Are similar control processes implemented during single and dual language production? Evidence from switching between speech registers and languages

Declerck, Mathieu; Ivanova, Iva; Grainger, Jonathan; Duñabeitia, Jon Andoni

doi:10.1017/s1366728919000695

Cited by 22 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The long CSI used in the current study was longer than most studies that manipulated CSI length (e.g., [6,12,25,[33][34][35][36]), with the exception of Lavric et al [37] that used a long CSI of 1500ms. We chose to use no CSI, instead of a very short CSI (e.g., 100ms CSI), along the lines of previous studies [35,38], as this would provide a more extreme difference between CSI conditions (i.e., preparation vs. no preparation relative to more vs. less preparation).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is there proactive inhibitory control during bilingual and bidialectal language production?

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The bilingual language control literature generally assumes that cross-language interference resolution relies on inhibition of the non-target language. A similar approach has been taken in the bidialectal language control literature. However, there is little evidence along these lines for proactive language control, which entails a control process that is implemented as an anticipation of any cross-language interference. To further investigate the possibility of proactive inhibitory control, we examined the effect of language variety preparation time, by manipulating the cue-to-stimulus interval, on parallel language activation, by manipulating cognate status. If proactive language control relies on inhibition, one would expect less parallel language activation (i.e., a smaller cognate facilitation effect) with increased proactive inhibitory control (i.e., a long cue-to-stimulus interval). This was not the case with either bilinguals or bidialectals. So, the current study does not provide evidence for proactive inhibitory control during bilingual and bidialectal language production.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is there proactive inhibitory control during bilingual and bidialectal language production?

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It should be noted that the possible language-specific control processes implemented during our task switching paradigm would be control processes implemented during single language processing, as participants were always using the same language in the task switching blocks. Previous studies investigating the control processes during single and mixed language processing have shown that they can be different (Abutalebi et al, 2008;Declerck et al, 2017;Declerck et al, 2020). So, comparing within-and between-language switch costs does not necessarily mean that the same control processes are used.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Connection Between Language Control and Executive Control—An ERP Study

Declerck

Meade

Midgley

et al. 2021

Neurobiology of Language

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Models vary in the extent to which language control processes are domain general. Those that posit that language control is at least partially domain general insist on an overlap between language control and executive control at the goal level. To further probe whether or not language control is domain general, we conducted the first event-related potential (ERP) study that directly compares language-switch costs, as an index of language control, and task-switch costs, as an index of executive control. The language switching and task switching methodology were identical, except that the former required switching between languages (English or Spanish) whereas the latter required switching between tasks (color naming or category naming). This design allowed us to directly compare control processes at the goal level (cue-locked ERPs) and at the task performance level (picture-locked ERPs). We found no significant differences in the switch-related cue-locked and picture-locked ERP patterns across the language and task switching paradigms. These results support models of domain-general language control.

show abstract

“…Language switching costs are likely to persist even when speakers are given ample time to prepare (e.g., CSI up to 800 ms in Costa & Santesteban, 2004; Declerck, Ivanova, Grainger, & Duñabeitia, 2020; CSI up to 1000 ms in Philipp et al., 2007; CSI up to 1175 ms in Graham & Lavric, 2021; CSI up to 1500 ms in Fink & Goldrick, 2015; Verhoef et al., 2009), but also when the language to use next is predictable (i.e., when the same language sequence is used throughout a task such as in Declerck et al., 2015; Declerck, Philipp, & Koch, 2013; Festman, Rodriguez‐Fornells, & Münte, 2010; Jackson, Swainson, Cunnington, & Jackson, 2001; 2004) or when the speakers voluntarily switch language (e.g., de Bruin, Samuel, & Duñabeitia, 2018; Gollan & Ferreira, 2009; Gollan, Kleinman, & Wierenga, 2014; Gross & Kaushanskaya, 2015). Yet, a recent finding seems to challenge the hypothesis that speakers are unable to fully prepare for a language switch (Mosca & Clahsen, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When Language Switching is Cost‐Free: The Effect of Preparation Time

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has shown that language switching is costly, and that these costs are likely to persist even when speakers are given ample time to prepare. The aim of this study was to determine whether there are cognitive limitations to speakers' ability to prepare for a switch, or whether a new language can be prepared in advance and any cost to switch language eliminated. To explore this, language switching costs were measured in a group of Dutch-English (L1-L2) bilinguals who named pictures in their two languages while the preparation time was manipulated. The participants were given either no time to prepare (cue to stimulus interval, CSI: 0 ms), or some time to prepare, for the target language (CSI: 250, 500, and 800 ms). The results revealed that when speakers had no time to prepare, language switching was costly. However, when preparation time was provided, switching costs disappeared. This suggests that there might be no cognitive limitations to the ability to prepare for a language switch, and that, provided enough preparation time, the effort to switch language could be eliminated. This finding might also explain why normal code-switched conversations seem effortless, as speakers typically have ample time to prepare for the language switch.

show abstract

Are similar control processes implemented during single and dual language production? Evidence from switching between speech registers and languages

Cited by 22 publications

References 43 publications

Is there proactive inhibitory control during bilingual and bidialectal language production?

Is there proactive inhibitory control during bilingual and bidialectal language production?

On the Connection Between Language Control and Executive Control—An ERP Study

When Language Switching is Cost‐Free: The Effect of Preparation Time

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About