It is widely acknowledged that adult second language (L2) learning is both explicit (with conscious awareness) and implicit (without awareness). However, the degree to which individuals rely on explicit or implicit learning in L2 depends on a range of factors (see Buffington & Morgan-Short, 2019 for a review). Extending previous research on the role of explicit and implicit learning aptitude that has exclusively focused on the accuracy of L2 lexicogrammar learning (e.g., Suzuki & DeKeyser, 2017), the current study explores the relationship between learning aptitude and accuracy and automatization in L2. Language automatization reflects the extent to which language processing is fast, stable, and not affected by working memory load (DeKeyser, 2015). As an emerging research focus, automatization has been measured by (a) reaction time (RT) to stimuli for processing speed and (b) coefficient of variance in RT for stability. However, it seems that the degree to which language processing is affected by working memory (WM) load has not been investigated in previous studies where the focus was on RT decrease over time in one condition (e.g., Pili-Moss et al., 2019). In this study, we compare RT on the same task (grammaticality judgement test, GJT) in two WM conditions: with or without memory load. Automatization is thus calculated as the RT difference between these two conditions, while accuracy is measured through the number of correct judgments in both conditions. A total of 66 Chinese university students were recruited in Poland, including N=52 Year 1 students at CEFR level A1-A2, with length of residence [LOR] less than 4 months and N=14 Year 2 students (more are being tested) at CEFR level B1-B2, with LOR over 10 months. They had studied Polish in class for 0.5-4 years before arrival. To test participants’ explicit learning aptitude, a grammatical inferencing task (LLAMA F) was used, while their implicit learning aptitude was assessed via a button-box version of the serial reaction time task. Participants also completed a standard working memory test (operation span). Then, they judged 192 aurally presented Polish sentences in both WM conditions, which comprised both correct and incorrect applications of (a) lexicology (collocations), (b) morphology (case and aspect) and (c) syntax (clause coordination and subordination). We integrate all cognitive measures with performance on the linguistic task and expect that explicit and implicit learning aptitude interact to predict L2 outcome. That is, learners with high scores on both aptitudes are more likely to achieve L2 success—accurate and automatic L2 processing. We also expect that the relationships between learning aptitude and the accuracy and automatization in L2 are modulated by linguistic complexity (lexical vs. morphological vs. syntactic structures), the extent to which the lexicogrammar structures map onto their L1, learning stage (Year 1 vs. Year 2) and L2 experience (in class & during immersion). Refrences: Buffington, J. & Morgan-Short, K. (2019) Declarative and Procedural Memory as Individual Differences in Second Language Aptitude. In Z. Wen, P. Skehan, A. Biedro?, S. Li & R. Sparks (eds.), Language aptitude: Advancing theory, testing, research and practice (pp. 215–237). NY: Routledge. DeKeyser, R. M. (2015) Skill acquisition theory. In VanPatten. B and Williams. J (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 94–112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pili-Moss, D., Brill-Schuetz, K. A., Faretta-Stutenberg, M., & Morgan-Short, K. (2019). Contributions of declarative and procedural memory to accuracy and automatization during second language practice. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1–13. Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2017). The interface of explicit and implicit knowledge in a second language: Insights from individual differences in cognitive aptitudes. Language learning, 67(4), 747–790.

