Language control in bilingual language comprehension: evidence from the maze task

Abstract

Most empirical evidence on switch costs is based on bilingual production and interpreted as a result of inhibitory control. It is unclear whether such a top–down control process exists in language switching during comprehension. This study investigates whether a non-lexical switch cost is involved in reading code-switched sentences and its relation to language dominance with cross-script bilingual readers. A maze task is adopted in order to separate top–down inhibitory effects, from lexical effects driven by input. The key findings are: (1) switch costs were observed in both L1–L2 and L2–L1 directions; (2) these effects were driven by two mechanisms: lexical activation and inhibitory control; (3) language dominance modulated the lexical effects, but did not affect the inhibitory effects. These results suggest that a language control mechanism is involved in bilingual reading, even though the control process is not driven by selection as in production. At the theoretical level, these results lend support for the Inhibitory Control model during language switching in comprehension; while the BIA/BIA+ model needs to incorporate a top–down control mechanism to be able to explain the current findings.

Switching direction affects switching costs: Behavioral, ERP and time-frequency analyses of intra-sentential codeswitching

“…Shadowing latencies (i.e., the delay between word onset in the original recording and the participant's reproduction of the word) showed that switching from L1 into L2 was more costly than switching from L2 into L1, thereby replicating the pattern observed in Bultena et al's (2015a) self-paced reading study. Both studies showed that switching to the weaker L2 is harder than switching to the dominant L1 (an asymmetry also observed by Wang, 2015), and Bultena et al (2015a;2015b) proposed that intra-sentential switching costs are driven by how quickly representations in a language can be activated. They claim that relative proficiency in the L1 and L2, rather than inhibitory control, underlie intra-sentential switching costs in comprehension.…”

“…In an effort to determine the cognitive processes associated with switching within meaningful sentences, recent studies used psycholinguistic methods to study intra-sentential codeswitching in two switching directions (Bultena, Dijkstra, & Van Hell, 2015a;2015b;Dijkstra, Van Hell, & Brenders, 2015;Wang, 2015). For example, Wang (2015) asked English-Chinese bilinguals to perform a maze task (Forster, Guerrera, & Elliot, 2009) in which they have to choose one of two alternative words presented on the computer screen (e.g., "The …. rain/were but/fell clock/silently") in order to move through the sentence (correct selection: "The rain fell silently").…”

“…The maze task used by Wang (2015) requires item-based selection of the correct word, and discarding and inhibiting the incorrect alternative, while incrementally building a sentence.…”

“…The Dutch-English bilinguals demonstrated a switching cost that was of similar magnitude when switching from L1 Dutch to L2 English as when switching from L2 English to L1 Dutch. Wang (2015) and Dijkstra et al (2015) studied switching costs associated with a lexical switch, i.e., a single word presented in a language different from the sentence. Bultena et al (2015a;2015b) studied codeswitching in sentences that fully switched into the other language.…”

The impact of a momentary language switch on bilingual reading: Intense at the switch but merciful downstream for L2 but not L1 readers

“…A vast body of evidence shows that the exogenous requirement to switch languages during word naming or when reading has consequences for language processing, notably in the form of language switching costs (e.g., Altarriba, Kroll, Sholl, & Rayner, 1996;Bultena, Dijkstra, & Van Hell, 2015a;2015b;Costa & Santesteban, 2006;Declerck & Philipp, 2015;Gollan & Ferreira, 2009;Litcofsky & Van Hell, 2017;Meuter & Allport, 1999;Wang, 2015; for a review, see Bobb & Wodniecka, 2013). Switch costs in language production, particularly asymmetric switch costs that are larger into the dominant language, are the hallmark evidence for control accounts and are frequently interpreted as evidence for the inhibition of a previously activated non-target language, typically the L1 (e.g., Abutalebi & Green, 2008;Bobb & Wodniecka, 2013;Green, 1998;Gollan, Schotter, Gomez, Murillo, & Rayner, 2014;Meuter & Allport, 1999).…”