Language selection in bilingual speech: Evidence for inhibitory processes

Abstract

Although bilinguals rarely make random errors of language when they speak, research on spoken production provides compelling evidence to suggest that both languages are active when only one language is spoken (e.g., Poulisse, 1999). Moreover, the parallel activation of the two languages appears to characterize the planning of speech for highly proficient bilinguals as well as second language learners. In this paper we first review the evidence for cross-language activity during single word production and then consider the two major alternative models of how the intended language is eventually selected. According to language-specific selection models, both languages may be active but bilinguals develop the ability to selectively attend to candidates in the intended language. The alternative model, that candidates from both languages compete for selection, requires that crosslanguage activity be modulated to allow selection to occur. On the latter view, the selection mechanism may require that candidates in the non-target language be inhibited. We consider the evidence for such an inhibitory mechanism in a series of recent behavioral and neuroimaging studies.

Electrophysiology of cross-language interference and facilitation in picture naming

“…According to the between-language competition view, words in both languages compete for selection, but speakers manage to select the words in the target language by selectively boosting their activation (De Bot, 2004) or by inhibiting words in the other language (e.g., Green, 1998;Kroll et al, 2006Kroll et al, , 2008. This view readily accounts for the between-language semantic interference but it is challenged by the translation facilitation effect.…”

“…In the literature, three main views have been proposed about how bilingual speakers accomplish this feat (see Hall, 2011, for an extensive review). According to the betweenlanguage competition view, words in both languages are activated and compete for selection, but speakers select the words in the target language by selectively boosting their activation (De Bot, 2004) or by inhibiting words in the other language (e.g., Green, 1998;Kroll, Bobb, Misra, & Guo, 2008;Kroll, Bobb, & Wodniecka, 2006). According to the within-language competition view, words in both languages are activated but only words in the target language compete for selection (Costa, 2005;Roelofs, 1998Roelofs, , 2003Roelofs, , 2010Roelofs, Dijkstra, & Gerakaki, 2013).…”

Morphological priming survives a language switch

“…Meuter & Allport, 1999). A frequently observed pattern in these studies is that it is harder to switch back from L2 to L1 than from L1 to L2, presumably due to larger inhibition needed to suppress L1 when speaking in L2 (for a recent review see Kroll, Bobb, Misra, & Guo, 2008).…”

The second language interferes with picture naming in the first language: evidence for L2 activation during L1 production

“…However, it is still debated whether lexical selection, too, is non-specific with respect to language. Some studies suggest that lexical entries / representations from both languages compete for selection, and that to resolve this competition, the non-target language is actively inhibited (Abutalebi & Green, 2007;Costa, Colomé, Gómez, & Sebastián-Gallés, 2003;Green, 1998;Hermans et al, 1998;Jacobs, Fricke, & Kroll, 2016;Kroll, Bobb, Misra, & Guo, 2008;Misra, Guo, Bobb, & Kroll, 2012;Spalek, Hoshino, Wu, Damian, & Thierry, 2014), while others advocate language-specific lexical selection in which no competition for selection arises between two languages (Colomé, 2001;Costa, Miozzo, & Caramazza, 1999). More recently, it has been proposed that lexical selection in bilingual language production may be thought of as a dynamic process, in which language-selectivity can be achieved temporarily depending on a number of variables both specific to the speakers involved (e.g.…”