Research into lexical retrieval during bilingual speech production reveals co-activation of bilinguals’ languages [1], e.g. via cognate facilitation [2,3]. The necessity to resolve language competition [4-7] leads to performance costs [8], which may temporarily increase when bilinguals switch between languages [9]. Control over language selection during language-switching has been linked to control in non-linguistic switching tasks [10]. However, the linguistic and non-linguistic switching effects are modulated by the nature of one’s bilingual experience [11]. This study explores the effects of language co-activation during dual-language picture naming in young-adult bilinguals who have built up high proficiency in L2 through formal instruction in a non-immersion setting, who continue actively learning L2 and use it daily, albeit in the prevailingly L1 environment. Costs of linguistic and non-linguistic switching are compared. Questions: (1a) Is picture-naming slowed down by language-switching? (1b) If so, is the effect asymmetrical, affecting the dominant L1 (inhibition account, [4]) or the non-dominant L2, or symmetrical (L2 proficiency influence, [12])? (2) Are cognates named faster? (3) Are costs of linguistic and non-linguistic switching correlated? Twenty-eight advanced (C1-C2) Czech learners of English as a foreign language named pictures in two language-biased sessions. Each session included 150 words in the session’s main language (including 20 cognates and 20 frequency-matched non-cognates) and 50 words in the session’s minor language. Each session contained 20 switches into the minor language, matched by 20 non-switch words of comparable lexical frequency. The two sessions (at least seven days apart) used the same picture stimuli. Language proficiency was assessed via www.lextale.com, the non-linguistic control ability via the Simon task, linguistic biography and language-switching practices via a questionnaire. Mean naming latencies were analyzed using RM ANOVA with Language (L1-Czech, L2-English) and Type (Switch, Non-switch) as within-subject factors. There was a main effect of Type: responses to switches were slower [F(1, 27)= 61.258, p< .00001]. No effect of Language was found: the speed of naming seemed comparable in both languages. There was no Language-Type interaction, suggesting symmetrical switch-cost. RM ANOVA with Language (L1-Czech, L2-English) and Status (Cognate, Non-cognate) as factors showed a tendency for cognates to be named faster [F(1, 27)=3.596, p=.069]. In fact, the cognate effect varied across participants: individuals showed either cognate-facilitation or cognate-inhibition in one, both, or neither language. Mean latencies in the Simon task were slower for incongruent than congruent trials (p< .0001); no correlation was found with the picture-naming switch-costs. The absence of language effect on the speed of naming indicates that high L2 proficiency can be built up without immersion. While language-switching clearly affected response latencies, the symmetrical effect suggests that for our non-immersion learners, L1 did not seem to be more activated (hence not more inhibited) than L2. The effect of cognates on naming latencies was more complex than usually reported, possibly because Czech and English share few phonologically-overlapping true cognates, and some participants might have perceived them as borrowings. References [1] Colomé. (2001). J Mem Lang, 45(4), 721-736. [2] Costa et al. (2000). J Exp Psychol Learn, 26(5), 1283. [3] Rosselli et al. (2014). Int J Bilingual, 18(6), 649-662. [4] Green. (1998). Biling-Lang Cogn, 1, 67–81.Bialystok & Craik. (2010). Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 19, 19–23. [5] Green & Abutalebi. (2013). J Cogn Psychol, 25(5), 515-530. [6] Linck et al. (2008). Ment Lex., 3(3), 349-374. [7] Pivneva et al. (2012). Front Psychol, 3, 57. [8] Ivanova & Costa. (2008). Acta psychologica 127, 2, 277-288. [9] Meuter & Allport (1999). J Mem Lang, 40(1), 25-40. [10] Bialystok & Craik. (2010). Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 19, 19–23. [11] Bak. (2016). Linguist Approach Bi, 6(5), 699-717. [12] Costa & Santesteban. (2004). J Mem Lang, 50(4), 491-511.

Romance null subject languages like Spanish and Italian allow optionality between null and overt subjects and between pre-verbal placement of subjects (SV) and post-verbal placement (VS). This optionality is regulated by a range of factors and research on L2 speakers has shown that acquiring subject placement optionality proves difficult in L2 acquisition. An important potential explanatory factor in this learnability issue is the distribution of patterns in the input. Dominguez & Arche (2014), extending work by Mayoral Hernández (2007, 2008), show that the distribution of SV and VS in the production of native speakers of Spanish may lead learners to assume that subject placement is in free variation. There is a tendency for subjects to appear in pre-verbal position with unergative verbs (78.5% Mayoral Hernández 2007; 57% Dominguez & Arche 2014). Pre- and post-verbal placement are, however, relatively equally likely with unaccusative verbs (54% vs. 46%). Dominguez & Arche (2014) suggest that this frequency distribution may lead learners of Spanish as an L2 to assume that subject placement is in free variation with unaccusatives, resulting in the optionality seen in L2 performance. These input results are based on written and spontaneous oral production by native speakers of Spanish. An important open question is whether the input in L2 Spanish instruction reflects the frequencies observed in native speaking communities and how subject realisation in instruction might diverge from patterns in L1 communities and account for L2 acquisition patterns. To explore this, we studied the distribution of subject placement in classroom instruction in the context of Spanish as a foreign language in an upper secondary school in Austria. Data comes from a corpus of 10 hours (~500 minutes) of instruction over a period of one semester in a third year of learning Spanish. Teacher input was retrieved from the audio