Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T19:53:49.335Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language switching in bilingual production: Empirical data and computational modelling*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2013

ROBERTO FILIPPI ,
THEMIS KARAMINIS  and
MICHAEL S. C. THOMAS
ROBERTO FILIPPI*
Affiliation:
Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge & Developmental Neurocognition Lab, Birkbeck, University of London
THEMIS KARAMINIS
Affiliation:
Centre for Research in Autism and Education (CRAE), Institute of Education, University of London & Developmental Neurocognition Lab, Birkbeck, University of London
MICHAEL S. C. THOMAS
Affiliation:
Developmental Neurocognition Lab, Birkbeck, University of London
*
Address for correspondence: Roberto Filippi, Anglia Ruskin University, East Road, Cambridge CB1 1PT, UKroberto.filippi@anglia.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One key issue in bilingualism is how bilinguals control production, particularly to produce words in the less dominant language. Language switching is one method to investigate control processes. Language switching has been much studied in comprehension, e.g., in lexical decision task, but less so in production. Here we first present a study of language switching in Italian–English adult bilinguals in a naming task for visually presented words. We demonstrate an asymmetric pattern of time costs to switch language, where participants incurred a greater time cost to switch into naming in their dominant language (Italian). In addition, costs were greater where the stimuli were interlingual cognates or homographs than words existing in only one language, implicating lexical competition as a source of the cost. To clarify the operation of control processes, we then present two connectionist models of bilingual naming, based on the previous models of Seidenberg and McClelland (1989), Cohen, Dunbar and McClelland (1990), Gilbert and Shallice (2002), and Karaminis and Thomas (2010). Crucially, both models acquired their differential language dominance via an experience-dependent learning process. The models embody different assumptions about the language control processes that produce the switch cost. We consider which processing assumptions are sufficient to explain asymmetric language switch costs and word class effects on language switching in individual word reading, as well as generating novel predictions for future testing.

Keywords

bilingualismspeech productionswitchingcomputational modelling
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , April 2014 , pp. 294 - 315
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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 study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council studentship, ESRC grant RES-062-23-2721, and a Leverhulme Study Abroad Fellowship held at the University of Chicago. Our thanks to Prof. David W. Green and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.

