This paper sketches a comprehensive framework for modeling and interpreting language contact phenomena, with speakers’ bilingual strategies in specific scenarios of language contact as its point of departure. Bilingual strategies are conditioned by social factors, processing constraints of speakers’ bilingual competence, and perceived language distance. In a number of domains of language contact studies important progress has been made, including Creole studies, code-switching, language development, linguistic borrowing, and areal convergence. Less attention has been paid to the links between these fields, so that results in one domain can be compared with those in another. These links are approached here from the perspective of speaker optimization strategies. Four strategies are proposed: maximize structural coherence of the first language (L1); maximize structural coherence of the second language (L2); match between L1 and L2 patterns where possible; and rely on universal principles of language processing. These strategies can be invoked to explain outcomes of language contact. Different outcomes correspond to different interactions of these strategies in bilingual speakers and their communities.

Muysken's article is a timely call for us to seek deeper regularities in the bewildering diversity of language contact outcomes. His model provocatively suggests that most such outcomes can be subsumed under four speaker optimization strategies. I consider two aspects of the proposal here: the formalization in Optimality Theory (OT) and the reduction of contact outcomes to four basic strategies.

Much previous research has pointed to the need for a unified framework for language contact phenomena – one that would include social factors and motivations, structural factors and linguistic constraints, and psycholinguistic factors involved in processes of language processing and production. While Contact Linguistics has devoted a great deal of attention to the structural properties of contact phenomena and their sources in the input languages, the field has made much less progress in attending to Weinreich's observation that language contact can best be understood only “in a broad psychological and socio-cultural setting” (Weinreich, 1953, p. 4). There have been some attempts to establish links between the disciplines that investigate language contact, for example, the psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic (Walters, 2005), and the linguistic and psycholinguistic (Myers-Scotton 2002, Winford 2009, among others). Yet, so far, no one has come close to achieving the kind of integrative, multi-disciplinary framework that Weinreich envisaged. Muysken's paper is therefore a welcome reminder of the need for such a framework, and the complexity of the task involved in constructing it, if indeed it can be accomplished. The introduction to the paper outlines a very ambitious objective – “to explore the possibility of unifying these fields, all different approaches to language contact, creating a single framework within which it is possible to link results from different subfields” (Section 1.1).

Muysken argues for four general “strategies” that characterize language contact phenomena across several levels of description. These strategies are (A) maximize structural coherence of the first language (L1); (B) maximize structural coherence of the second language (L2); (C) match between L1 and L2 patterns where possible; and (D) use universal language processing principles. These strategies are seen as choices that bilingual speakers make, individually and collectively, and that are influenced by multiple social, individual, and linguistic factors. This account has the clear advantage of unifying a seemingly very diverse set of language contact phenomena using a limited set of principles. One such phenomenon is cross-linguistic structural priming, the tendency of bilingual speakers to copy grammatical structures from a language recently used to another language (e.g., Hartsuiker, Pickering & Veltkamp, 2004), which Muysken considers an example of “bilingual interference”. In this domain, I will explore how these strategies can be realized in terms of a psycholinguistic processing model, and whether these strategies can be reduced to even more basic principles.

Pieter Muysken's keynote paper, “Language contact outcomes as a result of bilingual optimization strategies”, undertakes an ambitious project to theoretically unify different empirical outcomes of language contact, for instance, SLA, pidgins and Creoles, and code-switching. Muysken has dedicated a life-time to researching, rather successfully, various sub-fields of language contact, so I am very pleased to see him develop a synergistic model that reduces the complexities of different bilingual contact phenomena to four optimization strategies, the specific permutations of which yield the different, linguistically significant, generalizations. Such attempts are necessary, certainly, if the field of language contact has to make progress, theoretically. The success of such a theoretical unification, however, depends to a large extent on (i) the empirical mileage such unification receives; (ii) how well the assumptions underlying the logic of unification are theoretically motivated, to yield precise predictions about the orderliness of bilingual behavior; and (iii) the conceptual clarity required to understand the various links among the outcomes of language contact. On all these counts, Muysken's paper comes close to achieving success, though one notices several areas of fuzziness that need to be addressed for a competent model to fully emerge. In this short essay, I will point out two areas that need theoretical attention so that subsequent revisions of the present version of the model can address them. I will restrict my comments to code-switching, an extremely productive area of language contact, with which I am most familiar.

