Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2014. Vol. 40, No. 3, 787-796

© 2014 American Psychological Association 0278-7393/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0035583

Executive Control Modulates Cross-Language Lexical Activation During L2 Reading: Evidence From Eye Movements Irina Pivneva, Julie Mercier, and Debra Titone McGill University Models of bilingual reading such as Bilingual Interactive Activation Plus (Dijkstra & van Heuven, 2002) do not predict a centi'al role for domain-general executive control during bilingual reading, in contrast with bilingual models from other domains, such as production (e.g., the Inhibitory Control Model; Green, 1998). We thus investigated whether individual differences among bilinguals in domain-general executive conti'ol modulate cross-language activation during L2 sentence reading, over and above other factors such as L2 proficiency. Eifty Erench-English bilinguals read L2-English sentences while their eye movements were recorded, and they subsequently completed a battery of executive control and L2 proficiency tasks. High- and low-constraint sentences contained interlingual homographs {chat = "casual conversation" in English, "a cat" in French), cognates {piano in English and French), or L2-specific control words. The results showed that greater executive control among bilinguals but not L2 proficiency reduced cross-language activation in terms of interlingual homograph interference. In contrast, increased L2 proficiency but not executive control reduced cross-language activation in terms of cognate facilitation. These results suggest that models of bilingual reading must incorporate mechanisms by which domain-general executive control can alter the earliest stages of bilingual lexical activation. Keywords: bilingual reading, executive control, eye movements, interlingual homographs, cognates

When bilinguals read in their second language (L2), they access orthography, phonology, and semantics from their first language (LI; reviewed in Van Assche, Duyck, & Hartsuiker, 2012). This also occurs when highly proficient bilinguals read in their LI (Titone, Libben, Mercier, Whitford, & Pivneva, 2011; also reviewed in Van Assche et al., 2012). Bilingual reading is, thus, similar to spoken comprehension (Shook & Marian, 2013) and language production (Kroll & GoUan, in press) in revealing how some form of language control is required to resolve crosslanguage conflict (Bialystok, Craik, & Luk, 2012; de Groot & Christoffels, 2006; Green, 1998). This coheres with models positing an early, central role of executive control during language processing, such as the Inhibitory Control Model (ICM; Abutalebi & Green, 2007; Green, 1998), originally proposed for language production. Wbether this extends to bilingual reading is an open question. The most prominent bilingual reading model is Bilingual Interactive Activation Plus (BIA-I-; Dijkstra & van Heuven, 2002).

Accordingly, cross-language competition is resolved in two possible ways. Within the language system, LI and L2 representations coexist within an integrated lexical store and feed activation forward to nodes coding for language membersbip (tbese cannot feed back to lower levels). Here, lateral inhibitory connections witbin a level (which would presumably be affected by resting activation) or semantic to orthographic feedback across levels (which would presumably be an interaction of resting activation and contextual constraint) implement a passive form of language control (de Groot, 2011). In contrast, an active form of language control occurs outside the language system tiirough domain-general task schémas that take language system outputs as input and adjust responding based on tbese continuous activations, the current task, and any relevant decision criteria. Importantly, activity occurring at the task-schema level is architecturally blocked from the internal dynamics of the language system and, thus, cannot affect bottom-up processes occurring therein. The BIA-H architecture has implications for the time course of language control during bilingual reading (van Heuven & Dijkstra, 2010). First, passive control processes operative inside the language system (within and across levels) should occur rapidly because they modulate lexical activation directiy. Second, active control processes operative outside the language system should occur more slowly, if at all, because tbey only modulate language system outputs ratber than ongoing activation. Thus, BIA-F predicts that variables relating to control operations within the language system (e.g., semantic constraint) will directly affect lexical activation. In contrast, variables relating to control operations outside the language system (e.g., individual differences in the efficiency of domain-general executive control) cannot affect initial lexical activation directly (van Heuven & Dijkstra, 2010).

This article was published Online First January 20, 2014. Irina Pivneva, Julie Mercier, and Debra Titone, Department of Psychology, Centre for Research on Brain, Language & Music, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. This research was supported by an NSERC Discovery Award (principal investigator: Debra Titone), a Canada Research Chairs Award (Debra Titone), a CIHR Frederick Banting and Charles Best CGS Master's Award (Irina Pivneva), a Fonds de Recherche du Quebec—Nature et Technologies Doctoral Award (Irina Pivneva), and a CIHR CGS Doctoral Award (Julie Mercier). Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Debra Titone, Department of Psychology, McGill University, 1205 Dr. Penfield Avenue, Montreal, QC H3A lBl, Canada. E-mail: [email protected] 787

