Goldrick, Putnam and Schwarz (henceforth Goldrick et al.) base their computational account of code mixing on two premises, (1) that code mixing is subject to grammatical principles and (2) that “mental representations in bilingual speakers incorporate blends of structures from each language”. While there is copious evidence for the first premise, the second is far less well empirically supported. The authors imply that the second premise, the assumption of blend representations, is supported by Kroll & Gollan's (2014) review of speech planning in two languages, but this is not the case. Kroll & Gollan (2014:1) do indeed discuss evidence for the “parallel activation of the bilingual's two languages” but in terms of competition between alternatives rather than blended representations. The notion of blend is of course familiar to code-switching researchers from work on bimodal bilingual code mixing, as Goldrick et al. acknowledge, but here the term refers to “simultaneously produced English words and ASL signs” (Emmorey, Borinstein, Thompson & Gollan, 2008: 43).

The ability to learn a second language is a skill that is often mediated by functional and structural changes in the brain. An inverted U-shaped function has been revealed in the neural response with increased expertise of L2 reading. In particular, the neural response at the left temporo-occipital region increases after initial learning and then decreases with increased expertise and efficiency. Another intriguing question in the literature of bilingual reading is whether brain activation for L2 is similar to or different from that for L1, which seems to be driven by tangled variables such as the proficiency level of L2, age of acquisition in L2, and orthographic transparency of L2 in relation to L1. In addition, the established L1 reading mechanisms and skills constrain how L2 is being learned in the brain, while acquiring a L2 also reversely influences how L1 is processed in the brain.

In this paper we show that heritage speakers and returnees are fundamentally different from the majority of adult second language learners with respect to their use of collocations (Laufer & Waldman, 2011). We compare the use of lexical collocations involving yap- “do” and et- “do” among heritage speakers of Turkish in Germany (n = 45) with those found among Turkish returnees (n = 65) and Turkish monolinguals (n = 69). Language use by returnees is an understudied resource although this group can provide crucial insights into the specific language ability of heritage speakers. Results show that returnees who had been back for one year avoid collocations with yap- and use some hypercorrect forms in et-, whilst returnees who had been back for seven years at the time of recording produce collocations that are quantitatively and qualitatively similar to those of monolingual speakers of Turkish. We discuss implications for theories of ultimate attainment and incomplete acquisition in heritage speakers.

Bilingual children have long been held to have ‘separate linguistic systems’ from the start (e.g., Meisel, 2001). This paper challenges that assumption with data from five bilingual children's first 100 words. Whereas the prosodic structures represented by a child's words may or may not be differentiated by language, emergent phonological templates are not, the same patterns being deployed as more complex adult word forms are targeted in each language. Reliance on common (idiosyncratic) phonological templates for the two languages is ascribed to children's experience with their own voice (in production) as well as with others’ speech. Both experimental studies and spontaneous cross-linguistic speech errors in adults and older children are cited to support the view that, for a bilingual, unconscious processing draws on both languages throughout the lifespan, which suggests that the emphasis on ‘separate systems’ (from the start or thereafter) may be misconceived.

Emmorey, Giezen and Gollan (Emmorey, Giezen & Gollan) in their Key Note article review data bearing on language control in bimodal bilinguals and provoke questions critical to theoretical advance. I consider here two interrelated questions: one on multimodal synchrony and one on the control of serial order.

The recent hypothesis that L1 attrition affects the ability to process interface structures but not knowledge representations (Sorace, 2011) is tested by investigating the effects of recent L1 re-exposure on antecedent preferences for Spanish pronominal subjects, using offline judgements and online eye-tracking measures. Participants included a group of native Spanish speakers experiencing L1 attrition (‘attriters’), a second group of attriters exposed exclusively to Spanish before they were tested (‘re-exposed’), and a control group of Spanish monolinguals. The judgement data shows no significant differences between the groups. Moreover, the monolingual and re-exposed groups are not significantly different from each other in the eye-tracking data. The results of this novel manipulation indicate that attrition effects decrease due to L1 re-exposure, and that bilinguals are sensitive to input changes. Taken together, the findings suggest that attrition affects online sensitivity with interface structures rather than causing a permanent change in speakers’ L1 knowledge representations.

Bilingual speakers can use one of their languages in a given interactional context or switch between them when addressing different speakers during the same conversation. Depending on community usage bilingual speakers may insert single lexical forms from one language into the morphosyntactic frame of another or alternate between languages at clause boundaries. They may also engage in dense code switching with rapid changes of language within a clause during a conversational turn (Green & Li, 2014). These varieties of language use configure the same speech production mechanism and so a theory of code-switching must be part of a theory that accounts for the range of bilingual speech. Does the proposal described in Goldrick, Putnam and Schwartz (2016) meet these criteria?

