International Journal of Bilingualism

This article reviews recent research on the relationship between language and thinking in bilinguals.

The paper reviews aspects of previous research, and links it to the articles in this special issue.

Research on language and cognition in bilinguals requires both depth (in-depth investigations of one area in order to test approaches and methods) and breadth (investigations of a wide range of research areas). It should cover all levels of language and all aspects of cognition, in line with the latest theoretical and methodological developments in relevant disciplines (e.g. using linguistic and non-linguistic tasks, collecting quantitative and qualitative data).

This introduction discusses important theoretical and methodological aspects of recent developments in the field.

Few previous studies of bilingual cognition have theorized the impact of being literate in distinct orthographies. This study examined: (1) How do differences in the way writing systems represent sound affect biscriptal bilinguals’ segmentation of spoken words in each language? and (2) What is the impact of the first learned orthography? These questions were addressed in native and non-native readers of Hindi and English. The primary unit of writing in Hindi is the akshara, which corresponds to a syllable in most cases, whereas for English the unit of writing corresponds to a phoneme.

Hindi-English users listened to cross-language homophones in Hindi and English. Participants were instructed to take away “the first sound” of each word and say aloud what remained.

Percent deletion of the initial phoneme was examined. Exp. 1 included 44 bilinguals. Exp. 2 tested 13 bilinguals.

For native English readers the first phoneme was deleted regardless of language. For native readers of Hindi, performance differed by language: the “first sound” was a phoneme for English words but a syllable for Hindi words (except for vowel-initial words).

Using a novel paradigm, this study demonstrates that biscriptal bilinguals’ conceptions of speech sounds are differentially shaped by their knowledge of the written forms of those sounds: deleting “the first sound” in /sʌfʌr/ resulted in /fʌr/ when it was presented as a Hindi word but as /ʌfʌr/ when presented as English. Thus, the very same spoken word can yield different conceptions depending on whether it is heard as a word belonging to one language or another.

The findings indicate that language-specific orthographic knowledge influences biscriptal bilinguals’ conceptualization of speech sounds in their respective languages. More generally, our study argues for more research on biscriptal bilinguals in the study of bilingual cognition.

In the present study, we tested how Mandarin-English bilinguals choose English words to refer to prototypical Mandarin throwing actions. Languages differ in how they refer to events. In Mandarin and English, words for throwing actions differ notably on a variety of dimensions so there are few perfect translation equivalents. In previous studies, when faced with the challenge of how to speak about such events, bilinguals sometimes use language-specific ways in each language, sometimes show convergence, sometimes use more general terms, and there are times when they can be quite creative.

We showed video clips of six prototypical Mandarin throwing actions (corresponding to rēng 扔, diū 丢, pāo 抛, tóu 投, shuāi 摔, shuǎi 甩) to Mandarin-English bilinguals and English monolinguals. Participants labeled the actions and chose the English word most closely corresponding to the action. The bilinguals did the same in Mandarin.

The results showed that the bilinguals chose many of the same words in English as English monolinguals did. However, the bilinguals differed from the monolinguals in two ways: (1) they tended to choose more different responses and (2) they referred to diū 丢 actions most often as throw rather than lob as the monolinguals did.

These results suggest that bilinguals use a variety of strategies to refer to the not-easily-translatable.

In this study, we examined memory performance in a bilingual population, in an effort to compare depth of processing and complexity across first and second languages.

Complexity was investigated with a pleasantness rating task and an elaborative encoding, scenario-based rating task (i.e. rating words for their survival-relevance). Previous research found word recall largely benefited from an ancestral context that primed participants to think deeply about the survival-relevance of a list of concrete, neutral words. Engaging this more elaborative processing may lead to better memory if the human memory system is particularly tuned toward remembering survival-relevant materials.

Participants included 127 Spanish-English bilinguals, randomly-assigned to complete survival-relevance or pleasantness ratings in either Spanish or English. Aggregated language history data self-reported by participants (e.g. language-learning environments, age of acquisition, and so on), suggested an L1 of Spanish and L2 of English. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) compared word recall across these tasks and languages.

We hypothesized better recall performance collected from bilingual participants in the survival condition using their first, more often emotional, language. Our results support this hypothesis, with bilinguals replicating the memory advantage for words rated for their survival-relevance in Spanish (their L1), but not in English (their L2).

While this paradigm has largely been studied with monolingual English-speakers, or in some cases, other languages, no study has explored its replicability in a Spanish-English bilingual population’s two languages.

These findings speak to the on-going effort to understand word processing and memory differences—particularly with regards to processing complexity—across bilinguals’ first and second languages.

