ArticlePDF Available

Language switching in bilingual speech production: In search of the language-specific selection mechanism

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Recent research on language production suggests that bilinguals shift from using inhibitory control mechanisms to a language-specific selective mechanism during development (Costa, Santesteban, & Ivanova, 2006). Costa et al. argue that the robustness of the L2 lexical representations may be critical to the functionality of a language-specific selective mechanism. Accordingly, in the present study we measured the lexical robustness of a group of 54 English dominant learners of Spanish using a verbal fluency task and investigated its effect on their performance in a picture-naming task with language switches. The results suggest that L2 lexical robustness predicts the shift to a language-specific selective mechanism during speech production. Moreover, we demonstrate a specific threshold of lexical robustness necessary to engage the mechanism.
Content may be subject to copyright.
is is a contribution from e Mental Lexicon 3:2
© 2008. John Benjamins Publishing Company
is electronic file may not be altered in any way.
e author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to
be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only.
Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible
to members (students and staff) only of the author’s/s institute.
For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the
publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com).
Please contact rights@benjamins.nl or consult our website: www.benjamins.com
Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com
John Benjamins Publishing Company
e Mental Lexicon : (), –.  ./ml...sch
 – / - – © John Benjamins Publishing Company
Language switching in bilingual speech
production
In search of the language-specic selection
mechanism
John W. Schwieter and Gretchen Sunderman
Wilfrid Laurier University / Florida State University
Recent research on language production suggests that bilinguals shi from using
inhibitory control mechanisms to a language-specic selective mechanism dur-
ing development (Costa, Santesteban, & Ivanova, 2006). Costa et al. argue that
the robustness of the L2 lexical representations may be critical to the functional-
ity of a language-specic selective mechanism. Accordingly, in the present study
we measured the lexical robustness of a group of 54 English dominant learners
of Spanish using a verbal uency task and investigated its eect on their perfor-
mance in a picture-naming task with language switches. e results suggest that
L2 lexical robustness predicts the shi to a language-specic selective mecha-
nism during speech production. Moreover, we demonstrate a specic threshold
of lexical robustness necessary to engage the mechanism.
Keywords: bilingual speech production, inhibitory control, lexical robustness
Bilinguals have the impressive cognitive skill of being able to speak in one lan-
guage, and in one language alone. Although there are a variety of rst language
(L1) elements (i.e., pronunciation, syntax, etc.) that inuence second language
(L2) speech production (even in highly procient bilinguals), L2 speech rarely
exhibits evidence of L1 lexical intrusions (Poulisse, 1999; Poulisse & Bongaerts,
1994). is phenomenon has led researchers to conclude that since bilinguals are
able to select and produce words exclusively from one of their lexicons, there must
be cognitive mechanisms that are called upon to help them appropriately select
and produce the target word (see Costa, 2005 and La Heij, 2005 for reviews of
work done in this area).
e specic control mechanisms that underpin bilingual speech production
remain uncertain. One possible explanation is Greens (1986, 1998) Inhibitory
© 2008. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Language switching 
Control Model (ICM) which, most simply put, hypothesizes that when a bilingual
speaks in one language, inhibitory control mechanisms are called upon to sup-
press the irrelevant language. Under this assumption, bilinguals are able to restrict
the lexicalization process (i.e., the process by which bilinguals access the appropri-
ate word and map it on to its representative concept) to only one language with
minimal to no lexical intrusions from the irrelevant language.
e ICM has been widely supported empirically by evidence of asymmetri-
cal switching costs during language production tasks (Costa & Santesteban, 2004;
Costa, Santesteban, & Ivanova, 2006; Meuter & Allport, 1999). When less pro-
cient bilinguals switch into their more dominant language (L1), they suer a larger
switching cost than if they switch into their less dominant language (L2). Accord-
ing to the ICM, this is expected because it will take more time to reactive the
larger L1 from suppression. Although the ICM posits that the size of the L1 may
determine the strength of the inhibition eect, it goes without saying that this is
theoretically confounded with the relative strength of L1 representations due to its
higher frequency of usage. Nonetheless, there are instances when highly procient
balanced bilinguals switch between their L1 and L2 and exhibit no costs associ-
ated with the switches given the similar language system. In these cases where
there have been symmetrical switching costs reported, researchers have argued for
alternative mechanisms to the ICM, such as a language-specic selection mecha-
nism (Costa, 2005; Costa & Caramazza, 1999; Costa, Miozzo, & Caramazza, 1999;
Costa et al., 2006; Roelofs, 1998). ese ndings have led researchers (Costa, 2005;
Costa & Santesteban, 2004; Schwieter, in press) to discuss the possibility that less
procient bilinguals rely on dierent control mechanisms than their highly pro-
cient counterparts. ese researchers concluded that the main factor driving the
shi from inhibitory control to a language-specic mechanism was prociency.
is explanation, however, did not hold for long.
Costa et al. (2006) later found that some highly procient bilinguals exhibit
similar speech patterns as less procient bilinguals (i.e., asymmetrical switching
costs). is new nding led Costa et al. to revisit and discuss a number of variables
— language similarity, age of L2 acquisition, and prociency — that do not modu-
late the underlying processes of speech control. As such, they then proceeded to
hypothesize two explanations relating to whether the language-specic selection
mechanism can operate on the lexical representations. e rst possibility was
that the robustness of the lexical representations of the L2 might be crucial for the
functionality of the language-specic selection mechanism. Secondly, they sug-
gested that it might be that the lexical representations are mediated by the rst
language and, thus, when beginning bilinguals need to access the meaning of the
L2 word, they must do so by rst activating the L1. Although the idea of lexical
mediation has been supported by Kroll and Stewart’s (1994) Revised Hierarchical
© 2008. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 John W. Schwieter and Gretchen Sunderman
Model, others have taken a response-selection account of performance in picture
naming tasks as an alternative explanation (see Costa et al., 2006 and Finkbeiner,
Gollan, & Caramazza, 2006 for more information). In the end, Costa et al. le
open the two possibilities mentioned above to be explored in future research.
In the present study, we investigate whether L2 lexical robustness explains the
proposed shi away from reliance on inhibitory control to the use of a language-
specic selective mechanism. Following, Costa et al. (2006) we argue that lexical
robustness involves the familiarity with and frequency of access that leads to great-
er automaticity of retrieval of lexical items. Although others have used the term
lexical uency in describing what we and Costa and colleagues call “lexical robust-
ness,we will use the term lexical robustness exclusively in the present study. In
fact, we do not see lexical uency and lexical robustness as interchangeable terms.
Lexical robustness captures both the strength of the representation and the ability
to access the lexical item. We also argue that lexical robustness is a specic mea-
sure of L2 prociency. Previous studies (Costa & Santesteban, 2004; Costa et al.,
2006) have measured prociency by having participants self-rate their abilities in
speaking, reading, writing and listening. ese ratings may not accurately repre-
sent L2 lexical development but rather a more global picture of prociency. Given
the lack of consistent results using these measures, we posit that a measure that
specically targets lexical robustness may capture the point at which the language-
specic selection mechanism may become functional in a way that previous global
prociency measures have failed to demonstrate.
As such, the present study measures the L2 lexicon size of bilinguals via a
verbal uency measure presented in Gollan, Montoya, and Werner (2002) and
explores how increases in the size of the lexicon aect switching costs. is mea-
sure of lexical robustness is a production measure and captures the quantitative
size of the lexicon. e measure is also continuous in nature. By modeling lexical
robustness as a continuous measure, we are able to describe prociency in more
conceptually-appropriate terms. Prociency should not be viewed as a dichoto-
mous variable; it should capture the developmental continuum that represents
language acquisition. By using a continuous measure of L2 lexicon size, we are able
to identify whether a certain level of lexical robustness coincide with the shi to a
language-specic selective mechanism. In other words, we can investigate whether
a specic threshold of lexical robustness is necessary to engage the mechanism.
We can also investigate the impact of the switching cost along the developmental
continuum using this measure of lexical robustness.
In the sections that follow, we rst discuss Green’s (1986, 1998) ICM and re-
view empirical evidence testing its hypotheses. Following this, we discuss Costa
and Santesteban (2004) and Costa et al. (2006) in detail because they have provided
the primary motivation for the present study. We then introduce the present study
© 2008. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Language switching 
(including a discussion of the measure of lexical robustness) and discuss the re-
sults. Finally, we present implications for a bilingual speech production model that
captures the critical role that lexical robustness plays in the lexicalization process.
Inhibitory Control Model
e primary assumption of Green’s (1986, 1998) ICM is that when a bilingual
wants to speak in one language only, that language becomes selected and any fur-
ther production of the nonrelevant language is inhibited. e premise of the ICM
is based on the notion that mental control is a product of inhibition, control sche-
mas, and a supervisory attentional system (SAS). According to this model, there
are multiple levels of control in the bilingual mind with each level corresponding
to a specic schema. Although a wide range of events exist — such as high-level
scripts and low-level articulatory controls — the ICM operates exclusively at the
lemma level. Essentially, Green has proposed that in the regulation of the bilin-
gual lexico-semantic system, a conceptualizer builds conceptual representations,
which are driven by the communicative goal. ese both are mediated by the SAS
together with components of the language system (i.e., language task schemas).
