered language). As predicted, bilingual speakers showed delayed latencies to gendered pronouns (he or she) that were incongruent with the noun's grammatical gender in Russian, indicating that first language (L1) grammatical gender assignment can be interpreted as biological gender in nonnative (L2) processing. The L1 gender bias was only found in sentences containing animate, but not inanimate, nouns. These results speak against the syntactic mechanism being solely responsible for gender biases, but rather support a semantic transfer account due to coactivation of linguistic and conceptual features as proposed in the sex and gender hypothesis (SAGH, Vigliocco, Vinson, Paganelli & Dworzynski, 2005). Overall, the study provides clear evidence for the L1 grammatical gender bias in bilingual processing, albeit constrained by animacy.

The issue of critical or sensitive periods affecting the outcome of second language (L2) acquisition has been the subject of intense investigation and debate for many years, with people arguing for or against maturational effects on ultimate attainment. In their influential paper, Johnson and Newport (1989) identify two hypotheses: the exercise hypothesis and the maturational state hypothesis. According to the former, if the capacity for acquiring language is exercised early in life (in first language acquisition), then language learning abilities will remain intact throughout life: in other words, permitting successful L2 acquisition regardless of age. In contrast, according to the maturational state hypothesis, the language learning capacity declines with age, affecting L2 acquisition as well as late L1. Johnson and Newport take their results, which show an age-related decline in performance during childhood and adolescence, to support the maturational state hypothesis. Many L2 researchers have adopted a maturational perspective and have reached similar conclusions as to the presence of critical or sensitive periods (e.g., Abrahamsson, 2012; DeKeyser & Larson-Hall, 2005; Long, 1990; Oyama, 1976; Patkowski, 1980). Some researchers have pointed out that age effects continue into adulthood, contrary to the claim for a critical period (e.g., Birdsong & Mollis, 2001). Others have suggested that what looks like an age-related maturational decline may be accounted for by confounding factors, such as task effects, effects of L1, amount of L2 use, education or input (e.g., Bialystok & Miller, 1999; Flege, Yeni-Komshian & Liu, 1999).

Mouthings, the spoken language elements in sign language discourse, are typically analysed as having a redundant, one-on-one relationship with manual signs, both semantically and temporally. We explore exceptions to this presupposed semantic and temporal congruency in a corpus of spontaneous signed conversation by deaf users of Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). We identify specifying mouthings (words with a different meaning than the co-occurring sign), solo mouthings (uttered while the hands are inactive) and added mouthings (words added to a signing stream without their corresponding sign), and make a sentence-level analysis of their occurrences. These non-redundant mouthings occurred in 12% of all utterances, and were made by almost all signers. We argue for the presence of a code-blending continuum for NGT, where NGT is the matrix language and spoken Dutch is blended in, in various degrees. We suggest expansion of existing code-mixing models, to allow for description of bimodal mixing.

The contribution that Ton Dijkstra has made to the field of bilingualism, with his colleagues over the years, is beyond measure. He has advanced our field with the thoughtful and thought-provoking models of the bilingual lexicon he has put forward, and with the vast empirical data he and his colleagues have collected from numerous bilinguals, using a variety of experimental methods. This paper by Dijkstra, Wahl, Buytenhuijs, van Halem, Al-jibouri, de Korte, and Rekké (2018) is no exception. It comprises a thoughtful and detailed description of a new model, Multilink, and provides relevant information regarding the context in which the model was developed, its assumptions, its successes and challenges. The model is the first to consider aspects of both word production and word recognition, as well as of word translation, and to explicitly address how translation equivalents that share both form and meaning – cognates – may be processed. Also addressed are word-frequency concerns, including differences in word frequency that are dependent on language proficiency and exposure. The assumptions that are made within the model are clearly laid out, and less-than-ideal decisions that needed to be made are acknowledged. The authors conclude that a model like Multilink could be the basis for a general model of the mental lexicon. In that, they promote the view taken in Libben, Goral, and Libben (2017) that the bilingual – not the monolingual – lexicon should be considered as the default.

The present electroencephalographical multi-speaker MMN oddball experiment was designed to study the phonological processing of German native and non-native speech sounds. Precisely, we focused on the perception of German /ɪ-iː/, /ɛ-ɛː/, /a-aː/ and the fricatives [ʃ] and [ç] in German natives (GG) and French learners of German (FG). As expected, our results showed that GG were able to discriminate all the critical vowel contrasts. In contrast, FG, despite their high L2 proficiency level, were only marginally sensitive to vowel length variations. Finally, neither GG nor FG discriminated the opposition between [ʃ] and [ç], as revealed by the absence of MMN response. This latter finding was interpreted in terms of low perceptual salience. Taken together, the present findings lend partial support to the Perceptual Assimilation Model for late bilinguals (PAM-L2) for speech perception of non-native phonological contrasts.

