Content uploaded by John W. Schwieter
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John W. Schwieter on May 25, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by John W. Schwieter
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John W. Schwieter on May 25, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by John W. Schwieter
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John W. Schwieter on Apr 12, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069221086302
International Journal of Bilingualism
2023, Vol. 27(3) 293 –305
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13670069221086302
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijb
The role of language control in
cross-language phoneme processing:
Evidence from Chinese–English
bilinguals
Mingyue Zuo
Liaoning Normal University, China
John W. Schwieter
Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada
Ningning Cao
Northeast Normal University, China
Huanhuan Liu
Liaoning Normal University, China
Abstract
Aims: Cross-language interference studies of language control mainly focus on the lexical level,
whereas language control may occur at the smallest unit phonemic level of language. In the present
study, we examined the role of language control during cross-language phoneme processing.
Design: Participants used one language to name pinyin or alphabet in the single-language blocks,
and they used two languages for naming in the mixed-language blocks.
Data and analysis: Using a linear mixed-effects model, we built models for mixing costs and
switching costs based on reaction times (RTs) and accuracy.
Findings: Switching between Chinese (L1) and English (L2) phonetic symbols revealed both
mixing and switching costs.
Originality: The findings suggest that switching of cross-language phonemes requires not only
global control of the non-target phonemes, but also local control of the non-target phonemes.
Significance: Just as cross-language interference control occurs at the lexical level, this study
demonstrates that control also occurs at the phonemic level.
Keywords
Language switching, cross-language phoneme processing, global control, local control, bilingual
Corresponding author:
Huanhuan Liu, Research Center of Brain and Cognitive Neuroscience, Liaoning Normal University, Dalian 116029,
China.
Email: abcde69503@126.com
1086302IJB0010.1177/13670069221086302International Journal of BilingualismZuo et al.
research-article2022
Article
294 International Journal of Bilingualism 27(3)
Introduction
Bilinguals are able to communicate in one or both of their languages according to various contexts
and situational needs. For instance, bilinguals may use their first language (L1) with family mem-
bers and a second (L2) with colleagues, or they may find themselves switching back and forth
between both languages among other bilinguals who speak the same two languages. The situation
in which one language is used for communication is defined as a single language context and the
situation in which both languages are used is referred to as mixed language context. Experimental
designs can simulate single and mixed language contexts by asking participants to respond to
series of trials that are repeated in the same language or both languages, respectively. The reduced
performance of repeated trials in mixed language contexts can be observed through mixing costs
which arise as bilinguals globally inhibit the nontarget language interference, reflecting the sus-
tained inhibition (Branzi et al., 2016; Declerck, 2020; Guo et al., 2011; Kleinman & Gollan, 2018;
Rossi et al., 2018; Wu & Thierry, 2017). Compared with repeated trials in a mixed language con-
text, switch trials generally elicit switching costs such that they have slower naming latencies and
higher error rates (Liu et al., 2021; Liu, Kong, et al., 2020; Liu, Zhang, et al., 2020; Philipp et al.,
2008; Weissberger et al., 2015). According to the adaptive control hypothesis (ACH, Green &
Abutalebi, 2013), switching costs are the consequence of local inhibition of cross-language inter-
ference, implying transient inhibition (Branzi et al., 2016; Declerck, 2020; Declerck & Philipp,
2015a; Green, 1998; Guo et al., 2011; Kleinman & Gollan, 2018; Meuter & Allport, 1999; Rossi et
al., 2018; Wu & Thierry, 2017). Both language mixing and switching costs allow us to analyze the
specific mechanism of language control.
Although an accumulating number of studies have explored the role of language control in sup-
pressing interference at the lexical level during language switching (Abutalebi & Green, 2008;
Bialystok et al., 2012; Blanco-Elorrieta & Pylkkänen, 2016, 2017; Blanco-Elorrieta et al., 2018;
Branzi et al., 2016; Declerck & Philipp, 2015a; Declerck et al., 2012; Kleinman & Gollan, 2018;
Linck et al., 2012, 2020; Prior & Gollan, 2011; Schwieter & Sunderman, 2008), less attention has
been given to the level of sound. That said, there are important differences between word and pho-
nemic representations that should be considered when examining language control. Phonemic rep-
resentations are less susceptible to interference from semantics and graphemes and in the case of
languages that have vastly distinct orthographic systems such as English and Chinese (Baranov &
Kraevskaya, 2017), these issues become even more complicated. For instance, Chinese and English
may not be studied at the same level, such as “car” and “汽车,” which are very different in form.
