Although bilinguals benefit from semantic context while perceiving speech-in-noise in their native language (L1), the extent to which bilinguals benefit from semantic context in their second language (L2) is unclear. Here, 57 highly proficient English–French/French–English bilinguals, who varied in L2 age of acquisition, performed a speech-perception-in-noise task in both languages while event-related brain potentials were recorded. Participants listened to and repeated the final word of sentences high or low in semantic constraint, in quiet and with a multi-talker babble mask. Overall, our findings indicate that bilinguals do benefit from semantic context while perceiving speech-in-noise in both their languages. Simultaneous bilinguals showed evidence of processing semantic context similarly to monolinguals. Early sequential bilinguals recruited additional neural resources, suggesting more effective use of semantic context in L2, compared to late bilinguals. Semantic context use was not associated with bilingual language experience or working memory.

The goal of the present study was to identify the cognitive processes that underlie lexical ambiguity resolution in a second language (L2). We examined which cognitive factors predict the efficiency in accessing subordinate meanings of L2 homonyms in a sample of highly-proficient, Spanish–English bilinguals. The predictive ability of individual differences in (1) homonym processing in the L1, (2) working memory capacity and (3) sensitivity to cross-language form overlap were examined. In two experiments, participants were presented with cognate and noncognate homonyms as either a prime in a lexical decision task (Experiment 1) or embedded in a sentence (Experiment 2). In both experiments speed and accuracy in accessing subordinate meanings in the L1 was the strongest predictor of speed and accuracy in accessing subordinate meanings in the L2. Sensitivity to cross-language form overlap predicted performance in lexical decision while working memory capacity predicted processing in sentence comprehension.

New theories are a constant of the now vast literature on code-mixing (CM). The Gradient Symbolic Computation model proposed by Goldrick, Putnam and Schwartz (Goldrick, Putnam & Schwartz) will appeal to many, especially those who already espouse constraint-based approaches to grammar. As variationist sociolinguists, we particularly welcome the model's incorporation of “relative probabilities of certain structures”, a feature we believe can enhance our chances of capturing actual CM behavior. We also applaud Goldrick et al.’s efforts to integrate experimental findings on co-activation with grammatical principles. Our questions concern the utility of “doubling constructions” to showcase the model, and by extension, the degree to which it can account for bilinguals’ spontaneous production of CM. A historical perspective on the field shows that none of the myriad theories of CM, often inspired by competing sets of grammatical principles, has yet achieved broad acceptance. In the absence of any widely endorsed evaluation metric – still sadly lacking -– how are we to decide amongst them?

The present study investigated lexical production and innovation of 202 participants across six groups: child and adult heritage speakers of Russian, dominant in Hebrew or American English, and monolingual Russian-speaking children and adults. Understanding quantitative performance across these six groups was intended to provide a comprehensive perspective on heritage language (HL) development, while comparing the participants’ qualitative non-target response patterns would elucidate the organization of the HL lexicon. We assessed the production of Russian nouns and verbs using a naming task. We then considered the effects of input at the societal and lexical levels (focusing on word frequency and age of acquisition). Our findings are discussed in terms of accounts of HL developmental trajectories: monolingual-like trajectory, frozen lexical development, attrition, and new language variety in a contact situation. The results presented no evidence for attrition, while elements of the other three trajectories were found in our quantitative and qualitative analyses.

Central questions in psycholinguistic studies on bilingualism are how bilinguals access words in their two languages, and how they control their language systems and solve the problem of cross-language competition. In their excellent paper “The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision”, Dijkstra and Van Heuven expound their BIA+ model on bilingual word recognition. BIA+ builds on its predecessor BIA, one of the first connectionist models on bilingual word recognition. BIA+ preserves one of BIA's crucial assumptions, namely that the bilingual lexicon is integrated across languages and is accessed in a language non-selective way, an assumption that is supported in many empirical studies and that is now widely accepted in the bilingual literature. Compared to the original BIA model, the BIA+ architecture is further developed (in fact, much more so than the subtle ‘plus’ denotes). BIA+ now includes orthographic, as well as phonological and semantic representations in the word identification system, and a distinction is made between a word identification system and a task/decision system. This latter extension resembles the language task schemas in Green's (1998) Inhibitory Control model. Dijkstra and Van Heuven also distinguish between effects of linguistic and non-linguistic context on performance: linguistic context effects, that arise from lexical, syntactic and semantic sources, are assumed to affect the activity in the word identification system, whereas non-linguistic effects, that can arise from instruction, task demands or participant expectancies, are assumed to affect the task/decision system.

