Ahn Et Al. - 2020 - Minimal Overlap in Language Control Across Product

Journal of Neurolinguistics 54 (2020) 100885
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Neurolinguistics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jneuroling
Minimal overlap in language control across production and

T
comprehension: Evidence from read-aloud versus eye-tracking
tasks
Danbi Ahn∗, Matthew J. Abbott, Keith Rayner, Victor S. Ferreira, Tamar H. Gollan
University of California, San Diego, USA
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT
Keywords: Bilinguals are remarkable at language control—switching between languages only when they
Bilingualism want. However, language control in production can involve switch costs. That is, switching to
Language control another language takes longer than staying in the same language. Moreover, bilinguals some-
Language production times produce language intrusion errors, mistakenly producing words in an unintended language
Eyetracking
(e.g., Spanish–English bilinguals saying “pero” instead of “but”). Switch costs are also found in
Read–aloud
Silent–reading
comprehension. For example, reading times are longer when bilinguals read sentences with
language switches compared to sentences with no language switches. Given that both production
and comprehension involve switch costs, some language–control mechanisms might be shared
across modalities. To test this, we compared language switch costs found in eye–movement
measures during silent sentence reading (comprehension) and intrusion errors produced when
reading aloud switched words in mixed–language paragraphs (production). Bilinguals who made
more intrusion errors during the read–aloud task did not show different switch cost patterns in
most measures in the silent–reading task, except on skipping rates. We suggest that language
switching is mostly controlled by separate, modality–specific processes in production and com-
prehension, although some points of overlap might indicate the role of domain general control
and how it can influence individual differences in bilingual language control.
1. Introduction
When speaking to monolinguals, proficient bilinguals are nearly flawless at using only their intended language and rarely (if ever)
using their unintended language. In addition, when talking to other bilinguals, they are remarkable at switching between languages, a
phenomenon termed code–switching. This might suggest that, for bilinguals, code–switching is nearly effortless. However, several
studies suggest that code–switching requires measurable effort, that is, “switch costs,” as switching to another language takes longer
than staying in the same language (Meuter & Allport, 1999). Switch costs have been reported among different types of bilinguals,
including those who are highly proficient in both languages (Costa & Santesteban, 2004; see also; Declerck & Philipp, 2015), and in
different types of tasks, including when bilinguals were allowed to choose the language they use in a given task, such as naming
pictures (Gollan & Ferreira, 2009; see also; Kleinman & Gollan, 2016). Additional evidence that language control is effortful at times
comes from the production of language intrusion errors, that is, when bilinguals mistakenly produce words in an unintended language
(e.g., Spanish–English bilinguals saying pero instead of but). Although intrusions are rare (less than 1% of words produced in
∗
Corresponding author. Department of Psychology, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0109, USA.
E-mail address: yoahn@ucsd.edu (D. Ahn).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2019.100885
Received 25 May 2019; Received in revised form 10 November 2019; Accepted 5 December 2019
Available online 07 February 2020
0911-6044/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Ahn, et al. Journal of Neurolinguistics 54 (2020) 100885
spontaneous speech; Poulisse, 1999; Poulisse & Bongaerts, 1994), they can be elicited at a greater frequency using a variety of tasks
with experimental control (e.g., timed picture naming; Zheng, Roelofs, & Lemhöfer, 2018).
Of particular interest, several studies reported errors that resemble natural intrusions when bilinguals read aloud mixed–language
paragraphs (Gollan & Goldrick, 2016, 2018; Gollan, Schotter, Gomez, Murillo, & Rayner, 2014; Gollan, Stasenko, Li, & Salmon, 2017;
Kolers, 1966). In these studies, proficient Spanish–English bilinguals were asked to read aloud paragraphs that switched between
languages (e.g., a handful of Spanish words mixed into paragraphs that were mostly written in English). Strikingly, when reading
Spanish words, participants sometimes produced English translations instead, and vice versa; that is, they made language intrusion
errors. Although speech elicited through the read–aloud task originates with the speaker's comprehension of written words, it ulti-
mately requires the production of connected speech. In this respect, compared to picture naming—along with many other tasks often
used to investigate language production in laboratory settings—reading aloud better resembles naturally produced speech.
For several reasons, Gollan and Goldrick (2016; 2018) and Gollan et al. (2014) argued that intrusion errors in the read–aloud task
originate primarily from speech production, and not from reading comprehension of the written switches. In many cases, bilinguals
produced intrusions even when their eyes were fixated directly on the (opposite–language) target words, indicating that these errors
are unlikely to be caused by inattention to the language membership of the written word (Gollan et al., 2014; Schotter, Li, & Gollan,
2019). Perhaps most notable, intrusion errors in the read–aloud task most often involved the production of function words, such as
saying pero instead of the written word but. Intrusion errors on such words, which are visually dissimilar, seem more likely to arise
during planning of speech, rather than during reading. Language intrusion errors were also reported in studies using mixed para-
graphs of Chinese and English, despite the fact that the differences in writing systems made the code–switched words more obvious
(Li & Gollan, 2018; Schotter et al., 2019).
In natural conversations between bilinguals, producers are not only ones who must juggle multiple languages; comprehenders
may face similar difficulties when processing sentences that switch from one language to the other. Although switch costs are not
always found in comprehension tasks (Declerck, Koch, Duñabeitia, Grainger, & Stephan, 2019; Declerck, Lemhöfer, & Grainger,
2017), they may be limited to circumstances when orthographic cues to language–membership are absent (Beauvillain & Grainger,
1987; Orfanidou & Sumner, 2005; Thomas & Allport, 2000; Vaid & Frenck-Mestre, 2002) or may be observed only with especially
sensitive measures of language processing (e.g., fMRI, EEG, eyetracking; Abutalebi & Green, 2007, 2008, 2016; Altarriba, Kroll, Sholl,
& Rayner, 1996; Blanco–Elorrieta & Pylkkänen, 2017; Duyck, Van Assche, Drieghe, & Hartsuiker, 2007; Green & Abutalebi, 2013;
Guzzardo Tamargo, Valdés Kroff, & Dussias, 2016; Philipp & Huestegge, 2015; Ruigendijk, Hentschel, & Zeller, 2016). Notably,
Ruigendijk et al. (2016) reported that event–related potential (ERP) recordings of proficient German–Russian bilinguals when lis-
tening to code–switched words showed similar N400 patterns compared to those found when listening to semantically incongruent
words, though the former were less prominent in amplitude. This suggests that code–switching is semantically acceptable and
therefore not as difficult to process as semantically incongruent words (see Moreno, Federmeier, & Kutas, 2002; Moreno & Kutas,
2005). This difficulty in processing code–switched sentences has also been reported in studies with eye–movement recordings.
Altarriba et al. (1996) monitored the eye movements of proficient Spanish–English bilinguals while they read English sentences that
occasionally contained target words in Spanish, and found significantly longer reading times with code–switched target words
compared to non–switched targets. Similarily, Dussias (2003) reported that Spanish-English bilinguals showed significantly longer
reading times (measured by gaze durations) when there was a switch from Spanish to English (e.g., terroristas han injured), although
such switch costs were mediated when switches occurred at syntactic boundary (i.e., before the auxiliary; terroristas have injured).
Given that switch costs are found in both production and comprehension, it is possible that some aspect of language–control that
is needed to process switches may be shared across modalities. Although there is an implicit assumption in the literature regarding
the possible existence of a switching mechanism that operates in similar ways across modalities, there is limited evidence on the link
between production and comprehension in language switching. Some studies suggest that different mechanisms might control lan-
guage switches in production versus comprehension. For example, Mosca and de Bot (2017) compared switch costs in lexical decision
(comprehension) and picture–naming (production) tasks, and found asymmetrical switch costs for L1 and L2 in lexical decision, but
comparable and symmetrical switch costs in picture–naming, and argued for separate control mechanisms operating across mod-
alities. An MEG study (Blanco-Elorrieta & Pylkkänen, 2016) provided corroborating evidence for separate switch mechanisms, de-
monstrating that language switch comprehension activated a neural region (anterior cingulate cortex; ACC) that was not associated
with language switch production (which activated dorsolateral prefrontal regions; DLPFC). Furthermore, in a follow–up study,
Blanco–Elorrieta and Pylkkänen (2017) demonstrated that although both the ACC and DLPFC were associated with language switches
in comprehension, comprehension of more natural switching within a conversation did not engage these areas. Given that successful
comprehension of language switches does not require active dual-language suppression as production of language switches does, it is
possible that language switching may require different cognitive control mechanisms in production and comprehension. Specifically,
language switching during comprehension may not require the same inhibitory control that production of correct translation-
equivalent alternative does (Declerck & Philipp, 2018).
Other evidence suggests shared control mechanisms. For example, Peeters, Runnqvist, Bertrand, and Grainger (2014) demon-
strated that silent reading of written words can elicit switch costs in subsequent spoken production. In their study, French–English
bilinguals alternated between making language decisions or semantic categorization of written words presented on a screen (com-
prehension) and naming pictures (production) in French. Picture–naming latencies were slower when the pictures were preceded by
an English word rather than a French word. Similarly, Gambi and Hartsuiker (2016) reported that when naming all pictures in Dutch,
participants’ responses were slower after listening to preceding trials in English rather than Dutch. The observation of cross–modality
switching costs implies shared control mechanisms operating at the whole–language level – reading or hearing a word in the other
language changes the selected language on the next naming trial eliciting a switch cost even though bilinguals never actually
2
switched languages in their overt speech.