788

PrVNEVA, MERCIER, AND TITONE

We invesfigate these predictions using eye movement measures of sentence reading, focusing on two word types—interlingual homographs, which share orthography but conflict semantically across languages (chat—"casual conversation" in English, "cat" in French), and cognates, which share both orthography and meaning across languages (jungle). Interlingual homographs usually produce interference (the net result of form overlap and meaning non-overlap), whereas cognates generally produce reading facilitation (the net result of form and meaning overlap; Van Assche et al, 2012). We use eye movement measures to esfimate a detailed time course of processing for these words. First pass measures such as gaze duration (GD: the sum of all first pass flxations on a word) index early comprehension stages (inifial lexical acfivafion); later reading measures such as total reading time (TRT: the sum of all fixations, both first and subsequent passes) index integrative stages subsequent to inifial acfivafion (Rayner & Schotter, 2013). We previously found that highly proficient French-English bilinguals reading in their L2 (English) showed classic homograph interference and cognate facilitation effects for GD, irrespective of whether an L2 (English) carrier sentence semantically biased a target word (Libben & Titone, 2009), consistent with single-word decision studies showing nonselectivity (Van Assche et al., 2012). However, high semanfic constraint attenuated homograph interference and cognate facilitation for TRT. Within BIA-I-, these effects would have arisen from lexical activation and lateral inhibition occurring at the orthographic level, as well as feedback from the semantic to the orthographic level within the language system. We also invesfigated LI bilingual reading and issues related to language control by matiipulating task demands in highly proficient English-French bilinguals (Titone et al., 2011). Specifically, we interspersed L2 (French) nontarget-language filler sentences on one third of trials, which resulted in enhanced cross-language acfivation during LI (English) target-language trials, particularly for GD. Thus, task demands modulated initial lexical acfivation, though it remains unclear whether fillers modulated L2 (French) resting acfivafion of phonology/orthography within the language system, consistent with BIAH-, or task expectafions occurring outside the language system, inconsistent with BIA-1-. Thus, an open question is whether domain-general cognifive processes modulate early lexical acfivafion, in contrast with predicfions following from BIA-H. We thus investigated this issue and were particularly interested in whether executive control helps to reduce cross-language competition or plays other roles with respect to speed and fluency of language processing (Loncke, Desmet, Vandierendonck, & Hartsuiker, 2011). BIA-f- has no clear mechanism by which executive control affects early reading stages, as such effects reflect processing efficiency outside rather than inside the language system. However, other models heretofore not specific to reading (Abutalebi & Green, 2007; Green, 1998) imply that differences among bilinguals in domain-general executive control should penetrate the earliest stages of reading, as they are fundatnental to bilingual processing generally. Thus, if domain-general executive control operates outside the language system, there should be no relation between executive control and cross-language competition during early reading stages, as reflected by measures such as GD (which, unlike first fixation duration, reflects complete first pass word processing). However, if domain-general executive control is central to bilin-

gual language processing (Abutalebi & Green, 2007; Green, 1998), increased executive control should pattern with less crosslanguage conflict during early reading. Executive control should also be particularly important for interlingual homographs, which require active cross-language suppression (as hypothesized by Macizo, Bajo, & Martin, 2010), versus cognates, which do not. Executive control should also be particularly important when there is limited semanfic to orthographic feedback to help resolve crosslanguage conflict, as would be true for low-constraint sentences.

Method Participants Fifty French-English bilinguals (36 females; Ai„^^ = 24.02, SD^g^ = 3.63), with normal/corrected vision and no self-reported history of speech/hearing disorders participated for course credit or monetary compensation ($10/hr). Participants completed a language questionnaire and an objective language proficiency task where they decided whether a visually presented noun was animate or inanimate in separate counterbalanced LI- and L2-only blocks (Segalowitz & FrenkielFishman, 2005). From this, we divided L2 by LI mean correct reaction times (RTs) to obtain a continuous, objective measure of L2 versus LI proficiency, L2/L1 ratio (see also Van Assche et al., 2012, and Table 1).

Materials Materials taken from Libben and Titone (2009) consisted of 31 form-identical cognates (jungle), 27 interlingual homographs (chat—French for "cat"), and English-only control words matched to the cognates and homographs on word length, frequency, and neighborhood density. Words occurred sentence-medially, and high/low semantic constraint was manipulated and verified by semanfic bias and cloze probability ratings from another group of English-Ll participants (see Table 2).

Procedure Eye movements were recorded with an Eye-Link 1000 (SRResearch, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada) from the right eye (binocular viewing). Sentences were presetited on a 20-in. cathode ray tube monitor (71 cm away). Comprehension quesfions occurred on 25% of trials. Following the reading task, participants completed an executive control battery, which included anfisaccade (Hallett, 1978), nonlinguistic Simon and Stroop (Blumenfeld & Marian, 2011), and number Stroop tasks (see Table 3; for detailed descripfions, see Mercier, Pivneva, & Titone, 2014; Pivneva, Palmer, & Titone, 2012). The antisaccade task assessed the ability to inhibit prepotent eye movements toward peripheral targets. The nonlinguistic Simon task assessed the ability to inhibit a mismatch in stimulus spatial location and response button. The nonlinguistic Stroop and number Stroop tasks assessed the ability to inhibit a mismatch in semanfic meatiing assigned to a stimulus and the response button. To estimate executive control capacity common to all tasks (the unity of execufive control; Miyake & Friedman, 2012), we created a composite score for each participant (McMurray, Samelson, Lee, & Tomblin, 2010). All submeasures correlated

EXECUTIVE CONTROL AND L2 SENTENCE READING

789

Table 1 Self-Report English Proficiency and Objective L2 Ability (L2/L1 RT Ratio) Variable

Minimum

Maximum

4 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 • 37

10 10 10 10 10

7 8 7 7 8

10

7

10 10 10 100

7 6 7 70

0 5 3 5

15 23 22 22

9 16 12 16

1 1

5

3

5

2

Rating scales (0-10) Speaking Ability Reading Ability Writing Ability Translating Ability Listening Comprehension Pronunciation Fluency Grammatical Ability Overall Competence Sum of rating scales (0-100) Age at L2 acquisition (yrs, old) Began acquiring English Became competent in English Began reading in English Became competent in reading English Degree of French interference when functioning in English (0-5) Speaking Reading Percentage of present time spent functioning in each language English French L2/L1 RT ratio Note.

