RESEARCH ARTICLE
Mixing Languages during Learning? Testing
the One Subject—One Language Rule
Eneko Antón1☯*, Guillaume Thierry2☯, Jon Andoni Duñabeitia1☯
1 BCBL, Basque Center on Cognition, Brain and Language, Donostia, Spain, 2 School of Psychology,
Bangor University, Gwynedd, Wales, United Kingdom
☯ These authors contributed equally to this work.
* e.anton@bcbl.eu
Abstract
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Antón E, Thierry G, Duñabeitia JA (2015)
Mixing Languages during Learning? Testing the One
Subject—One Language Rule. PLoS ONE 10(6):
e0130069. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0130069
Academic Editor: Antoni Rodriguez-Fornells,
University of Barcelona, SPAIN
Received: December 15, 2014
Accepted: May 15, 2015
Published: June 24, 2015
Copyright: © 2015 Antón et al. This is an open
access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original author and source are
credited.
In bilingual communities, mixing languages is avoided in formal schooling: even if two languages are used on a daily basis for teaching, only one language is used to teach each
given academic subject. This tenet known as the one subject-one language rule avoids mixing languages in formal schooling because it may hinder learning. The aim of this study was
to test the scientific ground of this assumption by investigating the consequences of acquiring new concepts using a method in which two languages are mixed as compared to a
purely monolingual method. Native balanced bilingual speakers of Basque and Spanish—
adults (Experiment 1) and children (Experiment 2)—learnt new concepts by associating two
different features to novel objects. Half of the participants completed the learning process in
a multilingual context (one feature was described in Basque and the other one in Spanish);
while the other half completed the learning phase in a purely monolingual context (both features were described in Spanish). Different measures of learning were taken, as well as
direct and indirect indicators of concept consolidation. We found no evidence in favor of
the non-mixing method when comparing the results of two groups in either experiment, and
thus failed to give scientific support for the educational premise of the one subject—one language rule.
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are
within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: J.A.D. and E.A. were partially supported by
grant PSI2012-32123 from the Spanish Government,
and by grants ERC-AdG-295362 and FP7/SSH-20131 AThEME (613465) from the European Research
Council. G.T. was partially supported by a MidCareer Fellowship from the British Academy. The
funders had no role in study design, data collection
and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of
the manuscript.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Although some of the positive consequences of bilingualism in domain-general cognition [1–
3] remain debated on the basis of data showing similar performance in bilinguals and monolinguals in executive control tasks [4–6], benefits of bilingualism at a linguistic level seem to be
less controversial and appear generalizable. For instance, bilinguals have been shown to outperform monolinguals in phonetic awareness tasks [7] or new vocabulary acquisition [8]. The positive–linguistic–consequences of bilingualism are well-accepted, and the negative impact of
early bilingual immersion is at the very least debatable, considering that bilingual children have
been shown to reach the same linguistic milestones as monolinguals over the same developmental periods [9–10].
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0130069 June 24, 2015
1 / 20
Multilingual versus Monolingual Learning
It is a widely held view in bilingual education that introducing more than one language “too
early” in life may be detrimental to learning by delaying language acquisition or even triggering
confusion between languages in children. However, scientific observations show that children
can learn more than one language in a naturalistic context in a seemingly effortless way, and
there is little evidence to date of a detrimental effect produced by bilingual education (see [11]
for a detailed description of this “bilingual paradox”). In fact, a number of studies have
reported an advantage in bilinguals who are exposed to (and use) two or more languages from
birth as compared to late bilinguals, since early bilinguals usually show greater fluency and
mastery in almost every aspect of their second language (L2) [12–15]. More importantly for
the purposes of the current study, it has been shown that children immersed in a bilingual educational context learn new words better than children immersed in a monolingual context [16].
Given the prevalence of bilingualism in modern societies and the multiplication of policies
advocating the protection of minority languages [17], the inclusion of bilingualism in education is a key issue in regions where two or more languages have equal official status (e.g., Catalonia or the Basque Country, which hold Catalan or Basque, respectively, to an equal status as
Spanish, or Wales, where Welsh is the official language on a par with English). This also happens in places where a new language is progressively developing (as indexed by the increasing
number of speakers) as is the case for Spanish in the United States [18]. In these circumstances,
the two languages of a bilingual community tend to be represented in the educational system.
While there are different ways in which bilingual education can be implemented, one of the
most widespread methods is the Two-Way Immersion program (TWI) [19, 20]. The TWI promotes the use of the two languages as vehicular languages, and it has been adopted in most
countries with strong bilingual communities. This method has been implemented either on the
basis of 50/50 exposure (i.e., children receive instruction and tuition half of the time in one language and the other half in the other), or on the basis of 90/10 exposure (i.e., children initially
receive most of the tuition in the “new/incoming language” and get increasingly exposed to the
strongest language, generally aiming to reaching the 50/50 exposure ratio by grade 5) [21].
This being said, it does not seem to matter which method of immersion is employed by a
given bilingual school, a core principle prevails: the one language-one subject rule. In the vast
majority of bilingual schools throughout the world, each subject is taught in a unique language
during the whole academic year, and language mixing is avoided within the context of a subject
because it is taken for granted that mixing languages would lead to confusion and hinder learning. For illustration purposes, considering a Spanish-English bilingual school, if a given group
of students is taught Geography in English and Mathematics in Spanish, English would not be
used or allowed during the Mathematics lessons, and Spanish would not be used during the
Geography lessons. However, such a radical division is rather unrealistic when taking into
account bilingual exposure outside the classroom, given that switching from one language to
the other is a highly common behavior in bilingual societies [22–25], and that language switching spontaneously occur from early childhood [26]. Hence, bilinguals receive and transmit
information in a language-mixed fashion without effort, but in sharp contrast, it is the singlelanguage context instead of a dual-language context that bilinguals encounter during formal
schooling in bilingual schools. The reason behind this one subject-one language rule seems to
stem from fears of the detrimental consequences of mixing languages (i.e., the worry that it
may lead to confusion when acquiring new concepts and therefore to deteriorate concept
acquisition or learning). To the best of our knowledge, however, this commonly held view has
not yet received any scientific validation or support. On the contrary, it has been suggested that
the consequences of being immersed in a bilingual learning context are potentially beneficial
instead of detrimental. In a study with a large sample of Spanish-speaking English learners,
Baker and colleagues [27] investigated how participants differed in their English reading
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0130069 June 24, 2015
2 / 20
Multilingual versus Monolingual Learning
achievement depending on the reading teaching methods. They contrasted a singlelanguage (English-only) program and a mixed-language (bilingual) program. The authors
found that participants following the mixed-language bilingual approach showed highly similar reading achievement as participants in the single-language group, and that the differences
between groups, if any, were in favor of the mixed-language context.
