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

Abstract

Bilinguals have the unique ability to produce utterances that switch between languages. Most language switching research has focused on isolated, unrelated items, which emphasizes separation of the languages. Fewer studies examined the cognitive and neural mechanisms of switching languages in natural discourse. The present study examined the effect of codeswitching direction on the comprehension of intra-sentential codeswitching in Spanish-English bilinguals, using self-paced reading behavioral measurements (Experiment 1) and electroencephalography (EEG) measurements (Experiment 2), analyzed via both event-related potentials (ERPs) and time-frequency analysis (TFR). Reading times showed a significant switching cost for codeswitched sentences in both codeswitching directions, though switching costs were somewhat higher into the dominant language than into the weaker language. ERPs showed that codeswitched as compared to non-switched words elicited a late positivity, but only when switching from the dominant into the weaker language, not in the reverse direction. TFRs showed complementary and converging results: switches into the weaker language resulted in a power decrease in lower beta band while switches into the dominant language resulted in a power increase in theta band. These multi-method findings provide novel insights into neurocognitive resources engaged in the comprehension of intra-sentential codeswitches related to sentence-level restructuring processes to activate and access the weaker language.

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

“…Initial switch costs occurred for both participants reading in their L2 (Experiment 1) and those reading in their L1 (Experiment 2). This finding is in line with many previous studies demonstrating that language switching is associated with a measurable processing cost due to demands associated with suppressing the non-target language or reactivating the target language in the face of persistent activation from the previous language (Bobb & Wodniecka, 2013;Bultena et al, 2015a;2015b;Declerck & Philipp, 2015;Gollan, Schotter, Gomez, Murillo, & Rayner, 2014;Philipp, Gade, & Koch, 2007;Litcofsky & Van Hell, 2017;Meuter & Allport, 1999;Verhoef, Roelofs, & Chwilla, 2009;Wang, 2009). In our data, switch costs continued to influence downstream processing at a later point in the sentence, particularly in relation to the magnitude of cross-language activation measured by homograph effects.…”

“…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).…”

Are all code-switches processed the same? Examining semantic v. language unexpectancy

“…Yet, the processing of code-switched speech remains understudied in comparison. Broadly speaking, much of the early work on code-switching indicates that, just like in task switching (Monsell 2003) and cued-language switching (Meuter and Allport 1999), integrating code-switches in realtime processing leads to greater switch costs relative to unilingual processing (Altarriba, Kroll, Sholl and Rayner 1996;Litcofsky and Van Hell 2017). Nevertheless, recent available literature has revealed that switch costs may be attenuated under certain social or linguistic contexts (Beatty-Martínez and Dussias 2017; Fricke, Kroll and Dussias 2016;Guzzardo Tamargo, Valdés Kroff and Dussias 2016;Valdés Kroff, Guzzardo Tamargo, and Dussias 2018).…”

“…The current psycholinguistics studies of code-switching highlight three broad themes of study: (1) Its relationship to other switching phenomena such as cued language switching (e.g., Meuter and Allport 1999;Gollan and Ferreira 2009) and non-linguistic switching tasks (e.g., Monsell 2003); (2) Whether the integration of code-switching in production and comprehension leads to processing costs (e.g., Beatty-Martínez and Dussias 2017; Fernandez, Litcofsky, and Van Hell 2019;Litcofsky and Van Hell 2017); and (3) The cognitive and grammatical processes that help bilinguals rapidly integrate code-switched speech in production and comprehension (e.g., Adler, Valdés Kroff and Novick in press;Fricke et al 2016;Gullifer and Titone 2019;Guzzardo Tamargo et al 2016;Kootstra, Van Hell and Dijkstra 2012;Valdés Kroff, Dussias, Gerfen, Perrotti and Bajo 2017). These three themes are inter-related in that the natural parallel between general switching behavior and the robust switch costs reported from the cued language switching paradigm leads to the logical prediction that code-switching should similarly evince costly integration.…”

“…Building from this seminal work, Van Hell and colleagues have continued to explore the individual-level factors that may contribute to the emergence of the N400 and the LPC as they relate to the processing of code-switches. Litcofsky and Van Hell (2017) examined how language dominance and language switch direction affects the processing of code-switches in Spanish-English bilinguals. Interestingly, they found that code-switches into a bilingual's less dominant language led to an increased LPC, which they interpreted as reflective of sentence-level reanalysis.…”