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.

The authors of ‘Phrase-final prepositions in Quebec French: An empirical study of contact, code-switching and resistance to convergence’, Poplack, Zentz & Dion (2011, this issue), henceforth cited as PZD, make a strong case for showing that, in spite of surface similarities, preposition stranding in Canadian French relative clauses cannot be qualified as a case of grammatical convergence due to language contact with English, but that it rather turns out to be a result of analogical extension of a native French strategy, preposition orphaning, to a new context. The application of a particularly sound and accountable methodology, the comparative method of variationist sociolinguistics (Poplack & Meechan, 1998; Tagliamonte, 2002), allows them to invalidate the hypothesis of a causal relationship between contact and the phenomenon under study.

Little is known about the neural changes that accompany sign language learning by hearing adults. We used ERPs and a word-sign matching task to assess how learning impacted the N400 priming effect (reduced negativity for translations compared to unrelated trials). English monolinguals (N = 32) learned 100 ASL signs – half highly iconic (meaning was guessable), half non-iconic. In contrast to non-iconic signs, little learning was needed for the highly iconic signs as translation accuracy was similar pre- and post-learning. Prior to learning, an N400 priming effect was observed only for iconic signs. After learning, the size of the priming effect increased for non-iconic signs (replicating word learning studies) but decreased for iconic signs. For deaf ASL signers (N = 20), iconicity did not modulate the size of the N400 priming effect. We conclude that the impact of iconicity on lexico-semantic processing is reduced following learning, as signs are integrated into an emerging visual-manual lexicon.

Adults differ in the ease with which they acquire lexical tones in a non-native language. Individual differences have been attributed to several factors, such as the role that pitch plays in a learner's L1 to signal lexical meaning (L1 tonal status), the shape of the tones to be acquired (tone types), as well as extralinguistic factors (such as musical experience and working memory). Here, we ask whether learners from a spectrum of L1 tonal statuses (Dutch, Swedish and Japanese, and Thai) differ in their tone word learning facility, whilst we simultaneously investigate the effects of tone type, and musical experience and working memory. Our findings suggest that above and beyond L1 tonal status, the strongest predictor of tone word learning was pre-lexical tone processing (measured by a tone categorization task), although the strength of the link between pre-lexical and lexical processing may be modulated by L1 tonal status.

In processing their two languages, bilinguals have to selectively attend to the target language and reduce interference from the non-target language. This experience may have specific cognitive consequences on Executive Functions (EF) through bilingual language processing. Some studies found cognitive consequences in executive functioning skills. However, other studies did not replicate these findings or found a bilingual disadvantage. The aim of this study was to test for the cognitive consequences of bilingualism in EF among a large number of young adults using a latent variable approach, to rule out non-EF task differences as an explanation for inconsistency across studies. Also, we were interested in testing the EF structure using the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) approach. The results did not support a cognitive consequence of bilingualism and also the EF structure was the same for both groups. We discuss other possible variables that might contribute to the mixed results across studies.

The commentaries on our Keynote article “Psycholinguistic, cognitive, and neural implications of bimodal bilingualism” were enthusiastic about what can be learned by studying bilinguals who acquire two languages that are understood via distinct perceptual systems (vision vs. audition) and that are produced with distinct linguistic articulators (the hands vs. the vocal tract). The authors also brought out several new ideas, extensions, and issues related to bimodal bilingualism, which we discuss in this reply.

Learners can track word-referent co-occurrences across individually-ambiguous naming events to form correct word-referent mappings, termed statistical word learning (SWL). Prior research largely focuses on learning from a single language input, where a referent co-occurs with a single word (1:1 mapping). Here, we tested adults’ SWL from a simulated bilingual environment, where one referent co-occurred with two words (2:1 mapping) and the two words were either differentiated by a linguistic cue (Mandarin lexical tones, Cued condition) or not (Uncued condition). Results showed that in the Cued condition, Chinese–English bilinguals (N = 38) outperformed Spanish–English bilinguals (N = 56) and English monolinguals (N = 55), while Spanish–English bilinguals and English monolinguals performed similarly. The three groups did not differ in the Uncued condition. Self-reported learning confidence and strategies showed limited conscious awareness of learning. Results demonstrate that familiarity with a linguistic cue boosts overall statistical word learning from bilingual input.

When a bilingual speaker has a larger linguistic sub-system in their L1 than their L2, how are L1 categories mapped to the smaller set of L2 categories? This article investigates this “subset scenario” (Escudero, 2005) through an analysis of laterals in highly proficient bilinguals (Scottish Gaelic L1, English L2). Gaelic has three lateral phonemes and English has one. We examine acoustics and articulation (using ultrasound tongue imaging) of lateral production in speakers’ two languages. Our results suggest that speakers do not copy a relevant Gaelic lateral into their English, instead maintaining language-specific strategies, with speakers also producing English laterals with positional allophony. These results show that speakers develop a separate production strategy for their L2. Our results advance models such as the L2LP which has mainly considered perception data, and also contribute articulatory data to this area of study.

This study investigated the impact of reading statements in a second language (L2) versus the first language (L1) on core knowledge confusion (CKC), superstition, and conspiracy beliefs. Previous research on the Foreign Language Effect (FLE) suggests that using an L2 elicits less intense emotional reactions, promotes rational decision-making, reduces risk aversion, causality bias and superstition alters the perception of dishonesty and crime, and increases tolerance of ambiguity. Our results do not support the expected FLE and found instead an effect of L2 proficiency: Participants with lower proficiency exhibited more CKC, were more superstitious and believed more in conspiracy theories, regardless of whether they were tested in L1 or L2. The study emphasises the importance of considering L2 proficiency when investigating the effect of language on decision-making and judgements: It—or related factors—may influence how material is judged, contributing to the FLE, or even creating an artificial effect.

