The impact of cues on language switching: do spoken questions reduce the need for bilingual language control?

IF 2.5 1区 文学 Q1 LINGUISTICS Bilingualism: Language and Cognition Pub Date : 2024-12-10 DOI:10.1017/s1366728924000841
Kalinka Timmer, Agata Wolna, Zofia Wodniecka
{"title":"The impact of cues on language switching: do spoken questions reduce the need for bilingual language control?","authors":"Kalinka Timmer, Agata Wolna, Zofia Wodniecka","doi":"10.1017/s1366728924000841","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The classical language switching paradigm using arbitrary cues to indicate the language to speak in has revealed switching between languages comes at a cost (i.e., switch cost) and makes one slower in the first than in the second language (i.e., reversed language dominance). However, arbitrary cues can create artificial requirements not present during everyday language interactions. Therefore, we investigated whether simulating elements of real-life conversations with question cues (‘Co?’ versus ‘What?’) facilitates language switching in comparison to the classical paradigm (Experiment 1: red versus blue outline; Experiments 2 and 3: low versus high tone). We revealed a dissociation between the two indices of language control: (1) question cues, compared to arbitrary cues, reduced switch costs but (2) did not modulate (in Experiment 1) or increase the reversed language dominance (Experiments 2 and 3). We propose that this conversational switching paradigm could be used as a conceptually more ‘true’ measure of language control.</p>","PeriodicalId":8758,"journal":{"name":"Bilingualism: Language and Cognition","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bilingualism: Language and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728924000841","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The classical language switching paradigm using arbitrary cues to indicate the language to speak in has revealed switching between languages comes at a cost (i.e., switch cost) and makes one slower in the first than in the second language (i.e., reversed language dominance). However, arbitrary cues can create artificial requirements not present during everyday language interactions. Therefore, we investigated whether simulating elements of real-life conversations with question cues (‘Co?’ versus ‘What?’) facilitates language switching in comparison to the classical paradigm (Experiment 1: red versus blue outline; Experiments 2 and 3: low versus high tone). We revealed a dissociation between the two indices of language control: (1) question cues, compared to arbitrary cues, reduced switch costs but (2) did not modulate (in Experiment 1) or increase the reversed language dominance (Experiments 2 and 3). We propose that this conversational switching paradigm could be used as a conceptually more ‘true’ measure of language control.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
16.70%
发文量
86
期刊最新文献
Agreement and reflexives in non-native sentence processing Bilingual education enhances creative fluency and flexibility over the first year of primary school A cognitive network analysis of semantic associates in monolingual English speakers and learners of Kaqchikel Intergenerational attrition: direct or reverse language transmission? Is switching more costly in cued than voluntary language switching? Evidence from behaviour and electrophysiology
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1