As a reliable and valid measures of perceptual auditory laterality, dichotic listening has been successfully applied in studies in many countries and languages. However, languages differ in the linguistic relevance of change in initial phoneme of words (e.g., for word identification). In the present cross-language study, we examine the effect of these differences on dichotic-listening task performance to establish how characteristics of one's native language affect the perception of nonnative phonological features. We compared 33 native speakers of Norwegian, a language characterized by a clear distinction between voiced and unvoiced initial plosive consonants, with 30 native speakers of Estonian, a language that has exclusively unvoiced initial phonemes. Using a free-report dichotic-listening paradigm utilizing pairs of voiced (/ba/, /da/, /ga/) and unvoiced (/pa/, /ta/, /ka/) stop-consonant vowels as stimulus material, the Norwegian native speakers were found to be more sensitive to the voicing of the initial plosive than the Estonian group. “Voicing” explained 69% and 18% of the variance in the perceptual auditory laterality in the Norwegian and the Estonian sample, respectively. This indicates that experiential differences, likely during acquisition of the mother tongue in early development, permanently shape the sensitivity to the voicing contrast.

Working memory (WM) is one of the most studied cognitive constructs in psychology, because of its relevance to human performance, including language processing. When measuring verbal WM for sentences, the reading span task is the most widely used WM measure for this purpose. However, comparable sentence-level updating tasks are missing. Hence, we sought to develop a WM updating task, which we termed the selective updating of sentences (SUS) task, which taps the ability to constantly update sentences. In two experiments with Finnish-speaking young adults, we examined the internal consistency and concurrent validity of the SUS task. It exhibited adequate internal consistency and correlated positively with well-established working memory measures. Moreover, the SUS task also showed positive correlations with verbal episodic memory tasks employing sentences and paragraphs. These results indicate that the SUS task is a promising new task for psycholinguistic studies addressing verbal WM updating.

We examine the role of language production mechanisms in sentence repetition, a task widely used as a diagnostic tool in developmental disorders. We investigate sentence repetition in 5- to 8-year-old native speakers of Kannada, an inflectionally rich language of India. The inflectional characteristics of the language make it an ideal testing ground for exploring the engagement of grammatical and phonological encoding processes. We presented active, passive, and embedded sentences and, in a subset of the material, we also manipulated sentence length. Using accuracy and speech error analyses at the sentence, word, and affix levels, we provide evidence that individual differences in task performance are influenced by the linguistic properties of the material. These findings clarify the role of key language production mechanisms involved in sentence repetition. We propose that it is the versatility to develop a profile across several language production mechanisms that makes sentence repetition particularly useful as a clinical tool.

Artificial grammar learning is an empirical paradigm that investigates basic pattern and structural processing in different populations. It can inform how higher cognitive functions, such as language use, take place. Our study used artificial grammar learning to assess how children with Williams syndrome (WS; n = 16) extract patterns in structured sequences of synthetic speech, how they compare to typically developing (TD) children (n = 60), and how prosodic cues affect learning. The TD group was divided into a group whose nonverbal abilities were within the range of the WS group, and a group whose chronological age was within the range of the WS group. TD children relied mainly on rule-based generalization when making judgments about sequence acceptability, whereas children with WS relied on familiarity with specific stimulus combinations. The TD participants whose nonverbal abilities were similar to the WS group showed less evidence of relying on grammaticality than TD participants whose chronological age was similar to the WS group. In absence of prosodic cues, the children with WS did not demonstrate evidence of learning. Results suggest that, in WS children, the transition to rule-based processing in language does not keep pace with TD children and may be an indication of differences in neurocognitive mechanisms.

