“…Therefore, correctly selecting an L2 item requires greater inhibition (of L1) than has to be applied (to L2) to correctly select an L1 lexical item; when bilinguals switch back to L1 this results in a larger switch cost because a greater level of inhibition must be overcome. Additionally, reversed language dominance effects (i.e., longer naming times for L1 than for L2 in mixed blocks; e.g., Meuter & Allport, 1999;Costa & Santesteban, 2004) suggest strong inhibition of L1 when bilinguals are mixing languages.In summary, theories of language switching in production have, perhaps unsurprisingly, emphasized the role of top-down control in language selection, in particular with regard to topdown inhibition of the non-target language. However, switch costs also occur in comprehension (e.g., Macnamara & Kushnir, 1971; Altarriba, Kroll, Sholl, & Rayner, 1996, Experiment 1;Thomas & Allport, 2000;Grainger & Beauvillain, 1987;Soares & Grosjean, 1984), and enhanced negativities in ERPs have been associated with language switches, both in response to single words (e.g., enhanced N250 for switches to L2 and enhanced N400 for switches to L1, Chauncey, Running head: JOINT SWITCHING 5 Grainger, & Holcomb, 2008), and during sentence comprehension (e.g., enhanced N400, Proverbio, Leoni, & Zani, 2004).…”