recordings of the classroom observations. Finite verbs realised in teacher input were extracted and the realisation of subjects with finite verbs in declarative clauses was analysed. Initial results show that, overall, subjects are realised as null subject at a rate of 53%. With unaccusative verbs, null subjects similarly predominate (50%). Where unaccusatives occur with overt nominal subjects, these are more frequently post-verbal (70%). By contrast, with unergatives, overt nominals only occur pre-verbally. Overt nominals also tend to occur preverbally with the copula (72% vs. 28% pre-verbally). Results from the teacher data are contrasted with results of spontaneous oral speech production by seven learners, elicited at the end of the classroom observation period by means of communicative tasks. First insights into the learner data (N=419 tokens of finite verbs) indicate that learners seem to overgeneralize the use of null subjects (68%) while pronominal subjects only account for 2% and the remaining 30% refer to nominal subjects. How this distribution relates to the use of pre-/post-verbal subjects and the verb types indicated in the teacher data will be discussed to evidence L2 acquisition patterns in light of the input results. So far, we suggest that patterns that may occur in classroom input may give rise to learnability issues where instruction is the main source of input. We call for greater empirical consideration of classroom input patterns for a fuller understanding of L2 learning outcomes. Domínguez, L. & Arche, M. 2014. Subject inversion in non-native Spanish. Lingua, 145, 243-265. Mayoral Herna?ndez, R., 2007. A variationist approach to verb types and subject position in Spanish: verbs of light and sound emission. In: Camacho, J., et al. (Eds.), Romance Linguistics 2006. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 1-15. Mayoral Herna?ndez, R., 2008. The locative alternation: unaccusative constructions and subject position (doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.

Cross-linguistic Influence and Language Change in Locative and Existential Constructions in Catalan Bilingualism In the context of societal bilingualism, researchers (Silva-Corvalán, 1986, 1994; Thomason, 2001, 2006; Weinreich, 1953; Winford, 2003) have argued that contact triggers or at least accelerates language change, but others (Poplack & Levey, 2010; Poplack, Zentz & Dion, 2012) have claimed that caution is needed when proclaiming contact-induced language change. Other approaches that focus on the bilingual mind have placed the origin of language change in L1 attrition (Schmid & Köpke, 2017), bilingual frequent activation (Sánchez, 2004, 2015), or in L2 partial acquisition (McWhorter, 2007), even in young children (Meisel, 2011; Meisel, Elsig & Rinke, 2013). Considering these different approaches to bilingualism and language contact, we question whether Catalan native speakers exposed to their L2 (Spanish) relatively early in life, between 4-10 years of age, would present signs of cross-linguistic transfer / language attrition in their first language, and whether this would count as a type of externally induced language change, as hypothesized by Schmid & Köpke (2017). We further question whether simultaneous (2L1) and sequential bilinguals (cL2, L1 Spanish, L2 Catalan) would present a qualitatively and/or quantitatively different grammar from that of monolingual-like native speakers, and if so, whether this may also constitute a type of language change. The linguistic phenomenon under investigation is locative and existential constructions in Catalan, a phenomenon largely under-researched in L2 acquisition. Although Catalan and Spanish share some characteristics in the expression of location, they also differ in several respects. Assuming Freeze’s (1992) universal locative paradigm, adapted for Catalan by Rigau (1994, 1997), Catalan has two locative or existential verbs: ser ‘to be’, and haver-hi ‘to have, there is/are’, which form equivalent constructions with different syntax. The use of estar in locative constructions, unlike in Spanish, is not standard. This paradigm is sketched in (1-2). A further difference between the two Romance languages is the presence of the adverbial clitic pronouns. Catalan requires the locative hi not only in haver-hi constructions, as in (2), but also in ser-hi constructions in 2nd mention predicates, as in (3); notice that in this type of 2nd mention construction, estar is ungrammatical. Furthermore, when the theme is referred back to, it needs to be cliticized by the partitive en in bare (4) and quantified nominals (5). Adult bilinguals (N=59) with different degrees of bilingualism completed an exhaustive Bilingualism Background Questionnaire (BBQ) and an elicited Oral Production Task (OPT). The BBQ classified the participants in three types of bilinguals, according to their onset of bilingualism, language dominance and use: 1-Catalan-dominant bilinguals (n=21); 2-Balanced (simultaneous) bilinguals (n=16); and 3-Spanish-dominant (successive) bilinguals (n=22). The OPT consisted of a ‘Spot the Difference Task’, with 5 pairs of very similar pictures that participants had to compare to localize the differences. This task produced a total of 1,589 locative predicates. Results showed that no group employed ser as a locative verb in 1st mention predicates (1a) as the standard posits, but all groups employed estar, particularly SDs, indicating a steady extension of this verb in Catalan (Sanz & González, 1995; Solà, 1994). Thus, the use of estar was not considered ungrammatical, except for when used in 2nd mention clauses such as (3), mostly found in SDs. We propose that there are two different co-occurring syntax-semantics changes with estar: the [+locative] one found in 1st mention clauses, internally motivated (Silva-Corvalán, 1994), at least initially, and the [-locative] one in 2nd mention clauses, only present in Spanish Dominant speakers, due to cross-linguistic influence. Furthermore, we found qualitative differences in the use of non-personal clitics in the Spanish dominant and Balanced bilinguals.

