In this article the triggering hypothesis for codeswitching proposed by Michael Clyne is discussed and tested. According to this hypothesis, cognates can facilitate codeswitching of directly preceding or following words. It is argued that the triggering hypothesis in its original form is incompatible with language production models, as it assumes that language choice takes place at the surface structure of utterances, while in bilingual production models language choice takes place along with lemma selection. An adjusted version of the triggering hypothesis is proposed in which triggering takes place during lemma selection and the scope of triggering is extended to basic units in language production. Data from a Dutch–Moroccan Arabic corpus are used for a statistical test of the original and the adjusted triggering theory. The codeswitching patterns found in the data support part of the original triggering hypothesis, but they are best explained by the adjusted triggering theory.

Moroccan Arabic has two competing syntactic constructions for possessive marking: a synthetic one and an analytic one. The distribution of these constructions is investigated in semi-spontaneous narratives (frog stories) from four Moroccan cities and from the diaspora community in the Netherlands. This distribution is found to depend very much on the individual lexical items that head the construction, and on the form of the dependent, pronominal dependents favouring the synthetic form. Regional variation in Morocco is linked to the sociolinguistic history of the regions. The northern town of Tangier, where language contact with Berber (and Late Latin) had the greatest impact on the formation of Arabic dialects, shows the greatest preference for the analytic genitive. The immigrant community in the Netherlands shows an increased preference for the analytic form in comparison with their peers in Morocco. This concerns possessives with NP dependents in particular, which suggests a direct influence of Dutch as the socially dominant language.

How much would Bill Murray have liked to be able to speak Japanese! Bill Murray's character in the movie Lost in Translation exemplifies the way we feel when trying to communicate with someone that does not speak the same language. Often, in such cases, the exchange of information is disrupted and even translation does not seem to capture the communicative intention of the interlocutors. Thus, to be able to speak two languages at will is obviously a worthy skill to have. However, there is also a potential drawback, namely, bilingual speakers need to control their production in such a way that the two languages do not end up mixed in an inappropriate manner during the discourse. For example, if Bill Murray would have been an English–Japanese bilingual, he would have had to be careful not to use English words when speaking to the director of the commercial. This poses interesting problems to researchers in cognitive psychology: How does a bilingual speaker control her two languages during speech production? How do bilingual speakers manage to avoid massive interference from the language they are not using? What is the role of the language-not-in-use during lexical retrieval and phonological encoding? The articles included in this issue aim at discussing the answers that have been put forward to some of these questions.

One hypothesis holds that bilingual children's cross-linguistic transfer occurs in spontaneous production when there is structural overlap between the two languages and ambiguity in at least one language (Döpke, 1998; Hulk and Müller, 2000). This study tested whether overlap/ambiguity of adjective–noun strings in English and French predicted transfer. In English, there is only one order (adjective–noun) while in French both adjective–noun and noun–adjective order are allowed, with the latter as the default. Unidirectional transfer from English to French was predicted. 35 French–English preschool bilingual children (and 35 age-matched English monolinguals and 10 French monolinguals) were asked to name pictures by using an adjective–noun string. In addition to the reversing adjective–noun strings in French as predicted by the overlap/ambiguity hypothesis, the bilingual children reversed more adjective–noun strings in English than monolinguals. It is proposed that cross-linguistic transfer might better be understood as an epiphenomenon of speech production.

Maze use appears to be higher in bilingual speakers than in their functionally monolingual peers. One question is whether this is due to the speaker's bilingual status or to the characteristics of the bilingual's language(s). Narratives for 22 Spanish–English bilingual 4–6-year-olds and their functionally monolingual age-matched peers were analyzed for maze use. Bilingual and functionally monolingual children used similar percentages and patterns of mazes. Children produced more grammatical revisions in Spanish than English. Bilingual and functionally monolingual children used similar grammatical revision strategies in Spanish and English. Children's maze use in each language was correlated with measures of language productivity such as mean length of utterance and number of words used in the sample. These findings suggest that the role of language is important in maze use and that bilingual children do not necessarily have greater levels of linguistic uncertainty than do their functionally monolingual peers.

Bilingual speech requires that the language of utterances be selected prior to articulation. Past research has debated whether the language of speaking can be determined in advance of speech planning and, if not, the level at which it is eventually selected. We argue that the reason that it has been difficult to come to an agreement about language selection is that there is not a single locus of selection. Rather, language selection depends on a set of factors that vary according to the experience of the bilinguals, the demands of the production task, and the degree of activity of the nontarget language. We demonstrate that it is possible to identify some conditions that restrict speech planning to one language alone and others that open the process to cross-language influences. We conclude that the presence of language nonselectivity at all levels of planning spoken utterances renders the system itself fundamentally nonselective.