An eye–movement study by Guzzardo Tamargo et al. (2016) provides additional evidence of a relationship between the control
mechanisms in speech comprehension and production. They found that switch costs in reading comprehension mirrored patterns
found in corpus studies documenting spontaneous code–switching in spoken conversation between bilinguals. This suggests that
bilinguals distinguish between types of code–switches that are common, and that this information is used during both the com-
prehension and production of code–switched utterances. Similarly, Dussias (2001) noted that the comprehension costs found in her
study mirrored both the patterns from speech production corpora and her participants’ self–reported code–switching behaviors. Both
studies imply that bilinguals become better at comprehending the types of code–switches that they are likely to hear and produce,
reflecting associations between these modalities and a possible relationship between language–control mechanisms in bilingual
comprehension and production.
One reason to expect that control mechanisms might be related across modalities is that, in both comprehension and production,
code–switching might rely on domain–general, nonlinguistic executive functions (see Bialystok, 2009; Bialystok, Craik, & Luk, 2012).
Frequent language switching has sometimes been associated with deficits in cognitive control (Festman, Rodriguez-Fornells, &
Münte, 2010; Rodriguez-Fornells, Krämer, Lorenzo-Seva, Festman, & Münte, 2012), and in other studies with better cognitive control
(Hartanto & Yang, 2016; Prior & Gollan, 2011; Stasenko, Matt, & Gollan, 2017; Verreyt, Woumans, Vandelanotte, Szmalec, & Duyck,
2016). For example, Rodriguez–Fornells et al. (2012) compared scores in executive–function tasks and self–reported code–switching
behaviors among Spanish–Catalan bilinguals, finding that those who reported frequent yet unintended code–switching needed more
time to inhibit responses on a nonlinguistic flanker task (in which participants must focus on a center arrow to indicate its direction
while ignoring distraction from flankers pointing in the opposite direction on some trials). By contrast, Verreyt et al. (2016) asked
bilinguals how often they switch between languages, and then divided participants into switchers and non–switchers. When tested on
executive control, bilinguals who code–switched more often outperformed bilinguals who code–switched less often. It should be
noted that while the studies just described seem to have found opposing results, a key difference might reflect the contrast between
intended versus unintended switches (see also Mercier, Pivneva, & Titone, 2014; but see; Rodriguez-Fornells et al., 2012), with the
former signaling a form of hyper–control and the latter a lack of control.
Two recent studies used an individual–differences approach to investigate the role of domain–general executive function in
language control during mixed–language paragraph reading. Ratiu and Azuma (2017) tested bilinguals with mild traumatic brain
injury (mTBI), examining their eye movements as they read aloud mixed–language paragraphs. Bilinguals with mTBI produced more
language intrusion errors than healthy control bilinguals, even though bilinguals with mTBI fixated on the error words at a higher
rate than the healthy control group. This suggests that at least some of the language intrusion errors made by bilingual mTBI patients
could be attributed to their impaired inhibitory control rather than to inattention. Evidence from older bilinguals offers some cor-
roborating evidence, but it also reveals some limitations on the extent to which measures of executive control can explain intrusion
errors in read–aloud tasks. Gollan and Goldrick (2016) reported that young and older bilinguals with worse performance on tests of
executive function (cf. Mickes et al., 2007; e.g., Trail Making Test A and B from the Halstead Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery;
see; Reitan, 1958) were more likely to produce cross–language intrusion errors. Additionally, older bilinguals produced more in-
trusions, and were less likely to self–correct their own errors than younger bilinguals. However, older and younger bilinguals were
equally influenced by experimental manipulations targeting language control (including switching rate and grammaticality of the
switches). Thus, executive control may not be the only factor influencing the production of language intrusion errors; rather, some
language–specific control mechanisms appear to be relatively intact in aging. While these studies provide preliminary insight into the
possible connections between switch costs found in bilingual language production and comprehension, both Ratiu and Azuma (2017)
and Gollan and Goldrick (2016) measured switching using the same, singular task. Because task–specific demands could have led to
the exaggeration of links between executive control and intrusions produced in reading aloud, additional insights could come from
examining individual differences using separate, more sensitive measures from silent reading and comparing this with production of
intrusions in reading aloud.
In the present study, we investigated the link between language switching ability in comprehension and production using separate
tasks for each modality. To measure language switch costs in comprehension, we adapted Altarriba et al. (1996) paradigm, and
recorded eye movements as bilinguals silently read English sentences in which a target word was either presented in English
(no–switch condition) or Spanish (switch condition). Additionally, because semantic constraints can decrease dual–language acti-
vation, and because sentential context might also affect switch costs during comprehension (cf. Duyck et al., 2007; Libben & Titone,
2009; Schwartz & Kroll, 2006), the target words were either predictable (predictable condition) or unpredictable (unpredictable
condition), as a function of preceding sentential context. Additionally, to confirm that our paradigm works by replicating typical
word frequency effects, we included both the high– versus low–frequency words from Altarriba et al. (1996). After the silent–reading
task, bilinguals completed a second task in which they read aloud mixed–language paragraphs leading them to sometimes produce
intrusion errors (as described above; Gollan et al., 2014; Kolers, 1966). By measuring switch costs during comprehension and pro-
duction in two separate tasks, we can infer that any relationships found across tasks implies shared control mechanisms, rather than a
result of using the same materials or task–specific demands.
Although we used separate tasks to measure production and comprehension, it is possible to find an association across modalities
simply because both tasks involve reading (even if production and comprehension involve a shared language–control mechanism that
operates in both modalities). By either account, bilinguals who produce many intrusion errors during the read–aloud task, compared
to those who produce few intrusions, would also be expected to show greater switch costs during silent reading. Furthermore, we
might predict that bilinguals who produce many intrusion errors during the read–aloud task might also show larger predictability
effects, although it is unclear whether prediction of semantic properties and language membership of upcoming words rely on the
3
Table 1
Participant characteristics and self–assessed proficiency ratings on English and Spanish.
M SD
Current Age 20.5 1.9
English Spanish
M SD M SD
Age at first exposure 4.3 3.2 0.7 1.3

Proficiency
Speaking 6.4 0.8 6.2 1.1
Reading 6.5 0.7 6.1 1.0
Writing 6.3 0.9 5.5 1.3
Understanding 6.7 0.7 6.6 0.7
Approximate percentage of daily use
Current 79.1 18.9 18.8 16.4
Growing up 53.8 21.5 45.8 20.9
M SD Range
Percentage of correct answers in target words translation task (Spanish to English) 93.1 3.2 85.9–98.4
Percentage of correct answers in MINT translation task (Spanish to English) 79.4 5.8 61.8–90.3
Note. Speaking, Reading, Writing, and Understanding were rated on the scale of 1–7 (1 = almost none, 2 = very poor, 3 = fair, 4 = functional,
5 = good, 6 = very good, 7 = like native speaker). MINT refers to Multilingual Naming Test (Gollan et al., 2012; see Procedure for more
information).
same mechanism. Alternatively, depending on the extent to which language intrusions in production and comprehension are driven
by modality–specific language–control mechanisms, bilinguals who produce many intrusions in the read–aloud task might not ne-
cessarily show larger switch costs in the silent–reading task. This pattern would be consistent with previous claims that language
intrusion errors in read–aloud tasks are driven primarily by the mechanisms of speech production (rather than being driven by
reading processes), and claims of separate control mechanisms involved in switching language in comprehension versus in production
(Gollan et al., 2014; Gollan & Goldrick, 2016).
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
Sixty–four Spanish–English bilinguals volunteered to participate in the study for course credit or monetary compensation. Some
were undergraduate students from the University of California San Diego (UC San Diego) Department of Psychology subject pool,
who answered “yes” to the prescreening question, “Do you fluently speak, read, write, and comprehend both English and Spanish?”
Other participants contacted the lab after seeing our recruitment flyer. All had normal or corrected–to–normal vision. A total of 14
participants were replaced for one of the following reasons: achieved a score lower than 85% on a target–word translation task
(n = 7), had more than 30% of their trials excluded from analysis due to frequent blinking during eye–movement recordings (n = 2),
had poor accuracy when answering questions on comprehension during the silent–reading task (n = 1), read the Spanish paragraphs
faster than the English paragraphs during the read–aloud task (n = 3), or did not complete the post–experiment translation tasks due
to technical difficulties (n = 1). One participant was excluded from analysis because part of their data was lost due to technical
difficulties. Detailed information about the participants’ language proficiency (based on their answers to a language–history ques-
tionnaire) and their performance in the target–word translation task is presented in Table 1.
2.2. Apparatus
The participants’ eye movements were recorded with a sampling rate of 1000 Hz using an SR Research (Toronto, Ontario, Canada)
EyeLink 1000 eyetracker. Sentences were displayed in fixed–width 14–point Courier New font on a 19–inch ViewSonic LCD monitor
at 1280 × 1024 resolution with a refresh rate of 60 Hz. Viewing distance was approximately 60 cm, and each character subtended
approximately 0.3° of visual angle. Viewing was binocular, although only the right eye was recorded.
2.3. Materials
Materials for the read–aloud task and the silent–reading task were adapted from previous studies that demonstrated robust switch
costs in separate studies (Altarriba et al., 1996; Gollan et al., 2014).
4
Table 2a
An example set of experimental sentences in four conditions (2 predictability x 2 switch), for the target word pair
piso–floor (bold–faced).
Switch condition
Predictable Mary bought a mop to sweep the filthy piso for the first time in two years.
Unpredictable Mary bought a rag to clean the filthy piso for the first time in two years.
No–switch condition
Predictable Mary bought a mop to sweep the filthy floor for the first time in two years.
Unpredictable Mary bought a rag to clean the filthy floor for the first time in two years.
2.3.1. Mixed–language paragraphs for the read–aloud task