The schema concept has had a long and varied history in psychology. It was introduced by Bartlett (1932), who observed that subjects' reproductions of a story showed systematic deviations from the original. Elements in the original story that were uncommon or strange were lost or changed and elaborated such that they became more common and made more sense to the subjects, and infrequent words and concepts were replaced by more common ones. Bartlett explained this normalization behavior by assuming that humans adapt incoming information to existing knowledge structures in long-term memory and that they understand new information in terms of these structures. These knowledge structures were called schemas. Schemas may represent our knowledge of stereotypical events such as doing the laundry or cooking a meal (these schema structures are usually called scripts, Schank & Abelson, 1977), of objects and natural categories (see Anderson, 1985, for a discussion), and the knowledge underlying routine behavior (Norman, 1981). They provide a basis for explaining many different phenomena of information processing and memory functioning, such as inferencing, elaborating, stereotyping, reconstruction, false memorization, and the occurrence of slips in task performance. When, for instance, a reader encounters the word forest in a text, he is not surprised to see the noun phrase the trees, with the definite article, in the next sentence even though no trees were explicitly introduced before.

Much bilingualism research includes some consideration of codeswitching, which may be measured via self-report, an experimental task, or sociolinguistic interview; however, there is little triangulation across measures in either psycholinguistic or sociolinguistic approaches. To consider possible differences between self-report and oral production of codeswitching, Spanish–English bilinguals completed a codeswitching questionnaire and oral production in an autobiographical memory task. They also completed proficiency and executive function tests. We found that broad measures of self-reported and orally produced codeswitches were positively correlated, although relationships with proficiency and executive function were more complex. These findings may direct future studies’ operationalization of codeswitching.

This study examined whether L1-Mandarin learners of L2-English use verb bias and complementizer cues to process temporarily ambiguous English sentences the same way native speakers do. SVO word order places verbs early in sentences in both languages, allowing the use of verb-based knowledge to anticipate what could follow. The two languages differ, however, in whether an optional complementizer signals embedded clauses. In a self-paced reading experiment, native English speakers and L1-Mandarin learners of L2-English read sentences containing temporary ambiguity about whether a noun was the direct object of the verb preceding it or the subject of an embedded clause. Native speakers replicated previous work showing an optimally efficient interactive pattern of cue use, while non-native learners showed additive effects of the two cues, consistent with predictions of the Competition Model about learning how to use multiple cues in a second language that sometimes agree and sometimes do not.

Interest in third language (L3) acquisition has increased exponentially in recent years, due to its potential to inform long-lasting debates in theoretical linguistics, language acquisition and psycholinguistics. From the very beginning, researchers investigating child and adult L3 acquisition have considered the many diverse cognitive factors that constrain and condition the initial state and development of newly acquired languages, and their models have duly evolved to incorporate insights from the most recent findings in psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics and cognitive psychology. The articles in this Special Issue of Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, in dealing with issues such as age of acquisition, attrition, relearning, cognitive economy or the reliance on different memory systems – to name but a few – provide an accurate portrayal of current inquiry in the field, and are a particularly fine example of how instrumental research in language acquisition and other cognitive domains can be to each other.

Cognitive neuropsychological studies of bilingual patients with aphasia have contributed to our understanding of how the brain processes different languages. The question we asked is whether differences in script have any impact on language processing in bilingual aphasic patients who speak languages with different writing systems: Chinese and Mongolian. We observed a pattern of greater impairment to written word comprehension and oral reading in L2 (Chinese) than in L1 (Mongolian) for two patients. We argue that differences in script have only a minimal effect on written word processing in bilingual aphasia when the age of acquisition, word frequency and imageability of lexical items is controlled. Our conclusion is that reading of familiar words in Mongolian and Chinese might not require independent cognitive systems or brain regions.

Despite its prominent use among bilinguals, psycholinguistic studies reported code-switch processing costs (e.g., Meuter & Allport, 1999). This paradox may partly be due to the focus on the code-switch itself instead of its potential subsequent benefits. Motivated by corpus studies on CS patterns and sociopragmatic functions of CS, we asked whether bilinguals use code-switches as a cue to the lexical characteristics of upcoming speech. We report a visual world study testing whether code-switching facilitates the anticipation of lower-frequency words. Results confirm that US Spanish–English bilinguals (n = 30) use minority (Spanish) to majority (English) language code-switches in real-time language processing as a cue that a less frequent word would ensue, as indexed by increased looks at images representing lower- vs. higher-frequency words in the code-switched condition, prior to the target word onset. These results highlight the need to further integrate sociolinguistic and corpus observations into the experimental study of code-switching.

This paper investigates the acquisition of syntax in L2 grammars. We tested adult L2 speakers of Spanish (English L1) on the feature specification of T(ense), which is different in English and Spanish in so-called subject-to-subject raising structures. We present experimental results with the verb parecer “to seem/to appear” in different tenses, with and without experiencers, and with Tense Phrase (TP), verb phrase (vP) and Adjectival Phrase (AP) complements. The results show that advanced L2 learners can perform just like native Spanish speakers regarding grammatical knowledge in this domain, although the subtle differences between both languages are not explicitly taught. We argue that these results support Full Access approaches to Universal Grammar (UG) in L2 acquisition, by providing evidence that uninterpretable syntactic features can be learned in adult L2, even when such features are not directly instantiated in the same grammatical domain in the L1 grammar.

