The study of the brains’ oscillatory activity has been a standard technique to gain insights into human neurocognition for a relatively long time. However, as a complementary analysis to ERPs, only very recently has it been utilized to study bilingualism and its neural underpinnings. Here, we provide a theoretical and methodological starter for scientists in the (psycho)linguistics and neurocognition of bilingualism field(s) to understand the bases and applications of this analytical tool. Towards this goal, we provide a description of the characteristics of the human neural (and its oscillatory) signal, followed by an in-depth description of various types of EEG oscillatory analyses, supplemented by figures and relevant examples. We then utilize the scant, yet emergent, literature on neural oscillations and bilingualism to highlight the potential of how analyzing neural oscillations can advance our understanding of the (psycho)linguistic and neurocognitive understanding of bilingualism.

Little is known about the effects of bilingualism and distributional properties of word relationships on children's development of semantic convergence, operationalized as children's ability to produce word associates that mirror adults’ responses in a word association task. Forty-five Mandarin–English bilingual, 32 Spanish–English bilingual, and 28 English-speaking monolingual children, aged 4 to 7, produced three associates to each of 15 single-word cues in English. Children's productions were compared against adult responses to the same cues in the “Small World of Words” Norm. Three scoring methods comparing similarities of children's responses to adults’ showed consistent bilingual disadvantages in producing adult-like responses. Follow-up analyses targeted the three most predominant responses adults produced for each cue and addressed factors predicting children's likelihood to produce these responses. Results showed additional effects of cue-associate relationships measured by co-occurrence and semantic relatedness. The findings highlight the multi-faceted nature of knowledge development of word relationship and semantic convergence.

Comprehenders predict what a speaker is likely to say when listening to non-native (L2) and native (L1) utterances. But what are the characteristics of L2 prediction, and how does it relate to L1 prediction? We addressed this question in a visual-world eye-tracking experiment, which tested when L2 English comprehenders integrated perspective into their predictions. Male and female participants listened to male and female speakers producing sentences (e.g., I would like to wear the nice…) about stereotypically masculine (target: tie; distractor: drill) and feminine (target: dress; distractor: hairdryer) objects. Participants predicted associatively, fixating objects semantically associated with critical verbs (here, the tie and the dress). They also predicted stereotypically consistent objects (e.g., the tie rather than the dress, given the male speaker). Consistent predictions were made later than associative predictions, and were delayed for L2 speakers relative to L1 speakers. These findings suggest prediction involves both automatic and non-automatic stages.

In Rethinking Multilingual Experience through a Systems Framework of Bilingualism (Titone & Tiv, 2022), we encouraged psycholinguists and cognitive neuroscientists to consider integrating social and ecological aspects of multilingualism into a collective understanding of its cognitive and neurocognitive bases (i.e., to rethink experience). We then offered a framework – the Systems Framework of Bilingualism – and described empirical challenges and potential solutions with applying this framework to new research. Since the paper's publication, several eminent colleagues read and commented on our Keynote, noting both its strengths and areas for improvement. We read each commentary with enthusiasm and gratitude. Here, we briefly respond to several salient points raised, which led us to clarify and improve our theoretical approach. We first address what the commentaries agreed were strengths of the framework. We follow this with a discussion of what the commentaries stated could be improved or extended. We conclude with ways that we modified our model to collectively address concerns raised in the commentaries.