The relative balance between languages predicts the magnitude of whole-language inhibition.

Casado, Alba; Szewczyk, Jakub; Wolna, Agata; Wodniecka, Z

doi:10.31234/osf.io/2jsdg

Cited by 5 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet, further theoretical refinement has dissected the rather broad notion of inhibition and linked it to different levels of selection. It has been assumed that there is a more global inhibition acting on the lexical level (i.e., making all particles of a language less accessible), which is linked to the notion of reversed language dominance ( Green, 1998 , but see also Casado et al, 2021 ). More in line with recent suggestions ( Casado et al, 2021 ), our findings do not reveal consistent evidence for the reversed language dominance effects as support for the notion of global lexical level inhibition probably because of a missing assessment of current language dominance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Evidence for Asymmetrical Switch Costs and Reversed Language Dominance Effects – A Meta-Analysis

Gade

Declerck

Philipp

et al. 2021

Journal of Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two seemingly counterintuitive phenomena – asymmetrical language switch costs and the reversed language dominance effect – prove to be particularly controversial in the literature on language control. Asymmetrical language switch costs refer to the larger costs for switching into the dominant language compared to switching into the less dominant language, both relative to staying in either one language. The reversed language dominance effect refers to longer reaction times when in the more dominant of the two languages in situations that require frequent language switching (i.e., mixed-language blocks). The asymmetrical language switch costs are commonly taken as an index for processes of transient, reactive inhibitory language control, whereas the reversed language dominance effect is taken as an index for sustained, proactive inhibitory language control. In the present meta-analysis, we set out to establish the empirical evidence for these two phenomena using a Bayesian linear mixed effects modelling approach. Despite the observation of both phenomena in some studies, our results suggest that overall, there is little evidence for the generality and robustness of these two effects, and this holds true even when conditions – such as language proficiency and preparation time manipulations – were included as moderators of these phenomena. We conclude that asymmetrical switch costs and the reversed language dominance effect are important for theory development, but their utility for theory testing is limited due to their lack of robustness and the absence of confirmed moderatory variables.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Evidence for Asymmetrical Switch Costs and Reversed Language Dominance Effects – A Meta-Analysis

Gade

Declerck

Philipp

et al. 2021

Journal of Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This would explain why their L1 could have been more readily activated when compared to the L1 of English-Chinese bilinguals, facilitating the processing of congruent L2 binomials. This account is compatible with the extended Inhibitory Control model that is based on the language balance model (Casado, et al, 2021), which holds that the amount of inhibition applied to L1 during L2 use is related to the relative balance between the two languages. Studies have shown that when the two languages of a bilingual speaker are relatively balanced, the switching costs between languages becomes comparable, i.e., symmetrical switching costs (Christoffels et al, 2007;Declerck et al, 2013;Schwieter & Sunderman, 2008).…”

Section: L1 Inhibitionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Cross-Language Influences in the Processing of Multi-Word Expressions: From a First Language to Second and Back

