In this paper, we consider elicited production data (real and nonce words tasks) from five different studies on the acquisition of grammatical gender in Heritage Russian, comparing children growing up in Germany, Israel, Norway, Latvia, and the United Kingdom. The children grow up in diverse heritage language backgrounds, ranging from small groups (in Norway) to large communities (in Latvia). Furthermore, the children vary with respect to family background (one or two Russian-speaking parents) as well as the intensity of instruction in the heritage language through complementary schools. Russian has a three-gender system (masculine, feminine, and neuter) with gender cues varying in their transparency, predictability and frequency. The majority languages that these children speak differ widely with respect to the linguistic property studied: While English has no grammatical gender, Latvian and Hebrew both have twogender systems (feminine and masculine), as well as the Oslo and Tromsø dialects of Norwegian (masculine and neuter), while German has a three-gender system, with a feminine-masculine-neuter distinction, like Russian. However, the transparency of gender assignment varies greatly, with Hebrew and Latvian having predictable gender based on the shape of the noun, like Russian, while gender assignment in Norwegian is generally arbitrary and German is semi-transparent, with gender assignment tendencies rather than rules. The focus in the paper is on language-internal and language-external factors that may be (non-)facilitative for the acquisition of gender in Russian, i.e., possible cross-linguistic influence from the majority language and the importance of background factors, such as family situation, age at start of kindergarten, size of the Russian-speaking community, current exposure to Heritage Russian instruction, and the main language of instruction. Our results show no significant differences across groups with respect to the majority language, but clear effects of background variables, with family type, age, and current exposure to Heritage Russian instruction as the most important ones.

This paper reports on an experimental study investigating the acquisition of grammatical gender in Russian by heritage speakers living in Norway. The participants are 54 Norwegian-Russian bilingual children (4;0–10;2) as well as 107 Russian monolingual controls (3;0–7;0). Previous research has shown that grammatical gender is problematic for bilingual speakers, especially in cases where gender assignment is opaque (Polinsky, 2008; Schwartz et al., 2015; Rodina and Westergaard, 2017). Furthermore, factors such as proficiency and family type (one or two Russian-speaking parents) have been argued to be important. Interestingly, previous findings differ with respect to the kind of errors children make: restructuring to a two-gender system (masculine–feminine, see Polinsky, 2008) or defaulting to masculine (see Rodina and Westergaard, 2017). It is also not clear to what extent children are sensitive to gender cues or whether certain agreement patterns are simply memorized. To investigate this, we used both existing nouns and nonce words and tested both transparent and opaque gender cues. The results were checked against a number of background factors measuring exposure, proficiency, and dominance. Our findings show that bilingual children are clearly sensitive to morphophonological cues for gender assignment. The most common and robust error pattern for all bilinguals involved overgeneralization to masculine (especially affecting neuter and opaque nouns). At the same time, children from families with two Russian-speaking parents and monolinguals also occasionally overused feminine with vowel-final nouns. The following variables were found to be the most reliable predictors of accuracy on grammatical gender tasks: cumulative length of exposure (CLoE) and consistency of input in Russian, as well as the presence of older siblings, with CLoE to Russian being by far the most robust and important predictor. Furthermore, we show that a lexical diversity measure (number of different words in a Russian narrative) is also correlated significantly with the children’s performance on the gender tasks. At the same time, our results indicate that relative measures of dominance (e.g., the difference in exposure between the two languages or the difference in narrative scores) may be redundant when more robust absolute measures are present (CLoE and lexical diversity in the heritage language).

Previous research on the acquisition of grammatical gender has shown that this property is acquired early in transparent gender systems such as Russian. However, it is not clear to what extent children are sensitive to the assignment cues and to what extent they simply memorize correspondences between frequent lexical items. Furthermore, we do not know if bilingual children are different from monolingual children in this respect. This article reports on a study investigating bilingual children’s sensitivity to gender assignment cues in Russian. A group of 64 bilingual German–Russian children living in Germany participated in the study, as well as 107 monolingual controls in Russia. The elicitation experiments used both real and nonce words, as well as noun phrases with mismatched cues (where the morphophonological shape of the noun cued one gender and the agreement on the modifying adjective another). The results show that both bilinguals and monolinguals are highly sensitive to cues, both to the frequent transparent cues and to more fine-grained gender regularities in situations where there is ambiguity. There is also an age effect, showing that younger children pay more attention to the cue on the noun itself, thus displaying a preference for regular patterns, while older children are more sensitive to gender agreement on other targets.

