Bilinguals’ two languages seem to be coactivated in parallel during reading, speaking, and listening. However, this coactivation in writing has been scarcely studied. This study aimed to assess orthographic coactivation during spelling-to-dictation. We took advantage of the presence of polyvalent graphemes in Spanish (one phonological representation with two orthographic specifications, e.g., / b /for both the graphemes v and b) to manipulate orthographic congruency. Spanish–English bilinguals were presented with cross-linguistic congruent (movement–movimiento) and incongruent words (government–gobierno) for a dictation task. The time and accuracy to initiate writing and to type the rest-of-word (lexical and sublexical processing) were recorded in both the native language (L1) and the second language (L2). Results revealed no differences between conditions in monolinguals. Bilinguals showed a congruency and language interaction with better performance for congruent stimuli, which was evident from the beginning of typing in L2. Language coactivation and lexical–sublexical interaction during bilinguals’ writing are discussed.

This study used a word dictation task to examine the influence of a variety of factors on word writing production: cognate status (cognate vs. non-cognate words), orthographic (OS) and phonological similarity (PS) within the set of cognate words, and language learning background [late bilinguals (LBs) with academic literacy and formal instruction in English and Spanish, and heritage speakers (HSs) with academic literacy and formal instruction only in English]. Both accuracy and reaction times for the first key pressed by participants (indicating lexical access), and the time required to type the rest of the word after the first keypress (indicating sublexical processing) was assessed. The results revealed an effect of PS on the dictation task particularly for the first keypress. That is, cognates with high PS were processed faster than cognates with low PS. In contrast to reading studies in which PS only revealed a significant effect when the OS between languages was high (O+P+ vs. O+P−), in the dictation to writing task, the phonology had a more general effect across all conditions, regardless of the level of OS. On the other hand, OS tended to be more influential for typing the rest of the word. This pattern is interpreted as indicating the importance of phonology (and PS in cognates) for initial lexical retrieval when the input is aural. In addition, the role of OS and PS during co-activation was different between groups probably due to the participants’ linguistic learning environment. Concretely, HSs were found to show relatively lower OS effects, which is attributed to the greater emphasis on spoken language in their Spanish language learning experiences, compared to the formal education received by the LBs. Thus, the study demonstrates that PS can influence lexical processing of cognates, as long as the task demands specifically require phonological processing, and that variations in language learning experiences also modulate lexical processing in bilinguals.

Learning a new language is an important goal that many individuals find difficult to achieve, particularly during adulthood. Several factors have related this variability to different extrinsic (learning condition, difficulty of the materials) and intrinsic (cognitive abilities) factors, but the interaction between them is barely known. In two experiments, participants learned English grammar rules in intentional (Experiment 1) or explicit (Experiment 2), and incidental learning-contexts. Overall, results of this study indicated that intentional-explicit conditions benefitted rule-learning, as compared to incidental conditions. This benefit was mainly present when participants were learning an easy-rule; explicit and incidental learning did not differ in the case of participants learning a difficult rule (Experiment 2). Moreover, individual differences in executive functioning predicted successful learning in interaction with difficulty. When learning an easy-rule, proactive control facilitated intentional learning. In contrast, when participants were learning a complex-rule, incidental learning was enhanced by lower involvement of proactive control.

The consistency between letters and sounds varies across languages. These differences have been proposed to be associated with different reading mechanisms (lexical vs. phonological), processing grain sizes (coarse vs. fine) and attentional windows (whole words vs. individual letters). This study aimed to extend this idea to writing to dictation. For that purpose, we evaluated whether the use of different types of processing has a differential impact on local windowing attention: phonological (local) processing in a transparent language (Spanish) and lexical (global) processing of an opaque language (English). Spanish and English monolinguals (Experiment 1) and Spanish-English bilinguals (Experiment 2) performed a writing to dictation task followed by a global-local task. The first key performance showed a critical dissociation between languages: the response times (RTs) from the Spanish writing to dictation task was modulated by word length, whereas the RTs from the English writing to dictation task was modulated by word frequency and age of acquisition, as evidence that language transparency biases processing towards phonological or lexical strategies. In addition, after a Spanish task, participants more efficiently processed local information, which resulted in both the benefit of global congruent information and the reduced cost of incongruent global information. Additionally, the results showed that bilinguals adapt their attentional processing depending on the orthographic transparency.

This article describes an intervention program to improve writing skills, intended to be a useful tool for everyday remedial work in primary school. The design was based on an initial review of the approaches most often used for writing intervention and identification of the main concerns for such intervention; namely, the use of direct and explicit instructions, the importance of feedback, recommended levels of intervention, the main content to consider, and use of motivating activities to get the student engaged or even to enjoy the intervention. All these considerations guided decision making about the appropriate features that would ensure an effective intervention in children with general and specific writing difficulties. The intervention program follows evidence-based practice strategies and may be useful for educational professionals in primary school, acknowledging that the program needs to be experimentally evaluated.