Here, we address this question directly: Is language-mixing during a learning procedure detrimental to learning? In other words, is learning in a mixed-language context less efficient than
in a single-language context? Learning, defined here as the acquisition, understanding and
retention of new information, occurs spontaneously and very early on in life. But, once children
acquire the ability to use language (comprehend and produce utterances), and especially when
they start conventional education, learning shifts toward concept acquisition mediated by language. For instance, when encountering the biological definition of ‘heart’, a student may construct her concept from “something inside that makes you live and love” or “a hollow muscular
organ that pumps the blood through the circulatory system by rhythmic contraction and dilation” (from the Oxford dictionary).
Concept learning in monolingual contexts (e.g., how new concepts are recognized, assigned
meaning, and consolidated either in L1 or in L2 without language mixing) has been extensively
studied over the past decade [28]. Language-mediated learning can be investigated in many different ways, ranging from experimental methods that emulate the moment in which a word is
encountered for the first time and its meaning needs to be inferred from context [29] to methods that are based on providing the exact meaning of a new word through exposure to its definition(s) [30]. In the current study, we thus chose to use the inferential learning method (i.e.,
provide features that characterize a concept instead of merely mapping a name to a particular
concept) in order to test whether semantic representations acquired in a mixed-language context differ in quality from those acquired in a monolingual context. The selection of the inferential learning method relies on recent evidence that this method allows to generalize and
acquire more stable semantic representations as compared to alternative mapping methods
[31].
We investigated whether concepts learnt in a single-language context are better acquired
and consolidated than concepts learnt in a mixed-language (i.e., bilingual) context, or–alternatively and in contrast to common belief–whether there is no learning deficit associated with a
bilingual learning context. In a mixed-language context, information needs to be decoded in
two languages before it is integrated at a common semantic level. Under these conditions, the
learning process may be expected to suffer given the additional effort required to switch
between languages. However, fluent bilinguals have been shown to spontaneously and unconsciously translate input from one language into their other language [32–38], and several studies have shown that the cost associated with implicit translation is minimal for relatively
balanced bilinguals [39–41]; note that this is also the case for unbalanced bilinguals, who manifest sizeable translation priming effects from L2 to L1; [42]. Thus, it could be envisaged that
language mixing does not affect learning significantly, given that inputs from the two languages
are automatically translated into the other language thus favoring parallel semantic access in
highly proficient or balanced bilinguals [43–45].
In Experiment 1, two groups of adult balanced bilinguals were exposed to a concept learning
phase either in a single- (monolingual) or in a mixed- (bilingual) language context. We opted
for naturalistic learning involving the association of semantic features with a novel unknown
visual object (i.e., the inferential learning method; see [31]). One group of participants learnt
these concepts in a single-language context in which two features of the object were provided
in the same language. The other group of participants acquired these concepts in a mixedlanguage context, with the two definitions presented in different languages. After the learning
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0130069 June 24, 2015
3 / 20
Multilingual versus Monolingual Learning
phase, participants were tested in a series of experimental tests aimed at quantifying the extent
to which semantic acquisition and representation differed across groups. Both direct and indirect measures of concept acquisition were obtained. In Experiment 2, two groups of bilingual
children attending a bilingual school were tested using the same experimental paradigm in
order to test the extent to which the results in adults would apply to an educational context.
If the one subject–one language rule has any grounding, learning should be better established in the single-language context (SLC) than in the mixed-language context (MLC), given
the possible confusion caused by language mixing. If so, enhanced consolidation in the singlelanguage context should be reflected by better performance in tasks directly or indirectly measuring learning and consolidation. If, on the contrary, participants in the single-language context do not outperform mixed-language context learners, then it would be reasonable to call
into question the one subject-one language rule, and maybe think of it as a prejudice that has
developed on the basis of ill-formed intuition surrounding the bilingual paradox.
Experiment 1: Adults
Methods
Ethics Statement. All the participants signed informed consent forms before the experiment and were appropriately informed regarding the basic procedure of the experiment,
according to the ethical commitments established by the BCBL Scientific Committee and by
the BCBL Ethics Committee that approved the experiment (Approval date: 19/03/2014;
Approval reference: 19314J).
Participants. Fifty young adults (28 females, mean age of 22.96 years) took part in the
experiment. All of them were Basque-Spanish balanced bilinguals who acquired both their languages before the age of 6. Their language proficiency in Basque and Spanish was assessed in two
ways. First, participants were asked to name a set of 77 common objects in the two languages
(see [46] for a similar approach), which showed good vocabulary knowledge in both languages
(74.3, SD = 0.82, in Basque and 76.54, SD = 0.08, in Spanish). Second, all participants were individually interviewed by a native Basque-Spanish bilingual linguist in order to assess their communicative skills in each language. The interview started by asking participants to provide basic
sociodemographic information, continued with questions related to participants’ personal interests, and ended with questions about how they got to know the research center. The language
of the interactions was changed from one question to another so that the two critical languages
could be assessed in detail. After each interview, the linguist rated the participant based on
his/her performance following a 1-to-5 scale (where 5 represents native-like competence and 1
corresponds to an extremely basic or no knowledge of the language). All participants got scores
of 5 in both languages. Participants were assigned to two context groups: the single-language context (SLC) or the mixed-language context (MLC). To control for between-group homogeneity,
we made sure that the participants in the two context groups were matched for age, gender, age
of acquisition, and proficiency in both Basque and Spanish (all ps>.12; see Table 1).
In order to ensure that participants in both groups did not significantly differ in terms
of domain-general cognitive abilities, three experimental tasks were designed for matching purposes. The first task comprised an assessment of participants’ non-verbal IQ obtained from an
abridged version of the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test, K-BIT [47]. Participants had a maximum of 6 minutes to correctly respond to as many trials as they could from the original set of
34 multiple-choice items. The second task was a classic flanker task [48] consisting of a total
of 48 trials, which could be congruent, neutral or incongruent (16 items each). The third task
was a Simon task [49], which was also made of 48 congruent, incongruent, or neutral trials (16
items in each condition). These two latter tasks were used to measure participants’ inhibitory
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0130069 June 24, 2015
4 / 20
Multilingual versus Monolingual Learning
Table 1. Controlled variables in the adult samples tested in Experiment 1.
Age
(years)
Gender
(females)
IQ (correct
responses)
Flanker
Effect (ms)
Simon
Effect
(ms)
Spanish
AoA (years)
Basque
AoA (years)
Spanish
Vocabulary (out
of 77)
Basque
Vocabulary (out
of 77)
MLC
22.92
(3.12)
56%
23.76 (2.73)
34 (21)
48 (32)
0.76 (1.45)
0.4 (0.87)
76.6 (0.71)
73.72 (3.22)
SLC
23
(2.94)
56%
24.72 (1.72)
44 (28)
36 (22)
1.08 (1.8)
0.36 (1.04)
76.48 (0.92)
74.88 (2.54)
Pvalue
0.92
1
0.22
0.21
0.21
0.55
0.89
0.66
0.12
Means are presented together with the standard deviations (in parentheses).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0130069.t001
skills and to minimize any potential influence of executive control differences on the critical
experiments. Pairwise comparisons revealed no significant differences between groups in all
three tasks, and the classic indices associated to the flanker and Simon tasks did not differ
across the SLC and MLC (all ps.>.20, see Table 1).