Four hypotheses regarding the impact of discourse context on cross-language lexical activation were tested. Highly-proficient, Spanish–English bilinguals read all-English paragraphs containing non-identical and identical cognates or noncognate controls while their eye-movements were tracked. There were four paragraph conditions based on a full crossing of semantic bias from the topic sentence and sentence containing the critical word. In analyses in which cognate status was treated categorically there was an interaction between global bias and cognates status such that the observed inhibitory effects of cognate status were attenuated in global-neutral contexts. Follow-up analyses on the non-identical cognates in which orthographic overlap was treated continuously revealed a U-shaped function between orthographic overlap and processing time, which was more pronounced in global-neutral contexts. The overall pattern of findings is consistent with a combined operation of resonant-based and feature-restriction mechanisms of context effects.

The field of bilingual first language acquisition has focused on several important and interrelated issues: whether or not the young child acquiring two languages simultaneously differentiates his or her two languages from the onset of acquisition, what role the input plays in the acquisition of two languages, and whether the path of acquisition is similar to that of monolingual peers (see De Houwer, 1990). As a member of the DUFDE team, Natascha Müller has in previous work argued forcefully and convincingly for the bilingual child's separate development of his or her two languages, and hence how language-acquiring bilinguals behave like monolinguals. In her keynote article, Müller invokes the notion of transfer, a well-known term from research into second language acquisition, and proposes to consider transfer from the perspective of the input to which the young bilingual child is exposed. When this input is ambiguous, so that is there is variation in the input regarding one of the languages, the child will resort to transfer from the other language as a so-called relief strategy. In the following, I address the issue of cross-linguistic influence in language development and highlight the implications Müller's proposals may have for the field of bilingual first language acquisition. In conclusion I will relate these issues to the complexity of the notion of input in early bilingualism.

I am in full agreement with Aneta Pavlenko's analysis of the data and her line of reasoning about emotion words and emotion concepts, but not with her claim that the findings are unique to the study of bilingualism, and that differential language emotionality is uniquely visible in bi- and multilingual speakers. I will argue that (i) emotion words and concepts behave like other aspects of bilingualism, exhibit the same kinds of phenomena, and are susceptible to the same types of interference; (ii) the phenomena observed about emotion words and emotion concepts are not unique to bilinguals but merely more salient; and (iii) what applies in any conceptual domain applies within the emotion domain as well, in both unilinguals' and bilinguals' conceptual systems.

Despite increasing attention to bilingualism – conferences, publications, grants – linguists are as far as ever from reaching consensus. Is code-switching the alternation between two equally activated languages or is it the insertion of elements from a source language into a recipient language? Can and should we distinguish borrowing and code-switching of single words? Is there grammatical convergence between bilinguals’ two languages and does code-switching promote it? Since the first accounts of the structure of code-switching in the 1970s, the same questions have been readdressed with astoundingly little, if any, cumulative advances. Scientific progress has been obstructed by polemic debate, often fueled by elicited judgments, which may display random error (Labov, 1996), or reports of the behavior of stray individuals, which are uninterpretable in the absence of knowledge of the systematic community pattern (Labov, 2006/1966, p. 5).

Any person who has taught Spanish as a second language or who has interacted with a non-native speaker of Spanish can easily tell that mastering the correct use of the copulas ser and estar is very difficult in both spoken and written production. But L2 learners are not alone. The Spanish copulas also present difficulty and frustration for L2 instructors of Spanish, since most pedagogical explanations of the uses of ser and estar provided in textbooks are incomplete and inaccurate. However, the acquisition of copular constructions has not received the attention it deserves in the acquisition literature, making a special issue of Bilingualism: Language and Cognition dedicated to this topic particularly welcome. A reason for the scarcity of research in this area may be related to both the linguistic complexity of Spanish ser and estar and the inadequacy of many available theoretical treatments to explain their complementary distribution. Although constructions with ser and estar are highly frequent in the input, they are grammatically quite intricate, straddling between the levels of morphology, syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Accordingly, Bruhn de Garavito and Valenzuela correctly frame their study within the current debate on interface vulnerability in language development in general, and in adult L2 acquisition in particular (Sorace, 2004; White, in press). In a nutshell, grammatical areas which require the integration of different levels of linguistic knowledge (e.g., syntax–discourse, syntax–morphology, morphology–semantics, etc.) for processing, production, or interpretation, show developmental delays and instability in monolingual and bilingual acquisition. In the case of monolingual acquisition, instability or non-target-like behavior is temporary, but in L2 grammars, instability can persist up to very advanced levels of proficiency, eventually leading to fossilization.

