No previous research has investigated the neural correlates of vocabulary acquisition in second language learners of sign language. The present study investigated whether poor vocabulary knowledge engaged similar prefrontal lexico-semantic regions as seen in unimodal L2 learners. Behavioral improvements in vocabulary knowledge in a cohort of M2L2 learners were quantified. Results indicated that there is significant increase in vocabulary knowledge after one semester, but stabilized in the second semester. A longitudinal fMRI analysis was implemented for a subset of learners who were followed for the entire 10 months during initial sign language acquisition. The results indicated that learners who had poor sign vocabulary knowledge consistently showed greater activation in regions involved in motor simulation, salience, biological motion and spatial processing, and lexico-semantic retrieval. In conclusion, poor vocabulary knowledge requires greater engagement of modality-independent and modality-dependent regions, which could account for behavioral evidence of difficulty in visual phonology processing.

Previous studies have shown bilingually and monolingually developing children to differ in their sensitivity to referential pragmatic deixis in challenging tasks, with bilinguals exhibiting a higher sensitivity. The learning of adjectives is particularly challenging, but has rarely been investigated in bilingual children. In the present study we presented a pragmatic cue supporting the learning of novel adjectives to 32 Spanish–German bilingual and 28 German monolingual 5-year-olds. The children's responses to a descriptive hand gesture highlighting an object's property were measured behaviorally using a forced choice task and neurophysiologically through functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS). While no group differences emerged on the behavioral level, fNIRS revealed a higher activation in bilingual than monolingual children in the vicinity of the posterior part of the right superior temporal sulcus (STS). This result supports the prominent role of the STS in processing pragmatic gestures and suggests heightened pragmatic sensitivity for bilingual children.

I am very pleased to comment on this important and thought-provoking keynote article. The evidence reviewed by Mayberry and Kluender (Mayberry & Kluender, 2017) is extremely significant for our understanding of a critical or sensitive period for the acquisition of language, and the hypothesis they suggest regarding a critical period for first but not second language is challenging. The studies of late L1 learning from the Mayberry lab provide very strong evidence for a critical or sensitive period. However, I am less persuaded of their interpretation of L2 learning and the contrast they hypothesize between L1 and L2 learning during adulthood. I will suggest another hypothesis regarding the differences in age effects for first versus second languages, one that is equally compatible with their important data. My focus here is therefore on their interpretation of the L2 literature. I will not comment further on their review of Mayberry's remarkable studies of late L1 acquisition, except to congratulate them on this very important work.

In one task-switching experiment, we compared bilinguals and monolinguals to explore the reliability of the bilingualism effect on the n-2 repetition cost. In a second task-switching experiment, we tested another group of bilinguals and monolinguals and measured both the n-1 shift cost and the n-2 repetition cost to test the hypothesis that bilingualism should confer a general greater efficiency of the executive control functioning. According to this hypothesis, we expected a reduced n-1 shift cost and an enhanced n-2 repetition cost for bilinguals compared to monolinguals. However, we did not observe such results. Our findings suggest that previous results cannot be replicated and that the n-2 repetition cost is another index that shows no reliable bilingualism effect. Finally, we observed a negative correlation between the two switch costs among bilinguals only. This finding may suggest that the two groups employ different strategies to cope with interference in task-switching paradigms.

The present study investigated the impact of translation equivalents (TE) on lexical processing in a sample of 36 French–English bilingual toddlers at 22-months of age. Children were administered the Computerized Comprehension Task (CCT; Friend & Keplinger, 2003) in each language and parents completed the MacArthur Bates Communicative Development Inventory (CDI) in both English and French across two visits (one language per visit). Correct trials on the CCT were identified and classified into one of two categories: words with a known TE as reported on the CDI and words without a known TE on the CDI. Reaction times for correct trials were averaged and compared for each of the bilinguals’ languages. Interestingly, children were faster to retrieve words with a known TE on the CDI than words with no known TE. The present findings suggest that the translation facilitation effects reported in adult bilinguals are also present in very young bilinguals.