Materials. A set of 40 pictures of unfamiliar tools was selected. These were the unknown
objects participants had to learn. Each object was paired with two definitions of well-known
daily-life objects (e.g., a key). For instance, the definitions “it is kept in the pocket” and “it
unlocks doors’ locks” referring to the common object “key” were associated with one of the
novel objects to be learnt (see [31]). In a norming test run during the material creation phase,
both definitions were rated for their informativeness (i.e., how well each of the definitions
matched the real object they were derived from) and results showed that the definitions were
highly informative, with a mean rating of 4.16 out of 5 (SD = 0.91). Also, we avoided prevalence
of one definition over the other and we made sure that each definition of a pair was equally
informative about the object (p>.81). For the MLC, one definition in each pair was translated
to Basque (see S1 Appendix for the complete set of definitions). Informativeness of the definitions was also rated as being highly similar across the two languages in a norming study. Basque definitions had a mean informativeness rate of 4.10 with a SD of 0.98, while Spanish
definitions had a mean informativeness rate of 4.22 and an SD of 0.85 (p>.53).
Procedure. The whole experimental session lasted for about one hour in total (see Fig 1 for
a schematic summary of the procedure). After the three short control tasks used to match the
groups (IQ test, flanker task and Simon task), the learning phase started. Participants learnt the
new objects in blocks of four. The pictures were presented one-by-one in the middle of a screen
with two features written below them. Learning was self-paced: When a participant thought
he/she had learnt the object and its features, he/she could move to the next trial by pressing the
spacebar. After every block of four trials, they were tested on the items of that block in order
to get an estimate of their immediate learning (Test A). In Test A, one of the learnt pictures
appeared in the center of the screen, surrounded by 4 written feature pairs. One of the feature
pairs was the correct one, while the others were distractor pairs corresponding to other objects
learnt in the same session. If participants failed any of the 4 trials, they had to repeat the whole
block of trials and retake Test A, until they succeeded in all 4. Once they met this criterion, the
learning session moved to the next block of 4 items. Thus, they went through 40 items in total.
Each item appeared twice over the entire learning session (to counterbalance definition order).
Both participant groups learnt exactly the same objects, either with the two definitions in Spanish
(SLC group), or with one definition in Spanish and the other in Basque (MLC group).
After the learning phase, a short association test started (Test B). In each trial of Test B, participants read a feature pair (i.e., the definitions) displayed on the middle of the screen and
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0130069 June 24, 2015
5 / 20
Multilingual versus Monolingual Learning
Fig 1. Schematic representation of the Experiments.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0130069.g001
were instructed to select the corresponding object from 4 pictures presented on the screen. In
Test B, participants responded to the 40 items in a row, no feedback was given on the response
accuracy and errors did not trigger a test repeat. This test was used to assess immediate recall
after the initial learning phase, and taken as an index of learning.
After completion of the learning phase (Test A and Test B), participants completed an OldNew judgment task. After a fixation point (centrally displayed for 500 ms), participants were
presented with a target picture in the middle of the screen for a maximum of 3000 ms or until a
response was given. Targets consisted of the 40 learnt unfamiliar objects (the Unfamiliar Old
items) intermixed with 40 unfamiliar objects they had not learnt (Unfamiliar New items), 40
familiar objects (Familiar New items), and the 40 familiar objects from which the definitions of
the learnt objects were derived (Familiar Related items; e.g., the picture of a real key). All the
images are presented in S2 Appendix.
Eighteen participants who did not take part in the experiment (9 females) rated the 160
items for their familiarity on a scale from 1 to 7 (1 = highly unfamiliar; 7 = highly familiar).
This was done in order to ascertain that the objects in the Unfamiliar New and Unfamiliar Old
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0130069 June 24, 2015
6 / 20
Multilingual versus Monolingual Learning
conditions did not differ from each other in terms of familiarity, and that the objects used in
the Familiar New and Familiar Related conditions were also equally familiar. An unifactorial
ANOVA was run on the results, showing significant differences across conditions (F(3,51) =
70.43, p<.01). Pairwise comparisons demonstrated that the items in the two Unfamiliar conditions did not differ from each other (Unfamiliar New = 2, Unfamiliar Old = 1.95; t(34) = -.17,
p>.86). Similarly, the objects in the two Familiar conditions did not differ for each other
(Familiar Unrelated = 6.12, Familiar Related = 6.24; t(34) = .25, p>.80). As expected, the
Familiar conditions significantly differed from the Unfamiliar conditions (all ts>10 and
ps<.01).
Participants were asked to respond as fast and as accurately as possible by pressing one out
of two buttons on a response box to determine whether the displayed objects corresponded to
the learnt objects (“Old” items; Unfamiliar Old condition) or to any other object not displayed
during the learning phase (“New” items; Unfamiliar New, Familiar New and Familiar Related
conditions). No feedback was provided to participants during the task. Accuracy rates as well
as reaction times were collected.
Familiar New and Familiar Related items were included in order to have a direct measure of
false memory effects. The false memory effect is a well-studied phenomenon consisting of participants showing impoverished performance in identifying that they have not previously seen
a concrete item (for example, the word “sleep”) when there is a close semantic relationship
between this item and others from the study set (for example, “bed”, “night”, “dream”; see,
among many others [50–52]). Hence, the false memory effect is calculated by contrasting the
RTs and error rates in the Familiar New and Familiar Related conditions. Unfamiliar New
items were included in order to avoid any possible response bias due to a different proportion
of Familiar and Unfamiliar materials. As seen, the inclusion of the necessary control conditions
(Familiar New and Unfamiliar New) makes the proportion of expected “Old” and “New”
responses different from the 50%-50% ratio used in some paradigms. However, it should be
considered that this relative unbalance is rather usual in the memory literature on the false
memory effect [52,53].
A final Matching task was also administered to the participants in order to explicitly measure the association strength between the learnt objects and their familiar associates (e.g.,
between the learnt object that corresponded to a tool that can be kept in the pocket and that is
used to unlock doors, and a real key). Participants were presented with the items used in the
Familiar Related condition from the Old-New judgment task (e.g., the picture of a key) for
1000 ms, followed by the presentation of 4 different objects from the learning phase (i.e., the
Unfamiliar Old items) on the upper part of the screen. From left to right, each of the 4 target
objects was associated with a specific button from a response box, and participants had to indicate as accurately as possible which of the objects was the closest in meaning to the reference
stimulus (e.g., identify which of the Unfamiliar Old objects was conceptually similar to a real
key). Items remained on the screen until a response was given and there was no time limit.
Considering that participants needed to simultaneously recall the definitions associated with
the 4 learnt items displayed and check which of them best matched the real object presented,
accuracy only was used as a dependent measure in this task.