The global language English is acquired by many different types of learners. Especially during the current times of immense and large-scale migration, one pressing question to ask is whether this language is more efficiently acquired by those who are already bilingual in comparison to learners with a monolingual background. There still remains substantial controversy in regard to potential advantages of bilingual speakers in their acquisition of additional languages (Berthele & Udry, 2019; Cenoz, 2003), especially when focusing on bilingual heritage speakers (see for example Hirosh & Degani, 2018; Hopp et al, 2019; Maluch et al., 2016; Siemund & Lechner, 2015). We here contribute to this discussion by analyzing English C-test results (response variable) of 1,718 bilingual and monolingual students of grades seven and nine, sampled in different schools across Germany. The bilingual students speak either Russian or Turkish as their heritage language and German as their majority language. The monolingual control group was raised in German only. The main predictor variables are reading fluency and comprehension in German and the heritage languages. Additional predictor variables include school type, school year, socio-economic status, cognitive ability, motivation, amongst others. We ask if reading fluency and comprehension impact proficiency in English as an additional language and if bilingual students enjoy advantages over their monolingual peers. We test this with correlation and regression analyses. The results reveal no systematic advantage of bilingual students, though we do find significant correlations between reading fluency and comprehension and C-test results. More conclusive than linguistic differences between mono- and bilinguals or dependencies between the background languages, however, are a number of extralinguistic variables that turned out to contribute significantly to explaining the performance in the foreign language English, equally for all participants. School type, age, and cognitive skills are among the most significant predictors, whereas the socio-economic status does not have a significant effect. 
Berthele, R., & Udry, I. (2019). Multilingual boost vs. cognitive abilities: testing two theories of multilingual language learning in a primary school context. International Journal of Multilingualism. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/14790718.2019.1632315 
Cenoz, J. (2003). The additive effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition: A review. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7(1), 71–87. 
Hirosh, Z., & Degani, T. (2018). Direct and idirect effects of multilingualism on novel language learning: An integrative review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(3), 892–916. 
Hopp, H., Vogelbacher, M., Kieseier, T., & Thoma, D. (2019). Bilingual advantages in early foreign language learning: E?ects of the minority and the majority language. Learning and Instruction, 61, 99–110. 
Maluch, J. T., Neumann, M., & Kempert, S. (2016). Bilingualism as a resource for foreign language learning of language minority students? Empirical evidence from a longitudinal study during primary and secondary school in Germany. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 111–118. 
