Bilingual speakers are prompted to remain in a single language, switch between languages, or codeswitch by regulating the concurrent activation of their language systems and adapting to the demands of the communicative context. Unlike studies that compare language switching in bilinguals in distinct interactional and geographical contexts, this study investigates heritage bilinguals who may be required to manage their home and societal languages differently within the course of a day. We examined how this variation affects linguistic and cognitive factors in spoken production. Critically, picture naming in Spanish and English appeared to rely on different mechanisms of cognitive control: greater reliance on proactive control led to decreased performance in Spanish picture naming but increased performance in English. Although convergent with findings that L2-immersed bilinguals prefer proactive control strategies, the findings with heritage bilinguals suggest that recruitment of cognitive control during speech planning is more dynamic than has been previously reported.

We investigated whether fluent language production is associated with greater skill in resolving lexical competition during spoken word recognition and ignoring irrelevant information in non-linguistic tasks. Native English monolinguals and native English L2 learners, who varied on measures of discourse/verbal fluency and cognitive control, identified spoken English words from dense (e.g., BAG) and sparse (e.g., BALL) phonological neighborhoods in moderate noise. Participants were slower in recognizing spoken words from denser neighborhoods. The inhibitory effect of phonological neighborhood density was smaller for English monolinguals and L2 learners with higher speech production fluency, but was unrelated to cognitive control as indexed by performance on the Simon task. Converging evidence from within-language effects in monolinguals and cross-language effects in L2 learners suggests that fluent language production involves a competitive selection process that may not engage all domain-general control mechanisms. Results suggest that language experience may capture individual variation in lexical competition resolution.

We evaluated external and internal sources of variation in second language (L2) and native language (L1) proficiency among college students. One hundred and twelve native-English L2 learners completed measures of L1 and L2 speaking proficiency, working memory, and cognitive control and provided self-ratings of language exposure and use. When considering learner-external variation, we found that more frequent L2 exposure predicted higher L2 and L1 proficiency, while earlier L2 exposure predicted higher L2 proficiency, but poorer L1 maintenance. L1–L2 distance limited crosslinguistic transfer of print-to-sound mappings. When considering learner-internal variation, we found that L1 and L2 proficiency were highly correlated and that better working memory, but not cognitive control, accounted for additional variance in L2 and L1 proficiency. More frequent L2 exposure was associated with better cognitive control.

This study investigated the predictive effects of executive functions on bilingual language control processes. We used a flanker task, a switching task and an n-back task to investigate inhibition, shifting, and updating, respectively. We adopted a cued language switching task to investigate the language control processes during bilingual word production. Results of linear mixed effects models showed that picture naming in switch trials was significantly slower and elicited larger stimulus-locked N2 and N400-like components. The results further showed that the flanker effect alone robustly predicted the variability of the N2 but not N400-like switch effects. These findings suggest that domain-general inhibition appears to predict the intensity of inhibition exerted on the lexical items in the non-target language during bilingual word production, but bilingual language control only partially overlaps with executive functions.

Bilingualism is a complex life experience. Second language (L2) learning and bilingualism take place in many different contexts. To develop a comprehensive account of dual-language experience requires research that examines individuals who are learning and using two languages in both the first language (L1) and second language (L2) environments. In this article, we review studies that exploit the presence of an international research network on bilingualism to investigate the role of the environment and some the unique characteristics of L2 learning and bilingual language usage in different locations. We ask how the context of learning affects the acquisition of the L2 and the ability to control the use of each language, how language processing is changed by the patterns of language usage in different places (e.g., whether bilinguals have been immersed in the L2 environment for an extended period of time or whether they code-switch), and how the bilingualism of the community itself influences learning and language use.

Bilingualism imposes costs to language processing but benefits to word learning. We test a new hypothesis that relates costs in language processing at study to benefits in learning at test as desirable difficulties. While previous studies have taught vocabulary via bilinguals’ native language (L1), recent evidence suggests that bilinguals acquire regulatory skill in the L1 to coordinate the use of each language. We hypothesized that L1 regulation underlies the observed costs and benefits, with word learning advantages depending on learning via the L1. Four groups learned novel Dutch words via English translations: English monolinguals, and English–Spanish, Spanish–English, and Chinese–English bilinguals. Only English–Spanish bilinguals demonstrated a word learning advantage, but they adopted a costly study strategy compared to monolinguals. The results suggest that bilingual advantages in vocabulary learning depend on learning via the L1 or dominant language because learning via the L1 allows bilinguals to engage regulatory skills that benefit learning.

Although variation in the ways individuals process language has long been a topic of interest and discussion in the psycholinguistic literature, only recently have studies of bilingualism and its cognitive consequences begun to reveal the fundamental dynamics between language and cognition. We argue that the active use of two languages provides a lens through which the interactions between language use, language processing, and the contexts in which these take place can be fully understood. Far from bilingualism being considered a special case, it may provide the common basis upon which the principles of language learning and use can be modeled.

The idea that there is a critical period (CP) for language acquisition that starts sometime after birth and ends sometime around puberty has been central to language studies since Chomsky's paradigm shift that embedded language acquisition into human biological development (for discussion, see Bialystok & Kroll, in press). From early on, the critical period argument was loosely extended to include second language (L2) acquisition, an idea buttressed largely by anecdote: “children learn foreign languages so much better than adults” in spite of evidence to the contrary (Goldberg, Paradis & Crago, 2008; Snow, 1987). The review by Mayberry and Kluender (2017) describes the existing literature on L2 acquisition and adds recent empirical evidence from investigations of individuals learning American Sign Language (ASL) at different ages, often as a first language (L1) to offer important clarifications and insights to this debate. Their argument rests on a clear distinction between processes used in L1 or L2 acquisition to re-evaluation of some of the more extreme claims of the CP view. In brief, they argue that L2 acquisition is not a good test of the CP argument, a point with which we agree. However, our view is that CP effects on language acquisition are even more limited than Mayberry and Kluender suggest and we offer two further arguments to support their own formidable evidence and conclusion.