This research probes for language effects on witness memory in bilingual speakers whose languages are typologically distinct, English and Spanish. The key question is whether speakers’ memory for agentive motion events is influenced by first language (L1) or second language (L2) patterns, or both, when the L2 is used for descriptions.

Four groups were tested in an event verbalisation and recognition memory task: English monolinguals, Spanish monolinguals, Late L1 English/L2 Spanish bilinguals and late L1 Spanish/L2 English bilinguals. The video stimuli depicted complex motion events (three manners of motion per event) because complex rather than simple events have been shown to elicit language effects.

The data for analyses include (a) the number of mentions and the type of detail included in the verbalisation of the manner of motion (the key typological difference) and (b) recognition error rates in the memory task. Recognition errors occurred when the pairs of target videos were deemed the same while in fact they were not.

Speaking in a L2 that makes it difficult to verbalise a component of an event (manner of motion) can have a negative effect on the memory for that specific component in L2 speakers, while at the same time benefiting memory for some other event features.

This work shows, for the first time, negative effects of a L2 on memory for motion events and offers a hitherto elusive explanation and theoretical justification for the reasons when and why we do, or do not, get beneficial effects on memory in bilinguals.

The findings contribute to understanding of the effects of late (adult L2) acquisition on cognition. They support predictions of the Complex Adaptive System Principles (CASP) for Bilingualism model, advocating fine-grained typological approaches to lexicalisation of cognitive domains and explicit teaching of typological differences that affect information content.

No recent studies have investigated language effects on counterfactual reasoning in bilinguals. This paper investigates the impact of bilinguals’ native language and language of testing on counterfactual reasoning, addressing two questions: (1) Do older Chinese reasoners, educated before English became a school subject, draw different inferences, or use different cues to draw inferences, compared with English peers and younger Chinese_L1 reasoners? Does knowing English affect their reasoning? and (2) Do Chinese reasoners draw different inferences, or use different cues, when tested in Chinese and when tested in English?

Experiment 1: The explanatory variables are first language (between-group: Chinese, English), age cohort (between-group: young, older), inferential chain length (within-group: short, long). Experiment 2: The explanatory variables are language of testing (between-group: Chinese, English) and inferential chain length (within-group: short, long). The outcome is the consequent probability rating. Open questions investigate cues used to draw inferences.

The sample comprised 188 participants. Generalised linear mixed-effects models were used for quantitative data, thematic analysis for qualitative data.

Older Chinese speakers rate long-chain consequents as more probable than English peers. Chinese and English reasoners use different cues to make inferences, as do Chinese reasoners tested in Chinese L1 or English L2.

This is the first paper to compare Chinese reasoners educated before and after English entered the school curriculum, and to investigate inferential chain length effects on Chinese counterfactual reasoning. It introduces a novel task (consequent evaluation), and adopts a mixed-method approach to investigate both the product and process of reasoning, using quantitative and qualitative data respectively.

The study provides new evidence and interpretation for the old debate about language effects on counterfactual reasoning in cognitive psychology; shows that conditional reasoning is a fruitful topic for linguistic relativity and bilingual cognition research; and testifies that qualitative data allows detection of differences in thinking processes.

How health risks are communicated can have a substantial impact on medical judgments and choice. Here, we examine whether the language used to process health-related information systematically changes bilinguals’ perceptions and preferences.

Chinese-English bilinguals were presented with 10 medical scenarios in either their native language (Mandarin Chinese; n = 76) or a second language (American English; n = 84) and made judgments regarding their familiarity with the medical conditions and the perceived severity of the possible symptoms (incurability, emotional distress, physical pain, social harm). Participants then rated their agreement with statements pertaining to beliefs about medical decision-making (trust in the good intentions of doctors, acceptability of challenging doctors, importance of involving family, preference for standard treatments, preference for experimental treatments).

Linear mixed-effects models were constructed for judgments of medical conditions and for beliefs regarding medical decision-making.

Medical conditions were perceived to be easier to cure, less physically painful, and less emotionally distressing when processed in the second language, English. Using English also increased endorsement of beliefs (such as challenging doctors’ opinions and accepting experimental treatments) that were more consistent with individualistic than with collectivistic norms. We propose that the activation of emotions and values is linked to language, with consequences for how individuals make decisions that impact their health and well-being.

The present study is among the first to systematically examine the interactive psychological impact of language context and experience on judgments and beliefs in an applied medical domain.

With millions of practitioners and patients worldwide making medical decisions in a combination of native and non-native languages, the present findings highlight the need to account for language, including language use, context, and experience, in order to optimize health-related communication and judgments.