Pieter Muysken's article on modeling and interpreting language contact phenomena constitutes an important contribution.The approach chosen is a top–down one, building on the author's extensive knowledge of all matters relating to language contact. The paper aims at integrating a wide range of factors and levels of social, cognitive, and linguistic accounts, incorporating findings on bilingual individuals in the same way as on language systems in contact and bilingual speech communities. It enables the reader to place seemingly disparate phenomena in a wider perspective and to relate quite divergent manifestations of language contact to one another in a principled way. In accordance with its ambitious goal, the paper proposes a high level of generalization, or abstraction.

I am generally positive about Muysken's (M) approach, and the potential use of unifying various seemingly related phenomena is obvious. The approach could also serve as a tool in determining to what extent these phenomena actually are sides of the same coin (I am somewhat less convinced of this than most contact linguists).

In the keynote article “Language contact outcomes as the result of bilingual optimization strategies” (Muysken, published online May 31, 2013; henceforth KA), I have tried to accomplish three things:

1. (a) linking a number of fields of language contact research (code-switching, Creole studies, contact-induced language change, bilingual production), by

2. (b) assuming four roles that the contributing languages may play ((i) first language dominant, (ii) second language dominant, (iii) neither language dominant – patterns common to the two languages, and (iv) neither language dominant – language-neutral communicative strategies), and

3. (c) modeling these four roles in terms of bilingual optimization strategies, which may be implemented in an Optimality Theoretic (OT) framework.

A structural priming experiment investigated whether bilingual speakers’ processing of their non-native language (L2) depends entirely on their experience of L2, or whether it is also affected by their experience of the native language (L1). German-L1 and Spanish-L1 proficient speakers of English (and English-L1 controls) described pictures of dative events after reading unrelated sentences that had a Prepositional Object (PO) or Double Object (DO) structure. Participants in all three groups were more likely to produce DO descriptions after reading DO sentences than PO sentences. Crucially, Spanish-L1 speakers, whose L1 allows PO but not DO structures, showed the same pattern of priming as German-L1 speakers, whose L1 allows both structures. Additionally, the groups showed no difference in their baseline preference for DO structures. We suggest that in proficient bilinguals, processing in L2 is not affected by L1 experience and L1 preferences, and propose a model to account for our findings.

Using a self-paced reading task, this study examines whether second language (L2) learners are flexible enough to learn L2 parsing strategies that are not useful in their first language (L1). Native Korean-speaking learners of English were compared with native English speakers on resolving a temporary ambiguity about the relationship between a verb and the noun following it (e.g., The student read [that] the article . . .). Consistent with previous studies, native English reading times showed the usual interaction between the optional complementizer that and the particular verb's bias about the structures that can follow it. Lower proficiency L1-Korean learners of L2-English did not show a similar interaction, but higher proficiency learners did. Thus, despite native language word order differences (English: SVO; Korean: SOV) that determine the availability of verbs early enough in sentences to generate predictions about upcoming sentence structure, higher proficiency L1-Korean learners were able to learn to optimally combine verb bias and complementizer cues on-line during sentence comprehension just as native English speakers did, while lower proficiency learners had not yet learned to do so. Optimal interactive cue combination during L2 sentence comprehension can probably be achieved only after sufficient experience with the target language.