In the present study, the interference from semantics and orthography was eliminated.
A phoneme is the smallest phonetic unit according to the natural features of utterance and is the
basic component of a word (Daube et al., 2019; Fricke et al., 2016; Grainger et al., 2003; Mesgarani
et al., 2014; Morais, 2021; Stevenson et al., 2017). The theory of phonological encoding (Coltheart
et al., 1979; Dell, 1986, 1988; Levelt et al., 1999; Qu et al., 2012, 2020) considers the importance
of phonemes as units during word production in which information about pronunciation is retrieved
from the mental lexicon in phonemic units (Qu et al.). Macizo (2016) found that naming latencies
were slower when color names and picture names were phonologically related in L1 compared
with when they were unrelated. These results suggest that the two languages’ phonological systems
have been activated parallelly and that L1 phonology influences L2 production. Declerck et al.
(2013) also demonstrated that phonologies influence language activation in a study which showed
that language-specific phonology (phonemes that do not appear in the other language) elicited
faster RTs in the L1 compared with L2 and that language-unspecific phonology (without any lan-
guage-specific phoneme) elicited faster RTs in L2 than L1. The authors argued that articulation was
a locus of language control. In a follow-up study, Declerck and Philipp (2015b) used the
Zuo et al. 295
picture–word interference paradigm to measure the influence of phonological overlap on language
control. The findings showed that the switching cost in L1 phonological overlap was greater than
that of L2. The above studies indicate that cross-language phonemes will affect language switching
and that phonemes constitute important units in language control and production.
A few electrophysiological studies have asked Mandarin native speakers to name pictures with
phonetic overlap in color adjective-noun phrase. Their findings showed that event related potential
(ERP) amplitude were influenced by phonemic overlap from 200 to 300 ms, supporting the assump-
tion that phonemes may be processed as units and play a role in language production (Qu et al.,
2012, 2020). Christoffels et al. (2007) also provided evidence that phonological processing affects
early stages of German (L1)–Dutch (L2) production. Besides, Roelofs and Verhoef (2006) hold
that phonological representations between languages (especially, Dutch–English) are shared.
However, previous research has left unexamined the role of semantics and letters in language con-
trol. In addition, these studies illustrate that language control mechanisms suppress interference at
the phonemic level, but do not distinguish between the types of language control in different con-
texts. If inhibition of the nontarget language is assumed to take place at the lemma level, this
implies that phonological activation will be restricted to the selected, relevant lexical node.
Accordingly, the present study will address the following questions: What are the specific stages
of phonology’s involvement in bilingual production? Does phonology suppression occur indepen-
dently from letters and semantics, or is it part of word suppression interference?
Present study
The current study includes single and mixed language contexts to assess the mechanism of global
and local control on cross-language phonemes. Participants were required to name phonemes in
their L1 or L2 according to color cues. Phonological encoding theory (Qu et al., 2020) considers
phonemes as a unit of word production, and thus, phonemes may exhibit similar mechanisms as
bilingual word switching. There may also be local and global inhibition of phonemic processing as
shown by switching and mixing costs in different language contexts. The phonemes of the two
languages are not only different in pronunciation, but also distinct in meaning and can affect bilin-
gual language control. Conversely, if phonemes are not a separate unit, switching between two
languages with the same form but with different pronunciation is consisted of a task switch, and
thus should not affect language switching and mixing costs.
Method
Participants
Thirty-six right-handed Chinese (L1)–English (L2) bilinguals from Liaoning Normal University
were recruited in the study. All participants (24 female, 12 male) were on average 23 years old
(SD = 2.46), had normal or corrected-to-normal vision, and had no history of neurological or psy-
chological impairments. The study was approved by the Research Center of Brain and Cognitive
Neuroscience at the university and all participants provided their written informed consent to take
part.
