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 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 What Are the Modulators of Cross-Language Syntactic Activation During Natural Reading?

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naomi Vingron ◽  
Pauline Palma ◽  
Jason W. Gullifer ◽  
Veronica Whitford ◽  
Deanna Friesen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Eye Tracking ◽  
Original Data ◽  
Target Language ◽  
English Reading ◽  
Language Effects ◽  
Reading Experiment ◽  
Language Activation ◽  
Cross Language ◽  
Multiple Languages

Bilinguals juggle knowledge of multiple languages, including syntactic constructions that can mismatch (e.g., the red car, la voiture rouge; Mary sees it, Mary le voit). We used eye-tracking to examine whether French-English (n = 23) and English-French (n = 21) bilingual adults activate non-target language syntax during English L2 (Experiment 1) and L1 (Experiment 2) reading, and whether this differed from functionally monolingual English reading (Experiment 3, n = 26). People read English sentences containing syntactic constructions that were either partially shared across languages (adjective-noun constructions) or completely unshared (object-pronoun constructions). These constructions were presented in an intact form, or in a violated form that was French-consistent or French-inconsistent. For both L2 and L1 reading, bilinguals read French-consistent adjective-noun violations relatively quickly, suggesting cross-language activation. This did not occur when the same people read object-pronoun constructions manipulated in the same manner. Surprisingly, English readers exposed to French in their lifetime but functionally monolingual, also read French-consistent violations for adjective-noun constructions faster, particularly for some items. However, when we controlled for item differences in the L2 and L1 reading data, cross-language effects observed were similar to the original data pattern. Moreover, individual differences in L2 experience modulated both L2 and L1 reading for adjective-noun constructions, consistent with a cross-language activation interpretation of the data. These findings are consistent with the idea of syntactic cross-language activation during reading for some constructions. However, for several reasons, cross-language syntactic activation during comprehension may be overall more variable and challenging to investigate methodologically compared to past work on other forms of cross-language activation (i.e., single words).

scholarly journals Lexical selection, cross-language interaction, and switch costs in habitually codeswitching bilinguals

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 569-589 ◽  
Author(s):  
SOUAD KHEDER ◽  
EDITH KAAN
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Response Times ◽  
Target Language ◽  
Lexical Selection ◽  
Semantic Constraints ◽  
Switch Costs ◽  
Number Of Factors ◽  
Language Context ◽  
Cross Language ◽  
Ecological Methodology

Bilinguals dynamically activate lexical items in one or both languages depending on a number of factors. We explored the interaction effects of semantic constraints, language context, and L2-proficiency on cross-language interaction and switch costs in bilinguals who habitually codeswitch between Algerian Arabic (AA) and French. We recorded response times to French cognates and non-cognates embedded in auditory AA or French sentences. High proficiency bilinguals could restrict selection to the target language regardless of the language context. In lower proficiency bilinguals, however, selection was specific to the target language in non-switching contexts but was nonspecific in switching contexts where cross-language interaction yielded inhibitory and facilitatory cognate effects. Results of this study therefore suggest that lexical selection in codeswitching bilinguals is dynamic and is dependent on proficiency, semantic constraints and language context. This within-subject study using auditory stimuli contributes towards a more ecological methodology in investigating sentence processing in codeswitching bilinguals.

Lexical entrenchment and cross-language activation: Two sides of the same coin for bilingual reading across the adult lifespan

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
VERONICA WHITFORD ◽  
DEBRA TITONE
Keyword(s):  
Word Frequency ◽  
Word Processing ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Neighborhood Density ◽  
Target Language ◽  
Frequency Effects ◽  
Adult Lifespan ◽  
Age Related ◽  
Language Activation ◽  
Cross Language

We used eye movement measures of paragraph reading to examine whether two consequences of bilingualism, namely, reduced lexical entrenchment (i.e., reduced lexical quality and accessibility arising from less absolute language experience) and cross-language activation (i.e., simultaneous co-activation of target- and non-target-language lexical representations) interact during word processing in bilingual younger and older adults. Specifically, we focused on the interaction between word frequency (a predictor of lexical entrenchment) and cross-language neighborhood density (a predictor of cross-language activation) during first- and second-language reading. Across both languages and both age groups, greater cross-language (and within-language) neighborhood density facilitated word processing, indexed by smaller word frequency effects. Moreover, word frequency effects and, to a lesser extent, cross-language neighborhood density effects were larger in older versus younger adults, potentially reflecting age-related changes in lexical accessibility and cognitive control. Thus, lexical entrenchment and cross-language activation multiplicatively influence bilingual word processing across the adult lifespan.

scholarly journals Psycholinguistic, cognitive, and neural implications of bimodal bilingualism

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
KAREN EMMOREY ◽  
MARCEL R. GIEZEN ◽  
TAMAR H. GOLLAN
Keyword(s):  
Control Process ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Unique Form ◽  
Motor Systems ◽  
Lexical Information ◽  
Semantic Level ◽  
Lexical Representations ◽  
Language Activation ◽  
Cross Language ◽  
The Brain

Bimodal bilinguals, fluent in a signed and a spoken language, exhibit a unique form of bilingualism because their two languages access distinct sensory-motor systems for comprehension and production. Differences between unimodal and bimodal bilinguals have implications for how the brain is organized to control, process, and represent two languages. Evidence from code-blending (simultaneous production of a word and a sign) indicates that the production system can access two lexical representations without cost, and the comprehension system must be able to simultaneously integrate lexical information from two languages. Further, evidence of cross-language activation in bimodal bilinguals indicates the necessity of links between languages at the lexical or semantic level. Finally, the bimodal bilingual brain differs from the unimodal bilingual brain with respect to the degree and extent of neural overlap for the two languages, with less overlap for bimodal bilinguals.

