Inhibitory processes in language switching: Evidence from switching language-defined response sets

Abstract

We used language-defined response sets (digit names from 1 to 9 in different languages) to explore inhibitory processes in language switching. Subjects were required to switch between two (Experiment 1) or among three (Experiment 2) languages. In Experiment 1, we obtained a shift cost when subjects switched between their first and second language, between their first and third language, or between their second and third language. For each language pairing, the shift cost was larger for the relatively dominant language than for the nondominant language (i.e., asymmetric shift cost). In Experiment 2, we assessed inhibition of response sets as reflected in n-2 repetition cost (i.e., the difference between ABA and CBA language sequences). We discuss both effects with respect to inhibitory processes in language switching. The results suggest different functional characteristics of the processes underlying asymmetric shift cost and n-2 repetition cost

Cultural differences in strategic behavior: A study in computational estimation.

“…Indeed, because L1 is the dominant language, stronger inhibitory processes are applied to L1 when responding in L2 than vice versa (e.g., Costa & Santesteban, 2004;Green, 1998;Meuter & Allport, 1999;Philipp & Koch, 2009;Philipp, Gade, & Koch, 2007). Furthermore, the difference between rounding down and rounding up grew larger when the Chinese had to answer in their second language.…”

Control and interference in task switching—A review.

“…Additionally, it has been frequently reported that switch costs decrease with preparation time (e.g., Meiran et a!., 2000;Rogers & Monsell, 1995), but manipulations of preparation time had no significant impact on n-2 repetition costs under most conditions (Gade & Koch, 2008;Mayr & Keele, 2000;Schuch & Koch, 2003). Preparatory reductions of n-2 taskrepetition costs have been observed only in conditions that entail the opportunity of response preparation in addition to task preparation (e.g., for a simple-response task; Koch et aI., 2004) or when the task was a naming task with a relatively small stimulus set (Philipp, Gade, & Koch, 2007). More evidence for a dissociation of switch costs and n-2 task-repetition costs comes from fMRI and neuropsychological studies.…”

“…As we have discussed earlier, AHport and Wylie (1999) assumed both positive and negative task priming. The idea of negative priming is particularly pertinent in the literature on bilingual switching, in which switch-cost asymmetries have been taken as a hallmark of inhibitory control of the mental lexicon (for discussion, see, e.g., Costa & Santesteban, 2004;Meuter & Allport, 1999;Philipp, Gade, & Koch, 2007;Philipp & Koch, 2009). Correspondingly, Yeung and MonseH (2003b) conceded that "it is likely that a complete model of task switching will need to incorporate inhibitory effects" (p. 468).…”

Bilingual language control: An event-related brain potential study

“…Even highly proficient bilinguals usually have a dominant and a non-dominant language which is reflected, for instance, in faster picture-naming latencies for their first compared to their second language (e.g., Chen and Leung, 1989;Christoffels et al, 2006;Potter et al, 1984). However, under language switching conditions, this difference in naming latencies between L1 and L2 may disappear or even reverse, with shorter picture-naming latencies for the second than the first language (Costa and Santesteban, 2004;Costa et al, 2006;Meuter and Allport, 1999;Philipp et al, 2006; see also Kroll et al, 2006). Switching between languages may therefore profoundly affect production in the native tongue.…”