{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02435897435897436, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.6752136752136755, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Multilink for bilingual language production

A major benefit of computational models is their ability to demonstrate which theoretical assumptions are truly necessary to explain a pattern of data. Dijkstra, Wahl, Buytenhuijs, van Halem, Al-jibouri, de Korte, and Rekké (in press) have impressively shown with Multilink that it is possible to account for a range of findings from bilingual lexical decision, word naming, and forward and backward translation tasks with an integrated lexicon, without lateral connections between translation equivalents, and without inhibition. In this commentary, we consider the applicability of the current model to other multilingual language production tasks, and note where the model's assumptions might need revision as its scope is expanded.