To date, within the context of second language (L2) word learning, nonspontaneous representational gesture viewing's impact on memory and spontaneous gesture production's impact on communication have been examined separately. Thus, it is unclear whether and how these effects interact, particularly in the same individuals. The present study addresses this question by comparing these effects and by examining their influence on one another. To do so, a dialogic task was employed in which participants learned words from a novel L2 and taught them to other similar participants. The results show that viewing nonspontaneous representational gesture did not affect L2 word recall whereas spontaneous production of different gesture types affected communication and memory of L2 word meanings in varying ways. Furthermore, the results provide evidence that gesture viewing primes production of similar types of gestures, and that the quantity and types of gestures produced differ based on the context of communication. These results indicate that the effects of spontaneous gesture production on communication are stronger than the effects of nonspontaneous gesture viewing on memory, and that these effects influence one another. Together, these results demonstrate that spontaneous gesture production and nonspontaneous gesture viewing play distinct but interrelated roles in L2 acquisition.

Both internal factors (e.g., nonverbal intelligence) and external factors (e.g., input quantity) are claimed to affect the rate of children's vocabulary development. However, it remains an open question whether these variables work similarly on bilingual children's dual language learning. The current paper examined this issue on 805 Singapore children (4 years, 1 month to 5 years, 8 months) who are learning English (societal language) and an ethnic language (Mandarin/Malay/Tamil). Singapore is a bilingual society; however, there is an inclination for English use at home in recent years, resulting in a discrepancy of input between English and ethnic languages in many families. In this study, internal and external factors were examined comprehensively with standardized tests and a parental questionnaire. Regression analysis was used to address the questions. There were statistically significant differences in language input quantity, quality, and output between English and ethnic language learning environments. Singapore children are learning English in an input-rich setting while learning their ethnic language in a comparatively input-poor setting. Multiple regressions revealed that while both sets of factors explained lexical knowledge in each language, the relative contribution is different for English and ethnic languages: internal factors explained more variance in English language vocabulary, whereas external factors were more important in explaining ethnic language knowledge. We attribute this difference to a threshold effect of external factors based on the critical mass hypothesis and call for special attention to learning context (input-rich vs. input-poor settings) for specific bilingual language studies.

Entrenchment and preemption are theorized to constrain the novel use of well-attested constructions. This study tested the effects of these two mechanisms in second language (L2) learners’ acceptance of English denominal verbs (DVs). Two groups of Chinese English-L2 speakers (fourth-year English major students and teachers of English) judged the acceptability of English locatum (e.g., Lucy watered the rose) and location (e.g., Lisa boxed the apples) DVs. Results based on both corpus and introspective frequencies show that the fourth-year learners’ judgments on the acceptability of all DVs were significantly negatively influenced by the frequency of nominal forms of the DVs, suggesting that entrenchment constrains L2 learners from accepting English DVs. Results based on introspective frequency demonstrate that the teachers’ judgments on the acceptability of all DVs were significantly negatively affected by the frequency of alternative verbs, demonstrating that preemption has a role to play in restricting L2 learners’ acceptance of English DVs. Moreover, the obtained DV frequency based on both corpus and learners’ introspection is a significant factor that helps all the participants’ acceptance of the English DVs, suggesting that the more frequently a DV is used, the more likely L2 learners are to judge it as acceptable.

The experiential traces account claims that language comprehension in one's first language (L1) is based on the reactivation of experiential traces that stem from experiencing the corresponding objects, states, or events. However, it remains unclear to what extent this is transferable to second language (L2) comprehension. In the present study, we compared German L1 speakers with German L2 speakers whose L1 uses similar or different spatial terms as German. In an adaptation of the Stroop paradigm, participants were instructed to respond to the font color of German spatial prepositions (e.g., auf “on,” über “above,” and unter “under/below”) by either an upward or a downward hand movement, resulting in compatible or incompatible responses. We found significant compatibility effects for all speakers, but also clear differences between speakers of different L1s. The results thereby support the assumption that experiential traces built during L1 usage play an important role in L2 processing.

In the article by Spätgens and Schoonen, the penultimate paragraph on page 237 incorrectly states that the coding for the Animacy variable is “(0 inanimate, 1 animate).” The correct coding should instead read “(0 animate, 1 inanimate).” We regret this omission and any problems it may have caused.