This study assessed bilinguals’ language control (LC) and inhibitory control (IC) performance (switch costs and Stroop effects) simultaneously in the same participants to investigate how these processes influence each other.
Design:
Seventy-four Turkish-English bilinguals were presented with Turkish (L1) or English (L2) color words printed either in congruent or incongruent ink color and instructed to name the ink color of these words in the presentation language. Stimuli’s language and congruency were either the same as in the previous trial or different.
Data and analysis:
Reaction times (RTs), switch costs (mean RTs on language repetition subtracted from switch trials), and the Stroop effects (mean RTs on congruent subtracted from incongruent trials) were analyzed using the linear mixed-effect model.
Findings:
The switch costs were larger on incongruent than congruent, and the Stroop effects were larger on language switch than repetition trials. This means that the LC performance decreased while resolving conflict, and the IC performance decreased during switching language, indicating that these two share a common IC mechanism. However, the switch costs and Stroop effects across L1 and L2 were symmetrical in all conditions, leaving the previous interpretation uncertain. Besides, the Stroop effects were larger when followed by congruent than incongruent trials during language repetition, whereas they were equal during switching. This means that the ability to adjust performance by previous experience was disrupted during language switching. Moreover, for the high-L2 proficiency group, this ability was diminished in language repetition trials too. These results indicate that rather than inhibition, other processes may primarily mediate bilinguals’ LC.
Originality:
This study provides evidence for how language and inhibitory control influence each other by combining language switching and Stroop paradigms. Furthermore, it investigates the sequential congruency effects (SCE).
Significance/implications:
This study shows that SCE investigation may provide significant theoretical implications.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015b). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
3.
BialystokE. (2017). The bilingual adaptation: How minds accommodate experience. Psychological Bulletin, 143, 233–262. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000099
4.
BialystokE.CraikF. I.GreenD. W.GollanT. H. (2009). Bilingual minds. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 10, 89–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100610387084
5.
BobbS. C.WodnieckaZ. (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/10.1080/20445911.2013.792822
6.
BotvinickM. M.BraverT. S.BarchD. M.CarterC. S.CohenJ. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108, 624–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.624
7.
BotvinickM. M.NystromL. E.FissellK.CarterC. S.CohenJ. D. (1999). Conflict monitoring versus selection for action in anterior cingulate cortex. Nature, 402, 179–181. https://doi.org/10.1038/46035
8.
ChristoffelsI. K.FirkC.SchillerN. O. (2007). Bilingual language control: An event related brain potential study. Brain Research, 1147, 192–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007.01.137
9.
CostaA.SantestebanM. (2004). Lexical access in bilingual speech production: Evidence from language switching in highly-proficient bilinguals and L2 learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 491–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.02.002
10.
CostaA.SantestebanM.IvanovaI. (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, 1057–1074. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.5.1057
11.
de BruinA.RoelofsA.DijkstraT.FitzPatrickI. (2014). Domain-general inhibition areas of the brain are involved in language switching: FMRI evidence from trilingual speakers. NeuroImage, 90, 348–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.12.049
12.
DeclerckM.GraingerJ.KochI.PhilippA. M. (2017). Is language control just a form of executive control? Evidence for overlapping processes in language switching and task switching. Journal of Memory and Language, 95, 138–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.03.005
13.
DeclerckM.KochI.PhilippA. M. (2012). Digits vs. pictures: The influence of stimulus type on language switching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 896–904. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728912000193
14.
DeclerckM.PhilippA. M. (2015). A review of control processes and their locus in language switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1630–1645. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0836-1
DuthooW.AbrahamseE. L.BraemS.BoehlerC. N.NotebaertW. (2014). The heterogeneous world of congruency sequence effects: An update. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 1001. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01001
EgnerT. (2014). Creatures of habit (and control): A multi-level learning perspective on the modulation of congruency effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 1247. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01247
19.
GoldsmithS. F.MortonJ. B. (2018). Sequential congruency effects in monolingual and bilingual adults: A failure to replicate Grundy et al. (2017). Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 2476. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02476
20.
GollanT. H.FerreiraV. S. (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, 640–665. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014981
21.
GrattonG.ColesM. G. H.DonchinE. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 480–506. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.121.4.480
22.
GreenD. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728998000133
GreenD. W.AbutalebiJ. (2013). Language control in bilinguals: The adaptive control hypothesis. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 515–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.796377
GrundyJ. G.Chung-Fat-YimA.FriesenD. C.MakL.BialystokE. (2017). Sequential congruency effects reveal differences in disengagement of attention for monolingual and bilingual young adults. Cognition, 163, 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.02.010
27.
