Concept preparation reduces L1 switch costs, indicating language control can initiate at the concept level¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? When concepts could be prepared, smaller L1 switch costs were observed than when concepts could not be prepared, with a much smaller effect on L2 switch costs. → Mathieu Declerck & Andrea M. Philipp 2015

Evidence¶

Mathieu Declerck & Andrea M. Philipp 2015¶

Mathieu Declerck & Andrea M. Philipp. (2015). A review of control processes and their locus in language switching. Psychon Bull Rev. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0836-1

q2 · i? · review · r3

The review reports, citing Declerck et al. (2015a) with German-English bilinguals who could prepare language, concept, or both, that "smaller L1 switch costs were ob- served than when concepts could not be prepared." The asymmetry was explained by stronger concept-to-L1-lemma connections. No effect sizes are printed.

"When con- cepts could be prepared, smaller L1 switch costs were ob- served than when concepts could not be prepared, whereas the effect of concept preparation on L2 switch costs was much smaller."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Sentence-level (lemma) processing affects language switching: switch costs occur between sentences and depend on syntactic structure
• Phonological processing is affected by and affects language control in switching, though effects are not uniform across studies
• Switch costs and mixing costs are common empirical observations across language switching paradigms, except voluntary switching under certain circumstances