Language task schemas, in turn, compete to control output and thus, accurate se-
lection of any given word requires that the language of production be specied by
the SAS. Once the target language is established, the bilingual mind will turn to
language tags to help determine which non-target words (i.e., those competing for
selection) will need to be inhibited.
e use of language tags is a critical part of Greens model and also has been
incorporated in other bilingual speech production models (La Heij, 2005; Pou-
lisse & Bongaerts, 1994). Within Green’s framework, the non-target words are
suppressed to a degree that is proportionate to the level of activation based on
language tags (i.e., the more activation that is sent to the non-target language, the
more inhibition will be needed). Because of the asymmetrical system sizes of the
L1 and L2, naturally, more inhibition is applied to the L1 when the L2 is the lan-
guage of production. e opposite is true for the smaller, L2 system: less inhibition
is called upon when the L1 is the language of production.
Figure 1 is an illustration of how the ICM explains the lexicalization process in
bilingual speech production. In this example, upon being presented with a picture
of a chair, an English learner of Spanish is told to name the picture in English.
Upon seeing the picture, the semantic system sends activation to the target lexical
nodes of both languages and to a number of semantically related words. At the
lexical level, because each word contains a language tag, the lexical items belong-
ing to Spanish become inhibited and the bilingual is able to select the word chair
based on its activation level and language tag.
© 2008. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 John W. Schwieter and Gretchen Sunderman
Support for the ICM has come from a variety of methodologies including
neurolinguistic studies investigating brain activity (Hernandez, Dapretto, Mazzi-
otta, & Bookheimer, 2001; Price, Green, & von Studnitz, 1999) and natural speech
situations (Grosjean, 1988, 1997; Grosjean & Miller, 1994; Li, 1996, 1998). How-
ever, tasks that require bilinguals to switch back and forth between languages have
proven to be excellent predictors of inhibitory control in bilingual speech produc-
tion. Given the assumption of the ICM that more time is required to reactivate
the larger (L1) system from suppression, it is expected that bilinguals will need
more time (in ms) to switch into their dominant language compared to their less
dominant language. Indeed, strong support for the ICM has come from numeral
naming tasks (Finkbeiner, Almeida, Janssen, & Caramazza, 2006; Meuter, 1994;
Meuter & Allport, 1999) and picture-naming tasks (Costa & Santesteban, 2004;
Costa et al., 2006).
In their seminal article, Meuter and Allport (1999) conducted a battery of
switching experiments with “reasonably procient” bilinguals who were presented
with lists of numerals (1–9). e order of the numerals and length of the lists
were randomized, containing between ve and fourteen numerals. Each target was
placed in either a blue or yellow rectangle indicating that the participant was to
name the numeral in his/her L1 or L2, respectively. Within each list of numerals,
Figure 1. e Inhibitory Control Model (Green, 1986, 1998) (adapted from Finkbeiner,
Gollan, & Caramazza, 2006).
© 2008. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Language switching 
Meuter and Allport randomly included anywhere from zero to four L1 and/or L2
language switches. e main ndings from their results can be summarized as
follows: 1) switch trials are slower than nonswitch trials; 2) nonswitch trials have
faster reaction times (RTs) in the L1; 3) L2 switch trials have faster RTs than their
L1 counterparts (which suggests that a switch to L1 is highly dicult); and 4) the
RTs increase with each successive switch.
Meuter and Allport’s (1999) study showed that by looking at the language
switching paradigm, researchers can investigate the extent to which inhibitory
control is utilized in bilingual speech production. eir study also provided some
of the most inuential support for the ICM and its hypotheses were also supported
in other studies (Costa & Santesteban, 2004; Costa et al., 2006; Meuter, 1994). In
sum, they have shown that switching into the L1 is more costly because its lexical
representations have been strongly inhibited during the previous trial to allow the
selection of L2 lexical representation. e switching cost, therefore, is due to the
time required to reactive the lexical node. Switching into the L2 is apparently less
costly because, when naming in L1, its corresponding lexical representation would
not have been inhibited as strongly and therefore the L2 representations would be
more available.
Costa and Santesteban (2004) was the rst study to suggest that the cognitive
control mechanisms involved in lexicalization are modulated by L2 prociency
level. Costa and Santesteban questioned whether or not highly procient bilin-
guals would act dierently than less procient bilinguals in terms of their use of
inhibitory control in speech production. ey hypothesized that inhibitory con-
trol would not be observed in the speech production of highly procient bilinguals
but would be relied upon among less procient bilinguals (i.e., beginning language
learners). Costa and Santesteban conducted a series of ve picture-naming ex-
periments based on the experimental design used in Meuter and Allport (1999).
Costa and Santestebans results can be summarized as follows: 1) language switch-
ing costs are present in all bilingual speakers; 2) asymmetrical switching costs are
present for less procient bilinguals but not for highly procient bilinguals; 3) the
switching performance of a highly procient bilingual is independent of the dif-
ference in prociency levels between the two languages involved in the task (but
not in a fourth language (Costa et al., 2006); 4) in a language switching task, highly
procient bilinguals are slower in their dominant than in their non-dominant lan-
guage both for switch and nonswitch trials.
Although Costa and Santesteban (2004) suggested that prociency modulated
the control processes of lexicalization in bilinguals, they le open the possibility
that L2 age of acquisition may be involved as well. Because of this, subsequent
studies have investigated which of these two factors is responsible for a shi in
reliance from inhibitory control to a language-specic selective mechanism. e
© 2008. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 John W. Schwieter and Gretchen Sunderman
results in Costa et al. (2006) have suggested that L2 age of acquisition has no eect
on inhibitory control. However, Costa et al. provided somewhat dierent results
than Costa and Santesteban regarding the switching performance of highly pro-
cient bilinguals. Costa and Santesteban reported that highly procient bilinguals
controlled the lexicalization process dierently than less procient bilinguals (by
relying upon a language-specic selective mechanism and inhibitory control, re-
spectively). Costa et al., however, provided evidence suggesting that both inhibi-
tory control and language-specic selection mechanisms are functional in highly
procient bilinguals. In their rst experiment, Costa et al. investigated the impact
of language similarity and L2 age of acquisition on the language-switching perfor-
mance among highly procient Spanish-Basque bilinguals and highly procient
Spanish learners of English. e L1-L2 switching costs were symmetrical for both
groups and neither language similarity nor L2 age of acquisition was reported to
aect the control of lexicalization. eir second experiment explored L2-L3 lan-
guage switches among highly procient Spanish-Catalan bilinguals who spoke
English as their L3. e results revealed symmetrical switching costs between the
strong L2 and weak L3. Costa et al. argued that this nding, coupled with Costa
and Santestebans previous ndings, suggest that, “the dierences in the procien-
cy levels between the two languages involved in the task do not lead to asymmetri-
cal switching costs for highly procient bilinguals” (p. 1061).
Costa et al.s (2006) third and fourth experiments are of special interest to the
present study. In their third experiment, the researchers explored L3-L4 language
switches among highly procient Spanish-Catalan bilinguals who spoke English as
their L3 and French as their L4. e results revealed asymmetrical switching costs
when bilinguals switched between their third and fourth languages. is implied
that when highly procient bilinguals switch between two languages in which they
have relatively low prociency, the magnitude of the switching cost is larger for the
stronger language. ese ndings do not support Costa and Santestebans (2004)
claim which hypothesizes that L2 prociency is a determining factor in the shi
toward reliance on a language-specic selection mechanism. Costa et al. hypoth-
esize that these results may be due to the fact that the language-specic selection
mechanism is not functional unless one of the languages involved in the switching
task is one of the bilinguals’ strong languages.
Costa et al.s (2006) fourth experiment explored language switching between
the L1 and a newly-learned language among highly procient Spanish-Catalan bi-
linguals and Spanish monolinguals (a term Costa et al. used to refer to those with
a very low level of control of the newly learned L2). e results revealed asym-
metrical switching costs for both groups. is implies that the mechanisms used
by both groups for controlling speech production at very early stages of lexical
acquisition were the same. To date, this experiment is the rst to reveal that highly
© 2008. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Language switching 
procient bilinguals and monolinguals show the same performance in a language
switching task, suggesting that the mechanisms used during early stages of word
learning are essentially the same. ese ndings reject Costa and Santestebans
hypothesis suggesting that with increases in L2 prociency, bilinguals move away
from inhibitory control. If this had been the case, the highly procient bilinguals
in Costa et al.’s fourth experiment should have suered asymmetrical switching
costs when switching between their L1 and a recently learned language. However,
the results of the study suggested that even highly procient bilinguals may revert
back to reliance on inhibitory control, due to possibly limitations of the function-
ality of the language-specic selection mechanism.