Much previous experimental research on morphological processing has focused on surface and meaning-level properties of morphologically complex words, without paying much attention to the morphological differences between inflectional and derivational processes. Realization-based theories of morphology, for example, assume specific morpholexical representations for derived words that distinguish them from the products of inflectional or paradigmatic processes. The present study reports results from a series of masked priming experiments investigating the processing of inflectional and derivational phenomena in native (L1) and non-native (L2) speakers in a non-Indo-European language, Turkish. We specifically compared regular (Aorist) verb inflection with deadjectival nominalization, both of which are highly frequent, productive and transparent in Turkish. The experiments demonstrated different priming patterns for inflection and derivation, specifically within the L2 group. Implications of these findings are discussed both for accounts of L2 morphological processing and for the controversial linguistic distinction between inflection and derivation.

We investigated the effects of grammatical and stereotypical gender information on the comprehension of human referent role nouns among bilinguals of a grammatical (French) and a natural gender language (English). In a sentence evaluation paradigm, participants judged the acceptability of a gender-specific sentence referring to either a group of women or men following a sentence containing the plural form of a role noun female (e.g., social workers), male (e.g., surgeons) or neutral (e.g., musicians) in stereotypicality. L1 French and L1 English bilinguals were tested both in French and English. The results showed that bilinguals construct mental representations of gender associated with the language of the task they are engaged in, shifting representations as they switch languages. Specifically, in French, representations were male-dominant (i.e., induced by the masculine form), whereas in English, they were stereotype-based. Furthermore, the results showed that the extent to which representations shifted was modulated by participants’ proficiency in their L2, with highly proficient L2 participants resembling native speakers of the L2 and less proficient L2 participants being influenced more by their native language.

Dual-route models of second language (L2) morphology (Clahsen & Felser, 2006; Ullman, 2004) argue that adult L2 learners rely on full-form retrieval, and therefore cannot use combination to produce inflected forms. We tested this prediction with learning of Spanish verb conjugations. Beginning (Experiment 1) and intermediate (Experiment 2) learners (total N = 816) completed 80–90 minutes of web-based training, conjugating regular and subregular verbs in present and preterite tense. Tests of generalization items showed that training led to substantial improvement, equally for metalinguistic and analogical feedback. Comparison with an untrained group showed that gains were maintained 18 weeks after training. In contrast with dual-route model predictions, pre-test accuracy and learning gains were strongly predicted by conjugation pattern, showing that full-form retrieval was insufficient to explain learner performance. Results indicate that adult L2 learners apply compositional analysis, and that conjugation patterns are learned on the basis of their relative cue validity.

Verb–particle constructions are a notoriously difficult aspect of English to acquire for second-language (L2) learners. The present study investigated whether L2 English speakers are sensitive to gradations in semantic transparency of verb–particle constructions (e.g., finish up vs. chew out). French–English bilingual participants (first language: French, second language: English) completed an off-line similarity ratings survey, as well as an on-line masked priming task. Results of the survey showed that bilinguals’ similarity ratings became more native-like as their English proficiency levels increased. Results from the masked priming task showed that response latencies from high, but not low-proficiency bilinguals were similar to those of monolinguals, with mid- and high-similarity verb–particle/verb pairs (e.g., finish up/finish) producing greater priming than low-similarity pairs (e.g., chew out/chew). Taken together, the results suggest that L2 English speakers develop both explicit and implicit understanding of the semantic properties of verb–particle constructions, which approximates the sensitivity of native speakers as English proficiency increases.

The current project examined whether and to what degree continued L2 input, operationalized as length of residence (LOR), and age of acquisition (AOA), defined as the first intensive exposure to the target language, can be predictive of adult Japanese learners’ production of word-initial English /ɹ/. Data were collected from 65 participants, consisting of three groups of Japanese learners of English (n = 13 for Short-, Mid-, and Long-LOR groups, respectively) and two groups of baseline speakers (n = 13 for Japanese- and English-Baseline groups, respectively). Their production of /ɹ/ was elicited via three oral tasks (i.e., word reading, sentence reading, timed picture description). Acoustic analyses were carried out along four dimensions: third formant (F3), second formant (F2), first formant (F1) frequencies, and formant transition duration. The results demonstrated that (a) all learners reached native-like proficiency with respect to the use of existing cues (F2, transition duration) within approximately one year of LOR, (b) their performance was negatively related to AOA to some degree, and (c) longer LOR was predictive of the development of the new cue (F3). These results suggest that late L2 speech sound acquisition and proficiency may be characterized by different levels of phonetic processing.

