We investigated cross-modal influences between speech and sign in hearing bimodal bilinguals, proficient in a spoken and a sign language, and its consequences on visual attention during message preparation using eye-tracking. We focused on spatial expressions in which sign languages, unlike spoken languages, have a modality-driven preference to mention grounds (big objects) prior to figures (smaller objects). We compared hearing bimodal bilinguals’ spatial expressions and visual attention in Dutch and Dutch Sign Language (N = 18) to those of their hearing non-signing (N = 20) and deaf signing peers (N = 18). In speech, hearing bimodal bilinguals expressed more ground-first descriptions and fixated grounds more than hearing non-signers, showing influence from sign. In sign, they used as many ground-first descriptions as deaf signers and fixated grounds equally often, demonstrating no influence from speech. Cross-linguistic influence of word order preference and visual attention in hearing bimodal bilinguals appears to be one-directional modulated by modality-driven differences.

Two languages, historically related, both have lexical stress, with word stress distinctions signalled in each by the same suprasegmental cues. In each language, words can overlap segmentally but differ in placement of primary versus secondary stress (OCtopus, ocTOber). However, secondary stress occurs more often in the words of one language, Dutch, than in the other, English, and largely because of this, Dutch listeners find it helpful to use suprasegmental stress cues when recognising spoken words. English listeners, in contrast, do not; indeed, Dutch listeners can outdo English listeners in correctly identifying the source words of English word fragments (oc-). Here we show that Dutch-native listeners who reside in an English-speaking environment and have become dominant in English, though still maintaining their use of these stress cues in their L1, ignore the same cues in their L2 English, performing as poorly in the fragment identification task as the L1 English do.

Do bilinguals have similar bilingual control mechanisms in speaking and writing? The present study investigated the patterns of switch costs (reflecting reactive language control) and mixing costs (reflecting proactive language control) between Chinese (L1) and English (L2) in spoken and written productions and whether these patterns could be modulated by response-stimulus intervals (RSIs). In two experiments, unbalanced Chinese–English bilinguals completed a cued language switching task in spoken naming (Experiment 1) and written naming (Experiment 2), respectively. The results revealed asymmetrical switch costs (i.e., the larger cost in L1 than in L2) in spoken and written productions in the short RSI condition. However, there were asymmetrical mixing costs in spoken production and symmetrical mixing costs in written production both in the short and long RSIs. These findings suggest that for spoken and written productions, reactive language control operates in similar mechanisms, while proactive language control operates in specific mechanisms.

Bilingualism is an experience that varies across a continuum and can change across the lifespan. Psychometric research is an underexplored avenue with the potential to further our understanding of the mechanisms and traits underlying bilingual experiences. Here, we developed and validated a social network questionnaire to measure sociolinguistic features in 212 individuals via personal social network. Confirmatory factor analysis examined the measurement structure of the variables. Compared to a one-factor model, the best fitting model was a two-factor model in which the language experience of the individual (i.e., ego) and the language experience of the individual's network (i.e., alters) were correlated latent factors under which aspects of the bilingual experience loaded. Additional analyses revealed other potential ways to examine the data in future analyses. These results provide the first measurement model of bilingual experiences, and provide support for theoretical accounts suggesting differential neuropsychological outcomes based on individual bilingual variability. The results also support the use of social network tools to capture differences in bilingualism.

Compared with the wealth of investigations on monolingual language acquisition, research on early bilingualism still has some catching up to do. Papers such as the one by Natascha Müller show us what may be gained if results from both areas are integrated within one theoretical framework, in this case current generative theory.

Pienemann's Processability Theory is an interesting and well thought out attempt to account for the developmental problem in L1 and L2. If correct, it would relieve the genetically specified knowledge base of what he views as its burdensome task of having to specify a great deal of genetically encoded linguistic knowledge and transfer at least part of that task to the processing mechanisms available for the acquisition of procedural skills needed for language processing. He posits a set of processing resources forming an implicational hierarchy such that the resource of a certain level is a prerequisite for the functioning of the next higher level. He posits further that the processing devices will be acquired in their predetermined sequence of activation in the production process. A consequence of this is that acquirers of both the first and the second language will follow the same sequence of acquisition of the processing hierarchy. The differences in the courses of development can be attributed, he says, to the knowledge base with which the learner comes to the acquisition task. In the case of L1, he says, many would see UG as the knowledge base; in the case of L2, only the surface syntactic features of the target language are available (and, presumably, knowledge of the L1).

