What is it about?
When bilinguals speak, they often manage two kinds of language interference. One type happens across languages. For example, when describing the colour of a sunflower, a Dutch-English bilingual might say both “geel” and “yellow”. The other type happens within languages. For example, when naming the ink colour of the word “yellow”, you might be tempted to read the word aloud (yellow) as well as the ink colour (black). Both types of interference come at a cost to how quickly we can speak. Our study aimed to determine whether both types of interference are managed by the same or separate cognitive mechanisms. We predicted that if they were managed by the same mechanisms, combining the tasks would lead to additional speech time costs beyond those observed in the separate tasks alone. However, we found no such evidence across a range of bilingual groups, suggesting that both types of interference are resolved by different processes and/or in different stages of processing. Put simply, the way we handle the challenges of switching between languages is distinct from how we resolve conflicts within a single language.
Featured Image
Photo by Brady Bellini on Unsplash
Why is it important?
This work challenges a body of research indicating that the same cognitive mechanisms are used to resolve all types of language interference. Using simulations and a large sample of three bilingual groups, the current study indicates that different mechanisms are likely used to resolve different types of conflict within and between languages. This suggests that the cognitive mechanisms used to resolve interference in language production are likely highly specialised to the task at hand. This changes how we think about language control during bilingual language production, the bilingual advantage, and theories of language production more generally.
Perspectives
This study involved a great deal of work to show that our null results were indeed likely true null effects. We replicated the same study in different bilingual language groups, pooled information across a range of studies in our analyses and conducted statistical simulations to show that our analyses were robust and our design able to detect even small effects, if present. We also had to give a full theoretical account of all potential outcomes, many of which are not explicitly stated in studies which support the claims of a unified mechanism of language control. We believe that this gives a full and robust account of potential mechanisms for language control and we arrive at a satisfactory conclusion for how language control is resolved based on both logic and empirical findings.
Glenn Williams
Northumbria University
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Control processes of cross- and within-language interference—A replication of Liu et al. (2019)., Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, April 2025, American Psychological Association (APA),
DOI: 10.1037/xlm0001476.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
