Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T23:33:39.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Look both ways before crossing the street: Perspectives on the intersection of bimodality and bilingualism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2015

Department of Linguistics, University of New Mexico, USA
Department of Linguistics, University of New Mexico, USA
Address for correspondence: Benjamin Anible, Department of Linguistics, MSC03 2130, Albuquerque, NM


In 1939, NYU Professor of German, Murat Roberts warned readers about the potentially harmful effects of societal bilingualism: “When two languages come to be spoken by the same society for the same purposes, both of these languages are certain to deteriorate. The sense of conflict disturbs in both of them the basis of articulation, deranges the procedure of grammar, and imperils the integrity of thought. The representation of the mind is divided into incongruous halves; and the average speaker, being no linguistic expert, finds it difficult to keep the two media apart. Confusion follows. The contours of language grow dim as the two systems collide and intermingle” (23). Roberts’ warnings about the threat of bilingualism are a thin cloak over the assumption that monolingualism is the norm. But even without dire predictions, conceptions of language representation and use derived from the study of bilinguals have been slow to enter the mainstream. The relation between language representation and control (Abutalebi & Green, 2007) and the dynamic nature of grammatical knowledge across the lifespan (Linck, Kroll & Sunderman, 2009) should change the way we conceptualize all language processing, whether monolingual, bilingual or multilingual.

Peer Commentaries
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Abutalebi, J., & Green, D. (2007). Bilingual language production: The neurocognition of language representation and control. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20, 242275.Google Scholar
Adam, R. (2013). Cognate facilitation and switching costs in unimodal bilingualism: British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language. Poster presented at Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR) 11, London, England.Google Scholar
Anible, B., Occhino-Kehoe, C., & Kammann, J. (2013). The interface of phonology and semantics in ASL: An online-processing study. Presented at Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR) 11, London, England.Google Scholar
Anible, B., Twitchell, P., Waters, G. S., Dussias, P. E., Piñar, P., & Morford, J. P. (Published online April 1, 2015). Sensitivity to verb bias in American Sign Language-English bilinguals. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, doi:10.1093/deafed/env007.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L.W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617645.Google Scholar
Baus, C., Carreiras, M., & Emmorey, K. (2013). When does iconicity in sign language matter? Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 261271.Google Scholar
Costa, A., & Santesteban, M. (2004). Lexical access in bilingual speech production: Evidence from language switching in highly proficient bilinguals and L2 learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 491511.Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dudis, P. (2004). Body partitioning and real-space blends. Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 223238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmorey, K. (2014). Iconicity as structure mapping. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 369, 20130301.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K., Giezen, M. R., & Gollan, T. H. Psycholinguistic, cognitive, and neural implications of bimodal bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. doi: 10.1017/S1366728915000085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmorey, K., Petrich, J. A. F., & Gollan, T. H. (2012). Bilingual processing of ASL–English code-blends: The consequences of accessing two lexical representations simultaneously. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 199210.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K., Petrich, J.A.F., Gollan, T.H. (2014). Cost free switches but not where you expect them: Evidence from ASL-English bilinguals. Presented at the 54th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Toronto.Google Scholar
Grote, K., & Linz, E. (2003). The influence of sign language iconicity on semantic conceptualization. In Müller, W. G., & Fischer, O. (Eds.), From sign to signing, pp. 2340. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hosemann, J., Altvater-Mackensen, N., Herrmann, A., & Mani, N. (2013). Cross-modal language activation. Does processing a sign (L1) also activate its corresponding written translations (L2)? Presented at the 11th Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research Conference, London.Google Scholar
Janzen, T. (2006). Visual communication: Signed language and cognition. In Kristiansen, G., Achard, M., Dirven, R., & de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. Ruiz (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives, pp. 359377. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J.F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149174.Google Scholar
Kubuş, O., Villwock, A., Morford, J. P., & Rathmann, C. (Published online January 27, 2014). Word recognition in deaf readers: Cross-language activation of German Sign Language and German. Applied Psycholinguistics, doi:10.1017/S0142716413000520.Google Scholar
Linck, J. A., Kroll, J. F., & Sunderman, G. (2009). Losing access to the native language while immersed in a second language: Evidence for the role of inhibition in second language learning. Psychological Science, 20, 15071515.Google Scholar
Morford, J. P., Wilkinson, E., Villwock, A., Piñar, P., & Kroll, J. F. (2011). When deaf signers read English: Do written words activate their sign translations? Cognition, 118, 286292.Google Scholar
Nicodemus, B., & Emmorey, K. (in press). Directionality in ASL-English interpreting: Quality and accuracy in L1 and L2. Interpreting, 17.Google Scholar
Nicodemus, B., & Emmorey, K. (2013). Direction asymmetries in spoken and signed language interpreting. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 624636.Google Scholar
Occhino-Kehoe, C., Anible, B., Wilkinson, E., & Morford, J. P. (2015). Iconicity is in the eye of the beholder: How language experience affects perceived iconicity. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Ormel, E., Hermans, D., Knoors, H., & Verhoeven, L. (2012). Cross-language effects in written word recognition: The case of bilingual deaf children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 288303.Google Scholar
Padden, C., Hwang, S. O., Lepic, R., & Seegers, S. (2015). Tools for language: Patterned iconicity in sign language nouns and verbs. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7, 8194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, M. H. (1939). The problem of the hybrid language. The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 38, 2341.Google Scholar
Seleskovich, D. (1978). Interpreting for international conferences. Pen and Booth: Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Thompson, R. L., Emmorey, K., & Gollan, T. (2005). Tip-of-the-fingers experiences by ASL signers: Insights into the organization of a sign-based lexicon. Psychological Science, 16, 856860.Google Scholar
Thompson, R. L., Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G. (2009). The link between form and meaning in American Sign Language: Lexical processing effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 550557.Google Scholar
Thompson, R. L., Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G. (2010). The link between form and meaning in British Sign Language: Effects of iconicity for phonological decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 10171027.Google Scholar
Wilcox, P. P. (2000). Metaphor in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Wilcox, P. P. (2004). A cognitive key: Metonymic and metaphorical mappings in ASL. Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 197222.Google Scholar
Wilcox, S. (2004). Cognitive iconicity: Conceptual spaces, meaning, and gesture in signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 119147.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., & Madden, C. J. (2005). Embodied sentence comprehension. In Pecher, D., & Zwaan, R. (Eds.), Grounding Cognition: The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and Thought, pp. 224–45. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press CrossRefGoogle Scholar