Two Languages in Mind: Bilingualism as a Tool to Investigate Language, Cognition, and

the Brain
Author(s): Judith F. Kroll, Susan C. Bobb and Noriko Hoshino
Source: Current Directions in Psychological Science , June 2014, Vol. 23, No. 3 (June
2014), pp. 159-163
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of Association for Psychological Science

Stable URL: [Link]

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@[Link].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
[Link]

Sage Publications, Inc. and Association for Psychological Science are collaborating with JSTOR
to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Directions in Psychological Science

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sun, 21 Jan 2024 10:46:58 +00:00
All use subject to [Link]
 CDS
M I ASSOCIATION FOR
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE

Current Directions in Psychological

Science

Two Languages in Mind: Bilingualism 2014, Vol. 23(3) 159-163

© The Author(s) 2014

as a Tool to Investigate Language, Reprints and permissions:

[Link]/[Link]

Cognition, and the Brain

DOI: 10.1177/0963721414528511
[Link]

(»SAGE

Judith F. Kroll1, Susan C. Bobb2, and Noiiko Hoshlno3

department of Psychology and Center for Language Science, Pennsylvania State University;
department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University; and
department of English, Kobe City University of Foreign Studies

Abstract
A series of discoveries in the past two decades has changed the way we think about bilingualism and its implicati
for language and cognition. One is that both of the bilingual's languages are always active. The parallel activation
the two languages is thought to give rise to competition that imposes demands on the bilingual to control the language
not in use to achieve fluency in the target language. The second is that there are consequences of bilingualism th
affect the native as well as the second language: The native language changes in response to second-language us
The third is that the consequences of bilingualism are not limited to language but appear to reflect a reorganization
brain networks that hold implications for the ways in which bilinguals negotiate cognitive competition more generally.
The focus of recent research on bilingualism has been to understand the relations among these discoveries and th
implications for language, cognition, and the brain across the life span.

Keywords
psycholinguistics, cognitive neuroscience, bilingualism, cognitive control

to influence not only language but also cognition more

In many locations in the United States, English is spoken
as the only language, so it comes as a surprise to somegenerally and the brain networks that support language
and cognition.
Americans that in most places in the world, and increas-
ingly in the United States, the use of two or more lan- In this article, we describe three discoveries that we
believe reveal the reasons for the recent enthusiasm
guages is prevalent. The past two decades have witnessed
about research on bilingualism. The first is that both of
a virtual explosion of research on bilingualism (e.g., Kroll
the bilingual's languages are always active. The parallel
& Białystok, 2013). Bilinguals, long considered a special
group of language users because monolinguals were activity of the bilingual's two languages can be observed
assumed to be the norm, have now become a focus in ofreading, listening to speech, and preparing to speak
one language alone (e.g., Dijkstra, 2005; Kroll, Bobb, &
research in cognitive psychology, linguistics, and cogni-
Wodniecka, 2006; Marian & Spivey, 2003). Cross-language
tive neuroscience (e.g., Kroll, Dussias, Bogulski, & Valdes
Kroff, 2012). Much of the new research shows that it isactivation
a means that bilinguals are constantly juggling
the competition that results when one of the two lan-
misconception to think that bilingualism complicates lan-
guages must be selected. The second discovery is that the
guage and cognition, that children raised with input from
two languages are disadvantaged, or that mixing twolanguage
lan- system is highly adaptive. Being bilingual is not
guages is pathological (e.g., Białystok & Craik, 2010;
Byers-Heinlein, Burns, & Werker, 2010; Kroll et al., 2012).
Corresponding Author:
To the contrary, the recent evidence demonstrates Judith
that F. Kroll, 416 Moore Building, Department of Psychology, Center
bilinguals develop a high level of cognitive control that
for Language Science, Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
enables them to negotiate the activity of the two PA lan-
16802

guages. The experience of being bilingual comes

E-mail: jfk7@[Link]

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sun, 21 Jan 2024 10:46:58 +00:00
All use subject to [Link]
 l60 Kroll et al.