Results
Learning (Test A and Test B)
The two groups of participants displayed a similar learning trend (see Table 2 for detailed
results of all the tasks). Error rates did not differ between groups in Test A (mean error rates of
2.4% and 2.9% for the MLC and SLC groups, respectively; t(48) = -.47, p>.64), suggesting that
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0130069 June 24, 2015
7 / 20
Multilingual versus Monolingual Learning
Table 2. Mean reaction times and error rates for all the experimental tasks used in Experiment 1.
Learning—Test
Test A
MLC
Mean
SLC
Mean
SD
SD
Old-New judgment task
Test B
Unfamiliar Old
Familiar New
Familiar
Related
Matching
Unfamiliar
New
False Memory
Effect
Items
seen
Error
Rate
Error
Rate
RTs
Error
Rate
RTs
Error
Rate
RTs
Error
Rate
RTs
Error
Rate
RTs
Error
Rate
Error
Rate
83.84
2.4
0.3
649
3.4
585
0
613
0.9
656
0.3
28
0.9
2.5
3.06
4.96
3.1
0.83
91
4.01
99
0
97
2.38
123
0.83
22
2.38
84.64
2.9
0.2
653
4
579
0
611
1.3
645
0.2
32
1.3
1.9
6.9
4.3
0.69
63
4.51
60
0
63
1.93
80
0.69
23
1.93
2.31
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0130069.t002
immediate learning did not differ between the SLC group and the MLC group. Similarly, the
two groups saw a similar number of items (including block repetitions after a given error; t(48)
= -.47, p>.64).
In Test B, SLC and MLC groups did not differ in the number of incorrect responses (t(48) =
.46, p>.65), again showing a highly similar performance during the learning process and
immediate recall.
Old-New judgment task. In the critical Old-New judgment task, we first explored whether
SLC and MLC groups differed in their identification of the learnt objects (Unfamiliar Old condition). Response times associated with correct responses did not differ as a function of the
context to which participants were assigned (t(48) = -.17, p>.86). Similarly, the two groups did
not differ in their accuracy in identifying Unfamiliar Old items (t(48) = -.50, p>.62).
Next, ANOVAs were performed on the response times and error rates associated to each of
the three conditions requiring a “New” response (i.e., Familiar New, Unfamiliar New and
Familiar Related conditions) following a 3 2 design in which the 3-levels factor Condition
was within-participant and the 2-level factor Learning Context was between-participants factor. The ANOVA on the RTs showed a main effect of Condition (F(2,96) = 65.43, p<.01) but
no effect of Learning Context, nor an interaction between the two factors (all Fs<1). The
ANOVA on the error data also showed a significant main effect of Condition (F(2,96) = 10.19,
p<.01), but not effect of Learning Context neither an interaction between the two factors (all
Fs<1).
In order to assess concept consolidation, we looked at the false memory effect (i.e., the difference between Familiar New and Familiar Related conditions). As shown by the results of
the t-test on the RTs, Familiar Related items were responded to significantly slower than Familiar New items (612 ms vs. 582 ms, respectively; t(49) = 9.53, p<.01). This 30-ms difference corresponds to the false memory effect elicited by the conceptual overlap between the Familiar
Related items and the Unfamiliar Old items. Critically, the magnitude of this effect was similar
in the SLC and MLC groups (effects of 32 ms and 28 ms, respectively; t(48) = -.69, p>.50; see
Fig 2). When looking at the false memory effect on the error data, we also found a significant
effect of Condition (t(49) = 3.61, p<.01), such that participants made more errors in the Familiar Related condition than in the Familiar New condition (a 1.1% difference). Participants had
difficulty in identifying as “New” the items in the Familiar Related condition, given the shared
conceptual features with the Unfamiliar Old items. As in the RT data, the false memory effect
in accuracy was indistinguishable in the SLC and MLC groups (1.3% and 0.9%, respectively;
t(48) = -.65, p>.52).
Mean RTs associated with the Unfamiliar New items and those associated with the Familiar
New and Familiar Related items we compared in order to obtain an estimate of the familiarity
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0130069 June 24, 2015
8 / 20
Multilingual versus Monolingual Learning
Fig 2. False memory effect in the Old-New judgment task in Experiment 1. This effect results from the subtraction of the reaction times to the Familiar
New items from the Familiar Related items. Error bars represent confidence intervals of 95%.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0130069.g002
effect. In line with the difference in familiarity between the Familiar and Unfamiliar items (see
above), results showed that the items in the Unfamiliar New condition elicited longer RTs than
the items in the Familiar New condition (651ms vs. 582 ms; t(49) = 10.02, p<.01), and than the
items in the Familiar Related condition (611 ms; t(49) = 5.45, p<.01). Finally, error rates in the
Unfamiliar New and the two Familiar conditions were compared. Unfamiliar New items elicited more errors that Familiar New items (0.25% vs. 0%; t(49) = 2.33, p<.03), but less errors
than the Familiar Related condition (1.1%; t(49) = -2.84, p<.01).
Matching task. In the last task participants were asked about the pseudo-objects they
learnt and their conceptual association with familiar objects. Both groups were very accurate in
identifying which real (Familiar Related) objects matched the learnt (Unfamiliar Old) items
(an average of 1.76 errors over 40), whilst variance remained small (SD = 0.88). No significant
differences in error rates were found between the SLC group and the MLC group (t(48) = .78,
p>.44). Hence, the learning performance and the identification of meaning-related real-life
objects were not hindered (or improved) by language context of the learning phase (see Fig 3).
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0130069 June 24, 2015
9 / 20
Multilingual versus Monolingual Learning
Fig 3. Error Rates in the Matching task in Experiment 1. Percentage of incorrectly associated learned objects to its real associate. Error bars represent
confidence intervals of 95%.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0130069.g003
Interim summary
We tested the potential differences in learning, consolidation and integration of new information in adult balanced bilinguals that could be caused by language mixing during new information acquisition as compared to a monolingual learning context in which a single language is
used. None of the measures obtained supported the idea that participants in a single-language
learning context outperform those in a mixed-language context. No significant differences
were observed in the measures associated to the learning phases or in the subsequently
obtained direct and indirect indices of memory consolidation.
Given that the motivation of this study was to test a situation occurring in formal schooling,
in Experiment 2 two groups of bilingual children attending a bilingual school were tested.
Based on the findings from Experiment 1, and considering that language switching has been
shown to occur spontaneously in very young children too (e.g., [26]) as well as recent evidence
suggesting that the acquisition of a new skill is relatively similar for children acquiring it in
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0130069 June 24, 2015
10 / 20
Multilingual versus Monolingual Learning
a single-language and in multilingual learning contexts (e.g., [27]), we did not expect any specific advantage for the SLC as compared to the MLC group.
Experiment 2: Children
Methods
Ethics Statement. All the children enrolled in the experiment provided parental written
informed consent. Prior to the experiment, parents received an informative letter and they
signed the written informed consent form. They were appropriately informed regarding the
basic procedure of the experiment, according to the ethical commitments established by the
BCBL Scientific Committee and by the BCBL Ethics Committee that approved the experiment
(Approval date: 19/03/2014; Approval reference: 19314J).
