The strategies used to signal information focus — the non-presupposed part of a sentence — in Spanish are under debate. The literature suggests that focus must appear rightmost; however, empirical evidence shows that speakers also realize focus in-situ. Moreover, there is limited research investigating the effects of language variety or knowledge of another language on focus marking. We address these questions via a paced elicited production task, testing speakers who learned Spanish naturalistically in infancy, including two groups of monolinguals and two groups of Spanish/English bilinguals: (a) Spanish natives who learned English after childhood, and (b) early bilinguals exposed to English in early childhood (heritage speakers). Confirming previous empirical studies, results show that all participant groups choose a similar range of focus-marking strategies, vastly preferring in-situ marking with rightmost marking used rarely. Results challenge both theoretical accounts of Spanish focus realization and expectations of special vulnerability at the syntax-discourse interface for bilinguals.

This study investigates the degree to which native-English speaking learners of Spanish can generate expectations for information likely to occur in upcoming portions of an unfolding linguistic signal. We examine Spanish Clitic Left Dislocation, a long-distance dependency between a topicalized object and an agreeing clitic, whose felicity depends on the discourse.Using a self-paced reading task, we tested the predictions of the Shallow Structure Hypothesis (SSH; Clahsen & Felser, 2006a,b) and the Reduced Ability to Generate Expectations hypothesis (RAGE; Grüter, Rohde, & Schafer, 2014). Learners successfully demonstrated sensitivity to the violation of expectations set up by the syntactic and discourse context. In addition, the behavior of the L2 learners was dependent on proficiency: the higher their proficiency, the more their behavior mirrored native speaker processing. These results support a view of SLA in which knowledge of L2 discourse-grammatical relationships is acquired slowly over the course of L2 learning.

In this Forum piece, we address several common misunderstandings of the generative L2A framework that are current in the wider L2A literature. Many of these misunderstandings stem from proposals that, although tested and eventually discarded, are still cited as though they were still accepted and in active use. We hope that by addressing four of the most persistent myths, we can persuade the wider L2A field to let them go and move on. By highlighting what generative researchers have in common with the proponents of other frameworks, we want to pave the way for increased collaboration between frameworks.In our reading and conversations with graduate students and colleagues, we have encountered persistent myths in the wider second language acquisition (SLA) community's perceptions about the positions taken by generative L2 researchers. 'Generative' grammar refers to a finite set of universal rules (Universal Grammar) that generate all (and only) sentences that are acceptable in a given language. These (unconscious) rules form the basis of L2 acquisition (L2A); upon encountering target language input, native rules are reset and new rules are acquired. Although the input to learners is different, the null hypothesis of L2A is that it is fundamentally similar to child L1A, being human language acquisition.We offer the present update to address several common misunderstandings of the generative L2A framework. Many of these misunderstandings stem from proposals that, although tested and eventually discarded, are still cited as though they were still accepted and in active use. We hope that by addressing four of the most persistent myths, we can persuade the wider SLA field to let them go and move on. By highlighting what generative researchers have in common with the proponents of other frameworks, we want to pave the way for increased collaboration between frameworks.

Please cite this article in press as: Leal Méndez, T., et al. AbstractThis experimental study tests the predictions of the Interface Hypothesis (Sorace, 2011, 2012) using two constructions whose appropriateness depends on monitoring discourse information: Clitic Left Dislocation and Fronted Focus. Clitic Left Dislocation relates a dislocated and clitic-doubled object to an antecedent activated in previous discourse, while Fronted Focus does not relate the fronted constituent to a discourse antecedent. The Interface Hypothesis argues that speakers in language contact situations experience difficulties when they have to integrate syntactic with discourse information. We tested four groups of native speakers on these constructions: Spanish monolinguals, bilinguals with more than 7 years residence in the US, intermediate and advanced proficiency heritage speakers. Our findings suggest that attrition has not set in the adult L2 bilingual speakers, and that the heritage speakers perform similarly to the monolingual and the adult sequential bilingual natives.