Costa et al. (2006) provided evidence showing that in certain instances, pro-
cient bilinguals suer asymmetrical switching costs, thus calling into question
previous claims about the role of prociency in triggering the language-specic
selective mechanism. Given the results of Experiments 3 and 4, Costa et al. modi-
ed their earlier claim that once bilinguals move away from inhibitory control
and make use of a language-specic selection mechanism, they will continue to
rely on it regardless of the relative prociency of the languages involved in the
task. Because highly procient bilinguals suered asymmetrical switching costs
when switching between their L3-L4 and their L1 and a new language, Costa et al.
argued that “whenever the language-switching task involves a language for which
the corresponding words are not well established, highly procient bilinguals will
show asymmetrical switching costs, otherwise symmetrical switching costs will
be obtained” (p. 1067). e researchers identied a theoretical possibility to this
claim: they hypothesized that the robustness of the L2 lexical representations may
be crucial for the functionality of the language-specic selection mechanism. is
implies that a language-specic selection mechanism will only be functional when
lexical representations are integrated in the lexicon. When this is not the case and
lexical representations are weak (e.g., in early stages of L2 acquisition), bilinguals
will rely on mechanisms of inhibitory control. Another possibility they discuss is
that lexical representations are mediated by the L1 and, thus, when bilinguals need
to access the meaning of the L2 word, they must do so by rst activating the L1. If
L2 production operates on L1 mediation, a language-specic selection mechanism
will not be functional because once an L1 representation is selected and translated
into the L2, it must be suppressed to avoid overt production.
To summarize, with respect to how bilinguals control and restrict the lexical-
ization process to one language during speech production, it appears as though
bilinguals make use of control mechanisms to restrict lexicalization to only one
of their languages in order to prevent intrusions from the irrelevant language. In
order to achieve this, however, previous studies have shown that some bilinguals
called up on inhibitory control and others rely on a language-specic selection
© 2008. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 John W. Schwieter and Gretchen Sunderman
mechanism. What seems to determine which of the two will be called upon dur-
ing bilingual speech production? Many studies have investigated possible factors
that may shi bilinguals away from inhibitory control towards a language-spe-
cic selection mechanism and have shown that the following do not modulate
this shi: age of acquisition (Costa et al., 2006), language similarity (Costa et al.,
2006), L2 prociency (Costa et al., 2006); and bilingual type (i.e., language learner
vs. heritage speaker) (Schwieter, in press). e present study investigates the iden-
tied possibility outlined in Costa et al., namely, lexical robustness. We opera-
tionalize L2 lexical robustness via a verbal uency measure that taps into the size
and strength of the L2 lexicon. We anticipate that by measuring and exploring the
lexical robustness of the representations of the weaker language instead of rely-
ing on participants’ self-ratings, we will nd that lexical robustness is critical for
the functionality of the language-specic selection mechanism. We hypothesize
that if lexical representations are not robust enough, bilinguals may need to revert
back to reliance on inhibitory control to restrict their lexicalization process to one
language. Moreover, we expect our data to allow us to predict a specic threshold
of lexical robustness that coincides with the shi to a language-specic selective
mechanism during bilingual speech production.
Experiment
In the present study, a verbal uency measure was rst used to measure the L2
lexical robustness for English learners of Spanish. ese participants then named
pictures in their L1 and L2 according to a color cue. Critical variables included tri-
al type (nonswitch and switch) and response language (English and Spanish). By
examining the eects of L1-L2 switches in picture naming, inferences were made
regarding whether or not the cognitive control mechanisms in bilingual speech
production are modulated by lexical robustness.
e experimental procedure in the present study follows Costa and Santeste-
ban (2004). A picture-naming task with language switches was conducted in which
language learners were instructed to name the pictures in either their L1 or L2 as
determined by a color cue to indicate language of production.1 e ICM posits
suppression of the nonrelevant language and therefore assumes that more time is
required to reactivate a larger system (L1) than the smaller system (L2). us, any
asymmetrical switching costs observed between L1 switches and L2 switches will
suggest that speech production entails inhibitory control. is experiment seeks to
investigate the role that the robustness of L2 lexical representations has on the pos-
tulated shi in control mechanisms during bilingual speech production by mea-
suring the L2 lexicon size of bilinguals and exploring how increases in the size of
© 2008. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Language switching 
the lexicon aect switching costs. Moreover, in using a continuous measure of the
strength of the L2 lexicon, we will also investigate whether a specic point during
development coincide with the use of a language-specic selective mechanism.
Participants
A total of 54 English-Spanish language learners with varying abilities in Spanish
were recruited from the student and faculty body at a large state university in the
United States. e mean average age for the participants 25 years and their mean
L2 age of acquisition was 18 years. At the time of the present study, all participants
were currently enrolled in at least one course conducted in Spanish. A language
history questionnaire was administered to provide information regarding the par-
ticipants’ language use and experiences. In particular, this questionnaire served
to elicit self-ratings in English and Spanish on their abilities to read, write, speak
and listen. On a ten-point scale, participants’ ratings for their L2 skills ranged as
follows: reading, 4–10; writing, 2–10; speaking, 2–10; and listening, 3–10. Overall,
participants rated their English abilities as 9.5.
Verbal Fluency Measure
e verbal uency measure used in the present study was based on the experi-
mental procedures of Gollan, Montoya, and Werner (2002). Costa et al. (2006)
argue that lexical robustness involves the familiarity with and frequency of access
that leads to greater automaticity of retrieval of lexical items. We believe that a
verbal uency measure in which participants spontaneously and rapidly produce
as many lexical items as possible related to semantic categories is a viable way of
operationalizing the robustness of the L2 lexicon. And, although many neuropsy-
chological studies have used the verbal uency measure as a means to explore a
variety of diseases and disorders, Gollan et al. (2002) argue that it is useful in stud-
ies of bilingualisms as well. ey posit that there is a direct relationship between
word knowledge and verbal uency scores because category size will predict per-
formance on the verbal uency task (see also Borkowski, Benton, & Spreen, 1967;
Rohrer, Wixted, Salmon, & Butters, 1995). Accordingly, a total of ten semantic
categories2 were taken from Gollan et al. (2002) and were individually verbalized
to each participant. Upon hearing the category, each participant was given 60 sec-
onds to produce as many items within that category as s/he could in the L2.3 e
presentation of the categories was randomized for each participant. A total score
was calculated by adding all responses from each of the ten semantic categories.
Each word was only counted once and therefore, words that may have been repeat-
ed during the procedure were not included in the participant’s score. Essentially,
© 2008. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 John W. Schwieter and Gretchen Sunderman
the score refers to the total number of words produced in the L2 in ten one-minute
segments. e range of scores varied from 56–220.
Stimuli
In accordance with Costa and Santesteban (2004), the present experiment includes
ten black and white line drawings from the Snodgrass and Vanderwart (1980)
standardized picture list. e pictures were of a pencil, house, car, dog, book, cat,
chair, table, desk and a heart. e materials used for all participants were the same.
As in Costa and Santesteban, all ten pictures were presented individually on a
computer screen and were classied as either a nonswitch trial or a switch trial. A
nonswitch trial is dened as one in which the previous trial is named in the same
language and a switch trial is one in which the previous trial is named in a dier-
ent language.
Design
A range of 5–14 pictures were randomly placed in 100 lists which contained any-
where from 0–4 switch trials. e total number of trials in the experiment was
950 (665 nonswitch trials (70%) and 285 switch trials (30%)). All of the pictures
were individually presented in a colored box as a language cue: blue if the target
was to be produced in English or yellow if the target was to be produced in Span-
ish. ere was equal production of L1 and L2 (i.e., 475 responses in L1 and 475
responses in L2 were elicited). Each of the pictures was presented 95 times during
the entire experiment. For lists with 5–10 pictures in length, no pictures were du-
plicated. However, for lists of 11–14 pictures, the repeated pictures were placed at
least three trials apart from their rst presentation.
Procedure
All participants were individually tested and were given verbal instructions by the
researchers in addition to the instructions they read on the computer screen. Each
participant was placed in front of a computer screen at a distance of about 2.5 feet
and was instructed to name lists of pictures in the language represented by the
colored box. First, each participant went through a training session that included
six lists of pictures similar to the experimental lists. Like the experimental sets,
the practice ones were also randomized for length and amount of switches. e
researchers ensured that sometime during the practice sets, each of the ten pic-
tures appeared at least twice so that the participants were not subjected to any new
pictures during the actual experimental lists.
© 2008. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Language switching 
e practice lists and the following 100 identically-structured experimental
lists rst presented either the word “English” inside a blue box or “Spanish” inside
a yellow box for 2000 ms in the center of the computer screen to establish a com-
mon xation point for all pictures. is allowed participants to be able to focus on
the position and only name pictures throughout the experiment without having to
look in other places of the screen for the target. e words “English” and “Spanish
were presented at the beginning of each list and served as a means to reinforce the
association between color and language of production (i.e., blue represented Eng-
lish and yellow indicated Spanish). In any given list, the rst picture was presented
in the same box as the xation box. is picture remained on the screen for 2000
ms or until the participant responded. Upon response, there was a blank interval
of 800 ms. During this interstimulus interval, the microphone was inactive so that
if a participant took longer to verbalize the preceding target, the computer would
not assume that this was the response for the current trial. e next picture (either
a switch or nonswitch trial) was shown and the cycle was repeated until the end of
the list, at which time an asterisk (*) was presented for 1000 ms to show that the
list had nished and that another one would begin in 1000 ms.
