1

Luk, G., & Rothman, J. (2022). Experience-based individual differences modulate language,

mind and brain outcomes in multilinguals. Brain and Language, 228, 105107.

[Link]

Experience-Based Individual Differences Modulate Language, Mind and Brain

Outcomes in Multilinguals

Gigi Luk1 & Jason Rothman2,3

1
McGill University, 2UiT the Arctic University of Norway, 3Universidad Nebrija
 2

Experience-Based Individual Differences Modulate Language, Mind and Brain

Outcomes in Multilinguals

Being able to speak and/or understand multiple languages is a ubiquitous human

behavior. Over the past decades in particular, an increasing amount of research has

investigated the acquisition, processing, and use of multiple languages as well as how

variation therein associates with differential cognitive performance, brain functions and

structures (see Bialystok 2016, 2017; De Houwer, 2021; Fricke et al. 2019; Grundy &

Timmer, 2017; Kroll & Bialystok, 2013; Li & Dong, 2020; Sulpizio et al., 2020 for reviews).

Taken together, this research strongly suggests that these behavioral and neural consequences

reflect individual differences in how one adapts to her environment through multilingualism.

Paying homage to the reality of language diversities around the world, we have opted to use

herein the term multilingualism, as opposed to simply bilingualism, given that linguistic

experiences can, and often do, extend beyond managing only two languages on a daily basis.

The present special issue presents a collection of 15 papers examining the linguistic, cognitive

and neural consequences of multilingualism, using innovative approaches to characterize

relevant experiences.

Research focusing on the psycholinguistics of multilingualism has long shown

behavioral differences in overall developmental timing, sequencing, ultimate attainment in

language acquisition as well as cross-linguistic influence in language management and

processing (e.g., see Bullock & Toribio, 2009; De Houwer, 2016; Kaushanskaya & Marian,

2007; Rothman et al., 2019 for reviews). Though individual differences are observed among

monolinguals, within-group behavioral variation tends to be more pronounced in multilingual

populations. For many domains of grammatical knowledge, use and processing (including

lexical, phonological, morphosyntactic), monolingual and multilingual individuals can

overlap to a significant degree. This is to be expected since regardless of speaker type (i.e.,
 3

educated monolinguals, under-literate monolinguals, bidialectal speakers, heritage language

bilinguals, second language learners, trilinguals), individuals within any given type are bound

to fall on a scale of relevant experiences with and exposure to language no matter how many

languages are involved. That is, linguistic outcomes in both monolinguals and multilinguals

are related to quantity and quality of exposure to their language(s), opportunities for more

diverse contexts of language(s) usage, as well as individual differences in cognitive

capacities. For multilinguals in particular, the typological/structural relationship between the

languages may also play a role leading to differences in linguistic outcomes. Differences in

these same variables are not isolated to individual differences within group type. Rather, they

conspire to account for observable trends of differences between monolinguals and

multilinguals at the aggregate level. In our view, this is probably the case because, on

average, the range of variation in how relevant variables present within an aggregated group

are more likely to be similarly constrained than across types (we return to this below). Yet,

even though group comparisons are often used to demonstrate differences between

monolinguals and multilinguals, it is important to underscore the fact that they share common

experiences in language acquisition and usage that have similar outcome consequences.

Despite clear individual differences in both monolinguals and multilinguals, there are,

as referenced above, (important) observable trends that pertain to speaker type. To cite merely

one example, age of acquisition does seem to have reliable effects for the acquisition of

phonological systems. Such observations are perfectly compatible with individual difference

approaches, because speaker category membership can impart a greater likelihood that (some)

contributing variables to individual differences are more and less prominent across

individuals of a particular type. While group differences are meaningful, especially for

specific questions, understanding the potentially clandestine individual variation hidden

within aggregated comparisons is at least equally important and useful for other theoretical
 4

questions. Despite differences at the group and individual levels, there is clear support from

research that multiple languages can be acquired, simultaneously or consecutively, and that

the learning and presence of more than one language in the same mind does not confer any

insurmountable burden for their effective use and processing (De Houwer, 2021; DeLuca et

al., 2019a; Rothman & Slabakova, 2018; Malovrh & Benati, 2020).