Research has begun to address the question of transfer of language usage patterns beyond the idea that people's native language (L1) can influence the way they produce a second language (L2). This study investigated bidirectional transfer, of both lexical and grammatical features, in adult speakers of English and Spanish who varied in age of L2 acquisition. Early and late learners of English watched and orally described video depictions of motion events. Findings suggest bilinguals' patterns of motion description lexically and grammatically resemble those of monolinguals in each language. However, although participants showed bidirectional lexical transfer, they displayed only L1-to-L2 grammatical transfer. Furthermore, learning L2 post-puberty affected L2 lexical choice, but both early and late L2 learners showed L2 influence on L1 lexical choice. Finally, the findings of grammatical transfer and age of acquisition were mixed. We discuss results with reference to theories of cross-language transfer.

In this article we discuss different views about how information flows through the lexical system in bilingual speech production. In the first part, we focus on some of the experimental evidence often quoted in favor of the parallel activation of the bilinguals' two languages from the semantic system in the course of language production. We argue that such evidence does not require us to embrace the existence of parallel activation of the two languages of a bilingual. In the second part of the article, we discuss the possibility that the language-not-in-use (or the non-response language) is activated via feedback from the sublexical representations and we devise some experimental procedures to assess the validity of such an assumption.

This study examines growth rates in vocabulary over an academic year for 150 Latino English language learners. In October, February, and June of kindergarten, participants completed standardized measures of receptive and expressive vocabulary. Before the second and third assessments, a third of the children watched Arthur three times a week during school hours, while another third viewed Between the Lions. The last third did not view either show during school hours. Data on children's preschool experiences and home literacy activities were collected. Growth modeling analyses show while there were no effects of classroom viewing, children who viewed Arthur and Between the Lions at home had steeper growth trajectories than those who had not. Additional effects of native language home use and preschool attendance were seen. Boys displayed better English vocabulary skills than girls. These findings suggest the importance of English exposure and native language maintenance for English L2 vocabulary development.

Models of bilingual speech production generally assume that translation equivalent lexical nodes share a common semantic representation. Though this type of architecture is highly desirable on both theoretical and empirical grounds, it could create difficulty at the point of lexical selection. If two translation equivalent lexical nodes are activated to roughly equal levels every time that their shared semantic representation becomes activated, the lexical selection mechanism should find it difficult to “decide” between the two (the “hard problem”) – yet in some cases bilinguals benefit from the presence of a translation equivalent “competitor”. In this article, we review three models that have been proposed as solutions to the hard problem. Each of these models has difficulty accounting for the full range of findings in the literature but we suggest that these shortcomings stem from their acceptance of the assumption that lexical selection is competitive. We argue that without this assumption each proposal is able to provide a full account of the empirical findings. We conclude by suggesting that the simplest of these proposals should be rejected before more complicated models are considered.

This study examined sentence processing in emergent bilingual children and young adults in both English (second language – L2) and Spanish (first language – L1). One hundred participants from five different age groups (5;4–7;11, 8;0–10;11, 11;2–13;11, 14;0–16;8 years, and college-age adults) participated in this study. An online sentence interpretation paradigm was used to explore participants' processing patterns. Results of both choice and reaction time experiments provide new information about consolidation and “in between” strategies for Spanish–English bilinguals; on the use of the distribution of local vs. topological cues (namely early reliance on word order in both languages, followed by an integration of late-emerging subject-verb agreement cues from 11 to 13 years of age). The nature of these syntactic strategies and their implications for developmental theories of bilingualism are discussed.

This paper investigates object omission in French longitudinal production from two English-speaking children (Lightbown, 1977). Similar patterns of object omission are observed: direct objects start being dropped as transitive verbs are emerging and licit and illicit null objects occur in all recordings thereafter. Moreover, the incidence of illicit null objects drops at about the same time in both children (month 20), which corresponds to the moment object clitics start being used productively and to the end of the root infinitive period (Prévost, 1997). I argue that object omission is an instance of clitic-drop and is related to processing difficulties. In particular, both the projection of full-fledged representations and the production of object clitics (which occupy non-canonical object positions in French) increase computational complexity for children. Object-drop in child L2 French does not seem to be affected by L1 transfer nor to be related to significant difficulties with properties at the syntax/pragmatics interface.

Phonological encoding is the process by which speakers retrieve phonemic segments for morphemes from memory and use the segments to assemble phonological representations of words to be spoken. When conversing in one language, bilingual speakers have to resist the temptation of encoding word forms using the phonological rules and representations of the other language. We argue that the activation of phonological representations is not restricted to the target language and that the phonological representations of languages are not separate. We advance a view of bilingual control in which condition-action rules determine what is done with the activated phonological information depending on the target language. This view is computationally implemented in the WEAVER++ model. We present WEAVER++ simulations of the cognate facilitation effect (Costa, Caramazza and Sebastián-Gallés, 2000) and the between-language phonological facilitation effect of spoken distractor words in object naming (Hermans, Bongaerts, de Bot and Schreuder, 1998).