All responses were tape recorded and were coded by the researchers as cor-
rect” or “incorrect” on the master key. Due to the amount of pictures (950) to be
named, a break was given to the participants every 10 lists (approximately every 7
minutes). During the breaks, participants were allowed to rest for a few minutes
to avoid fatigue.
Results
Only correct responses were included in the analyses of response latencies; cor-
rect and incorrect responses were both included in the error analyses. Accuracy
was coded as either correct (if the participant correctly named the target) or in-
correct (if the participant incorrectly named the target). RTs faster than 300 ms
and slower than 5000 ms were removed from the analyses and treated as outliers
(Ratcli, 1993). Most of these were due to a technical malfunction in which the
microphone did not register the participant’s response. is amount represented
2.0% of the total data collected. In addition, RTs that were 2.5 SDs above or below
the participant’s mean RT for each of the overall conditions were excluded from
the analyses and treated as outliers. is eliminated an additional 1.7% of the total
data collected.
We rst present descriptive statistics. Table 1 shows the mean reaction times
and accuracy percents for L1 and L2 switch and non switch trials.4
© 2008. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 John W. Schwieter and Gretchen Sunderman
In English, the L1, participants were slower on the switch trials compared to
the nonswitch trials (a dierence of 75 ms). In Spanish, the L2, the participants
were again slower on the switch trials compared to the nonswitch trials (a dier-
ence of 52 ms). us, the magnitude of the switch cost was greater in the L1, sug-
gesting that switching into the L1 takes longer than into the L2. Regardless of trial
type, participants were always slower in the L1 (944 ms) than in the L2 (875 ms).
We now turn to the results of the regression analyses.
Given that both of our dependent variables (RT and accuracy) as well as
our independent variable (verbal uency) were continuous ratio-level variables
we employed standard Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) multivariate regression.
Because we pooled the data for our 54 subjects across each of the 4 conditions
(English switch trials; English nonswitch trials; Spanish switch trials; Spanish non-
switch trials) our nal unit of analysis is the participant-condition and results in
216 observations. By pooling data in this manner, the results in each participant’s
responses are not statistically independent across each of the combinations of con-
ditions. To account for this statistical dependence, we estimate each of the follow-
ing regression models with robust standard errors clustered within subject (Huber,
1967; White, 1980; Williams, 2000). Finally, to test the threshold hypothesis of
lexical robustness we employ the Brambor, Clark, and Golder (2006) technique.
We plot the estimated eect of switching for a given level of verbal uency with
95% condence levels plotted around this relationship to determine whether there
is a specic point at which verbal uency become a critical factor.
Table 2 presents the results of the multivariate analysis, with Model 1 display-
ing the RT results and Model 2 displaying the accuracy results. In examining the
coecients in Model 1, we rst see that there are statistically signicant main ef-
fects for verbal uency (p < .01). e higher one’s verbal uency score, the faster
they are. We next see that there is a main eect of language (p < .05), indicating
that all participants were slower in English, their native language. ere is also a
signicant main eect of trial type (p < .01), indicating that switch trials resulted
in longer RTs compared to nonswitch trial across all participants. Next we see a
signicant interaction between language and trial type (p < .01), indicating that
switch trials into English were the slowest. Finally, we have a three-way interaction
Table 1. Mean Reaction Times (ms) and Accuracy (%) for L1 (English) and L2 (Spanish)
switch and non-switch trials
L1 L2
RT Acc RT Acc
Switch 981 94.3 901 96.9
Nonswitch 906 96.4 849 98.1
© 2008. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Language switching 
between verbal uency, language and trial type (p < .01). For those individuals with
lower levels of verbal uency, switching into English was the most dicult.
e results above are consistent with the general nding (Costa & Santeste-
ban, 2004; Experiments 1 and 2 of Costa et al., 2006) with respect to prociency.
However, in order to understand precisely what these results tell us about a lexical
robustness threshold that we proposed earlier, we must consider two additional
items. First, we must consider at what level of verbal uency the switching cost
phenomenon reduces to zero. Second, we must consider whether the three-way
interaction between verbal uency, language and trial type is statistically signi-
cant across the entire range of the verbal uency score. is second test is impor-
tant because interaction eects with continuous independent variables, while sig-
nicant on average (as indicated by the test of signicance in the regression table),
may not necessarily be signicant across the entire range of a continuous condi-
tioning variable (in this case verbal uency) (Brambor, Clark, & Golder, 2006).
e standard error of the coecient associated with the switching eect changes
over the level of the continuous conditioning variable, verbal uency. erefore,
it is possible that while statistically signicant for some level of verbal uency,
the switch eect may indeed be statistically undistinguishable from zero, at some
other level of verbal uency.
To test for these additional possibilities we conducted two post hoc tests. First,
Figure 2 presents the test of where the switch point appears to reduce to zero. e
Table 2. OLS Regression Models for Switching Task
Reaction Time Accuracy
Model 1 Model 2
Variable B Std Error B Std Error
Verbal Fluency (VF) −1.098*** 0.370 −0.00018 0.00013
Language (L) 51.305** 26.029 −0.02018 0.01246
Trial Type (TT) 61.935*** 20.066 −0.00847 0.00776
VF* L 0.059 0.198 0.00030 0.00012
VF * TT −0.087 0.157 −0.00004 0.00007
L* TT 66.612*** 18.493 −0.01082 0.01250
VF* L * TT −0.413*** 0.143 0.00002 0.00010
Constant 965.511*** 52.707 1.0005*** 0.01259
R20.130 0.229
F-value (d.f.) 19.57 (7, 53)*** 13.47 (7,53)***
Number of Observations 216 216
Number of Subjects 54 54
*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.10
Observations are Participant-Conditions. Standard errors are clustered on participant.
© 2008. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 John W. Schwieter and Gretchen Sunderman
Figure presents the eect of switching across English and Spanish over the range
of our verbal uency score. e dierence between the English and Spanish lines
can be understood as the switch cost. e bold section of the lines indicates where
the switch eect is statistically signicant (p < .01). As the gure suggests, for low
verbal uency scores the switch eect is quite large with English taking approxi-
mately 40 ms (100 ms − 60 ms) longer compared to Spanish. As verbal uency
increases, this switch eect attenuates, eventually reaching zero at a verbal u-
ency of approximately 160. e gure suggests that for verbal uency higher than
approximately 160, the switch eect changes in its orientation. One should note
that the slope of the English line is more dramatically aected by changes in ver-
bal uency in Spanish, thus illustrating how rapidly the switch eect is changing
with increases in lexical robustness. For higher verbal uency, it would appear that
the switch eect changes direction, with English now taking longer than Spanish.
However, this eect does not appear to endure long given that the bold shading
quickly trends to insignicance beyond the cross point.
To gain better insight into the possibility of a shi in the switch point we con-
ducted one additional post hoc test. Figure 3 shows the mean eect of switching
across English and Spanish over the range of our verbal uency score. is time
however, we plot the 95% condence bands around these estimated eects. ese
condence bands reveal with high statistical condence (p < .05) the interval with-
in which the eect of switching is likely to lie. e switching eect for English is
0 20 40 60 80 100
Eect of Switching
50 100 150 200 250 300
Verbal Fluency Score (Index of Lexical Robustness)
English Spanish
Signicant at 95% Condence Level
Figure 2. e eect of switching across English and Spanish.
© 2008. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Language switching 
shown in bold, while the switching eect for Spanish is shown in regular font. e
condence intervals are plotted around each eect with the relevant dashed lines.
If the condence intervals of the switch eect for Spanish or English overlap then
we can declare that the dierence between the switch eects for that language are
not statistically signicant. However, when the two intervals do not overlap, then
we can be condent that the switching cost for English and Spanish are indeed dif-
ferent from each other (see Appendix 1). As we see from the gure, these intervals
do not overlap for verbal uency scores below approximately 110. Beyond 110,
however, the intervals overlap for the entire range of verbal uency. e results
of the post hoc analyses reveal support for our expectation that there is indeed
a threshold eect of verbal uency (around 110) beyond which the switching ef-
fect collapses to zero. It is important to note that although both Figures 2 and 3
would seem to suggest that the eect goes below zero, the condence intervals
suggest that the eect at that level of verbal uency is statistically no dierent from
zero. erefore the appearance of a below zero eect is really only an artifact of
the graph.
Figure 3. e eect of switching across English and Spanish with condence bands.
© 2008. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 John W. Schwieter and Gretchen Sunderman
Error Analyses
As in Costa and Santesteban (2004), no signicant eects were found in the error
analyses.
Discussion
In the experimental procedures of the present study, we conducted a picture-nam-
ing experiment in which bilinguals with varying levels of L2 verbal uency (i.e.,
lexical robustness) switched back and forth between their two languages according
to a color cue that specied the language of production. First, our results answered
the question that Costa et al. (2006) posed regarding the relationship between the
functionality of the language-specic switch mechanism and lexical robustness.
e results indicate that lexical robustness does indeed explain the shi away from
using inhibitory control to using a language-specic mechanism. Bilinguals with
lower levels of L2 lexical robustness exhibited high levels of asymmetry between
the amount of time it takes to switch into the L1 and L2 while those individuals
with higher L2 lexical robustness did not show this asymmetry. Moreover, as previ-
ous studies have reported (Costa & Santesteban, 2004; Costa et al., 2006; Meuter &
Allport, 1999; Segalowitz & de Almeida, 2002), our data revealed that in the context
of a language switching experiment, participants named pictures in their less-dom-
inant language faster than in their more-dominant language. e possible reasons
for this may be explained by the fact that participants compensate the imbalance
of the availability of L1 and L2 lexical representations (see Costa & Santesteban,
2004 for additional discussion). In other words, it is as if the weaker L2 is tempo-
rarily ‘super activated’ and the L1 is more strongly suppressed in the context of
the switching task. Second, our results demonstrate the value of operationalizing
prociency with an objective continuous measure of verbal uency. With this mea-
sure, our results reveal a certain quantitative threshold where a language selective
mechanism may become functional. e verbal uency measure and the statistical
procedures we used to investigate threshold eect allowed us to answer these im-
portant questions that have not been previously addressed in the eld.
Indeed, a series of post-hoc analyses helped to identify the point in L2 de-
velopment of the lexicon at which the language-specic selective mechanism be-
came functional. At approximately a verbal uency score of 110, the switching
cost became zero. Prior to this point, the incremental increases in verbal uency
resulted in decreasing switching costs. is result suggests that when the size of
the L2 lexicon was below this threshold, an individual suered switching costs.
In other words, the L2 lexicon was not suciently developed to allow for the lan-
guage-specic selective mechanism to engage.
© 2008. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Language switching 
One might wonder what a verbal uency score of 110 really means. For a sub-
stantive comparison, those participants in our study with approximately 6.7 years
of formal L2 learning (highly advanced language learners) roughly correspond
with participants having verbal uency scores higher than 110. In other words,
the lexical robustness threshold was quite high. Lexical robustness does play a key
role in a developmental shi of the cognitive control processes of bilingual speech
production, but it occurs relatively late in the acquisition process. Needless to say,
future research implementing this lexical robustness measure and these statistical
procedures will be needed to test these predictions with other bilingual popula-
tions with varying levels of skill in their languages and in particular with individu-
als who have an L3 or L4. Moreover, if we recall Figure 2, there appeared to be a
point at which the switching costs reversed. While our post-hoc analyses revealed
that past the 110 threshold, there were no switching costs in our population, fu-
ture research is necessary to investigate a potential reversal of the switching cost.
It could be the case that as a bilingual’s lexical robustness increases in the L2, their
L1 counterparts may take a hit so to speak. By measuring both L1 and L2 lexical
robustness in various bilingual populations, we may nd a dominance eect and a
reversal of switching costs.
Our ndings have important implications for models of bilingual speech
production. It is imperative that current models of bilingual speech production
consider the critical role of L2 lexical robustness in lexical processing and speech
production. Figure 4 shows a bilingual speech production model that incorpo-
rates both mechanisms of inhibitory control (for less procient bilinguals) and a
language-specic selection mechanism (for highly procient bilinguals). We call
this model the Selection by Prociency Model (SbP), a visual representation of
the impact that prociency has on the cognitive processes of lexicalization. We
feel that in light of the results of the present study, our SbP can explain the role
that lexical robustness plays in the shi in cognitive control mechanisms during
speech production and captures both of the theoretical claims put forth by Costa
et al. (2006).
Essentially, the SbP provides an explanation for how an L2 speaker names a
picture in his/her L2. e model species that L2 learners move along a prociency
continuum in a bi-directional manner (i.e., to account for learning and language
attrition). Two separate L2 learners are presented in the model: the one on the le
represents a less procient language learner and the one on the right shows a more
procient L2 learner. e model also posits dierential strengths of the associa-
tion between the conceptual links and lexical links (which are illustrated by the
thickness of the arrows in the model). For example, the darker arrows represent
stronger links and the dashed arrows represent either weaker links or, as in the
right portion of the model, those which may be present but not necessarily called
© 2008. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 John W. Schwieter and Gretchen Sunderman
upon. e SbP also demonstrates that for less procient L2 learners, the mecha-
nisms that are called upon during the speech production process entail inhibitory
control (i.e., language task schemas). is is strikingly dierent to what the model
hypothesizes for more procient L2 learners. In the latter case, learners are able to
rely upon higher linguistic cues and to conceptually mediate without mechanisms
of inhibitory control. However, the SbP model assumes that in certain situations
or instances, the highly procient bilingual may need to call upon mechanisms of
inhibitory control again (as shown by the longest diagonal arrow). Finally, as can
be seen at the top of the model, the shi in reliance to language selective mecha-
nisms cannot be achieved for less procient L2 learners until they become much
more procient.
L2
L1
L2
L1
Prociency
development
Concept: Cat
Language Cue: Spanish
Register: Formal
Concept: Cat
Language
Tas k
Schemas
gato
cat
gato
cat
strong links
weak links
path of lexicalization
L1 L2
Figure 4. e Selection by Prociency Model.
© 2008. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Language switching 
As mentioned above, there are two explanations of lexicalization depicted
in the SbP depending on the L2 prociency of the bilingual. e le side of the
model represents a less procient bilingual in which there is a stronger associa-
tion between concepts and the L1 words mapped onto them. e links between
L2 words and their concepts, however, are much weaker (see Kroll and Stewart,
1994). erefore, when a less procient bilingual names a picture in his/her L2, s/
he must have to do so by associating the concept to its L1 lexical item rst. e
lexicalization procedure for a less procient bilingual will entail reliance on in-
hibitory control. In the SbP model, the example is given in which a less procient
English-Spanish L2 learner is asked to name a picture of a cat in Spanish. When
this happens, several lexical candidates in both languages receive activation. Be-
cause of low L2 prociency and reliance on L1 to conceptually mediate, competi-
tion will spill over to the lexical level. Words contain language tags that specify
which languages they belong to and help regulate the degree of activation at the
lexical level. More than likely, language tags, in addition to a language task schema,
may ultimately help determine the amount of inhibition required by virtue of the
strength of lexical robustness. Once the words in the non-target language have
been suppressed, it will be easier to select the target language word that matches
the target concept.
e right part of the model represents the speech production of a highly pro-
cient bilingual in which there is a strong association between concepts and words
in both the L1 and L2. When a highly procient bilingual names a picture in his/
her L2, he/she directly accesses the word mapped onto the concept instead of hav-
ing to rely upon the L1 translation. e lexicalization procedure for a highly pro-
cient bilingual will primarily entail reliance on a language-specic selection mech-
anism but, as indicated by the diagonal arrow toward the le side of the model,
may revert to inhibitory control when needed as the linguistic context requires.
e SbP model gives the example in which a highly procient bilingual is asked to
perform the same task. In this case, several lexical candidates in English and Span-
ish receive activation from a language-specic selection mechanism in the form of
a preverbal message. In this cue, bilinguals obtain vital higher linguistic informa-
tion about speech production including but not limited to: 1) the target language;
2) the linguistic register; and 3) the concept to be lexicalized. ese cues work
together to ensure that the target lexical item has a higher activation level than its
competitors’ and therefore, inhibitory control is not necessary because words in
the nonresponse language do not compete for selection.
Although L2 prociency has been previously posited as a modulator for de-
termining which control mechanisms bilingual speech production will entail (see
also Costa & Santesteban, 2004; Experiments 1 and 2 of Costa et al., 2006), the
results of the present study have allowed us to explore a particular element of L2
© 2008. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 John W. Schwieter and Gretchen Sunderman
prociency that is responsible, namely, lexical robustness. e SbP is a rst step in
combining issues of inhibitory control and a language-specic selection mecha-
nism in a comprehensive developmental model of bilingual speech production.
Overall, based on the results of the present study, we can entertain the notion
that lexical robustness is one key factor of L2 prociency that determines whether
or not the bilingual will rely on inhibitory control or a language-specic selection
mechanism while speaking. We must be careful to not eliminate prociency as a
construct from future studies investigating control issues in speech production.
Many skills (reading, speaking, vocabulary, more direct concept mediation, etc.)
contribute to what researchers consider to be prociency. e results of the pres-
ent experiment allow us to untangle prociency and nd one particular element
of it, lexical robustness, that may explain why highly procient bilinguals have
performed dierently than less procient bilinguals in past studies. However, one
might still wonder if overall prociency is really the underlying explanation, and
not lexical robustness. If we examine the participants’ overall self-ratings of L2
prociency as elicited by the language history questionnaire and their verbal u-
ency scores, we only nd a moderate (.489) correlation. Of course, future research
will need to assess the relationship between lexical robustness as indexed by verbal
uency and other independent measures, but at a minimum, lexical robustness
seems viable as one of the key components of the elusive construct of prociency.
Conclusion
e present study has provided support for the notion that when strong L2 lexi-
cal representations exist, there will be no need for bilinguals to rely on inhibi-
tory control mechanisms to restrict the lexicalization process to one language. In
other words, our study has demonstrated that the moment of a transition from
inhibitory control to language-specic control coincides with a particular level of
lexical robustness. We also recognize that it may be possible that bilinguals revert
back to inhibitory control in conditions in which the language-specic selection
mechanism cannot function. More research is needed to explore which particular
contexts require a need for inhibitory control and which allow for the bilingual to
rely on the language-specic selection mechanism.
In addition to dening lexical robustness as an important factor in how bilin-
guals control the lexicalization procedure, we modeled prociency as a continuous
variable and used the Brambor, Clark, & Golder (2006) technique to allow us to
better pinpoint a threshold for lexical robustness. We dened the latter as the point
in which bilinguals will no longer have to primarily rely on inhibitory control. We
found evidence for such a developmental shi and a minimum threshold of lexical
© 2008. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Language switching 
robustness. We argue that scholars must consider moving away from conceptualiz-
ing prociency as a dichotomous variable and instead utilize continuous measure
that better capture the underlying developmental process. Finally, we presented
our Selection by Prociency Model describing the role that lexical robustness as
well as reliance on the L1 plays in the shi in cognitive control mechanisms during
speech production.
Notes
. Costa et al. (2006) point out that a potential drawback to using the experimental procedures
in the present study is that the large number of repetitions may create a stimulus-response as-
sociation. However, they ultimately maintain that this task is useful for examining bilingual lan-
guage control because it has been shown to be sensitive to the dierential behavior of a variety
of bilingual types.
. For other researchers interested in this task, we list the categories in order from the ones that
elicited the most to the least number of responses: countries, clothing, animals, academic ma-
jors, colors, fruits, vegetables, things with wheels, musical instruments, and sports.
. Although the verbal uency measure was only conducted in the L2 in this study, future re-
search might consider conducting the verbal uency measure in the L1 as well and then remove
eects of the L1 that may be indicative of individual dierences.
. We must note that these numbers are unconditional means. ey do not take into account
the measure of lexical robustness. As such, any discrepancies with the numbers in Table 2 can
be explained by this fact.
References
Borkowski, J. G., Benton, A. L., & Spreen, O. (1967). Word uency and brain damage. Neurop-
sychologia, 5, 135–140.
Brambor, T., Clark, W. R., & Golder, M. (2006). Understanding interaction models: Improving
empirical analyses. Political Analysis, 14, 63–82.
Costa, A. (2005). Lexical access in bilingual production. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.),
Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 308–325). New York: Oxford.
Costa, A., & Caramazza, A. (1999). Is lexical selection in bilingual speech production language-
specic? Further evidence from Spanish-English and English-Spanish bilinguals. Bilingual-
ism: Language and Cognition, 2(3), 231–244.
Costa, A., Miozzo, M., & Caramazza, A. (1999). Lexical selection in bilinguals: Do words in
the bilinguals’ two lexicons compete for selection? Journal of Memory and Language, 41,
365–397.
© 2008. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 John W. Schwieter and Gretchen Sunderman
Costa, A., & Santesteban, M. (2004). Lexical access in bilingual speech production: Evidence
from language switching in highly procient bilinguals and L2 learners. Journal of Memory
and Language, 50, 491–511.
Costa, A., Santesteban, M., & Ivanova, I. (2006). How do highly procient bilinguals control
their lexicalization process? Inhibitory and language-specic selection mechanisms are
both functional. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
32(5), 1057–1074.
Finkbeiner, M., Almeida, J., Janssen, N., & Caramazza, A. (2006). Lexical selection in bilingual
speech production does not involve language suppression. Journal of Experimental Psychol-
ogy: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(5), 1075–1089.
Finkbeiner, M., Gollan, T., & Caramazza, A. (2006). Lexical access in bilingual speakers: What’s
the (hard) problem? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9(2), 153–166.
Gollan, T. H., Montoya, R. I., & Werner, G. A. (2002). Semantic and letter uency in Spanish —
English bilinguals. Neuropsychology, 16(4), 562–576.
Green, D. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Lan-
guage and Cognition, 1, 67–81.
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.
Grosjean, F. (1988). Exploring the recognition of guest words in bilingual speech. Language and
Cognitive Processes, 3, 233–274.
Grosjean, F. (1997). Processing mixed languages: Issues, ndings and models. In A. M. B. de
Groot & J. F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 225–
254). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grosjean, F., & Miller, J. L. (1994). Going in and out of languages: An example of bilingual ex-
ibility. Psychological Science, 5, 201–206.
Huber, P. J. (1967). e Behavior of Maximum Likelihood Estimates under Nonstandard Con-
ditions, Proceedings of the Fih Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Prob-
ability, 221–233.
Hernandez, A. E., Dapretto, M., Mazziotta, J., & Bookheimer, S. (2001). Language switching
and language representation in Spanish–English bilinguals: An fMRI study. NeuroImage,
14, 510–520.
Huber, P. J. (1967). e Behavior of Maximum Likelihood Estimates under Nonstandard Con-
ditions, Proceedings of the Fih Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Prob-
ability, 221–33.
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evi-
dence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of
Memory and Language, 33, 149–174.
La Heij, W. (2005). Selection processes in monolingual and bilingual lexical access. In J. F. Kroll
& A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp.
289–307). New York: Oxford.
Li, P. (1996). Spoken word recognition of code-switched words by Chinese-English bilinguals.
Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 757–774.
Li, P. (1998). Mental control, language tags, and language nodes in bilingual lexical processing.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 92–93.
Meuter, R. F. I. (1994). Language switching in naming tasks. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Oxford University.
© 2008. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Language switching 
Meuter, R. F. I., & Allport, A. (1999). Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical
costs of language selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 25–40.
Poulisse, N. (1999). Slips of the tongue: Speech errors in rst and second language production.
Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Poulisse, N., & Bongaerts, T. (1994). First language use in second language production. Applied
Linguistics, 15, 36–57.
Price, C. J., Green, D. W., & von Studnitz, R. (1999). A functional imaging study of translation
and language switching. Brain, 122, 2221–2235.
Ratcli, R. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin,
114(3), 510–532.
Roelofs, A. (1998). Lemma selection without inhibition of languages in bilingual speakers. Bilin-
gualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 94–95.
Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., Salmon, D. P., & Butters, N. (1995). Retrieval from semantic memory
and its implications for Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1127–1139.
Segalowitz, N., & de Almeida, R. G. (2002). Conceptual representation of verbs in bilinguals:
Semantic eld eects and a second language performance paradox. Brain and Language,
81, 517–531.
Schwieter, J. W. (in press). e eects of bilingual type on language selectivity. In J. Watze (Ed.),
Readings in Language Studies, Volume 1: Language Across Disciplinary Boundaries. New
York: e International Society for Language Studies, Inc.
Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name
agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174–215.
White, H. (1980). A Heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test
for Heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48, 817–838.
Williams, R. L. (2000). A note on robust variance estimation for cluster-correlated data. Biomet-
rics, 56, 645–646.
Corresponding address
John W. Schwieter
Dept. of Languages and Literatures
408 Bricker Academic Building
75 University Avenue
Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3C5
Phone: 519.884.0710 ext. 2394
Fax: 519.884.7369.
jschwieter@wlu.ca
© 2008. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 John W. Schwieter and Gretchen Sunderman
Appendix 1
To test our proposition that lexical robustness modulates the switch cost eect on production
RTs, we estimate multiplicative regression models in which production RT is a function of the
interaction between lexical robustness (verbal uency) and switching. is hypothesis can be
specied in an econometric regression model of accuracy as follows:
Production RT = β0 + β1 Switching + β2 Verbal Fluency + β3
(Switching)(Verbal Fluency) + ε
where ε is the disturbance term. is suggests that to evaluate our threshold hypothesis in a re-
gression context we must estimate the marginal eect of Switching on RTs. [Note that the term
‘marginal eect’ refers to the standard econometric denition of the change in the dependent
variable that follows a unit change in the independent variable of interest, or, in mathematical
terms, the rst derivative. e word ‘marginal’ in this term in no way connotes ‘unsubstantial’
or ‘unimportant’ but rather the expected change in Y given a 1-unit change in x.] For example,
the marginal eect of Switching on Production RTs, or the expected change in Production RT for
a unit shi in Switching is found by taking the rst derivative of the above regression equation
with respect to Switching. is yields a marginal eect of:
d(Production Rt) = β1 + β3 VerbalFluency
d(Switching)
where, β1 and β3 are the estimated regression coecients. is equation reveals the precise man-
ner in which Verbal Fluency conditions the Switching eect on Production RTs. For a Verbal
Fluency score of zero the eect of Switching on Production RT is simply β1. For increasingly
higher Verbal Fluency scores the eect of Switching on Production RT is β13(Verbal Fluency),
with the nature of the eect being determined by the sign and magnitude of the β3 coecient.
e statistical signicance of this marginal eect is determined by its standard error. However,
unlike additive models, in multiplicative models with continuous variables, the standard error of
the marginal eect varies across the level of conditioning variable, or in our case, verbal uency.