Infants are exposed to the language of the environment in which they are born and, in most instances, become native speakers of that language. Although the history of research on language acquisition provides a colorful debate on the specific ways that nature and nurture shape this process (e.g., MacWhinney, 1999; Pinker, 1995), its primary focus has been on typically developing children exposed to a single language from birth. Pierce, Genesee, Delcenserie, and Morgan (2017) turn the table on this discussion to argue that critically important lessons can be learned by shifting the focus from typically developing children to children for whom the trajectory of language learning follows a different course. Some of the variation in language development reflects attributes of child learners themselves, such as whether they are born hearing or deaf and whether they have conditions that disrupt their ability to fully perceive the speech input to which they are exposed. Other variations reflect attributes of the external conditions in which learners develop, including whether they remain in their country of birth or move to a location in which another language is spoken, whether exposure to the native language is continuous or disrupted, and whether they are exposed to a second language (L2) early or late in development. For deaf children, there is also variation in whether their parents or caregivers are themselves deaf or hearing and able to expose them to sign language during infancy. Pierce et al. use the diversity of early language experience as a tool to examine the relation between phonological working memory and language development and to begin to suggest how conditions that may produce costs or benefits in language learning may be related to one another.

The study of emoticon use in text communication is in its early stages (Aragon, Feldman, Chen & Kroll, 2014), with even less known about how emoticons function in multilingual environments. We describe a preliminary longitudinal analysis of text communication in an online bilingual scientific work environment and demonstrate how patterns of emoticon use constitute a novel yet systematic nonverbal aspect of communication. Specifically, coordination over bilingual speakers entails reductions in emoticon diversity over time that are greater for those who communicate in their L2 than in their L1. An analogous but weaker pattern is evident for lexical diversity in L2 but not L1. We hypothesize that reductions in emoticon diversity in the L2 are likely to reflect social contributions to alignment rather than purely proficiency.

We draw parallels between emoticons in textual communication and gesture in signed language with respect to the interdependence of codes by describing two contexts under which the behavior of emoticons in textual communication resembles that of gesture in speech. Generalizing from those findings, we propose that gesture is likely characterized by a nuanced interdependence with language whether signed, spoken or texted.

What is the time course of cross-language activation in deaf sign–print bilinguals? Prior studies demonstrating cross-language activation in deaf bilinguals used paradigms that would allow strategic or conscious translation. This study investigates whether cross-language activation can be eliminated by reducing the time available for lexical processing. Deaf ASL–English bilinguals and hearing English monolinguals viewed pairs of English words and judged their semantic similarity. Half of the stimuli had phonologically related translations in ASL, but participants saw only English words. We replicated prior findings of cross-language activation despite the introduction of a much faster rate of presentation. Further, the deaf bilinguals were as fast or faster than hearing monolinguals despite the fact that the task was in their second language. The results allow us to rule out the possibility that deaf ASL–English bilinguals only activate ASL phonological forms when given ample time for strategic or conscious translation across their two languages.

In the recent swell of research on bilingualism and its consequences for the mind and the brain, there has been a warning that we need to remember that not all bilinguals are the same (e.g., Green & Abutalebi, 2013; Kroll & Bialystok, 2013; Luk & Bialystok, 2013). There are bilinguals who acquired two languages in early childhood and have used them continuously throughout their lives, bilinguals who acquired one language early and then switched to another language when they entered school or emigrated from one country to another, and others who only acquired a second language (L2) as an adult. Among these forms of bilingualism there are differences in both the context and amount of time spent in each language and differences in the status of the languages themselves. The L2 may be a majority language, spoken by almost everyone in the environment, or a minority language, spoken only by a few. The native or first language (L1) may also be the dominant language or may have been overtaken by the influence of the L2 given the circumstances imposed by the environment. Likewise, the L1 and L2 may vary in how similar they are structurally, whether they share the same written script, or whether one language is spoken and the other signed.

We tested the predictions of the Revised Hierarchical Model (Kroll & Stewart, 1994) to examine how children map novel words to concepts during early stages of L2 learning. Fifth grade Dutch L2 learners with 8 months of English instruction performed a translation recognition task followed by translation production in both directions. The children were already sensitive to L2 word meaning in translation recognition, showing longer RTs and lower accuracies for semantically related than semantically unrelated word pairs. In translation production, they were faster in backward than forward direction as predicted by the RHM. Critically, these children had learned L2 words in contexts enriched by pictures and listening/speaking exercises. Depending on the task, Dutch beginning L2 learners exploit conceptual information during L2 processing and map L2 word-forms to concepts. This study also contributes to accumulating evidence that manner of L2 instruction may majorly impact the activation of lexical and conceptual information during translation.

The present study asked whether or not the apparent insensitivity of second language (L2) learners to grammatical gender violations reflects an inability to use grammatical information during L2 lexical processing. Native German speakers and English speakers with intermediate to advanced L2 proficiency in German performed a translation-recognition task. On critical trials, an incorrect translation was presented that either matched or mismatched the grammatical gender of the correct translation. Results show interference for native German speakers in conditions in which the incorrect translation matched the gender of the correct translation. Native English speakers, regardless of German proficiency, were insensitive to the gender mismatch. In contrast, these same participants were correctly able to assign gender to critical items. These findings suggest a dissociation between explicit knowledge and the ability to use that information under speeded processing conditions and demonstrate the difficulty of L2 gender processing at the lexical level.