A different perspective on domain-general language control using the flanker task

Abstract

Bilingual models diverge in whether they assume that language control is domain general. Most studies that investigated this claim focused on bilingual language production and relied on the comparison between language switching and task switching. In the current study, we set out to investigate whether language control is domain general in a different context (i.e., bilingual language comprehension) and with a different paradigm (i.e., the flanker task). To this end, we let French-English bilinguals perform a bilingual (flankers are words from the same or different language as the target word) and a non-linguistic (numerical magnitude with digits) flanker task. The results showed that there was no difference in the language congruency effect between participants with a high and low non-linguistic congruency effect. These results indicate that there is no substantial overlap in the mechanisms involved in comprehension-based language control and executive control.

Assessing the Evidence for Asymmetrical Switch Costs and Reversed Language Dominance Effects – A Meta-Analysis

“…The same holds true for asymmetrical switch costs, which has been assumed to be a measure for reactive inhibition. It is notable that other experimental approaches provide consistent evidence for more specific, reactive inhibition in the sequential control of language processing ( Philipp et al, 2007 ; Philipp & Koch, 2009 ) beyond asymmetrical switch costs (e.g., Branzi et al, 2016 ; Declerck et al, 2018 , 2019 ; Eben & Declerck, 2019 ; Philipp et al, 2007 ). For instance, with a paradigm assessing switching among more than two languages, more convincing evidence for the role of inhibition has been observed in language switching studies ( Babcock & Vallesi, 2015 ; Branzi et al, 2016 ; Declerck, Thoma, et al, 2015 ; Declerck & Philipp, 2018 ; Guo et al, 2013 ; Philipp et al, 2007 ; Philipp & Koch, 2009 ).…”

The sensitivity to context modulates executive control: Evidence from Malayalam–English bilinguals

“…The bilingual mind being cognitively flexible accomplishes this effortlessly in any communicative situation (Bialystok, 2017). Further, we know from many neuroimaging studies that language control uses the same neural networks as non-linguistic cognitive control (Abutalebi & Green, 2007, 2008; Abutalebi, Della Rosa, Ding, Weekes, Costa & Green, 2013; Anderson, Chung-Fat-Yim, Bellana, Luk & Bialystok, 2018; De Baene, Duyck, Brass & Carreiras, 2015; but see Branzi, Calabria, Boscarino & Costa 2016; Calabria, Branzi, Marne, Hernandez & Costa, 2015; Declerck, Eben & Grainger, 2019).…”

No Bilingual Benefits Despite Relations Between Language Switching and Task Switching

“…Neuroimaging studies moreover suggest that brain areas known to be related to cognitive control are also active during bilingual language use ( Abutalebi and Green, 2008 ; Guo et al, 2011 ; Luk et al, 2012 ; Abutalebi et al, 2013 ; Weissberger et al, 2015 ), suggesting that there is overlap between mechanisms of bilingual language control and general cognitive control. However, several studies did not find relationships between language switching and tasks of general cognitive control, such task-switching tasks (e.g., Calabria et al, 2011 , 2015 ; Branzi et al, 2016 ), a flanker task ( Declerck et al, 2019 ) or a Simon task ( Jylkkä et al, 2018 ). Other evidence suggests that the frequency of language switching in real life affects performance on domain-general cognitive measures.…”