Pascual y Cabo and Rothman (2012) and Kupisch and Rothman (2018) argue against the use of term incomplete to characterize the grammars of heritage speakers, claiming that it reflects a negative evaluation of the linguistic knowledge of these bilingual speakers. We examine the reasons for and against the use of “incomplete” across acquisition contexts and argue that its use is legitimate on both theoretical and empirical grounds. Our goal is to present arguments for using the term, not to evaluate the scientific validity of incomplete acquisition over other possible accounts. Although our conclusion is that the term should not be abandoned, we advocate a position whereby researchers consider the possible negative impact of the terminology they use and how they use it. This position aims to resolve the tension between the need to prioritize scientific effectiveness and the need to avoid terminology that can be negatively misconstrued by the general public.

Ever since Aristotle and Plato (The Categories; Cratylus), linguists have considered language to be the pairing of form (sounds or gestures or written strings) and meaning. This is true for all meaningful linguistic units from morphemes, through words, phrases and sentences, to discourse. Generally speaking, semantics is the study of how form and meaning are related. However, semantics is more narrowly construed as excluding those meanings that derive from speaker intensions and psychological states, as well as sociocultural features of the context. Furthermore, the boundary between semantics proper and pragmatics is intensely debated and to some researchers constitutes an empirical question. Formal semantics came into being as a system describing formal languages, that is, the mathematical and logical languages of computing machines as opposed to the natural languages of human beings. However, in the late 1960s the philosopher Richard Montague argued that natural languages such as English could be fruitfully described using the same rigorous rules and correspondences utilized in the description of formal languages. Modern formal semantics was born and is currently prospering as a branch of linguistics.

This article has two main goals. The first is to summarize and comment on the current state of affairs of generative approaches to SLA (GenSLA), 35 years into its history. This discussion brings the readership of SSLA up to date on the questions driving GenSLA agendas and clears up misconceptions about what GenSLA does and does not endeavor to explain. We engage key questions, debates, and shifts within GenSLA such as focusing on the deterministic role of input in language acquisition, as well as expanding the inquiry to new populations and empirical methodologies and technologies used. The second goal is to highlight the place of GenSLA in the broader field of SLA. We argue that various theories of SLA are needed, showing that many existing SLA paradigms are much less mutually exclusive than commonly believed (cf. Rothman & VanPatten, 2013; Slabakova, Leal, & Liskin-Gasparro, 2014, 2015; VanPatten & Rothman, 2014)—especially considering their different foci and research questions.

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 (Clahsen & Felser, 2006a, 2006b) and the reduced ability to generate expectations hypothesis (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 second language (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.

We test the predictions of the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis (FRH) as applied to the L2 acquisition of French pronominal clitics by Anglophone learners, capitalizing on the fact that different semantic and morphosyntactic features are lexically encoded by French and English pronouns. A picture selection task and a self-paced reading task examine how the information encoded in the L2 forms affects off-line and on-line pronoun interpretation. Our findings suggest that the initial L1–L2 mapping was indeed influenced by the L1. Nevertheless, L2 learners successfully reassembled features into L2 bundles, as evidenced by target-like off-line performance. L2 reading time patterns, however, indicate that L1 representations may have a longer-lasting impact: learners’ reactions to the mismatching input followed a different pattern and were slightly delayed as compared to native speakers’. These results are in line with the FRH, which conceptualizes L1 influence as the transfer of atomic linguistic features and their combinations.

This article investigates knowledge of discourse-conditioned left dislocations in the interlanguage competence in Spanish and English second language learners. Although Spanish clitic left dislocation (CLLD) and English topicalization are functionally very similar, they differ in that the former but not the latter requires the dislocated phrase to be clitic doubled. In contrast, the fronted focus (FF) construction is functionally and syntactically similar in the two languages. Two experimental studies investigated knowledge of the syntactic form and discourse appropriateness of CLLD and topicalization, using knowledge of FF as a baseline. English-native learners of Spanish were successful in acquiring CLLD as well as FF. However, Spanish-native learners of English demonstrated no knowledge of English topicalization even at near-native levels of proficiency, whereas they did well on the transferable FF. These results are examined in the light of the interface hypothesis. It is argued that construction frequency in the input and transfer from the native language, but only those two factors together, can explain the experimental results.

This article considers the acquisition of three English syntax–discourse interface constructions: Topicalization, Focus Fronting and Left Dislocation. We use data from Basque–Spanish bilinguals learning English as a third language (L3) as a test case for the Interface Hypothesis (IH, Sorace, 2011). The IH has made specific predictions about second language (L2) acquisition and such predictions can be extrapolated to L3 on the basis of interface delay explanations. Thirty contexts and embedded test sentences with and without pronouns were used; participants had to rate the acceptability of each audio stimulus sentence in the context on a seven-point scale. We tested Basque–Spanish bilinguals dominant in Basque (n = 23), Basque–Spanish bilinguals dominant in Spanish (n = 24), Spanish L2 English learners (n = 39) as well as native English speakers (n = 24). Findings provide evidence against current L3 acquisition models and potential arguments for both cumulative enhancement as well as cumulative inhibition as possible processes in L3 acquisition.

The article identifies four different types of meaning situated in different modules of language. Such a modular view of language architecture suggests that there may be differential difficulties of acquisition for the different modules. It is argued that second language (L2) acquisition of meaning involves acquiring interpretive mismatches at the first and second language (L1-L2) syntax-semantics interfaces. In acquiring meaning, learners face two types of learning situations. One situation where the sentence syntax presents less difficulty but different pieces of functional morphology subsume different primitives of meaning is dubbed simple syntax–complex semantics. Another type of learning situation is exemplified in less frequent, dispreferred, or syntactically complex sentences where the sentential semantics offers no mismatch; these are labeled complex syntax–simple semantics. Studies representative of these learning situations are reviewed. The issues of importance of explicit instruction with respect to interpretive properties and the effect of the native language are addressed. Studies looking at acquisition of language-specific discourse properties and universal pragmatics are also reviewed. These representative studies and numerous other studies on the L2 acquisition of meaning point to no visible barrier to ultimate success in the acquisition of semantics and pragmatics.

What is Meaning? Fundamentals of Formal Semantics. Paul Portner. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005. Pp. x + 235. $29.95 paper.

Another textbook on formal semantics? Before you reach for the Tylenol, relax; this is a textbook with a twist: It is an informal textbook on formal semantics. Portner's book is actually a very ambitious endeavor because it sets out to teach the basics of the scientific study of meaning in an accessible and user-friendly way. Readers of SSLA who have struggled with formal semantics as undergraduates, in graduate school, or both will appreciate the challenge. I believe that Portner is mostly successful in his endeavor. As I will explain, he is almost too successful; as a result, the apparent raison d'être of the book is defeated, to an extent. In what follows, I will qualify this claim.