Previous research has shown that the two languages of early bilingual children can influence each other, depending on the linguistic property, while adult bilinguals predominantly show influence from the majority language to the minority (heritage) language. While this observed shift in influence patterns is probably related to a shift in dominance between early childhood and adulthood, there is little data documenting it. Our study investigates the perceived global accent in the two languages of German-Russian bilingual children in Germany, comparing 4–6-year-old (preschool) children and 7–9-year-old (primary school) children. The results indicate that in German the older children sound less accented than the younger children, while the opposite is true for Russian. This suggests that the primary school years are a critical period for heritage language maintenance.

In this article we provide a discussion of the definition of palatalization as a phonological phenomenon, its crosslinguistic variation, phonetic or functional grounding and phonetic (un)naturalness of palatalization, and theoretical approaches to palatalization patterns. After providing this background to the collection of articles in this special issue of Glossa we will give an overview of the contributions collected here.

In this article I provide a representational and a constraint-based analysis of four interacting palatalization processes operative in Modern Standard Latvian: velar affrication, velar palatalization, yod-palatalization and front vowel raising. The main advantage of the representational account developed here is that it treats all of the mentioned Latvian processes as strictly assimilatory, and at the same time avoids purely stipulative mechanisms characteristic of many feature-geometric approaches to cross-category interactions. The article also contributes to the debate on the role of geometric subsegmental repre sentations in constraint-based computational models, by demonstrating that a principled account of locality, transparency and blocking effects in Latvian palatalization requires the reference to hierarchical autosegmental structures.

In this article we report the results of a large-scale population study based on the Latvian adaptation of Communicative Development Inventories (CDI, Fenson et al. 2007)a parental report tool aimed at mapping the lexical and grammatical development of children under the age of three. Two CDI forms are discussed: CDI I: "Words and Gestures" (8-16 months), and CDI II: "Words and Sentences" (17-36 months). This article discusses the internet-based methodology used for the data collection, reports the main developmental trends of the lexical development of Latvian children, and compares these trends to analogous data from American English, Norwegian, and Russian.

Section headingPalatalization is commonly attested in the languages of the world, and has received considerable attention in the literature over the years.However, it is by no means clear which processes count as palatalization phonologically or if the term refers to one or several phenomena. Palatalization processes exhibit great variation within and across languages, regarding the triggers of the process, the targets, and the output of the process. Most studies focus on a certain palatalization process in a specific language. Nevertheless, typological surveys have revealed some intriguing tendencies. Among these are apparently universal implicational relations that have been shown to hold among palatalization triggers and targets. For instance, survey results indicate that if labials undergo palatalization, so do coronals and dorsals (Bhat 1978, Chen 1973, Bateman 2007. If lower front vocoids trigger palatalization, so do higher front vocoids, and if non-front high vocoids act as triggers, so do front high vocoids (Bateman 2007, Kochetov 2011. In addition, coronals tend to be palatalized by high vocoids, while dorsals tend to be palatalized by front vocoids (Bhat 1978, Kochetov 2011.Outputs of palatalization show a range of variation. The targeted segment either acquires a secondary palatal place of articulation or shifts the primary place of articulation closer to the palatal region. Interestingly, changes in the primary place of articulation are often accompanied by spirantization. In addition, the change of manner without the change of place is also attested (Bhat 1978, Bateman 2007.Theoretical approaches to palatalization face a considerable challenge of characterizing languagespecific patterns in addition to capturing cross-linguistic tendencies and variability. Palatalization processes have been crucial in developing and testing representational and computational phonological models (Clements