The study of emoticon use in text communication is in its early stages (Aragon, Feldman, Chen & Kroll, 2014), with even less known about how emoticons function in multilingual environments. We describe a preliminary longitudinal analysis of text communication in an online bilingual scientific work environment and demonstrate how patterns of emoticon use constitute a novel yet systematic nonverbal aspect of communication. Specifically, coordination over bilingual speakers entails reductions in emoticon diversity over time that are greater for those who communicate in their L2 than in their L1. An analogous but weaker pattern is evident for lexical diversity in L2 but not L1. We hypothesize that reductions in emoticon diversity in the L2 are likely to reflect social contributions to alignment rather than purely proficiency.

This study responds to the call for more ecologically valid psycholinguistic research (Spivey & Cardon, 2015) by examining how readers incidentally acquire multifaceted vocabulary knowledge while reading a long, authentic text. Using eye tracking, we explore how the processing of unfamiliar words changes with repeated exposure and how the repeated exposure and processing affect word learning. In two sessions, native and non-native English speakers read five chapters of an authentic English novel containing Dari words. After reading, participants received a comprehension test and three surprise vocabulary tests. Growth curve modeling revealed a non-linear decrease in reading times that followed an S shaped curve. Number of exposures was the strongest predictor of vocabulary learning (form and meaning), while total reading time independently contributed to the learning of word meaning. Thus, both quantity and quality of lexical processing aid incremental vocabulary development and may reveal themselves differently in readers’ eye movement records.

This study compared NRT-performance in monolingual Dutch and bilingual Turkish–Dutch third-graders using a Dutch Nonword Repetition Task (NRT). Several novel response analyses at the phoneme level were applied to further understand the earlier reported overall accuracy differences in NRT-performance between bilinguals and monolinguals. Analyses in which the retention of phonemes and the retention of their serial order were disentangled revealed that monolinguals outperform bilinguals with respect to the retention of the phonemes themselves. However, both groups did not differ in their retention of the serial order of correctly recalled phonemes. Furthermore, this study confirms that expressive vocabulary skills do affect overall NRT-performance. The results are discussed in light of current short-term memory (STM) models and the role of long-term phonological knowledge in NRT tasks.

Recent theories propose that language-switching in bilinguals influences executive control. We investigated whether switching behaviour, shaped by the bilingual's interactional context as well as personal preferences impacted attentional control. We compared four groups – (i) Edinburgh monolinguals, (ii) Edinburgh non-switching late bilinguals, (iii) Edinburgh non-switching early bilinguals, and (iv) Singapore switching early bilinguals – on two tasks of attentional control. Effects of interactional context were observed, with Singapore bilinguals performing better on conflict resolution in the Attention Network Task and Edinburgh late bilinguals on attentional switching in the Elevator reversal (Test of Everyday Attention) subtest. Our results suggest that the interactional context of bilinguals could impact attentional control differently.

Mayberry and Kluender (2017) present an important and compelling argument that in order to understand critical periods (CPs) in language acquisition, it is essential to disentangle studies of late first language (L1) acquisition from those of second language (L2) acquisition. Their primary thesis is that timely exposure to an L1 is crucial for establishing language circuitry, thus providing a foundation on which an L2 can build. They note that while there is considerable evidence of interference from the L1 on acquisition of the L2 – especially in late L2 learners (as in our work on cascading influences on phonetic category learning and visual language discrimination, e.g., Werker & Hensch, 2015 and Weikum, Vouloumanos, Navarra, Soto-Faraco, Sebastián-Gallés & Werker, 2013, respectively) – there are other examples of ways in which the L1 can scaffold L2 acquisition. Mayberry and Kluender take this evidence of L1 scaffolding L2 as undermining the value of considering CPs as useful in understanding L2 acquisition.

Short-term memory (STM) is required for second language learning. However, it is not clear what components of STM are necessary for the acquisition and lexicalisation of new written words. Studies suggest that memory for serial order is a critical cognitive process in spoken word acquisition although correlated mechanisms such as executive control also play a role. In this study, bilingual Cantonese–English speakers who are learning written expert words in a non-native language were tested over a one year period in their first year of instruction. Written word lexicalisation was measured using lexical decision and spelling to dictation tasks. Results showed measures of executive control (Stroop performance) and serial order memory capacity predict recognition and recall of written expert words at different stages. Whereas serial order memory predicts improvements to lexical decision accuracy, executive control predicts spelling to dictation performance after one year. The conclusion is that STM processes do constrain written word lexicalisation in a second language. However, executive control and serial order memory capacity have differential effects during word lexicalisation.

