Time course of inhibitory processes in bilingual language processing

Abstract

This study examines the time course of inhibitory processes in Spanish-English bilinguals, using the procedure described in Macizo, Bajo, and Martín. Bilingual participants were required to decide whether pairs of English words were related. Critical word pairs contained a word that shared the same orthography across languages but differed in meaning (interlingual homographs such as pie, meaning foot in Spanish). In Expts 1 and 2, participants were slower to respond to homographs presented along with words related to the Spanish meaning of the homograph as compared to control words. This result agrees with the view that bilinguals non-selectively activate their two languages irrespective of the language they are using. In addition, bilinguals also slowed their responses when the English translation of the Spanish homograph meaning was presented 500 ms after responding to homographs (Expt 1). This result suggests that bilinguals inhibited the irrelevant homograph meaning. However, the inhibitory effect was not observed in Expt 2 when the between-trial interval was fixed to 750 ms which suggests that inhibition decayed over time.

Neural signatures of language co-activation and control in bilingual spoken word comprehension

“…In the current study, we did not find behavioral differences between the homophone-related and homophone-unrelated conditions, which contrasts with bilingual visual word studies in which behavioral differences were observed (Durlik et al, 2016; Macizo et al, 2010; Martín et al, 2010). The current study constructed homophone word pairs in a very similar way to these behavioral studies (homophones with auditory presentation vs. homographs with visual presentation); therefore, a similar pattern of behavioral results was expected.…”

“…This unexpected finding could be due to differences in simultaneous and sequential presentation across visual and auditory modalities. During the simultaneous presentation, bilinguals may have experienced difficulty resolving the interference because the source of the interference – homographs – was constantly shown on the screen before a decision was made (Durlik et al, 2016; Macizo et al, 2010; Martín et al, 2010). In the sequential presentation, the interval between the two words provided a buffering zone that made semantic interference manageable; therefore, no conflicts were detected by behavioral measures.…”

“…In two similar behavioral studies (Macizo, Bajo, & Martín, 2010; Martín, Macizo, & Bajo, 2010), Spanish-English bilinguals showed slower response times to homograph word pairs (e.g., pie-toe, “pie” meaning “foot” in Spanish) when compared to unrelated word pairs (e.g., log-toe). This result indicated that bilinguals co-activated the Spanish meaning of “pie,” which interfered with their semantic judgment in English.…”

“…This parallel activation has been shown to facilitate lexical access (e.g., Hoshino & Kroll, 2008; Van Hell & Dijkstra, 2002), as well as to interfere with language processing in bilingual comprehension (e.g., Dijkstra, Timmermans, & Schriefers, 2000; Lagrou, Hartsuiker, & Duyck, 2011). To date, research has shown that when bilinguals process visual words, they experience language co-activation and use inhibitory control to resolve competition from the non-target language (Durlik, Szewczyk, Muszyński, & Wodniecka, 2016; Macizo, Bajo, & Martín, 2010; Martín, Macizo, & Bajo 2010). However, it is less clear to what extent bilinguals draw on these same processing mechanisms during spoken word comprehension.…”

“…In a follow-up study to Macizo et al (2010), Martín et al (2010) manipulated the intervals between homograph word pairs (e.g., pie-toe) and translation equivalent word pairs (e.g., foot-hand) and found that the inhibitory control effect disappeared between 500 ms and 750 ms. However, a recent study using a similar design suggests that inhibitory processes in bilingual visual word comprehension could last more than 1000 ms, at least when bilinguals have limited proficiency in their L2 (Durlik et al, 2016).…”