We used a visual lexical decision task to explore control processes in proficient German–English bilinguals. Participants pressed a “yes” button if the letter string was a word in English and a “no” button if it was not. Our critical stimuli were interlingual homographs such as the low-frequency English word TAG. In German, TAG means “day” and is a relatively high frequency word. Overall, our participants responded more slowly to an interlingual homograph than to a control word matched to its English frequency. As we expected, the size of this interference effect depended on various factors. First, including “pure” German words in the stimulus list increased interference. However, participants were able to reduce the degree of interference over time even in the presence of such words. Second, in the absence of pure German words, informing participants about the presence of interlingual homographs from the start of the experimental trials allowed them to reduce interference. We examined the locus of these control effects by analysing carry-over, i.e., reaction times on word trials immediately following an interlingual homograph or its matched control. We inferred from the patterns of interference and carry-over that the primary locus for reducing interference is external to the bilingual lexico-semantic system. We consider the implications of these data for theories of control.

Previous studies of adult bilinguals have shown that cognates (translation equivalents similar in sound and spelling) are translated faster than non-cognates and different representations for the two categories in bilingual memory have been suggested (Kroll and Stewart 1994, van Hell and de Groot 1998). Assuming that bilingual children's representations are similar to those of adults, effects of form similarity between words should also be observed. This paper examines form-similar nouns in the early lexical development of a bilingual German/English child aged 1;11–2;9 as well as effects of form similarity in picture naming and translation in two groups of German/English children aged 8–9. Form similarity here differs from the cognate status of a word in that it implies similarity of sound only. Considering the way hearing children acquire words, it seemed necessary to restrict the similarity of words to this modality. Similarly, the presentation of items in the translation tasks was auditory. The results show an effect of form similarity in early lexical development, whereby form-similar words occurred frequently in the beginning of the observation period in both languages and were more likely to have a translation equivalent in the child's English. In the translation task, form similarity resulted in lower latencies for both language directions. The results thereby confirm that form similarity affects representations in both adult and child learners.

The paper opens with an evaluation of the BIA model of bilingual word recognition in the light of recent empirical evidence. After pointing out problems and omissions, a new model, called the BIA+, is proposed. Structurally, this new model extends the old one by adding phonological and semantic lexical representations to the available orthographic ones, and assigns a different role to the so-called language nodes. Furthermore, it makes a distinction between the effects of non-linguistic context (such as instruction and stimulus list composition) and linguistic context (such as the semantic and syntactic effects of sentence context), based on a distinction between the word identification system itself and a task/decision system that regulates control. At the end of the paper, the generalizability of the BIA+ model to different tasks and modalities is discussed.

It is not easy to comment on Dijkstra and Van Heuven's model because there are many more aspects we agree with than aspects we feel uncomfortable about. Indeed, the BIA model has played an enormous role in showing us how bilingual visual word recognition can be achieved without recurrence to the intuitively appealing – but wrong – ideas of separate, language-specific lexicons and language-selective access. As in many other research areas, a working computational model has been much more influential in convincing critical readers (and researchers) than any series of empirical findings. The BIA+ model inherits this strength and, hopefully, in the coming years will be implemented in enough detail to exceed its predecessor. In the rest of this comment, we would like to put a cautionary note behind the temporal delay assumption introduced in the target article and provide some additional corroborating evidence for the lack of non-linguistic effects on early processes in the identification system.

This article investigates whether the Aspect-before-Tense Hypothesis (Antinucci and Miller, 1976; Shirai and Andersen, 1995) accounts for the acquisition of tense-aspect morphology in child L2 English. The main question addressed is whether early uses of tense-aspect inflections can be analyzed as a spell-out of semantic/aspectual features of verbs (such as punctuality, telicity, durativity, etc.). The data are drawn from a detailed longitudinal study of an eight-year-old Russian-speaking child who was acquiring English as L2 in the USA. It is first shown that the emergence of tense-aspect morphology patterns by aspectual verb class. However, contrary to the Aspect-before-Tense Hypothesis, it is argued that the acquisition patterns cannot be attributed to “defective” tense, nor do they reflect the spell-out of aspectual features. A new approach to the data is developed that proposes underspecification of the syntactic aspectual head in early L2 child grammar.