Following Gollan et al. (2014) paradigm, mixed–language paragraphs were generated from four short stories that were selected
from storybooks published in both English and Spanish (Flores, 1987; García, 2013). English versions were selected for two of the
short stories, while Spanish versions were selected for the other two. The paragraphs were 120 (SD = 6) words long on average, and a
total of eight experimental paragraphs were generated: two English–only paragraphs, two English–default paragraphs (i.e., para-
graphs written mostly in English), two Spanish–only, and two Spanish–default paragraphs. In the English–default paragraphs, eight
function words and eight content words were in Spanish, whereas in the Spanish–default paragraphs, eight function words and eight
content words were in English. None of the language–switched words were cognates or proper names.
All participants read all eight paragraphs, which were presented in a unique, random order for each participant. The paragraphs
are listed in Appendix C, which shows an example order for one participant. Participants who read the mixed–language paragraphs
after reading the single–language versions did not produce more language intrusion errors than those who read the mixed–language
versions first (t < 1, p > 0.5).
2.3.2. Sentences for the silent–reading–with–eyetracking task

We adapted 64 Spanish–English word pairs from Altarriba et al. (1996), in which 32 words were high frequency and 32 were low
frequency. More detailed information about the experimental sentences, including a sample set, is provided in Tables 2a–c. The
average frequency counts were similar for both the English and Spanish words, based on current word frequency norms established
by Brysbaert and New (2009) and Cuetos, Glez–Nosti, Barbón, and Brysbaert (2011). Using these word pairs, 64 sets of experimental
sentences were created. Each set included a single sentence modified into four conditions: two switch conditions (switch vs. no–s-
witch) and two predictability conditions (predictable vs. unpredictable). Except for the target words, all the sentences were in
English. The target words were either presented in Spanish (switch condition) or English (no–switch condition) and were predictable
(predictable condition) or unpredictable (unpredictable condition) depending on the sentential context leading up to the target word.
Predictability was determined via norming, which was conducted prior to the experiment (details below). The sentences in the four
conditions were counterbalanced and presented in random order.
Sixty–four additional filler sentences were created to prevent the participants from developing material–specific strategies. All
filler sentences were written in English. Thirty–two filler sentences had one word in Spanish, but none included target words from the
experimental sentences. All filler sentences are presented in Appendix C.
To determine the predictability of the target words, 20 additional Spanish–English bilingual undergraduate students from the UC
San Diego Psychology subject pool participated in a cloze–norming task (Bloom & Fischler, 1980) for course credit. The participants
were asked to read the experimental sentences presented up to the target word, then guess the next (English) word in the sentence
(e.g., Mary bought a mop to sweep the filthy … (predictable), or Mary bought a rag to clean the filthy … (unpredictable)). The participants
guessed the target word with 57.3% (SD = 28.4%) accuracy in the predictable condition and 15.8% (SD = 18.8%) accuracy in the
unpredictable condition. No participant entered a Spanish word as a continuation of the sentence.
Table 2b
Detailed information about the target sentences comparing English vs. Spanish translation of target words.
English Spanish translation of target words Statistical comparisons
Target word mean frequency (per million)

High frequency words 139.6 (132.9) 161.1 (169.3) F (1, 62) < 1; p = 0.57
Low frequency words 12.1 (8.4) 18.7 (28.9) F (1, 62) = 1.55; p = 0.22
Statistical comparisons F (1, 62) = 29.32; p < 0.001 F (1, 62) = 22.01; p < 0.001
Target word mean length (letters)

Low frequency words 5.9 (1.1) 6.2 (1.0) F (1, 62) = 1.13; p = 0.292
Statistical comparisons F (1, 62) < 1; p = 0.59 F (1, 62) < 1; p = 0.47
Note. Standard deviations are shown in parentheses. Sentences were written in English except for Spanish switch words.
5
Table 2c
Detailed information about the target sentences comparing Predictable vs. Unpredictable conditions.
Predictable condition Unpredictable condition Statistical comparisons
Mean pre–target word length (letters)a

High frequency words 5.7 (1.8)
Low frequency words 5.5 (1.2)
Statistical comparisons F (1, 62)< 1, p = 0.628
Mean number of words preceding the target word

Low frequency words 9.0 (2.1) 9.0 (2.2) F (1, 62) < 1; p = 1
Statistical comparisons F (1, 62) < 1; p = 0.90 F (1, 62) < 1, p = 1
Percentage of norming participants correctly guessing the target word

High frequency words 56.6 (28.6) 15.9 (20.0) F (1, 62) = 43.43; p < 0.001
Low frequency words 58.1 (28.7) 15.6 (17.8) F (1, 62) = 50.8; p < 0.001
Statistical comparisons F (1, 62) < 1; p = 0.828 F (1, 62) < 1; p = 0.947
Note. Standard deviations are shown in parentheses. Sentences were written in English except for Spanish switch words.
a
The same pre–target word was used across predictable and unpredictable conditions.
2.4. Procedure
All participants completed the silent–reading task before completing the read–aloud task, to minimize the possibility that overt
production of intrusion errors on switch words during read–aloud might increase monitoring for errors in silent–reading. For the
silent–reading task, the 64 experimental sentences were distributed into four lists and presented in random order, interspersed among
the 64 filler sentences. After providing their informed consent, participants were directed to read the sentences silently and press a
button when they finished reading each sentence. To calibrate the eyetracking instrument, the participants were asked to fixate on
three points across the monitor. After calibration, each sentence was presented on the computer screen individually. Of the 128
sentences, 37 (28.9%) were followed by a two–alternative forced–choice comprehension question, and the participants were in-
structed to select the answer they believed was correct using the EyeLink button box. The participants selected the correct response
94.1% of the time. Throughout the experiment, eye–position error was maintained at less than 0.3° on average.
After the silent–reading task, each participant was directed to read the four single–language and four mixed–language paragraphs
aloud. With their informed consent, this task was audio–recorded using the iPhone 6 Voice Memo app for later analysis. At the end of
the experiment, the participants were asked to complete a language–history questionnaire as well as a Spanish–to–English translation
task using two lists of single words. The first list included 64 experimental target words, while the second list included 68 Spanish
words from the Multilingual Naming Test (MINT; Gollan, Weissberger, Runnqvist, Montoya, & Cera, 2012). Although the MINT is a
picture–naming task intended to elicit dual–language production, the participants in the present experiment were given the Spanish
names of the pictures and asked to translate them into English. All synonyms of the correct responses were also considered correct. If
a word had more than a single meaning (e.g., novio, which may be translated into either groom or boyfriend), the other associated
meanings were also considered correct. The participants’ scores on these translation tasks are presented in Table 1.
We analyzed eye movement measures recorded during the reading of target words in the silent–reading task. Before analysis, all
fixations that were less than 80 ms (0.14%) were combined with prior fixations, as such short fixations are likely to indicate that the
necessary processing of the fixated word was accomplished during the prior fixation (Morrison, 1984). All trials with first fixation
durations greater than 800 ms on the target words (0.03%) were removed to minimize the number of outliers prior to analysis. All
trials in which eye blinks were recorded while the participant read the target word (0.65%) were also removed prior to analysis.
2.4.1. Mixed language paragraph read–aloud task