In the above regression equation, if we denote switching as SW and Verbal Fluency as VF, then
the conditional standard error of the marginal eect of SW across values of VF is given as:
conditional S.E. of SW = var(B1
) + var(B3
)VF2 + 2 cov(B1
B3
)VF
where var(Bx) represents the variance of the relevant regression coecient and cov(B1B3) rep-
resents the covariance between the SW and the interaction term. To determine the statistical
signicance of the marginal eect of SW we then proceed as we would in a typical regression
context, dividing the estimate by its standard error and seeing if it is exceeds the critical score
of 1.96. Except here we plot the marginal eect of SW on Production with its 95% condence
bands plotted around it. e condence bands are calculated by taking estimated standard error
of the marginal eect of SW for a given level of VF and multiplying it by 1.96. We then take this
resulting width and add and subtract it to the estimated marginal eect. e result is a gure
which displays the 95% condence interval plotted around the marginal eect. erefore, this
Figure represents a valid statistical test of our hypothesis.
... Some studies have shown that there is facilitation for single-word access if the target word is a cognate in the non-target language (Costa et al., 2005;Sadat et al., 2016). Other studies with similar designs have not found cognate facilitation (Schwieter & Sunderman, 2008). Some studies have found evidence that bilinguals name pictures with cognates faster and more accurately than non-cognates (Costa et al., 2005;Sadat et al., 2016), while others have not shown cognate facilitation in speed across all conditions (Broersma et al., 2016). ...
... Contrary to that prediction, the bilinguals did not use any more cognates in English or in French than the monolinguals did. While cognate facilitation has not consistently been found in single-word studies (Broersma et al., 2016;Schwieter & Sunderman, 2008), in this study, participants were in a single language mode (i.e., either French or English). This method contrasts with some experimental studies in which influence from other language, such as cognate facilitation, is observed (Finkbeiner et al., 2006;Klaus et al., 2018). ...
Article
Full-text available
Bilinguals often have a harder time accessing words for production than monolinguals, perhaps because they have less exposure to words from each language (the weaker-links hypothesis). This research on lexical access mostly comes from studies of words in isolation. The purpose of the present study was to test whether bilinguals also show greater lexical access difficulties than monolinguals when telling a story. In the context of a narrative, we predicted that bilinguals would produce fewer different words and words of higher frequency than monolinguals, in order to make lexical access easier. For the same reason, we also predicted that bilinguals would use more cognates than monolinguals. English monolinguals, French monolinguals, and highly proficient French-English bilinguals watched a cartoon and told the story back. We coded the words they used for frequency and cognate status. In English, the results showed little difference between bilinguals and monolinguals on word frequency and cognate status. In French, first-language-English bilinguals used higher frequency words than first-language-French bilinguals. These results support predictions from the weaker-links hypothesis in lexical access for storytelling, albeit only for French.
... The way such task demands interact with inhibition remains unspecified in the BIA modelan account focused on word recognition. Nonetheless, the model's assumption of lateral inhibition and language-wide inhibition in the language identification system, particularly during lexical-semantic processing Green, 1998;Schwieter & Sunderman, 2008), would imply that responselevel task demands should not substantially impact the inhibitory mechanism or alter the n À 2 repetition cost. In other words, according to the BIA, the n À 2 repetition cost should manifest consistently regardless of the task demands at the response level as observed by Declerck and Philipp (2018). ...
Article
Full-text available
In language production, inhibitory control is assumed to be the primary mechanism responsible for successful bilingual processing. To convey messages in one language, bilinguals must inhibit the unintended language. However, it remains unclear whether the same mechanism works in bilingual comprehension. Following up and expanding on Declerck and Philipp (2018, 'Is inhibition implemented during bilingual production and comprehension? n-2 language repetition costs unchained', Language, Cognition and Neuro-science, vol. 33, pp. 608-617), the present study investigates whether inhibition is involved in the linguistic identification system during bilingual comprehension with the n À 2 repetition paradigm. This is the second study exploring comprehension with this methodological setup to date. We used an auditory word-picture matching task with Chinese late trilinguals who learned their two non-native languages (L2 English and L3 Spanish) via formal school instruction. Our results indicate that participants responded faster in the n À 2 repetition trials (i.e., when the target language in the n and n À 2 trials matched). That is, we observed an n À 2 repetition benefit effect, a novel finding in this literature that goes counter the n À 2 repetition cost effect reported in previous studies using production-based tasks. In addition, our results underscore the complex interplay between proficiency and use and the resulting dynamics within the bilingual lexicon. We discuss the results in light of the different bilingual representation and processing models.
... Importantly, both the asymmetry of switching costs and the reversed language dominance effect have shown sensitivity to proficiency levels. For instance, highly L2 proficient bilinguals often exhibit symmetric switching costs (Costa and Santesteban 2004;Costa, Santesteban, and Ivanova 2006;Schwieter and Sunderman 2008). Costa and colleagues proposed that these bilinguals might not depend on inhibition to manage language control. ...
Article
Language switching experiments often vary in stimuli list sizes, leading to differences in item repetition frequency and potentially obscuring our understanding of bilingual language control. This study addresses how item repetition frequency affects switching costs and the reversed language dominance effect (i.e. better performance in a non-dominant language in mixed language naming) among bilinguals with varying L2 proficiencies, and how these effects evolve as the task progresses. Two experiments were conducted with 29 low- and 36 high-proficiency Chinese-English bilinguals using a picture naming task. One experiment presented a low-repetition stimuli list, and the other a high-repetition set. Results showed that switching costs remained regardless of item repetition frequency. However, the influence of L2 proficiency and language dominance on switching costs was only evident in the low-repetition list. Notably, as the task progressed, switching costs decreased in L1 Chinese but increased in L2 English, regardless of item repetition frequency or proficiency. These findings highlight the importance of methodological considerations in language control experiments. Understanding how these factors influence the experiments’ outcomes is crucial for accurately interpreting bilingual language control and avoiding undesirable confounds.
... Effective language control is crucial for bilinguals to switch between their languages. This process entails activating the target language while suppressing the non-target language to ensure smooth switching and effective communication (Green, 1998;Iluz-Cohen & Armon-Lotem, 2013;Schwieter & Sunderman, 2008). The adaptive control hypothesis (ACH) posits that bilinguals switch between different languages based on contextual demands. ...
Article
Full-text available
Research on the cognitive neural mechanisms of language control often overlook the role of rewards. To investigate how reversal rewards affect bilingual language switching during observational learning, we conducted a dual-brain electroencephalography (EEG) study. Participants, classified as direct learners or observers, performed a voluntary language switching task under dynamic reward conditions. Our results demonstrated that direct learners and observers exhibited high correct acquisition rates for switching and non-switching behaviors in both pre- and post-reversal phases. Notably, direct learners and observers showed reduced switch costs in the post-reversal phase, highlighting enhanced language control efficiency. EEG analyses revealed that direct learners exhibited late positive component (LPC) switch costs in both pre- and post-reversal phases, while observers showed LPC switch costs only in the post-reversal phase. These findings support the Adaptive Control Hypothesis by highlighting the adaptability of language control mechanisms in response to dynamic reward environments during direct and observational learning.
... In the IC model of Green (1998) [4], it has been predicted that depending on the dominance of the language, inhibition takes place as there is a larger switching cost for the stronger language [78][79][80]. On the other hand, it has been said that when the dominance between L1 and L2 is similar, the switching costs are comparable [81,82]. We suggest that, in diglossia, both CH-GER and stGER can be considered as an L1 depending on the situation; this then would lead to minimal switching costs and thus minimal structural changes in the associated brain areas. ...
Article
Full-text available
(1) Background: Bilingualism has been reported to shape the brain by inducing cortical changes in cortical and subcortical language and executive networks. Similar yet different to bilingualism, diglossia is common in Switzerland, where the German-speaking population switches between an everyday spoken Swiss German (CH-GER) dialect and the standard German (stGER) used for reading and writing. However, no data are available for diglossia, defined as the use of different varieties or dialects of the same language, regarding brain structure. The aim of our study is to investigate if the presence of this type of diglossia has an impact on the brain structure, similar to the effects seen in bilingualism. (2) Methods: T1-weighted anatomical MRI scans of participants were used to compare the grey matter density and grey matter volume of 22 early diglossic CH-GER-speaking and 20 non-diglossic French-speaking right-handed university students, matched for age, linguistics and academic background. The images were processed with Statistical Parametric Mapping SPM12 and analyzed via voxel- and surface-based morphometry. (3) Results: A Bayesian ANCOVA on the whole brain revealed no differences between the groups. Also, for the five regions of interest (i.e., planum temporale, caudate nucleus, ACC, DLPFC and left interior parietal lobule), no differences in the cortical volume or thickness were found using the same statistical approach. (4) Conclusion: The results of this study may suggest that early diglossia does not shape the brain structure in the same manner as bilingualism.