Siemund, P., & Lechner, S. (2015). Transfer effects in the acquisition of English as an additional language by bilingual children in Germany. In H. Peukert (Ed.), Transfer effects in multilingual language development, (pp. 147–160). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

A large body of research has established the acquisitional process of Time-Aspect-Modality (TAM) systems as a solid and independent topic within second language acquisition (SLA) (Labeau & Saddour, 2012; Salaberry & Comajoan, 2013). However, in comparison with a continued development of research on the perfective past, the imperfective past has not been addressed in the same systematic way (Bardovi-Harlig, 2005). Concerning the acquisition of Spanish as a second language (L2), most studies have focused on the opposition of preterit and imperfect from different first language (L1) backgrounds (Amenós-Pons, Ahern & Guijarro-Fuentes, 2019; Montrul & Slabakova, 2002). Additionally, studies on imperfective meaning-form associations have been conducted both from theoretical descriptive (Arche, 2014) and acquisitional approaches (Domínguez, Arche & Myles, 2017). Findings to date suggest that Spanish imperfect involves a challenging learning process for non-native Spanish speakers, including advanced proficiency levels (Salaberry, 2018), partly due to the modal meanings of the imperfect (Brucart, 2001) that entail additional information from the pragmatic-discourse dimension. Therefore, as Salaberry (2008) proposes, further studies should be carried out on these extensional modal meanings to accurately depict an overall model of TAM systems in non-native grammars. 
The present study examines non-native interpretations of prototypical (tense-aspectual related) and non-prototypical (modal uses) meanings of Spanish Imperfect through an on-line acceptability judgment task. Fifty-four Russian learners of Spanish with upper-intermediate and advanced proficiency levels participated in the study, as well as a control group of 18 native Spanish speakers. The results showed that the prototypical continuous meaning posed a bigger challenge for Russian learners of Spanish (F(2,27)=5.12, p < .05). Moreover, for non-prototypical meanings, high-proficiency Russian learners were significantly less accurate in counterfactual modal meanings than in politeness-related modal meanings (F(1, 54.324) = 13.00, p < .001). These findings add to the field of L2 TAM systems by analyzing an under-researched L1 group – Russian learners of Spanish L2 – and provide insights into the question on the role of prototypicality in SLA from a cognitive point of view (Tyler, 2012). 


Selected references 
Amenós-Pons, J., Ahern, A. & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2019). Feature reassembly across closely related languages: L1 French vs. L1 Portuguese learning of L2 Spanish Past Tenses. Language Acquisition, 26(2), 183-209. 
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2005). Tracking the Elusive Imperfect in Adult L2 Acquisition. In P. Kempchinsky & R. Slabakova (Eds.), Aspectual Inquiries (pp. 397-419). Dordrecht: Springer. 
Brucart, J. M. (2001). El valor del imperfecto de indicativo en español. Primer Congreso Internacional de la Asociación Coreana de Hispanistas. Corea: University of Chonbuk. Retrieved from: http://filcat.uab.cat/clt/publicacions/reports/pdf/GGT-03-1.pdf 
Domínguez, L., Arche, M. J. & Myles, F. (2017). Spanish Imperfect revisited: Exploring L1 influence in the reassembly of imperfective features onto new L2 forms. Second Language Research, 33(4), 431-457.
Labeau, E. & Saddour, I. (Eds.) (2012). Tense, Aspect and Mood in First and Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 
Montrul, S. & Slabakova, R. (2002). Acquiring morphosyntactic and semantic properties of preterite and imperfect tense in L2 Spanish. In A. T. Pérez-Leroux & J. Liceras (Eds.), The acquisition of Spanish morphosyntax: The L1-L2 connection (pp. 113-149). Dordrecht: Kluwer. 
Salaberry, M. R. (2008). Marking past tense in second language acquisition: A theoretical model. London: Continuum. 
Salaberry, R. (2018). Advanced Conceptualizations of Tense and Aspect in L2. In P. Malovrh & A. Benati (Eds.), The Handbook of Advanced Proficiency in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 361-380). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. 
Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Learning: Theoretical Basics and Experimental Evidence. New York: Routledge.