Similar issues (and opportunities) related to understanding and unpacking individual

level contributing variables within linguistic acquisition and processing also pertain to the

study of the cognitive neuroscience of multilingualism. As is well known at this point, much

research on cognitive control of languages has demonstrated that multiple languages are

simultaneously active in a multilingual’s mind, reinforcing top-down control processes based

on bottom-up monitoring of language use (e.g., Spivey & Marian, 1999; Jared & Kroll, 2001;

Marian & Spivey, 2003; Schwartz & Kroll, 2006; Kroll et al., 2008; Green & Abutalebi,

2013). As a result, multilingualism requires language control in relation to the contexts of

language use (Abutalebi & Green, 2016) and engages attentional mechanisms to manage the

contextually irrelevant language(s), shifting the focus of attention to the language needed at

hand (Bialystok & Craik, 2022). This persistent, life-long, language management experience

requires substantial and continuous recruitment of executive functions. In turn, it has been

argued that this experience can fine-tune cognitive skills and brain networks (Bialystok et al.,

2012) to make them more efficient in switching, inhibition, monitoring and directing

attention. Crucially, multilingual experience is argued to directly and fundamentally rely on

domain-general processes related to attention and the underlying neural architecture

(Bialystok, 2017; Bialystok & Craik, 2022; Pliatsikas, 2020; Pliatsikas & Luk, 2016).

Many relevant structural MRI studies show functional and structural brain differences

in multilinguals, often relative to monolinguals, in topographical regions that are highly

implicated in language processing/control, memory and other executive functions (e.g., De

 5

Baene, et al., 2015; Li, et al., 2014; Rossi et al., 2021). fMRI studies show increased

efficiency in neural recruitment during task performance in multilinguals, even when there are

no measurable behavioral differences (e.g., Abutalebi et al., 2012; DeLuca et al., 2020).

Neuroimaging is not dependent on behavioral effects alone, a significant asset since there are

non-trivial issues with granularity and test-retest reliability for many of the common cognitive

behavioral tasks (e.g., Paap & Sawi, 2016; Soveri et al., 2018). This heightened sensitivity of

neuroimaging methods to language experience enables the neurocognitive investigation of

multilingualism as a spectrum rather than a single category. Indeed, recent neuroimaging

work demonstrates how more active multilingualism (increased exposure, domains of use,

proxies for social use and networking, etc.) correlates with individual-level neuroanatomical

variation or more efficient functional connectivity (e.g., Li et al., 2014; Dash et al., 2019;

DeLuca et al., 2019a; DeLuca & Voits, 2022; Luk et al., 2021; Sulpizio et al., 2020).

Given the correlations between degree of multilingual engagement and linguistic and

neurocognitive outcomes, it would seem that group comparisons between multilinguals and

monolinguals are not (always) reliable across studies, much less a priori necessary or

appropriate at all. The default nature of monolingualism as the benchmark of comparison is

problematic for scientific and social reasons. On the scientific side, monolingual language

experience is not monolithic. That is, it is not devoid of individual level variation, and this

reality can have important consequences. For example, ambient exposure to language for so-

called monolingual cohorts has been shown to affect learning a new language (Bice & Kroll,

2019). Therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect that greater monolingual experience with

ambient linguistic diversity as compared to those with less, little or none will matter for the

neurocognitive baseline data used in studies comparing them to multilinguals. Yet,

monolinguals, typically considered as a control population, are—unwittingly—presented as if

they are monolithic with little regard to their own within-group variability. Whether or not
 6

such baselines are warranted for other reasons aside, this reality alone should give us cause

for concern. Variability in exposure to linguistic diversity in monolinguals either being

ignored or research practice leaving the implied impression that any given monolingual group

is functionally equivalent to those in other studies can add significant noise to the intended

signal – to identify between-group difference relative to multilinguals. As is true of similar

assumptions about multilingual groups across studies (Grundy 2020; Leivada et al. 2021;

Surrain & Luk, 2019), this reality hazes the general picture of what we seek to better

understand by compromising cross-study comparability. Insofar as basic assumptions for data

comparability are confounded, this reality questions the basis upon which conclusions can be

meaningfully made, especially in the context of meta-analyses and/or systematic reviews.