In Italian, developing readers exhibit lexicality and frequency effects, and are sensitive to the distributional properties of the language. But how do bilingual children with different ages of first L2 (Italian) exposure and L2 vocabulary sizes read L2 words and pseudowords? Two reading aloud experiments investigated lexicality, frequency and stress assignment effects in fourth- and fifth-grade bilinguals and monolinguals. Naming latencies and pronunciation accuracy were analyzed. In Experiment 1, effects of lexicality and frequency and between-group differences emerged. In Experiment 2, the word frequency effect was confirmed. Late bilinguals, characterized by a smaller L2 vocabulary size, were less accurate than early bilinguals and monolinguals in assigning non-dominant stress. As with monolinguals, lexical information seems to be employed when reading Italian as a second language. Furthermore, bilingual readers are sensitive to the distributional properties of the language. Stress assignment is affected by the L2 lexicon size of second-language learners.

In the recent swell of research on bilingualism and its consequences for the mind and the brain, there has been a warning that we need to remember that not all bilinguals are the same (e.g., Green & Abutalebi, 2013; Kroll & Bialystok, 2013; Luk & Bialystok, 2013). There are bilinguals who acquired two languages in early childhood and have used them continuously throughout their lives, bilinguals who acquired one language early and then switched to another language when they entered school or emigrated from one country to another, and others who only acquired a second language (L2) as an adult. Among these forms of bilingualism there are differences in both the context and amount of time spent in each language and differences in the status of the languages themselves. The L2 may be a majority language, spoken by almost everyone in the environment, or a minority language, spoken only by a few. The native or first language (L1) may also be the dominant language or may have been overtaken by the influence of the L2 given the circumstances imposed by the environment. Likewise, the L1 and L2 may vary in how similar they are structurally, whether they share the same written script, or whether one language is spoken and the other signed.

Speaking more than one language demands a language control system that allows bilinguals to correctly use the intended language adjusting for possible interference from the non-target language. Understanding how the brain orchestrates the control of language has been a major focus of neuroimaging research on bilingualism and was central to our original neurocognitive language control model (Abutalebi & Green, 2007). We updated the network of language control (Green & Abutalebi, 2013) and here review the many new exciting findings based on functional and structural data that substantiate its core components. We discuss the language control network within the framework of the adaptive control hypothesis (Green & Abutalebi, 2013) that predicts adaptive changes specific to the control demands of the interactional contexts of language use. Adapting to such demands leads, we propose, to a neural reserve in the human brain.

This study explores the role of cognate status, syllable position, and word length in Tip-of-the-Tongue (TOT) states induction and resolution for European Portuguese (EP; L1) – English (L2) bilinguals (and EP monolinguals as control). TOTs were induced using a picture naming task in L1 and L2 followed by a lexical decision task. Here, the first or the last syllable of the target word (or none for control) was embedded in pseudowords (syllabic pseudohomophones) in order to test its effect in TOT resolution. Bilinguals presented more TOTs in L2 than in L1, especially for noncognate words. Longer words showed more TOTs than shorter words, though only in L1. TOT resolution was higher for cognates in L2 and higher when primed by the first than by the last syllable. Finally, longer cognates showed more TOT resolution than shorter cognates, irrespective of the language. Results are discussed in light of TOT's main hypothesis.

The investigation of bilingualism and cognition has been enriched by recent developments in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Extending how bilingual experience shapes cognition, this review examines recent fMRI studies adopting executive control tasks with minimal or no linguistic demands. Across a range of studies with divergent ages and language pairs spoken by bilinguals, brain regions supporting executive control significantly overlap with brain regions recruited for language control (Abutalebi & Green). Furthermore, limited but emerging studies on resting-state networks are addressed, which suggest more coherent spatially distributed functional connectivity in bilinguals. Given the dynamic nature of bilingual experience, it is essential to consider both task-related functional networks (externally-driven engagement), and resting-state networks, such as default mode network (internal control). Both types of networks are important elements of bilingual language control, which relies on domain-general executive control.

Emmorey, Giezen and Gollan (Emmorey, Giezen & Gollan) address the fascinating question of what can be learnt about language, cognition and the brain from the unique group of people who have grown up learning both a signed and a spoken language. The focus of their review is hearing individuals – referred to as hearing bimodal bilinguals. The review presents an excellent overview of research in this field and highlights the unique insights that this population can provide.