At the time of the study, the participants had studied English for an average of 14 years. We used
the Oxford Placement Test (OPT, maximum score 50 points; Allan, 2004) to gather information
about their L2 proficiency. The mean OPT score was 31.81 (SD = 5.3), implying an intermediate
level of L2 as in previous studies testing this population (e.g., Liang & Chen, 2014; Liu et al.,
2016). We also asked the participants to rate their language abilities in both the L1 and L2. These
296 International Journal of Bilingualism 27(3)
self-ratings were given on a six-point scale in which “6” indicated “perfect proficiency” and “1”
indicated “no proficiency.” Paired-sample t-tests found significantly higher L1 proficiency in lis-
tening, speaking, reading, and writing (see Table 1).
Materials
We randomly selected 12 letters, their English (L2) phonetic symbols, and Chinese (L1) phonetic
symbols to include in the experiment (see Table 2). We adopted the international phonetic alphabet
(IPA) as the unified standard for alphabet selection. The phonetic transcription of English alphabet
is derived from IPA (https://tophonetics.com/), and the phonetic alphabet of Chinese pinyin is
based on the Chinese Dictionary (https://www.zdic.net/ts/fulu).
Procedure
To reduce misidentification and misnaming of the letters, participants were asked to familiarize
themselves with L1 pinyin and L2 alphabet pronunciations before the formal experiment. The
experiment was programmed with E-PRIME 2.0 and displayed on a 17-in. CRT screen with a
resolution of 1280 × 1028. The stimulus letters were presented in white font in the center of a
black screen. The experiment included a single L1 block, a single L2 block, and two mixed lan-
guage blocks (see Figure 1). At the beginning of each block, the participants did a practice set of
trials that were the same as the formal experiment. The practice block consisted of eight trials of
letters to be named that were not in the formal experiment. In the formal experiment, there were
Table 1. Participants’ self-ratings of L1 and L2 proficiency.
L1 L2 t p
Listening 5.25 (.68) 3.06 (.91) 12.70 <.001
Speaking 5.00 (.53) 2.78 (.71) 16.03 <.001
Reading 4.31 (.97) 2.33 (1.00) 9.44 <.001
Writing 4.33 (1.18) 2.31 (1.45) 7.24 <.001
Table 2. Letters used in the experiment and their English and Chinese phonetic transcriptions.
Letter English phonetics Chinese phonetics
F [εf] [f]
K [kei] [kh]
M [εm] [m]
P [pi:] [ph]
S [εs] [s]
T [ti:] [th]
A [ei] [a]
E [i:] [ɤ]
G [ʤiː] [k]
H [eitʃ] [x]
Q [kju:] [tɕʰ]
R [ɑ:] [za]
Zuo et al. 297
36 trials and 2 warm-up trials in the single language blocks, and 72 trials and 2 warm-up trials
in the mixed language blocks. Each letter appeared six times in each block. In the single lan-
guage blocks, participants always named letters in the same language; these trials were called
stay trials. In the mixed language blocks, if the language of two consecutive trials was the same
(L1–L1 or L2–L2), the second trial was considered a repeat trial. If the language of the current
trial was different from the previous trial (L1–L2 or L2–L1), the current trial was called a switch
trial. The trials were ordered pseudo-randomly and the number of repeat and switch trials was
equal in the experiment.
As shown in Figure 1(c), the procedure of each trial started with a cue (red or blue) appearing
on the screen for 250 ms, indicating in which language the subsequent letter was to be named. The
color-language association was counterbalanced across participants (i.e., half of the participants
associated red with L1 and blue with L2 and the other half associated blue with L1 and red with
L2). After a blank screen of 500 ms, a target letter appeared. Naming latencies were recorded by a
serial response box. The letter was displayed until a response or after 3,000 ms if no response was
recorded.
