On the overlap between bilingual language control and domain-general executive control

Branzi, Francesca M.; Calabria, Marco; Boscarino, Maria Lucrezia; Costa, Albert

doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.03.001

Cited by 112 publications

(101 citation statements)

References 75 publications

(120 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…). Imaging studies have further confirmed its role in control of two languages in keeping track of the target language and in the control of lexical interference in monolingual speakers during a verbal Stroop task . In contrast to the ACC activity, which seems to be related to domain‐general conflict monitoring, left caudate activity may be more related to language proficiency: the lower the proficiency of a language is, the more left caudate activity is necessary to control that specific language.…”

Section: Deconstructing the Brain Basis Of Bilingual Language Controlmentioning

confidence: 88%

Neural basis of bilingual language control

Calabria

Costa

Green

et al. 2018

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Self Cite

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acquiring and speaking a second language increases demand on the processes of language control for bilingual as compared to monolingual speakers. Language control for bilingual speakers involves the ability to keep the two languages separated to avoid interference and to select one language or the other in a given conversational context. This ability is what we refer with the term "bilingual language control" (BLC). It is now well established that the architecture of this complex system of language control encompasses brain networks involving cortical and subcortical structures, each responsible for different cognitive processes such as goal maintenance, conflict monitoring, interference suppression, and selective response inhibition. Furthermore, advances have been made in determining the overlap between the BLC and the nonlinguistic executive control networks, under the hypothesis that the BLC processes are just an instantiation of a more domain-general control system. Here, we review the current knowledge about the neural basis of these control systems. Results from brain imaging studies of healthy adults and on the performance of bilingual individuals with brain damage are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Deconstructing the Brain Basis Of Bilingual Language Controlmentioning

confidence: 88%

Neural basis of bilingual language control

Calabria

Costa

Green

et al. 2018

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Self Cite

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Direct comparison of aging effects on cued task and language switching has revealed different patterns of aging effects in each domain (Calabria et al, 2015; Weissberger et al, 2012). In the literature comparing task and language switching there is growing consensus that there is relatively little overlap in the underlying processing mechanisms that support switches across domains (Branzi, Calabria, Boscarino, & Costa, 2016; Calabria, et al, 2012; Gollan, Kleinman, & Wierenga, 2014; Prior & Gollan, 2013). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grammatical constraints on language switching: Language control is not just executive control

Gollan

Goldrick

2016

Journal of Memory and Language

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study investigated the roles of grammaticality and executive control on bilingual language selection by examining production speed and failures of language control, or intrusion errors (e.g., saying el instead of the), in young and aging bilinguals. Production of mixed-language connected speech was elicited by asking Spanish-English bilinguals to read aloud paragraphs that had mostly grammatical (conforming to naturally occurring constraints) or mostly ungrammatical (haphazard mixing) language switches, and low or high switching rate. Mixed-language speech was slower and less accurate when switch-rate was high, but especially (for speed) or only (for intrusion errors) if switches were also ungrammatical. Executive function ability (measured with a variety of tasks in young bilinguals in Experiment 1, and aging bilinguals in Experiment 2), slowed production and increased intrusion rate in a generalized fashion, but with little or no interaction with grammaticality. Aging effects appeared to reflect reduced monitoring ability (evidenced by a lower rate of self-corrected intrusions). These results demonstrate robust effects of grammatical encoding on language selection, and imply that executive control influences bilingual language production only after sentence planning and lexical selection.

show abstract

“…The degree of domain-specificity of the different EF components - especially switching and inhibition - has been recently questioned and tested using both behavioral and neuroimaging measures, and results tend to indicate that the domain-generality assumption is debatable at best (86–89). Behaviourally, the performances in linguistic and non-linguistic switching tasks do not correlate with each other (e.g.,86,87,89), similarly to linguistic and non-linguistic inhibition tasks (such as the n-2 task, see (90). While it seems that there is a strong overlap in the brain areas responsible for linguistic and non-linguistic switching, whether or not domain-general inhibition and language control respond to the same brain mechanisms is still unclear(86,88,91,92).…”

Section: The Impact Of Bilingualism On Executive Functions and Workinmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of bilingualism on executive functions and working memory in young adults

Antón¹,

Carreiras²,

Duñabeitia³

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

21 28015 Madrid, SPAIN 22 eanton@nebrija.es 23 Telephone: +34677570001 24 42 consideration different perspectives in the domain-specificity of the executive functions and 43 working memory. 44 45 46 Keywords: Bilingualism; executive functioning; working memory. 47 93 seemed noticeable only when the environment was demanding enough (see 1,24, for similar 94 conclusions; but see 18, for a discussion on the impurity of the use of global RTs as a measure of 95 monitoring). Even though these two classic perspectives argued for an advantage in concrete 96 aspects of EF (i.e., monitoring or inhibition), the mixed results prevent researchers to draw strong 97 conclusions as to which EF component was enhanced by bilingualism. Instead, it has been recently 5 98argued that a failure of bilinguals to inhibit their attention to the non-target language requires a 99 more effortful involvement of EF, causing a more general and unified EF enhancement (23). 100The bilingual advantage, however, is not only one of the most popular research topics in the 101 field of bilingualism nowadays, but also one of the most controversial ones (see 26,27, among 102 others, as an example of the growing debate regarding its existence). Some concerns have been 103 raised regarding the results and interpretation of the bilingual advantage (26,(28)(29)(30)(31). In a nutshell, 104 these authors argue that the bilingual advantage that has been shown in the previous literature is 105 actually a consequence of uncontrolled external factors, small sample sizes and task-dependent 106 effects. Actually, there are many external factors that have been shown to have a direct impact in 107EF performance, such as participants' socio-economic status (SES), immigrant status or ethnicity 108 background (32,33). Importantly, these factors tend to differ between bilingual and monolingual 109 populations in certain populations. For example, immigrants -who tend to be bilinguals -show 110 better morbidity and mortality outcomes than non-immigrants around the world (34-39) which is 111 known as "the healthy immigrant" effect. Furthermore, they also display a higher educational 112 profile or IQ level (40-42) than nonimmigrants. Even if it is debatable whether these features are a 113 cause or a consequence of being an immigrant, it seems that individuals who get to pass the 114 immigration screening of host countries display better physical and psychological conditions (43). 115If those factors are not equal between monolinguals and bilinguals at test, they might potentially 116 cause differences between groups in EF, and there would be no way of disentangling the potential 117 effects of bilingualism from those produced by the uncontrolled factors. Upon reviewing the 118 existing literature showing a bilingual advantage, one could find that the abovementioned concern 119 seems to be the rule more than the exception for the majority of the studies. We observe studies in 120 which SES was not controlled for (13,44), in which comparisons are made between monolinguals 12...

show abstract

On the overlap between bilingual language control and domain-general executive control

Cited by 112 publications

References 75 publications

Neural basis of bilingual language control

Neural basis of bilingual language control

Grammatical constraints on language switching: Language control is not just executive control

The impact of bilingualism on executive functions and working memory in young adults

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About