We investigated trial-by-trial and cumulative cross-language effects of structural priming and verb bias on L1 and L2 dative syntactic choices (e.g., ‘boy-give-ball-to-girl’ [PO structure] vs. ‘boy-give-girl-ball’ [DO structure]). Dutch-dominant Dutch–English bilinguals listened to a prime sentence with a DO or PO structure in one language and then described a picture in the other language, using verbs that varied in their bias towards the PO or DO structure in Dutch and English. We found effects of cross-language structural priming and verb bias on syntactic choice, some of which were influenced by the participants’ language dominance. In addition, we found cumulative forms of structural priming, leading to cross-language priming effects between experimental blocks. We discuss these results in terms of models on the representation of lexical and syntactic information in bilinguals, and point out how the observed effects can be related to experience-based mechanisms of language use and contact-induced language change.

This study examines novel language learning from inconsistent input in monolingual and bilingual toddlers. We predicted an advantage for the bilingual toddlers on the basis of the structural sensitivity hypothesis. Monolingual and bilingual 24‐month‐olds performed two novel language learning experiments. The first contained consistent input, and the second occasionally contained inconsistent input (i.e., “errors”). Neither group showed learning of the novel pattern in the consistent experiment. The bilingual toddlers, but not the monolinguals, showed learning in the inconsistent experiment, which suggests they are better at detecting regularities from inconsistent input than monolinguals. Highlights Language learning experiments consider consistent input, whereas inconsistent input is likely to occur in real life. Monolingual and bilingual toddlers' performance on a language learning task of non‐adjacent dependencies was assessed, using inconsistent input. The group of bilingual toddlers was able to find the language pattern despite the inconsistencies, whereas the group of monolingual toddlers was not.

Aims: The aim of this article is to identify which existing instrument of functional communication from the aphasia literature best fits with a theoretically founded definition of real-world communication. Background: Aphasia is a language impairment caused by acquired brain damage such as stroke. For successful rehabilitation, a thorough understanding of naturalistic, real-world communication is imperative, as this is the behaviour speech and language therapy (SLT) ultimately aims to improve. In the field of aphasiology, there currently is a lack of consensus about the way in which communication should be measured. Underlying this is a fundamental lack of agreement over what real-world communication entails and how it should be defined. Methods & procedures: In this critical review, we review the instruments that are currently used to quantify functional, real-world communication in people with aphasia (PWA). Each measure is checked against a newly proposed, comprehensive, theoretical framework of situated language use, which defines communication as (1) interactive, (2) multimodal, and (3) based on context (common ground). Outcomes & results: The instrument that best fits the theoretical definition of situated language use and allows for the quantification of communicative ability is the Scenario Test. Conclusions: This article provides a start in a more systematic and theoretically founded approach to the study and measurement of functional, real-world communication in aphasia. More work is needed to develop an instrument that can quantify communicative ability across different aphasia types and severities.

Aphasia is an impairment of language caused by acquired brain damage such as stroke or traumatic brain injury, that affects a person’s ability to communicate effectively. The aim of rehabilitation in aphasia is to improve everyday communication, improving an individual’s ability to function in their day-to-day life. For that reason, a thorough understanding of naturalistic communication and its underlying mechanisms is imperative. The field of aphasiology currently lacks an agreed, comprehensive, theoretically founded definition of communication. Instead, multiple disparate interpretations of functional communication are used. We argue that this makes it nearly impossible to validly and reliably assess a person’s communicative performance, to target this behaviour through therapy, and to measure improvements post-therapy. In this article we propose a structured, theoretical approach to defining the concept of functional communication. We argue for a view of communication as “situated language use”, borrowed from empirical psycholinguistic studies with non-brain damaged adults. This framework defines language use as: (1) interactive, (2) multimodal, and (3) contextual. Existing research on each component of the framework from non-brain damaged adults and people with aphasia is reviewed. The consequences of adopting this approach to assessment and therapy for aphasia rehabilitation are discussed. The aim of this article is to encourage a more systematic, comprehensive approach to the study and treatment of situated language use in aphasia.

Aphasia is language impairment due to acquired brain damage. It affects people’s ability to communicate effectively in everyday life. Little is known about the influence of environmental factors on everyday communication for people with aphasia (PWA). It is generally assumed that for PWA speaking to a familiar person (i.e. with shared experiences and knowledge) is easier than speaking to a stranger (Howard, Swinburn, and Porter). This assumption is in line with existing psycholinguistic theories of common ground (Clark, 1996), but there is little empirical data to support this assumption. The current study investigated whether PWA benefit from conversation partner (CP) familiarity during goal-directed communication, and how this effect compared to a group of neurologically healthy controls (NHC). Sixteen PWA with mild to severe aphasia, sixteen matched NHC, plus self-selected familiar CPs participated. Pairs were videotaped while completing a collaborative communication task. Pairs faced identical Playmobile rooms: the view of the other’s room was blocked. Listeners attempted to replicate the 5-item set-up in the instructor’s room. Roles were swapped for each trial. For the unfamiliar condition, participants were paired with another participant’s CP (PWA were matched with another PWA’s CP based on their aphasia profile). The outcomes were canonical measures of communicative efficiency (i.e. accuracy, time to complete, etc.). Results showed different effects in response to the unfamiliar partner for PWA compared to NHC: In the instructor role, PWA showed faster trial times with the unfamiliar partner, but similar accuracy scores in both conditions. NHC, on the other hand, showed similar trial times across CPs, but higher accuracy scores with the unfamiliar partner. In the listener role, PWA showed a pattern more similar to NHC: equal trial times across conditions, and an improvement in accuracy scores with the unfamiliar partner. Results show that conversation partner familiarity significantly affected communication for PWA dyads on a familiar task, but not for NHC. This research highlights the importance of identifying factors that influence communication for PWA and understanding how this effect varies across aphasia profiles. This knowledge will ultimately inform our assessment and intervention of real-world communication.