Participants. Fifty children (mean age 11.44, 31 females) who were attending a BasqueSpanish bilingual-immersion program on a 50–50% exposure basis since age 3 took part in the
experiment. Children were randomly assigned to the SLC and MLC groups, and mimicking the
procedure used with adult participants in Experiment 1, a series of control tasks was employed
to validate the between-group matching. Pairwise comparisons showed that children who were
randomly assigned to the SLC and MLC groups did not differ in age, gender, IQ, or the magnitude of the flanker and Simon effect. Also, their proficiency in Basque and Spanish evaluated
on the basis of a 30-item multilingual picture naming test did not differ significantly (see [39]).
In sum, the two groups did not differ in any of the dimensions tested (all ps.>.26, see Table 3.).
Materials and Procedure. Materials and procedures were identical to those used in Experiment 1.
Results
Learning (Test A and Test B)
In Test A, participants’ error rates did not differ between language contexts (t(48) = -.93,
p>.36), showing similar learning curves across groups. In a similar vein, the two groups did
not differ in the number of items seen during the learning phase (including the number of
repeated items due to the repetition of a block after a given mistake) (t(48) = -.88, p>.38; see
Table 4).
In Test B, no significant differences between the SLC and the MLC groups were found
(t(48) = .24, p>.24).
Old-New judgment task. Following the same rationale as in Experiment 1, we first compared groups according to their responses to the Unfamiliar Old items (i.e., the items requiring
an “Old” response). Response times did not differ between learning contexts (t(48) = -.42,
Table 3. Controlled variables in the children samples tested in Experiment 2.
Age
(years)
Gender
(females)
IQ (correct
responses)
Flanker Effect
(ms)
Simon Effect
(ms)
Spanish Vocabulary
(out of 30)
Basque Vocabulary
(out of 30)
MLC
11.32
(0.77)
56%
19.08 (2.74)
42 (70)
25 (58)
29.96 (0.2)
26.36 (1.91)
SLC
11.56
(1.05)
72%
20.12 (3.26)
35 (73)
51 (60)
29.92 (0.31)
26 (3.87)
pvalue
0.31
0.24
0.26
0.68
0.21
0.57
0.62
Means are presented together with the standard deviations (in parentheses).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0130069.t003
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0130069 June 24, 2015
11 / 20
Multilingual versus Monolingual Learning
Table 4. Mean reaction times and error rates for all the experimental tasks used in Experiment 2.
Learning—Test
Test A
Old-New judgment task
Test B
Unfamiliar Old
Familiar New
Familiar
Related
Matching
Unfamiliar
New
False Memory
Effect
Items
seen
Error
Rate
Error
Rate
RTs
Error
Rate
RTs
Error
Rate
RTs
Error
Rate
RTs
Error
Rate
RTs
Error
Rate
Error
Rate
89.44
5.8
2.1
764
5.5
712
0.41
739
1
752
1.01
27
0.6
11.9
MLC
Mean
SD
9.58
6.07
3.73
85
6.08
113
0.95
112
2.04
120
1.46
42
1.82
8.21
SLC
Mean
92
7.5
1.1
776
5.87
728
1.31
757
1.92
756
1.14
27
0.61
10.1
SD
10.89
6.81
1.92
119
5.62
131
2.19
129
2.48
141
2.28
42
3.21
7.23
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0130069.t004
p>.68), and in the same vein, the two groups did not differ in accuracy in the Unfamiliar Old
condition (t(48) = -.23, p>.82).
Then, an ANOVA was conducted including all the conditions requiring a “New” response
(i.e., Unfamiliar New, Familiar New and Familiar Related, in the same way as in Experiment 1,
following a 3 2 (Condition Learning Context) design (see Fig 4). The ANOVA on the RT data
showed a main effect of Condition (F(2,96) = 13,50, p<.01), but just as in Experiment 1, the
main effect of Learning Context was not significant (F(1,48) = .14, p>.71) and the interaction
between the two factors was not significant (F(2,96) = .65, p>.53). The ANOVA on error data
revealed that the main effect of Condition was not significant (F(2,98) = 1.52, p>.22). The
main effect of Learning Context was not significant (F(1,48) = 2.90, p>.1), nor was the interaction between the two factors (F<1).
Next, we focused on the difference between responses in the Familiar Related and Familiar
New conditions (i.e., the false memory effect). RTs were significantly shorter in the Familiar
New than in the Familiar Related condition (720 ms vs. 748 ms, respectively; t(49) = 4.88,
p<.01). Importantly, the magnitude of the false memory effect was highly similar in the SLC
and MLC groups (an effect of 27 ms in both groups; t<1).
Finally, as in Experiment 1, mean RTs associated with the Unfamiliar New items and those
associated with the Familiar New and Familiar Related items were compared, testing for a
familiarity effect. Unfamiliar New items were responded to significantly more slowly than
Familiar New items (754 ms and 720 ms, respectively; t(49) = 4.22 p<.01), but not significantly
so from Familiar Related items (748 ms; t<1).
Matching task. Both SLC and MLC groups showed markedly high accuracy rates (see
Fig 5), with a mean error rate of 11% (SD = 7.71) (an average of 35.6/40 hits). There was no significant difference in accuracy between Learning Contexts (t(48) = .82, p>.42).
Interim summary
Results from Experiment 2 fully replicated those obtained in Experiment 1. There were no significant differences between the single-language and the mixed-language learning context in
the learning trends or in direct and indirect measurements of learning and consolidation.
These results show that bilingual children acquire concepts equally efficiently irrespective of
the language context (separate or mixed) used for tuition. Thus, these results provide evidence
against the one subject-one language rule commonly applied in bilingual educational contexts.
General Discussion
The aim of this study was to test whether mixing languages during the process of learning new
concepts hinders concept acquisition and the consolidation in semantic memory of the learnt
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0130069 June 24, 2015
12 / 20
Multilingual versus Monolingual Learning
Fig 4. False memory effect in the Old-New judgment task in Experiment 2. This effect results from the subtraction of the reaction times to the Familiar
New items from the Familiar Related items. Error bars represent confidence intervals of 95%.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0130069.g004
concepts. Bilingualism has long been considered a delaying factor in child development, and its
possible detrimental impact in different contexts such as schooling and parenting has been
feared. Thanks in part to scientific evidence; such misconceptions have been gradually
changed. In contrast to earlier studies showing significant differences in vocabulary size, word
production and comprehension between bilinguals and monolinguals [54–55], recent studies
have suggested that these differences are not reliable and that they do not speak for a ‘bilingual
disadvantage’ [56–57]. Hence, bilingual children appear to reach developmental and linguistic
milestones in their two languages at a similar pace and their developmental trajectory does not
dramatically differ from that of monolingual children. Unfortunately, the belief that mixing
languages in the process of learning may be detrimental for the learning process is an ulcer that
still needs to be extirpated on the basis of solid scientific data.