only critical comparison was between two conditions:

about acqu one in
but which the display
also included a between-language competi-
about t
first language
tor - an object (e.g., a dress) whose name in the nontar-
changes get language (plaťé ) was phonologically similar to the
have b
use, name of a target object in the target
from the language (e.g.,
plug) - and one in which there wasthey
Moreover, no object whose
guages namefrom
was phonologically similar to the name of a target ea
part ofobject in either language. The result showed that bilin-
adult L2
actions guals looked
may longer at between-language competitors dep
than onthan at the the
controls, suggesting parallel activation
age of the
bilingualism
nontarget language. sh
brain across
Although speech production is initiated by a bilin- th
languagegual's intention to speak in a given language, cross-
compe
variety language interactions
of are also present
cont when speech is
cial planned. Because speaking requires that one language
expertise t
tion, shapes
be selected, bilinguals must develop a means to controlth
control,the language not
and in use. One option is to inhibit
pro the acti-
tive vation of the language not to be
when spoken (e.g., Green,
indiv
1998). The evidence for inhibition comes from studies on
language mixing (e.g., Christoffels, Firk, & Schiller, 2007).
Parallel Act
In this paradigm, bilinguals name pictures either in only
Two Languages their LI or their L2 (blocked naming) or in both their LI
There is evidence that both of a bilingual's languages are and L2, depending on the presentation of a cue (mixed
active regardless of his or her intention to use one lan- naming). If the LI is active when speech is planned in the
guage only. In reading, the degree of parallel activation L2, then forcing it to be active in the mixed condition
of the bilingual's two languages has been examined using should incur a cost to the LI relative to blocked picture
cognates or interlingual homographs. Cognates are words naming but should have little effect for the L2. It is pre-
whose form and meaning are similar across two lan- cisely this asymmetric pattern of results that has been
guages (e.g., piano in Spanish and English), whereas reported in mixed-language naming experiments and
interlingual homographs are words with similar forms under conditions of language switching (e.g., Meuter &
but different meanings (e.g., pie in Spanish means "foot" Allport, 1999). Moreover, when the LI is spoken after the
in English). Many studies have demonstrated that bilin- L2 has been produced for a period of time, there is inhi-
guals recognize cognates more quickly but interlingual bition that for some bilinguals appears to reflect global
homographs more slowly than control words (e.g., suppression of the entire LI (e.g., Misra, Guo, Bobb, &
Dijkstra, Grainger, & van Heuven, 1999). Monolinguals Kroll, 2012; Van Assche, Duyck, & Golian, 2013).
do not show these effects. These results suggest that lexi-
cal information is activated in both the target and nontar-
The Bilingual's Language System Is
get languages. Cross-language coactivation has been
observed even when the nontarget language is not pro-
Adaptive
cessed explicitly (e.g., Thierry & Wu, 2007) arid when When we think of adult L2 learning, we immediately
two languages differ in modalities - for example, when think of the difficulty of the process and of how the pho-
signers read English words (e.g., Morford, Wilkinson, nology or syntactic structure of the LI may leave their
Villwock, Pinar, & Kroll, 2011). Moreover, these interac- mark on the L2 in the form of an accent or incomprehen-
tions across the bilingual's two languages are not seen sible sentences. What may be surprising for some is that
only in effects from the LI to the L2; as individuals it is not only the L2 that changes during learning. The
become more proficient in the L2, their effects are pres-
language system is permeable in both directions, so that
ent from the L2 to the LI (e.g., Lagrou, Hartsuiker, & L2 learning comes to affect the LI, especially when the
Duyck, 2011; Schwartz, Kroll, & Diaz, 2007). learner achieves L2 proficiency. Dussias and Sagarra
The coactivation öf the bilingual's two languages has (2007) investigated sentence-parsing preferences of
also been demonstrated in listening comprehension. Spanish-English speakers while they read complex
Marian and Spivey (2003) asked Russian-English bilin- Spanish sentences. Given the sentence "El policia arresto
guals to follow spoken English instructions to pick up a la hermana del criado que estaba enferma desde hacia
individual objects in four-object displays. The researchers tiempo " ("The police arrested the sister of the young man
examined eye fixations to the objects in the displays. The who was ill for some time"), a native Spanish speaker

