Inhibition processing in code-switching among Chinese–English–Japanese trilinguals: Evidence from the n

Abstract

Aims and Objectives:

The current study aimed to investigate whether there was inhibitory processing in code-switching during language comprehension among Chinese–English–Japanese trilinguals and whether n–2 language repetition costs were contingent upon particular stimulus–response configurations.

Methodology:

This experiment employed semantic categorization tasks, with non-cognate animal and non-animal words as experimental stimuli, and the n–2 language repetition costs as a discerning experimental indicator, to explore whether there was inhibitory processing in code-switching during language comprehension among Chinese–English–Japanese trilinguals. Furthermore, we investigated the impact of stimulus–response configuration on inhibitory processing during switching between phonetic and logographic writing systems. This approach allowed for a detailed exploration of the cognitive mechanisms underpinning language switching and the factors influencing inhibitory control in multilingual contexts.

Data and Analysis:

The experimental data collected were analyzed using the R language with the lme4 package. Reaction times were fitted to a linear mixed-effects model, while accuracy was binary coded and fitted to a generalized mixed-effects model with a logistic link function.

Findings:

The study found that: (1) there were n–2 language repetition costs in Chinese–English–Japanese trilinguals’ code-switching during language comprehension and (2) the n–2 language repetition costs in code-switching processing during language comprehension was not affected by specific stimulus–response configurations but was related to the psychological representation of the competing languages.

Originality:

There is a lack of research investigating the switching of three language tasks using n–2 language repetition costs as an index. Limited studies employing n–2 language repetition costs as an index have predominantly focused on the level of language production, with language comprehension yet to be examined. In addition, there exists a dearth of research addressing the inhibitory mechanisms involved in the code-switching process between phonetic and logographic writing systems; even more limited attention has been directed toward the intricacies of switching between three non-cognate languages.

Significance/Implications:

The study reveals the inhibitory processing involved in code-switching between phonetic and logographic writing systems. It extends previous findings concerning the inhibitory processing of code-switching during language production within phonetic languages, providing new insights into the research on code-switching and the n–2 language repetition costs among multilingual individuals.

Keywords

Code-switching inhibition processing stimulus–response configuration

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Altenberg

E. P.

Cairns

H. S.

(1983). The effects of phonotactic constraints on lexical processing in bilingual and monolingual subjects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(2), 174–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(83)90134-2

Arbuthnott

K. D.

(2005). The influence of cue type on backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(5), 1030. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.5.1030

Baayen

R. H.

Davidson

D. J.

Bates

D. M.

(2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005

Barr

D. J.

Levy

Scheepers

Tily

H. J.

(2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001

Bates

Kliegl

Vasishth

Baayen

(2018). Parsimonious mixed models. arXiv preprint, arXiv:1506.04967v2. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1506.04967

Bates

Mächler

Bolker

Walker

(2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01

Bates

Maechler

Bolker

Walker

Christensen

R. H. B.

Singmann

Dai

Scheipl

Grothendieck

Green

Fox

Bauer

Krivitsky

P. N.

Tanaka

(2023). lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models using “Eigen” and S4. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html

Costa

Santesteban

(2004). Lexical access in bilingual speech production: Evidence from language switching in highly proficient bilinguals and L2 learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(4), 491–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.02.002

Costa

Santesteban

Ivanova

(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(5), 1057. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.5.1057

10.

Dalrymple-Alford

E. C.

(1985). Language switching during bilingual reading. British Journal of Psychology, 76(1), 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1985.tb01935.x

11.

Declerck

Thoma

A. M.

Koch

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, 1911–1916. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000138

12.

Fan

S. S.

(2013). A study on the inhibitory processing of Chinese-English-Japanese trilingual’ language production during code-switching. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 1, 58–68+160.

13.

Finkbeiner

Almeida

Janssen

Caramazza

(2006). Lexical selection in bilingual speech production does not involve language suppression. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(5), 1075–1089. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.5.1075

14.

French

R. M.

Jacquet

(2004). Understanding bilingual memory: Models and data. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(2), 87–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.12.011

15.

Gade

Declerck

Philipp

A. M.

Rey-Mermet

Koch

(2021a). Assessing the evidence for asymmetrical switch costs and reversed language dominance effects—A meta-analysis. Journal of Cognition, 4(1), 55. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.186

16.

Gade

Declerck

Philipp

A. M.

Rey-Mermet

Koch

(2021b). Correction: Assessing the evidence for asymmetrical switch costs and reversed language dominance effects—A meta-analysis. Journal of Cognition, 4(60), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.195

17.

Grainger

Beauvillain

(1987). Language blocking and lexical access in bilinguals. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 39(2), 295–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748708401788

18.

Grange

J. A.

Kowalczyk

A. W.

O’Loughlin

(2017). The effect of episodic retrieval on inhibition in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(8), 1568. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000411

19.

Green

D. W.

(1998). Mental control of the bilingual Lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(2), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728998000133

20.