Individual differences in inhibitory control relate to bilingual spoken word processing

2013 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
JULIE MERCIER ◽  
IRINA PIVNEVA ◽  
DEBRA TITONE
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Eye Movements ◽  
Inhibitory Control ◽  
Word Processing ◽  
Spoken Word Recognition ◽  
Spoken Word ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Language Competition ◽  
Spoken Word Processing ◽  
Cross Language

We investigated whether individual differences in inhibitory control relate to bilingual spoken word recognition. While their eye movements were monitored, native English and native French English–French bilinguals listened to English words (e.g., field) and looked at pictures corresponding to the target, a within-language competitor (feet), a French cross-language competitor (fille “girl”), or both, and unrelated filler pictures. We derived cognitive and oculomotor inhibitory control measures from a battery of inhibitory control tasks. Increased cognitive inhibitory control was linked to less within-language competition for all bilinguals, and less cross-language competition for native French low-English-exposure bilinguals. Increased oculomotor inhibitory control was linked to less within-language competition for all native French bilinguals, and less cross-language competition for native French low-English-exposure bilinguals. The results extend previous findings (Blumenfeld & Marian, 2011), and suggest that individual differences in inhibitory control relate to bilingual spoken word processing.

scholarly journals Language co-activation and lexical selection in bimodal bilinguals: Evidence from picture–word interference

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 264-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARCEL R. GIEZEN ◽  
KAREN EMMOREY
Keyword(s):  
American Sign Language ◽  
Time Course ◽  
Lexical Selection ◽  
Interference Effects ◽  
Semantic Interference ◽  
Priming Effects ◽  
Phonological Representations ◽  
Co Activation ◽  
Language Activation ◽  
Cross Language

We used picture–word interference (PWI) to discover a) whether cross-language activation at the lexical level can yield phonological priming effects when languages do not share phonological representations, and b) whether semantic interference effects occur without articulatory competition. Bimodal bilinguals fluent in American Sign Language (ASL) and English named pictures in ASL while listening to distractor words that were 1) translation equivalents, 2) phonologically related to the target sign through translation, 3) semantically related, or 4) unrelated. Monolingual speakers named pictures in English. Production of ASL signs was facilitated by words that were phonologically related through translation and by translation equivalents, indicating that cross-language activation spreads from lexical to phonological levels for production. Semantic interference effects were not observed for bimodal bilinguals, providing some support for a post-lexical locus of semantic interference, but which we suggest may instead reflect time course differences in spoken and signed production in the PWI task.

scholarly journals The impact of individual differences on cross-language activation of meaning by phonology

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 323-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deanna C. Friesen ◽  
Veronica Whitford ◽  
Debra Titone ◽  
Debra Jared
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Language Proficiency ◽  
Executive Control ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
English Word ◽  
Word Knowledge ◽  
Language Activation ◽  
Cross Language ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Target Words

We investigated how individual differences in language proficiency and executive control impact cross-language meaning activation through phonology. Ninety-six university students read English sentences that contained French target words. Target words were high- and low-frequency French interlingual homophones (i.e., words that share pronunciation, but not meaning across langauges; mot means ‘word’ in French and sounds like ‘mow’ in English) and matched French control words (e.g., mois – ‘month’ in French). Readers could use the homophones’ shared phonology to activate their English meanings and, ultimately, make sense of the sentence (e.g., Tony was too lazy to mot/mois the grass on Sunday). Shorter reading times were observed on interlingual homophones than control words, suggesting that phonological representations in one language activate cross-language semantic representations. Importantly, the magnitude of the effect was modulated by word frequency, and several participant-level characteristics, including French proficiency, English word knowledge, and executive control ability.

scholarly journals The Role of Orthotactics in Language Switching: An ERP Investigation Using Masked Language Priming

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aina Casaponsa ◽  
Guillaume Thierry ◽  
Jon Andoni Duñabeitia
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Access ◽  
First Language ◽  
Language Switching ◽  
Lexical Representations ◽  
Priming Paradigm ◽  
Language Activation ◽  
Language Context ◽  
Cross Language ◽  
Detection Mechanisms ◽  
Language Detection

It is commonly accepted that bilinguals access lexical representations from their two languages during language comprehension, even when they operate in a single language context. Language detection mechanisms are, thus, hypothesized to operate after the stage of lexical access during visual word recognition. However, recent studies showed reduced cross-language activation when sub-lexical properties of words are specific to one of the bilingual’s two languages, hinting at the fact that language selection may start before the stage of lexical access. Here, we tested highly fluent Spanish–Basque and Spanish–English bilinguals in a masked language priming paradigm in which first language (L1) target words are primed by unconsciously perceived L1 or second language (L2) words. Critically, L2 primes were either orthotactically legal or illegal in L1. Results showed automatic language detection effects only for orthotactically marked L2 primes and within the timeframe of the N250, an index of sub-lexical-to-lexical integration. Marked L2 primes also affected the processing of L1 targets at the stage of conceptual processing, but only in bilinguals whose languages are transparent. We conclude that automatic and unconscious language detection mechanisms can operate at sub-lexical levels of processing. In the absence of sub-lexical language cues, unconsciously perceived primes in the irrelevant language might not automatically trigger post-lexical language identification, thereby resulting in the lack of observable language switching effects.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document