Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:51:36.446Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of general executive functions in receptive language switching and monitoring

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 September 2017

JUSSI JYLKKÄ ,
MINNA LEHTONEN ,
ANNA KUUSAKOSKI ,
FRED LINDHOLM ,
SUZANNE C. A. HUT  and
MATTI LAINE
JUSSI JYLKKÄ*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Abo Akademi University, Finland
MINNA LEHTONEN
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Abo Akademi University, Finland Institute of Behavioural Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland Cognitive Brain Research Unit, Department of Psychology and Logopedics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Finland
ANNA KUUSAKOSKI
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Abo Akademi University, Finland
FRED LINDHOLM
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Abo Akademi University, Finland
SUZANNE C. A. HUT
Affiliation:
Institute of Behavioural Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland Cognitive Brain Research Unit, Department of Psychology and Logopedics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Finland
MATTI LAINE
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Abo Akademi University, Finland
*
Address for correspondence: Department of Psychology, Abo Akademi University, Fabriksgatan 2, 20500 Åbo, Finland[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We assessed language switch and mixing costs in a language-general semantic categorization task and examined how these costs relate to general inhibition and set shifting capacities. The participants were 51 native Finnish subjects with English as L2. The results showed significant symmetric language switch costs and, unexpectedly, a mixing advantage in L2: reaction times were faster in the mixed language block than in the single language block. The interactions with the general executive functions showed no consistent overall pattern. We argue that the L2 mixing advantage stems from statistical facilitation in line with a horse race model, or from opportunistic planning as suggested by the Adaptive Control hypothesis. We argue that the results overall indicate that lexical access in language reception is non-selective.

Keywords

semantic categorizationlanguage switchinglanguage mixingasymmetric switch costasymmetric mixing advantageBIA modelBIA+ modelAdaptive Control hypothesisInhibitory Control modelHorse Race modelinhibitionset-shifting
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 21 , Special Issue 4: Recent developments in child bilingualism: Cross-linguistic influence, incomplete acquisition, critical periods and the advantages of bilingualism , August 2018 , pp. 839 - 855
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Supplementary material can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728917000384

*This study was supported by project grants from Emil Aaltonen Foundation and Helsinki University 3-year Funds, as well as an Academy of Finland grant (grant # 288880) to the second author. The last author was supported by grants from the Academy of Finland (project #260276) and the Åbo Akademi University Endowment (the BrainTrain project). We thank Teemu Laine for help with programming, Juhani Virta for assistance in gathering data, and the BrainTrain research group at the Abo Akademi University for valuable discussions. Finally, we thank Henri Olkoniemi for help with linear mixed models.