2 16 0,86

83 98 1,24

Mean

27 70 1,01

LI = flrst language; L2 = second language; RT = reaction time.

significantly with the composite score (see Table 4), though Simon task performance had greater correlations than others. Participants then completed the L2 questionnaire and objective proficiency test.

Results We removed observations less than 100 ms (2,43% of trials) and where targets received no fixations (8,53% of trials). The first dependent variable (DV) of interest was GD (gaze duration), the sum of all fixation durations starting when the eye first lands on a word until it moves away, which reflects early lexical access as it is influenced by variables such as frequency (Rayner & Schotter, 2013), The second DV was TRT (total reading time), the sum of all fixation durations on a word, which reflects later stages of comprehension as it includes second-pass fixations and is influenced by sentence- or discourse-level factors (Rayner & Schotter, 2013), Table 5 presents GD and TRT for homographs, and Table 6 presents the same for cognates. Table 7 presents correlations between composite executive control scores, individual executive control scores, L2 proficiency, the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI; Wechsler, 1999), and the homograph interference effect for GD and TRT,

Linear Mixed-Effects Regression We computed linear mixed-effects models for homographs and cognates separately using the Ime4 library. Version 0,999375-32 (Bates, 2005), in R (Baayen, 2008), Fixed effects included word type (control vs, target), sentence constraint (low vs, high), executive control cost after residualizing out L2 ability (continuous; centered and scaled), and their three-way interactiorl, WASI LI vocabulary served as a control variable that assessed verbal intelligence or LI proficiency (Wechsler, 1999), Executive control and

L2 proficiency did not significantly correlate {r = -,04, p > ,05), nor did executive control and WASI (r = -,17, p > ,05), We included random intercepts and correlated random slopes for word type, sentence constraint, and their interaction for participants and items (Ban-, Levy, Scheepers, & Tily, 2013),' CoUinearity was less than 0,26 for all variables, DVs were natural log-transformed. We used a convention of î > 1,96 to report significant effects, and chi-square to assess whether models containing three-way interactions explained more variance than did models containing only two-way interactions. For omnibus models, we deviation-coded (-0,5, 0,5) categorical variables (Barr et al,, 2013), To identify source of interactions in submodels and plot partial effects, we treatment-coded (0, 1 ; baseline = control words) categorical variables.

Analysis 1: Interlingual Homographs If domain-general executive control modulates initial lexical activation, increased executive control should relate to less homograph interference. Moreover, this effect should be stronger for low-constraint sentences, which do not benefit from semantic-toorthographic feedback to the same extent as high-constraint sentences. Gaze duration (GD). The three-way interaction between word type, sentence constraint, and executive control cost was significant {b = -0,06, SE = 0,03, f = -2,18; see Figure 1, upper panels), and this model explained significantly more variance than did a simpler model including only two-way interactions, x^(l) = ' The overall pattern of results was the same using Fl analysis of variance for both GD and TRT after median-splitting the group into bilinguals who had high versus low executive control costs.

PrVNEVA, MERCIER, AND TITONE

790 Table 2

Sample Stimuli Used in the Sentence Reading Task (Libben & Titone, 2009) and Their Corresponding Mean Semantic Bias and Mean Cloze Probability Ratings Semantic bias (0-10)

Cloze probability (0-1)

Because she knew the change was counterfeit, the brown colored coin was thrown out.

8.34

0.4

Because it didn't clean and lather well, the brown colored soap was thrown out.

8.53

0.37

When they were on the safari. they saw an enormous jungle that was dark and scary.

8.86

0.48

When she was chewing her gum. she blew an enormous bubble that was pink and shiny.

8.85

0.49

Word type Interlingual homographs Target word

Matched control

Cognates Target word

Matched control

High constraint

4.74, p < .05. As executive control decreased, homographs became slower than language-unique words, for low-constraint sentences only. In follow-up analyses decomposing this interaction, word type by executive control interacted in low-constraint (b = 0.04, SE = 0.02, t = 2.08) but not high-constraint (b = -0.02,

Table 3 Mean Correct Reaction Time Values and Standard Deviations for Executive Control Measures and the Composite Executive Control Cost Score Task, type, and cost Simon task Congruent Incongruent Cost Stroop task Congruent Incongruent Cost Number Stroop task Congruent Incongruent Cost Antisaccade task Prosaccadic (Pure) Antisaccadic (Pure) Prosaccadic (Mixed) Antisaccadic (Mixed) Total antisaccade cost Prosaccadic (Pure + Mixed) Antisaccadic (Pure -)- Mixed) Cost Task switch cost Pure (Prosaccadic + Antisaccadic) Mixed (Prosaccadic -1- Antisaccadic) Cost Executive control cost score

M 482 531 -49***

SD 98 94 4

489 499 -10

125 103 23

617 676 -59***

94 102 -8

287 379 282 380

37 44 41 44

285 380 -95***

36 40 -4

333 331 3 -0.0002

33 33 0 0.0051

*** Two-tailed paired-samples t test significant at^i < .001.

Semantic bias (0-10)

Cloze probability (0-1)

Because it was completely worthless, the brown colored coin was thrown out. Because it smelled really bad, the brown colored soap was thrown out.