Article
Aims How bilinguals control multiple languages is the object of intense recent scientific debate. Empirical research on language control at various linguistic levels has remained scarce, with language control at the phonetic level particularly underexplored. The present study aimed to examine the dynamics of phonetic-level language control during speech production. Design Chinese-English-German speakers named the letter of the alphabet in English (L2) or German (L3), either in single-language blocks or in alternate-language mixed blocks. Letters vary regarding how phonetically similar pronunciation is across the two languages, hence allowing to explore cross-language phonetic influences. Data and analysis Three-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with trial type (non-switch vs. single-language for mixing costs; non-switch vs. switch for switch costs), response language (English/L2 vs. German/L3), and phonetic similarity (similar vs. neutral vs. different) as variables were conducted on 52 subjects’ response times and accuracy for mixing costs and switch costs, respectively. Findings Results showed substantial mixing and switch costs, as well as a “reversed language dominance” effect, suggesting inhibitory control in response to cross-language phonetic interference. Cross-language facilitation was observed for phonetically similar letters, and mixing/switch costs were modulated by phonetic similarity in a complex pattern. Originality The findings show a complex interplay of suppression (e.g., as indexed by switch costs) and facilitation (i.e., the effect of phonetic similarity between letter translation equivalents). Significance The evidence for cross-language phonetic interference as well as facilitation effects at local and global levels of control implies a dynamic interaction between the two phonetic systems.
Article
Full text available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0911604424000423?via%3Dihub
Preprint
Full-text available
The complexity of language elements varies from words to phrases, requiring distinct control demands during bilingual language switching. However, the relationships between language control at different language levels (i.e., lexical and phrasal) as well as how multi-level language control interacts with general cognitive control remain largely unclear yet. Therefore, in this study, we set out to scrutinize the dynamic interplay between language control and general cognitive control at both the lexical and phrasal levels. Our findings offer new insights into how bilinguals recruit proactive and reactive control mechanisms across these linguistic levels of different complexities. Furthermore, on the basis of the present findings, we propose a novel dynamic cognitive model for language control. Key findings include: (1) High-second language (L2)-proficiency bilinguals could apply greater proactive control to L2 at both linguistic levels, suggesting the monitoring of the less dominant L2. (2) Reactive control demands vary from lexical and phrasal levels, influenced by L2 proficiency and bilingual typological differences (3) General proactive cognitive control mechanism is recruited at the lexical control, whereas both general proactive and reactive cognitive control mechanisms are engaged at the phrasal control.
Article
The present study investigates the extent to which code-switching experience modulates short-term cross-linguistic phonetic interference. Three experiments were conducted, each examining a different acoustic parameter in the context of code-switching, a dual language paradigm previously shown to enhance cross-linguistic phonetic interference. Bilinguals’ prior experience with code-switching was assessed using the Bilingual Code-Switching Profile. In Experiment 1, Korean–English bilinguals’ productions of F1 and F2 for the code-switched English vowel /æ/ were compared to monolingual (i.e., non-switched) Korean /e/ and English /æ/. While code-switched English vowels shifted in the direction of monolingual Korean vowels, the results suggest that bilinguals with more code-switching experience exhibited reduced cross-linguistic interference relative to those with less experience. In Experiments 2 and 3, Spanish–English bilinguals’ productions of fricative voicing (Experiment 2) and spirantization of intervocalic voiced stops (Experiment 3) in Spanish and English code-switched tokens were compared to monolingual tokens. Results suggest that participants with greater code-switching experience produced less evidence of cross-linguistic phonetic interference for both fricative voicing and intervocalic spirantization. Collectively, and suggesting a role for executive control mechanisms at the phonetic level, these findings illustrate that code-switching experience serves to mitigate short-term cross-linguistic interference.
Chapter
The volume espouses an ecosystemic standpoint on multilingual acquisition and learning, viewing language development and use as both ontogenesis and phylogenesis. Multilingualism is inclusively used to refer to sociolinguistic diversity and pluralism. Whether speech, writing, gesture, or body movement, language is a conduit that carries meaning within a complex, fluid, and context-dependent framework that engages different aspects of the individual, the communicative interaction, communicative acts, and social parameters. Continually modified over the years to better represent its multidisciplinary scope, the sociobiological notion of language has found steady and productive ground within major theoretical frameworks, which, individually or holistically, contribute to a rounded understanding of language acquisition, learning, and use by exploring both system-internal and system-external factors and their interaction. Summoning the work of leading academics, the volume outlines the changing dynamics of multilingualism in children and adults internationally with the latest advances and under-represented coverage that highlight the ecosystemic nature of multilingual acquisition, learning, and use.
Article
Full-text available
Presents a standardized set of 260 pictures for use in experiments investigating differences and similarities in the processing of pictures and words. The pictures are black-and-white line drawings executed according to a set of rules that provide consistency of pictorial representation. They have been standardized on 4 variables of central relevance to memory and cognitive processing: name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. The intercorrelations among the 4 measures were low, suggesting that they are indices of different attributes of the pictures. The concepts were selected to provide exemplars from several widely studied semantic categories. Sources of naming variance, and mean familiarity and complexity of the exemplars, differed significantly across the set of categories investigated. The potential significance of each of the normative variables to a number of semantic and episodic memory tasks is discussed. (34 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).
Article
Full-text available
Multiplicative interaction models are common in the quantitative political science literature. This is so for good reason. Institutional arguments frequently imply that the relationship between political inputs and outcomes varies depending on the institutional context. Models of strategic interaction typically produce conditional hypotheses as well. Although conditional hypotheses are ubiquitous in political science and multiplicative interaction models have been found to capture their intuition quite well, a survey of the top three political science journals from 1998 to 2002 suggests that the execution of these models is often flawed and inferential errors are common. We believe that considerable progress in our understanding of the political world can occur if scholars follow the simple checklist of dos and don'ts for using multiplicative interaction models presented in this article. Only 10% of the articles in our survey followed the checklist.
Chapter
Until recently, cognitive science virtually ignored the fact that most people of the world are bilingual. During the past ten years this situation has changed markedly. There is now an appreciation that learning and using more than one language is the more natural circumstance of cognition. As a result, there is a wealth of new research on second-language learning and bilingualism that provides not only crucial evidence for the universality of cognitive principles, but also an important tool for revealing constraints within the cognitive architecture. In this volume, Judith Kroll and Annette de Groot have brought together the scientists at the forefront of research on second-language learning and bilingualism to present chapters that, rather than focusing simply on their own research, provide the first comprehensive overviews of this emerging field. Bilingualism provides a lens through which each of the central questions about language and cognition can be viewed. The five sections of this book focus on different facets of those questions: How is language acquired when infants are exposed to multiple-language input from birth, and how is it acquired when adults are required to learn a second language after early childhood? How do adult bilinguals comprehend and produce words and sentences when their two languages are potentially always active and in competition with one another? What are the neural mechanisms that underlie proficient bilingualism? What are the general consequences of bilingualism for cognition and for language and thought? This handbook will be essential reading for cognitive psychologists, linguists, applied linguists, and educators who wish to better understand the cognitive basis of bilingualism and the logic of experimental and formal approaches to language science.
Article
When bilinguals speak to one another, they choose a base language to interact in and then, depending on the need, code-switch to the other (guest) language for a word, a phrase, or a sentence During the perception of a code switch, there is a momentary dominance of base-language units at the onset of the switch, but it is unknown whether this base-language effect is also present in production, that is, whether the phonetics of the base language carry over into the guest language In this study, French-English bilinguals retold stories and read sentences monolingually in English and in French and bilingually in French with English code switches Both the stories and the sentences contained critical words that began with unvoiced stop consonants, whose voice onset times (VOT) were measured The results showed that the base language had no impact on the production of code switches The shift from one language to the other was total and immediate This manifestation of cross-linguistic flexibility is accounted for in terms of a bilingual production model
Article
Bilinguals, i.e. those who use two languages in their everyday lives, move in and out of various speech modes when speaking to different interlocutors. When conversing with monolinguals, they speak one language and reduce the activation level of the other language, but when conversing with other bilinguals they choose a base language of interaction and often bring in the other language by either code-switching or borrowing. The aim of the present study is to explore how “guest words” (code-switches and borrowings) are processed by bilingual listeners when interacting with other bilinguals. Different types of English words (varying in phonotactic configuration and lexicon membership) were embedded in French sentences and were produced either as code-switches or borrowings. The gating paradigm (Grosjean, 1980) was used to present these words to French-English bilingual listeners so as to determine the role played by word type and language phonetics in the lexical access of guest words, as well as to uncover the underlying operations involved in the recognition process. Results showed that the phonotactics of a guest word, the presence or absence of a base language homophone, the language phonetics of the word, as well as the language that precedes the word, all play a role in the recognition process. An interactive activation view of bilingual word recognition is proposed to account for the results found in the study.
Article
Three experiments are reported in which picture naming and bilingual translation were performed in the context of semantically categorized or randomized lists. In Experiments 1 and 3 picture naming and bilingual translation were slower in the categorized than randomized conditions. In Experiment 2 this category interference effect in picture naming was eliminated when picture naming alternated with word naming. Taken together, the results of the three experiments suggest that in both picture naming and bilingual translation a conceptual representation of the word or picture is used to retrieve a lexical entry in one of the speaker's languages. When conceptual activity is sufficiently great to activate a multiple set of corresponding lexical representations, interference is produced in the process of retrieving a single best lexical candidate as the name or translation. The results of Experiment 3 showed further that category interference in bilingual translation occurred only when translation was performed from the first language to the second language, suggesting that the two directions of translation engage different interlanguage connections. A model to account for the asymmetric mappings of words to concepts in bilingual memory is described. (C) 1994 Academic Press, Inc.