Here we simulated essential stages of the process involved in learning new concepts based
on the presentation of novel objects paired with definitions while manipulating the number of
languages used during the learning phase (mixed-language or single-language learning contexts). In Experiment 1, adult balanced bilinguals were tested in a series of experimental
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0130069 June 24, 2015
13 / 20
Multilingual versus Monolingual Learning
Fig 5. Error Rates in the Matching task in Experiment 2. Percentage of incorrectly associated learned objects to its real associate. Error bars represent
confidence intervals of 95%.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0130069.g005
paradigms aimed at exploring 1) differences in the learning phase depending on the number of
languages used during the process, and 2) differences in the consolidation and integration of
the learnt concepts in semantic memory as a function of the number of languages used during
learning. Importantly, none of the indices obtained favored the single-language over the
mixed-language context. Hence, we found negligible differences between the two contexts during concept acquisition, showing that language mixing does not represent any additional difficulty for concept learning in balanced bilingual adults. More importantly, indirect measures of
learning and integration in semantic memory, as measured by the false memory effects evoked
by the familiar objects that were semantically related to the objects learnt also showed parallel
(and successful) integration in the two learning contexts.
Finally, a direct measure of learning and integration based on an explicit association
between the learnt novel objects and existing known objects overlapping in their features and
use with the former also showed no differences between groups. Thus, results from Experiment
1 suggest that a multilingual learning context in which two languages are mixed during instruction does not have a negative impact on the learning process itself, nor does it hinder the
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0130069 June 24, 2015
14 / 20
Multilingual versus Monolingual Learning
connection of learnt concepts with pre-existing semantic representations. Together, these data
provide evidence against assumptions in support of the one subject–one language rule in formal schooling.
In Experiment 2, we directly explored whether the same conclusions would stand in the
case of bilingual children attending a bilingual school where two languages are used on a daily
basis (but only one language is used for instruction in a given subject). Overall, results from the
children samples tested in Experiment 2 closely replicated the outcomes of Experiment 1
(adults). There were no significant differences in the learning trends as a function of the number of languages used during concept acquisition, and both groups of children (SLC and MLC)
performed equally well in the experimental paradigms designed to explore the extent to which
the learnt concepts had been integrated in semantic memory. Taken together, results from
Experiment 2 demonstrate that the simultaneous use of two languages rather than one during
concept learning does not increase learning difficulty in balanced bilingual children attending
bilingual schools.
The absence of differences in the acquisition of new concepts by language-mixing and single-language methodologies could be effectively interpreted as a consequence of automatic and
effortless mental translation processes. The transition from one language to another takes place
within a few tens of milliseconds in the case of balanced bilinguals, and there is now tangible
evidence that the two languages of a bilingual individual are active even if only one of them is
required for the task at stake [32–38]. According to this view, one could tentatively suggest that
learners in both mixed-language and single-language contexts activate the lexical representations from their two languages in parallel, irrespective of the number of languages involved in
the learning process, thus leading to highly similar effects in the two learning contexts (given
the fact that access to semantic representations is equally effective in the two languages). In the
same vein, models of bilingual lexico-semantic organization such as the Revised Hierarchical
Model (RHM; see [44, 45, 58]) suggest that at sufficiently high levels of proficiency, bilingual
individuals access language-independent semantic representations efficiently regardless of
input language.
To date, the very few studies systematically exploring the impact of monolingual vs. bilingual education have mainly focused on the differences between bilingual schooling programs
(i.e., bilingual education) and fully monolingual schooling programs (see [59]). Different metaanalyses have shown that bilingual education is consistently superior to fully monolingual
approaches for second language learning (e.g., [60]). However, these studies exclusively focused
on the benefits associated to bilingual schooling programs in which the two languages are not
intermixed within a single-subject context (i.e., programs following the one subject-one language rule), and little was known about the differential impact of using one vs. two languages
simultaneously for tuition in bilingual schools. The current study is, to the best of our
knowledge, the first to investigate this issue, and results support the view that young and older
balanced bilinguals learn in a similar manner when immersed in single-language and mixedlanguage learning contexts.
These results invalidate the premises of the one subject–one language rule and indicate that
comparable concept acquisition and integration can be achieved by balanced bilingual learners
irrespective of the number of languages used during tuition. It is worth noting that a mixedlanguage learning context is more akin than a single-language learning context to the linguistic
reality of multilingual societies where more than one language are used on a regular basis (i.e.,
spontaneous language switching). Besides, the simultaneous use of two languages during learning increases the likelihood of balanced exposure, promoting parallel development of linguistic
abilities. (Note that this may indeed represent a benefit for children who are still developing
their linguistic skills).
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0130069 June 24, 2015
15 / 20
Multilingual versus Monolingual Learning
The current study only focused on balanced bilingual adults and children. Future research
will determine whether the same results can be obtained with samples of non-balanced bilinguals who are dominant in one of their languages, given that the cognitive effort associated
with mental translation is different in balanced and imbalanced bilinguals (e.g., [40,61]). We
acknowledge that future studies should also test whether parallel results could be obtained with
different language combinations. Basque and Spanish are markedly different at the lexical and
syntactic level, but they share phonology and orthography to a large extent (i.e., they both are
alphabetic languages with similar grapheme-to-phoneme mappings). Hence, it would be interesting to explore the consequences of language mixing during learning in language combinations with different degrees of linguistic distance. Furthermore, and in contrast to naturalistic
bilingual code-switching where words of the two languages could be blended together during
natural speech in a single sentence, for the sake of simplicity we constrained our materials so
that language mixing occurred at the whole-sentence level. Further research in needed in order
to elucidate whether similar results could be obtained using different forms of code-switching
(e.g., within-sentence). Finally, it is worth highlighting that the type of information underpinning learning in the current experiment was (a) simple (so that it would be compatible with
learning by school children), and (b) exclusively based on semantic extension (i.e., based on the
functional connection of novel objects with previously known ones). Follow up studies are
required to examine whether the acquisition of expert knowledge and/or concepts disconnected from pre-established representations is also impervious–or perhaps significantly
improved–by language mixing.
In sum, this study shows that there is currently no evidence supporting educational practices that exclude mixing languages during the learning of new concepts. These results establish
that the final stage of semantic integration (which we consider to be the goal of explicit concept
learning) is similarly achieved irrespective of the number languages used to present or define
the new concepts. In other words, and at least in a context where there is good and equal mastery of two languages, language mixing is not detrimental to the learning process and does not
incur quantifiable learning or integration costs as compared to single-language context learning. In the absence of any negative effect of language mixing, of a delay or poorer learning performance, only the positive outcomes of language mixing can be considered. Firstly, parallel
exposure to and use of two languages represent new opportunities for the development of linguistic competence. Secondly, the simultaneous use of two languages makes the learning experience more ecological with respect to the way in which bilingual societies naturally function.