The aim of the present study was to examine potential effects of early exposure to sign language on the use of communicative gestures by a bilingual hearing child of deaf parents. Data collected monthly during the first two years were analyzed in order to identify types and tokens of communicative gestures, words, and signs and the ways in which they were combined. These data are compared with those obtained from 12 monolingual hearing children observed at 16 and 20 months of age who were exposed only to spoken language. Findings suggest that while exposure to sign language does not seem to provide the bilingual child with an advantage in the rate of early linguistic development, it does appear to influence the extent to which he communicated in the manual modality and made use of its representational and combinatorial potential.

Dijkstra and van Heuven have made an admirable attempt to develop a new model of bilingual memory, the BIA+. Their article presents a clear and well-reasoned theoretical justification of their model, followed by a description of their model. The BIA+ is, as the name implies, an extension of the Bilingual Interactive Activation (BIA) model (Dijkstra and van Heuven, 1998; Van Heuven, Dijkstra and Grainger, 1998; etc), which was itself an adaptation to bilingual memory of McClelland and Rumelhart's (1981) Interactive Activation model of monolingual memory.

Four bilingual speakers of Irish (Gaelic) and English, two men and two women, were audiorecorded as they produced narratives based on pictures from the Mercer Mayer book Frog, where are you? Order of narration was counterbalanced. The narratives were analyzed according to certain features of global and local structure originally identified in Berman and Slobin (1994). Differences within and across narratives emerged in the number of components included, the number of planning components explicitly marked for purpose, the marking of tense and aspect, and the use of extended aspectual categories. These variations were attributed to 1) the order in which the narrative was told (first-told versus second-told versions), 2) the language of the narrative (Irish versus English), and 3) the particular preferences of individual narrators.

This study investigates whether age of onset of bilingualism has an effect on ultimate attainment, and documents incomplete acquisition and attrition of tense/aspect morphology in Spanish. A group of 20 monolingual Spanish speakers, 31 US-born bilinguals, and 8 Latin America-born bilinguals participated in the study. Sixteen of the US-born participants were simultaneous bilinguals who had been exposed to Spanish and English from ages 0 to 3, the remaining 15 learned English between ages 4 to 7 (early child L2 learners), and the Latin-America-born bilinguals learned English between 8 and 12 years of age (late child L2 learners). Results of an oral production, a written completion, and two meaning-interpretation tasks showed that the simultaneous bilingual and the early child L2 groups differed significantly from monolingual Spanish speakers, while only a few individuals in the late child L2 group showed erosion with some aspects. Results suggest that morpho-phonological spell-outs and semantic features of functional categories are affected by incomplete acquisition and language loss, and that many of the patterns of divergence found resemble stages of second language acquisition.

In this paper, we show how some proposals within the Minimalist Program are compatible with a model of codeswitching that recognizes an asymmetry between the participating languages, the Matrix Language Frame model. Through our discussion of an analysis of NPs in a Spanish–English corpus, we illustrate this compatibility and show how recent minimalist proposals can explain the distribution of nouns and determiners in this data set if they adopt the notion of Matrix Language as the bilingual instantiation of structural uniformity in a CP. We outline the central premises of the Matrix Language Frame model, and introduce the Uniform Structure Principle which requires that the structure of constituents be uniform at an abstract level. We then review previous applications of the Minimalist Program to codeswitching.

Much recent research in minimalism has focused on issues related to feature checking. Earlier approaches to feature checking required matching of features in grammatical structures, although more recent proposals consider distinctions in the values of features and in types of matching. Because phi-features for grammatical gender in Spanish and English differ, an analysis of NPs in this corpus of naturally occurring Spanish–English conversations provides a test for minimalist applications to codeswitching. We present our general findings of the distribution of types of NP constituents and then consider explanations of these distributions in light of minimalist proposals. It is possible to explain these distributions in a recasting of the Matrix Language Frame model in minimalist terms, if the construct of the Matrix Language is maintained. The requirement that one language, the Matrix Language, provide an abstract grammatical frame in bilingual constituents corresponds to the type of uniformity that Chomsky (2001) suggests is necessary for the explanatory study of language and variation in language.

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.