Throughout the four mixed–language paragraphs, there were 64 words (8 function and 8 content words per paragraph) presented
in another language than the default–language of the paragraph. Together, 63 participants encountered 4032 language–switched
words during the read–aloud task. We counted the number of complete language intrusion errors (N = 230; e.g., saying el instead of
the) or partial intrusion errors (N = 105; i.e., starting to produce an intrusion but self–correcting before completing it) produced
while reading code–switched words in the mixed–language paragraphs. Examples of the partial and complete language intrusion
errors are provided in Table 3.
2.4.2. Comparisons between the silent–reading and mixed–language paragraph read–aloud tasks
Five standard eye–movement measures were analyzed (see Rayner, 1998, 2009). (1) Single–fixation duration refers to fixation
duration for trials in which the target word was fixated only once. (2) Gaze duration is the sum of all fixations on the target word from
the first time the eye lands on the target word until the eye moves to another word in either direction. (3) Go–past time is the sum of
all fixation durations beginning from the time the eye enters the left boundary of the target word and ending when it moves beyond
the right boundary (including regressive eye movements to previous words in the sentence). (4) Regression rate is the proportion of
trials in which the eye regressed out of the target word during first–pass reading before moving beyond the right boundary of the
6
Table 3
Examples of partial and complete language intrusion errors (indicated in bold) while reading mixed–language paragraphs aloud.
Displayed paragraph Participant's utterance
Complete language intrusion error The cielo was so overcast and low que he felt the weight The cielo was so overcast and low that he felt the weight of it
of it resting on su brow. resting on his brow.
Partial language intrusion error Era un muchacho robusto, with cara de morsa y pelo Era un muchacho robusto, with cara de morsa y pelo rizado y
rizado y black. ne...y black.
Note: Negro is Spanish for black; que is Spanish for that.
target word. (5) Skipping rate is the proportion of trials in which the target words do not receive direct fixation during first pass
reading. These measures reflect different progressions in time during silent reading (i.e., in most cases, go–past time reflects later
processes as opposed to single–fixation duration).1
To test for relationships between production of intrusion errors in the read aloud task and eye movement behaviors in silent
reading, we included intrusion rate from the paragraphs task—along with language switch on the target word, target word pre-
dictability, and word frequency of target words—as predictors in our analysis of eye movements in the silent sentence reading task.
Linear mixed effects models (LMMs; Baayen, Davidson, & Bates, 2008) were constructed. LMMs were fit using the lmer function from
the lme4 package (Version 1.1–18–1; Bates, Mächler, Bolker, & Walker, 2015) in R: A Language and Environment for Statistical
Computing (Version 3.5.1; R Core Team, 2014). We coded the categorical predictors using sum–to–zero contrasts (i.e., the intercept
of the model was the grand mean of the dependent measure) for language switch (switch = −0.5, no–switch = 0.5), predictability
(predictable = −0.5, unpredictable = 0.5), and frequency (high frequency = −0.5, low frequency = 0.5). The continuous pre-
dictor, number of intrusion errors made in reading aloud mixed–language paragraphs, was scaled and centered.
We first attempted to fit LMMs incorporating the maximal random effects structure given the experimental design (Barr, Levy,
Scheepers, & Tily, 2013). For maximal models that did not converge, correlations were removed between random slopes for both
subjects and items. Additionally, random effects with least variance were gradually removed to aid model convergence until a model
successfully converged. Because it is not clear how to compute the degrees of freedom for LMMs, p values were not computed.
Instead, the two–tailed criterion of |t | ≥ 1.96 was used as a significance test at the 0.05 alpha level (Baayen, 2008). The data and R
code are available at https://osf.io/va7h8.
3. Results
3.1. Mixed–language paragraph Read–Aloud task
While reading the four English–default and Spanish–default paragraphs aloud, the participants produced an average of two
(SD = 2, range = 0–10) complete intrusion errors (e.g., saying el instead of the) and one (SD = 1, range = 0–4) partial intrusion
errors (i.e., starting to produce an intrusion but self–correcting before completing the utterance). The type (complete or partial) and
average number of intrusion errors made while reading each mixed–language paragraph are shown in Table 4. A histogram dis-
playing the sum of partial and complete language intrusion errors made during the read–aloud task is shown in Fig. 1.
3.2. Comparisons between the Silent–Reading and Read–Aloud tasks
Tables 5a and 5b shows the results of the LMM analyses performed. Because our main theoretical interest is on associations
between how bilinguals process language switches in comprehension and production, we focus on interactions between the rate of
intrusion errors produced in the read aloud task and the switching cost in silent reading. Statistics for non-significant effects that do
not involve number of intrusions errors are omitted in text (but are shown in Table 4). Of the five eye–movement measures analyzed
(i.e., single–fixation duration, gaze duration, go–past time, regression rate, and skipping rate), only one measure (skipping rate)
Table 4
Average number of intrusion errors for two paragraphs split by the type of intrusion error and the type of paragraphs.
English–default paragraphs Spanish–default paragraphs
Complete intrusions 1.3 (1.6) 2.4 (2.1)

Partial intrusions 0.6 (0.8) 1.1 (1.1)
Note. Standard deviations are shown in parentheses. For English–default and Spanish–default paragraphs, a total of 32 words
with language switch appeared per default language.
1
However, if a reader only makes a single fixation on a word before moving on to the right boundary, single–fixation duration and go–past time
are equivalent.
7
Fig. 1. Distribution of the number of bilinguals by the number of summed partial and complete language intrusion errors during reading aloud
mixed–language paragraphs.
showed any relationship between the frequency of intrusions when reading aloud and silently reading code–switched words (see
Fig. 2a–e). To display this pattern further, we divided the participants into two groups (infrequent intruders vs. frequent intruders)
based on whether they made more or fewer language intrusion errors than average (i.e., 5—though recall that all reported main
analyses were conducted on number of intrusions as a continuous variable). Table 6 illustrates characteristics of infrequent versus
frequent intruders. Note the similar patterns for infrequent intruders (left panel of each figure) and frequent intruders (right panel of
each figure) in all measures except skipping rate (see Fig. 2e). Compared to infrequent intruders, frequent intruders were slower at
reading aloud both single [F(1, 50) = 5.96, p = 0.02] and mixed language paragraphs [F(1, 50) = 11.64, p = 0.001], but only for
English default paragraphs; thus the higher number of intrusion errors did not appear to be caused by hurried reading (see Table 6).
Infrequent and frequent intruders did not differ in age, age of exposure to English and Spanish, and their performance on translation
tasks.
3.3. Single–fixation duration
On average, the number of language intrusions produced did not predict fixation durations (b = 1.60, SE = 1.15, t = 1.39).
Bilinguals' single–fixation durations were longer for Spanish switched target words compared to non–switched English target words
(291 ms vs. 236 ms; b = −56.87, SE = 5.19, t = −10.95). This pattern did not differ among bilinguals who produced many versus
few intrusions in the read–aloud task (i.e., the interaction between language switch and bilinguals' intrusion rate was not significant;
b = 0.69, SE = 1.30, t = 0.53). This lack of relationship between silent reading and reading aloud was not influenced by target–word
Table 5a
Linear mixed effects model analyses on the target word.
Skipping rate Regression rate
Effect b SE z b SE z
(Intercept) −2.57 0.16 −15.89 −2.25 0.14 −16.49

