Task planning and its effect on the complexity of second language (L2) written production have been studied extensively. However, the results of these studies are inconclusive, and at times contradictory, potentially as a result of variation in metrics of linguistic complexity. This study is an extension of earlier research syntheses and quantitative meta-analyses on the effects of planning on oral and written L2 production. It examines the identification and selection of linguistic complexity metrics in previous research on planning and its subsequent effects on the linguistic complexity of written L2 production. This research-focused synthesis of studies surveys construct definitions and operational definitions of linguistic complexity in the research domain and provides an overview of rationales for metric selection in the included studies. Methodological implications for future research are discussed in light of the findings.

Previous studies have investigated whether lexical access in sentence reading is language-selective using interlingual homographs, but have yielded inconsistent results. In this study, event-related potentials were measured when Korean-Chinese bilinguals read the Chinese version of false-cognates (e.g., “放学”, after school) in Chinese sentence contexts that biased the meaning towards the Korean version (e.g., “방학”, school vacation). With the match words as the baseline, Chinese monolinguals elicited similar N400 and P600/LPC effects when reading the false-cognates and mismatch words, whereas Korean-Chinese bilinguals produced a smaller N400 effect for false-cognates than for mismatch words, indicating activation of the Korean version. The P600/LPC effect was observed for false-cognates in bilinguals, reflecting increased integration difficulties or enhanced cognitive control. The study supported the nonselective view and proposed a theoretical extension of the BIA+ model, claiming that bilingual interactive activation might be mediated by shared morphemic representations between languages.

Based on the rigorous systematicity assumed in systematic review methodology, it is no surprise that a prominent review such as Macaro et al.'s (2018) on English medium instruction (EMI) has been used as a basis for subsequent EMI research. However, in this article, we explore the ways in which the focus of systematic reviews can be necessarily narrowed and how this poses a risk to research when readers perceive them as offering definitive conclusions on all aspects of a subject. This article addresses two significant trends in applied linguistics. First, systematic review – that is, the use of formalised systems when reviewing literature – has become far more prominent and therefore more impactful than traditional reviews as a methodology (Chong & Plonsky, 2023). Second, there has been an explosive growth in interest in EMI research (Curle et al., 2024). There are further parallels between the two trends, given that both systematic review and EMI are umbrella terms that cover a wide range of research types. As we will see, there is perhaps more disagreement over how to conduct a systematic review than lay readers would suspect. Similarly, EMI is a broader field of research than appears in its most prominent systematic review article. Studies into EMI have explored policy, language learning, the effect on subject knowledge, attitudes towards EMI, ownership of English, and so on. Thus, while EMI is a growingly recognised field of study, it is not always clear what it means to ‘study EMI’.

The classical language switching paradigm using arbitrary cues to indicate the language to speak in has revealed switching between languages comes at a cost (i.e., switch cost) and makes one slower in the first than in the second language (i.e., reversed language dominance). However, arbitrary cues can create artificial requirements not present during everyday language interactions. Therefore, we investigated whether simulating elements of real-life conversations with question cues (‘Co?’ versus ‘What?’) facilitates language switching in comparison to the classical paradigm (Experiment 1: red versus blue outline; Experiments 2 and 3: low versus high tone). We revealed a dissociation between the two indices of language control: (1) question cues, compared to arbitrary cues, reduced switch costs but (2) did not modulate (in Experiment 1) or increase the reversed language dominance (Experiments 2 and 3). We propose that this conversational switching paradigm could be used as a conceptually more ‘true’ measure of language control.

We examined how relative language dominance impacts Spanish–English bilinguals’ crosslinguistic and nonlinguistic interference resolution abilities during a web-based Spanish picture-word interference naming task and a subsequent spatial Stroop paradigm, and the relationship between the two. Results show the expected interference and facilitation effects in the online setting across both tasks. Additionally, participants with greater English dominance had larger within-language, Spanish facilitation and marginally larger crosslinguistic (English to Spanish) interference effects reflected on accuracy performance. Similarly, participants with greater English dominance had larger nonlinguistic congruency facilitation effects. Our results are in line with other studies finding a relation between linguistic and nonlinguistic cognitive control. Correlated reaction time performance between the linguistic and nonlinguistic paradigms suggests that overcoming crosslinguistic interference may be partly based on cognitive control processes used outside of language. Modulations by language dominance underline the importance of accounting for relative language proficiency in bilinguals’ two languages when studying bilingualism.

This study investigated the impact of reading statements in a second language (L2) versus the first language (L1) on core knowledge confusion (CKC), superstition, and conspiracy beliefs. Previous research on the Foreign Language Effect (FLE) suggests that using an L2 elicits less intense emotional reactions, promotes rational decision-making, reduces risk aversion, causality bias and superstition alters the perception of dishonesty and crime, and increases tolerance of ambiguity. Our results do not support the expected FLE and found instead an effect of L2 proficiency: Participants with lower proficiency exhibited more CKC, were more superstitious and believed more in conspiracy theories, regardless of whether they were tested in L1 or L2. The study emphasises the importance of considering L2 proficiency when investigating the effect of language on decision-making and judgements: It—or related factors—may influence how material is judged, contributing to the FLE, or even creating an artificial effect.