scholarly journals Parallel language activation and inhibitory control in bimodal bilinguals

Cognition ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 141 ◽  
pp. 9-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcel R. Giezen ◽  
Henrike K. Blumenfeld ◽  
Anthony Shook ◽  
Viorica Marian ◽  
Karen Emmorey
Keyword(s):  
Inhibitory Control ◽  
Parallel Language ◽  
Language Activation

scholarly journals Is there proactive inhibitory control during bilingual and bidialectal language production?

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (9) ◽  
pp. e0257355
Author(s):  
Mathieu Declerck ◽  
Elisabeth Özbakar ◽  
Neil W. Kirk
Keyword(s):  
Inhibitory Control ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Control Process ◽  
Target Language ◽  
Facilitation Effect ◽  
Stimulus Interval ◽  
Parallel Language ◽  
Language Control ◽  
Language Activation ◽  
Cross Language

The bilingual language control literature generally assumes that cross-language interference resolution relies on inhibition of the non-target language. A similar approach has been taken in the bidialectal language control literature. However, there is little evidence along these lines for proactive language control, which entails a control process that is implemented as an anticipation of any cross-language interference. To further investigate the possibility of proactive inhibitory control, we examined the effect of language variety preparation time, by manipulating the cue-to-stimulus interval, on parallel language activation, by manipulating cognate status. If proactive language control relies on inhibition, one would expect less parallel language activation (i.e., a smaller cognate facilitation effect) with increased proactive inhibitory control (i.e., a long cue-to-stimulus interval). This was not the case with either bilinguals or bidialectals. So, the current study does not provide evidence for proactive inhibitory control during bilingual and bidialectal language production.

scholarly journals Is there proactive inhibitory control during bilingual and bidialectal language production?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathieu Declerck ◽  
Elisabeth Özbakar ◽  
Neil William Kirk
Keyword(s):  
Inhibitory Control ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Control Process ◽  
Target Language ◽  
Facilitation Effect ◽  
Stimulus Interval ◽  
Parallel Language ◽  
Language Control ◽  
Language Activation ◽  
Cross Language

The bilingual language control literature generally assumes that cross-language interference resolution relies on inhibition of the non-target language. A similar approach has been taken in the bidialectal language control literature. However, there is little evidence along these lines for proactive language control, which entails a control process that is implemented as an anticipation of any cross-language interference. To further investigate the possibility of proactive inhibitory control, we examined the effect of language variety preparation time, by manipulating the cue-to-stimulus interval, on parallel language activation, by manipulating cognate status. If proactive language control relies on inhibition, one would expect less parallel language activation (i.e., a smaller cognate facilitation effect) with increased proactive inhibitory control (i.e., a long cue-to-stimulus interval). This was not the case with either bilinguals or bidialectals. So, the current study does not provide evidence for proactive inhibitory control during bilingual and bidialectal language production.

scholarly journals Bilingual lexical access: A dynamic operation modulated by word-status and individual differences in inhibitory control

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 537-554
Author(s):  
ARUNA SUDARSHAN ◽  
SHARI R. BAUM
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Inhibitory Control ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Simon Task ◽  
Word Type ◽  
Target Language ◽  
Lexical Selection ◽  
Lexical Representations ◽  
Language Activation ◽  
Cross Language

A question central to bilingualism research is whether representations from the contextually inappropriate language compete for lexical selection during language production. It has been argued recently that the extent of interference from the non-target language may be contingent on a host of factors. In two studies, we investigated whether factors such as word-type and individual differences in inhibitory control capacities influence lexical selection via a cross-modal picture-word interference task and a non-linguistic Simon task. Highly proficient French–English bilinguals named non-cognate and cognate target pictures in L2 (English) while ignoring auditory distractors in L1 (French) and L2. Taken together, our results demonstrated that lexical representations from L1 are active and compete for selection when naming in L2, even in highly proficient bilinguals. However, the extent of cross-language activation was modulated by both word-type and individual differences in inhibitory control capacities.

scholarly journals Parallel language activation during word processing in bilinguals: Evidence from word production in sentence context