The L2 acquisition of French verb morphology is a long and gradual process (Véronique et al. 2009; Bartning & Schlyter, 2004). Previous research has shown that a number of different factors influence the interlanguage development in this domain. As far as the input factor is concerned, several studies indicate that verb frequency in the input plays an important role for the learnability of distinctive forms (Sergeeva & Chevrot 2012; Ågren & van Weijer 2013). Another factor at stake is the morphophonological characteristics of different verbs, which seem to be a good predictor to account for morphological diversification (Michot 2014). A third factor that has less often been in focus when it comes to the learning of French subject-verb agreement is the influence of the inflectional morphology of the learners' L1. The aim of this study is therefore to focus on this third factor, cross-linguistic influence, and test its effect on the production of subject-verb agreement in L2 French. The study involves four source languages (Flemish, German, Italian and Swedish) and one target language (French). The source languages are all inflectional languages but they vary in terms of morphological richness in the verb paradigm, ranging from very poor (Swedish) to very rich (Italian). We follow Xanthos et al. (2011: 464) and define paradigmatic morphological richness as "the tendency of a language to have a large number of formally distinct inflected word-forms per lemma" (Xanthos et al., 2011: 461). The participants are 114 L2 learners of French at the A2 and B1 levels of the CEFR framework (European Council, 2001). They performed an oral narrative task contrasting singular and plural contexts of subject-verb agreement. The analysis targets the relationship between the dependant variable inflected/not inflected verb forms in the learners' interlanguage and three independent variables: 1) number context (singular vs. plural), 2) learners' proficiency level, and 3) morphological richness of the L1. Our results indicate that the overall presence of rich verb morphology in the L1 do not offer a clear advantage for the overall production of subject-verb agreement in L2 French. However, the number context and the proficiency level of the learners seem to influence the production of subject-verb agreement in a substantial way. These results indicate an intricate interplay of different factors in the L2 acquisition process, where the role of morphological richness in the L1 is less prominent than expected. We argue that more fine-tuned comparisons of the involved languages (both source and target languages) are necessary in order to understand if, when and where L1 influence enter the learning equation. Ågren, M., & van de Weijer, J. (2013). Input frequency and the acquisition of subject-verb agreement in number in spoken and written French. Journal of French Language Studies, 1–23. Bartning, I., & Schlyter, S. (2004). Itinéraires acquisitionnels et stades de développement en français L2. Journal of French Language Studies, 14(3), 281 299. European Council. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Strasbourg: Language Policy Unit. Michot, M.-E. (2014). L'acquisition de l'accord sujet-verbe en FLE?: l'impact de la classe verbale. Cahiers de l'AFLS, 19, 56 79. Sergeeva, E., & Chevrot, J.-P. (2012). The acquisition of French verbal tenses by Russian adult learners: stem alternation and frequency effect. Cahiers Chronos, 24, 179 200. Véronique, D. (2009). L'acquisition de la grammaire du français, langue étrangère. Paris: Didier. Xanthos, A., et al. (2011). On the role of morphological richness in the early development of noun and verb inflection. First Language 31(4), 461-479.

In interaction, people quickly develop a coordinated form of communication, reusing each other's linguistic choices, that is, they align their language (Pickering & Garrod, 2004). A growing body of research explored alignment in language instructional settings, where a second language (L2) speaker is involved in a conversation (e.g., Costa, Pickering, & Sorace, 2008). Earlier work has shown that both lexical and syntactic alignment can be found in L2 dialogues, which are mediated by task effects and languages involved (e.g., Dao et al., 2018; Michel & Cappellini, 2019). This study aims to add to the existing work by exploring task effects in Spanish-English teletandem conversations.
Participants were native speakers of either English or Spanish, having the other language as an L2 (B1/B2 level). Twenty nine pairs completed various tasks, alternating the language of communication and therefore acting both as L2 learner and as L1 expert. For this study, we analysed data of pairs engaging in two types of communicative tasks (free conversation and spot-the-difference) in both English and Spanish. The total corpus comprises 174 task performances, covering 23 hours of interactions. Transcripts of these conversations were scrutinized for alignment by identifying the number overlapping lexical and morphosyntactic n-grams (Michel & Smith, 2018) concerning types and tokens. Alignment between paired students (i.e., real couples) was compared to 'coincidental overlap' in speech samples of made-up couples.
Results suggest significantly more aligned tokens than types, more morphosyntactic than lexical alignment, and more alignment in spot-the-difference tasks than open dialogues. Real couples also generated more alignment than made-up couples - no clear language effects were apparent. In light of Atkinson et al.'s (2007) sociocognitive perspective on alignment as L2 learning, our findings suggest that telecollaborative task-based interaction can support second language development.
Atkinson, D., Churchill, E., Nishino, T., & Okada, H. (2007). Alignment and interaction in a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91(2), 169-188. 