Whether speaking two or more languages (multilingualism) or dialects of one language (bidialectalism) affect executive function (EF) is controversial. Theoretically, these effects may depend on at least two conditions. First, the multilingual and bidialectal characteristics; particularly, (second) language proficiency and the sociolinguistic context of language use (e.g., Green & Abutalebi, 2013). Second, the EF aspects examined; specifically, recent accounts of the locus of the multilingual effect propose a general EF effect rather than an impact on specific processes (Bialystok, 2017). We compared 52 “monolingual” (with limited additional-language/dialect experience), 79 bidialectal and 50 multilingual young adults in the diglossic context of Cyprus, where bidialectalism is widespread and Cypriot and Standard Greek are used in different everyday situations. Three EF processes were examined via seven tasks: inhibition, switching and working memory (Miyake et al., 2000). We found better multilingual and bidialectal performance in overall EF, an effect moderated by high (second) language proficiency.

Given that my paper touched upon many aspects of L1 an L2 acquisition, it is not surprising that the commentaries have raised a diverse range of issues. Nevertheless, one should not lose sight of the fact that the paper has a tightly defined focus, namely to delineate the influence of language processing factors and developmental dynamics on developmental trajectories in L1 and L2 acquisition, and this is done in a very explicit manner. As Carroll rightly puts it in her commentary, this “[e]xplicitness allows us to formulate questions which could otherwise not be asked.”

This empirical study aims to shed light on L3 initial-stage transfer and later development by investigating Q-operations in L1 English–L2 Cantonese and L1 Cantonese–L2 English bilinguals’ L3 Mandarin and L1 English speakers’ L2 Mandarin at low and high proficiency levels. Data from an online cross-modal priming task and an offline acceptability judgement task found that structural similarity determines transfer source selection. Adopting a de-compositional approach to cues of different domains, we have found both facilitative and detrimental transfer effects from Cantonese, with the latter triggered by orthographic and phonological cues. Our data also suggest that detrimental transfer effects can persist at an advanced stage and that L3 development and acquisition results can be affected by various factors such as word frequency and the nature of learning situations.

Muysken argues for four general “strategies” that characterize language contact phenomena across several levels of description. These strategies are (A) maximize structural coherence of the first language (L1); (B) maximize structural coherence of the second language (L2); (C) match between L1 and L2 patterns where possible; and (D) use universal language processing principles. These strategies are seen as choices that bilingual speakers make, individually and collectively, and that are influenced by multiple social, individual, and linguistic factors. This account has the clear advantage of unifying a seemingly very diverse set of language contact phenomena using a limited set of principles. One such phenomenon is cross-linguistic structural priming, the tendency of bilingual speakers to copy grammatical structures from a language recently used to another language (e.g., Hartsuiker, Pickering & Veltkamp, 2004), which Muysken considers an example of “bilingual interference”. In this domain, I will explore how these strategies can be realized in terms of a psycholinguistic processing model, and whether these strategies can be reduced to even more basic principles.

Muysken's article is a timely call for us to seek deeper regularities in the bewildering diversity of language contact outcomes. His model provocatively suggests that most such outcomes can be subsumed under four speaker optimization strategies. I consider two aspects of the proposal here: the formalization in Optimality Theory (OT) and the reduction of contact outcomes to four basic strategies.

Demonstratives are cross-linguistically widespread deictic expressions. Demonstrative systems exhibit variation in number of terms, and parameters affecting their usage. The present paper assesses the relationship between spatial deixis and bilingualism: how language dominance affects speakers of two languages with different demonstrative systems. Here, we compare the use of demonstratives by 72 European Spanish-Catalan simultaneous bilinguals in Mallorca to 30 European Spanish monolinguals. Our results confirmed a significant effect of physical distance between speaker and referent on demonstrative choice in both languages, and differences between languages in the use of the middle term. We did not find the expected effect of language dominance in simultaneous bilinguals. Moreover, we found no influence of the hearer's position on demonstrative choice in monolinguals or bilinguals in European Spanish or Majorcan Catalan. In view of our results, the present study contributes to the debate on how bilingual speakers employ different deictic expressions.

Goldrick, Putnam and Schwarz (2016) propose a very explicit account of code mixing, which nicely draws implications from the well-established findings of coactivation during bilingual language production, and that code mixing is constrained by grammatical principles. This precise characterization will undoubtedly serve as a useful basis for further research on code mixing, second language sentence production, and syntactic learning. However, there are three issues with the account that require further elaboration.

How bilingual children represent procedural versus narrative text is important for both pedagogical and theoretical reasons. To examine this issue, bilingual children and children learning English as a Second Language (ESL) read Hebrew sentences comprising either a procedural (i.e., “how to”) or a narrative text (i.e., description of “doing”) and reading times were measured. Half the children were primed with the same text, in English, in either the same genre or the opposite genre. Text sentences were then randomly sequenced and sentence sequencing mistakes and correct sentence sequencing times were assessed. Irrespective of genre, primed children read the Hebrew test text more quickly, and they read it as quickly as the English prime text. The priming effect was only evident on the last five sentences of each task. Primed children made fewer sentence sequencing mistakes than unprimed children, except when they were primed and tested with procedural text. With text reading times covaried, time for correct sequencing of the sentences showed only a main effect for genre. These data indicate that procedural genre material is harder to process than narrative genre material for bilingual children but that they are not aware of this greater difficulty. The data have important implications for our understanding of the way bilinguals construct mental models.