This study opens a project that empirically investigates the Plurilingual Creativity paradigm. This paradigm expands the Multilingual Creative Cognition by making shifts in the conceptualization of the phenomena of multilingualism and creativity, respectively. We examined how multilingual and multicultural factors can contribute to divergent thinking. Online data collection included assessments of language repertoire, multicultural experience, intercultural competence, and divergent thinking. A series of regression analyses obtained evidence for the direct contribution of language repertoire, intercultural competence components and multicultural experience to divergent thinking. In addition, language repertoire was found to moderate the link between management of intercultural interaction and fluency, multicultural experience and both flexibility and originality in divergent thinking. These findings emphasize the importance of considering the contribution of plurilingual/pluricultural factors of language repertoire, multicultural experience, and intercultural competence to creativity. Thereby, these findings provide empirical support for the conceptual shift toward plurilingual creativity.

The ‘new NAFTA’ agreement between Canada, Mexico, and the United States maintained the system for binational panel judicial review of antidumping and countervailing duty determinations of domestic government agencies. In US–Mexico disputes, this hybrid system brings together Spanish and English-speaking lawyers from the civil and the common law to solve legal disputes applying domestic law. These panels raise issues regarding potential bicultural, bilingual, and bijural (mis)understandings in legal reasoning. Do differences in language, legal traditions, and legal cultures limit the effectiveness of inter-systemic dispute resolution? We analyze all of the decisions of NAFTA panels in US–Mexico disputes regarding Mexican antidumping and countervailing duty determinations and the profiles of the corresponding panelists. This case study tests whether one can actually comprehend the ‘other’. To what extent can a common law, English-speaking lawyer understand and apply Mexican law, expressed in Spanish and rooted in a distinct legal culture?