Costa, A., Pickering, M.J., & Sorace, A. (2008). Alignment in second language dialogue. Language and cognitive processes, 23(4), 528-556. 
Dao, P., Trofimovich, P., & Kennedy, S. (2018). Structural alignment in L2 task-based interaction. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 169(2), 293-320.  
Michel, M., & Cappellini, M. (2019). Alignment during synchronous video versus written chat L2 interactions: A methodological exploration. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 39, 189-216. 
Michel, M., & Smith, B. (2018). Measuring lexical alignment during L2 peer interaction via written synchronous computer-mediated communication: An eye-tracking study. In S.M. Gass, P. Spinner, & J. Behney (Eds.), Salience in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 244-267). New York/London: Routledge. 
Pickering M.J. & Garrod S (2004) Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27: 169–226.

Comparing lexical transfer in second- and third language early vocabulary acquisition The present study compared 30 functional English monolinguals and 30 highly proficient (CEFR C1+) Swedish–English bilinguals. They acquired vocabulary in a pseudo-language derived from typologically unrelated Finnish. None of the participants had productive proficiency in Finnish although for societal reasons the Swedish–English bilinguals have pre-existing knowledge of Finnish phonotactics. English monolingual data was collected in the UK and Swedish bilingual data in Sweden. A computerized paired-associate learning task was used to teach form-meaning mappings in four blocks of four instances of each word. The participants performance was tracked using time-on-task measures throughout the learning process in addition to accuracy measures at the end of each block. Two types of words were taught: items containing cross-language semantic ambiguity and items without cross-language semantic ambiguity (Degani, Prior, Eddington, Areas de Luz Fontes & Tokowicz, 2016). The participants received both auditory and visual input. A learning assessment task was administered after each block. All presented forms in the artificial language were bi-syllabic and phonotactically well-formed in Finnish. The meanings were all concrete nouns and were borrowed from the participants’ two languages. For the bilingual participants, psychotypology was measured both using subjective and conscious measures. The first was measured using a lexical decision task in the target language with items borrowed from both source languages adjusted to Finnish phonotactics. The latter was measured using a perceived similarity questionnaire. Both participant groups took two-back and three-back variants of the n-back task of working memory (Kirschner, 1958) as well as the Eriksen Flanker task of cognitive control (Eriksen & Eriksen, 1974). The primary research question compare the two participant groups performance in the two types of items. While the monolingual participants are aware of within-language semantic ambiguity, the bilingual participants have more experience with cross-language semantic ambiguity. Comparing the two groups in terms of task-on-time in the cross-language semantic ambiguity items with two translation equivalents in the source languages across the groups allows for analysis of the learning process.

A key question in L2 processing research concerns the extent to which it differs from L1 processing. Marinis et al. (2005) show evidence that L2 learners underuse syntactic information during parsing. By contrast, other studies (Aldwayan et al. 2010; Canales, 2012) found that L2 processing is constrained by structure in the same way as L1 processing. The present study replicates Canales (2012) to compare L2 processing of filler-gap in English wh-sentences by speakers of two typologically different languages (Jordanian-Arabic and Mandarin), which lack wh-movement. The motivation for investigating these two groups is that their L1s differ with regard to filler-gap order. Jordanian Arabic is similar to English: the filler precedes the gap; whereas in Mandarin, the gap precedes the filler. If L1 filler-gap strategies transfer to L2, the two groups may demonstrate distinct processing patterns for filler-gap dependencies in English. Canales used pairs such as (1a-b) and (2a-b) in a self-paced-reading study to examine L2 processing by Spanish learners of English. 1. a. The manager knew if Katie will recommend Joe to Amy after the assembly. b. The manager knew who Katie will recommend Joe to after the assembly. He found that English native speakers and Spanish L2-English speakers slow down at Joe in the embedded wh-question (1b) relative to Joe in the if-clause (1a). This provides evidence that English native speakers and Spanish speakers of English use the Active Filler Strategy (Frazier 1987): when the parser identifies a filler (e.g. who (1b)), it attempts to posit a gap after each gap licensor (i.e., verb or preposition) it encounters. Further, there was no difference in processing time for Peter in (2a–b), which indicates that the relative clause in (2b) is processed as a wh-island within which the parser did not use the Active Filler Strategy. 