Supporting Information
S1 Appendix. Definitions in Spanish (red) and in Basque (green) used in the learning
phase for the SLC and MLC groups. The items are numbered in the same order as in S2
Appendix.
(PDF)
S2 Appendix. Pictures used in Experiments 1 and 2. The items are numbered in the same
order as in S1 Appendix.
(PDF)
Acknowledgments
J.A.D. and E.A. were partially supported by grant PSI2012-32123 from the Spanish Government, and by grants ERC-AdG-295362 and FP7/SSH-2013-1 AThEME (613465) from the
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0130069 June 24, 2015
16 / 20
Multilingual versus Monolingual Learning
European Research Council. G.T. was partially supported by a Mid-Career Fellowship from
the British Academy.
Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: EA GLT JAD. Performed the experiments: EA. Analyzed the data: EA GLT JAD. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: EA GLT JAD.
Wrote the paper: EA GLT JAD.
References
1.
Bialystok E, Craik FIM, Green DW, Gollan TH (2009) Bilingual Minds. Psychological Science in the
Public Interest, 10(3), 89–129. http://doi.org/10.1177/1529100610387084
2.
Bialystok E, Martin MM (2004) Attention and inhibition in bilingual children: evidence from the dimensional change card sort task. Developmental Science, 7(3), 325–339. PMID: 15595373
3.
Bialystok E (2009) Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 12(01), 3–11. http://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728908003477
4.
Antón E, Dunabeitia JA, Estévez A, Hernández JA, Castillo A, Fuentes LJ, et al.(2014) Is there a bilingual advantage in the ANT task? Evidence from children. Language Sciences, 5, 398. http://doi.org/
10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00398
5.
Duñabeitia JA, Hernández JA, Antón E, Macizo P, Estévez A, Fuentes LJ, et al. (2014) The inhibitory
advantage in bilingual children revisited: myth or reality? Experimental Psychology, 61(3), 234–251.
http://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000243 doi: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000243 PMID: 24217139
6.
Paap KR, Greenberg ZI (2013) There is no coherent evidence for a bilingual advantage in executive
processing. Cognitive Psychology, 66(2), 232–258. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.12.002 doi:
10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.12.002 PMID: 23370226
7.
Kovelman I, Baker SA Petitto LA (2008) Age of first bilingual language exposure as a new window into
bilingual reading development. Bilingualism (Cambridge, England), 11(2), 203–223. http://doi.org/10.
1017/S1366728908003386
8.
Kaushanskaya M, Marian V (2009) The bilingual advantage in novel word learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(4), 705–710. http://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.4.705
9.
Holowka S, Brosseau-Lapré F, Petitto LA (2002) Semantic and Conceptual Knowledge Underlying
Bilingual Babies’ First Signs and Words. Language Learning, 52(2), 205–262. http://doi.org/10.1111/
0023-8333.00184 PMID: 12013657
10.
Pearson BZ, Fernández SC, Oller DK (1993) Lexical Development in Bilingual Infants and Toddlers:
Comparison to Monolingual Norms. Language Learning, 43(1), 93–120. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.14671770.1993.tb00174.x
11.
Petitto LA, Katerelos M, Levy BG, Gauna K, Tétreault K, Ferraro V (2001) Bilingual signed and spoken
language acquisition from birth: implications for the mechanisms underlying early bilingual language
acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 28(2), 453–496. PMID: 11449947
12.
Flege JE, MacKay IR, Meador D (1999) Native Italian speakers’ perception and production of English
vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106(5), 2973–2987. PMID: 10573909
13.
Flege JE, Munro MJ, MacKay IR (1995) Factors affecting strength of perceived foreign accent in a second language. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97(5 Pt 1), 3125–3134. PMID:
7759652
14.
Johnson JS, Newport EL (1989) Critical period effects in second language learning: the influence of
maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21(1),
60–99. PMID: 2920538
15.
Pliatsikas C, Marinis T (2013) Processing empty categories in a second language: When naturalistic
exposure fills the (intermediate) gap. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(01), 167–182. http://
doi.org/10.1017/S136672891200017X
16.
Kaushanskaya M, Gross M, Buac M (2014) Effects of classroom bilingualism on task-shifting, verbal
memory, and word learning in children. Developmental Science, 17(4), 564–583. http://doi.org/10.
1111/desc.12142 doi: 10.1111/desc.12142 PMID: 24576079
17.
Williams CH (2013) Minority Language Promotion, Protection and Regulation: The Mask of Piety. Palgrave Macmillan.
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0130069 June 24, 2015
17 / 20
Multilingual versus Monolingual Learning
18.
Hornberger NH, Link H (2012) Translanguaging and transnational literacies in multilingual classrooms:
a biliteracy lens. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 261–278. http://
doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2012.658016
19.
Alanís I (2000) A Texas Two-way Bilingual Program: Its Effects on Linguistic and Academic Achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(3), 225–248. http://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2000.10162763
20.
Christian D (1994) Two-Way Bilingual Education: Students Learning Through Two Languages. Center
for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/
567256ft
21.
Lara-Alecio R, Galloway M, Irby BJ, Rodríguez L, Gómez L (2004) Two-Way Immersion Bilingual Programs in Texas. Bilingual Research Journal, 28(1), 35–54. http://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2004.
10162611
22.
Auer P (2013) Code-Switching in Conversation: Language, Interaction and Identity. Routledge.
23.
Gollan TH, Ferreira VS (2009) Should I stay or should I switch? A cost–benefit analysis of voluntary language switching in young and aging bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(3), 640–665. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0014981 doi: 10.1037/a0014981 PMID:
19379041
24.
Heller M (1988) Codeswitching: Anthropological and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Walter de Gruyter.
25.
Milroy L, Muysken P (1995) One Speaker, Two Languages: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on CodeSwitching. Cambridge University Press.
26.
Lanza E (1992) Can bilingual two-year-olds code-switch? Journal of Child Language, 19(03), 633–
658. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900011600
27.
Baker DL, Park Y, Baker SK, Basaraba DL, Kame’enui EJ, Beck CT (2012) Effects of a paired bilingual
reading program and an English-only program on the reading performance of English learners in
Grades 1–3. Journal of School Psychology, 50(6), 737–758. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.09.002
doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2012.09.002 PMID: 23245498
28.
Yum YN, Midgley KJ, Holcomb PJ, Grainger J (2014) An ERP study on initial second language vocabulary learning. Psychophysiology, 51(4), 364–373. http://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12183 doi: 10.1111/
psyp.12183 PMID: 24660886
29.
Batterink L, Neville H (2011) Implicit and explicit mechanisms of word learning in a narrative context:
an event-related potential study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(11), 3181–3196. http://doi.org/
10.1162/jocn_a_00013 doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00013 PMID: 21452941
30.
Perfetti CA, Wlotko EW, Hart LA (2005) Word learning and individual differences in word learning
reflected in event-related potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(6), 1281–1292. http://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.6.1281 PMID: 16393047
31.
