Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T12:26:40.098Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Inhibitory control predicts language switching performance in trilingual speech production*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2011

JARED A. LINCK*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland Center for Advanced Study of Language
JOHN W. SCHWIETER
Affiliation:
Wilfrid Laurier University
GRETCHEN SUNDERMAN
Affiliation:
Florida State University
*
Address for correspondence: Jared A. Linck, University of Maryland Center for Advanced Study of Language, 7005 52nd Avenue, College Park, MD 20742, USA[email protected]

Abstract

This study investigated the role of domain-general inhibitory control in trilingual speech production. Taking an individual differences approach, we examined the relationship between performance on a non-linguistic measure of inhibitory control (the Simon task) and a multilingual language switching task for a group of fifty-six native English (L1) speakers learning French (L2) and Spanish (L3). Better inhibitory control was related to reduced switch costs, but only when switching into or out of the more dominant L1, where inhibitory control has been theorized to be most important (Green, 1998). The results provide evidence of a direct link between inhibitory control abilities and language switching capabilities, and suggest constraints on the conditions under which a domain-general inhibitory control mechanism supports language switching.

Type
Research Notes
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

*

The authors thank Scott Jackson and Bob Slevc for comments on a previous draft of the manuscript, and Anat Prior, David Green and one anonymous reviewer for comments throughout the review process. A portion of these results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Assocation for Applied Linguistics, March 2011.

References

Abutalebi, J., & Green, D. (2008). Control mechanisms in bilingual language production: Neural evidence from language switching studies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23 (4), 557582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R., Davidson, D., & Bates, D. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., & Maechler, M. (2010). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-36. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (2009). Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., Grady, C., Chau, W., Ishii, R., Gunji, A., & Pantev, C. (2005). Effect of bilingualism on cognitive control in the Simon task: Evidence from MEG. NeuroImage, 24, 4049.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bialystok, E., Craik, F., Klein, R., & Viswanathan, M. (2004). Bilingualism, aging, and cognitive control: Evidence from the Simon task. Psychology and Aging, 19, 290303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bialystok, E., Craik, F., & Ryan, J. (2006). Executive control in a modified anti-saccade task: Effects of aging and bilingualism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 13411354.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E., & Shapero, D. (2005). Ambiguous benefits: The effect of bilingualism on reversing ambiguous figures. Developmental Science, 8, 595604.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colzato, L. S., Bajo, M., van den Wildenberg, W., Paolieri, D., Nieuwenhuis, S., La Heij, W., & Hommel, B. (2008). How does bilingualism improve executive control? A comparison of active and reactive inhibition mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 302312.Google ScholarPubMed
Costa, A., Hernández, M., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2008). Bilingualism aids conflict resolution: Evidence from the ANT task. Cognition, 106, 5986.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costa, A., & Santesteban, M. (2004). Lexical access in bilingual speech production: Evidence from language switching in highly proficient bilinguals and L2 learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 491511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, A., Santesteban, M., & Ivanova, I. (2006). How do highly proficient bilinguals control their lexicalization process? Inhibitory and language-specific selection mechanisms are both functional. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 10571074.Google ScholarPubMed
Festman, J., Rodríguez-Fornells, A., & Münte, T. F. (2010). Individual differences in control of language interference in late bilinguals are mainly related to general executive abilities. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 6 (5), doi:10.1186/1744-9081-6-5. [Online-only journal.]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friedman, N., & Miyake, A. (2004). The relations among inhibition and interference control functions: A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 101135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gollan, T., & Ferreira, V. (2009). Should I stay or should I switch? A cost-benefit analysis of voluntary language switching in young and aging bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35 (3), 640665.Google ScholarPubMed
Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 6781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, T., Liu, H., Misra, M., & Kroll, J. F. (2011). Local and global inhibition in bilingual word production: fMRI evidence from Chinese–English bilinguals. Nueroimage, 56, 23002309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, G., Swainson, R., Cunnington, R., & Jackson, S. (2001). ERP correlates of executive control during repeated language switching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 169178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, I., Gade, M., Schuch, S., & Philipp, A. (2010). The role of inhibition in task switching: An overview. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17 (1), 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S., Misra, M., & Guo, T. (2008). Language selection in bilingual speech: Evidence for inhibitory processes. Acta Psychologica, 128, 416430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S., & Wodniecka, Z. (2006). Language selectivity is the exception, not the rule: Arguments against a fixed locus of language selection in bilingual speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 119135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meuter, R., & Allport, A. (1999). Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 2540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philipp, A., Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2007). Inhibitory processes in language switching: Evidence from switching language-defined response sets. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19 (3), 395416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philipp, A., & Koch, I. (2009). Inhibition in language switching: What is inhibited when switching between languages in naming tasks? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35 (5), 11871195.Google ScholarPubMed
Prior, A., & Gollan, T. (2011). Good language-switchers are good task-switchers: Evidence from Spanish–English and Mandarin–English bilinguals. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 17, 682691.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prior, A., & MacWhinney, B. (2010). A bilingual advantage in task switching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13 (2), 253262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Development Core Team (2010). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, http://www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Raudenbush, S., & Bryk, A. (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Schwieter, J. W., & Sunderman, G. (2008). Language switching in bilingual speech production: In search of the language-specific selection mechanism. The Mental Lexicon, 3 (2), 214238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwieter, J. W., & Sunderman, G. (2009). Concept selection and developmental effects in bilingual speech production. Language Learning, 59 (4), 897927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwieter, J. W., & Sunderman, G. (2011). Inhibitory control processes and lexical access in trilingual speech production. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1 (4), 391412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, J., & Rudell, A. (1967). Auditory S–R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 300304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174215.Google ScholarPubMed
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhoef, K., Roelofs, A., & Chwilla, D. (2009). Role of inhibition in language switching: Evidence from event-related brain potentials in overt picture naming. Cognition, 110, 8499.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed