One typical use of negation is to refer to exceptions. In a visual display showing several similar items (majority) and one exception, referring to the exception by negating the majority should therefore be pragmatically felicitous. We investigated whether comprehenders are sensitive to these pragmatic aspects when processing negative sentences and having to identify the according items in the visual display. In Experiment 1, participants read affirmative and negative sentences referring to either the exception or the majority object in strongly biased displays. Additionally, unbiased displays were implemented, showing equal numbers of objects of each type. Identification times of the correct referent were shorter with the biased display independent of sentence polarity. Also, picking the exceptional item in the biased display was faster than picking a majority item, independent of sentence polarity. Thus, participants did not specifically profit from pragmatically felicitous conditions when processing negation. Critically, in the biased displays, the exceptional object was highly salient, which might have initially drawn the participant’s attention to this object, resulting in a general speed-up. Therefore, in Experiment 2, we used a biased display with reduced saliency of the exceptional object. Again negation did not result in a specific speed-up due to pragmatically correct negation use. Thus, negation does not seem to facilitate the identification of an exceptional object.

Does a concurrent verbal working memory (WM) load constrain cross-linguistic activation? In a visual world study, participants listened to Hindi (L1) or English (L2) spoken words and viewed a display containing the phonological cohort of the translation equivalent (TE cohort) of the spoken word and 3 distractors. Experiment 1 was administered without a load. Participants then maintained two or four letters (Experiment 2) or two, six or eight letters (Experiment 3) in WM and were tested on backward sequence recognition after the visual world display. Greater looks towards TE cohorts were observed in both the language directions in Experiment 1. With a load, TE cohort activation was inhibited in the L2 – L1 direction and observed only in the early stages after word onset in the L1 – L2 direction suggesting a critical role of language direction. These results indicate that cross-linguistic activation as seen through eye movements depends on cognitive resources such as WM.

We used the visual world eye-tracking paradigm to investigate the effects of cognitive load on predictive eye movements in L1 (Experiment 1) and L2 (Experiment 2) speakers. Participants listened to sentences whose verb was predictive or non-predictive towards one of four objects they were viewing. They then clicked on a mentioned object. Half the participants additionally performed a working memory task of remembering words. Both L1 and L2 speakers looked more at the target object predictively in predictable- than in non-predictable sentences when they performed the listen-and-click task only. However, this predictability effect was delayed in those who performed the concurrent memory task. This pattern of results was similar in L1 and L2 speakers. L1 and L2 speakers make predictions, but cognitive resources are required for making predictive eye movements. The findings are compatible with the claim that L2 speakers use the same mechanisms as L1 speakers to make predictions.

We investigated whether speaking in one language affects cross- and within-language activation when subsequently switching to a task performed in the same or different language. English–French bilinguals (L1 English, n = 29; L1 French, n = 28) were randomly assigned to a prior language context condition consisting of a spontaneous production task in English (the no-switch group) or in French (the switch group). Participants then performed an English spoken language comprehension task using the visual world method. The key result was that the switch group showed less evidence of cross-language competition than the no-switch group, consistent with the notion of an active inhibition of a prior language in the switch group. These data suggest that proficient bilinguals can globally suppress a non-target language, whether it is L1 or L2, though doing so requires cognitive resources that may be diverted from other demands, such as controlling within-language competition.

We investigated whether individual differences in inhibitory control relate to bilingual spoken word recognition. While their eye movements were monitored, native English and native French English–French bilinguals listened to English words (e.g., field) and looked at pictures corresponding to the target, a within-language competitor (feet), a French cross-language competitor (fille “girl”), or both, and unrelated filler pictures. We derived cognitive and oculomotor inhibitory control measures from a battery of inhibitory control tasks. Increased cognitive inhibitory control was linked to less within-language competition for all bilinguals, and less cross-language competition for native French low-English-exposure bilinguals. Increased oculomotor inhibitory control was linked to less within-language competition for all native French bilinguals, and less cross-language competition for native French low-English-exposure bilinguals. The results extend previous findings (Blumenfeld & Marian, 2011), and suggest that individual differences in inhibitory control relate to bilingual spoken word processing.