2 a. The director questioned if the singer that bothered Peter last season criticized the pianist after the concert. b. The director questioned who the singer that bothered Peter last season criticized after the concert. Method: 40 Jordanian-Arabic and 40 Mandarin speakers of English of intermediate-level L2 proficiency participated in a self-paced reading study, in which sentences such as (1a–2b) were presented word by word. The Filled Gap experiment (1a-b) examines whether the participants make use of the Active Filler Strategy whereby after they encounter a filler, they start to look for a gap. The Relative Clause Island experiment (2a-b) investigates whether syntactic island constraints are applied during L2 processing. Results: Figure 1 illustrates the reading times in both experiments. Linear mixed effects models confirmed significant interactions of experiment and the presence or absence of a gap for the two groups together, at the critical (t=3.50) and the spillover regions (t=3.74). Inferring from Figure 1, this is due to the filled-gap effect evident in both groups in the Filled-gap experiment (at Joe), but not in the Relative Clause Island experiment. Moreover, there was no three-way interaction of experiment–gap–L1 at either the critical (t=0.30) or spillover (t=0.87) region. The two groups thus did not exhibit distinct processing. Conclusion: This study shows that the L2 participants whose L1s lack wh-movement are able to use the Active Filler Strategy and apply syntactic constraints regardless of the order of the filler gap in their L1. Further, these findings corroborate the L2 findings by Canales and Aldwayan et al. Together, this set of data provides strong evidence that L2 processing exploits the same syntactic knowledge (e.g. wh-constraints) as L1 processing. Selected References Canales. (2012). Online processing of wh-dependencies in English by native speakers of Spanish (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas). Frazier. 1987. Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. NLLT, 5. 519-559.

Reading acquisition is a widely researched topic. Gough and Tumner (1986) developed the well-known Simple View of Reading (SVR) for L1 language acquisition, showing that word decoding and listening comprehension were the two key aspects of L1 reading development. This was later updated by Cain (2015) to include the importance of vocabulary size. The model for L2 reading is necessarily more complex, with a new model put forward by Proctor et al. (2006) that added L1 vocabulary size and reading ability as important factors. Others have investigated further specific individual differences that may have an effect on reading (e.g. Yamashita (2002) and Sparks et al. (2009) on the importance of acknowledging L1 reading factors and Jung (2018) and Alptektin and Erçetin (2009) on the relevance of working memory in the reading process). The main aim of this work was to confirm those variables considered to be essential in L2 reading acquisition and incorporate new ones that could constitute new contributions to the field. 100 EFL students in 6th grade (age 11-12) coming from two different schools in Catalonia participated in the study. They completed a range of tests, including the PET reading comprehension section, the measures suggested by Proctor et al. (2006) as essential L2 reading factors (word and nonword reading, fluency, listening comprehension and vocabulary), L1 reading factors (fluency, reading comprehension and listening comprehension), working memory, and attention. Out of class exposure to English, reading habits, and motivation were also assessed through a questionnaire. With this data we seek to answer two research questions. Firstly, do the factors suggested by Proctor et. al.’s L2 SVR model continue to predict L2 reading ability in this context? This will replicate prior studies although in a novel context. Secondly, are there any additional factors that affect L2 reading ability, such as working memory, attention control, English exposure, habits, and motivation? By including and testing these aforementioned individual differences measurements, we may facilitate a more accurate view of the factors which may have an effect on the acquisition of L2 reading skills. Alptektin, C., and Erçetin, G. (2009). Assessing the relationship of working memory to L2 reading: Does the nature of comprehension process and reading span task make a difference? System 37, 627-639. Elservier. Cain, K. (2015). Learning to Read: Should We Keep Things Simple? Reading Research Quarterly, 50(2), 151-169. Gough, P.B., and Tunmer, W.E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6-10. Jung, J. (2018). Effects of task complexity and working memory capacity on L2 reading comprehension. System, 74, 21-37. Proctor, C.P., August, D., Carlo, M.S., and Snow, C. (2006). Native Spanish-speaking children reading in English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 246-256. Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., and Humbach, N. (2009). Long-term relationships among early language skills, L2 aptitude, L2 affect, and later L2 proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 725-755. Yamashita, J. (2002). Mutual compensation between L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency in L2 reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 25(1), 81-95.