Data analyses
Reaction times (RTs) and accuracy for letter naming were analyzed using the lme4 package (lme4
version 1.1-23, Bates et al., 2014) and lmerTest package (Kuznetsova et al., 2017). Before conduct-
ing the data analyses, we moved RTs less than 200 ms and greater than 2500 ms and those that were
±2.5 SD from a participant’s overall mean (de Bruin et al., 2018; Li et al., 2015; Martín et al.,
2010; Philipp et al., 2007). This resulted in a total of 5.08% data removed. Using a linear mixed-
effects model, we built two models: A model for global control, in which Language (L1, L2) and
Sequenceglobal (stay, repeat) were treated as fixed effects; and a model for local control where
Language (L1, L2) and Sequencelocal (repeat, switch) were set as fixed effects. These two models
included participants and items as random effects (random intercepts and slopes). When models
did not converge, we removed the slope that explained the least amount of variance until the model
converged. Parameters were estimated with restricted maximum likelihood (REML). Below we
report the results from the best-fitting model as justified by the data.
Results
Accuracy results
Responses were considered incorrect when participants named the letter in the wrong language,
self-corrected an error, paused, stammered, or signed, or did not respond. Table 3 and Figure 2(a)
show the accuracy results of global control in which the main effect of Sequenceglobal revealed mix-
ing costs, which was indicated by lower accuracy in repeat trials (M = .96 ± .19) than in stay trials
(M = .98 ± .13).
Table 4 and Figure 2(b) display the accuracy results for local control where a main effect of
Sequencelocal revealed that there was lower accuracy in switch trials (M = .94 ± .22) compared with
repeat trials (M = .96 ± .19).
RTs results
As shown in Table 5 and Figure 3(a), for global control, we found a main effect of Language, indi-
cating that naming letters in the L1 (747 ± 229 ms) was slower than in the L2 (715 ± 240 ms). The
298 International Journal of Bilingualism 27(3)
main effect of Sequenceglobal revealed mixing costs, such that responses in repeat trials (939 ± 316 ms)
were slower than in stay trials (731 ± 236 ms).
As shown in Table 6 and Figure 3(b), for local control, the main effect of Language was signifi-
cant, such that L2 naming (939 ± 315 ms) was faster than L1 (971 ± 316 ms). The main effect of
Sequencelocal, revealed switching costs: naming was slower in switch trials (970 ± 316 ms) relative
Figure 1. (a, b) Experimental blocks and (c) procedure.
Note. In the single blocks (a), participants named letters in the same language (L1 or L2). In the mixed block (b), partici-
pants named letters in both languages according to a color cue. The design and timing of the trial structure are shown
in (c).
Zuo et al. 299
to repeat trials (939 ± 316 ms). There was also a two-way interaction between Language ×
Sequencelocal, suggesting that for the L1 particularly, there were larger asymmetry (48 ms) between
switch and repeat trials (switch trials: M = 995 ± 322 ms and repeat trials: M = 947 ± 309 ms; β = .05,
SE = .01, t = 4.75, p < .001) compared with L2 (15 ms) (switch trials: M = 946 ± 308 ms and repeat
trials: M = 931 ± 322 ms; β = .02, SE = .01, t = 1.91, p = .06).
Discussion
The current study investigated global and local control during cross-language phoneme processing
using a cued language switching paradigm. The results demonstrated that letters were named
slower and less accurate in repeat trials compared with stay trials, indicating that bilinguals glob-
ally control language-interference in single language contexts. The findings also showed that let-
ters were named slower and less accurate in switch trials relative to repeat trials, suggesting that
bilinguals use local control to suppress cross-language interference in a mixed language context.
Taken together, these findings point to the existence of global and local control in cross-language
phoneme switching which we interpret through the ACH (Green & Abutalebi, 2013).
Table 3. Best-fitting linear mixed model of global control accuracy.
Fixed effects βSE Contrast
z p
Intercept 3.73 .14 27.50 <.001***
Language .20 .17 1.15 .25
Sequenceglobal –1.08 .17 –6.23 <.001***
Language × Sequenceglobal –.55 .35 –1.58 .11
Note. Accuracy of trials was the dependent variable and fixed-effect predictors were Language (L1 trials were coded as
–.5, L2 trials were coded as .5) and Sequenceglobal (stay trials were coded as –.5, repeat trials were coded as .5). Each
participant had a random intercept and a random slope. Random effects by participants: Intercept, Language slope. SE:
standard error.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Figure 2. Results of accuracy analyses for global control (a) and local control (b).
Note. Points represent participants’ quartile (75% and 25%) and the middle line reflects the median.