For decades now, the comparative fallacy of multilinguals to monolinguals has been

discussed and cautioned against in psycholinguistic research (e.g., Bley-Vroman, 1993;

Grosjean, 1998; Ortega, 2013). Moreover, comparing to monolingual controls subverts the

global linguistic reality of the world, where over 50% of people live in bilingual contexts (De

Houwer, 2021) and where some languages simply do not have any monolingual speakers

given their historical and geographical situations (Romaine, 1995). In this vein, dichotomous

(binary) categorization of monolinguals vs. multilinguals, which varies across studies, is

woefully insufficient to capture complexity in all contexts, perhaps more so as a function of

increasing numbers of languages in the mix. As recent empirical and epistemological work

has demonstrated, including the articles in this special issue, one of the most pressing

challenges for the field is to identify a consistent way to qualify and quantify degree of

multilingualism across different social and individual contexts (see Leivada et al. 2021 for

discussion).
 7

The articles that comprise this special issue, individually and collectively, shift the

question from whether multilingualism confers effects on language, mind, and brain to what

the necessary conditions and experiences of multilingualism are that potentially contribute to

cognitive and brain plasticity. Framing the question in this way accomplishes several

objectives. Firstly, it forces us to engage with the reality that multilingualism is not a

categorical variable, but rather a constellation of overlapping, continuous and multi-

dimensional spectra. Secondly, identifying variation in diverse language experience that

correlates with linguistic and cognitive performances, brain functioning, structure and

connectivity enrichens our current understanding of how language is represented in and

interacts with the mind and brain. Thus, the papers in this special issue collectively combine

to move several interconnected research fields forward to better understand the multifarious

relationships that multilingualism has, as an experience-dependent mechanism, for

linguistically related neuroplasticity.

The special issue is comprised of 15 original articles: two theoretical perspective

pieces, one meta-analysis, and 12 original empirical papers using fNIRS, eye-tracking, task-

and resting-state functional neuroimaging techniques (EEG and fMRI) and structural MRI

methods. Echoing our call to attend to the nuance of multilingualism as a complex life

experience, Navarro-Torres et al. (2022) advocate for considering cognitive research on

multilingualism as a discovery process, attending to the justification of sample size yet not

devaluing findings from rigorously designed studies with smaller subject pools with carefully

matched samples. Importantly, the authors point out that valid and meaningful interpretation

of behavioral and neuroimaging consequences of multilingualism relies on detailed

characterization of the samples’ language experiences as well as parameters of limitations in

generalizing results to all multilinguals. Using an analogy of ecosystem, Claussenius-Kalman

et al. (2021) stress the importance of attending to a bilingual’s cognitive ecosystem and
 8

present a framework to consider the non-linear relationship between multilingual experience

and outcomes. The framework calls for an emergentist perspective that accounts for

developmental trajectories, a dimension that has not been the focus of sufficient investigation

in multilingualism to date. To illustrate the impact of diversity across samples, Stankovic et

al. (2022) reported a meta-analysis of the foreign language effect in decision-making

involving moral dilemmas, showing that language proficiency plays a modulating role for

making these decisions. Their findings showcase the diversity of at least one dimension of

multilingual experiences modulate findings on a cognitive outcome, specifically moral

reasoning.

While we strongly advocate for considering multilingualism beyond a categorical

variable, the resources involved in collecting data that allow examining multilingualism as

multi-dimensional spectra are considerably more demanding than those involved in

comparing groups. In this special issue, four empirical studies adopt enriched group

comparisons to illustrate the utility of comparing samples with different language

experiences. By constructing person-centered connectivity models, Arrendondo et al. (2022)

contrasted findings from standard analyses for fNIRS data in an Attentional Network Task

(ANT) completed by English monolingual and Spanish-English bilingual children. In adults,

Chung-Fat-Yim et al. (2021) examined EEG components when English monolingual and

Chinese-English multilingual young adults completed a flanker task in three language context

blocks: English single-language, Chinese single-language, and Chinese-English mixed-

language. Multilinguals showed significantly lower mean amplitude for the P2 component

compared to their monolingual peers only in the Chinese-English mixed-language blocks.