An account of code-switching should be a direct consequence of an understanding of representation and processing in the individual mind, rather than a separate domain of its own. In the absence of such an account, most studies have developed hypotheses strictly within a specific research domain. This paper seeks to apply to code-switching a reasonably well-developed account of the multilingual mind, the MOGUL framework, within which more specific accounts can be developed. After briefly summarizing the framework, we describe representation and processing as realized in MOGUL, focusing on aspects having particular relevance to code-switching, including social factors involved in switching but as seen in terms of their place in a cognitive system. We then show how a promising approach to code-switching can be derived from this general framework. Some specific examples of code-switching are analyzed, though the primary goal is to show the merits of a broader perspective.

Eye fixation measures were used to examine English relative clause processing by adult ASL–English bilingual deaf readers. Participants processed subject relative clauses faster than object relative clauses, but expected animacy cues eliminated processing difficulty in object relative clauses. This brings into question previous claims that deaf readers’ sentence processing strategies are qualitatively different from those of hearing English native speakers. Measures of English comprehension predicted reading speed, but not differences in syntactic processing. However, a trend for ASL self-ratings to predict the ability to handle syntactic complexity approached significance. Results suggest a need to explore how objective ASL proficiency measures might provide insights into deaf readers’ ability to exploit syntactic cues in English.

Bilingual children are required to successfully develop phonological skills in two languages, yet little is known about the neural correlates associated with them. We obtained structural imaging data from 30 Hindi–English children aged between 8 and 10 years and used voxel based morphometry to explore neuroanatomical correlates of behavioural measures of phonological awareness. Our results showed that phonological skills in English are predicted by grey matter volume of bilateral putamen, but solely by right putamen in Hindi. Post-hoc analysis revealed that English nonword reading correlates with grey matter volume in bilateral putamen while in Hindi nonword reading it correlates only with right putamen. These differences in putamen-based mechanisms indicate that syllable level awareness sufficiently supports early literacy in the transparent, alphasyllabic Hindi orthography whereas that in English requires both phonemic and syllabic level awareness. Our findings point towards a key role for putamen in mediating phonological and reading skills in children.

To examine script effects, monoscriptal Spanish–English (SE) bilinguals, who use two similar Roman alphabetic systems, were compared to biscriptal Chinese–English (CE) bilinguals, who use logographs and Roman alphabets. On the Attention Network Test, script effects were most evident in global processing efficiency (i.e., inverse efficiency and reaction time) and in the local network of executive control in favor of biscriptal CE bilinguals over matched monoscriptal SE counterparts. Literacy effects were found on the executive control network among Chinese–English bilinguals of high L1-literacy skills over their script- and immersion-matched counterparts, who varied only in low L1 literacy. In a similar vein, results of the multiple regression analysis demonstrated that script and literacy are significant predictors of executive control capacities. Our results suggest that script variation in a bilingual's language pair is an important modulating factor that enhances overall attention efficiency.

How do late proficient bilinguals process morphosyntactic and lexical-semantic information in their non-native language (L2)? How is this information represented in the L2 mental lexicon? And what are the neural signatures of L2 morphosyntactic and lexical-semantic processing? We addressed these questions in one behavioral and two ERP priming experiments on inflected German adjectives testing a group of advanced late Russian learners of German in comparison to native speaker (L1) controls. While in the behavioral experiment, the L2 learners performed native-like, the ERP data revealed clear L1/L2 differences with respect to the temporal dynamics of grammatical processing. Specifically, our results show that L2 morphosyntactic processing yielded temporally and spatially extended brain responses relative to L1 processing, indicating that grammatical processing of inflected words in an L2 is more demanding and less automatic than in the L1. However, this group of advanced L2 learners showed native-like lexical-semantic processing.

A bilingual advantage has been found in prosody understanding in pre-school children. To understand this advantage better, we asked 73 children (6-8 years) to identify the emotional valence of spoken words, based on either semantics or emotional prosody (which were either consistent or discrepant with each other). Bilingual experience ranged from no to equal exposure to and use of two languages. Both age and bilingual experience predicted accurate identification of prosody, particularly for trials where the semantics were discrepant with the targeted prosody. Bilingual experience, but not age, predicted a prosodic bias, meaning that participants had more difficulty ignoring the irrelevant discrepant prosody when the task was to identify the semantics of the word. The decline of a semantic bias was predicted by age and bilingual experience together. Our results suggest that previous findings on the bilingual advantage in prosody processing may in fact be driven by a prosodic bias.