References

Abutalebi, J., & Green, D. W. (2008). Control mechanisms in bilingual language production: Neural evidence from language switching studies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 557–582.Google Scholar
Allport, D. A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In Umilta, C. & Moscovitch, M. (eds.), Attention and Performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing, pp. 421–452. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
Allport, A., & Wylie, G. (2000). “Task-switching”, stimulus–response bindings, and negative priming. In Monsell, S. & Driver, J. S. (eds.), Attention and Performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes, pp. 35–70. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2010). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [computer program], Version 5.1.38. http://www.praat.org/ (retrieved July 2, 2010).Google Scholar
Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: A parallel-distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97, 332–361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC Psycholinguistic Database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33A, 497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, R. Dennis (1977). Detection of influential observations in linear regression. Technometrics, 19, 15–18.Google Scholar
Costa, A. (2005). Lexical access in bilingual production. In Kroll & De Groot (eds.), pp. 308–325.Google Scholar
Costa, A., Miozzo, M., & Caramazza, A. (1999). Lexical selection in bilinguals: Do words in bilingual's two lexicons compete for selection? Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 365–397.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, 491–511.Google Scholar
de Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt's “speaking” model adapted. Applied linguistics, 12, 1–24.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T. (2005). Bilingual visual word recognition and lexical access. In Kroll & De Groot (eds.), pp. 178–201.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., & Van Heuven, W. J. B. (1998). The BIA model and bilingual word recognition. In Grainger, J. & Jacobs, A. M. (eds.), Localist connectionist approaches to human cognition, pp. 189–225. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Filippi, R., Leech, R., Thomas, M. S. C., Green, D. W., & Dick, F. (2012). A bilingual advantage in controlling language interference during sentence comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 858–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filippi, R., Richardson, F., Dick, F., Leech, R., Green, D. W., Thomas, M. S. C., & Price, C. J. (2011). The right posterior paravermis and the control of verbal interference. Journal of Neuroscience, 31, 10732–10740.Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, M., Almeida, J., Janssen, N., & Caramazza, A. (2006). Lexical selection in bilingual speech production does not involve language suppression. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 1075–1089.Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, M., Gollan, T., & Caramazza, A. (2006). Bilingual lexical access: What is the (hard) problem? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 153–166.Google Scholar
French, R. M. (1998). A simple recurrent network model of bilingual memory. In Gernsbacher, M. A. & Derry, S. J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 368–373. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gilbert, S., & Shallice, T. (2002). Task switching: A PDP model. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 297–337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, D. W. (1986). Control, activation, and resource: A framework and a model for the control of speech in bilinguals. Brain and Language, 27, 210–223.Google Scholar
Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 67–81.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (2008). The Léwy and Grosjean BIMOLA Model. In Grosjean, F. (ed.), Studying bilinguals, pp. 201–212. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F., & Miller, J. L. (1994). Going in and out of languages: An example of bilingual flexibility. Psychological Science, 5, 201–206.Google Scholar
Kanne, S. M., Balota, D. A., Spieler, D. H., & Faust, M. E. (1998). Explorations of Cohen, Dunbar, and McClelland's (1990) connectionist model of Stroop performance. Psychological Review, 105, 174–187.Google Scholar
Karaminis, T. N., & Thomas, M. S. C. (2010). A cross-linguistic model of the acquisition of inflectional morphology in English and Modern Greek. In Ohlsson, S. & Catrambone, R. (eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 730–735. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S., & 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, 119–135.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & De Groot, A. M. B. (eds.) (2005). Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kucera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
Laudanna, A., Thornton, A. M., Brown, G., Burani, C., & Marconi, L. (1995). Un corpus dell'italiano scritto contemporaneo dalla parte del ricevente. In Bolasco, S., Lebart, L. & Salem, A. (eds.), III Giornate internazionali di Analisi Statistica dei Dati Testuali (vol. I), pp. 103–109. Roma: Cisu.Google Scholar
Lee, M. W., & Williams, J. N. (2001). Lexical access in spoken word recognition by bilinguals: Evidence from the semantic competitor priming paradigm. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 233–248.Google Scholar
Levy, B. J., McVeigh, N. D., Marful, A., & Anderson, M. C. (2007). Inhibiting your native language: The role of retrieval-induced forgetting during second-language acquisition. Psychological Science, 18, 29–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, P. (2013). Computational modeling of bilingualism: How can models tell us more about the bilingual mind? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 241–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, P., & Farkas, I. (2002). A self-organizing connectionist model of bilingual processing. In Heredia, R. & Altarriba, J. (eds.), Bilingual sentence processing, pp. 59–85. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Li, P., Sepanski, S., & Zhao, X. (2006). Language history questionnaire: A web-based interface for bilingual research. Behaviour Research Methods, 38, 202–210.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L. (1979). On the time-relations of mental processes: An examination of systems of processes in cascade. Psychological Review, 86, 287–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meuter, R. F. I., & Allport, D. A. (1999). Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 25–40.Google Scholar
Monsell, S., Yeung, N. P., & Azuma, R. (2000). Reconfiguration of task-set: Is it easier to switch to the weaker task? Psychological Research, 63, 250–264.Google Scholar
Muñoz-Sandoval, A. F., Cummins, J., Alvarado, C. G., & Ruef, M. L. (1998). Bilingual Verbal Ability Tests: Comprehensive manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside.Google Scholar
Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to actions: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In Davidson, R. J., Schwartz, G. E. & Shapiro, D. (eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation, 1–18. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Poulisse, N. (1999). Slips of the tongue: Speech errors in first and second language production. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Poulisse, N., & Bongaerts, T. (1994). First language use in second language production. Applied Linguistics, 15, 36–57.Google Scholar
Rogers, D., & d'Arcangeli, L. (2004). Italian. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 34, 117–121.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523–568.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S., & MacDonald, M. C. (1999). A probabilistic constraints approach to language acquisition and processing. Cognitive Science, 23, 569–588.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. S. C. (1997a). Connectionist networks and knowledge representation: The case of bilingual lexical processing. D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. S. C. (1997b). Distributed representations and the bilingual lexicon: One store or two? In Bullinaria, J., Glasspool, D. & Houghton, G. (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Annual Neural Computation and Psychology Workshop, pp. 9–11. London: Springer.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. S. C., & Allport, D. A. (2000). Switching costs in bilingual visual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 44–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, M. S. C., & Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2003). Modelling language acquisition in atypical phenotypes. Psychological Review, 110, 647–682.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. S. C., & Plunkett, K. (1995). Representing the bilingual's two lexicons. In Moore, J. D. & Lehman, J. F. (eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 760–765. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. S. C., & Van Heuven, W. J. B. (2005). Computational models of bilingual comprehension. In Kroll & De Groot (eds.), pp. 202–225.Google Scholar
Van Hell, J. G., & Dijkstra, T. (2002). Foreign language knowledge can influence native language performance in exclusively native contexts. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 780–789.Google Scholar
Van Heuven, W. J. B., & Dijkstra, T. (2001). The Semantic, Orthographic, and Phonological Interactive Activation Model. Poster presented at the 12th Conference of the European Society for Cognitive Psychology, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Van Heuven, W. J. B., Dijkstra, T., & Grainger, J. (1998). Orthographic neighborhood effects in bilingual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 458–483.Google Scholar
Von Studnitz, R. E., & Green, D. W. (2002). Interlingual homograph interference in German–English bilinguals: Its modulation and locus of control. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, Y. J., & Thierry, G. (2011). Event-related brain potential investigation of preparation for speech production in late bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 1–9.Google Scholar
Yang, J., Shu, H., McCandliss, B. D., & Zevin, J. D. (2013). Orthographic influences on division of labor in learning to read Chinese and English: Insights from computational modelling. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 354–366.Google Scholar
Zhao, X., & Li, P. (2010). Bilingual lexical interactions in an unsupervised neural network model. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13, 505–524.Google Scholar
Zhao, X., & Li, P. (2013). Simulating cross-language priming with a dynamic computational model of the lexicon. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 288–303.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Filippi et al. Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Filippi et al. Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 369.2 KB