However, context block differences obtained only for monolinguals in the amplitude domain

of the P3. Two other empirical studies also showed differential brain responses in ERPs:

between early/late bilinguals and monolinguals in a prospective memory paradigm (López-

 9

Rojas et al., 2021) and between monolingual and bilingual participants situated on opposite

ends of a continuum of latent variables (Calvo & Bialystok, 2021). These enriched group

differences demonstrate the possibility of harnessing multilingualism as a multidimensional

spectrum to augment more traditional group comparisons.

A set of five papers probed the associations between variations in neuroimaging

outcomes or eye movements and multilingual experience. Dash et al. (2022) utilized a

principal component approach to extract subjective and objective measures of second

language acquisition experience among French-English bilingual participants in Montréal,

Canada. These subjective and objective measures modulated the correlations between resting-

state functional connectivity with 20 seed regions in all three attention networks (alerting,

orienting, and executive control). Similarly, Li et al. (2021) examined resting-state functional

connectivity and signal variability while further considering the diversity of language usage

through an entropy measure (Gullifer & Titone, 2018) among a group of linguistically diverse

young adults in Singapore. A significant positive correlation was observed between the

weighted entropy measure and latent brain scores, suggesting that increased entropy in

language usage was related to stronger representation of the executive control network. Also

using resting-state data, but via EEG oscillatory dynamics, Pereira Soares et al. (2021)

reported that onset age of second language acquisition had an inverse relationship with high

beta and gamma power frequency among bilingual participants in Norway and in Germany.

Notably, coherence maps of different band power connecting localized regions were

modulated by onset age of second language acquisition, self-rated proficiency in the societal

language, and non-societal language exposure at home and in community. The converging

findings from these functional studies were that complexity of language usage modulates

brain functional measures in both MRI and EEG. Yet, whether these studies’ findings can be

generalized across different language communities is yet to be determined. In addition to

 10

functional connectivity, yet another paper by Fedeli et al. (2021), using a network

neuroscience framework, showed that multilingual experiences correlated with the

connectome of brain structural components. Moreover, using eye-tracking, Marian et al.

(2021a) showed that while retrieval of visual memory improves with shared phonological or

semantic features with the target, effects of phonological competition were attenuated by

greater dual language immersion and effects of semantic competition were reduced by greater

dual language proficiency. As a cohort, the findings in this subset of papers underscores the

need and utility of considering multilingual experiences as continua.

The remaining three papers in this special issue provide unique contributions to

prompting the “next questions” in how we understand multilingualism and cognitive or brain

consequences, namely longitudinal designs in a second language learning context (Liu et al.,

2021), whether exposure to different dialects is similar to multilingualism (Di Dona et al.,

2022), and cognitive variables that contribute to learning an artificial language among

monolinguals (Marian et al., 2021b), all of which provide crucial insights into how

understanding individual differences in cognitive abilities and/or relevant experiences may

contribute to the development of interactive multilingual language systems.

Concluding remarks

Newly emerging questions from the 15 papers comprising this special issue, as well as

many pre-existing ones reinforced in them, are important to enrich our understanding of

multilingualism, not least, by probing into the nuance and quality of its experiences as well as

the behavioral and neural consequences of them. Indeed, the majority of the present studies

involved young adults; only one study involved children. This alone highlights another

critical point: the investigation of multilingualism needs to better diversify age groupings in

order to evaluate how multilingual experience interacts with development and aging. The
 11

studies included in this special issue feature empirical studies involving samples from eight

unique countries (Canada, United States, Spain, Singapore, Norway, Germany, China, and

Italy). For studies targeting the interactional experiences of multilinguals, information about

the social contexts where and how languages are used is likely to be highly relevant to inform

the characterization of multilingualism (Tiv & Titone, 2022). Echoing Claussenius-Kalman et

al. (2021) and Navarro-Torres et al. (2021) from this special issue alone, the prospects of

understanding how diverse language experiences shape behavior, cognition, brain functions

and structures ought to consider the ecology and contexts where languages are used as a

communicative tool. As demonstrated in this collection of empirical studies, new approaches

in characterizing multilingualism will continue to propel our fields beyond simple group

comparisons, increasing ecological and social justice validities for understanding

multilingualism in a global perspective of the 21st century.