The effect of translation knowledge on bilingual lexical production is mixed, with some studies showing translation interference and others showing facilitation. We considered the roles of first-language (L1) translation knowledge and second-language (L2) proficiency in lexical retrieval, testing predictions of the competition for selection, frequency lag and activation boosting accounts. In experiment 1, 54 highly proficient Spanish–English bilinguals named pictures of low-frequency nouns in English (L2). Spanish (L1) translation knowledge and English proficiency had an interactive effect on tip-of-the-tongue experiences with increased L1 translation interference at low levels of L2 proficiency and facilitation at high levels of L2 proficiency, consistent with combined predictions of competition for selection and activation boosting accounts. Experiment 2 confirmed that confounding lexical variables did not drive translation effects. By examining individual differences within bilinguals, we found support for multiple mechanisms that play a role in bilingual lexical retrieval that were not evident at the group level.

Experimental and other empirical research on language is faced with the fact that language performance exhibits a high degree of variability at all linguistic levels. Variability is found across languages, across speech communities within one language, across individuals within one speech community and even within the same individual. Bilingual language use adds a further source of variability to this already complicated picture. On the other hand, there are aspects of language and language use that are constrained, stable, or robust and that are less (or not at all) subject to variability, for example, possible options that are not chosen in any language or kinds of error that are never produced. Several familiar ways of dealing with the variability of language use and its limits have turned out to be unsatisfactory. One approach has been to simply abstract away from variability with constructs such as the ‘ideal speaker–hearer’ (who – to our knowledge – nobody has met so far). Another strategy is to average across individuals, which sometimes results in arbitrary mean scores or mean activation patterns that are hard to replicate for individuals, even for those who took part in a given study. A third solution when confronted with variability in language use is to take it at face value, positing that every language, every speech community, and even every individual is different, an approach that essentially gives up on discovering any kind of generalizations. While none of these strategies appears to us to be particularly fruitful, the problem of how to deal with variability in language performance and its limits remains.

Autobiographical memories (AMs) are partly influenced by people's ability to process and express their emotions. This study investigated the extent to which trait emotional intelligence (EI) contributed to the emotional vocabulary of 148 adolescents – 60 speakers of Spanish as a heritage language (HL) raised in Germany, 61 first-language (L1) German speakers and 27 L1 Spanish speakers – in their written AMs of anger and surprise. The results revealed that heritage speakers with high trait EI used more emotional words in their AMs. These bilinguals also used more positive, negative and high-arousal words in their HL and in their AMs of anger. Similar patterns were observed in the AMs produced in Spanish (HL and L1), but L1 Spanish speakers used more emotional words in their AMs of surprise. By contrast, L1 German speakers used more emotional words than bilinguals in their AMs in German, and AMs of anger in German included more emotional vocabulary than those addressing surprise events.

A problem when reacting to a contribution as rich and as highly interesting as Pienemann's paper, is that it is much easier to react to what's not in it than to what is. An example is the relation between the theory proposed and the way linguistic knowledge is acquired: “[Processability theory] … is not designed to contribute anything to the question of the innate or learnt origin of linguistic knowledge or the inferential processes by which linguistic input is converted into linguistic knowledge.” It is not easy to interpret the full consequences of the model if we are not to take into account the inferential processes by which the learner adds new information to his/her system. Maybe here the dividing lines are drawn too strictly: if the hypothesis space of the learner is restricted by the procedures that can be applied, one wonders at what level in the cognitive system these restrictions are located. Does the conceptualizer already know what the system is capable of doing, or is it uninformed (as follows from a strict interpretation of Levelt's proposal of an incremental system without feedforward)? In the latter case, this would mean that the learners/speakers would still try to express their communicative intentions and only later on in the process would things go wrong, for example, because the S-procedure cannot be carried out.

