This study investigates the influence of preparation time, operationalized as the cue-to-stimulus interval (CSI), on the reversed language dominance effect, a marker of proactive bilingual language control. In addition, the study further explores the role of language proficiency in modulating this influence.
Methodology:
Two groups of Chinese-English bilinguals, with high- and low-proficiency levels, completed a picture-naming task in single-language and cued mixed-language blocks. Crucially, in the mixed-language blocks, the preparation time between cue and stimulus was manipulated by including CSIs of 0, 800, and 1,500 ms.
Data and analysis:
Sixty-five Chinese-English bilinguals (low proficiency, n = 29; high proficiency, n = 36) participated in the study.
Findings:
The findings demonstrate that the reversed language dominance effect is influenced by the amount of preparation time available. Specifically, the effect observed at a 0 ms CSI could be mitigated with preparation times of 800 and 1,500 ms, with this reduction occurring for both high- and low-proficiency participants.
Originality:
This paper is among the first attempts to investigate how preparation time influences proactive language control as measured by the reversed language dominance effect.
Significance/implications:
Our results help explain the inconsistencies in observing the reversed language dominance effect across studies and enhance our understanding of the application and timing of proactive control in bilingual language processing. They also highlight the importance of considering preparation time when investigating the mechanisms underlying bilingual language production.
BaayenR. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge University Press.
2.
BaayenR. H.MilinP. (2010). Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(2), 12–28.
3.
BonfieniM.BraniganH. P.PickeringM. J.SoraceA. (2019). Language experience modulates bilingual language control: The effect of proficiency, age of acquisition, and exposure on language switching. Acta Psychologica, 193, 160–170.
4.
BranziF. M.MartinC. D.AbutalebiJ.CostaA. (2014). The after-effects of bilingual language production. Neuropsychologia, 52, 102–116.
5.
BrauerM.CurtinJ. J. (2018). Linear mixed-effects models and the analysis of nonindependent data: A unified framework to analyze categorical and continuous independent variables that vary within-subjects and/or within-items. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 389–411.
6.
BrysbaertM.StevensM. (2018). Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A tutorial. Journal of Cognition, 1(1), 1–20.
7.
CaiQ.BrysbaertM. (2010). SUBTLEX-CH: Chinese word and character frequencies based on film subtitles. PLOS ONE, 5(6), Article e10729.
8.
CalabriaM.BranziF. M.MarneP.HernándezM.CostaA. (2015). Age-related effects over bilingual language control and executive control. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18, 65–78.
9.
CasadoA.SzewczykJ.WolnaA.WodnieckaZ. (2022). The relative balance between languages predicts the degree of engagement of global language control. Cognition, 226, 105169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105169
10.
Chaouch-OrozcoA.AlonsoJ. G.DuñabeitiaJ. A.RothmanJ. (2023). The elusive impact of L2 immersion on translation priming. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 45(2), 393–415.
11.
Chaouch-OrozcoA.AlonsoJ. G.RothmanJ. (2021). Individual differences in bilingual word recognition: The role of experiential factors and word frequency in cross-language lexical priming. Applied Psycholinguistics, 42(2), 447–474.
12.
ChristoffelsI. K.FirkC.SchillerN. O. (2007). Bilingual language control: An event-related brain potential study. Brain Research, 1147, 192–208.
13.
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.
14.
DeclerckM. (2020). What about proactive language control?Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27, 24–35.
15.
DeclerckM.KleinmanD.GollanT. H. (2020). Which bilinguals reverse language dominance and why?Cognition, 204, 104384.
16.
DeclerckM.PhilippA. M.KochI. (2013). Bilingual control: Sequential memory in language switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 39, 1793–1806. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0033094
17.
DeclerckM.ThomaA.KochI.PhilippA. M. (2015). Highly proficient bilinguals implement inhibition—Evidence from N-2 repetition costs when switching between three languages. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 41, 1911–1916.
18.
DijkstraT.Van JaarsveldH.Ten BrinkeS. (1998). Interlingual homograph recognition: Effects of task demands and language intermixing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 51–66.
DuñabeitiaJ. A.CrepaldiD.MeyerA. S.NewB.PliatsikasC.SmolkaE.BrysbaertM. (2018). MultiPic: A standardized set of 750 drawings with norms for six European languages. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 808–816.
21.
FinkA.GoldrickM. (2015). Pervasive benefits of preparation in language switching. Psychological Bulletin & Review, 22, 808–814.
22.
GadeM.DeclerckM.PhilippA. M.Rey-MermetA.KochI. (2021a). On the existence of asymmetrical switch costs and reversed language dominance—A meta-analysis. Journal of Cognition, 4, 55.
23.
GadeM.DeclerckM.PhilippA. M.Rey-MermetA.KochI. (2021b). Correction: Assessing the evidence for asymmetrical switch costs and reversed language dominance effects–a meta-analysis. Journal of Cognition, 4, 60.
24.
GoldrickM.GollanT. H. (2023). Inhibitory control of the dominant language: Reversed language dominance is the tip of the iceberg. Journal of Memory and Language, 130, 104410.
25.
