Multilingual Stroop performance: Effects of trilingualism and proficiency on inhibitory control

Abstract

Previous research suggests that multilinguals’ languages are constantly co-activated and that experience managing this co-activation changes inhibitory control function. The present study examined language interaction and inhibitory control using a colour-word Stroop task. Multilingual participants were tested in their three most proficient languages. The classic Stroop effect was detected in all three languages, with participants performing more accurately on congruent than on incongruent trials. Multilinguals were faster and more accurate in the within-language-competition condition than in the between-language-competition condition, indicating that additional processing costs are required when stimulus and response languages differ. Language proficiency influenced speed, accuracy and error patterns in multilingual Stroop task performance. These findings augment our understanding of language processing and inhibitory control in multilingual populations and suggest that experience using multiple languages changes demands on cognitive function.

Processing limitations in L2 fluency

“…It has been shown that, with better language skills, it is in fact more difficult to inhibit irrelevant material. Automatic activation of the word meaning is stronger in L1 than in L2, for example, and suppressing this activation requires cognitive resources (Marian et al, 2013;see also Gernsbacher, 1993). Favreau and Segalowitz (1983) showed that less-skilled L2 users benefited from a priming effect (e.g., were quicker to recognise the word "apple" when preceded by "fruit" rather than by "furniture") only when there was enough time to consciously process the material (1150ms).…”

“…Repetition (REP) repeating items, subject to individual differences and strategic use (e.g., Kahng, 2014;Peltonen & Lintunen, 2016) 7. Inhibition difficulties (INH) difficulty with suppressing irrelevant information are proposed to be connected with more advanced skills as the automatic activation is stronger (Marian et al, 2013;Jones et al, 2008) 8. Set-shifting (SHIF) * only in RAS task set-shifting is more difficult with stronger activation and may be easier with less proficiency; e.g., switching from activated letters to numbers (Segalowitz & FrenkielFishman, 2005) …”

“…If the language skills are limited, the speaker may have to choose between speed and accuracy, which leads to trade-off (Grabe, 2009, p. 292;Kame'enui & Simmons, 2001;Walczyk et al, 2004). Favouring speed over accuracy may lead to, for example, skipping items, whether by accident or for buying time (cf., Marian, Blumenfeld, Mizrahi, Kania & Cordes, 2013). When aspiring to read quickly, the readers may also revert to guessing words, especially when encountering low-frequency words (see Balota et al, 2006, for an overview).…”

“…Inefficiency of lexical access was further proposed to be visible in skipping individual words in Word List or items in RAS, whether purposefully or accidentally, when aspiring for speed (cf., Marian et al, 2013 b) Attentional processes Inaccuracies relating to control of attention were hypothesised to increase with proficiency, relating to two trends. First, with higher proficiency, there are more resources available for monitoring own speech as the lower-level language processes are becoming automatized.…”

“…(Broadbent, 1967;Balota et al, 2006) 2. Skipping (SKIP) skipping items either accidentally or strategically (Marian et al, 2013) 3. Same-category (SCAT) * only in RAS task producing wrong responses that are within the same category, such as naming 6 as 7, A as E, or green as blue…”