2013 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 258-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
PETER A. STARREVELD ◽  
ANNETTE M. B. DE GROOT ◽  
BART M. M. ROSSMARK ◽  
JANET G. VAN HELL
Keyword(s):  
Word Recognition ◽  
Picture Naming ◽  
Word Processing ◽  
Word Production ◽  
Target Language ◽  
Parallel Language ◽  
Production Studies ◽  
Co Activation ◽  
Language Activation ◽  
Low Constraint

In two picture-naming experiments we examined whether bilinguals co-activate the non-target language during word production in the target language. The pictures were presented out-of-context (Experiment 1) or in visually presented sentence contexts (Experiment 2). In both experiments different participant groups performed the task in Dutch, their native language (L1), or in English, their second language (L2). The pictures’ names were Dutch–English cognates or non-cognates, the cognate effect serving as the marker of activation of the non-target language. In Experiment 2 we also examined the effect of sentence constraint. In both experiments a cognate effect occurred, but it was modulated by language and sentence constraint: The effect was larger in L2 than in L1, larger with low-constraint sentences than with high-constraint sentences, and disappeared in the high-constraint L1 condition. These results extend earlier bilingual word-recognition and out-of-context production studies, suggesting that also during word production in context, co-activation of the non-target language occurs.

scholarly journals Cross-language lexical processes and inhibitory control

2008 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 349-374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jared A. Linck ◽  
Noriko Hoshino ◽  
Judith F. Kroll
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Inhibitory Control ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Naming Task ◽  
Context Word ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Language Activation ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Memory Resources ◽  
Cross Language

Many recent studies demonstrate that both languages are active when bilinguals and second language (L2) learners are reading, listening, or speaking one language only. The parallel activity of the two languages has been hypothesized to create competition that must be resolved. Models of bilingual lexical access have proposed an inhibitory control mechanism to effectively limit attention to the intended language (e.g., Green, 1998). Critically, other recent research suggests that a lifetime of experience as a bilingual negotiating the competition across the two languages confers a set of benefits to cognitive control processes more generally (e.g., Bialystok, Craik, Klein, & Viswanathan, 2004). However, few studies have examined the consequences of individual differences in inhibitory control for performance on language processing tasks. The goal of the present work was to determine whether there is a relation between enhanced executive function and performance for L2 learners and bilinguals on lexical comprehension and production tasks. Data were analyzed from two studies involving a range of language processing tasks, a working memory measure, and also the Simon task, a nonlinguistic measure of inhibitory control. The results demonstrate that greater working memory resources and enhanced inhibitory control are related to a reduction in cross-language activation in a sentence context word naming task and a picture naming task, respectively. Other factors that may be related to inhibitory control are identified. The implications of these results for models of bilingual lexical comprehension and production are discussed.

A few suggestions on broadening the cross-linguistic relevance of the Multilink model

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (04) ◽  
pp. 691-692 ◽  
Author(s):  
RAMESH KUMAR MISHRA
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Proficiency ◽  
Connectionist Model ◽  
Activation Model ◽  
Second Language Proficiency ◽  
Parallel Language ◽  
Orthographic Similarity ◽  
The World ◽  
Interactive Activation ◽  
Language Activation

In their keynote article, Dijkstra, Wahl, Buytenhuijs, van Halem, Al-jibouri, De Korte & Rekke (2018) propose a new model that aims to integrate and take care of the possible shortcomings of both the Revised Hierarchical Model (RHM, Kroll & Stewart, 1994) and Bilingual Interactive Activation model (BIA and several of its later versions, Dijkstra & Van Heuven, 1998). They begin their proposal by examining the objections/issues raised by Brysbaert and Duyck (2010) on RHM. It is well known that RHM is a developmental, production-based model which mostly predicted performance on translation-based tasks albeit with different predictions for translation recognition vs. production with regard to second language proficiency; BIA being a connectionist model of bilingual word recognition majorly emphasized on language non –selective selection and parallel language activation. Having been developed in and around Dutch (English as the second language), it took cognate status and orthographic similarity between words very seriously. Cognate status and orthographic similarity as factors won't count much as theoretical constructs around which a hypothesis could be developed if we look round the diverse types of orthographies and phonologies we find around the world.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document