In an ideal world, reactions and answers to ethical problems should be consistent irrespective of the medium through which the question or situation is presented. Yet recent research has shown that the same dilemma may elicit different moral judgements depending on the language in which it has been described.
In Gawinkowska, Paradowski and Bilewicz (2013), using a covert 2×2×2 experiment where 61 bilinguals were asked to translate (L1↔L2) a passage peppered with swearwords, we showed that while the results ostensibly corroborate the Emotion-Related Language Choice theory (according to which bilinguals find their L2 an easier medium of conveying content that evokes strong emotional reactivity; Kim & Starks 2008), the effect was only observed in the case of ethnophaulisms, that is expletives directed at social (out)groups. This indicates that the key factor modulating response strength is not so much the different emotional power associated with the respective languages, but social and cultural norms.
Long cultural learning and socialisation make expressions in L1 highly prone to normative influences, whereas using a foreign language exempts the speaker from these (whether our own or socially imposed) norms and limitations. It transpires that switching to a foreign language during decision-making may not only reduce emotionally-driven responses and political correctness biases, but also promote candid deliberative processes (e.g. rational cost-benefit considerations). However, it has not been investigated whether the same kind of contrast holds for L2 vs L3; in other words, whether all foreign languages acquired later in life as subject to the relaxation of social normativity. This is what we set out to verify in the current proposal.