300 International Journal of Bilingualism 27(3)
The findings offer additional support for the ACH. In accordance with the hypothesis, we found
mixing and switching costs at the phonemic level, an observation that is consistent with studies
showing similar effects at the lexical level (Branzi et al., 2016; de Bruin et al., 2018; Gambi &
Hartsuiker, 2016; Gollan et al., 2014; Guo et al., 2011; Khodos et al., 2021; Kleinman & Gollan,
2018; Prior & Gollan, 2011). In other words, cross-language phoneme interference also appears to
be involved in global and local control. According to the ACH, bilinguals face cross-language
interference, but it is less cognitively demanding to globally inhibit interference from a nontarget
language consistently throughout a single language context than to locally suppress cross-language
interference in a mixed language context. Consequently, in the present study, naming letters in
repeat trials was slower and less accurate in the mixed language context than naming letters in stay
trials in the single language contexts. These patterns indicate that in cross-language phoneme pro-
cessing, bilinguals must first suppress interference of cross-language schema. Moreover, although
letter switching seems relatively straightforward, bilinguals make errors and incur switching and
mixing costs as a consequent of the recruitment of different language control in distinct contexts.
In addition to suppressing the cross-language interference of language schema, interference also
needs to be suppressed at the phonemic level. Several word production models assume that lemmas
compete for selection (de Bruin et al., 2014, 2018; Gambi & Hartsuiker, 2016; Guo et al., 2011;
Table 4. Best-fitting linear mixed model of local control accuracy.
Fixed effects Accuracy
βSE Contrast
z p
Intercept 3.23 .14 22.65 <.001***
Language –.04 .16 –.24 .81
Sequencelocal .29 .14 2.11 .04*
Language × Sequencelocal .48 .28 1.73 .08
Note. Accuracy of trials was the dependent variable and fixed-effect predictors were Language (L1 trials were coded
as –.5, L2 trials were coded as .5) and Sequencelocal (stay trials were coded as –.5, repeat trials were coded as .5). Each
participant had a random intercept and a random slope. Random effects by participants: Intercept, Language slope. SE:
standard error.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Table 5. Best-fitting linear mixed model for global control RTs.
Fixed Effects βSE Contrast
t p
Intercept 844.13 23.52 35.90 <.001***
Language –32.03 9.10 –3.52 <.01**
Sequenceglobal 224.88 6.32 35.58 <.001***
Language × Sequenceglobal 1.39 12.64 .11 .91
Note. We use log RTs as the dependent variable. Fixed-effect predictors were Language (L1 –.5 and L2 .5) and
Sequenceglobal (stay trials –.5, repeat trials .5). Random effects by participants: intercept, Language slope. Random
effects by items: intercept. SE: standard error.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Zuo et al. 301
Kleinman & Gollan, 2018; Prior & Gollan, 2011). Our results showed that switch trials were
named slower and less accurate than repeat trials, indicating that local control occurred on the
cross-language phonemic level. The bilingual participants who took part in the present study were
L1 speakers of Chinese with an intermediate proficiency level in L2 English. The relative differ-
ences in dominance between the two languages is significantly large and as a result, there are
observable differences in the amount of inhibition required for the dominant L1 compared with the
non-dominant L2 (Green, 1998). We argue that the greater switching costs in the L1 relative to the
L2 indicates transient inhibition of cross-language phonemes. This finding is in line with Declerck
et al.’s (2015b) results suggesting that cross-language interference occurs at the phonological level
and requires inhibition.
On a practical note, bilinguals often use more global control to suppress the activation of other
languages, such as when talking to family members or foreign colleagues. However, even in mixed
language contexts in social (non-experimental) settings, admittedly bilinguals likely switch
between their languages less often and less naturally compared to an experimental setting that has
been specifically designed to elicit language switching. As such, the ecological validity of
Figure 3. Results of RT analyses for global control (a) and local control (b).
Note. Points represent participants’ quartile (75% and 25%) and the middle line reflects the median.
Table 6. Best-fitting linear mixed model of local control RTs.
