Native (L1) and nonnative (L2) speakers sometimes misinterpret temporarily ambiguous sentences like “When Mary dressed the baby laughed happily.” Recent studies suggest that the initially assigned misinterpretation (“Mary dressed the baby”) may persist even after disambiguation, and that L2 speakers may have particular difficulty discarding initial misinterpretations. The present study investigated whether L2 speakers are more persistent with misinterpretation compared with L1 speakers during sentence processing, using the structural priming and eye tracking while reading tasks. In the experiment, participants read prime followed by target sentences. Reading times revealed that unambiguous but not ambiguous prime sentences facilitated processing of the globally correct interpretation of ambiguous target sentences. However, this priming effect was only observed when the prime and target sentence shared the same verb. Comprehension accuracy rates were not significantly influenced by priming effects but did provide evidence of lingering misinterpretation. We did not find significant L1/L2 differences in either priming effects or persistence of misinterpretation. Together, these results suggest that initially assigned misinterpretations linger in both L1 and L2 readers during sentence processing and that L1 and L2 comprehension priming is strongly lexically mediated.

Linguistic deficits attested in children with Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) have been explained in terms of limitations in working memory (WM). The goal of this research is to assess whether a tailored WM program can improve the syntactic abilities of children with DLD and those with typical development (TD). We created a novel iPad application consisting of five activities specifically designed to train the components of WM that have been shown to be the most predictive of performance on tests assessing complex syntax. Thirty-two children with DLD (M = 9;0) and 18 with TD (M = 8;5) followed the WM training (lasting 12 hours). Results show significant improvement in verbal WM (direct effects) in both TD and DLD groups, and in sentence repetition (transfer effects) in the DLD group, with the most pronounced improvements observed for complex syntactic structures. This progression is not observed for 38 age-matched children of the same age who followed an alternative, global scholastic training (20 DLD, 18 TD), which proves the specific efficacy of our WM training. The logical next step will be to incorporate the training into the therapy of children with DLD in order to reinforce the potential benefit of their interventions.

We investigated how operationalizing bilingualism affects the results on a Simon task in a population of monolingual and bilingual native English speakers (N = 166). Bilingualism was measured in different ways within participants, and the measurements were used both as dichotomous and continuous variables. Our results show that the statistical significance and effect size varied across operationalizations. Specifically, the Composite Factor Score (the Language and Social Background Questionnaire’s general score), showed a bilingual disadvantage on reaction times regardless of how it was used (dichotomously or continuously). When dividing participants into monolinguals and bilinguals based on the Nonnative Language Social Use score (a Language and Social Background Questionnaire subscore), differences in accuracy and reaction times were found between the groups, but the Nonnative Language Social Use score did not predict accuracy when used as a continuous variable (only reaction times). Finally, earlier age of acquisition predicted faster reaction times, but only when used on a continuum. Effect sizes were between the small and medium range. No differences on the Simon effect were found. Our results call for cautiousness when comparing studies using different types of measurements, highlight the need for clarity and transparency when describing samples, and stresses the need for more research on the operationalization of bilingualism.

The study of bilingualism has a history that extends from deciphering ancient multilingual texts to mapping the structure of the multilingual brain. The language experiences of individual bilinguals are equally diverse and characterized by unique contexts of acquisition and use that can shape not only sociocultural identity but also cognitive and neural function. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this variability in scholarly perspectives and language experiences has given rise to a range of methods for defining bilingualism. The goal of this article is to initiate a conversation about the utility of a more unified approach to how we think about, study, and measure bilingualism. Using concrete case studies, we illustrate the value of enhancing communication and streamlining terminology across researchers with different methodologies within questions, different questions within domains, and different domains within scientific inquiry. We specifically consider the utility and feasibility of a bilingualism quotient (BQ) construct, discuss the idea of a BQ relative to the well-established intelligence quotient, and include recommendations for next steps. We conclude that though the variability in language backgrounds and approaches to defining bilingualism presents significant challenges, concerted efforts to systematize and synthesize research across the field may enable the construction of a valid and generalizable index of multilingual experience.