 12

References

Abutalebi, J., Della Rosa, P. A., Green, D. W., Hernandez, M., Scifo, P., Keim, R., Cappa, S.

F., & Costa, A. (2012). Bilingualism tunes the anterior cingulate cortex for conflict

monitoring. Cerebral Cortex (New York, N.Y.: 1991), 22(9), 2076–2086.

[Link]

Abutalebi, J., & Green, D. W. (2016). Neuroimaging of language control in bilinguals: Neural

adaptation and reserve. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(4), 689–698.

[Link]

Arredondo, M. M., Kovelman, I., Satterfield, T., Hu, X., Stojanov, L., & Beltz, A. M. (2022).

Person-specific connectivity mapping uncovers differences of bilingual language

experience on brain bases of attention in children. Brain and Language, 227, 105084.

[Link]

Bialystok, E. (2016). The signal and the noise: Finding the pattern in human behavior.

Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 6(5), 517–534.

[Link]

Bialystok, E. (2017). The bilingual adaptation: How minds accommodate experience.

Psychological Bulletin, 143(3), 233–262. [Link]

Bialystok, E., & Craik, F. I. M. (2022). How does bilingualism modify cognitive function?

Attention to the mechanism. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[Link]

Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., & Luk, G. (2012). Bilingualism: Consequences for Mind and

Brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(4), 240–250.

[Link]
 13

Bice, K., & Kroll, J. F. (2019). English only? Monolinguals in linguistically diverse contexts

have an edge in language learning. Brain and Language, 196, 104644.

[Link]

Bley-Vroman, R. (1983). The Comparative Fallacy in Interlanguage Studies: The Case of

Systematicity1. Language Learning, 33(1), 1–17. [Link]

1770.1983.tb00983.x

Bullock, B. E., & Toribio, A. J. (Eds.). (2009). The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Code-

switching. Cambridge University Press. [Link]

Calvo, N., & Bialystok, E. (2021). Electrophysiological signatures of attentional control in

bilingual processing: Evidence from proactive interference. Brain and Language, 222,

105027. [Link]

Chung-Fat-Yim, A., Poarch, G. J., Comishen, K. J., & Bialystok, E. (2021). Does language

context impact the neural correlates of executive control in monolingual and multilingual

young adults? Brain and Language, 222, 105011.

[Link]

Claussenius-Kalman, H., Hernandez, A. E., & Li, P. (2021). Expertise, ecosystem, and

emergentism: Dynamic developmental bilingualism. Brain and Language, 222, 105013.

[Link]

Dash, T., Berroir, P., Joanette, Y., & Ansaldo, A. I. (2019). Alerting, Orienting, and

Executive Control: The Effect of Bilingualism and Age on the Subcomponents of

Attention. Frontiers in Neurology, 10, 1122. [Link]

Dash, T., Joanette, Y., & Ansaldo, A. I. (2022). Exploring attention in the bilingualism

continuum: A resting-state functional connectivity study. Brain and Language, 224,

105048. [Link]
 14

De Baene, W., Duyck, W., Brass, M., & Carreiras, M. (2015). Brain Circuit for Cognitive

Control Is Shared by Task and Language Switching. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,

27(9), 1752–1765. [Link]

De Houwer, A. (2021). Bilingual Development in Childhood. Elements in Child

Development. [Link]

De Houwer, A., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Bilingual mothers’ language choice in child-

directed speech: Continuity and change. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural

Development, 37(7), 680–693. [Link]

Deluca, V., Miller, D., Pliatsikas, C. and Rothman, J. (2019a). Brain adaptations and

neurological indices of processing in adult Second Language Acquisition: Challenges for

the Critical Period Hypothesis. In J. Schwieter (Ed.) The Handbook of the Neuroscience

of Multilingualism. Wiley-Blackwell. Hoboken: NJ

DeLuca, V., Rothman, J., Bialystok, E., & Pliatsikas, C. (2019b). Redefining bilingualism as a

spectrum of experiences that differentially affects brain structure and

function. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(15), 7565-7574.

