Does integrating a code-switch during comprehension engage cognitive control?

Abstract

We investigated whether bilinguals’ integration of a code-switch during real-time comprehension, which involves resolving among conflicting linguistic representations, modulates the deployment of cognitive-control mechanisms. In the current experiment, Spanish-English bilinguals (N = 48) completed a cross-task conflict-adaptation paradigm that tested whether reading code-switched sentences triggers cognitive-control engagement that immediately influences performance on an ensuing Flanker trial. We observed that, while incrementally processing sentences, detecting a code-switch (as opposed to reading sentences that did not contain a code-switch) assisted subsequent conflict resolution. Such temporal interdependence between confronting cross-linguistic conflict and ensuing adjustments in behavior indicates that integrating a code-switch during online comprehension may recruit domain-general cognitive-control procedures. We propose that such control mechanisms mobilize to resolve among competing representations that arise across languages during real-time parsing of code-switched input. Overall, the findings provide novel insight into what language-processing demands of bilingualism regulate cognitive-control performance moment by moment.

Effects of language context on executive control in unbalanced bilinguals: An ERPs study

“…Combined with the high temporal resolution of EEG, it is possible to separate the two types of control processes. On the other hand, this paradigm has been widely used in similar studies, thus improving the comparability between the present study and previous relevant studies (e.g., Adler et al, 2020). We created three language contexts using a picture-word matching task, namely a Chinese (L1) context, an English (L2) context, and a Chinese-English mixed-language context.…”

“…Moreover, the present study conducted a regression analysis to examine whether real-time language control processing was associated with behavioral performance on the executive control task. Given previous studies (e.g., Adler et al, 2020;Jiao et al, 2020), we predicted that the language context would modulate the control processes in the language control task and in the executive control task. This is to say, if the language context effect on executive control results from the modulation of language control, the measures of language control should predict the executive control performance in the different language contexts.…”

“…A flanker task was used to measure executive control, including congruent and incongruent trials; a picture-word matching task was used to create Chinese (L1), English (L2), and mixed-language contexts. The executive control task was a flanker task (Eriksen & Eriksen, 1974), which has been widely used to measure executive control in studies on bilingualism (Adler et al, 2020;Dong & Zhong, 2017;Jiao et al, 2020;Jiao, Liu, Liang, et al, 2019;Wu & Thierry, 2013). There were two types of trials in the flanker task, that is, congruent and incongruent trials.…”

Understanding bilingual brain function and structure changes? U bet! A unified bilingual experience trajectory model

“…The associated control demands range from maximal interference suppression in alternation or interutterance switches to minimal requirements of interference suppression in dense code-switching (Hofweber et al, 2016;Treffers-Daller, 2009). Engagement with a specific type of switching (as defined above) will necessitate commensurate neurocognitive adaptations (Adler, Valdés Kroff, & Novick, 2020;Hofweber et al, 2016). Cognitive demands associated with monitoring changing conflict, however, follow the reverse pattern: dense code switching requiring the most monitoring and single language use requiring the least conflict monitoring (Hofweber et al, 2016).…”

Are All Code-Switches Processed Alike? Examining Semantic v. Language Unexpectancy

“…The current psycholinguistic studies of code-switching highlight three broad themes of study: (1) Its relationship to other switching phenomena such as cued-language switching (e.g., Meuter and Allport, 1999;Gollan and Ferreira, 2009) and non-linguistic switching tasks (e.g., Monsell, 2003); (2) whether the integration of code-switching in production and comprehension leads to processing costs (e.g., Ruigendijk et al, 2016;Beatty-Martínez and Dussias, 2017;Litcofsky and Van Hell, 2017;Fernandez et al, 2019); and (3) the cognitive and grammatical processes that help bilinguals rapidly integrate code-switched speech in production and comprehension (e.g., Kootstra et al, 2012;Fricke et al, 2016;Guzzardo Tamargo et al, 2016;Valdés Kroff et al, 2017;Gullifer and Titone, 2019;Adler et al, 2020). These three themes are inter-related in that the natural parallel between general switching behavior and the robust switch costs reported from the cued-language switching paradigm leads to the logical prediction that code-switching should similarly evince costly integration.…”