The present study investigated orthographic and phonological processing in L2 French spoken word recognition by Finnish learners of French, using the masked cross-modal priming paradigm. Experiment 1 showed a repetition effect in L2 within-language priming that was most pronounced for high proficiency learners and a significant effect for French pseudohomophones. In the between-language Experiment 2, high proficiency learners showed significant facilitation from L1 Finnish to L2 French shared orthography in the absence of phonological and semantic overlap. This effect was not observed in the lower intermediate group, which showed a significant benefit of L1 pseudohomophones instead. The orthographic effect in the high proficiency group was modulated by subjective familiarity showing facilitation for less familiar but not for highly familiar words. The results suggest that with L2 learners, the extent to which orthographic information affects L2 spoken word recognition depends on their L2 proficiency.

The relation between language proficiency and executive functions has been established for monolingual children. The present study addresses this issue in bilingual children, comparing the language proficiency of sequential English–Hebrew bilingual preschool children as determined by standardized assessment instruments and generic executive control in inhibition, sorting and shifting tasks. Participants were recruited from regular and language preschools and classified according to their language proficiency as bilinguals with high language proficiency in at least one of their languages (including balanced bilinguals with high language proficiency in both languages, L2-dominant, and L1-dominant) and bilinguals showing low language proficiency in both languages. As reported for monolingual preschool children, positive relationships between language proficiency and inhibition and shifting abilities were found, with significantly lower performance among low language proficiency bilinguals. Significantly better performance was also found for shifting among children who had already mastered their L2 compared to those who were still in the process of acquiring the new language.

Solving insight problems is a complex task found to involve coarse semantic processing in the right hemisphere when tested in English. In Hebrew, the left hemisphere (LH) may be more active in this task, due to the inter-hemispheric interaction between semantic, phonological and orthographic processing. In two Hebrew insight problems experiments, we revealed a performance advantage in the LH, in contrast to the patterns previously observed in English. A third experiment, conducted in English with early Hebrew–English bilinguals, confirmed that the LH advantage found with Hebrew speakers does not depend on specific task requirements in Hebrew. We suggest that Hebrew speakers show redundancy between the hemispheres in coarse semantic processing in handling frequent lexical ambiguities stemming from the orthographic structure in Hebrew. We further suggest that inter-hemispheric interactions between linguistic and non-linguistic processes may determine the hemisphere in which coarse coding will take place. These findings highlight the possible effect of exposure to a specific mother tongue on the lateralization of processes in the brain, and carries possible theoretical and methodological implications for cross-language studies.

This study examined cross-linguistic transfer in oral language skills in a sample of 50 native Hebrew speakers who learned English as a second language. The ability to retrieve phonological forms of words in naming, as manifested by the tendency to experience tip-of-the-tongue states, was correlated across languages. We also found within and across language correlations between this ability and grammatical accuracy, lexical diversity, and syntactic complexity in second language narratives. These findings are consistent with the transfer across languages in oral language skills and provide insights into the processes linking phonological and higher level encoding in production of connected speech.

This study presents results from a cross-modal priming experiment investigating inflected verb forms of German. A group of late learners of German with Russian as their native language (L1) was compared to a control group of German L1 speakers. The experiment showed different priming patterns for the two participant groups. The L1 German data yielded a stem-priming effect for inflected forms involving regular affixation and a partial priming effect for irregular forms irrespective of stem allomorphy. By contrast, the data from the late bilinguals showed reduced priming effects for both regular and irregular forms. We argue that late learners rely more on lexically stored inflected word forms during word recognition and less on morphological parsing than native speakers.