Publications

Abstract

Background

The factors that contribute to language alternation by bilingual speakers with aphasia have been debated. Some studies suggest that atypical language mixing results from impairments in language control, while others posit that mixing is a way to enhance communicative effectiveness. To address this question, most prior research examined the appropriateness of language mixing in connected speech tasks.
Aims

The goal of this study was to provide new insight into the question whether language mixing in aphasia reflects a strategy to enhance verbal effectiveness or involuntary behaviour resulting from impaired language control.
Methods & procedures

Semi-structured web-based interviews with bilingual speakers with aphasia (N = 19) with varying language backgrounds were conducted. The interviews were transcribed and coded for: (1) Self-reports regarding language control and compensation, (2) instances of language mixing, and (3) in two cases, instances of repair initiation.
Outcomes & results

The results showed that several participants reported language control difficulties but that the knowledge of additional languages could also be recruited to compensate for lexical retrieval problems. Most participants showed no or very few instances of mixing and the observed mixes appeared to adhere to the pragmatic context and known functions of switching. Three participants exhibited more marked switching behaviour and reported corresponding difficulties with language control. Instances of atypical mixing did not coincide with clear problems initiating conversational repair.
Conclusions

Our study highlights the variability in language mixing patterns of bilingual speakers with aphasia. Furthermore, most of the individuals in the study appeared to be able to effectively control their languages, and to alternate between their languages for compensatory purposes. Control deficits resulting in atypical language mixing were observed in a small number of participants.

Abstract

Thirty years ago, Pim Levelt published Speaking. During the 10th International Workshop on Language Production held at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen in July 2018, researchers reflected on the impact of the book in the field, developments since its publication, and current research trends. The contributions in this Special Issue are closely related to the presentations given at the workshop. In this editorial, we sketch the research agenda set by Speaking, review how different aspects of this agenda are taken up in the papers in this volume and outline directions for further research.

Abstract

In simultaneous interpreting, speech comprehension and production processes have to be coordinated in close temporal proximity. To examine the coordination, Dutch-English bilingual participants were presented with narrative fragments recorded in English at speech rates varying from 100 to 200 words per minute and they were asked to translate the fragments into Dutch (interpreting) or repeat them in English (shadowing). Interpreting yielded more errors than shadowing at every speech rate, and increasing speech rate had a stronger negative effect on interpreting than on shadowing. To understand the differential effect of speech rate, a computational model was created of sub-lexical and lexical processes in comprehension and production. Computer simulations revealed that the empirical findings could be captured by assuming a bottleneck preventing simultaneous lexical selection in production and comprehension. To conclude, our empirical and modelling results suggest the existence of a lexical bottleneck that limits the translation of narratives at high speed.

Abstract

It is unclear whether cognitive and motor control are parallel and interactive or serial and independent processes. According to one view, cognitive control refers to a set of modality-nonspecific processes that act on supramodal representations and precede response modality-specific motor processes. An alternative view is that cognitive control represents a set of modality-specific operations that act directly on motor-related representations, implying dependence of cognitive control on motor control. Here, we examined the influence of response modality (vocal vs. manual) on three well-established subcomponent processes of cognitive control: shifting, inhibiting, and updating. We observed effects of all subcomponent processes in reaction times. The magnitude of these effects did not differ between response modalities for shifting and inhibiting, in line with a serial, supramodal view. However, the magnitude of the updating effect differed between modalities, in line with an interactive, modality-specific view. These results suggest that updating represents a modality-specific operation that depends on motor control, whereas shifting and inhibiting represent supramodal operations that act independently of motor control.

Abstract

Since Pillsbury [1908. Attention. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co], the issue of whether attention operates through inhibition or enhancement has been on the scientific agenda. We examined whether overcoming previous attentional inhibition or enhancement is the source of asymmetrical switch costs in spoken noun-phrase production and colour-word Stroop tasks. In Experiment 1, using bivalent stimuli, we found asymmetrical costs in response times for switching between long and short phrases and between Stroop colour naming and reading. However, in Experiment 2, using bivalent stimuli for the weaker tasks (long phrases, colour naming) and univalent stimuli for the stronger tasks (short phrases, word reading), we obtained an asymmetrical switch cost for phrase production, but a symmetrical cost for Stroop. The switch cost evidence was quantified using Bayesian statistical analyses. Our findings suggest that switching between phrase types involves inhibition, whereas switching between colour naming and reading involves enhancement. Thus, the attentional mechanism depends on the language-production task involved. The results challenge theories of task switching that assume only one attentional mechanism, inhibition or enhancement, rather than both mechanisms.

Abstract

Although bilingual speakers are very good at selectively using one language rather than another, sometimes language selection errors occur. To investigate how bilinguals monitor their speech errors and control their languages in use, we recorded event-related potentials (ERPs) in unbalanced Dutch-English bilingual speakers in a cued language-switching task. We tested the conflict-based monitoring model of Nozari and colleagues by investigating the error-related negativity (ERN) and comparing the effects of the two switching directions (i.e., to the first language, L1 vs. to the second language, L2). Results show that the speakers made more language selection errors when switching from their L2 to the L1 than vice versa. In the EEG, we observed a robust ERN effect following language selection errors compared to correct responses, reflecting monitoring of speech errors. Most interestingly, the ERN effect was enlarged when the speakers were switching to their L2 (less conflict) compared to switching to the L1 (more conflict). Our findings do not support the conflict-based monitoring model. We discuss an alternative account in terms of error prediction and reinforcement learning.

Abstract

Although bilingual speakers are very good at selectively using one language rather than another, sometimes language selection errors occur. We examined the relative contribution of top-down cognitive control and bottom-up language priming to these errors. Unbalanced Dutch-English bilinguals named pictures and were cued to switch between languages under time pressure. We also manipulated the number of same-language trials before a switch (long vs. short runs). Results show that speakers made more language selection errors when switching from their second language (L2) to the first language (L1) than vice versa. Furthermore, they made more errors when switching to the L1 after a short compared to a long run of L2 trials. In the reverse switching direction (L1 to L2), run length had no effect. These findings are most compatible with an account of language selection errors that assigns a strong role to top-down processes of cognitive control.