Fixed effects βSE Contrast
t p
Intercept 6.81 .03 197.93 <.001***
Language –.04 .01 –3.68 <.001***
Sequencelocal –.04 .01 –4.77 <.001***
Language × Sequencelocal .03 .02 2.03 .04*
Note. We use log RTs as the dependent variable. Fixed-effect predictors were Language (L1 –.5 and L2 .5) and
Sequencelocal (Repeat trials –.5 and Switch trials .5). Random effects by participants: intercept, Language slope. Random
effects by items: intercept. SE: standard error.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
302 International Journal of Bilingualism 27(3)
a laboratory-based switching environment could be strengthened in future work that examines
bilingual language switching in naturalistic, conversational settings. Nonetheless, our experimen-
tal approach is very common in research on bilingual language control and offers meaningful
implications about the existence of local and global control at the phonemic level. Finally, we
would like to mention that this study was based on the letter naming/switching performance among
less-proficient bilinguals. Balanced bilinguals, who command an equal or nearly-equal dominance
in both languages, may have more efficient language control in suppressing cross-language inter-
ference (Costa & Santesteban, 2004; Schwieter & Sunderman, 2008), which may reduce, to some
extent, mixing and switching costs. The effects arising from balanced versus unbalanced bilingual-
ism with respect to global and local control is an issue that merits further exploration.
Conclusion
In the current study, we assessed language control at the phonemic level. The findings revealed that
cross-language interference occurred not only at the language schema level, but also at the phone-
mic level as reflected by mixing and switching costs. These patterns imply that cross-language
interference must be controlled at the sound level, just as it does at the lexical level.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets generated and analyzed in this study are available in the OSF repository. The role of language
control in cross-language phoneme. Retrieved from osf.io/7a9vj
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article: This research was supported by Grants from Liaoning Social Science Planning Fund of China
(L20AYY001), Dalian Science and Technology Star Fund of China (2020RQ055) and Youth Foundation of
Social Science and Humanity, China Ministry of Education (21YJC190009).
ORCID iDs
John W. Schwieter https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1798-3915
Huanhuan Liu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4163-921X
References
Abutalebi, J., & Green, D. W. (2008). Control mechanisms in bilingual language production: Neural evidence
from language switching studies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(4), 557–582.
Allan, D. (2004). Oxford placement test 2: Test pack. Oxford University Press.
Baranov, M., & Kraevskaya, I. (2017). Term Formation Processes and its main features in Chinese language
(based on terminology of automotive industry). Journal of Economics and Social Sciences, 11, 1–5.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and
S4 (R package version). Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-pr oject.org/package=lme4.
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., & Luk, G. (2012). Bilingualism: Consequences for mind and brain. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 16(4), 240–250.
Blanco-Elorrieta, E., Emmorey, K., & Pylkkänen, L. (2018). Language switching decomposed through MEG
and evidence from bimodal bilinguals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(39),
9708–9713.
Zuo et al. 303
Blanco-Elorrieta, E., & Pylkkänen, L. (2016). Bilingual language control in perception versus action: MEG
reveals comprehension control mechanisms in anterior cingulate cortex and domain-general control of
production in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 36(2), 290–301.
Blanco-Elorrieta, E., & Pylkkänen, L. (2017). Bilingual language switching in the laboratory versus in the
wild: The spatiotemporal dynamics of adaptive language control. Journal of Neuroscience, 37(37),
9022–9036.
Branzi, F. M., Della Rosa, P. A., Canini, M., Costa, A., & Abutalebi, J. (2016). Language control in bilin-
guals: Monitoring and response selection. Cerebral Cortex, 26(6), 2367–2380.
Christoffels, I. K., Firk, C., & Schiller, N. O. (2007). Bilingual language control: An event-related brain
potential study. Brain Research, 1147, 192–208.
Coltheart, M., Besner, D., Jonasson, J. T., & Davelaar, E. (1979). Phonological encoding in the lexical deci-
sion task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31(3), 489–507.
Costa, A., & Santesteban, M. (2004). Lexical access in bilingual speech production: Evidence from language
switching in highly proficient bilinguals and L2 learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(4),
491–511.