References

Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S., Christensen, R. H. B., Singmann, H., . . . Grothendieck, G. (2015). Lme4 (1.1-9). Linear mixed-effects models using “Eigen” and S4. Retrieved from http://crantastic.org/packages/lme4/versions/42873Google Scholar
Bobb, S. C., & Wodniecka, Z. (2013). Language switching in picture naming: What asymmetric switch costs (do not) tell us about inhibition in bilingual speech planning. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25 (5), 568–585. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.792822Google Scholar
Cattaneo, G., Calabria, M., Marne, P., Gironell, A., Abutalebi, J., & Costa, A. (2015). The role of executive control in bilingual language production: A study with Parkinson's disease individuals. Neuropsychologia, 66, 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.11.006Google Scholar
de Bruijn, E. R. A., Dijkstra, T., Chwilla, D. J., & Schriefers, H. J. (2001). Language context effects on interlingual homograph recognition: evidence from event-related potentials and response times in semantic priming. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4 (2), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728901000256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Groot, A. M. B., Delmaar, P., & Lupker, S. J. (2000). The processing of interlexical homographs in translation recognition and lexical decision: Support for non-selective access to bilingual memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 53 (2), 397–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/713755891Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language, 41 (4), 496–518. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2654Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5 (3), 175–197. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728902003012Google Scholar
Duyck, W., Assche, E. Van, Drieghe, D., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2007). Visual word recognition by bilinguals in a sentence context: Evidence for nonselective lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33 (4), 663–679. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.4.663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16 (1), 143–149. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203267Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, M., Almeida, J., Janssen, N., & Caramazza, A. (2006). Lexical selection in bilingual speech production does not involve language suppression. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32 (5), 1075–1089. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.5.1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grainger, J., & Beauvillain, C. (1987). Language blocking and lexical access in bilinguals. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 39 (2), 295–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748708401788Google Scholar
Grainger, J., Midgley, K., & Holcomb, P. J. (2010). Re-thinking the bilingual interactive-activation model from a developmental perspective (BIA-d). In Kail, Michèle & Hickmann, Maya (Eds.), Language Acquisition Across Linguistic and Cognitive Systems (pp. 267–283). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.52.18graGoogle Scholar
Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1 (2), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728998000133Google Scholar
Green, D. W., & Abutalebi, J. (2013). Language control in bilinguals: The adaptive control hypothesis. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25 (5), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.796377Google Scholar
Jackson, G. M., Swainson, R., Cunnington, R., & Jackson, S. R. (2001). ERP correlates of executive control during repeated language switching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4 (2), 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728901000268Google Scholar
Jackson, G. M., Swainson, R., Mullin, A., Cunnington, R., & Jackson, S. R. (2004). ERP correlates of a receptive language-switching task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. A, Human Experimental Psychology, 57 (2), 223–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980343000198Google Scholar
Jylkkä, J., Lehtonen, M., Lindholm, F., Kuusakoski, A., & Laine, M. (in press). The relationship between general executive functions and bilingual switching and monitoring in language production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728917000104Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33 (2), 149–174. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1008Google Scholar
Linck, J. A., Schwieter, J. W., & Sunderman, G. (2012). Inhibitory control predicts language switching performance in trilingual speech production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15 (3), 651–662. https://doi.org/doi:10.1017/S136672891100054XGoogle Scholar
Liu, H. H., Fan, N., Rossi, S., Yao, P. P., & Chen, B. G. (2015). The effect of cognitive flexibility on task switching and language switching. International Journal of Bilingualism, 20 (5), 563–579. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006915572400Google Scholar
Macizo, P., Bajo, T., & Paolieri, D. (2012). Language switching and language competition. Second Language Research, 28 (2), 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658311434893Google Scholar
Martín, M. C., Macizo, P., & Bajo, T. (2010). Time course of inhibitory processes in bilingual language processing. British Journal of Psychology, 101 (4), 679–693. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712609X480571Google Scholar
Meuter, R. F. I., & Allport, A. (1999). Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 40 (1), 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paap, K. R., & Sawi, O. (2014). Bilingual advantages in executive functioning: Problems in convergent validity, discriminant validity, and the identification of the theoretical constructs. Frontiers in Psychology, 5 (962), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00962Google Scholar
Peeters, D., Runnqvist, E., Bertrand, D., & Grainger, J. (2014). Asymmetrical switch costs in bilingual language production induced by reading words. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40 (1), 284–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034060Google Scholar
Pellikka, J., Helenius, P., Mäkelä, J. P., & Lehtonen, M. (2015). Context affects L1 but not L2 during bilingual word recognition: An MEG study. Brain and Language, 142, 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2015.01.006Google Scholar
Philipp, A. M., Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2007). Inhibitory processes in language switching: Evidence from switching language-defined response sets. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19 (3), 395–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440600758812Google Scholar
Prior, A., & Gollan, T. H. (2011). Good language-switchers are good task-switchers: Evidence from Spanish–English and Mandarin–English bilinguals. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 17 (4), 682–691. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617711000580Google Scholar
Prior, A., & Gollan, T. H. (2013). The elusive link between language control and executive control: A case of limited transfer. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25 (5), 622–645. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.821993Google Scholar
Raab, D. H. (1962). Division of psychology: Statistical facilitation of simple reaction times. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2164-0947.1962.tb01433.xGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez-Fornells, A., Krämer, U. M., Lorenzo-Seva, U., Festman, J., & Münte, T. F. (2012). Self-assessment of individual differences in language switching. Frontiers in Psychology, 3 (388), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00388Google Scholar
Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictible switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124 (2), 207–231. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.124.2.207Google Scholar
Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S-R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 51 (3), 300–304. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6045637Google Scholar
Thomas, M. S., & Allport, A. (2000). Language switching costs in bilingual visual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 43 (1), 44–66. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Hell, J. G., & Dijkstra, T. (2002). Foreign language knowledge can influence native language performance in exclusively native contexts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9 (4), 780–789. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196335Google Scholar
van Heuven, W. J. B., & Dijkstra, T. (2010). Language comprehension in the bilingual brain: fMRI and ERP support for psycholinguistic models. Brain Research Reviews, 64 (1), 104–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresrev.2010.03.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Heuven, W. J. B., Dijkstra, T., & Grainger, J. (1998). Orthographic neighborhood effects in bilingual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 39 (3), 458–483. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2584Google Scholar
von Studnitz, R. E., & Green, D. W. (1997). Lexical decision and language switching. International Journal of Bilingualism, 1 (1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/136700699700100102Google Scholar
von Studnitz, R. E., & Green, D. W. (2002). The cost of switching language in a semantic categorization task. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5 (3), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728902003036Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Jylkkä et al supplementary material

Appendix S1

Download Jylkkä et al supplementary material(File)
File 17.9 KB