Du¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>Cross-language similarity in form and meaning between the first language (L1) and the second language (L2) benefits bilingual language processing. The facilitative role of congruency is well-established in bilingual lexical (single word) processing, such as cognate facilitation effects. Recent research has suggested that the processing advantage afforded by congruency also extends to units beyond the word level, to multi-word expressions (MWEs). Congruent L2 MWEs that have an equivalent form in the L1 are likely to be processed faster and more accurately than incongruent L2-only MWEs that have no equivalent in the L1. However, it is still unclear what mechanisms underpin the congruency effect in the processing of L2 MWEs, and whether congruency can also affect L1 MWE processing. To further understand cross-language influences in the processing of MWEs, the present study investigated cross-language influences in the processing of binomial expressions (knife and fork) in the L1→L2 and L2→L1 directions. Two groups of unbalanced bilinguals (Chinese-English and English-Chinese) and a control group of English monolinguals performed a visual lexical decision task that incorporated unmasked priming. To assess cross-language influences, I used three types of expressions: congruent binomials (English binomials that have translation equivalents in Chinese), English-only binomials, and Chinese-only binomials translated into English. Lexical decision latencies to the last word (fork) in a binomial (knife and fork) were compared with response latencies to the same word in a matched control phrase (spoon and fork). I found that (1) Chinese-English bilinguals in Experiment 1a showed a significant priming effect for congruent binomials but no facilitation for English-only binomials, (2) English monolingual controls in Experiment 1b showed comparable priming for congruent and English-only binomials, (3) English-Chinese bilinguals in Experiment 2 showed a trend toward priming for congruent binomials, which did not reach statistical significance, and no priming for English-only binomials. None of the three participant groups showed priming for translated Chinese-only binomial over controls. These findings suggest that L1 influences the processing of L2 binomials, and that there may be some cross-linguistic influence in the opposite direction, i.e., from L2 to L1, although to a lesser extent. For the Chinese-English bilinguals, the facilitation for congruent binomials is probably not due to the automatic activation of L1 translation equivalents of the L2 binomials. I conclude that exposure to binomial phrases in the L2 is needed for the congruency effect to occur. For the English-Chinese bilinguals, they showed no priming for English-only binomials. I propose that their L1 may be inhibited in L2 learning and immersion contexts and switching back to L1 may come at a cost. However, the English-Chinese bilinguals showed a weak priming in the processing of congruent binomials, providing initial evidence that crosslinguistic influence can occur from the non-dominant L2 to the dominant L1, even in an entirely within-L1 task.</p>

show abstract

“…In blocked picture naming tasks, asymmetries have been observed with respect to language order. Naming first in the dominant language facilitates later naming in a non-dominant language (Branzi et al, 2014;Casado et al, 2022;Misra et al, 2012;Wodniecka et al, 2020); by contrast, no such facilitation occurs for the dominant language following a prior block of naming in a non-dominant language. Both new and repeated words in the L1 show interference when preceded by naming in the L2.…”

Section: Language Directionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Switch costs have also been demonstrated in blocked languageswitching paradigms in which the response language changes between blocks of stimuli (Branzi et al, 2014;Casado et al, 2022;Degani et al, 2020;Kleinman & Gollan, 2018;Misra et al, 2012;Wodniecka et al, 2020). It is worth noting that such effects are not confined to translation equivalents: naming any pictures in one language can interfere with lexical access in another, although in some cases naming translation equivalents incurs a greater cost (e.g., Kleinman & Gollan, 2018).…”

Section: Evidence For Interferencementioning

confidence: 98%

Cross-linguistic influence in the bilingual lexicon: Evidence for ubiquitous facilitation and context-dependent interference effects on lexical processing

Bailey,

Lockary,

Higby

2023

Bilingualism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For bilinguals, lexical access in one language may affect, or be affected by, activation of words in another language. Research to date suggests seemingly contradictory effects of such cross-linguistic influence (CLI): in some cases CLI facilitates lexical access while in others it is a hindrance. Here we provide a comprehensive review of CLI effects drawn from multiple disciplines and paradigms. We describe the contexts within which CLI gives rise to facilitation and interference and suggest that these two general effects arise from separate mechanisms that are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, we argue that facilitation is ubiquitous, occurring in virtually all instances of CLI, while interference is not always present and depends on levels of cross-language lexical competition. We discuss three critical factors – language context, direction, and modality of CLI – which appear to modulate facilitation and interference. Overall, we hope to provide a general framework for investigating CLI in future research.

show abstract

The relative balance between languages predicts the magnitude of whole-language inhibition.

Cited by 5 publications

References 34 publications

Assessing the Evidence for Asymmetrical Switch Costs and Reversed Language Dominance Effects – A Meta-Analysis

Assessing the Evidence for Asymmetrical Switch Costs and Reversed Language Dominance Effects – A Meta-Analysis

Cross-Language Influences in the Processing of Multi-Word Expressions: From a First Language to Second and Back

Cross-linguistic influence in the bilingual lexicon: Evidence for ubiquitous facilitation and context-dependent interference effects on lexical processing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About