Code-mixing (CM) is a striking example of how two languages are active simultaneously in bilingual production. Gradient Symbolic Computation (GSC) proposes a formalism to account for the systematicity of CM patterns by integrating psycholinguistic notions of bilingual co-activation with generativist accounts of grammar. We applaud the attempt to bridge research traditions and all efforts to capture the systematicity of variation, and the interaction between processing and grammatical constraints in bilingual production. However, the descriptive and predictive scope of the current proposal remains somewhat unclear, as does its connection to existing accounts.

Relational elements of language (e.g. spatial prepositions) act to direct attention to aspects of an incoming message. The listener or reader must be able to use these elements to focus and refocus attention on the mental representation being constructed. Research has shown that this type of attention control is specific to language and can be distinguished from attention control for non-relational (semantic or content) elements. Twenty-two monolinguals (18–30 years) and nineteen bilinguals (18–30 years) completed two conditions of an alternating-runs task-switching paradigm in their first language. The relational condition involved processing spatial prepositions, and the non-relational condition involved processing concrete nouns and adjectives. Overall, monolinguals had significantly larger shift costs (i.e. greater attention control burden) in the relational condition than the non-relational condition, whereas bilinguals performed similarly in both conditions. This suggests that proficiency in a second language has a positive impact on linguistic attention control in one's native language.

In their review, Emmorey, Giezen and Gollan (Emmorey, Giezen & Gollan) contrast bimodal bilinguals (individuals who are fluent in a signed and a spoken language) and unimodal bilinguals (individuals fluent in two spoken languages) to highlight the implications of bimodal bilingualism for language processing, the cognitive effects of bilingualism, and the neural organization of languages. For this purpose, the authors focus on the evidence for language mixing in bimodal bilinguals (so-called ‘code-blends’) by hearing children of deaf parents and explore how language co-activation and control differentially impacts the processing of languages compared to unimodal bilinguals. The sustained controlling of two languages from differing modalities in bimodal bilinguals, according to the authors, may lead to modality-specific cognitive advantages in contrast to unimodal bilinguals.

This special issue began as a conference on Bilingual and Multilingual Interaction at Bangor University in 2012. The papers collected here all have novel elements, either because of their innovative methods, their unusual data, or their unexpected findings. They present findings from studies of bilinguals speaking six different pairs of languages, and use a range of methods including experiments, naturalistic observation and auditory judgment data. Despite the differences in subject matter and methodological approaches, all the papers demonstrate that bilinguals draw on resources which are different from those of monolinguals. They show that the two languages spoken by bilinguals have clearly discernible effects on one another, and that these effects can potentially be enhancing. Future research will no doubt build on the studies presented here and extend our understanding of cross-language effects in bilingual production and comprehension.

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.

This study targeted the relationship between self- and other-assessment of accentedness and comprehensibility in second language (L2) speech, extending prior social and cognitive research documenting weak or non-existing links between people's self-assessment and objective measures of performance. Results of two experiments (N = 134) revealed mostly inaccurate self-assessment: speakers at the low end of the accentedness and comprehensibility scales overestimated their performance; speakers at the high end of each scale underestimated it. For both accent and comprehensibility, discrepancies in self- versus other-assessment were associated with listener-rated measures of phonological accuracy and temporal fluency but not with listener-rated measures of lexical appropriateness and richness, grammatical accuracy and complexity, or discourse structure. Findings suggest that inaccurate self-assessment is linked to the inherent complexity of L2 perception and production as cognitive skills and point to several ways of helping L2 speakers align or calibrate their self-assessment with their actual performance.

This study assesses the impact of internal and external factors on very young EFL learners in an instructional setting. 71 child English learners in China (onset age: 2;0 - 5;6) were involved: their receptive vocabulary, productive vocabulary and receptive grammar were taken as outcome variables, and age of onset, short-term memory, nonverbal intelligence, English input quantity and quality, English use, and maternal English level were taken as predictive variables. Multiple regression analyses, verified by Bayes factor comparisons, revealed that the total amount of school input and home English media environment were significant predictors for all of three aspects of English proficiency, with each aspect having different additional significant predictors. Both internal factors (e.g., age of onset) and external factors (e.g., English input quantity) played an important role, but in contrast to similar studies (e.g., Paradis, 2011) focusing on a L2 naturalistic setting, external factors explained more variance of English proficiency measures.