MIND your language(s):recognizing minority, indigenous, non-standard(ized) and dialect variety usage in "monolinguals"

While Psychology research in general has been criticized for oversampling from WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) populations, Psycholinguistics has a problem with conducting a large amount of research on a relatively small number of languages. Yet even within WEIRD environments, the experiences of speakers of Minority, Indigenous, Non-standard(ized), and Dialect (MIND) varieties are not always captured alongside their use of a more prestigious standard language.This position piece will provide a case study of one such variety: Scots, a Germanic variety spoken in Scotland, which is often considered “bad English.” However, its speakers display cognitive characteristics of bilingualism despite often regarding themselves as monolingual due to sociolinguistic factors. Such factors include social prestige and language ideology, as well as linguistic distance. In doing so, this paper introduces a new acronym encouraging researchers to MIND their language – by developing more inclusive ways of capturing the linguistic experiences of MIND speakers, to move away from binary distinctions of “bilingual” and “monolingual,” and to recognize that not all varieties are afforded the status of language, nor do many multilinguals consider themselves as anything other than monolingual

Is it easier to use one language variety at a time, or mix them? An investigation of voluntary language switching with bidialectals

Previous language production research with bidialectals has provided evidence for similar language control processes as during bilingual language production. In the current study, we aim to further investigate this claim by examining bidialectals with a voluntary language switching paradigm. Research with bilinguals performing the voluntary language switching paradigm has consistently shown two effects. First, the cost of switching languages, relative to staying in the same language, is similar across the two languages. The second effect is more uniquely connected to voluntary language switching, namely a benefit when performing in mixed language blocks relative to single language blocks, which has been connected to proactive language control. If a similar pattern could be observed with bidialectals in a voluntary language switching paradigm, then this would provide additional evidence in favor of similar control processes underlying bidialectal and bilingual language production

No evidence for a mixing benefit—a registered report of voluntary dialect switching

Previous language production research with bidialectals has provided evidence for similar language control processes as during bilingual language production. In the current study, we aimed to further investigate this claim by examining bidialectals with a voluntary language switching paradigm. Research with bilinguals performing the voluntary language switching paradigm has consistently shown two effects. First, the cost of switching languages, relative to staying in the same language, is similar across the two languages. The second effect is more uniquely connected to voluntary language switching, namely a benefit when performing in mixed language blocks relative to single language blocks, which has been connected to proactive language control. While the bidialectals in this study also showed symmetrical switch costs, no mixing effect was observed. These results could be taken as evidence that bidialectal and bilingual language control are not entirely similar

No evidence for reduced Simon cost in elderly bilinguals and bidialectals

We explored whether a bilingual advantage in executive control is associated with differences in cultural and ethnic background associated with the bilinguals’ immigrant status, and whether dialect use in monolinguals can also incur such an advantage. Performance on the Simon task in older non-immigrant (Gaelic-English) and immigrant (Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Malay, Punjabi, Urdu-English) bilinguals was compared with three groups of older monolingual English speakers, who were either monodialectal users of the same English variety as the bilinguals or were bidialectal users of a local variety of Scots. Results showed no group differences in overall reaction times as well as in the Simon effect thus providing no evidence that an executive control advantage is related to differences in cultural and ethnic background as was found for immigrant compared to non-immigrant bilinguals, nor that executive control may be improved by use of dialect. We suggest the role of interactional contexts and bilingual literacy as potential explanations for inconsistent findings of a bilingual advantage in executive control

Can monolinguals be like bilinguals? Evidence from dialect switching

Bilinguals rely on cognitive control mechanisms like selective activation and inhibition of lexical entries to prevent intrusions from the non-target language. We present cross-linguistic evidence that these mechanisms also operate in bidialectals. Thirty-two native German speakers who sometimes use the Öcher Platt dialect, and thirty-two native English speakers who sometimes use the Dundonian Scots dialect completed a dialect-switching task. Naming latencies were higher for switch than for non-switch trials, and lower for cognate compared to non-cognate nouns. Switch costs were symmetrical, regardless of whether participants actively used the dialect or not. In contrast, sixteen monodialectal English speakers, who performed the dialectswitching task after being trained on the Dundonian words, showed asymmetrical switch costs with longer latencies when switching back into Standard English. These results are reminiscent of findings for balanced vs. unbalanced bilinguals, and suggest that monolingual dialect speakers can recruit control mechanisms in similar ways as bilinguals

Individual differences in the discrimination of novel speech sounds: effects of sex, temporal processing, musical and cognitive abilities

This study examined whether rapid temporal auditory processing, verbal working memory capacity, non-verbal intelligence, executive functioning, musical ability and prior foreign language experience predicted how well native English speakers (N = 120) discriminated Norwegian tonal and vowel contrasts as well as a non-speech analogue of the tonal contrast and a native vowel contrast presented over noise. Results confirmed a male advantage for temporal and tonal processing, and also revealed that temporal processing was associated with both non-verbal intelligence and speech processing. In contrast, effects of musical ability on non-native speech-sound processing and of inhibitory control on vowel discrimination were not mediated by temporal processing. These results suggest that individual differences in non-native speech-sound processing are to some extent determined by temporal auditory processing ability, in which males perform better, but are also determined by a host of other abilities that are deployed flexibly depending on the characteristics of the target sounds

Is there proactive inhibitory control during bilingual and bidialectal language production?

The bilingual language control literature generally assumes that cross-language interference resolution relies on inhibition of the non-target language. A similar approach has been taken in the bidialectal language control literature. However, there is little evidence along these lines for proactive language control, which entails a control process that is implemented as an anticipation of any cross-language interference. To further investigate the possibility of proactive inhibitory control, we examined the effect of language variety preparation time, by manipulating the cue-to-stimulus interval, on parallel language activation, by manipulating cognate status. If proactive language control relies on inhibition, one would expect less parallel language activation (i.e., a smaller cognate facilitation effect) with increased proactive inhibitory control (i.e., a long cue-to-stimulus interval). This was not the case with either bilinguals or bidialectals. So, the current study does not provide evidence for proactive inhibitory control during bilingual and bidialectal language production

Language control in regional dialect speakers – monolingual by name, bilingual by nature?

While research on bilingual language processing is sensitive to different usage contexts, monolinguals are still often treated as a homogeneous control group, despite frequently using multiple varieties that may require engagement of control mechanisms during lexical access. Adapting a language-switching task for speakers of (Scottish) Standard English and Orcadian Scots, we demonstrate switch cost asymmetries with longer naming latencies when switching back into Orcadian. This pattern, which is reminiscent of unbalanced bilinguals, suggests that Orcadian is the dominant variety of these participants - despite the fact they might be regarded as English monolinguals because of sociolinguistic factors. In conjunction with the observed mixing cost and cognate facilitation effect (indicative of proactive language control and parallel language activation, respectively), these findings show that ‘monolinguals’ need to be scrutinised for routine use of different varieties to gain a better understanding of whether and how mechanisms underlying their lexical access resemble those of bilinguals