DeLuca, V., Rothman, J., Bialystok, E., & Pliatsikas, C. (2020). Duration and extent of

bilingual experience modulate neurocognitive outcomes. NeuroImage, 204, 116222.

[Link]

DeLuca, V., & Voits, T. (2022). Bilingual experience affects white matter integrity across the

lifespan. Neuropsychologia, 108191.

Di Dona, G., Mantione, F., Alber, B., Sulpizio, S., & Vespignani, F. (2022). Allophonic

familiarity differentiates word representations in the brain of native speakers of regional

linguistic varieties. Brain and Language, 227, 105085.

[Link]
 15

Fedeli, D., Del Maschio, N., Sulpizio, S., Rothman, J., & Abutalebi, J. (2021). The bilingual

structural connectome: Dual-language experiential factors modulate distinct cerebral

networks. Brain and Language, 220, 104978.

[Link]

Fricke, M., Zirnstein, M., Navarro-Torres, C., & Kroll, J. F. (2019). Bilingualism reveals

fundamental variation in language processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,

22(1), 200–207. [Link]

Green, D. W., & Abutalebi, J. (2013). Language control in bilinguals: The adaptive control

hypothesis. Journal of Cognitive Psychology (Hove, England), 25(5), 515–530.

[Link]

Grosjean, F. (1998). Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues.

Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(2), 131–149.

[Link]

Grundy, J. G. (2020). The effects of bilingualism on executive functions: An updated

quantitative analysis. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science.

[Link]

Grundy, J. G., & Timmer, K. (2017). Bilingualism and working memory capacity: A

comprehensive meta-analysis. Second Language Research, 33(3), 325–340.

[Link]

Gullifer, J. W., & Titone, D. (2020). Characterizing the social diversity of bilingualism using

language entropy. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(2), 283–294.

[Link]

Jared, D., & Kroll, J. F. (2001). Do Bilinguals Activate Phonological Representations in One

or Both of Their Languages When Naming Words? Journal of Memory and Language,

44(1), 2–31. [Link]

 16

Kaushanskaya, M., & Marian, V. (2007). Bilingual Language Processing and Interference in

Bilinguals: Evidence From Eye Tracking and Picture Naming. Language Learning,

57(1), 119–163. [Link]

Kroll, J. F., & Bialystok, E. (2013). Understanding the Consequences of Bilingualism for

Language Processing and Cognition. Journal of Cognitive Psychology (Hove, England),

25(5), 10.1080/20445911.2013.799170. [Link]

Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S. C., Misra, M., & Guo, T. (2008). Language selection in bilingual speech:

Evidence for inhibitory processes. Acta Psychologica, 128(3), 416–430.

[Link]

Leivada, E., Westergaard, M., Duñabeitia, J. A., & Rothman, J. (2021). On the phantom-like

appearance of bilingualism effects on neurocognition: (How) should we proceed?

Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24(1), 197–210.

[Link]

Li, P., Legault, J., & Litcofsky, K. A. (2014). Neuroplasticity as a function of second

language learning: Anatomical changes in the human brain. Cortex; a Journal Devoted to

the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior, 58, 301–324.

[Link]

Li, P., & Dong, Y. (2020). Language experience and cognitive control: A dynamic

perspective. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 72, 27-52. (Volume: Adult and

Second Language Learning, eds., K.D. Federmeier & H.-W. Huang)

Li, X., Ng, K. K., Wong, J. J. Y., Lee, J. W., Zhou, J. H., & Yow, W. Q. (2021). Bilingual

language entropy influences executive functions through functional connectivity and

signal variability. Brain and Language, 222, 105026.

[Link]
 17

Liu, C., Jiao, L., Timmer, K., & Wang, R. (2021). Structural brain changes with second

language learning: A longitudinal voxel-based morphometry study. Brain and Language,

222, 105015. [Link]

López-Rojas, C., Rossi, E., Marful, A., & Bajo, M. T. (2022). Prospective memory in

bilinguals and monolinguals: ERP and behavioural correlates of prospective processing in

bilinguals. Brain and Language, 225, 105059.