In this article a reference was published incorrectly. The correct reference is as follows:-

Deanda, S., Hendrickson, K., Zesiger, P., Poulin-Dubois, D., & Friend, M. (2017). Lexical access in the second year: a study of monolingual and bilingual vocabulary development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(2), 314–327.

We explore the properties of foreigner talk through word reduction. Word reduction signals that the speaker is referring to the same entity as previously and should be preserved for foreigner talk. However, it leads to intelligibility loss, which works against foreigner talk. Pairs of speakers engaged in a task where native speakers talked either to a native or non-native listener. Natives talking to non-natives performed foreigner talk for duration and intensity. Duration and intensity were reduced for native and non-native listeners equally. These results suggest that word reduction is insensitive to communicative adjustments in the context of foreign talk.

The keynote article (Mayberry & Kluender, 2017) makes an important contribution to questions concerning the existence and characteristics of sensitive periods in language acquisition. Specifically, by comparing groups of non-native L1 and L2 signers, the authors have been able to ingeniously disentangle the effects of maturation from those of early language exposure. Based on L1 versus L2 contrasts, the paper convincingly argues that L2 learning is a “less clear test” of sensitive periods. Nevertheless, we believe Mayberry and Kluender underestimate the evidence for maturational factors in L2 learning, especially that coming from recent research.

Using multiple languages may confer distinct advantages in cognitive control, yet it is unclear whether bilingualism is associated with better implicit statistical learning, a core cognitive ability underlying language. We tested bilingual adults on a challenging task requiring simultaneous learning of two miniature grammars characterized by different statistics. We found that participants learned each grammar significantly better than chance and both grammars equally well. Crucially, a validated continuous measure of bilingual dominance predicted accuracy scores for both artificial grammars in a generalized linear model. The study thus demonstrates the first graded advantage in learning novel statistical relations in adult bilinguals.

The issue of critical or sensitive periods affecting the outcome of second language (L2) acquisition has been the subject of intense investigation and debate for many years, with people arguing for or against maturational effects on ultimate attainment. In their influential paper, Johnson and Newport (1989) identify two hypotheses: the exercise hypothesis and the maturational state hypothesis. According to the former, if the capacity for acquiring language is exercised early in life (in first language acquisition), then language learning abilities will remain intact throughout life: in other words, permitting successful L2 acquisition regardless of age. In contrast, according to the maturational state hypothesis, the language learning capacity declines with age, affecting L2 acquisition as well as late L1. Johnson and Newport take their results, which show an age-related decline in performance during childhood and adolescence, to support the maturational state hypothesis. Many L2 researchers have adopted a maturational perspective and have reached similar conclusions as to the presence of critical or sensitive periods (e.g., Abrahamsson, 2012; DeKeyser & Larson-Hall, 2005; Long, 1990; Oyama, 1976; Patkowski, 1980). Some researchers have pointed out that age effects continue into adulthood, contrary to the claim for a critical period (e.g., Birdsong & Mollis, 2001). Others have suggested that what looks like an age-related maturational decline may be accounted for by confounding factors, such as task effects, effects of L1, amount of L2 use, education or input (e.g., Bialystok & Miller, 1999; Flege, Yeni-Komshian & Liu, 1999).

This study assesses the effects of age and language exposure on VOT production in 29 simultaneous bilingual children aged 3;7 to 5;11 who speak German as a heritage language in the Netherlands. Dutch and German have a binary voicing contrast, but the contrast is implemented with different VOT values in the two languages. The results suggest that bilingual children produce ‘voiced’ plosives similarly in their two languages, and these productions are not monolingual-like in either language. Bidirectional cross-linguistic influence between Dutch and German can explain these results. Yet, the bilinguals seemingly have two autonomous categories for Dutch and German ‘voiceless’ plosives. In German, the bilinguals’ aspiration is not monolingual-like, but bilinguals with more heritage language exposure produce more target-like aspiration. Importantly, the amount of exposure to German has no effect on the majority language's ‘voiceless’ category. This implies that more heritage language exposure is associated with more language-specific voicing systems.