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sun, 21 Jan 2024 10:46:58 +00:00
All use subject to [Link]
 Bilingualism, Cognition, and the Brain l6l

would say that it was the sister

van Gompel, who
2011). The presence had been
of cross-language syn- ill.
English, however, the sentence would
tactic priming suggests indicate
that aspects of the grammar that
are t
young man had been ill. shared
Dussias and Sagarra
across the bilingual's found
two languages. The evident th
bilingual Spanish-English speakers
permeability adopted
of the bilingual language awith
system, both parsi
strategy in their native respect
Spanish to languagethat was
coactivation consistent
and language reorgani- w
English (i.e., that the young man
zation, raises hadthat
the possibility been ill),
the influence but on
of bilin-
after having been immersedgualism isin not an English-speaking
isolated to the linguistic system but en
ronment for a long time. effectively
Thus, the LI
reconfigures changed
the cognitive in
network as respon
a whole
to L2 use. These results strongly
(Kroll & Białystok, 2013).suggest that the new
learned lexicon of words and its syntactic structure a
not built up in isolation but interact with the existi
The Consequences of Bilingualism for
language in a dynamic way to change the language sy
Cognition and the Brain
tem as a whole. A common finding is that the two la
guages begin to converge, with
An early observationchanges
in neuroimagingto the
research LI as w
was that
as the L2 (e.g., Ameel, Storms, Malt,
the same neural tissue supports& theSloman,
function of both of 2005).
effect, each language begins totwo
the bilingual's resemble the Cappa,
languages (e.g., Abutalebi, other, & w
Perani, 2005).
bilinguals looking less like Given the behavioral evidence
monolinguals in we either
have lan
guage as cross-language contact and
reviewed, that finding mayproficiency
not seem surprising. Whenincrea
To see these bidirectional language
there are differences effects
in brain activity in using the twoon th
bilingual language system, L2
languages, it islearners
likely that they arisemay need to fi
from the requirement
develop high levels of L2 proficiency.
to engage control mechanisms that One regulatesuch
the use ofsituat
occurs when students study abroad
the more dominant inenable
language and an theL2 environ
engagement
ment. A study by Linck,of Kroll, and(e.g.,
the weaker language Sunderman
Abutalebi & Green, 2007). (2009;
also Baus, Costa, & Carreiras,
Critically, brain2013) compared
areas that control L2 lear
language overlap with
ing in immersion and classroom contexts.
areas that control cognitive functioning more They
generally test
(e.g., Garbin et al., Spanish
native English speakers learning 2010; see also Abutalebi
on &comprehe
Green,
2007). Behavioral
sion and production tasks. Although research has shown that there are cor- learne
immersed
were matched to the classroom-only learners
relations between the ability to switch on over
between languages
and the ability the
L2 proficiency, they performed to switchtasks
between nonlinguistic
differently tasks, th
their classroom-only counterparts.
which suggests that they tap into Comprehensio
the same mechanisms
results suggested that ofL2 immersion
cognitive control (e.g., Prior & Golian, experience
2011). An inter- h
changed the way the learners processed
esting observation is that their LI.
language processing in multilin-
Immersed learners also guals,
had who use more than
more two languages, appearsspeakin
difficulties to
English than classroom learners
follow patterns of did,
parallel activation
which and control
suggests
similar t
immersed learners suppressto those observedtheir native
for bilinguals, with language
the relative effects
of the the
Strikingly, these effects on three orLI
morepersisted
languages determined 6 by profi-
months af
ciency and language
the immersed learners returned to dominance
their(e.g., LILinck, Schwieter,
environment
& Sunderman, 2012; van
but only for the comprehension Hell & Dijkstra,
task. In spoken2002). produ
Recent
tion in the LI, performance neuroimaging studiesLinck
rebounded. have suggested
et thatal.
not inter
preted these findings as supporting
only are the inidea
control areas of the brain activated both lin- that
learners attenuate LI activation while tasks,
guistic and nonlinguistic immersed into the L2
but bilinguals appear
and that the same degree
use these of
control LI suppression
networks does n
more efficiently than mono-
occur in the classroom.
linguals, even when the task is purely cognitive. For
These studies illustrate cross-language interaction example,
at Abutalebi et al. (2012) compared brain activity
the level of words as well as grammar. The scope of the in bilinguals and monolinguals as they performed a non-
changes to the native language is broad: Related evi- verbal conflict-monitoring task (see Białystok, Craik, &
dence has been reported for other grammatical struc- Luk, 2012, for an illustration of some of the tasks that
tures (Dussias & Cramer Scaltz, 2008) and for the have been used in these studies). Abutalebi et al. found
phonology of the native language (e.g., Chang, 2013). that both bilinguals and monolinguals revealed activity
Research on priming has also shown that sentence pro- of the anterior cingulate cortex, a brain region that has
cessing is changed by a recent occurrence of a similarbeen implicated in cognitive control, but bilinguals were
syntactic structure, even when the prime and target sen- more efficient than monolinguals, requiring less activa-
tences cross from one of the bilingual's languages to thetion to resolve the same level of conflict. Although com-
other (Bernolet, Hartsuiker, & Pickering, 2007; Rantola parisons
& of bilinguals and monolinguals are necessarily

