Language switching has been one of the main tasks to investigate language control, a process that restricts bilingual language processing to the target language. In the current review, we discuss the How (i.e., mechanisms) and Where (i.e., locus of these mechanisms) of language control in language switching. As regards the mechanisms of language control, we describe several empirical markers of language switching and their relation to inhibition, as a potentially important mechanism of language control. From this overview it becomes apparent that some, but not all, markers indicate the occurrence of inhibition during language switching and, thus, language control. In a second part, we turn to the potential locus of language control and the role of different processing stages (concept level, lemma level, phonology, orthography, and outside language processing). Previous studies provide evidence for the employment of several of these processing stages during language control so that either a complex control mechanism involving different processing stages and/or multiple loci of language control have to be assumed. Based on the discussed results, several established and new theoretical avenues are considered.

To investigate bilingual language control, prior language switching studies presented visual objects, which had to be named in different languages, typically indicated by a visual cue. The present study examined language switching of predictable responses by introducing a novel sequence-based language switching paradigm. In 4 experiments, sequential responses (i.e., weekdays, numbers or new sequences) and an alternating language sequence (e.g., L1-L1-L2-L2) were implemented, both of which were memory based. Our data revealed switch costs, showing that a language switch is associated with worse performance compared with a language repetition, and mixing costs, which constitutes the performance difference between pure and mixed language blocks, even while producing entirely predictable responses (i.e., language and concept). Additionally, we found these switch costs with overlearned and new sequences and found that switch costs were reduced with longer preparation time. The obtained data are consistent with a proactive interference account, such as the inhibitory control model.

The current study systematically examined the influence of sequential predictability of languages and concepts on language switching. To this end, 2 language switching paradigms were combined. To measure language switching with a random sequence of languages and/or concepts, we used a language switching paradigm that implements visual cues and stimuli. The other paradigm implements a fixed sequence of languages and/or concepts to measure predictable language switching. Four experiments that used these 2 paradigms showed that switch costs were smaller when both the language and concept were predictably known, whereas no overall switch cost reduction was found when just the language or concept was predictable. These results indicate that knowing both language and concept (i.e., response) can resolve language interference. However, interference resolution does not start solely based on the knowledge of which concept or language one has to produce. We discuss how existent models should be revised to accommodate these results.

Stimuli used in cued language switching studies typically consist of digits or pictures. However, the comparability between both stimulus types remains unclear. In the present study, we directly compared digit and picture naming in a German-English language switching experiment. Because digits represent a semantic group and contain many cognates, the experiment consisted of four conditions with different stimulus sets in each condition: digits, standard language switching pictures, pictures depicting cognates, and semantically-related pictures. Digit naming caused smaller switch costs than picture naming. The data suggest that this difference can be attributed to phonology. Both methodological and theoretical implications are discussed.

While several reviews provide an in-depth discussion on reactive language control, which is the language control process that is initiated when the non-target language disrupts the selection of target language words, few have touched on proactive language control, which is the language control process implemented as an anticipation of any non-target language interference disrupting the selection of target language words. In the current review, three prominent markers of proactive language control are discussed (i.e., the reversed language dominance effect, language-mixing costs, and the blocked language-order effect). Based on these three markers, it appears that proactive language control can be implemented to mainly restrict interference from the first language during bilingual language production, but is typically absent during bilingual language comprehension. The literature also implies that proactive language control might be partly domain general. With respect to the underlying mechanism of proactive language control, there are some indications that proactive language control relies on inhibition, but no unequivocal evidence has been provided so far.

No abstract

Bilinguals rely on cognitive control mechanisms like selective activation and inhibition of lexical entries to prevent intrusions from the non-target language. We present cross-linguistic evidence that these mechanisms also operate in bidialectals. Thirty-two native German speakers who sometimes use the Öcher Platt dialect, and thirty-two native English speakers who sometimes use the Dundonian Scots dialect completed a dialect-switching task. Naming latencies were higher for switch than for non-switch trials, and lower for cognate compared to non-cognate nouns. Switch costs were symmetrical, regardless of whether participants actively used the dialect or not. In contrast, sixteen monodialectal English speakers, who performed the dialect-switching task after being trained on the Dundonian words, showed asymmetrical switch costs with longer latencies when switching back into Standard English. These results are reminiscent of findings for balanced vs. unbalanced bilinguals, and suggest that monolingual dialect speakers can recruit control mechanisms in similar ways as bilinguals.

No abstract