We present a corpus investigation of the influence of first language – second language (L1–L2) typological similarity on the acquisition of the L2 English article. We consider item-level typological similarity in terms of the availability of an article in the L1, but also broader typological similarity in terms of the linguistic distance between L1 and L2 as captured through a variety of lexical, morphosyntactic and phonological measures of linguistic distance. We analyse the accuracy of the use of the definite and indefinite English articles in around 0.5 million writings from learners with 11 typologically diverse L1s. The data are sampled from an open access English as a foreign language (EFL) corpus, EFCAMDAT. Our results indicate that L1 influence arises from a combination of item level L1–L2 differences, that is, the availability of an article in the L1, as well as broader properties of the L1 grammar, as captured by linguistic distance measures. The results indicate that it is the availability of the definite article in the L1 that predicts article omission in L2 English, for both the definite and indefinite articles. This finding supports the generative typological distinction between determiner phrase (DP) and noun phrase (NP) languages, indicating that the availability of a definite article and a DP predicts the use of bare nominals in the L1 and consequently, article omission in L2 English.

This article investigates the role of typological distance and morphosyntactic variation in second language (L2) acquisition. It examines two sets of existing studies that compare learners with typologically different first languages (L1s) acquiring distinct L2 properties: Korean WH-indefinites and English experiential constructions. Both sets of studies test L1 groups where one L1 is typologically close to the L2 with micro-variation in the target property, and the other L1 is typologically distant from the L2. The findings from both studies consistently reveal that L2 acquisition is more challenging when learners must restructure their L1-based interlanguage to accommodate subtle morphosyntactic differences in the L2 (e.g. Japanese speakers learning Korean WH-indefinites or Chinese speakers learning English experiential constructions), a process referred to as ‘restructuring’. Conversely, acquisition is relatively easier when learners develop new L2 lexemes without direct L1 equivalents (e.g. English speakers learning Korean WH-indefinites or Korean speakers learning English experiential constructions), termed ‘development’. The article argues that the nature of these acquisition tasks, rather than typological distance alone, primarily influences L2 performance and developmental trajectories, highlighting that restructuring poses a greater challenge than development in L2 acquisition. These findings suggest that microvariation between typologically close languages can impede L2 learning, and that L2 acquisition research should carefully consider the specific acquisition tasks involved, moving beyond broad typological comparisons.

Although German is described as adhering to a V2 constraint, restricting preverbal elements to one, corpus data reveal that V3 constructions systematically occur in everyday German, challenging the rigidity of the V2 rule. This discrepancy raises questions about the validity of V2 as a strict syntactic constraint, with significant implications for L3 acquisition. While L3 learners often produce V3 structures, these have been largely dismissed as errors rather than analysed for their potential functions. To date, little research has explored the functions that V3 might fulfil in L3 speakers’ language use. This article argues that both L1 speakers and L3 learners employ V3 structures for similar discourse-pragmatic and information-structural purposes, warranting a reconsideration of V3’s role in German. We present findings from a self-paced reading study with German learners at different proficiency levels, examining how V3 differs from V2 in sentence processing. The study identifies factors influencing processing strategies, particularly verb position and preverbal constituents. Our results suggest that V3 structures arise from information-structural and discourse-functional features of German, positioning these constructions as legitimate elements of the language. This work challenges the traditional V2 paradigm, advocating for a more nuanced understanding of German syntax and learner variation.

Research has revealed substantial individual differences in how language is processed during reading by both first-language (L1) and second-language (L2) speakers, with morphosyntax in particular being identified as a ‘bottleneck’ area in L2 acquisition. While some predictors of reading performance are well studied (e.g. working memory, individual word knowledge), recent research has suggested a role for multiword unit chunking ability in L1 sentence processing. However, the role of chunking ability in L2 processing has received less attention. This study explores chunking as a particularly relevant mechanism for the processing of L2 Spanish gender agreement, during which nouns and gender-marking cues in determiners and adjectives must be chunked together. We examined whether chunking ability and working memory predict syntactic processing involving gender agreement in Spanish during a self-paced reading task. We created a Spanish version of a multiword chunk sensitivity task and used it to obtain measures of chunking ability from English learners of Spanish in both languages. Results revealed no significant effect of working memory, while L1 chunking ability predicted L2 processing: only higher-chunking-ability learners showed sensitivity to gender agreement during processing, even after controlling for proficiency; lower-chunking-ability readers showed a lack of sensitivity to agreement during online processing.

This commentary addresses three issues that arise in the context of linguistic distance and crosslinguistic differences, namely how linguistic distance is defined, how linguistic distance translates into linguistic knowledge, and what the relationship is between linguistic distance and crosslinguistic influence. As far as distance is concerned, articles in this issue differ as to whether they adopt external or internal measures of language distance, raising the question of how externally defined language relatedness translates into the internalized grammar of an individual learner. As for crosslinguistic differences, there is an assumption in some of the articles that the more different/typologically apart the languages are, the harder the second language (L2) will be to acquire and the greater the prospect of first language (L1) transfer. In contrast, several articles show that typological closeness does not necessarily facilitate acquisition, while distance does not impede it. Discrepancies and commonalities between the various approaches are discussed.