Chen S, Wang L, Yang Y (2014) Acquiring concepts and features of novel words by two types of learning: direct mapping and inference. Neuropsychologia, 56, 204–218. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
neuropsychologia.2014.01.012 doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.01.012 PMID: 24480035
32.
Lagrou E, Hartsuiker RJ, Duyck W (2013) Interlingual lexical competition in a spoken sentence context:
Evidence from the visual world paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(5), 963–972. http://doi.
org/10.3758/s13423-013-0405-4
33.
Midgley KJ, Holcomb PJ, van Heuven WJB, Grainger J (2008) An electrophysiological investigation
of cross-language effects of orthographic neighborhood. Brain Research, 1246, 123–135. http://doi.
org/10.1016/j.brainres.2008.09.078 doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2008.09.078 PMID: 18948089
34.
Spalek K, Hoshino N, Wu YJ, Damian M, Thierry G (2014) Speaking two languages at once: Unconscious native word form access in second language production. Cognition, 133(1), 226–231. http://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.06.016 doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.06.016 PMID: 25058411
35.
Thierry G, Wu YJ (2007) Brain potentials reveal unconscious translation during foreignlanguage comprehension. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(30), 12530–12535.
http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0609927104 PMID: 17630288
36.
Wu YJ, Cristino F, Leek C, Thierry G (2013) Non-selective lexical access in bilinguals is spontaneous
and independent of input monitoring: Evidence from eye tracking. Cognition, 129(2), 418–425. http://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.08.005 doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.08.005 PMID: 23999407
37.
Wu YJ, Thierry G (2010) Chinese-English bilinguals reading English hear Chinese. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 30(22), 7646–7651. http://doi.org/10.
1523/JNEUROSCI.1602-10.2010 doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1602-10.2010 PMID: 20519539
38.
Wu YJ, Thierry G (2012) Unconscious translation during incidental foreign language processing. NeuroImage, 59(4), 3468–3473. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.049 doi: 10.1016/j.
neuroimage.2011.11.049 PMID: 22155033
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0130069 June 24, 2015
18 / 20
Multilingual versus Monolingual Learning
39.
Duñabeitia JA, Dimitropoulou M, Uribe-Etxebarria O, Laka I, Carreiras M (2010) Electrophysiological
correlates of the masked translation priming effect with highly proficient simultaneous bilinguals. Brain
Research, 1359, 142–154. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2010.08.066 doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2010.
08.066 PMID: 20804744
40.
Duñabeitia JA, Perea M, Carreiras M (2010) Masked translation priming effects with highly proficient
simultaneous bilinguals. Experimental Psychology, 57(2), 98–107. http://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/
a000013 doi: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000013 PMID: 20178959
41.
Perea M, Duñabeitia JA, Carreiras M (2008) Masked associative/semantic priming effects across languages with highly proficient bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(4), 916–930. http://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.01.003 PMID: 18496606
42.
Dimitropoulou M, Duñabeitia JA, Carreiras M (2011b) Two words, one meaning: evidence of
automatic co-activation of translation equivalents. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 188. http://doi.org/10.
3389/fpsyg.2011.00188
43.
Dijkstra T, van Heuven WJB (2002) The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From
identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(03), 175–197. http://doi.org/10.
1017/S1366728902003012
44.
Kroll JF, de Groot AMB (1997) Lexical and conceptual memory in the bilingual: Mapping form to meaning in two languages. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology—J EXP CHILD PSYCHOL, 169–199.
45.
Kroll JF, Van Hell JG, Tokowicz N, Green DW (2010) The Revised Hierarchical Model: A critical review
and assessment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(03), 373–381. http://doi.org/10.1017/
S136672891000009X
46.
Gollan TH, Weissberger GH, Runnqvist E, Montoya RI, Cera CM (2012) Self-ratings of spoken language dominance: A Multilingual Naming Test (MINT) and preliminary norms for young and aging
Spanish–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(03), 594–615. http://doi.org/10.
1017/S1366728911000332
47.
Kaufman AS (1990) K-BIT: Kaufman brief intelligence test. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance
Service.
48.
Eriksen BA, Eriksen CW (1974) Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16(1), 143–149. http://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203267
49.
Simon JR, Rudell AP (1967) Auditory S-R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information
processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51(3), 300–304. http://doi.org/10.1037/h0020586 PMID:
6045637
50.
Fenn KM, Gallo DA, Margoliash D, Roediger HL, Nusbaum HC (2009) Reduced false memory after
sleep. Learning & Memory, 16(9), 509–513. http://doi.org/10.1101/lm.1500808
51.
Brainerd CJ, Reyna VF, Wright R, Mojardin AH (2003) Recollection rejection: false-memory editing in
children and adults. Psychological Review, 110(4), 762–784. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.4.
762 PMID: 14599242
52.
Roediger HL, McDermott KB (1995) Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in
lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(4), 803–814. http://
doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.4.803
53.
Huff MJ, Coane JH, Hutchison KA, Grasser EB, Blais JE (2012) Interpolated task effects on direct and
mediated false recognition: effects of initial recall, recognition, and the ironic effect of guessing. Journal
of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(6), 1720–1730. http://doi.org/10.
1037/a0028476 doi: 10.1037/a0028476 PMID: 22642236
54.
Mahon M, Crutchley A (2006) Performance of typically-developing school-age children with English as
an additional language on the British Picture Vocabulary Scales II. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 22(3), 333–351. http://doi.org/10.1191/0265659006ct311xx
55.
Oller DK, Eilers RE (2002) Language and Literacy in Bilingual Children. Multilingual Matters.
56.
Bialystok E, Craik FIM, Luk G (2008) Lexical access in bilinguals: Effects of vocabulary size and executive control. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 21(6), 522–538. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2007.07.
001
57.
De Houwer A, Bornstein MH, Putnick DL (2014) A bilingual–monolingual comparison of young children’s vocabulary size: Evidence from comprehension and production. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35
(06), 1189–1211. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716412000744
58.
Kroll JF, Michael E, Tokowicz N, Dufour R (2002) The development of lexical fluency in a second language. Second Language Research, 18(2), 137–171. http://doi.org/10.1191/0267658302sr201oa
59.
Greene JP (1997) A Meta-Analysis of the Rossell and Baker Review of Bilingual Education Research.
Bilingual Research Journal, 21, 103–22.
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0130069 June 24, 2015
19 / 20
Multilingual versus Monolingual Learning
60.
Rolstad K, Mahoney K, Glass GV (2005) The Big Picture: A Meta-Analysis of Program Effectiveness
Research on English Language Learners. Educational Policy, 19(4), 572–594. http://doi.org/10.1177/
0895904805278067
61.
Dimitropoulou M, Duñabeitia JA, Carreiras M (2011a) Masked translation priming effects with low proficient bilinguals. Memory & Cognition, 39(2), 260–275. http://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-010-0004-9
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0130069 June 24, 2015
20 / 20