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

Abstract

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.

Second Language Proficiency Modulates the Dependency of Bilingual Language Control on Domain-General Cognitive Control

“…The scores were the percentage of correct answers, such that the higher the scores, the greater the English proficiency ( Allan, 2004 ; Lu et al, 2017 ; Liu et al, 2021 ). In addition, a language history questionnaire (LHQ) was used to assess the linguistic background of participants ( Schwieter and Sunderman, 2008 ; Declerck et al, 2021 ).…”

“…In the recent decade, an increasing number of studies focused on an essential research question: what is the relationship between language control and cognitive control (e.g., Linck et al, 2012 ; de Bruin et al, 2014 ; Calabria et al, 2015 ; Liu et al, 2016 ; Declerck et al, 2017 ; Jylkkä et al, 2018 , 2020 ; Li et al, 2021 ). Some studies reported significant correlations (or covariation) of bilinguals’ performances in cognitive control tasks on the language switching costs and claimed overlapped mechanisms for language control and cognitive control ( Linck et al, 2012 ; de Bruin et al, 2014 ; Liu et al, 2016 ; Declerck et al, 2017 , 2021 ; Li et al, 2021 ). For instance, Linck et al (2012) recruited 56 English-French-Spanish trilinguals to perform a language switching task and a Simon task.…”

The concept of inhibition in bilingual control.

“…Furthermore, studies comparing language switching and task switching indicate that there is no straightforward mapping of the processes involved in these two paradigms (e.g., Calabria et al, 2012, 2015; Declerck et al, 2017, 2021a; Jylkkä, Lehtonen, Lindholm, et al, 2018; Stasenko et al, 2017; Vaughn et al, 2021; see also Bialystok et al, 2004; Paap et al, 2017; Paap & Greenberg, 2013). For instance, Declerck et al (2017) found no switch cost difference when directly comparing language switching and task switching, whereas Calabria et al (2015) found no age effect on task switch costs but a decrease of language switch costs with increasing age.…”

When left is right: The role of typological similarity in multilinguals’ inhibitory control performance

“…Given the strong link between language control and domaingeneral inhibitory control (Bialystok et al, 2012;Declerck et al, 2021;Festman et al, 2010), this argument could be applied to our study: our Italian-Spanish and Dutch-Spanish speakers were late language learners of Spanish who had a B1/B2 proficiency level in Spanish. We therefore postulate that the difference in proficiency between the native language (i.e., Italian or Dutch) and the non-native language Spanish was too substantial to elicit a typological similarity effect on inhibitory control performance, even at intermediate B1/B2 proficiency levels.…”