We here respond to a 2024 discussion and commentary article entitled Dangerous dichotomies and misunderstandings in second language research by Truscott and Sharwood Smith (T&SS), who argue that several dichotomies pervade the field of second language acquisition (SLA) that negatively impact progress in the field. T&SS focus on four dichotomies, all of which imply an opposition of generative and usage-based approaches: (i) Cognitive vs. Generative, (ii) Usage-based vs. Generative, (iii) Dynamic vs. Static/Fixed, and (iv) Innatist vs. What? We find T&SS’s specific approach problematic as corrections are overly skewed towards a single side; some imprecisions are simply swapped for others; and at times, crucial developments in both generative and usage-based approaches are ignored. Thus, we – two usage-based and one generative language researcher – combine forces here to offer our perspective. For the ‘dangers’ that T&SS list regarding each of the four dichotomies they discuss, we provide a synopsis of where we agree with T&SS and where we do not; and, based on where we see contemporary generative and usage-based approaches stand with regard to these four dichotomies, we offer an alternative set of statements that we consider more balanced and nuanced than the ‘corrective statements’ initially offered in T&SS (2024).

This study examines how first language (L1) English speakers understand metonymy in second language (L2) Korean, in order to explore the influence of universal concepts and language-specific conventions on how meaning is extended in interlanguage. An acceptability judgment task and a sense identification task revealed that L2 Korean metonymy knowledge began relatively early, and conventional metonymy and pragmatic reference transfer were treated differently in significant ways. The results have implications for how the different levels of meaning computation (e.g. lexical, pragmatic) interact with one another in interlanguage, as well as on the debate between radical pragmatics vs. rule-based theories of metonymy in linguistics.

This study examined how three groups of Vietnamese learners of Japanese perceive Japanese vowel length, focusing on duration and pitch cues. Seventy-five Vietnamese participants across three proficiency levels (N1, N2, N3) and 10 native Japanese (NJ) speakers completed a two-alternative forced-choice identification task using /kado/ and /kaado/ stimuli varying in duration and F0. Results showed that Vietnamese learners primarily relied on duration, similar to NJ speakers, but exhibited delayed categorical boundaries. While their first language (L1) experience with contrastive duration in Vietnamese tense–lax vowels may enhance durational sensitivity, it does not fully resolve challenges in distinguishing Japanese contrasts. Despite L1 experience with lexical tones, Vietnamese learners struggled to use pitch as a secondary cue. This may result from L1 strategies, which primarily link duration to vowel quality for tense–lax vowel discrimination, rather than to pitch. Limited familiarity with Japanese pitch accent and second-language-specific strategies for vowel length may have further hindered Vietnamese learners from integrating pitch cues with duration for vowel length perception. Among the three learner groups, only advanced learners (N1) showed modest adaptation in integrating pitch with duration, whereas lower-proficiency groups (N2 and N3) relied almost exclusively on duration. These findings highlight the influence of L1 experience on second language (L2) perceptual strategies and the need for explicit phonetic training to help L2 learners develop native- like cue weighting.

This study investigated the comprehension of which -questions among French-speaking monolingual ( n = 26) and bilingual ( n = 28) children aged 3 to 12 years, examining the roles of verbal working memory (WM) and length of exposure to an additional language (L2). We assessed comprehension of subject- and object-questions with a character-selection task, measured verbal WM with a non-word repetition task, and quantified linguistic exposure through a parental questionnaire. Results confirmed the well-known subject–object asymmetry, with object-questions posing greater difficulty than subject-questions for both groups. Additionally, verbal WM significantly impacted comprehension of object-questions among bilinguals, but not monolinguals, with higher WM associated with better performance. Importantly, it was bilinguals with longer exposure to a language other than French who demonstrated improved verbal WM, leading to increased comprehension of object-questions compared to bilingual peers with less L2 exposure. These findings underscore the crucial role of WM in language comprehension and suggest that bilingualism can confer cognitive advantages that in turn enhance complex syntactic processing.

This article explores the role of Universal Grammar (UG) in second language (L2) acquisition. Drawing on the weak conformity hypothesis (WCH), which posits that developing interlanguage grammars may temporarily deviate from UG but ultimately conform to it, the article proposes that UG functions as a linguistic dissonance resolution device (LDRD). In this framework, UG becomes active when learners adopt UG-incompatible rules or ‘wild grammars’ in their interlanguage, working to revise these inconsistencies so that they align with UG constraints. In contrast to standard assumptions, I argue that L2 learners do not necessarily explore only within UG bounds. Rather, UG plays a monitoring role: It detects UG-inconsistent rules and triggers revision. Such revisions can occur when feature selection or feature reassembly is required, as long as wild grammars are present in the learner’s interlanguage grammar. As addressed in this article, this account makes novel predictions about which features are acquirable or reconfigurable and which are not. Thus, the UG-as-LDRD proposal not only offers a potential solution to the poverty-of-the-stimulus problem in L2 acquisition, but also provides a broader explanatory scope that may surpass that of existing generative L2 hypotheses.