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sun, 21 Jan 2024 10:46:58 +00:00
All use subject to [Link]
 l62 Kroll et al.

the demands and benefits associated with

constrained by bilingualism
the is broad and complex, but the implications to
research are exciting
The ways in which bilinguals'
sequences for minds and brains chang
c
that might also
provide a model for investigating aspects of adult plas-
nomic ticity that would otherwise be obscured in speakers
status (e o
The one language alone.
difference
appear to grow
resources
Recommended Reading becom
Johnson, Krisc
Białystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., Green, D. W., & Golian, T. H. (2009).
study using a
Bilingual minds. Psychological Science in the Public Interest , n
younger
10, 89-129. A review ofand
the ways in which bilingualism o
They found litt
impacts cognitive and brain function across the life span.
younger de Groot, A. M. adults,
B. (2011). Language ana cognition in bilin-
behavioral and neural measures. Like the Abutalebi et [Link] and monolinguals: An introduction. New York, NY:
(2012) results, the pattern of brain activation for olderPsychology Press. A recent text that overviews psycholin-
bilinguals suggested that they were more efficient thanguists research on bilingualism.
Kroll, J. F., Dussias, P. E., Bogulski, C. A., & Valdes Kroff, J.
monolinguals in resolving conflict. That efficiency has
(2012). (See References). A chapter that reviews and elabo-
been demonstrated in healthy aging bilinguals, but in
rates on the main themes discussed in the present article.
what is arguably the most dramatic evidence on the cog-
nitive consequences of bilingualism, recent studies have
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
shown that in the presence of pathology, such as demen-
Thé authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with
tia, these more efficient control mechanisms may play an
respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.
important role in protecting bilinguals from the symp-
toms of disease (e.g., Białystok, Craik, & Freedman,
Funding
2007). Bilinguals present with symptoms of Alzheimer's-
The writing of this article was supported in part by National
type dementia 4 to 5 years later than monolinguals (e.g.,
Institutes of Health Grant HD053146 and National Science
Alladi et al., 2013), and their brains at the point of diag-
Foundation Grants BCS-0955090 and OISE-0968369 to J. F. Kroll.
nosis are more diseased than those of monolinguals (e.g.,
Schweizer, Ware, Fischer, Craik, & Białystok, 2012).
References

