Bilingual Language Switching in Naming: Asymmetrical Costs of Language Selection

Meuter, Renata; Allport, Alan

doi:10.1006/jmla.1998.2602

Cited by 977 publications

(1,418 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

131

Mentioning

1,199

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, Meuter and Allport (1999) reported such a finding. However, several imaging studies have found an opposite asymmetric pattern of language switching costs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Neural bases of asymmetric language switching in second-language learners: An ER-fMRI study

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using the ER-fMRI technique, the present study was designed to investigate the neural substrates of language switching among secondlanguage learners. Twelve Chinese college students who were learning English were scanned when they performed language switching tasks (naming pictures in their first [L1, Chinese] and second [L2, English] languages according to response cues). Compared to non-switching conditions, language switching elicited greater activation in the right superior prefrontal cortex (BA9/10/32), left middle and superior frontal cortex (BA8/9/46), and right middle cingulum and caudate (BA11). When the direction of switching was considered, forward switching (from L1 to L2), but not backward switching (from L2 to L1), activated several brain regions related to executive functions (i.e., bilateral frontal cortices and left ACC) relative to non-switching conditions. These results suggest that neural correlates of language switching differ depending on the direction of the switch and that there does not seem to be a specific brain area acting as a "language switch".

show abstract

“…Indeed, Meuter and Allport (1999) reported such a finding. However, several imaging studies have found an opposite asymmetric pattern of language switching costs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Neural bases of asymmetric language switching in second-language learners: An ER-fMRI study

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Using an experimental design modelled after previous language switching studies with unimodal bilinguals (Meuter & Allport, 1999;Costa & Santesteban, 2004), we investigated whether proficient hearing bilinguals of Spanish and LSE (lengua de signos española) exhibit switch costs when switching between their two languages, and whether such costs are modulated by the direction of language switching.…”

Section: The Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Language switching across modalities: Evidence from bimodal bilinguals.

Dias

Villameriel

Giezen

et al. 2017

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated whether language control during language production in bilinguals generalizes across modalities, and to what extent the language control system is shaped by competition for the same articulators. Using a cued language-switching paradigm, we investigated whether switch costs are observed when hearing signers switch between a spoken and a signed language. The results showed an asymmetrical switch cost for bimodal bilinguals on reaction time and accuracy, with larger costs for the (dominant) spoken language. Our findings suggest important similarities in the mechanisms underlying language selection in bimodal bilinguals and unimodal bilinguals, with competition occurring at multiple levels other than phonology.

show abstract

“…In production, switch costs have been extensively studied using cued switching paradigms (e.g., Meuter & Allport, 1999), where bilingual speakers are cued to name pictures in either their L1 or their L2. In pure language blocks, they consistently use only one of their languages, while in mixed blocks cues for each language are randomly interleaved, leading to a sequence of stay (e.g., Running head: JOINT SWITCHING 4 L1-L1 or L2-L2) or switch (e.g., L2-L1 or L1-L2) trials.…”

