A problem when reacting to a contribution as rich and as highly interesting as Pienemann's paper, is that it is much easier to react to what's not in it than to what is. An example is the relation between the theory proposed and the way linguistic knowledge is acquired: “[Processability theory] … is not designed to contribute anything to the question of the innate or learnt origin of linguistic knowledge or the inferential processes by which linguistic input is converted into linguistic knowledge.” It is not easy to interpret the full consequences of the model if we are not to take into account the inferential processes by which the learner adds new information to his/her system. Maybe here the dividing lines are drawn too strictly: if the hypothesis space of the learner is restricted by the procedures that can be applied, one wonders at what level in the cognitive system these restrictions are located. Does the conceptualizer already know what the system is capable of doing, or is it uninformed (as follows from a strict interpretation of Levelt's proposal of an incremental system without feedforward)? In the latter case, this would mean that the learners/speakers would still try to express their communicative intentions and only later on in the process would things go wrong, for example, because the S-procedure cannot be carried out.

Pienemann's Processability Theory is an interesting and well thought out attempt to account for the developmental problem in L1 and L2. If correct, it would relieve the genetically specified knowledge base of what he views as its burdensome task of having to specify a great deal of genetically encoded linguistic knowledge and transfer at least part of that task to the processing mechanisms available for the acquisition of procedural skills needed for language processing. He posits a set of processing resources forming an implicational hierarchy such that the resource of a certain level is a prerequisite for the functioning of the next higher level. He posits further that the processing devices will be acquired in their predetermined sequence of activation in the production process. A consequence of this is that acquirers of both the first and the second language will follow the same sequence of acquisition of the processing hierarchy. The differences in the courses of development can be attributed, he says, to the knowledge base with which the learner comes to the acquisition task. In the case of L1, he says, many would see UG as the knowledge base; in the case of L2, only the surface syntactic features of the target language are available (and, presumably, knowledge of the L1).

Are bilingual speakers’ representations of pronominal expressions completely independent in the two languages, or is there sharing of discourse-level representations cross-linguistically? In the present study, we address this question by using a sentence comprehension task that implements the cross-linguistic priming technique at the discourse-level.

In two experiments conducted with Spanish–English bilinguals, we prime dis-preferred interpretations for ambiguous pronouns in the second language (English) by using first language (Spanish) pronoun interpretation primes. In experiment 1, Spanish null pronouns prime second-mentioned/object interpretations in English, showing an effect of priming. In experiment 2, Spanish explicit pronouns prime second-mentioned/object interpretations in English, indicating that an effect of priming approaches significance.

The results demonstrate that bilinguals’ inferences about probability distributions and coherence relations are susceptible to cross-linguistic influence. The strength of the priming effect is discussed within models of cross-language abstract representations.

In several of the most widely read Spanish grammars an entire chapter is devoted to the two copular verbs in Spanish, ser “to be” and estar “to be”, and their many contexts of use (Bull, 1965; Solé and Solé, 1977; Whitley, 1986; Bosque and Demonte, 1999; King and Suñer, 1999; Butt and Benjamin, 2000). For some, the interest in this structure stems from the range of meanings that can be expressed with these two forms, whereas for others it is the variability in the use of these verbs with adjectives, existing between groups, individuals and particular social contexts, that generates inquiry. The combination of these two traits makes the contrast difficult to acquire and likely to be lost or weakened in contexts of language attrition or language contact (Silva-Corvalán, 1986; Geeslin, 2002) and this complexity makes the copula contrast in Spanish an excellent mechanism for exploring broader issues such as theories of acquisition and language change, which are of value to a readership well beyond those working directly on Spanish. After a brief description of the distribution of ser and estar, we provide an overview of the various theoretical descriptions of the copula contrast that exist and their implications for research on bilingualism. Next, we provide a description of the papers in this volume, and outline the areas of interest for readers whose research extends beyond Spanish grammar.

The papers in this Special Issue focus on the use of neuroimaging techniques to answer questions about the neural representation, processing and control of two languages. Neuropsychological data from bilingual aphasics remain vital if we are to establish the neural basis of language (see Paradis, 1995) but lesion-deficit studies alone cannot tell us how neural activity relates to ongoing language processing. Modern neuroimaging methods provide a means to do so. There are two broad classes of such methods: electrophysiological methods allow us to answer questions about when a particular process occurs whereas haemodynamic methods allow us to answer the complementary question of where in the brain such a process is carried out. Before giving a thumb-nail sketch of the papers in this Special Issue, I briefly discuss each class of method.

Correctly spelling an English word requires a high-quality orthographic representation. When faced with spelling a complex word without a high-quality representation, spellers often rely on other knowledge sources (e.g., incomplete stored orthographic forms, phonological to orthographic relationships) to spell it. For bilinguals, another potentially facilitative source is knowledge of a word's lexical and sublexical representations in another language. In the current study we considered simultaneous effects of word-level (e.g., frequency, cognate status) and person-level (e.g., English spelling skill, prompting, bilingual status) predictors on college students’ complex English word spelling. Monolinguals (English; n = 42) significantly outperformed bilinguals (Spanish and English; n = 76) on non-cognate spelling; no group differences emerged for cognate spelling accuracy. Within bilinguals, significantly higher spelling performance on cognates compared to non-cognates suggests cognate facilitation, with no prompting effects. Findings expand an interdisciplinary framework of understanding bilinguals’ activation and use of cross-linguistic representations in spelling.