Abutalebi, J., Cappa, S. F., & Perani, D. (2005). What can

Conclusions
functional neuroimaging tell us about the bilingual brain?
The pattern of cognitive consequences associatedInwith
J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Lexical access
in bilingual production. Handbook of bilingualism:
bilingual experience across the life span suggests that
Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 497-515). New York, NY:
bilinguals use language in ways that exercise brain net-
Oxford University Press.
works responsible for cognitive control. It is appealing
Abutalebi, J., Delia Rosa, P. A., Green, D. W., Hernandez,
to think that the discoveries we have described, includ-
M., Scifo, P., Keim, R., . . . Costa, A. (2012). Bilingualism
ing the openness of the language system, thetunes
cross-
the anterior cingulate cortex for conflict monitoring.
language competition present at all levels of language
Cerebral Cortex , 22, 2076-2086.
processing, and the adaptive nature of each of Abutalebi,
the bilin-J., & Green, D. (2007). Bilingual language produc-
gual's two languages, create a dynamic system that
tion: The neurocognition of language representation and
modulates the demands on cognitive resources. ButJournal of Neu rolinguistics, 20 , 242-275.
control.
Alladi, S., of
there may not be a single way in which the juggling Bak, T. H., Duggirala, V., Surampudi, B., Shailaja,
M., Shukla, A. K., . . . Kaul, S. (2013). Bilingualism delays
the two languages produces the observed consequences
(e.g., Baum & Titone, in press; Green & Abutalebi,age2013;
at onset of dementia, independent of education and
immigration
Kroll & Białystok, 2013). As Green and Abutalebi (2013) status. Neurology. Advance online publication,
doi: 10. 1212/01. wnl.0000436620.33155.a4
have noted, bilinguals who are equally proficient may
Ameel, E., Storms, G., Malt, B. C., & Sloman, S. A. (2005). How
differ in the demands placed on control networks
bilinguals solve the naming problem. Journal of Memory
depending on whether they frequently code and
switch
Language , 53, 60-80.
between their two languages and on the context
Baum, S., in
& Titone, D. (in press). Moving towards a neuroplas-
which code switching occurs. Bilinguals often speak to of bilingualism, executive control, and aging.
ticity view
others who themselves are not bilingual or not bilingual
Applied Psycholinguistics.
in the same languages. Being bilingual thereforeBaus, C., Costa, A., & Carreiras, M. (2013). On the effects of
requires
skill in negotiating the discourse context for bothsecond
speak-language immersion on first language production.
Acta Psychologica , 142, 402-409.
ers and listeners. The research agenda for investigating

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sun, 21 Jan 2024 10:46:58 +00:00
All use subject to [Link]
 Bilingualism, Cognition, and the Brain 163

