The present study examines the production and intuition of Spanish clitics in clitic left dislocation (CLLD) structures among 26 Spanish heritage speakers (HSs) born and raised in Brazil. We tested clitic production and intuition in contexts in which Spanish clitics vary as a function of the semantic features of the object that they refer to. Results showed overextension of object clitics into contexts in which null objects were expected. Furthermore, we found higher levels of overextension among the HSs with lower patterns of heritage language use. Results are discussed along the lines of the model of heritage language acquisition and maintenance.

In two visual-world eye-tracking experiments, we explore the extent to which conflicting first-language (L1) based grammatical parses influence second-language (L2) learners’ on-line and off-line interpretation of sentences in the L2. We used cross-linguistic structural priming to potentially boost competition from the L1 grammar during the processing of wh-questions in English. For L1-German learners (Experiment 1), sentence-final interpretations showed effects of conflicting L1 parses in the greater number of misinterpretations of English subject as object wh-questions than vice versa. In a follow-up experiment with a comparison group of L1-Japanese learners (Experiment 2), we found the reverse pattern in sentence-final interpretations, with lower accuracy on English object than subject wh-questions. The asymmetry in comprehension accuracy between Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrated that the effect observed among L1-German learners reflected grammar competition from the L1 rather than general L2 effects. In both experiments, we observed cross-linguistic priming from L1 object questions to L2 object questions in on-line processing. Yet, cross-linguistic priming did not enhance competition from L1 object questions on L2 subject questions in Experiment 1 as reflected in comprehension accuracy or eye-gaze during processing. Together, these findings present evidence of cross-linguistic structural priming for equivalent interpretations (object–object), but indicate that priming does not extend to competing L1 interpretations of word-order equivalent structures cross-linguistically (object–subject). We suggest that interference from conflicting L1-based grammatical parses is narrowly delimited in intermediate to advanced L2 sentence processing.

Previous studies have yielded contradictory results on the relationship between perception and production in second language (L2) phonological processing. We re-examine the relationship between the two modalities both within and across processing levels, addressing several issues regarding methodology and statistical analyses. We focus on the perception and production of the French contrast /u/–/y/ by proficient English-speaking late learners of French. In an experiment with a prelexical perception task (ABX discrimination) and both a prelexical and a lexical production task (pseudoword reading and picture naming), we observe a robust link between perception and production within but not across levels. Moreover, using a clustering analysis we provide evidence that good perception is a prerequisite for good production.

Mandarin speakers tend to adapt intervocalic nasals as either an onset of the following syllable (e.g. Bruno → bù.lŭ .n uò), as a nasal geminate (e.g. Daniel → dā n.n í.ěr), or as one of the above forms (e.g. Tiffany → dì.fú. n í or dì.fē n.n í). Huang and Lin (2013, 2016) identified two factors that may induce the nasal gemination repair: (1) when stress falls on the pre-nasal vowel and (2) when the pre-nasal vowel is a non-high lax vowel. They hypothesized that Mandarin Chinese speakers insert a nasal coda to perceptually approximate the stronger nasalization and longer syllable duration associated with the stressed syllables, and the shorter vowel duration of a lax vowel because the vowels in closed syllables are shorter in Mandarin. The results from two forced-choice identification experiments and an open-ended transcription task showed that although Mandarin speakers’ choices of different repairs were indeed biased by the different phonetic manipulations, suggesting an effect of perceptual similarity, their decisions were mainly guided by native phonotactics. The overall findings suggest that phonotactic, phonetic, as well as non-linguistic (i.e. frequency) factors interact with each other, resulting in the variable adaptation pattern.

When we think of the debates surrounding linguistic transfer in L3 acquisition, one of the most prominent discussions concerns whether transfer occurs in a wholesale fashion or whether it is property-by-property. One such model is the Linguistic Proximity Model (LPM, Mykhaylyk et al., 2015; Westergaard et al., 2017; Westergaard, 2021), which maintains that transfer is property-by-property, with what Westergaard refers to as Full Transfer Potential (FTP). Westergaard injects the notion of complexity at each stage of development and recognizes the need to determine how a range of variables drive outcomes across these different stages. With that said, there are a set of points in the proposal that we believe are short of explanatory logic and will benefit from further consideration; we focus on two here. The first regards the need to go beyond post-hoc explanations of non-facilitative transfer via a commitment to a testable, proposal for when the LPM predicts such transfer will occur. The second relates to the current trend of using existing data to support property-by-property versus wholesale transfer. We contend that this application of existing data is an unsound practice because these data are in fact compatible with multiple theoretical accounts.

This commentary discusses the recent keynote article by Westergaard (2021), which is an interesting contribution to the field of language acquisition and multilingualism, especially because it attempts to provide a wider perspective by embracing first, second and third language acquisition. I address major claims put forward by Westergaard, to support them with my own research data from the domain of phonology as well as to raise some questions as to potential limitations of the approach, and to point to avenues for future theoretical and methodological refinement.