2.90

0.04

2.87

0.02

When they were on their trip, they saw an enormous jungle that was dark and scary. When she waited for her friend, she blew an enormous bubble that was pink and shiny.

3.05

0.04

2.82

0.04

Low constraint

SE = 0.02, t = —0.91) sentences. There was a significant main effect of executive control for only high-constraint sentences (b = 0.05, SE = 0.02, f = 2.10), where bilinguals with weaker versus greater executive control exhibited longer GD. Total reading time (TRT). Like GD, there was a three-way interaction between word type, sentence constraint, and execufive control (b = -0.01, SE = 0.04, t = -2.84; see Figure 1, lower panels), and this model explained significantly more variance than did a simpler model including only two-way interactions, x^(l) ~ 11.03, p < .001. Again, as executive control decreased, homographs became slower than language-unique words, for lowconstraint sentences only. This was confirmed in analyses of low-constraint sentences alone by an interacdon between word type and execufive control (b = 0.06, SE = 0.03, t = 2.05), showing that homograph TRT increased as executive control cost increased. However, for high-constraint sentences alone, the interaction between word type and executive control showed an opposite pattern (b = 0.06, SE = 0.03, t = -2.23). TRT for control words increased relative to homographs as executive control increased. To further examine this pattern, we computed models splitting the original three-way by word type rather than sentence constraint. Sentence constraint (low vs. high; baseline = low) interacted with executive control for control words (b = 0.07, SE = 0.03, Í = 2.53) but not homographs (b = -0.05, SE = 0.03, t = -1.11). Summary of interlingual homograph results. Consistent with the Inhibitory Control Model (ICM), and contrary to Bilingual Interactive Activation Plus (BIA-I-), greater executive control related to less homograph interference, particularly in low-constraint sentences during early (i.e., indexed by GD) and late (i.e., indexed by TRT) reading stages (after residualizing out L2 ability, though the results would be identical if we did not do so). However, bilinguals with greater executive control also seemed less likely to use high contextual constraint to dampen homograph interference during late reading stages (e.g., TRT), despite the fact that they used L2 contex-

EXECUTIVE CONTROL AND L2 SENTENCE READING

791

Table 4 Correlations Between Individual Executive Control Measures, E2 Proficiency, WASI, and the Composite Executive Control Measure Variable

Executive control (composite score)"

Executive control measures 1. Simon cost 2. Stroop cost 3. Number Stroop cost 4. Antisaccade cost 5. Antisaccade task switch cost L2 proficiency WASI

.54" .28* .12 .46" .31* -.04 -.17

2

3

4

5

L2 proficiency

— -.20 .25 -.28 .09 -.07

— -.18 -.19 -.21 .02

.21 -.01 -.32*

.07 -.17

— -.05

1 —

.06 .11 -.11 .25 -.12 -.20

Note. L2 = second language; WASI = Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. ° L2 ability is not residualized out of this variable. V < .05. * > < . O 1 .

tual constraint for control words more effectively than did bihnguals with weaker executive control (for other work suggesting reduced use of context during L2, see Martin et al., 2013). Thus, we believe that bilinguals with greater execudve control read the control words in high-constraint sentences during later stages at a speed that could not be sustained for homographs, pardcularly given that cross-language semantic mismatches could have been detected postlexicaUy.

Analysis 2: Cognates Here we investigate whether domain-general execudve control modulates early lexical acdvation for cognates. If cognate facihtation arises from cross-language compeddon, we would expect a simUar pattem as that seen for homographs. However, if facilitation arises because cognates are funcdonaUy more frequent than language-

unique control words (Titone et al., 2011), we would expect no effect of executive control. Gaze duration. The three-way interaction between word type, sentence constraint, and execudve control was not significant, nor were any two-way interactions {b = -0.03, SE = 0.04, t = —1.36). However, a word type main effect indicated that bilinguals read cognates faster than language-unique words (M = 280 vs. 294 ms; b = -0.03, SE = 0.02, t = -1.98). Bilinguals also read all words faster in high- versus low-constraint sentences (M = 281 vs. 293 ms; b = -0.05, SE = 0.01, t = -3.77), and aU words more slowly as execudve control decreased {b = 0.04, SE = 0.02, f = 2.18). Total reading time. Like GD, the three-way interacdon between word type, sentence constraint, and execudve control for TRT was not significant, nor were any two-way interacdons

Table 5 Means and Standard Errors for First-Pass Gaze Duration and Total Reading Time for Interlingual Homographs and Matched Control Words Overall for All Bilinguals and Split by Quartiles on Executive Control Cost Score Executive control cost score

All pi (n = 50)