Kroll, J.&
Bernolet, S., Hartsuiker, R. J., F., Bobb, S., & Wodniecka, Z. (2006).
Pickering, M. Language
J. selec-
(2007). Share
syntactic representations in bilinguals:
tivity is the exception, not the rule:Evidence
Arguments against a for the
fixed locus of
role of word-order repetition. language selection of
Journal in bilingual speech.
Experimental
Bilingualism:
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Language and Cognition, 9 , 119-135.
Cognition , 33 , 931-949.
Białystok, E., & Craik, F. I. M.
Kroll, (2010).
J. F., Dussias, Cognitive
P. E., Bogulski, C. A., & Valdes Kroff, and
J. lingui
tic processing in the bilingual mind.
(2012). Juggling Current
two languages in one mind: WhatDirections
bilin- in
Psychological Science, 19 , 19-23. guals tell us about language processing and its conse-
Białystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., & quences for cognition. In B. Ross
Freedman, M. (Ed.), (2007).
The psychology of
Bilingualism
as a protection against the onset learning andof motivation (Vol. 56, pp. 229-262). San
symptoms of Diego,
dementia.
Neuropsychologic , 45, 459-464. CA: Academic Press.
Białystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., Lagrou,& Luk, G.
E., Hartsuiker, R. J., (2012).
& Duyck, W. (2011).Bilingualism
Knowledge
Consequences for mind and of abrain.
second language Trends in Cognitive
influences auditory word recognition
Sciences , 16, 240-250. in the native language. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Byers-Heinlein, K., Burns, T. C, &
Learning, Memory,Werker,and Cognition J. F. (2010). Th
, 37, 952-965.
roots of bilingualism in newborns. Linck, J. A., Kroll, [Link]
F., & Sunderman, G. (2009). Losing Science
access ,
21 , 343-348. to the native language while immersed in a second lan-
Calvo, A., & Białystok, E. (2014). Independent effects of bilin- guage: Evidence for the role of inhibition in second-
gualism and socioeconomic status on language ability and language learning. Psychological Science, 20, 1507-1515.
executive functioning. Cognition , 130, 278-288. Linck, J. A., Schwieter, J. W., & Sunderman, G. (2012). Inhibitory
Chang, C. (2013). A novelty effect in phonetic drift of the native control predicts language switching performance in tri-
language. Journal of Phonetics, 41, 520-533. lingual speech production. Bilingualism: Language and
Christoffels, I. K., Firk, C., & Schiller, N. O. (2007). Bilingual Cognition, 15, 651-662.
language control: An event-related brain potential study. Marian, V., & Spivey, M. J. (2003). Competing activation in bilin-
Brain Research, 1147, 192-208. gual language processing: Within- and between-language
Dijkstra, T. (2005). Bilingual word recognition and lexical competition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6,
access. Inj. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook 97-115.
of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 179-201). Meuter, R. F. I., & Allport, A. (1999). Bilingual language switch-
New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ing in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection.
Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (1999). Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 25-40.
Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: Misra, M., Guo, T., Bobb, S. C., & Kroll, J. F. (2012). When bilin-
The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and guals choose a single word to speak: Electrophysiological
Language, 41, 496-518. evidence for inhibition of the native language. Journal of
Dussias, P. E., & Cramer Scaltz, T. R. (2008). Spanish-English L2 Memory and Language, 67, 224-237.
speakers' use of subcategorization bias information in the Morford, J. P., Wilkinson, E., Villwock, A., Pinar, P., & Kroll, J. F.
resolution of temporary ambiguity during second language (2011). When deaf signers read English: Do written words
reading. Acta Psychologica, 128, 501-513- activate their sign translations? Cognition, 118, 286-292.
Dussias, P. E., & Sagarra, N. (2007). The effect of expo- Prior, A., & Golian, T. H. (2011). Good language-switchers are
sure on syntactic parsing in Spanish-English bilinguals. good task-switchers: Evidence from Spanish-English and
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 101-116. Mandarin-English bilinguals. Journal of the International
Garbin, G., Sanjuan, A., Forn, C., Bustamante, J. C., Rodríguez- Neuropsychological Society, 17, 682-691.
Pujadas, A., Belloch, V., . . . Avila, C. (2010). Bridging Schwartz, A. I., Kroll, J. F., & Diaz, M. (2007). Reading words
language and attention: Brain basis of the impact of bilin- in Spanish and English: Mapping orthography to phonol-
gualism on cognitive control. Neurolmage , 53, 1272-1278. ogy in two languages. Language and Cognitive Processes,
Gold, B. T., Kim, C., Johnson, N. F., Kriscio, R. J., & Smith, C. 22, 106-129.
D. (2013). Lifelong bilingualism maintains neural efficiency Schweizer, T. A., Ware, J., Fischer, C. E., Craik, F. I., & Białystok,
for cognitive control in aging. Journal of Neuroscience, 33, E. (2012). Bilingualism as a contributor to cognitive reserve:
387-396. Evidence from brain atrophy in Alzheimer's disease. Cortex,
Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico- 48, 991-996.
semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, Thierry, G., & Wu, Y. J. (2007). Brain potentials reveal uncon-
1, 67-81. scious translation during foreign language comprehension.
Green, D. W., & Abutalebi, J. (2013). Language control in bilin- Proceeding of National Academy of Sciences, USA, 104,
guals: The adaptive control hypothesis. Journal of Cognitive 12530-12535.
Psychology, 25, 515-530. Van Assche, E., Duyck, W., & Golian, T. H. (2013). Whole-
Kantola, L., & van Gompel, R. P. G. (2011). Between- and language and item-specific control in bilingual language
within-language priming is the same: Evidence for shared production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
bilingual syntactic representations. Memory & Cognition, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 1781-1792.
39, 276-290. van Hell, J. G., & Dijkstra, T. (2002). Foreign language knowl-
Kroll, J. F., & Białystok, E. (2013). Understanding the conse- edge can influence native language performance in exclu-
quences of bilingualism for language processing and cogni- sively native contexts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9,
tion. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 497-514. 780-789.

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sun, 21 Jan 2024 10:46:58 +00:00
All use subject to [Link]