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.

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 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 study tests young learners’ ability to segment foreign-language words before they receive classroom instruction in English as a foreign language (EFL). We focus on speech segmentation, one of the earliest hurdles in second-language (L2) acquisition, but essential to building a vocabulary in a new language. Specifically, we examine whether segmentation is influenced by individual differences in phonological awareness, the presence of first-language (L1) phonotactic cues to word boundaries, and L1 skills. Primary-school students in Germany (6- to 9-years old), either monolingual with German only or bilingual with German and another language, were tested on their ability to recognize pseudowords in English speech that were presented in contexts that cued word boundaries either consistent or inconsistent with German phonotactics. Results show that participants recognized pseudowords and that this improves with increasing phonological awareness skill. Nonetheless, L1 phonotactic boundary cues neither influenced performance at the group level nor when individual L1 skills were considered. An exploratory analysis of English receptive vocabulary, however, revealed that pre-EFL learners may initially use L1 phonotactic cues to detect word boundaries but rely less on them once their receptive English vocabulary grows. Similar to adults, pre-EFL learners are able to segment and recognize words in English prior to systematic exposure and classroom instruction, which may be supported by developing phonological awareness skills. However, this does not seem to be underpinned by the transfer of phonotactic cues from the L1, suggesting a lack of continuity in the influence of the L1 on the L2 in foreign language learning across development.

Certain properties of second language (L2) speech are well studied, yet it is uncontroversial to note that L n phonology (where n = any natural number; e.g. L2, L3, etc.) is under-represented in generative approaches to language acquisition compared with the domain of morphosyntax. If, however, we look at L n input and output without taking the learnability of abstract mental representation seriously in our psycholinguistic probes then we miss out on fundamental knowledge as to the nature of a multilingual grammar. L n knowers have complex, phonological grammars whose properties help us to describe and explain their knowledge and behaviour. Many approaches (e.g. usage-based; exemplar) have assumed that phonology can be learned by ‘noticing’ elements in the input. Such a view ignores Plato’s Problem of the acquisition of knowledge as well as the corollary of Orwell’s Problem. Phonology is rich, hierarchical, recursive, governed by UG (universal grammar), and subject to poverty-of-the-stimulus effects. Assigning phonetic tokens to phonological categories entails an algebraic function in which the phonological categories act as variables. Interestingly, this is related to the question of whether phonology is ‘merely’ a system of externalization (which implies it evolved after Merge) or whether there is evidence of it emerging earlier in the lineage of Homo sapiens . I present some arguments that human phonology is not just the linearization of syntax implemented by computationally-simpler, evolutionarily-older machinery. I discuss empirical data which demonstrate the utility of explaining multilingual phonological grammars with reference to hierarchical constituents at the levels of feature, syllable, foot, prosodic word, and phonological phrase; none of these structures are read off the input in a straightforward way. By recognizing the epistemological, representational, and learnability issues related to phonological knowledge (and its interfaces), we deepen our understanding of the full range of the cognitive architecture of the multilingual language faculty.

This article engages with Archibald’s call for greater integration of phonology within generative second language (L2) acquisition research, further exploring the cognitive and theoretical implications of multilingual phonological grammars. Addressing the longstanding imbalance between L2 work in phonology and morphosyntax, it joins Archibald in advocating for deeper consideration of abstract phonological representations and their parallels with syntax. While some of Archibald’s assumptions – such as the recursive nature of phonology and the role of Optimality Theory in its underrepresentation in generative L2 research – invite debate, his broader insights into phonological complexity and interdisciplinary relevance are highly compelling. By critically engaging with these issues, this discussion reinforces the need to bridge phonology and syntax in second language research, while also drawing attention to the distinction between phonetics and phonology and to the role of phonology as part of the grammar and its function within the greater cognitive system.