Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wlg5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T04:00:29.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Examining language switching in bilinguals: The role of preparation time*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2015

MICHELA MOSCA  and
HARALD CLAHSEN
MICHELA MOSCA*
Affiliation:
Potsdam Research Institute for Multilingualism (PRIM), University of Potsdam, Germany International Doctorate in Experimental Approaches to Language And the Brain (IDEALAB), University of Potsdam, Germany University of Groningen, The Netherlands; University of Trento, Italy Newcastle University, UK Macquarie University, Australia.
HARALD CLAHSEN
Affiliation:
Potsdam Research Institute for Multilingualism (PRIM), University of Potsdam, Germany
*
Address for correspondence: Michela Mosca, University of Potsdam, Potsdam Research Institute for Multilingualism (PRIM), D-14476Potsdammosca@uni-potsdam.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Much research on language control in bilinguals has relied on the interpretation of the costs of switching between two languages. Of the two types of costs that are linked to language control, switching costs are assumed to be transient in nature and modulated by trial-specific manipulations (e.g., by preparation time), while mixing costs are supposed to be more stable and less affected by trial-specific manipulations. The present study investigated the effect of preparation time on switching and mixing costs, revealing that both types of costs can be influenced by trial-specific manipulations.

Keywords

Bilingual language switchingpreparation timeswitching costsmixing costspicture naming

Information

Type
Research Notes
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , March 2016 , pp. 415 - 424
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

The research presented in this study was supported by a PhD fellowship from the Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctoral Programme (EMJD) of the European Union to MM and an Alexander-von-Humboldt-Professorship to HC. We are grateful to the members of the Potsdam Research Institute for Multilingualism for detailed and helpful comments on the present work.

References

Allan, D. (2004). Oxford Placement Test 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Allport, A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In Umilta, C. & Moscovitch, M. (Eds.), Conscious and nonconscious information processing: Attention and performance XV (pp. 421–452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., & Milin, P. (2010). Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3, 12–28.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. [http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4]. R package version 1.1–7.Google Scholar
Bates, E., D’Amico, S., Jacobsen, T., Szekely, A., Andonova, E., Devescovi, A., Herron, D., Lu, C. C., Pechmann, T., Pleh, C., Wicha, N., Federmeier, K., Gerdjikova, I., Gutierrez, G., Hung, D., Hsu, J., Iyer, G., Kohnert, K., Mehotcheva, T., Orozco-Figueroa, A., Tzeng, A., & Tzeng, O. (2003). Timed picture naming in seven languages. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 344–380.Google Scholar
Bobb, S. C., & Wodniecka, Z. (2013). Language switching in picture naming: What asymmetric switch costs (do not) tell us about inhibition in bilingual speech planning. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 568–585.Google Scholar
Braver, T. S., Reynolds, J. R., & Donaldson, D. I. (2003). Neural mechanisms of transient and sustained cognitive control during task switching. Neuron, 39, 713–726.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2004). Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods & Results, 33, 261–304.Google Scholar
Christoffels, I. K., Firk, C., & Schiller, N. (2007). Bilingual language control: An event-related brain potential study. Brain Research, 1147, 192–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cnaan, A., Laird, N. M., & Slasor, P. (1997). Using the general linear mixed model to analyse unbalanced repeated measures and longitudinal data. Statistics in Medicine, 16, 2349–2380.Google ScholarPubMed
Costa, A., & Santesteban, M. (2004). Lexical access in bilingual speech production: Evidence from language switching in highly proficient bilinguals and L2 learners. Journal of Memory and language, 50, 491–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, A., Santesteban, M., & Ivanova, I. (2006). How do highly proficient bilinguals control their lexicalization process? Inhibitory and language-specific selection mechanisms are both functional. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 1057–1074.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (2001a). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Declerck, M., Koch, I., & Philipp, A. M. (2012). Digits vs. Pictures: The influence of stimulus type on language switching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 896–904.Google Scholar
Festman, J., & Schwieter, J. W. (2015). Behavioural measures of language control: Production and comprehension. In The Cambridge Handbook of bilingual language processing, ed. By Schwieter, John W.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 527–547.Google Scholar
Fink, A., & Goldrick, M. (2015). Pervasive benefits of preparation in language switching. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review.Google Scholar
Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guo, G., & Zhao, H. (2000). Multilevel modeling for binary data. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 441–462.Google Scholar
Hernandez, A. E., Dapretto, M., Mazziotta, J., & Bookheimer, S. (2001). Language switching and language representation in Spanish-English bilinguals: an fMRI study. Neuroimage, 14, 510–520.Google Scholar
Howard, D., Nickels, L., Coltheart, M., & Cole-Virtue, J. (2006). Cumulative semantic inhibition in picture naming: experimental and computational studies. Cognition, 100, 464–482.Google Scholar
Kliegl, R., Masson, M. E. J., & Richter, E. M. (2010). A linear mixed model analysis of masked repetition priming. Visual Cognition, 18, 655–681.Google Scholar
Koch, I., & Allport, A. (2006). Cue-based preparation and stimulus-based priming of tasks in task switching. Memory & Cognition, 34, 433–444.Google ScholarPubMed
Koch, I., Prinz, W., & Allport, A. (2005). Involuntary retrieval in alphabet-arithmetic tasks: Task-mixing and task-switching costs. Psychological Research, 69, 252–261.Google ScholarPubMed
Los, S. A. (1996). On the origin of mixing costs: Exploring information processing in pure and mixed blocks of trials. Acta Psychologica, 94, 145–188.Google Scholar
Mayr, U., & Kliegl, R. (2003). Differential effects of cue changes and task changes on task-set selection costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 362–372.Google Scholar
Meiran, N. (2000). Modeling cognitive control in task-switching. Psychological Research, 63, 234–249.Google ScholarPubMed
Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134–140 Google Scholar
Philipp, A. M., Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2007). Inhibitory processes in language switching? Evidence from switching language-defined response sets. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 395–416.Google Scholar
Prior, A., & Gollan, T. H. (2011). Good language-switchers are good task-switchers: Evidence from Spanish-English and Mandarin-English bilinguals. The Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 17, 682–691.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Protopapas, A. (2007). CheckVocal: A program to facilitate checking the accuracy and response time of vocal responses from DMDX. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 859–862.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [http://www.R-project.org].Google Scholar
Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231.Google Scholar
Rossion, B., & Pourtois, G. (2004). Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart's object set: The role of surface detail in basic-level object recognition. Perception, 33, 217–236.Google Scholar
Rubin, O., & Meiran, N. (2005). On the origins of the task mixing cost in the cuing task-switching paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1477–1491.Google Scholar
Schwieter, J. W., & Sunderman, G. (2008). Language switching in bilingual speech production. The Mental Lexicon, 3, 214–238.Google Scholar
Venables, W. N., & Ripley, B. D. (2002). Modern Applied Statistics with S. Springer, New York, fourth edition. [http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/pub/MASS4]. ISBN 0–387–95457–0.Google Scholar
Verhoef, K., Roelofs, A., & Chwilla, D. (2009). Role of inhibition in language switching: Evidence from event related brain potentials in overt picture naming. Cognition, 110, 84–99.Google Scholar
Verhoef, K., Roelofs, A., & Chwilla, D. (2010). Electrophysiological evidence for endogenous control in switching attention between languages in overt picture naming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 1832–1843.Google ScholarPubMed