Grosjean

(1982). Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism. Harvard University Press.

21.

Grosjean

(1998). Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(2), 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672899800025X

22.

Grosjean

(2001). The bilingual’s language modes. In Nico

(Eds.), One Mind, Two Languages: Bilingual Language Processing (pp. 1–22). Blackwell. https://www-wiley-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/en-us/One+Mind%2C+Two+Languages%3A+Bilingual+Language+Processing-p-9780631220985

23.

Guo

Liu

Chen

(2013). Inhibition of non-target languages in multilingual word production: Evidence from Uighur–Chinese–English trilinguals. Acta Psychologica, 143(3), 277–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.04.002

24.

Jackson

G. M.

Swainson

Cunnington

Jackson

S. R.

(2001). ERP correlates of executive control during repeated language switching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(2), 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728901000268

25.

Kleinsorge

Heuer

(1999). Hierarchical switching in a multi-dimensional task space. Psychological Research, 62, 300–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004260050060

26.

Koch

Gade

Schuch

Philipp

A. M.

(2010). The role of inhibition in task switching: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.1.1

27.

Kroll

J. F.

Dussias

P. E.

Bogulski

C. A.

Kroff

J. R. V.

(2012). Juggling two languages in one mind: What bilinguals tell us about language processing and its consequences for cognition. In Ross

B. H.

(Eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 229–262). Academic press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394393-4.00007-8

28.

Kuznetsova

Brockhoff

P. B.

Christensen

R. H.

(2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13

29.

Zhang

Zhao

(2020). Language History Questionnaire (LHQ3): An enhanced tool for assessing multilingual experience. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(5), 938–944. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728918001153

30.

(2007). Dimensions of bilingualism. In Wei

(Eds.), The Bilingualism Reader (pp. 25–45). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003060406

31.

Mayr

(2002). Inhibition of action rules. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 93–99. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196261

32.

Mayr

(2007). Inhibition of task sets. In Gorfein

D. S.

MacLeod

C. M.

(Eds.), Inhibition in cognition (pp. 27–44). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11587-002

33.

Mayr

Keele

S. W.

(2000). Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(1), 4–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.129.1.4

34.

Meuter

R. F.

Allport

(1999). Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(1), 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2602

35.

Philipp

A. M.

Gade

Koch

(2007). Inhibitory processes in language switching: Evidence from switching language-defined response sets. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(3), 395–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440600758812

36.

Philipp

A. M.

Jolicoeur

Falkenstein

Koch

(2007). Response selection and response execution in task switching: Evidence from a go-signal paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(6), 1062–1075. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.6.1062

37.

Philipp

A. M.

Koch

(2005). Switching of response modalities. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 58(7), 1325–1338. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980443000656

38.

Philipp

A. M.

Koch

(2009). Inhibition in language switching: What is inhibited when switching between languages in naming tasks? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(5), 1187–1195. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016376

39.

R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org/

40.

Scheil

Kleinsorge

(2023). Effects of a dynamically changing response set overlap on n− 2 repetition costs. Psychological Research, 87(7), 2275–2282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-023-01816-w

41.

Schroeder

S. R.

Marian

(2017). Cognitive consequences of trilingualism. International Journal of Bilingualism, 21(6), 754–773. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006916637288

42.

Schuch

Koch

(2003). The role of response selection for inhibition of task sets in task shifting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(1), 92–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.29.1.92

43.

Sokolovska

(2023). “Multilingualism is now a must”: Discourses on languages and international cooperation at the Council of Europe. In Pavlenko

(Ed.), Multilingualism and history (pp. 223–238). Cambridge University Press.

44.

Szubko-Sitarek

(2011). Cognate facilitation effects in trilingual word recognition. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1(2), 189–208. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2011.1.2.2

45.

Thomas

M. S. C.

Allport

D. A.

(2000). Language switching costs in bilingual visual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 43(1), 44–66. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2700

46.

Von Studnitz

R. E.

Green

D. W.

(1997). Lexical decision and language switching. International Journal of Bilingualism, 1(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/136700699700100102

47.

Von Studnitz

R. E.

Green

D. W.

(2002). The cost of switching language in a semantic categorization task. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(3), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728902003036

48.

Zhong

(2023). Book review: The Cambridge Handbook of Childhood Multilingualism by Jessner

(eds). Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 39(3), 279–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/02656590231185007

49.

Zhong

Fan

(2023a). The psychology of multilingualism: Concepts, theories and application. The Social Science Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/03623319.2023.2194475

50.

Zhong

Fan

(2023b). Worldwide Trend Analysis of Psycholinguistic Research on Code Switching Using Bibliometrix R-tool. SAGE Open, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231211657

Inhibition processing in code-switching among Chinese–English–Japanese trilinguals: Evidence from the n –2 language repetition costs

Abstract

Aims and Objectives:

Methodology:

Data and Analysis:

Findings:

Originality:

Significance/Implications:

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References