Fixed Effects
Predictability −0.26 0.15 −1.74 0.06 0.14 0.40
Switch 0.86 0.17 4.97 −0.67 0.15 −4.34
Intrusion −0.07 0.04 −1.56 0.07 0.03 2.41
Frequency −0.60 0.19 −3.09 0.06 0.21 0.29
Predictability * Switch 0.18 0.26 0.68 −0.17 0.24 −0.69
Predictability * Intrusion −0.04 0.05 −0.73 0.01 0.03 0.42
Switch * Intrusion −0.01 0.05 −0.21 0.04 0.03 1.46
Predictability * Frequency −0.13 0.33 −0.39 −0.19 0.26 −0.73
Switch * Frequency 0.64 0.34 1.91 −0.16 0.31 −0.51
Intrusion * Frequency 0.07 0.04 1.57 −0.04 0.03 −1.39
Predictability * Switch * Intrusion 0.26 0.09 2.88 −0.07 0.06 −1.12
Predictability * Switch * Frequency 0.00 0.54 −0.01 0.18 0.48 0.38
Predictability * Intrusion * Frequency −0.13 0.10 −1.27 0.07 0.06 1.18
Switch * Intrusion * Frequency 0.10 0.09 1.09 0.06 0.06 0.98
Predictability * Switch * Intrusion * Frequency 0.01 0.18 0.08 −0.13 0.12 −1.15
Note. Each column represents a model fit to one of the dependent variables. Cells marked in bold represent |z | > 1.96. SE = standard error; z = test
statistic (b/SE).
8
Table 5b
Linear mixed effects model analyses on the target word.
Single–fixation Duration Gaze Duration Go–past Time
Effect b SE t b SE t b SE t
(Intercept) 264.66 4.53 58.44 297.26 6.37 46.68 359.92 11.48 31.34
Fixed Effects
Predictability 6.50 3.44 1.89 13.22 4.82 2.74 18.07 8.22 2.20
Switch −56.87 5.19 −10.95 −87.82 9.02 −9.74 −132.81 13.83 −9.60
Intrusion 1.60 1.15 1.39 2.06 1.53 1.34 7.46 2.49 3.00
Frequency 11.62 5.12 2.27 23.00 8.38 2.74 27.11 16.85 1.61
Predictability * Switch −0.82 6.63 −0.12 −11.22 8.69 −1.29 −28.15 15.13 −1.86
Predictability * Intrusion 0.21 0.96 0.22 0.86 1.27 0.68 1.53 2.14 0.71
Switch * Intrusion 0.69 1.31 0.53 0.83 1.89 0.44 0.92 2.84 0.32
Predictability * Frequency 11.14 6.89 1.62 31.43 9.13 3.44 12.78 16.07 0.80
Switch * Frequency −7.06 8.17 −0.86 −32.50 14.51 −2.24 −45.59 23.76 −1.92
Intrusion * Frequency 1.40 1.06 1.32 1.48 1.58 0.94 −0.70 2.54 −0.27
Predictability * Switch * Intrusion 0.72 1.93 0.37 0.10 2.39 0.04 −7.89 4.18 −1.89
Predictability * Switch * Frequency 27.71 13.26 2.09 4.34 17.38 0.25 8.87 30.25 0.29
Predictability * Intrusion * Frequency −3.61 1.92 −1.88 −2.70 2.39 −1.13 −2.42 4.16 −0.58
Switch * Intrusion * Frequency −0.29 1.93 −0.15 −2.05 2.38 −0.86 0.97 4.15 0.23
Predictability * Switch * Intrusion * Frequency 2.81 3.84 0.73 4.18 4.79 0.87 −6.58 8.35 −0.79
Note. Each column represents a model fit to one of the dependent variables. Cells marked in bold represent |t | > 1.96. SE = standard error; t = test
statistic (b/SE).
Fig. 2a. Relationship between target–word predictability and language switch depending on the number of language intrusion errors (<5 or >5)
made during the read–aloud task, as indicated by the single–fixation duration.
frequency (i.e., the 3–way interaction between language switch, bilinguals' intrusion rate, and target–word frequency was not sig-
nificant; b = −0.29, SE = 1.93, t = −0.15) and predictability (i.e., the 3–way interaction between target–word predictability,
language switch, and bilinguals’ intrusion rate was not significant; b = 0.72, SE = 1.93, t = 0.37).
Although the single–fixation durations were shorter with high–frequency target words relative to low–frequency words (256 ms
vs. 266 ms; b = 11.62, SE = 5.12, t = 2.27, and we observed a 3–way interaction between target–word predictability, language
switch, and frequency such that influence of target–word frequency on predictability differed on English and Spanish target words,
b = 27.71, SE = 13.26, t = 2.09), there were no interactions between target–word frequency and number of intrusions during the
read–aloud task (b = 1.40, SE = 1.06; t = 1.32). Similarly, there were no significant effects of target–word predictability, nor
interactions between target–word predictability and number of intrusions during the read–aloud task (b = 0.21, SE = 0.96, t =
0.22).
3.4. Gaze duration
On average, number of language intrusions did not predict gaze duration (b = 2.06, SE = 1.53, t = 1.34). Bilinguals' gaze
durations were longer for Spanish switched target words compared to English non–switched target words (342 ms vs. 253 ms;
b = −87.82, SE = 9.02, t = −9.74). This pattern did not differ for bilinguals who produced many versus few intrusions in the
9
Fig. 2b. Relationship between target–word predictability and language switch depending on the number of language intrusion errors (<5 or >5)
made during the read–aloud task, as indicated by the gaze duration.
Fig. 2c. Relationship between target–word predictability and language switch depending on the number of language intrusion errors (<5 or >5)
made during the read–aloud task, as indicated by the go–past time.
read–aloud task (i.e., the interaction between language switch and bilinguals' intrusion rate was not significant; b = 0.83, SE = 1.89,
t = 0.44). This lack of relationship between silent reading and reading aloud was not influenced by target–word frequency (i.e., the
3–way interaction between language switch, bilinguals' intrusion rate, and target–word frequency was not significant, b = −2.05,
SE = 2.38, t = −0.86). The effect of language switch was influenced by word frequency (b = −32.50, SE = 14.57, t = −2.24), such
that the language switch effect was weaker for high frequency words (321 ms vs. 249 ms) compared to for low frequency words
(361 ms vs. 258 ms). The lack of relationship between silent reading and reading aloud was also not influenced by target word
predictability (i.e., the 3–way interaction between target–word predictability, language switch, and bilinguals’ intrusion rate was not
significant, b = 0.10, SE = 2.39, t = 0.04). The effect of target word predictability was influenced by word frequency (b = 31.43,
SE = 9.13, t = 3.44), such that the predictability effect was driven by low frequency words (325 ms vs. 298 ms for low frequency
words; 285 vs. 288 ms for high frequency words).
Shorter gaze durations were observed when the target word was predictable (294 ms vs. 306 ms; b = 13.22, SE = 4.82, t = 2.74)
and high frequency (287 ms vs. 312 ms; b = 23.00, SE = 8.38, t = 2.75). No interactions were observed between either of these
variables and number of intrusions during the read–aloud task (b = 0.86, SE = 1.27, z = 0.68; b = 1.48, SE = 1.58, z = 0.94).
3.5. Go–past time
Bilinguals' go–past times were longer for Spanish target words compared to English target words (428 ms vs. 294 ms;
b = −132.81, SE = 13.83, t = −9.60). This pattern did not differ among bilinguals who produced many versus few intrusions in the
10
Fig. 2d. Relationship between target–word predictability and switching as indicated by the regression rate and depending on the number of
language intrusion errors (<5 or >5) made during the read–aloud task.
Fig. 2e. Relationship between target–word predictability and switching as indicated by the skipping rate and depending on the number of language
intrusion errors (<5 or >5) made during the read–aloud task.
read–aloud task (i.e., the interaction between language switch and bilinguals' intrusion rate was not significant; b = 0.92, SE = 2.84,
t = 0.33). This lack of relationship between silent reading and reading aloud was not influenced by target–word frequency (i.e., the
3–way interaction between language switch, bilinguals' intrusion rate, and target–word frequency was not significant, b = 0.97, SE =
4.15, t = 0.23) and predictability (i.e., the 3–way interaction between target–word predictability, language switch, and bilinguals’
intrusion rate was not significant; b = −7.89, SE = 4.18, t = −1.89).
Shorter go–past times were observed for bilinguals who made fewer language intrusion errors during the read–aloud task
compared to those who made more language intrusion errors, regardless of language switch on the target word (b = 7.46, SE = 2.49,
t = 3.00). This pattern was not associated with any other factors, including target–word predictability (i.e., the interaction between
target–word predictability and bilinguals' intrusion rate was not significant; b = 1.53, SE = 2.14, t = 0.72) and frequency (i.e., the
interaction between bilinguals’ intrusion rate and target–word frequency was not significant; b = −0.70, SE = 2.54, t = −0.27).
Shorter go–past times were also observed when the target word was predictable (356 ms vs. 374 ms; b = 18.07, SE = 8.22, t = 2.20).
There was no significant effect of target–word frequency. All other main effects and interactions were non–significant.
3.6. Regression rate
Bilinguals regressed from target words to previous words in the sentence more frequently with Spanish target words compared to
English target words (0.16 vs. 0.09; b = −0.67, SE = 0.15, z = −4.34). This pattern did not differ among bilinguals who produced
many versus few intrusions in the read–aloud task (i.e., the interaction between language switch and bilinguals' intrusion rate was not
11
Table 6
Detailed information about infrequent and frequent intruders.
Infrequent Intruders (n = 25) Frequent Intruders (n = 24) F (df1, df2) p
M SD Range M SD Range
Paragraph reading aloud