Variable

M

Greatest SE

M

Greater SE

Weaker

Weakest

M

SE

M

SE

M

SE

286 300 -14

17 19

304

21 17

310

21 18

283 278 5

17 19

292 300 -8

15 16

297 304 -7

18 21

Gaze duration Low constraint Homograph Control Difference High constraint Homograph Control Difference

293 301 •

19 18

-8 286 288 -2

16 19

274 296 -22

16 18

270 271 -1

15 19

305 -1

302 8

Total reading time Low constraint Homograph Control Difference High constraint Homograph Control Difference

479 442 37

45 43

443 457 -14

43 45

402 413 -11

30 43

550 444 106

51 36

519 454 65

49 46

428 406 22

41 36

443 367 76

42 30

382 357 25

35 27

439 453 -14

38 36

446 446 0

46 46

Note. All analyses reported in the article used continuous measures of executive control and are split into quartiles here to facilitate inspection of the means.

PIVNEVA, MERCIER, AND TITONE

792

Table 6 Means and Standard Errors for First-Pass Gaze Duration and Total Reading Time for Cognates and Matched Control Words Overall for All Bilinguals and Split by Quartiles on Executive Control Cost Score Executive control cost score {n = 50) Variable

M

Greatest SE

M

Greater SE

M

Weaker

Weakest

SE

M

SE

M

SE

Gaze duration Low constraint Cognate Control Difference High constraint Cognate Control Difference

287 307 -20 276 291 -15

'

16 20

261 292 -31

16 16

298 297 1

18 20

290 316 -26

13 17

299 323 -24

16 24

15 18

260 279 -19

13 14

276 264 12

18 12

280 300 -20

16 18

288 316 -28

14 23

Total reading time Low constraint Cognate Control Difference High constraint Cognate Control Difference

404 452 -48

34 38

402 458 -56

35 37

367 391 -24

26 33

413 487 -74

30 35

430 467 -37

41 45

367 404 -37

30 39

368 390 -22

32 31

339 329 10

26 25

367 414 -47

27 38

394 478 -84

35 52

Note. All analyses reported in the article used continuous measures of executive control and are split into quartiles here to facilitate inspection of the means.

{b = -0.03, SE = 0.03, t = -0.99). However, a word type main effect indicated that bilinguals read cognates faster than languageunique words (M = 386 vs. 428 ms; b = -0.08, SE = 0.03, Í = -2.91). Bilinguals also read all words faster in high- versus low-constraint sentences (M = 386 vs. 428 ms; b = —0.11, SE = 0.02, Í = -5.28). Unlike GD, executive control did not significantly modulate TRT {b = 0.05, SE = 0.03, í = 1.35). Summary of cognate results. Bilinguals showed cognate facilitation for both GD and TRT; however, this did not interact with any other factor. Thus, greater executive control did not modulate cognate facilitation. Moreover, in contrast with Libben and Titone (2009), context did not modulate cognate facilitation for TRT, which may be because the present sample was overall less L2

proficient (see also Van Assche, Drieghe, Duyck, Welvaert, & Hartsuiker, 2011), a point we discuss below.

Analysis 3: L2 Proficiency Effects Here we isolate effects of L2 proficiency after residualizing out executive control. We do so for two reasons. First, similar effects might occur for any variable indexing processing difficulty and thus not be specific to executive control. Second, if homograph and cognate effects arise for different reasons (respectively, cross-language conflict vs. frequency), only cognate facilitation should relate to L2 proficiency (Van Hell & Dijkstra, 2002).

Table 7 Correlations Between Individual Executive Control Measures, L2 Proficiency, WASl, the Composite Executive Control Measure, and the Homograph Interference Effect as Measured by Gaze Duration (GD) and Total Reading Time (TRT) Measure and task

GD high constraint

GD low constraint

TRT high constraint

TRT low constraint

Executive control measures Composite measure (L2 ability residualized out) Composite measure (L2 ability not residualized out) Simon cost Stroop cost Number Stroop cost Antisaccade cost Antisaccade task switch cost L2 proficiency WASI

-.03 -.11 .05 -.09 -.05 -.11 -.12 .27 -.07

.32* .29* .29* -.01 .26 .12 .13 -.12 -.20

-.22 -.22 .02 .24 -.27 .03 -.07 .20 -.14

.34" .31* .02 -.14 .26 .14 .01 -.24 .12

Note. L2 = second language; WASI = Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. ' p < .05.

EXECUTIVE CONTROL AND L2 SENTENCE READING

Low constraint - GD

793

High constraint - GD i\

1

to ~

Q

CO

i

5.6

CD gi O

to CO in

54

5.4

9.

Control — — Homograph

o

5R

E

q

"c" o

aze

12

ta

— Control — — Homograph

I

•1.5

-0.5

0.5

1.5

Greater EC

-1.5

Weaker EC

0.5

-0.5

1.5

Greater EC

Weaker EC

Standardized Executive Conttwl Standardized ExeouUve Control

CO

Control Homograph

et

1

"5" E

CN

ZI

to

O)

to

c

•5

p

m CC

CD

I

Control Homograph

CM

00

iri \

-

I

2

Greater EC

-

I

1

I

0

1

r

2 Weaker EC

Standardized Executive Control

o _

^^—

CD ~

Otal

F

6.4

High constraint - TRT Low constraint - TRT

OS

t .3

to

tri ~*

I -2

Greater EC

r" -1

"

1

1

1

0

1

2 Weaker EC

Standardized Executive Control

Figure 1. Partial effect of standardized executive control (EC; second language proficiency residualized out) on homograph interference in low- and high-constraint sentences for gaze duration (GD; upper panels) and total reading time (TRT; lower panels).