Daube, C., Ince, R. A., & Gross, J. (2019). Simple acoustic features can explain phoneme-based predictions
of cortical responses to speech. Current Biology, 29(12), 1924–1937.
de Bruin, A., Roelofs, A., Dijkstra, T., & FitzPatrick, I. (2014). Domain-general inhibition areas of the brain
are involved in language switching: FMRI evidence from trilingual speakers. NeuroImage, 90, 348–359.
de Bruin, A., Samuel, A. G., & Duñabeitia, J. A. (2018). Voluntary language switching: When and why do
bilinguals switch between their languages? Journal of Memory and Language, 103, 28–43.
Declerck, M. (2020). What about proactive language control? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27(1), 24–35.
Declerck, M., Koch, I., & Philipp, A. M. (2012). Digits vs. pictures: The influence of stimulus type on lan-
guage switching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(4), 896–904.
Declerck, M., & Philipp, A. M. (2015a). A review of control processes and their locus in language switching.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(6), 1630–1645.
Declerck, M., & Philipp, A. M. (2015b). The unusual suspect: Influence of phonological overlap on language
control. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(4), 726–736.
Declerck, M., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2013). Bilingual control: Sequential memory in language switching.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(6), 1793–1806.
Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review,
93(3), 283–321.
Dell, G. S. (1988). The retrieval of phonological forms in production: Tests of predictions from a connection-
ist model. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(2), 124–142.
Fricke, M., Kroll, J. F., & Dussias, P. E. (2016). Phonetic variation in bilingual speech: A lens for studying the
production–comprehension link. Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 110–137.
Gambi, C., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2016). If you stay, it might be easier: Switch costs from comprehension
to production in a joint switching task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 42(4), 608–626.
Gollan, T. H., Kleinman, D., & Wierenga, C. E. (2014). What’s easier: Doing what you want, or being told
what to do? Cued versus voluntary language and task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 143(6), 2167–2195.
Grainger, J., Diependaele, K., Spinelli, E., Ferrand, L., & Farioli, F. (2003). Masked repetition and phonologi-
cal priming within and across modalities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 29(6), 1256–1269.
Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexicosemantic system. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 1, 67–81.
Green, D. W., & Abutalebi, J. (2013). Language control in bilinguals: The adaptive control hypothesis.
Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 515–530.
Guo, T., Liu, H., Misra, M., & Kroll, J. F. (2011). Local and global inhibition in bilingual word production:
fMRI evidence from Chinese–English bilinguals. NeuroImage, 56(4), 2300–2309.
304 International Journal of Bilingualism 27(3)
Khodos, I., Moskovsky, C., & Paolini, S. (2021). Bilinguals’ and monolinguals’ performance on a non-ver-
bal cognitive control task: How bilingual language experience contributes to cognitive performance by
reducing mixing and switching costs. International Journal of Bilingualism, 25(1), 189–204.
Kleinman, D., & Gollan, T. H. (2018). Inhibition accumulates over time at multiple processing levels in bilin-
gual language control. Cognition, 173, 115–132.
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. (2017). LmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed
effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26.
Levelt, W. J., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 1–38.
Li, L., Abutalebi, J., Zou, L., Yan, X., Liu, L., Feng, X., Wang, R., Guo, T., & Ding, G. (2015). Bilingualism
alters brain functional connectivity between “control” regions and “language” regions: Evidence from
bimodal bilinguals. Neuropsychologia, 71, 236–247.
Liang, L., & Chen, B. (2014). Processing morphologically complex words in second-language learners: The
effect of proficiency. Acta Psychologica, 150, 69–79.
Linck, J. A., Schwieter, J. W., & Sunderman, G. (2012). Inhibitory control predicts language switching per-
formance in trilingual speech production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(3), 651–662.
Linck, J. A., Schwieter, J. W., & Sunderman, G. (2020). The differential role of executive functions in the
cognitive control of language switching. Languages, 5(2), Article 19.
Liu, H., Kong, C., de Bruin, A., Wu, J., & He, Y. (2020). Interactive influence of self and other language
behaviors: Evidence from switching between bilingual production and comprehension. Human Brain
Mapping, 41(13), 3720–3736.
Liu, H., Li, W., de Bruin, A., & He, Y. (2021). Should I focus on self-language actions or should I follow oth-
ers? Cross-language interference effects in voluntary and cued language switching. Acta Psychologica,
216, Article 103308.