GollanT. H.WeissbergerG. H.RunnqvistE.MontoyaR. I.CeraC. M. (2012). Self-ratings of spoken language dominance: A Multilingual Naming Test (MINT) and preliminary norms for young and aging Spanish–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 594–615.
26.
HeikoopK. W.DeclerckM.LosS. A.KochI. (2016). Dissociating language-switch costs from cue-switch costs in bilingual language switching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19, 921–927.
27.
IvanovaI.SalmonD. P.GollanT. H. (2013). The multilingual naming test in Alzheimer’s disease: Clues to the origin of naming impairments. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 19(3), 272–283.
28.
IvanovaI.SeanezA.CochranM.KleinmanD. (2023). The temporal dynamics of bilingual language control. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 30(2), 774–791.
29.
KerkhofsR.DijkstraT.ChwillaD.De BruijnE. (2006). Testing a model for bilingual semantic priming with interlingual homographs: RT and N400 effects. Brain Research, 1068, 170–183.
30.
KleinmanD.GollanT. H. (2018). Inhibition accumulates over time at multiple processing levels in bilingual language control. Cognition, 173, 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.01.009
LiuC.TimmerK.JiaoL.YuanY.WangR. (2019). The influence of contextual faces on bilingual language control. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72, 2313–2327.
33.
LiuH.Chaouch-OrozcoA. (2023). Is the digit effect a cognate effect? Digits (still) differ from pictures in non-phonologically mediated language switching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 26(3), 469–475.
34.
LiuH.Chaouch-OrozcoA. (2024a). Evaluation of the Multilingual Naming Test (MINT) as a quick and practical proxy for language proficiency. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 14, 759–773.
35.
LiuH.Chaouch-OrozcoA. (2024b). The influence of stimulus type on language processing in comprehension. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 46, 5011–5017.
36.
LiuH.Chaouch-OrozcoA.SperlichD. (2025). Item repetition matters: Methodological considerations in bilingual language control research. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 28(6), 676–690. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2024.2446997
37.
LoS.AndrewsS. (2015). To transform or not to transform: Using generalized linear mixed models to analyse reaction time data. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1171.
38.
MaF.LiS.GuoT. (2016). Reactive and proactive control in bilingual word production: An investigation of influential factors. Journal of Memory and Language, 86, 35–59.
39.
MeuterR. F.AllportA. (1999). Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 25–40.
40.
MisraM.GuoT.BobbS. C.KrollJ. F. (2012). When bilinguals choose a single word to speak: Electrophysiological evidence for inhibition of the native language. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 224–237.
41.
MofradF. T.JahnA.SchillerN. O. (2020). Dual function of primary somatosensory cortex in cognitive control of language: Evidence from resting state fMRI. Neuroscience, 446, 59–68.
42.
MoscaM.ClahsenH. (2016). Examining language switching in bilinguals: The role of preparation time. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(2), 415–424.
43.
MoscaM.ManawammaC.de BotK. (2022). When language switching is cost-free: The effect of preparation time. Cognitive Science, 46, Article e13105.
44.
PachellaR. G. (2021). The Interpretation of reaction time in information-processing research. In KantowitzB. (Ed.), Human information processing: Tutorials in performance and cognition (pp. 41–82). Routledge.
45.
PeetersD.DijkstraT. (2018). Sustained inhibition of the native language in bilingual language production: A virtual reality approach. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21, 1035–1061.
46.
PriorA.GollanT. H. (2011). Good language-switchers are good task-switchers: Evidence from Spanish-English and Mandarin-English bilinguals. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 17, 682–691.
47.
ShengL.LuY.GollanT. H. (2014). Assessing language dominance in Mandarin-English bilinguals: Convergence and divergence between subjective and objective measures. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(02), 364–383.
48.
SlevcL. R.DaveyN. S.LinckJ. A. (2016). A new look at “the hard problem” of bilingual lexical access: Evidence for language-switch costs with univalent stimuli. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28, 385–395.
49.
StasenkoA.KleinmanD.GollanT. H. (2021). Older bilinguals reverse language dominance less than younger bilinguals: Evidence for the inhibitory deficit hypothesis. Psychology and Aging, 36(7), 806–821.
50.
Van AsscheE.DuyckW.GollanT. H. (2013). Whole-language and item-specific control in bilingual language production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1781–1792.
51.
van HeuvenW. J. B.ManderaP.KeuleersE.BrysbaertM. (2014). SUBTLEX-UK: A new and improved word frequency database for British English. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(6), 1176–1190.
52.
VerhoefK. M. W.RoelofsA.ChwillaD. J. (2009). Role of inhibition in language switching: Evidence from event-related brain potentials in overt picture naming. Cognition, 110, 84–99.
53.
WangY.KuhlP. K.ChenC.DongQ. (2009). Sustained and transient language control in the bilingual brain. NeuroImage, 47, 414–422.
54.
WodnieckaZ.SzewczykJ.KałamałaP.ManderaP.DurlikJ. (2020). When a second language hits a native language. What ERPs (do and do not) tell us about language retrieval difficulty in bilingual language production. Neuropsychologia, 141, Article 107390.
55.
WuY.ThierryG. (2010). Investigating bilingual processing: The neglected role of language processing contexts. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 1–6.
