Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-94d59 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-18T13:04:40.565Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Modality effects in language switching: Evidence for a bimodal advantage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2017

EMILY KAUFMANN*
Affiliation:
Human Technology Centre, RWTH Aachen University Pedagogy and Rehabilitation of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, University of Cologne
IRENE MITTELBERG
Affiliation:
Human Technology Centre, RWTH Aachen University
IRING KOCH
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychology, RWTH Aachen University
ANDREA M. PHILIPP
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychology, RWTH Aachen University
*
Address for correspondence: Emily Kaufmann, Pedagogy and Rehabilitation of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, University of Cologne, Klosterstrasse 79b, 50931 Koeln, Germanykaufmann.emily@gmail.com

Abstract

In language switching, it is assumed that in order to produce a response in one language, the other language must be inhibited. In unimodal (spoken-spoken) language switching, the fact that the languages share the same primary output channel (the mouth) means that only one language can be produced at a time. In bimodal (spoken-signed) language switching, however, it is possible to produce both languages simultaneously. In our study, we examined modality effects in language switching using multilingual subjects (speaking German, English, and German Sign Language). Focusing on German vocal responses, since they are directly compatible across conditions, we found shorter reaction times, lower error rates, and smaller switch costs in bimodal vs. unimodal switching. This result suggests that there are different inhibitory mechanisms at work in unimodal and bimodal language switching. We propose that lexical inhibition is involved in unimodal switching, whereas output channel inhibition is involved in bimodal switching.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

*This research was funded in part by the Excellence Initiative of the German Federal and State Governments.

References

Arrington, C. M., Altmann, E. M., & Carr, T. H. (2003). Tasks of a feather flock together: Similarity effects in task switching. Memory & Cognition, 31, 781789.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bobb, S., & 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, 568585.Google Scholar
Costa, A., & Caramazza, A. (1999). Is lexical selection in bilingual speech production language-specific? Further evidence from Spanish–English and English–Spanish bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2, 231244.Google Scholar
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, 491511.Google Scholar
Declerck, M., & Philipp, A. M. (2015). A review of control processes and their locus in language switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 16301645.Google Scholar
Declerck, M., Thoma, A. M., Koch, I., & Philipp, A. M. (2015). Highly proficient bilinguals implement inhibition – Evidence from n-2 language repetition costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 41, 19111916.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K., Borinstein, H. B., Thompson, R., & Gollan, T. H. (2008a). Bimodal bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11, 4361.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K., Luk, G., Pyers, J. E., & Bialystok, E. (2008b). The source of enhanced cognitive control in bilinguals: Evidence from bimodal bilinguals. Psychological Science, 19, 12011206.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K., Giezen, M. R., & Gollan, T.H. (2016). Psycholinguistic, cognitive, and neural implications of bimodal bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19, 223242.Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, M., & Caramazza, A. (2006). Lexical selection is not a competitive process: A reply to La Heij, Kuipers and Starreveld. Cortex, 42, 10321035.Google Scholar
Giezen, M. R., Blumenfeld, H. K., Shook, A., Marian, V., & Emmorey, K. (2015). Parallel language activation and inhibitory control in bimodal bilinguals. Cognition, 141, 925.Google Scholar
Gollan, T. H., Schotter, E. R., Gomez, J., Murillo, M., & Rayner, K. (2014). Multiple levels of bilingual language control: Evidence from language intrusions in reading aloud. Psychological Science, 25, 585595.Google Scholar
Green, D. W. (1986). Control, activation and resource: A framework and a model for the control of speech in bilinguals. Brain and Language, 27, 210223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 6781.Google Scholar
Heikoop, K., Declerck, M., Los, S., & Koch, I. (2016). Dissociating language-switch costs from cue-switch costs in bilingual language switching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19, 921927.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, E., & Philipp, A. M. (2015). Language-switch costs and dual-response costs in bimodal bilingual language production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. Online First (2 December 2015). DOI: 10.1017/S1366728915000759 Google Scholar
Koch, I., Gade, M., Schuch, S., & Philipp, A. M. (2010). The role of inhibition in task switching: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 114.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S. C., Misra, M., & Guo, T. (2008). Language selection in bilingual speech: Evidence for inhibitory processes. Acta Psychologica, 128, 416430.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S. C., & Wodniecka, Z. (2006). Language selectivity is the exception, not the rule: Arguments against a fixed locus of language selection in bilingual speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 119135.Google Scholar
Meuter, R. F. I., & Allport, A. (1999). Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 2540.Google Scholar
Milroy, L., & Muysken, P. (1995). One speaker, two languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-switching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.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, 395416.Google Scholar
Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2009). Inhibition in language switching: What is inhibited when switching between languages in naming tasks? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 11871195.Google Scholar
Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2011). The role of response modalities in cognitive task representations. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 7, 3138.Google Scholar
Szekely, A., Jacobsen, T., D'Amico, S., Devescovi, A., Andonova, E., Herron, D., Lu, C.C., Pechmann, T., Pléh, 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., Arévalo, A., Vargha, A., Butler, A. C., Buffington, R., & Bates, E. (2004). A new on-line resource for psycholinguistic studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 247250.Google Scholar