Liu, H., Liang, L., Dunlap, S., Fan, N., & Chen, B. (2016). The effect of domain-general inhibition-related
training on language switching: An ERP study. Cognition, 146, 264–276.
Liu, H., Zhang, Y., Blanco-Elorrieta, E., He, Y., & Chen, B. (2020). The role of proactive control on subcom-
ponents of language control: Evidence from trilinguals. Cognition, 194, Article 104055.
Macizo, P. (2016). Phonological coactivation in the bilinguals’ two languages: Evidence from the color nam-
ing task. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(2), 361–375.
Martín, M. C., Macizo, P., & Bajo, T. (2010). Time course of inhibitory processes in bilingual language pro-
cessing. British Journal of Psychology, 101(4), 679–693.
Mesgarani, N., Cheung, C., Johnson, K., & Chang, E. F. (2014). Phonetic feature encoding in human superior
temporal gyrus. Science, 343(6174), 1006–1010.
Meuter, R. F., & Allport, A. (1999). Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language
selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(1), 25–40.
Morais, J. (2021). The phoneme: A conceptual heritage from alphabetic literacy. Cognition, 213, Article
104740.
Philipp, A. M., Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2007). Inhibitory processes in language switching: Evidence from
switching language-defined response sets. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(3), 395–416.
Philipp, A. M., Kalinich, C., Koch, I., & Schubotz, R. I. (2008). Mixing costs and switch costs when switching
stimulus dimensions in serial predictions. Psychological Research, 72(4), 405–414.
Prior, A., & Gollan, T. H. (2011). Good language-switchers are good task-switchers: Evidence from Spanish-
English and Mandarin-English bilinguals. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society,
17(4), 682–691.
Qu, Q., Damian, M. F., & Kazanina, N. (2012). Sound-sized segments are significant for Mandarin speakers.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(35), 14265–14270.
Qu, Q., Feng, C., Hou, F., & Damian, M. F. (2020). Syllables and phonemes as planning units in Mandarin
Chinese spoken word production: Evidence from ERPs. Neuropsychologia, 146, Article 107559.
Roelofs, A., & Verhoef, K. (2006). Modeling the control of phonological encoding in bilingual speakers.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9(2), 167–176.
Zuo et al. 305
Rossi, E., Newman, S., Kroll, J. F., & Diaz, M. T. (2018). Neural signatures of inhibitory control in bilingual
spoken production. Cortex, 108, 50–66.
Schwieter, J. W., & Sunderman, G. (2008). Language switching in bilingual speech production: In search of
the language-specific selection mechanism. The Mental Lexicon, 3(2), 214–238.
Stevenson, R. A., Baum, S. H., Segers, M., Ferber, S., Barense, M. D., & Wallace, M. T. (2017). Multisensory
speech perception in autism spectrum disorder: From phoneme to whole-word perception. Autism
Research, 10(7), 1280–1290.
Weissberger, G. H., Gollan, T. H., Bondi, M. W., Clark, L. R., & Wierenga, C. E. (2015). Language and task
switching in the bilingual brain: Bilinguals are staying, not switching, experts. Neuropsychologia, 66,
193–203.
Wu, Y. J., & Thierry, G. (2017). Brain potentials predict language selection before speech onset in bilinguals.
Brain and Language, 171, 23–30.
Author biographies
Mingyue Zuo is a postgraduate student from the Brain and Cognitive Neuroscience Research Center of
Liaoning Normal University, China. Her research focuses on the cognitive mechanisms of language control
using EEG and fMRI.
John W. Schwieter is Full Professor of Spanish and Linguistics and Cross-Appointed in Psychology at Wilfrid
Laurier University, Canada, where he is the Director of Bilingualism Matters @ Laurier and the Language
Acquisition, Multilingualism, and Cognition Lab. Among his research interests are cognitive and neuroscien-
tific approaches to multilingualism and language acquisition.
Ningning Cao is a doctoral student in the School of Foreign Languages at Northeast Normal University,
China. Her research interest are in linguistic and intercultural pragmatics using EEG.
Huanhuan Liu received a PhD in Psychology from the School of Psychology at Beijing Normal University,
and now works at the Research Center of Brain and Cognitive Neuroscience at Liaoning Normal University.
Her research interests focus on language switching, task switching, and inhibition.