Section: Switch Costs In Production Comprehension and Across Modalimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In pure language blocks, they consistently use only one of their languages, while in mixed blocks cues for each language are randomly interleaved, leading to a sequence of stay (e.g., Running head: JOINT SWITCHING 4 L1-L1 or L2-L2) or switch (e.g., L2-L1 or L1-L2) trials. Usually, switch trials show longer naming times than stay trials in mixed blocks (i.e., a local switch cost; e.g., Meuter & Allport, 1999;Costa & Santesteban, 2004). Additionally, bilinguals take longer to name pictures on stay trials within mixed blocks than in pure blocks (e.g., Hernandez & Kohnert, 1999).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, correctly selecting an L2 item requires greater inhibition (of L1) than has to be applied (to L2) to correctly select an L1 lexical item; when bilinguals switch back to L1 this results in a larger switch cost because a greater level of inhibition must be overcome. Additionally, reversed language dominance effects (i.e., longer naming times for L1 than for L2 in mixed blocks; e.g., Meuter & Allport, 1999;Costa & Santesteban, 2004) suggest strong inhibition of L1 when bilinguals are mixing languages.In summary, theories of language switching in production have, perhaps unsurprisingly, emphasized the role of top-down control in language selection, in particular with regard to topdown inhibition of the non-target language. However, switch costs also occur in comprehension (e.g., Macnamara & Kushnir, 1971; Altarriba, Kroll, Sholl, & Rayner, 1996, Experiment 1;Thomas & Allport, 2000;Grainger & Beauvillain, 1987;Soares & Grosjean, 1984), and enhanced negativities in ERPs have been associated with language switches, both in response to single words (e.g., enhanced N250 for switches to L2 and enhanced N400 for switches to L1, Chauncey, Running head: JOINT SWITCHING 5 Grainger, & Holcomb, 2008), and during sentence comprehension (e.g., enhanced N400, Proverbio, Leoni, & Zani, 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

If you stay, it might be easier: Switch costs from comprehension to production in a joint switching task.

Gambi¹,

Hartsuiker²

2016

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Switching language is costly for bilingual speakers and listeners, suggesting that language control is effortful in both modalities. But are the mechanisms underlying language control similar across modalities? In this study, we attempted to answer this question by testing whether bilingual speakers incur a cost when switching to a different language than the one just used by their interlocutor. Pairs of unbalanced Dutch (L1) -English (L2) bilinguals took turns naming pictures in a pure Dutch, a pure English, and a mixed-language block. In the mixed block, one participant (Switching Participant) voluntarily switched between Dutch and English, whereas the other (NonSwitching Participant) named all pictures in Dutch. Within the mixed block, the Non-Switching participant took longer to name pictures when the Switching participant's response on the preceding trial had been in English rather than Dutch, and this local switch cost was larger the more the NonSwitching participant was proficient in English. Additionally, there was strong cross-person itemlevel interference: The Non-Switching participant named pictures more slowly in Dutch if the Switching participant had previously named those same pictures in English rather than Dutch.These findings indicate that comprehension of utterances produced by another speaker in L2 makes subsequent production of L1 utterances more costly. We interpret this as evidence that language control mechanisms are shared between comprehension and production, and specifically that bottom-up factors have a considerable influence on language selection processes in both modalities.Keywords: voluntary language switching; joint task; comprehension; production. Bilinguals often switch between their languages, especially during informal conversations with other bilinguals (e.g., Grosjean, 2001). However, switching language leads to slower responses in laboratory tasks, both when bilinguals produce a switch (e.g., Meuter & Allport, 1999) and when they comprehend a switch (e.g., Thomas & Allport, 2000). Showing that language switches are costly to process in comprehension and to execute in production is relevant for theories of bilingual dialogue since bilingual interlocutors tend to switch between their shared languages within their respective turns (e.g., Grosjean, 2001). But furthermore, in some bilingual conversations, each interlocutor consistently uses only one language (normally her first language, L1), so that switches occur between turns (if the two bilinguals have different L1's). Thus, bilinguals may also be confronted with switches from comprehension (of their interlocutor's utterance) to production (of their own utterance).The goal of the present study was to investigate whether comprehension of utterances produced by another speaker in one's second language (L2) makes subsequent production of L1 utterances more costly. As we explain below, the occurrence of cross-person switch costs is compatible with theories of bilingual lexical selection that assume shared language contro...

show abstract

Bilingual Language Switching in Naming: Asymmetrical Costs of Language Selection

Cited by 977 publications

References 36 publications

Neural bases of asymmetric language switching in second-language learners: An ER-fMRI study

Neural bases of asymmetric language switching in second-language learners: An ER-fMRI study

Language switching across modalities: Evidence from bimodal bilinguals.

If you stay, it might be easier: Switch costs from comprehension to production in a joint switching task.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About