Number of Intrusion Errorsa
Totala 2.8 1.1 1–4 9.0 3.4 6–21 87.53 (1, 50) <0.001
English default
Function words 0.4 0.6 0–2 2.4 1.3 1–6 56.11 (1, 50) <0.001
Content words 0.4 0.6 0–2 1 0.8 0–3 8.98 (1, 50) 0.004
Spanish default
Function words 1.4 1 0–3 3.7 2 0–9 28.14 (1, 50) <0.001
Content words 0.6 0.7 0–2 1.9 1.6 0–6 15.08 (1, 50) <0.001
Total reading time (seconds)
Single language paragraphs
English 72.2 7.3 59–88 78.0 9.9 65–101 5.96 (1, 50) 0.02
Spanish 95.1 12.7 74–123 98.3 15.2 77–140 0.67 (1, 50) 0.43
Mixed language paragraphs
English default 87.3 13.6 62–123 99.6 11.9 75–121 11.64 (1, 50) 0.001
Spanish default 107.0 14.8 82–137 114.4 17.6 91–160 2.71 (1, 50) 0.11
Current Age 20.6 2.3 18–30 20.5 1.6 18–24 0.01 (1, 49) 0.93
Age at first exposure
English 4.0 3.1 0–13 5.0 3.7 0–14 1.22 (1, 49) 0.27
Spanish 0.6 1.1 0–5 0.7 1.6 0–7 0.03 (1, 50) 0.86
Percentage of correct answers in target words translation 93.5 3.3 86–98 93.1 2.9 88–98 0.22 (1, 50) 0.64
task (Spanish to English)
Percentage of correct answers in MINT translation task 78.9 6.5 62–90 80.8 5.0 71–90 1.31 (1, 50) 0.26
(Spanish to English)
a
Bilinguals were divided into infrequent versus frequent intruders using the number of intrusion errors, thus the significant difference between
groups in this row is circular.
significant; b = 0.04, SE = 0.03, t = 1.46). This lack of relationship between silent reading and reading aloud was not influenced by
target–word frequency (i.e., the 3–way interaction between language switch, bilinguals' intrusion rate, and target–word frequency
was not significant; b = 0.06, SE = 0.06, t = 0.98) and predictability (i.e., the 3–way interaction between target–word predictability,
language switch, and bilinguals’ intrusion rate; b = −0.07, SE = 0.06, t = −0.12).
Bilinguals who made fewer intrusion errors during the read–aloud task had lower regression rates during the silent–reading task,
regardless of language switch (b = 0.07, SE = 0.03, z = 2.41). This pattern was not associated with any other factors, including
target–word predictability (i.e., the interaction between target word predictability and bilinguals' intrusion rate was not significant;
b = 0.01, SE = 0.03, z = 0.42) and frequency (the interaction between bilinguals’ intrusion rate and target word frequency was not
significant; b = −0.04, SE = 0.03, z = −1.39). There was no significant effect of target–word predictability nor frequency.
3.7. Skipping rate
Overall, frequent and infrequent intruders did not show distinguishable skipping rates (b = −0.07, SE = 0.04, z = −1.56).
Bilinguals skipped Spanish switched target words at a lower rate than English non–switched target words (0.07 vs. 0.15; b = 0.86,
SE = 0.17, z = 4.97). Frequent and infrequent intruders did not show distinguishable switch–cost patterns in skipping rate (i.e., the
interaction between language switch and bilinguals' intrusion rate was not significant; b = −0.01, SE = 0.05, z = −0.21). This lack
of relationship between silent reading and reading aloud was not influenced by target–word frequency (i.e., the 3–way interaction
between language switch, bilinguals’ intrusion rate, and target–word frequency was not significant; b = 0.10, SE = 0.09, z = 1.09).
However, the influence of language switch and predictability of the target word on skipping pattern during silent reading differed
depending on the number of language intrusion errors produced during the separate read–aloud task (i.e., the 3–way interaction
between language switch, bilinguals’ intrusion rate, and target–word predictability was significant; b = 0.26, SE = 0.09, z = 2.88).
To further illustrate this 3–way effect, we conducted post–hoc analyses, computing estimated marginal means using the emmeans
package (Version 1.2.4; Lenth, 2019). For the post–hoc analyses, three additional models were fitted using infrequent intruders
(n = 25) versus frequent intruders (n = 24) as categorical predictor. The first model included the switch condition, the predictability
condition, and performance on read–aloud task as categorical predictors. The second and third models were fitted separately for two
subsets of data with only frequent intruders and only infrequent intruders. The categorical predictors were included in the models
using sum–to–zero contrasts for the switch condition (switch = −0.5; no–switch = 0.5), the predictability condition (pre-
dictable = −0.5; unpredictable = 0.5), and performance on read–aloud task (infrequent intruders = −0.5; frequent in-
truders = 0.5). The data and R code are available at https://osf.io/va7h8.
The first fitted post-hoc model showed that bilinguals skipped predictable target words more often compared to unpredictable
target words (b = −0.35, SE = 0.14, z = −2.45) and English non–switched target words more often than Spanish switched target
words (b = 0.66, SE = 0.18, z = 3.72). Moreover, the influence of language switch and predictability of the target word on skipping
12
pattern during silent reading differed for infrequent and frequent intruders (b = 1.49, SE = 0.55, z = 2.71). The second and third
models showed that while predictability effects were modulated by language switch for infrequent intruders (b = −0.87, SE = 0.32,
z = −2.68), for frequent intruders it was not (z = 1.44). Pairwise comparisons between estimated marginal means revealed the
following patterns. When there was no language switch on the target word, the infrequent intruders (i.e., bilinguals who seldom
produced language intrusion errors during the read–aloud task) skipped predictable target words more often than unpredictable
target words during the silent–reading task (0.20 vs. 0.11; b = 0.72, SE = 0.21, z = 3.42). However, when there was a language
switch on the target word, these same infrequent intruders skipped both predictable and unpredictable target words much less often
than when there was no language switch (0.07 vs. 0.08; z = −0.66). Thus, although this group skipped target words more often
when reading predictable target words in English–only sentences, the benefits offered by predictability were eliminated when reading
target words in the other language.
Frequent intruders exhibited the opposite pattern, although as noted above, this higher order interaction between predictability
and switch effects was not statistically significant. When there was no language switch on the target word, they skipped predictable
and unpredictable target words at an equal rate (0.12 vs. 0.12; z = 0.47). However, when there was language switch on the target
word, they skipped predictable targets more often than unpredictable targets (0.08 vs. 0.04; b = 0.72, SE = 0.35, z = 2.07; note,
however, that skipping rates still tended to be lower for frequent intruders when reading switched vs. non–switched targets, although
this main effect of number of intrusion errors was not significant as indicated above).
Target words were skipped more often when they were high frequency (0.13 vs. 0.09; b = −0.60, SE = 0.19, z = −3.09) for
both frequent and infrequent intruders (i.e., the interaction between bilinguals’ intrusion rate and target word frequency was not
significant; b = 0.07, SE = 0.04, z = 1.56). There was no significant effect of target–word predictability.
4. Discussion
The present study examined the relationship between language switch costs found in eye–movement measures during silent
sentence reading and intrusion errors produced when reading aloud switched words in mixed–language paragraphs. In silent reading,
we observed robust language switch effects (and effects of word frequency and predictability, although limited) on all eye movement
measures, replicating language switch effects from Altarriba et al. (1996). Most eye–movement measures including all fixation and
gaze durations revealed no relationship between switch costs in production and comprehension (although a significant relationship in
switch costs across modalities was found in skipping rates). That is, in the read–aloud task, some bilinguals produced few intrusions
(infrequent intruders), whereas other bilinguals produced many intrusions (frequent intruders); however, in all duration measures in
the silent–reading task, both the infrequent and frequent intruders exhibited equivalent switch costs when comprehending switched
words. These results suggest that language switching is mostly controlled by separate, modality–specific processes in production and
comprehension.
One limitation of our experimental design was that all the language switches on the silent–reading task were on content words,
whereas language switches on the read–aloud task were both content and function words. To address this issue, we repeated all our
analyses for the five eye–movement measures using only language intrusions on function words as a predictor, and separately, only
language intrusions on content words as a predictor. When number of intrusion errors on function words was used as a predictor, in
addition to skipping rates (the pattern of the 3–way interaction on skipping rates was consistent with our original analyses; b = 0.26,
SE = 0.12, z = 2.20), go–past time showed a 3–way interaction between target word predictability, target word language switch, and
number of intrusion errors on read–aloud task (b = −12.77; SE = 5.48; t = −2.33). This 3–way interaction was driven by the
predictability effect observed only for frequent intruders on switched target words. On target-words with language switches, frequent
intruders displayed shorter go–past time on predictable target word compared to unpredictable target word (413 ms vs. 460 ms).
However, when the type of language switch was the same across the tasks—language switches on content words—the relationship
between switch costs in silent–reading and read–aloud was absent in all silent–reading measures but skipping rates (the pattern of the
3–way interaction on skipping rates was consistent with our original analyses; b = 0.51, SE = 0.20, z = 2.59). In sum, when
considering only the same type of word in both production and comprehension—content words—the patterns observed in our main
analyses (reported above in Results) was the same. The code and data for these analyses are available at https://osf.io/va7h8.
Additionally, although the sentences from the silent–reading task were all English–default, we included intrusion errors from both
English–default and Spanish–default paragraphs in our analyses. This allowed more variability in the language intrusion data,
sensitive enough to detect the overlap across modalities in skipping rates. However, the lack of overlap in production and com-
prehension in most eye–movement measures might have been because the default language differences in silent–reading and
read–aloud tasks. To address this issue, we again repeated all our analyses using only language intrusions on English–default
paragraphs as a predictor. These additional analyses revealed no influence of intrusion errors on any of the silent–reading measures,
with the exception that infrequent intruders were more likely to skip high frequency words than low frequency words while frequent
intruders were equally likely to skip high and low frequency words (i.e., there was a significant interaction between bilinguals’
intrusion rate and target word frequency on skipping rates; b = 0.15, SE = 0.07, z = 2.17). Given that no more overlap was observed
in production and comprehension with the same default language in silent–reading and read–aloud tasks, it seems that the difference
in default language led the main finding from our original analyses (i.e., minimal overlap in language control across production and
comprehension). The code and data for these analyses are available at https://osf.io/va7h8.
Our findings support other studies that argue for separate mechanisms underlying language switching in production versus
comprehension (Macizo, Bajo, & Paolieri, 2012; Mosca & de Bot, 2017; Reynolds, Schlöffel, & Peressotti, 2016). For example, Macizo
et al. (2012) suggested that switches in production and comprehension might be governed by different control mechanisms because
13
language production relies on inhibitory control (e.g., the Inhibitory Control Model [Green, 1998]), whereas inhibition might not be
necessary in comprehension. That is, to successfully produce the English word “dog,” Spanish–English bilinguals must inhibit the
Spanish equivalent “perro.” In comprehension tasks, however, having either or both dog and perro activated does not hurt and might
even facilitate the activation of target semantic properties. In the present context, the efficiency of application and release of in-
hibitory control would determine the rate of intrusion errors in the read–aloud task, while some other cognitive mechanism (e.g., an
integration cost; see Van Hell & Witteman, 2009) would underlie switching costs in silent reading.
The distinction between endogenous and exogenous control in the recent Bilingual Interactive Activation model (BIA-d; Grainger,
Midgley, & Holcomb, 2010; evolved from earlier versions of the BIA model; Dijkstra, Van Heuven, & Grainger, 1998; Grainger &
Dijkstra, 1992) can provide further insight into why switching appeared to be largely independent across modalities in our study. The
BIA-d model proposes that language nodes play a critical role that might be needed in both modalities. Language nodes integrate
information and so represent the likelihood of a stimulus belonging to one language or the other. In both modalities, prediction of