For homographs, there was a main effect of L2 proficiency in that GD and TRT increased overall as L2 proficiency increased (respectively, b = 0.07, SE = 0.02, t = 4.45, vs. b = 0.08, SE = 0.01, t = 9.90). L2 proficiency did not interact with any other variable. For cognates, there was a three-way interaction between word type, sentence constraint, and L2 proficiency for GD (b = 0.06, SE = 0.03, t = 2.50), and this model explained more variance than did one that included two-way interactions only, x^(l) = 5.49, p < .05. As Figure 2 (upper panels) shows, bilinguals exhibited more cognate facilitation as L2 proficiency decreased for low-constraint sentences only. Follow-up analyses showed an interaction between word type and L2 proficiency for low-constraint sentences (b = -0.07, SE = 0.02, Í = -4.33) but not high-constraint sentences (b = -0.00, SE = 0.02, t = -0.28). Like GD, TRT showed a three-way interaction between word type, sentence constraint, and L2 proficiency (b = 0.08, SE = 0.03, Í = 3.01), and this model explained more variance than did a model that included two-way interactions only, x^(l) = 5.65, p < .05. As Figure 2 also shows (lower panels), bilinguals exhibited more cognate facilitation as L2 proficiency decreased, for low-constraint sentences only. Follow-up analyses again showed an interaction between word type and L2 proficiency for lowconstraint (b = -0.08, SE = 0.02, t = -4.17) but not highconstraint (b = 0.01, SE = 0.02, t = 0.31) sentences.

Thus, L2 reading was faster as L2 proficiency increased. However, the magnitude of homograph interference did not change. In contrast, similar to Van Hell and Dijkstra (2002), cognate facilitation was greater as L2 proficiency decreased, and this interaction was reduced in high-constraint contexts, consistent with Libben and Titone (2009).

Discussion We investigated whether individual differences in domaingeneral executive control related to cross-language activation during bilingual reading. Greater executive control among bilinguals led to less cross-language activation during early reading stages, in terms of interlingual homograph interference for low-constraint sentences. In contrast, greater executive control did not modulate cognate facilitation, although reduced L2 proficiency led to greater cognate facilitation across all measures. Like prior work (Libben & Titone, 2009), cognate facilitation was driven by language-unique control words rather than cognates themselves. This suggests that cognate facilitation partially arises because control words have a lower functional frequency than do cognates, which overlap orthographically, semantically, and often phonologically across languages. Consequently, bilinguals may be more sensitive to the lower functional frequency of language-unique words because of divided L1/L2 exposure (Gollan, Montoya, Cera, & Sandoval,

794

PrVNEVA, MERCIER, AND TITONE

Low constraint - GD

High constraint -GD — Control — Cognate

I - 1 0

r 1

High L2

2

High L2

Low L2

-1

1

2 LowL2

Standardized L2 Proficiency Standardized 12 Proficiency

High constraint -TRT

Low constraint - TRT

ta "

— Control — Cognate

Control — — Cognate

fing

id ~

S

o

O

ir

(D

to

ê

5,8

CJ

00

s

to

^„„^-"^

2 LowL2 Standardized L2 Proficiency

High L2

-1

0

1

2 LgwU Standardized L2 Proficiency

Figure 2. Partial effect of standardized L2 proficiency (L2/L1 reaction time ratio; executive control residualized out) on cognate facilitation in low- and high-constraint sentences for gaze duration (GD; upper panels) and total reading time (TRT; lower panels). LI = first language; L2 = second language.

2008; Gollan et al,, 2011; Titone et al,, 2011; Whitford & Titone, 2012), Greater executive control among bilinguals also led to enhanced use of contextual constraint for control words during later L2 reading stages (TRT), consistent with work on monolinguals (e,g., Chiappe, Siegel, & Hasher, 2000; Prat, 2011), Given that L2 versus LI processing is generally less practiced or fiuent, bilinguals devote more resources to low-level word decoding and may have fewer left over to perform other language operations, such as integrating words in an unfolding context (Martin et al,, 2013; Segalowitz, 2010), Future work can assess whether executive control affects low-level word decoding during single-word processing. Compared to Libben and Titone (2009), there were similarities and differences with the present study, which we attribute to the overall lower L2 ability in the present sample. First, Libben and Titone showed contextual facilitation for control words and less homograph interference in high- versus low-constraint sentences for TRT (here, we show this only for high executive control bilinguals in GD; Libben & Titone, 2009, did not assess executive control). However, the bilinguals tested here reported significantly less daily usage of English than did those tested in Libben and Titone (27 vs, 50%, p < ,01) and more of French (70 vs, 47%, p < ,01), Consequently, they may have been less likely as a group to use context efficiently (e,g,, Martin et al, 2013) and less likely to use context to modulate cross-language activation, similar to prior