Are bilingual speakers’ representations of pronominal expressions completely independent in the two languages, or is there sharing of discourse-level representations cross-linguistically? In the present study, we address this question by using a sentence comprehension task that implements the cross-linguistic priming technique at the discourse-level.

In two experiments conducted with Spanish–English bilinguals, we prime dis-preferred interpretations for ambiguous pronouns in the second language (English) by using first language (Spanish) pronoun interpretation primes. In experiment 1, Spanish null pronouns prime second-mentioned/object interpretations in English, showing an effect of priming. In experiment 2, Spanish explicit pronouns prime second-mentioned/object interpretations in English, indicating that an effect of priming approaches significance.

The results demonstrate that bilinguals’ inferences about probability distributions and coherence relations are susceptible to cross-linguistic influence. The strength of the priming effect is discussed within models of cross-language abstract representations.

People's judgements differ systematically while reading moral dilemmas in their native or their foreign language. This so-called Foreign Language Effect (FLE) has been found in many language pairs when tested with artificial, sacrificial moral dilemmas (i.e., Trolley and Footbridge). In Experiment 1, we investigated whether the FLE can be replicated in Turkish (native) – English (foreign) bilinguals using the same dilemmas (N = 203). These unrealistic and decontextualized dilemmas have been criticized for providing low external validity. Therefore, in Experiment 2, we (1) tested bilinguals with realistic scenarios which included the protagonist's age as a source of identity (child, adult, neutral), and (2) investigated the FLE in these scenarios (N = 467). Our results revealed that the FLE was not present in Turkish–English bilinguals, tested either on sacrificial dilemmas or realistic scenarios. Psychological distance of the scenarios, protagonists’ age and the perceived age similarity with the protagonist affected moral judgments.

Second language learners’ reading is less efficient and more effortful than native reading. However, the source of their difficulty is unclear; L2 readers might struggle with reading in a different orthography, or they might have difficulty with later stages of linguistic interpretation of the input, or both. The present study explored the source of L2 reading difficulty by analyzing the distribution of fixation durations in reading. In three studies, we observed that L2 readers experience an increase in Mu, which we interpret as indicating early orthographic processing difficulty, when the L2 has a significantly different writing system than the L1 (e.g., Chinese and English) but not when the writing systems were similar (e.g., Portuguese and English). L2 readers also experienced an increase in Tau, indicating later-arising processing difficulty which likely reflects later-stage linguistic processes, when they read for comprehension. L2 readers of Chinese also experienced an additional increase in Tau.

The performance of cognitive tests is highly dependent on the proficiency of the language in which the tests are administered. Not all Indonesians speak Indonesian daily and many are bilingual. We investigate whether language(s) spoken affects the performance on three language tests in 840 participants ranging in age (16–80) and education (6–22 years). Analysis of covariance followed by Helmert contrasts showed a disadvantage on the Boston Naming Test (BNT) and on the most difficult items of the Token Test for those who do not speak Bahasa daily. Bilinguals did worse on the BNT. Education had a large positive effect on the language tests, age a smaller negative effect. This suggests that besides age and education, the factor of language spoken, either in public or at home, needs to be taken into account when a participant's test scores on the BNT and TT are interpreted and compared with normative data.

Drawing on the adaptive control hypothesis, we examined whether older adults’ bilingual interactional contexts of conversational exchanges would predict important indices of executive functions (EF). We assessed participants’ engagement in each bilingual interactional context – single-language, dual-language, and dense code-switching – and their performance on a series of nonverbal EF measures. Sixty-nine healthy older adults (Mage = 70.39 years; ages 60–93) were recruited from local community centers. We found that the dense code-switching context was associated with enhanced overall EF, but not individual facets of EF (inhibitory control, shifting, and updating). These findings held true when we controlled for a host of covariates. Our findings shed light on aging bilinguals’ interactional contexts as crucial bilingual experiences that modulate overall EF. Given that bilingualism is a multidimensional construct, rather than a unidimensional variable, our study underscores the importance of more fine-grained operationalisation of bilingualism when studying its impacts on EF.