[Link]

Luk, G., Mesite, L., & Leon Guerrero, S. (2020). Onset age of second language acquisition

and fractional anisotropy variation in multilingual young adults. Journal of

Neurolinguistics, 56, 100937. [Link]

Marian, V., Bartolotti, J., Daniel, N. L., & Hayakawa, S. (2021a). Spoken words activate

native and non-native letter-to-sound mappings: Evidence from eye tracking. Brain and

Language, 223, 105045. [Link]

Marian, V., Hayakawa, S., & Schroeder, S. R. (2021b). Memory after visual search:

Overlapping phonology, shared meaning, and bilingual experience influence what we

remember. Brain and Language, 222, 105012.

[Link]

Marian, V., & Spivey, M. (2003). Bilingual and monolingual processing of competing lexical

items. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(2), 173–193.

[Link]

Navarro-Torres, C. A., Beatty-Martínez, A. L., Kroll, J. F., & Green, D. W. (2021). Research

on bilingualism as discovery science. Brain and Language, 222, 105014.

[Link]
 18

Ortega, L. (2013). SLA for the 21st Century: Disciplinary Progress, Transdisciplinary

Relevance, and the Bi/multilingual Turn. Language Learning, 63(s1), 1–24.

[Link]

Paap, K. R., & Sawi, O. (2016). The role of test-retest reliability in measuring individual and

group differences in executive functioning. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 274, 81–

93. [Link]

Pereira Soares, S. M., Kubota, M., Rossi, E., & Rothman, J. (2021). Determinants of

bilingualism predict dynamic changes in resting state EEG oscillations. Brain and

Language, 223, 105030. [Link]

Pliatsikas, C. (2020). Understanding structural plasticity in the bilingual brain: The Dynamic

Restructuring Model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(2), 459–471.

[Link]

Pliatsikas, C., & Luk, G. (2016). Executive control in bilinguals: A concise review on fMRI

studies. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(4), 699–705.

[Link]

Romaine, S. (1995). Bilingualism, 2nd Ed. [Link]

us/Bilingualism%2C+2nd+Edition-p-9780631195399

Rossi, E., Dussias, P. E., Diaz, M., van Hell, J. G., & Newman, S. (2021). Neural signatures

of inhibitory control in intra-sentential code-switching: Evidence from fMRI. Journal of

Neurolinguistics, 57, 100938. [Link]

Rothman, J., González Alonso, J., & Puig-Mayenco, E. (2019). Third language acquisition

and linguistic transfer (Vol. 163). Cambridge University Press.

 19

Rothman, J., & Slabakova, R. (2018). State of the scholarship: The generative approach to

SLA and its place in modern second language studies. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 40(2), 417–442. [Link]

Schwartz, A. I., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). Bilingual lexical activation in sentence context. Journal

of Memory and Language, 55(2), 197–212. [Link]

Soveri, A., Lehtonen, M., Karlsson, L. C., Lukasik, K., Antfolk, J., & Laine, M. (2018). Test–

retest reliability of five frequently used executive tasks in healthy adults. Applied

Neuropsychology: Adult, 25(2), 155-165.

Spivey, M. J., & Marian, V. (1999). Cross Talk Between Native and Second Languages:

Partial Activation of an Irrelevant Lexicon. Psychological Science, 10(3), 281–284.

[Link]

Stankovic, M., Biedermann, B., & Hamamura, T. (2022). Not all bilinguals are the same: A

meta-analysis of the moral foreign language effect. Brain and Language, 227, 105082.

[Link]

Sulpizio, S., Del Maschio, N., Del Mauro, G., Fedeli, D., & Abutalebi, J. (2020). Bilingualism

as a gradient measure modulates functional connectivity of language and control

networks. NeuroImage, 205, 116306. [Link]

Surrain, S., & Luk, G. (2019). Describing bilinguals: A systematic review of labels and

descriptions used in the literature between 2005–2015. Bilingualism: Language and

Cognition, 22(2), 401–415. [Link]

Titone, D. A., & Tiv, M. (2022). Rethinking multilingual experience through a Systems

Framework of Bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1–16.

[Link]