work using a relatively less L2-proficient sample (Van Assche et al,, 2011), Moreover, compared to bilinguals tested in Libben and Titone, the current sample may have weighted the benefits arising from form overlap more heavily than the costs arising from meaning non-overlap, thus showing more initial (i,e,, for GD) facilitation for homographs (e,g,, Dijkstra, Grainger, & van Heuven, 1999), which decreased over time (i,e,, for TRT), However, the GD results, which more reflect early lexical activafion, show that both increased executive control and contextual constraint attenuated interlingual homograph interference (see also Libben & Titone, 2009), This is most consistent with models ascribing a central, early role to executive control (Green, 1998) but does not follow from models positing that domain-general language control is architecturally blocked from core language operations (e,g,, BIA-H), Presumably, cross-language semantic conflict makes homographs more likely than cognates to require domain-general executive control (Macizo et al,, 2010), except perhaps when cognate status increases the saliency of contextually irrelevant meanings (Areas Da Luz Fontes & Schwartz, 2011) or phonological mismatches occur in tasks emphasizing phonology (e,g,, speaking; Linck, Hoshino, & Kroll, 2008), Indeed, given prior work showing executive control influences on cognates during production (Linck et al,, 2008) and phonological overlap effects on cognates during L2 reading (Dijkstra, Miwa, Brummelhuis, Sappelli, & Baayen, 2010; Schwartz, Kroll, & Diaz, 2007), we computed models assessing the impact of

EXECUTIVE CONTROL AND L2 SENTENCE READING cross-language phonological conflict. Homographs showed no effects, which means either that semantics trumps phonology or that the homographs used here were relatively short, and failed to vary sufficiently in phonological overlap. However, bilinguals with high executive control read cognates in low-constraint sentences faster when overlap was high (piano but not fungle, in English and French; word type'executive control'overlap interaction, b = 0.03, SE = 0.02, t = 2.05). Submodels verified that bilinguals with high executive control showed facilitation only when cognates were phonologically similar across English and French, whereas bilinguals with low executive control showed facilitation irrespective of overlap. Thus, cross-language phonological overlap may interact with executive control, and its impact may be even greater for tasks encouraging greater phonological processing than ours. To conclude, individual differences among bilinguals in domain-general executive control modulate the initial stages of cross-language activation during L2 reading, similar to production (Festman, Rodriguez-Fomells, & Munte, 2010; Linck et al., 2008; Pivneva et al., 2012; Pivneva & Titone, 2012) and spoken comprehension (Blumenfeld & Marian, 2011; Mercier et al., 2014). Thus, bilingual reading models (i.e., BIA-I-) ought to better specify how domain-general executive control directly affects operations occurring within the language system. One possibility is to enable two sources of feedback not currently present in BIA+: one from the task/decision level to the language nodes (which already exist within the language core) and one from the language nodes to lower levels. Such modifications might optimally integrate this important model of bilingual reading with the Inhibitory Control Model, which addresses bilingual production, and better reflect the neural underpinnings of bilingual language control (Abutalebi & Green, 2008; van Heuven & Dijkstra, 2010).

References Abutalebi, J., & Green, D. W. (2007). Bilingual language production: The neurocognition of language representation and control. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20, 242-275. doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2006.10.003 Abutalebi, J., & Green, D. W. (2008). Control mechanisms in bilingual language production: Neural evidence from language switching studies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 557-582. doi: 10.1080/ 01690960801920602 Areas Da Luz Fontes, A. B., & Schwartz, A. I. (2011). Working memory influences on cross-language activation during bilingual lexical disambiguation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14, 360-370. doi: 10.1017/S1366728910000374 Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511801686 Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C , & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255-278. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 Bates, D. M. (2005). Fitting linear models in R: Using the Ime4 package. R News, 5, 27-30. Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M.. & Luk, G. (2012). Bilingualism: Consequences for mind and brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 240-250. doi:10.10I6/j.tics.2012.03.001 Blumenfeld, H. K., & Marian, V. (2011). Bilingualism influences inhibitory control in auditory comprehension. Cognition, 118, 245-257. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.012 Chiappe, P., Siegel, L. S., & Hasher, L. (2000). Working memory, inhibitory control, and reading disability. Memory & Cognition, 28, 8-17. doi:I0.3758/BF03211570

