Do accent and input modality modulate processing of language switches in bilingual language comprehension?

We examined how bilinguals process language switches between their first (L1) and second language (L2). Language switching costs (slower responses to language switch than nonswitch trials) appear to arise more systematically in production than in comprehension, possibly because the latter context might sometimes elicit less language coactivation (Declerck et al., 2019). This might reduce language competition and in turn the need for bilinguals to apply language control when processing language switches. Yet even in comprehension, language coactivation may vary depending on variables such as the accent of the speaker (e.g., whether the L2 words are pronounced with an L1 or L2 accent) and input modality (spoken or written). In three experiments conducted during 2021-2022, we tested how unbalanced Mandarin-English bilinguals processed language switches during comprehension and the potential influence of a speaker's accent and input modality. Overall, across settings, participants experienced significant language switching costs. In some conditions, switching costs were larger to L1-Mandarin than to L2-English, an asymmetry consistent with the participants' dominance in L1-Mandarin and the application of language control. However, manipulating accent and input modality did not influence language switches, suggesting they did not impact language coactivation sufficiently to modulate language control. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

The linguistic transparency of first language calendar terms affects calendar calculations in a second language.

Calendar calculations - e.g., calculating the nth month after a certain month - are an important component of temporal cognition, and can vary cross-linguistically. English speakers rely on a verbal list representation-processing system. Chinese speakers - whose calendar terms are numerically transparent - rely on a more efficient numerical system. Does knowing a numerically transparent calendar lexicon facilitate calendar calculations in an opaque second language? Late Chinese-English bilinguals and English native speakers performed a Month and a Weekday Calculation Task in English. Directionality (forward/backward) and boundary-crossing (within/across the year/week boundary) were manipulated. English speakers relied on verbal list processing, and were slower in backward than forward calculations. In spite of the English calendar system's opaqueness, bilinguals relied on numerical processing, were slower in across- than within-boundary trials, and under some conditions had faster RTs than the native speakers. Results have implications for research on temporal cognition, linguistic relativity and bilingual cognition.

Is the superior verbal memory span of Mandarin speakers due to faster rehearsal?

It is well established that digit span in native Chinese speakers is atypically high. This is commonly attributed to a capacity for more rapid subvocal rehearsal for that group. We explored this hypothesis by testing a group of English-speaking native Mandarin speakers on digit span and word span in both Mandarin and English, together with a measure of speed of articulation for each. When compared to the performance of native English speakers, the Mandarin group proved to be superior on both digit and word spans while predictably having lower spans in English. This suggests that the Mandarin advantage is not limited to digits. Speed of rehearsal correlated with span performance across materials. However, this correlation was more pronounced for English speakers than for any of the Chinese measures. Further analysis suggested that speed of rehearsal did not provide an adequate account of differences between Mandarin and English spans or for the advantage of digits over words. Possible alternative explanations are discussed.