We investigated three aspects of paired associate learning of vocabulary in an unfamiliar language: monolingual-bilingual differences, effects of dominance and language proficiency, and the possible role of associative strategies. Spanish–English bilinguals (48 English-dominant and 48 Spanish-dominant) and English-speaking monolinguals (n = 48) learned Swahili–English and Swahili-Spanish word pairs. Learning was assessed using cued recall (Swahili cue or Swahili response) and associative recognition tests. English-dominant bilinguals did not outperform English monolinguals on any learning measure. Cued recall accuracy was higher when learning through the dominant language than through the non-dominant language, whether the Swahili words were cues or responses. Proficiency scores in the known language were positively correlated with cued recall accuracy, whether the cue or the response was in Swahili, indicating that proficiency effects occurred not in retrievability of known words but in learning of associations. Bilingual and monolingual participants did not differ in their reported use of associative strategies.

What Aneta Pavlenko discusses in this fascinating article is so widely researched, so cogently conceptualized and so richly reflected upon, that one feels like a spoilsport to bring up a debate which the author herself claims to have avoided, namely the “universalist/relativist debate about basic emotions”. If I do so in this Commentary, it is not to invalidate the large body of work in cross-cultural psychology and cross-cultural semantics that Pavlenko refers to, nor to put into question the wealth of data she and Jean-Marc Dewaele have collected through their international webquestionnaire, but to bring to the fore the dilemma in which any bilingual researcher of bilingualism finds herself.

Earlier acquisition of English is associated with better academic performance for dual language learners (DLLs), but large-scale, prospective, longitudinal studies examining how trajectories for English acquisition relate to school-based outcomes, accounting for relevant covariates, are rare. We explored how the grade in which DLLs (N = 17,548; 47% female; 80% free/reduced-price lunch; 86% Latino, 10% Black, and 4% White/Other) acquire English proficiency, defined by the school district, relates to academic outcomes (grade retention, GPA, reading and math test scores) in 5th grade, controlling for gender, ethnicity, poverty, and school readiness skills at age 4. Earlier acquisition of English, especially before 2nd grade, predicted better performance on each 5th grade outcome. Earlier proficiency in English was even more important for 5th grade outcomes for those with initially high cognitive skills, Latino/Hispanic DLLs (compared to Black DLLs), and those not in poverty. Implications for practice and research are discussed.

This study compared NRT-performance in monolingual Dutch and bilingual Turkish–Dutch third-graders using a Dutch Nonword Repetition Task (NRT). Several novel response analyses at the phoneme level were applied to further understand the earlier reported overall accuracy differences in NRT-performance between bilinguals and monolinguals. Analyses in which the retention of phonemes and the retention of their serial order were disentangled revealed that monolinguals outperform bilinguals with respect to the retention of the phonemes themselves. However, both groups did not differ in their retention of the serial order of correctly recalled phonemes. Furthermore, this study confirms that expressive vocabulary skills do affect overall NRT-performance. The results are discussed in light of current short-term memory (STM) models and the role of long-term phonological knowledge in NRT tasks.

Previous research has shown that using foreign languages reduces cognitive biases. Here, we investigate whether this foreign-language effect extends to self-related cognition – in particular, the self-positivity bias, which refers to automatic association of oneself with positive information and has a facilitation role in maintaining mental health. We applied event-related brain potentials and oscillations in the implicit association test where Chinese–English bilinguals responded to category words (self vs. others) and attribute words (positive vs. negative) in either their native language Chinese or their foreign language English. In response to Chinese words, a self-positivity bias occurred, indexed by a positive D-score in reaction times as well as by smaller N200, larger P3-like/LPC responses, and lower alpha desynchronization when self words were associated with positive relative to negative traits. However, the bias was diminished in the English context. Overall, our findings provide important implications for language choices when self-protective mechanisms should be enhanced.

Previous research has shown that bilingual speakers may be more tolerant to ambiguity, they might perceive situations of ambiguity more interesting, challenging and desirable (e.g., Dewaele & Li, 2013). To our knowledge, no data are available addressing the question whether the language in use can have an effect on the personality trait of tolerance of ambiguity (ToA). This study investigated whether and how reading statements in a second language (L2), as opposed to the native language (L1), affects ToA. 387 Italian–English bilingual adults completed a questionnaire measuring levels of ToA either in English or Italian. Results revealed that processing information in L2 promoted higher scores of ToA overall and in sentences that were related to challenging perspectives and change. Age, gender and L2 proficiency were significant predictors of higher ToA scores. This study offers new evidence that processing information in a L2 can affect tolerance of ambiguous situations.

The present study explores the early stages of incidental acquisition of grammatical gender during reading in German as a second language (L2) using a self-paced reading paradigm. The results show that advanced L2 learners are sensitive to gender agreement violations after as few as three to four exposures to a novel noun within a short text. The results also indicate that the acquisition of grammatical gender from syntactic context is gender dependent: Whereas gender violation effects were observed for feminine and neuter nouns, no such effects were observed for masculine nouns.

Let me begin my comments on Pienemann's keynote paper by expressing my admiration for the scholar who has developed Processability Theory (PT) over a period of some fifteen years with great determination and perseverance. What in earlier publications (e.g. Pienemann, 1985, 1987) appeared to me to be a rather disparate set of principles aiming to account for a limited set of empirical data (the well known sequence of five word orders of the ZISA study), has now evolved into a coherent theory which meets the demands of falsifiability, as PT's claims are formulated in sufficient detail to allow SLA researchers to put them to empirical test. PT comprises a number of principles of great generality, accounting, in principle, for the acquisition of any structure in any language, thereby exceeding the limits of the ZISA data of natural German L2 acquisition. As such, it is to be hoped that PT will have a healthy influence on the field of SLA research, as this field, in the last few years, has perhaps been dominated too much by the issue of whether L2 learners have access to Universal Grammar.