which language is expected, or endogenous control involves top–down selection of language nodes. Similarly, in both modalities,
exogenous control occurs when language nodes are automatically activated by input from the environment, with such activation
leading to subsequent inhibition of the non–target language. We might infer that production and comprehension modalities should
differ in the degree of top–down versus bottom–up influence, in part from the difference in how control processes are initiated. Thus,
because language production is principally determined by endogenous, top–down control, whereas comprehension is principally
determined by exogenous, bottom–up control (see Grainger et al., 2010), intrusion errors in the read–aloud task and switching costs
in silent reading might be governed by different overall processing patterns.
Consistent with other reading measures, skipping rates also showed significant switch costs for all bilinguals. That is, all bilinguals skipped
the Spanish target words in English sentences less often than English target words in English sentences. Interestingly, however, a different
pattern of skipping rates based on sentential context for infrequent and frequent intruders suggested some overlapping relationship in switch
costs between production and comprehension. In particular, the infrequent intruders skipped predictable target words more often than
unpredictable targets, but only in sentences that did not have a switched–language target word. In sentences with switched–language targets,
the infrequent intruders showed no predictability effects (i.e., they skipped predictable and unpredictable targets equally) – note that these
same participants skipped predictable targets much more often than frequent intruders – thus, infrequent intruders seemed to be better able to
identify language switches, and therefore avoided skipping them. In contrast, frequent intruders skipped predictable targets more often than
unpredictable targets in sentences with switched–language targets, but did not show predictability effects in sentences without language
switches (a puzzling result that is difficult to explain). Though it is speculative, this complex pattern might be explained by the fact that of all
the eye–movement measures, skipping involves the greatest amount of top–down processing; that is, in silent reading, bilinguals are likely to
skip an upcoming word when they process that word parafoveally while fixating on previous words (Pollatsek, Reichle, & Rayner, 2003;
Reichle, Pollatsek, & Rayner, 2006). Parafoveal processing of an upcoming word can be influenced by top–down information, such as
sentential context (see Drieghe, Rayner, & Pollatsek, 2005). Given its greater reflection of top–down processing, skipping rates (unlike other
measures of language comprehension) may reflect greater endogenous control in comprehension that is similar to the (top–down) control
used in language production; that is, the pre–processing of target words that leads to skipping of switched target words might be similar to
planning and monitoring of switched target words during production. Thus, skipping rates might indicate a relationship to bilingual pro-
duction patterns that is not observed in other measures of language comprehension. To illustrate, Altarriba et al. (1996) suggested that when
reading highly predictable sentences, such as Mary bought a mop to sweep the filthy …, bilinguals not only predict the semantic information
(i.e., the concept of a floor) but also the language membership (i.e., English) of the upcoming target word. Such predictions might be
governed by different degrees of endogenous language control on the identification of language membership between infrequent and frequent
intruders; that is, infrequent intruders might have stronger endogenous control on language membership compared to frequent intruders. For
example, during silent reading, infrequent intruders might have stronger expectations of language membership of upcoming words, which
aids them in early detection of upcoming language–switches during parafoveal processing. This leads to less skipping on language–switched
target words (i.e., bigger switch–cost), as disruption of the parafoveal processing of language–switched target words would prompt fixation on
those target words. On the other hand, frequent intruders may have weaker endogenous control of the non–target language, such that their
predictions of the language membership of upcoming words is weaker or more flexible (i.e., allowing either English or Spanish to be the
upcoming language; although it should be noted that the interaction between target word predictability and language switch was not
significant for frequent intruders). By this hypothesis, because target words that are code–switched (e.g., piso) violate the frequent intruders’
predictions less (than the code–switched target words do for infrequent intruders), frequent intruders are more likely to skip the co-
de–switched target words.
Expectations concerning language membership might similarly impact bilinguals' behaviors when reading aloud; that is, while
reading aloud an English paragraph, infrequent intruders might have strong expectations that the upcoming words will be in English.
However, whereas during silent reading, infrequent intruders’ strong expectations could slow the parafoveal processing of upcoming
words when language membership does not match the expected language, such slowing could be helpful for avoiding intrusion errors
during reading aloud. Because endogenous control (i.e., the prediction of language membership of the upcoming word) does not
facilitate the processing of switched target words (because they are in the unexpected language), infrequent intruders may rely more
heavily on low–level cues (i.e., the written words on the page) when reading aloud, helping them to avoid language intrusion errors.
In contrast, frequent intruders might only weakly predict the language membership of upcoming targets, leading them to pay less
attention to low–level cues and thus produce more intrusions (i.e., failing to code–switch when reading switched words aloud). This
same strategy would appear to be helpful during silent reading with a measure of parafoveal processing (i.e., skipping) when the
target word is language switched, allowing semantic interpretation of upcoming words – whether they are in English or Spanish – to
be completed, thus facilitating comprehension of switched targets. As their skipping patterns during silent reading suggest, frequent
14
intruders might (though this was not supported by a significant interaction) complete the processing of upcoming words prior to
fixation—even when those words are in the other language. Therefore, when reading code–switched target words aloud, frequent
intruders might rely on the meaning they inferred parafoveally (i.e., from their completed processing of the target word prior to
fixation) and thus base their lexical selection on the language used most often in the paragraph, leading to an intrusion error (that is,
a failure to switch). This top–down lexical selection process, when compared to processes that rely on the written words in a
paragraph (i.e., exogenous control), might impede switching during reading aloud, thus increasing the chance of language intrusion
errors.
A question that arises given this interpretation is if infrequent intruders are better at identifying language switches to avoid
skipping those switches, why didn't they also show smaller switch costs in other eye movement measures (e.g., gaze durations)? A
speculative answer to this question might be that skipping, and measures of top-down control in general, are more sensitive to
production-based individual differences measures such as read-aloud (which are also top-down processes) than reading times, which
by contrast may more reflect bottom-up control. This will require further confirmation, but some evidence that seems consistent with
this hypothesis is Slattery and Yates (2018), in which monolingual readers who were more accurate at spelling were also more likely
to skip target words. Slattery and Yates suggested spelling ability might influence parafoveal processing of upcoming words, leading
to individual difference in skipping rates. Although our frequent and infrequent intruders were generally comparable in global
language proficiency, they might differ in spelling ability.
One aspect of reading times that differed between frequent and infrequent intruders was that frequent intruders exhibited
(overall) longer go–past times and higher regression rates during silent reading; that is, frequent intruders were more likely to re–read
a sentence leading up to the target word before moving beyond the target word, regardless of the target–word language, frequency, or
predictability. This eye–movement pattern indicates that frequent intruders are more likely to experience disruptions during the later
processing stages of silent reading. These individual differences in reading rates in later processing stages might be comparable to
differences in eye movements found in older versus younger readers during silent reading. Specifically, older adults read more slowly
(Choi, Lowder, Ferreira, Swaab, & Henderson, 2017; Rayner, Reichle, Stroud, Williams, & Pollatsek, 2006; Whitford & Titone, 2016),
and in some studies show stronger predictability effects than young adults (Choi et al., 2017). Thus, older readers might rely on
sentential context and integrate upcoming words into existing context to a greater extent than younger readers. Similarly, in the
present study, frequent intruders might have relied on sentential context to a greater extent when integrating upcoming words into
existing context even when the language switched. While such an approach will lead to more efficient processing of the meaning of
other–language target words, it would impede accuracy in reading switched–language text aloud, leading to more frequent language
intrusion errors. Importantly, frequent and infrequent intruders were comparable in most language history characteristics (e.g., age of
acquisition of both languages, performance in translation tasks; see Table 6); however, frequent intruders read aloud both single– and
mixed–language paragraphs more slowly, only for English–default paragraphs. The silent reading task was English–default with
Spanish switch words, and read–aloud data show slower reading times for frequent intruders when English was the default language.
If reading in English was less automatic for frequent intruders, they may have had fewer resources available to monitor language
membership in both comprehension and production. Also possibly consistent with this view, in silent reading of sentences without
language switches, frequent intruders relied less on predictability than infrequent intruders — in fact, this is arguably the most
obvious difference between frequent and infrequent intruders in Fig. 2e (a between-group difference that is difficult to understand
given the weaker, but significant, pattern in the opposite direction found in language switched sentences). On this view, relationships
in language control across modalities are quite limited indeed, relegated only to monitoring that takes place after processing and
planned production are complete.
Taken together, our results from the read–aloud and silent–reading tasks suggest that there are separate control mechanisms
operating across the modalities of language production and comprehension. This might reflect relevant distinctions between pro-
duction and comprehension. One distinction (Macizo et al., 2012) is that production may implicate inhibitory processes that select
between available (and competing) alternative responses, whereas comprehension may require less of such inhibitory control. An-
other distinction may be that production is mostly governed by endogenous, top–down control, whereas comprehension is mostly
governed by exogenous, bottom–up control. This conclusion is particularly reinforced by the fact that skipping rate was the only
measure potentially showing a relationship across modalities, which is considered to reflect top–down control (typically found in
production) during silent reading (comprehension). Although we have suggested relatively little overlap in the mechanisms needed to
switch languages in comprehension versus production, our finding of some points of overlap provide a thread to follow in future
research on the role of domain general control and how it can influence individual differences in bilingual language control – with a
key point of focus being separation between top–down and bottom–up activation of each language.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (1923065), the National Institute on Deafness and
Other Communication Disorders (011492) and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (051030, 079426).
The results were presented at the Psychonomic Society's 57th Annual Meeting in Boston, Massachusetts, and the 10th International
Workshop on Language Production in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. We thank Reina Mizrahi and Rosa I. Montoya for assistance with
stimuli development, and Mayra Murillo and Rosa I. Montoya for assistance with data coding. This project was conceptualized while
Keith Rayner was still with us. We are indebted to Keith and to Albert Costa for their knowledge and guidance of our field. They are
sorely missed.
15
Appendix A
List of experimental sentences, a) predictable, b) unpredictable

