The bilingual Loch Ness Monster raises its non-asymmetric head again-or, why bother with such cumbersome notions as validity and reliability? Comments on Evans et al. (2000).

All of the experimental studies of the past 25 years combined and the meta-analyses of their findings have not advanced our knowledge of the lateralization of language in bilingual speakers one bit. We are left with a clutter of inherently uninterpretable contradictory results. Successive studies do not contribute a single brick to the edifice or a single piece to the puzzle-only more confusion. study is no exception. So far, there has been no demonstration of the validity of any experimental paradigm claiming to measure degree of language laterality in bilingual speakers. Experimentation is pointless unless the nature of what is alleged to be lateralized is clearly defined and the validity of the measures employed has been established. Because of the lack of validity of the paradigms used in bilingual laterality studies, experiments and meta-analyses of their findings cannot have any scientific significance. Like their predecessors, Evans et al. pay lip service to a number of methodological problems, but ignore their implications and simply carry on anyway. The authors ought to demonstrate, rather than assume, that degree of visual half-field advantage for single words corresponds to degree of lateralization of any component of language (even if only of words).