We introduce the pair of special issues of Applied Psycolinguistics (this issue, next issue) titled “Towards a just and equitable applied psycholinguistics.” This paper motivates the need for this project, details the editorial process, and provides a brief summary of each article appearing in the special issues.

The search for the existence and nonexistence of bilingual advantages and disadvantages has become a battleground marked by polarized comments and perspectives, furthering our understanding of neither bilingualism as an experience nor cognition as higher-level mental processes. In this paper, I provide a brief historical overview of research examining the cognitive and linguistic consequences of multilingualism and address the assumptions underlying research exploring the bilingual behavioral difference. I aim to illustrate the sole focus on behavioral (dis)advantage fails to reflect the complexity and dynamicity of people’s bilingual experiences, thereby distracting from understanding bilingualism. Responding to the call of this special issue, I describe the necessity to focus on people when moving toward a just and equitable future for applied psycholinguistic research. Furthermore, I explain why the nuances of bilingualism need to be recognized beyond binary categorization to advance knowledge about bilingualism and its consequences. To avoid unjust misattribution of a behavioral outcome to people’s life experience and to report research findings in a transparent manner, the myopic representation of the terms “bilingual (dis)advantage” should be recognized and reflected on.

Herein, we contextualize, problematize, and offer some insights for moving beyond the problem of monolingual comparative normativity in (psycho) linguistic research on bilingualism. We argue that, in the vast majority of cases, juxtaposing (functional) monolinguals to bilinguals fails to offer what the comparison is supposedly intended to do: meet the standards of empirical control in line with the scientific method. Instead, the default nature of monolingual comparative normativity has historically contributed to inequalities in many facets of bilingualism research and continues to impede progress on multiple levels. Beyond framing our views on the matter, we offer some epistemological considerations and methodological alternatives to this standard practice that improve empirical rigor while fostering increased diversity, inclusivity, and equity in our field.

Social communication deficits have been robustly documented in schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Historically, attempts to lessen this dysfunction have focused almost exclusively on modifying the person with schizophrenia’s own behaviors and cognition. However, social communication is inherently dyadic, and this approach leaves unaddressed the role of the neurotypical interlocutor in communication breakdown. In this position piece, we review psycholinguistic theories and research in order to propose a more comprehensive and equitable understanding of the social dysfunction that people with schizophrenia experience. We do so by drawing attention to the manner in which neurotypical individuals may drive communication failure in schizophrenia. Stigma is proposed to be a major component of this phenomenon. In addition to an overview of our theoretical framework, we provide a research agenda to test the hypotheses this framework has produced. We hope this piece can inform future research directions within psycholinguistics.

The pervasive monolingual bias present within many societies threatens the well-being of bilingual children and their families. Unfortunately, such bias is present in much psycholinguistic research as well. Bilingual–monolingual comparisons with methodological approaches upholding monolingual norms are not equitable to bilinguals. We do not need such comparisons to learn more about bilingual use and processing. Instead, psycholinguistic research investigating the impact of different kinds of environments for language learning, use, and processing within bilingual populations can be transformative. Applied psycholinguistic research with an increased focus on investigating all the languages bilingual children and their families need for day-to-day communication, and on the factors supporting their learning and use, can help inform educators, policy makers, and language and speech professionals. This will hopefully contribute to the well-being of the people we study.

While Psychology research in general has been criticized for oversampling from WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) populations, Psycholinguistics has a problem with conducting a large amount of research on a relatively small number of languages. Yet even within WEIRD environments, the experiences of speakers of Minority, Indigenous, Non-standard(ized), and Dialect (MIND) varieties are not always captured alongside their use of a more prestigious standard language.

This position piece will provide a case study of one such variety: Scots, a Germanic variety spoken in Scotland, which is often considered “bad English.” However, its speakers display cognitive characteristics of bilingualism despite often regarding themselves as monolingual due to sociolinguistic factors. Such factors include social prestige and language ideology, as well as linguistic distance. In doing so, this paper introduces a new acronym encouraging researchers to MIND their language – by developing more inclusive ways of capturing the linguistic experiences of MIND speakers, to move away from binary distinctions of “bilingual” and “monolingual,” and to recognize that not all varieties are afforded the status of language, nor do many multilinguals consider themselves as anything other than monolingual.

Psycholinguistic research on pragmatics in the neurotypical population has increasingly framed pragmatic competence and related cognitive skills in terms of individual differences, co-constructed discourse, and meaning negotiation. However, research on pragmatics in the Autism Spectrum has risen from a wide and biased view of autistic communication as fundamentally compromised and autistic pragmatic abilities as impaired. Mostly due to the impactful theory of a deficit in Theory of Mind, early research on autistic communication presumed a unitary pragmatic impairment, only to find that several pragmatic abilities seem to be “preserved.” However, the interpretation of these findings usually takes an ableist turn, as most studies subsequently suggest that surface-level performance should not be interpreted as competence, but rather as a result of “compensatory” strategies. The raising number of contributions from autistic academics and participatory research enriched the field with new perspectives focusing on differences rather than impairments and drawing hypotheses on communication difficulties between neurotypes rather than within a specific neurotype. However, such contributions are hardly ever cited in the most prominent works. In conclusion, the field would benefit from a higher level of citation of autistic-led research and from an epistemological perspective shift within the mostly neurotypical academic community.

This paper addresses several problematic scientific practices in psycholinguistic research. We discuss challenges that arise when working with minority languages, such as the notion of monolingual/monocultural normality and its historical origins, the stereotype of native-speakerism, the quest for testing people who fit specific profiles, the implications of the policy that urges scholars to match bilingual groups to monolingual comparison groups, and the use of powerful theoretical narratives that may evoke problematic labels and ableist terminology. These issues invest the field of psycholinguistics with questionable practices that contribute to the marginalization of groups that do not tick the standard normative boxes. Surveying some of the most widespread scientific practices in the field of psycholinguistics, our emphasis is on how several processes and policies may embody stereotypes that contribute to the exclusion of certain groups from the scientific literature, with grievous consequences for the visibility and the representation of some minoritized languages.

This article positions braille as a writing system worthy of study in its own right and on its own terms. We begin with a discussion of the role of braille in the lives of those who read and write it and a call for more attention to braille in the reading sciences. We then give an overview of the history and development of braille, focusing on its formal characteristics as a writing system, in order to acquaint sighted print readers with the basics of braille and to spark further interest among reading researchers. We then explore how print-centric assumptions and sight-centric motivations have potentially negative consequences, not only for braille users but also for the types of questions researchers think to pursue. We conclude with recommendations for conducting responsible and informed research about braille. We affirm that blindness is most equitably understood as but one of the many diverse ways humans experience the world. Researching braille literacy from an equity and diversity perspective provides positive, fruitful insights into perception and cognition, contributes to the typologically oriented work on the world’s writing systems, and contributes to equity by centering the perspectives and literacy of the people who read and write braille.