Whereas some studies suggest that ironic praise necessitates a longer processing time than ironic criticism, others posit that the two are processed at comparable speeds. We hypothesize that the presence of an echoic antecedent within the preceding context may at least partially account for these conflicting findings. To investigate this matter, we analyzed reading times and accuracy stemming from two types of contexts: echoic and non-echoic. Our results demonstrate that ironic criticism was judged to be more ironic in both echoic and non-echoic contexts, while ironic praise was rated as more ironic in an echoic context than in a non-echoic context. Additionally, echoing contexts facilitate the comprehension of ironic criticism, but cause ironic praise to be processed more slowly. There was also an observed asymmetry between the two forms of irony. Ironic criticism demonstrated high accuracy and was rated as more ironic than ironic praise. Furthermore, ironic criticism was read faster in an echoic context, whereas performance was similar in a non-echoic context for both types. These findings suggest that echoing context affects ironic criticism and ironic praise differently, implying that distinct mechanisms may be at work in understanding irony in echoic and non-echoic contexts.

Languages differ typologically in motion event encoding (Talmy, 2000). Furthermore, the cross-linguistic variations in lexicalization modulate cognition in a dynamic and task-dependent manner (Slobin, 1996a). This study aims to investigate whether early Cantonese–English bilinguals behave differently from monolinguals in each language when lexicalizing and categorizing voluntary motion in different language contexts. Specifically, monolinguals were instructed and narrated in their native languages. We assigned bilinguals to a monolingual and a bilingual context by manipulating immediate language use in their oral descriptions. Results from monolinguals suggested an effect of language on event conceptualization. However, results from bilinguals showed that their performances patterned with English monolinguals in both event lexicalization and conceptualization regardless of the language context. These findings indicate that early exposure to a second language has motivated speakers to converge to a single lexicalization pattern compatible for both languages. And the degree of convergence is modulated by the amount of language contact with each language. The study demonstrates that participants draw on their linguistic knowledge during the non-verbal task and provides evidence for L2-biased cognitive restructuring within the framework of thinking-for-speaking.

How flexible is bilingual language control and how does it adapt to the linguistic context of a conversation? We address this by looking at the pattern of switch costs in contexts involving mostly the use of a dominant or non-dominant language. This linguistic context affected switching patterns: switching was equally costly for both languages in a dominant (L1) context, while switching was harder for the weaker language in the non-dominant (L2) context. Also, naming latencies for each language were affected by the linguistic contexts: only the dominant L1 context led to slower latencies for the dominant language. This latter finding was also present when looking at the LPC component, which may reveal differences in the way inhibitory control is applied depending on the linguistic context. These results reveal that the bilingual language control system is flexible and that it adapts to the linguistic context in which the speaker is placed.

Using event-related brain potentials (ERPs), we measured pre-attentive processing involved in native vowel perception as reflected by the mismatch negativity (MMN) in monolingual and simultaneous bilingual (SB) users of Canadian English and Canadian French in response to various pairings of four vowels: English /u/, French /u/, French /y/, and a control /y/. The monolingual listeners exhibited a discrimination pattern that was shaped by their native language experience. The SB listeners, on the other hand, exhibited a MMN pattern that was distinct from both monolingual listener groups, suggesting that the SB pre-attentive system is tuned to access sub-phonemic detail with respect to both input languages, including detail that is not readily accessed by either of their monolingual peers. Additionally, simultaneous bilinguals exhibited sensitivity to language context generated by the standard vowel in the MMN paradigm. The automatic access to fine phonetic detail may aid SB listeners to rapidly adjust their perception to the variable listening conditions that they frequently encounter.