The degree to which native and non-native readers interpret English sentences incrementally was investigated by examining plausibility effects on reanalysis processes. Experiment 1 required participants to read sentences word by word and to make on-line plausibility judgements. The results showed that natives and non-natives immediately computed the plausibility of the preferred structural analysis, which then affected ease of reanalysis. Experiment 2 required participants to read the same sentences word by word in order to perform a memory task. The natives showed a similar pattern of results to Experiment 1, whereas for the non-natives plausibility effects were delayed. However, the non-natives still appeared to be performing immediate syntactic reanalysis. It is concluded that syntactic processing was person- and task-independent, whereas the incrementality of interpretation was more dependent on task demands for the non-natives than for the natives.

To investigate decision level processes involved in bilingual word recognition tasks, Dutch–English participants had to name Dutch–English homographs in English. In a stimulus list containing items from both languages, interlingual homographs yielded longer naming latencies, more Dutch responses, and more other errors in both response languages if they had a high-frequency Dutch reading. Dutch naming latencies were slower than or equally slow as English naming latencies. In a stimulus list containing only English words and homographs, there was no homograph effect in naming latencies, although homographs did elicit more errors than control words. The results are interpreted as the consequence of list-induced variability in the competition between lexical items of the two languages involved. In addition, two additional decision processes have to be assumed: a language check, and a response deadline for non-target-language responses.

Recent work in the bilingual literature suggests that naming pictures in a second language (L2) differs from naming pictures in the first language (L1) because of effortful lexical retrieval. This finding has received some support in the neuroimaging literature (De Blesser et al., 2003). In the current study, twelve Spanish-English bilinguals, who had learned English later in early adulthood, were asked to name pictures covertly in either Spanish or English while being scanned with functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI). Picture naming in the second language (L2) relative to the native language (L1) revealed increased activity in the right insula, anterior cingulate gyrus and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and the left fusiform gyrus. These results are consistent with the view that picture naming in a less proficient L2 requires increased effort to establish links between motor codes and visual forms.

Research investigating the relationship between language and cognition (Lucy, 1992b) shows that speakers of languages with grammatical number marking (e.g. English) judge differences in the number of countable objects as more significant than differences in the number or amount of non-countable substances. On the other hand, speakers of languages which lack grammatical number marking (e.g. Yucatec) show no such preference. The current paper extends Lucy's (1992b) investigation, comparing monolingual English and Japanese speakers with Japanese speakers of English as a second language (L2). Like Yucatec, Japanese is a non-plural-marking language. Results show that intermediate L2 speakers behave similarly to the Japanese monolinguals while advanced L2 speakers behave similarly to the English monolinguals. The results (a) provide support for the claim that grammatical representation may influence cognition in specific ways and (b) suggest that L2 acquisition may alter cognitive dispositions established by a first language (L1).

Cross-language (L1-to-L2) syntactic priming is the repetition of utterance structure from one language to another independently of meaning and has motivated models of language-shared representations of L1-L2 equivalent structures (Salamoura and Williams, submitted; Schoonbaert, Hartsuiker and Pickering, submitted). These models assume that the phenomenon is the result of residual activation of syntactic features encoding verb structural preferences and they, therefore, predict its initiation by a single verb prime (cf. Pickering and Branigan, 1998, for L1). This prediction was confirmed in a sentence completion task where we obtained syntactic priming from L1 Dutch to L2 English with Prepositional Object (PO) and Double Object (DO) datives upon presentation of single Dutch verbs that take either PO or DO only.

The typical speech of (fluent) bilinguals in monolingual settings contains few switches into the non-target language. Apparently, bilinguals can control what language they output. This article discusses views on how bilinguals exert control over their two languages in monolingual tasks, where participants only have to implicate one of their languages in performing the task, and in translation and, especially, simultaneous interpreting, tasks that can only be performed if both languages are addressed. A distinction is made between “global” control, where control involves the activation and/or inhibition of complete language systems, and “local” control, where control impacts on a restricted set of memory representations. A number of studies suggest that bilingual control is a special case of the control of action in general. This insight suggests an opportunity to incorporate relevant work in the field of translation studies in the study of bilingual control, embedding it in the same theoretical framework.

This study examined Australian English (AE) and Thai–English bilingual (TE) speakers' ability to perceive word-final stops in their native and non-native languages. In the perception experiment, the TE listeners were able to discriminate stop contrasts differing only in place of articulation (/p/–/t/, /p/–/k/, /t/–/k/) in both English and Thai accurately, but the AE listeners' discrimination was accurate only for English. The listeners' discrimination accuracy was differentially influenced by the type of stop contrast they heard. The Thai /p/–/t/ contrast was most discriminable for both groups of listeners, in particular, the AE listeners. Acoustic analyses of the Thai stimuli presented in the perception experiment were conducted in order to search for cues that led to different response patterns for the AE and TE listeners. There was a clear effect of the final stop on the formant trajectories of /a/ and /u/, suggesting that these acoustic differences may be audible to the listeners. The results provide further evidence that first language (L1) transfer alone is insufficient to account for listeners' response patterns in cross-language speech perception and that it is necessary to take into account phonetic realization of sounds and/or the amount of acoustic information contained in the speech signal to predict accuracy with which sound contrasts are discriminated.