795

de Groot, A. M. B. (2011). Language and cognition in bilinguals and multilinguals: An introduction. New York, NY: Psychology Press. de Groot, A. M. B., & Christoffels, I. K. (2006). Language control in bilinguals: Monolingual tasks and simultaneous interpreting. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 189-201. doi:10.1017/ S1366728906002537 Dijkstra, A., Grainger, J., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 496-518. doi :10.1006/jmla. 1999 .2654 Dijkstra, A., Miwa, K., Brummelhuis, B., Sappelli, M., & Baayen, H. (2010). How cross-language similarity and task demands affect cognate recognition. Joumal of Memory and Language, 62, 284-301. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.12.003 Dijkstra, A., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 175-197. doi: 10.1017/ S1366728902003012 Festman. J., Rodriguez-Fomells, A., & Munte, T. F. (2010). Individual differences in control of language interference in late bilinguals are mainly related to general executive abilities. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 6, 5. doi:10.1186/1744-9081-6-5 GoUan, T. H., Montoya, R. I., Cera, C , & Sandoval, T. C. (2008). More use almost always means a smaller frequency effect: Aging, bilingualism, and the weaker links hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 787-814. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.07.001 Gollan, T. H., Slattery, T. J., Goldenberg, D., Van Assche, E., Duyck, W., & Rayner, K. (2011). Frequency drives lexical access in reading but not in speaking: The frequency-lag hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 186-209. doi:10.1037/a0022256 Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, I, 67-81. doi:10.1017/ S1366728998000133 Hallett, P. E. (1978). Primary and secondary saccades to goals defined by instructions. Vision Research, 18, 1279-1296. doi:10.1016/00426989(78)90218-3 KroU, J. F., & Gollan, T. H. (in press). Speech planning in two languages: What bilinguals tell us about language production. In V. Ferreira, M. Goldrick, & M. Miozzo (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language production. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Libben, M. R., & Titone, D. A. (2009). Bilingual lexical access in context: Evidence from eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 381-390. doi: 10.1037/a0014875 Linck, J. A., Hoshino, N., & Kroll, J. F. (2008). Cross-language lexical processes and inhibitory control. Mental Lexicon, 3, 349-374. doi: 10.1075/ml.3.3.061in Loncke, M., Desmet, T., Vandierendonck, A., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2011). Executive control is shared between sentence processing and digit maintenance: Evidence from a strictly timed dual-task paradigm. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23, 886-911. doi:10.1080/20445911.2011 .586625 Macizo, P., Bajo, T., & Martin, M. C. (2010). Inhibitory processes in bilingual language comprehension: Evidence from Spanish-English interlexical homographs. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 232-244. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2010.04.002 Martin, C. D., Thierry, G., Kuipers, J., Boutonnet, B., Foucart, A., & Costa, A. (2013). Bilinguals reading in their second language do not predict upcoming words as native readers do. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 574-588. doi:10.1016/jjml.2013.08.001 McMurray, B., Samelson, V. M., Lee, S. H., & Tomblin, J. B. (2010). Individual differences in online spoken word recognition: Implications for SLI. Cognitive Psychology, 60, 1-39. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009 .06.003

796

PIVNEVA, MERCIER, AND TITONE

Mercier, J., Pivneva, I., & Titone, D. (2014). Individual differences in inhibitory control relate to bilingual spoken word processing. Bilin-

gualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 89-117. doi:10.1017/ S1366728913000084 Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (2012). The nature and organization of individual differences in executive functions: Four general conclusions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 8-14. doi:10.1177/ 0963721411429458 Pivneva, I., Palmer, C , & Titone, D. (2012). Inhibitory control and L2 proficiency modulate bilingual language production: Evidence from spontaneous monologue and dialogue speech. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 57. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00057 Pivneva, I., & Titone, D. (2012). What the eyes tell us about bilingual language production and its link to inhibitory control. Manuscript submitted for publication. Prat, C. S. (2011). The brain basis of individual differences in language comprehension abilities. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5, 635649. doi:10.1111/j.l749-818X.2011.00303.x Rayner, K., & Schotter, E. R. (2013). Eye movements during reading. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the mind (pp. 338-340). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781452257044.nl25 Schwartz, A. I., Kroll, J. F., & Diaz, M. (2007). Reading words in Spanish and English: Mapping orthography to phonology in two languages.

Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 106-129. doi:10.1080/ 01690960500463920 Segalowitz, N. (2010). The cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York, NY: Routledge. Segalowitz, N., & Frenkiel-Fishman, S. (2005). Attention control and ability level in a complex cognitive skill; Attention shifting and secondlanguage proficiency. Memory & Cognition, 33, 644-653. doi: 10.3758/ BF03195331

Shook, A., & Marian, V. (2013). The Bilingual Language Interaction Network for Comprehension of Speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 304-324. doi:10.1017/S1366728912000466 Titone, D., Libben, M., Mercier, J., Whitford, V., & Pivneva, I. (2011). Bilingual lexical access during LI sentence reading: The effects of L2 knowledge, semandc constraint, and L1-L2 intermixing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 14121431. doi:10.1037/a0024492 Van Assche, E., Drieghe, D., Duyck, W., Welvaert, M., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2011). The influence of semantic constraints on bilingual word recognition during sentence reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 88-107. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2010.08.006 Van Assche, E., Duyck, W., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2012). Bilingual word recognition in a sentence context. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 174. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00174 Van Hell, J. G., & Dijkstra, T. (2002). Foreign language knowledge can influence native language performance in exclusively native contexts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 780-789. doi: 10.3758/BF03196335 van Hcuven, W. J. B., & Dijkstra, A. (2010). Language comprehension in the bilingual brain: FMRI and ERP support for psycholinguistic models. Brain Research Reviews, 64, 104-122. doi:10.1016/j.brainresrev.2010 .03.002 Wechsler, D. (1999). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. Whitford, V., & Titone, D. (2012). Second-language experience modulates first- and second-language word frequency effects: Evidence from eye movement measures of natural paragraph reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 73-80. doi: 10.3758/sl3423-011-0179-5

Received January 22, 2013 Revision received November 21, 2013 Accepted November 25, 2013 •

Copyright of Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory & Cognition is the property of American Psychological Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.