Tracking lexical access and code switching in multilingual participants with different degrees of simultaneous interpretation expertise

Abstract

With the worldwide increase in people speaking more than one language, a better understanding of the behavioural and neural mechanisms governing lexical selection, lexical access in multiple languages and code switching has attracted widespread interest from several disciplines. Previous studies documented higher costs when processing a non-native (L2) than a native (L1) language or when switching from L2 to L1. However, studies on auditory language reception are still scarce and did not take into account the degree of switching experience. Accordingly, in the present study, we combined behavioural and electrophysiological measurements to assess lexical access in L1 and L2 as well as code switching in professional simultaneous interpreters, trainee interpreters, foreign language teachers and Anglistics students, while the participants performed a bilingual auditory lexical decision task. The purpose of this study was to expand the knowledge on code switching in auditory language processing and examine whether the degree of simultaneous interpretation experience might reduce switching costs. As a main result, we revealed that L2 compared to L1 trials, as well as switch compared to nonswitch trials, generally resulted in lower accuracies, longer reaction times and increased N400 amplitudes in all groups of participants. Otherwise, we did not reveal any influence of switching direction and interpretation expertise on N400 parameters. Taken together, these results suggest that a late age of L2 acquisition leads to switching costs, irrespective of proficiency level. Furthermore, we provided first evidence that simultaneous interpretation training does not diminish switching costs, at least when focusing on lexical access.

Worldwide Trend Analysis of Psycholinguistic Research on Code Switching Using Bibliometrix R-tool

“…These findings could contribute to a deeper understanding of how language proficiency and language experience shape code-switching behavior. Another noteworthy theme is lexical access (Boos et al, 2022; Gullifer et al, 2013), which explores how bilingual speakers retrieve and access words when switching between languages. Understanding the underlying factors that influence lexical access during code switching is crucial for comprehending the intricate processes of language switching and bilingual language processing.…”

“…In addition to the above, several other highly frequent keywords, such as lexical access (Boos et al, 2022), costs (Heredia & Altarriba, 2001), cognitive control (Rodriguez-Fornells et al, 2012), and selection (Olson, 2013), also play significant roles in code-switching research and deserve further investigation. These keywords demonstrate the multidimensional nature of code switching, incorporating various cognitive and linguistic processes that interplay during language switching.…”

Simultaneous interpreting, brain aging, and cognition

“…Since language switching is a central part of the interpreting process, one would expect this highly trained skill to translate into a behavioral advantage, especially in experimental conditions requiring to shift between linguistic (Aparicio et al 2017;Boos et al 2022;Dottori et al 2020;Elmer et al 2010;Proverbio et al 2004) or even non-linguistic codes (Van de Putte et al 2018;Yudes et al 2011). In this context, Aparicio et al (2017) investigated L1-to-L2 and L2-to-L1 switching mechanisms in SIs and highly proficient bilinguals, while participants had to select to which language visually presented French and German words belong to.…”

“…Furthermore, bilinguals but not SIs demonstrated longer RTs in response to switch compared to non-switch trials. In another language switching study, Boos et al (2022) used a mixed (English and German, from L1-to-L2 and L2-to-L1) and unmixed lexical decision task where SIs, trainee interpreters, foreign language teachers, and Anglistics students had to decide whether successively presented auditory items were words or pseudowords. The RT but not the accuracy data yielded a group x switch interaction effect that originated from larger differences between the two conditions in professional SIs compared to Anglistic students.…”