This study describes how Turkish and Moroccan adults acquire Dutch possessive clauses in which the verb have expresses the possessive relationship. The acquisition process is explained within the framework of recent generative theory in which have-clauses are assumed to be copular locative constructions. In this theory, predicate inversion of the locative PP and incorporation of the locative P0 into a be-copula are the main characteristics of a possessive have-clause. Assuming that all linguistic knowledge of the L1 is present, L2 learners rely on it from the earliest stages, irrespective of whether this L1 knowledge is parameter-related or not. The results confirm such a “conservation” viewpoint, which accounts for how the possessive relationship is expressed in the earliest stages and why these learners have their language-specific difficulties in discovering the target have-construction. The results corroborate the conservation effect of both parametrized linguistic knowledge, viz., the strong features triggering predicate inversion, and non-parametrized knowledge, viz., knowledge of syntax, morphology and morphological realization rules, and properties of lexical items.

Being bilingual confers certain behavioral effects. Determining their precise origin is of utmost importance given the need to avoid unjust misattribution of labels such as “bilingual (dis)advantage” to people's bilingual experiences. To this end, this systematic PRISMA-based review aims to shed light on the social and sociolinguistic origins of bilingualism-related behavioral effects. Analyzing 368 studies, we find that 73.41% of the 267 studies that report such effects attribute them either to sociolinguistic factors alone or to the interaction of sociolinguistic and cognitive factors. Linking the two fronts, type of effect and origin of effect, we find a previously unreported correlation: Studies that find evidence for bilingual disadvantages are more likely to claim a sociolinguistic origin, while studies that report advantages are more likely to link their findings to a cognitive origin. We discuss these results and present the key components of a sociolinguistic theory of the origin of bilingual effects.

Orthography plays a crucial role in L2 learning, which generally relies on both oral and written input. We examine whether incongruencies between L1 and L2 grapheme-phoneme correspondences influence bilingual speech perception and production, even when both languages have been acquired in early childhood before reading acquisition. Spanish–Basque and Basque–Spanish early bilinguals performed an auditory lexical decision task including Basque pseudowords created by replacing Basque /s̻/ with Spanish /θ/. These distinct phonemes take the same orthographic form, <z>. Participants also completed reading-aloud tasks in Basque and Spanish to test whether speech sounds with the same orthographic form were produced similarly in the two languages. Results for both groups showed orthography had strong effects on speech perception but no effects on speech production. Taken together, these findings suggest that orthography plays a crucial role in the speech system of early bilinguals but does not automatically lead to non-native production.

The study explores how native language (L1) lexical access is affected by immersion in a second-language (L2) environment, and by short-term reimmersion in the L1 environment. We compared the L1 picture-naming performance of Polish–English bilinguals living in the UK (migrants) against that of bilinguals living in Poland (controls). Each group was tested twice: the migrants while in the UK (L2 immersion) and after visiting Poland (L1 reimmersion); the controls twice in their L1 environment. Contrary to our expectations, there was no main effect of group, thus suggesting that L2 immersion per se does not impact L1 lexical access. Nevertheless, migrants benefitted from L1 reimmersion by showing faster naming latencies for high-frequency words after a short visit to their home country, probably due to more opportunities to encounter these words. Overall, the study shows that the cognitive system is sensitive to the language environment by quickly adapting the activation level of lexical items.

Previous work suggests that child-internal and -external factors influence dual language learning (DLL), although more work is needed – to clarify the role of phonological short-term memory (PSTM) and language exposure in particular. Accordingly, we investigated the role of language exposure and PSTM in phonological awareness and receptive and expressive vocabulary development in the majority language in DLL. PSTM was measured with both a language-specific and language-universal nonword repetition task (NWR). Sixty-five DLL preschoolers were assessed twice, five months apart. Results show that maternal majority-language proficiency as well as language-specific and universal NWR predicted all outcomes, whereas length of exposure to the majority language only predicted receptive and expressive vocabulary. Current exposure did not predict any outcome. The findings extend previous research on child-internal and child-external factors as predictors of DLL to phonological awareness and language-universal NWR.

Bilinguals’ emotions can vary in intensity with the language of a stimulus. Yet, extant research has somewhat surprisingly accepted inconsistent results from implicit nonverbal and explicit verbal emotion measures. To date, it is unclear if this inconsistency recurs to conceptual or methodological differences. We therefore investigated if squeezing a handheld dynamometer is a valid nonverbal, “visceral” alternative to self-reported language-dependent feelings by comparing explicit ratings to neuro-physiological emotional reactions. We replicated two pupillometry experiments inducing language-dependent emotions through sentence reading (Study 1) and listening to narrative video commercials (Study 2) of low and high emotionality in the first or second language. Pupillometry confirmed that bilinguals are more sensitive to the low-high emotionality contrast in their first than second language. Grip force (but not duration) mirrored these findings, whereas verbal ratings did not. We thus recommend grip force as a new attentional, nonverbal measure for bilingualism research.