Dijkstra and van Heuven lucidly summarize the important research generated by the BIA model and provide an excellent case for the BIA+ model with its critical separation of the identification system from the task/decision system. A keynote article necessarily offers a selective exposition of the authors' thinking and so my remarks are an invitation to expand. My first question concerns the scope of the BIA+ model. My remaining questions broadly address a key feature of the BIA+ model – its ability to explain performance changes as a function of task demands

Central questions in psycholinguistic studies on bilingualism are how bilinguals access words in their two languages, and how they control their language systems and solve the problem of cross-language competition. In their excellent paper “The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision”, Dijkstra and Van Heuven expound their BIA+ model on bilingual word recognition. BIA+ builds on its predecessor BIA, one of the first connectionist models on bilingual word recognition. BIA+ preserves one of BIA's crucial assumptions, namely that the bilingual lexicon is integrated across languages and is accessed in a language non-selective way, an assumption that is supported in many empirical studies and that is now widely accepted in the bilingual literature. Compared to the original BIA model, the BIA+ architecture is further developed (in fact, much more so than the subtle ‘plus’ denotes). BIA+ now includes orthographic, as well as phonological and semantic representations in the word identification system, and a distinction is made between a word identification system and a task/decision system. This latter extension resembles the language task schemas in Green's (1998) Inhibitory Control model. Dijkstra and Van Heuven also distinguish between effects of linguistic and non-linguistic context on performance: linguistic context effects, that arise from lexical, syntactic and semantic sources, are assumed to affect the activity in the word identification system, whereas non-linguistic effects, that can arise from instruction, task demands or participant expectancies, are assumed to affect the task/decision system.

Each year the Cognitive Science Society honors David Rumelhart by awarding the Rumelhart Prize to an outstanding cognitive scientist whose research makes a significant contribution to the formal analysis of human cognition. Formal models of language, including those of Rumelhart and his associates, are well known to psycholinguists in the monolingual context. The formalism of language in the bilingual context, however, is lamentable: to this date, there are only a handful of models (connectionist or otherwise) that are designed specifically to account for bilingual language processing and acquisition (cf. Li and Farkas, 2002). BIA is one of them. BIA+ is now another.

Dijkstra and Van Heuven sketch the BIA+ model for visual word processing in bilinguals. BIA+ differs in a number of respects from its predecessor, BIA, the leading implemented model of bilingual visual word recognition. Notably, BIA+ contains a new processing component that deals with task demands. BIA+ has not been computationally implemented yet and design decisions still need to be taken. In this commentary, I outline a proposal for modeling the control of tasks in BIA+.

The target article represents a significant advance in the level of sophistication applied to models of bilingual word recognition, and Dijkstra and van Heuven are to be congratulated on this endeavour. Bearing in mind the success of the (computational) BIA model in capturing detailed patterns of experimental data, I look forward to future simulation results from the BIA+ when the proposals of this new framework are implemented. It is an essential step to draw a distinction between recognition systems and the decision mechanisms that drive responses, and the authors have provided a novel way of apportioning empirical evidence of context effects in bilingual word recognition across this divide. Given the explanatory weight now being placed on decision mechanisms rather than the word recognition system itself, perhaps indeed it is now time to make some simplifying assumptions about the recognition system and start building detailed computational models of the decision component of the system. Implementation will provide the clarity of theorisation and evaluation of theory viability that have been the hallmark of the BIA model thus far.

The detailed comments of our colleagues on our keynote article suggest that they all value the integration of various sorts of empirical data into one formalized model of bilingual word recognition. Taking this position, our peers propose further specifications or adaptations of the proposed BIA+ model with respect to its representations, processes or control structure; and they indicate what, in their view, should be the next step in model development or empirical testing. We are grateful for their contributions, which we will carefully think through in the coming time and use as a basis for future implementations.

This study investigated whether bilinguals simultaneously activate phonological representations from both of their languages when reading words in just one. The critical stimuli were interlingual homographs (e.g., PAIN) that were low in frequency in the target language of the study (English) and high in frequency in the nontarget language (French). Both English-French and French-English bilinguals were tested. In each experiment, participants named a block of English experimental words, a block of French filler words, and then a second block of English experimental words. In the first block of English trials, the English-French bilinguals had similar naming latencies for homographs and English-only control words, although they made more errors on homographs. In contrast, the French-English bilinguals showed a homograph disadvantage in both the latency and error data. In the second block of English trials, both the English-French bilinguals and the French-English bilinguals showed homograph interference on latency and error measures. We interpret these results as indicating that the activation of phonological representations can appear to be both language-specific and nonspecific, depending on the characteristics of the bilingual and whether they have recently named words in the nontarget language.

German-English bilinguals decided whether a visually presented word, either German or English, referred to an animate or to an inanimate entity. Bilinguals were slower to respond on a language switch trial than on language non-switch trials but only if they had to make the same response as on the prior trial (e.g., two successive “animate” responses). If they had to change their response from the prior trial, a switch of language speeded responses. This interaction between language switching and response type was abolished for the translations of words previously presented. We consider the implications for theories of language control.