HommelB.ProctorR. W.VuK. P. (2004). A feature-integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task. Psychological Research, 68(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-003-0132-y
28.
JacksonG. M.SwainsonR.CunningtonR.JacksonS. R. (2001). ERP correlates of executive control during repeated language switching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728901000268
29.
JinZ. L.ZhangJ. X.LiL. (2014). Endogenous language control in Chinese-English switching: An event-related potentials study. Neuroscience Bulletin, 30, 461–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12264-013-1427-7
30.
KarakaşS. (2006). BİLNOT bataryası el kitabı:Nöropsikolojik testler için araştırma ve geliştirme çalışmaları [BİLNOT battery handbook: Research and development studies for neuropsychological tests]. Ankara: Eryılmaz Offset Matbaacılık Gazetecilik.
31.
KrollJ. F.DussiasP. E.BogulskiC. A.Valdes KroffJ. R. (2012). Juggling two languages in one mind: What bilinguals tell us about language processing and its consequences for cognition. In RossB. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 56, pp. 229–262). Academic Press.
32.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
33.
LinckJ. A.SchwieterJ. W.SundermanG. (2012). Inhibitory control predicts language switching performance in trilingual speech production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 651–662. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891100054X
34.
LiuC.JiaoL.WangZ.WangM.WangR.WuY. J. (2019). Symmetries of bilingual switch costs in conflicting versus non-conflicting contexts. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22, 624–636. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006919848487
35.
LiuC.TimmerK.JiaoL.WangR. (2020). Symmetries of comprehension-based language switch costs in conflicting versus non-conflicting contexts. International Journal of Bilingualism, 24, 588–598. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006919848487
36.
LiuH.DunlapS.LiangL.ChenB. (2018). The effect of inhibitory control and its training on L1 and a new learned language switching. International Journal of Bilingualism, 22, 653–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006916688335
37.
LiuH.FanN.RossiS.YaoP.ChenB. (2016). The effect of cognitive flexibility on task switching and language switching. International Journal of Bilingualism, 20, 563–579. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006915572400
38.
LiuH.LiangL.ZhangL.LuY.ChenB. (2017). Modulatory role of inhibition during language switching: Evidence from evoked and induced oscillatory activity. International Journal of Bilingualism, 21, 57–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006915600800
39.
LiuH.RossiS.ZhouH.ChenB. (2014). Electrophysiological evidence for domain general inhibitory control during bilingual language switching. PLOS ONE, 9, Article e110887. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0110887
MacLeodC. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163
42.
MarianV.BlumenfeldH. K.KaushanskayaM. (2007). The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 50, 940–967. https://www.bilingualism.northwestern.edu/leapq/
43.
MayrU.AwhE.LaureyP. (2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience, 6(5), 450–452. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1051
44.
MeuterR.AllportA. (1999). Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2602
45.
MiyakeA.FriedmanN. P.EmersonM. J.WitzkiA. H.HowerterA.WagerT. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “Frontal Lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
46.
SchwieterJ. W.SundermanG. (2008). Language switching in bilingual speech production: In search of the language-specific selection mechanism. The Mental Lexicon, 3, 214–238. https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.3.2.06sch
47.
SezginN.BaştuğG.Yargıcı KaraağaçS.YılmazB. (2017). Wechsler Yetişkinler İçin Zeka Ölçeği Gözden Geçirilmiş Formu (WAIS-R) Türkiye Standardizasyonu: Ön Çalışma [Turkish standardization of wechsler adult intelligence scale- revised (WAIS-R): pilot study]. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil Ve Tarih-coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, 54, 451–480. http://dtcfdergisi.ankara.edu.tr/index.php/dtcf/article/view/313
48.
StroopJ. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054651
49.
TürkeşN.CanH.KurtM.DikeçB. E. (2015). İz Sürme Testi’nin 20-49 yaş aralığında Türkiye için norm belirleme çalışması [A study to determine the norms for the trail making test for the age range of 20-49 in turkey]. Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi, 26, 189–196. https://doi.org/10.5080/u7739
50.
VerhoefK.RoelofsA.ChwillaD. (2009). Role of inhibition in language switching: Evidence from event related brain potentials in overt picture naming. Cognition, 110, 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.10.013
51.
VerhoefK. M. W.RoelofsA.ChwillaD. J. (2010). Electrophysiological evidence for endogenous control of attention in switching between languages in overt picture naming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 1832–1843. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21291
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