Target words are boldfaced, with no–switch condition target words in parenthesis.
Comprehension questions were presented with two answer choices in parenthesis, with the correct answer boldfaced.
1a. Chris went to his postbox to pick up the new carta (letter) from his unhappy boss.
1b. Chris went to his apartment to pick up the new carta (letter) from his unhappy boss.
Was the boss happy? (yes, no)
2a. After growing up in small town Alex wanted to live in a large ciudad (city) after graduating.
2b. After growing up with his aunt Alex wanted to live in a large ciudad (city) after graduating.
Does Alex know where to live after graduating? (yes, no)
3a. The playground was filled with many niños (children) from the nursery next door.
3b. The backyard was filled with many niños (children) from the nursery next door.
Where are the children from? (nursery, kindergarten)
4a. On Sunday morning we went to the oldest iglesia (church) nearby and had lunch with the pastor.
4b. On Friday afternoon we went to the oldest iglesia (church) nearby and had lunch with the pastor.
Who was the lunch with? (pastor, monk)
5a. The stream was much easier to cross with the wide puente (bridge) built over it.
5b. The area was much easier to cross with the wide puente (bridge) built over it.
Was the new construction helpful? (yes, no)
6a. The dentist told me to carefully brush my unhealthy dientes (teeth) after every meal.
6b. The doctor told me to carefully clean my unhealthy dientes (teeth) after every meal.
Was the liver unhealthy? (yes, no)
7a. The children with their swimming suits jumped into the giant piscina (pool) on a warm day.
7b. The children with their colorful shirts dashed to the giant piscina (pool) on a warm day.
How was the temperature on the day? (warm, hot)
8a. Mary bought a mop to sweep the filthy piso (floor) for the first time in two years.
8b. Mary bought a rag to clean the filthy piso (floor) for the first time in two years.
How many years ago did Mary clean the floor? (two, three)
9a. Her family had Thanksgiving dinner on Thursday tarde (evening) for the first time in a while.
9b. Her family made holiday food on Thursday tarde (evening) for the first time in a while.
Does her family make the holiday food often? (yes, no)
10a. The Wright brothers spent many years inventing a working avión (plane) after many experiments.
10b. The gifted brothers spent many years inventing a working avión (plane) after many experiments.
Was inventing the plane easy? (yes, no)
11a. The open wound was covered with endless sangre (blood) and Jessica fainted after seeing it.
11b. The carpet floor was covered with endless sangre (blood) and Jessica fainted after seeing it.
Did Jessica faint? (yes, no)
12a. As the presentation was over Rebecca raised her hand to ask some preguntas (questions) at the end.
12b. As the argument was over Rebecca raised her hand to add some preguntas (questions) at the end.
Who raised her hand? (Rebecca, Rachel)
13a. Some people ran down the busy calle (street) while throwing tomatoes at each other.
13b. Some people ran to the busy calle (street) while throwing tomatoes at each other.
What were they throwing at each other? (tomatoes, potatoes)
14a. At the cash register I realized I didn't have enough dinero (money) to pay for my groceries.
14b. At the last minute I realized I didn't have enough dinero (money) to pay for my groceries.
What was I trying to buy? (groceries, gifts)
15a. James gathered his shovels to prepare the olive jardín (garden) for the upcoming storm.
15b. James gathered his tools to prepare the olive jardín (garden) for the upcoming storm.
What did James prepare for? (winter, storm)
16a. In his office Mark had a large desk and a small silla (chair) that was comfortable.
16a. In his office Mark had a whiteboard and a small silla (chair) that was comfortable.
Does Mark have an office? (yes, no)
17a. Even with the right amount of sugar the cake was overly dulce (sweet) for anyone who tried.
17a. Even with the right amount of planning it was overly dulce (sweet) for anyone who tried.
Did people like the food? (yes, no)
18a. The sun set behind the ocean as the boys sat on the public playa (beach) before the bonfire.
18b. The sun set behind the horizon as the boys were at the public playa (beach) before the bonfire.
What are they doing later? (surfing, bonfire)
19a. Gail read about the strike in the local periódico (newspaper) and called her boss.
19b. Gail read about the restaurant in the local periódico (newspaper) and called her boss.
Who did Gail call? (boyfriend, boss)
20a. The student ran across the classroom to the stern maestra (teacher) after getting the exam back.
20b. The children ran across the yard to the stern maestra (teacher) after getting the exam back.
What did they get back? (exam, paper)
21a. Ed put his apron on in the shiny cocina (kitchen) while yelling about the burnt meat.
21b. Ed put his slippers on in the shiny cocina (kitchen) while yelling about the burnt meat.
What was burnt? (meat, egg)
22a. Jacob woke up in the middle of a vivid sueño (dream) in which he was travelling to outer space.
22b. Jacob flinched in the middle of a vivid sueño (dream) in which he was travelling to outer space.
23a. Henry stared at the cloudy sky and asked if more lluvia (rain) was expected later.
23b. Henry stared at the distant hill and asked if more lluvia (rain) was expected later.
16
24a. After working out Jake reached for the cold trago (drink) to quench his thirst.
24b. After the event Jake reached for the cold trago (drink) to quench his thirst.
25a. Cooper struggled through the wind to close the glass ventana (window) as the dust storm raged on.
25b. Cooper struggled through the wind to get the glass ventana (window) as the dust storm raged on.
26a. Isabella wrote invitation letters for the exciting party (fiesta) that afternoon.
26b. Isabella wrote interesting letters about the exciting party (fiesta) that afternoon.
27a. The secretary cut the sheets of business papel (paper) into little bits until none was left.
27b. The advisor cut the bulks of business papel (paper) into little bits until none was left.
28a. The scent of breakfast filled the air in the early mañana (morning) as the sun was shining.
28b. The scent of flowers filled the air in the early mañana (morning) as the sun was shining.
29a. Eva loves to shop for groceries at the neighborhood mercado (market) in the summer.
29b. Eva loves to look for flowers at the neighborhood mercado (market) in the summer.
30a. Jenny refused to wear the uniforms that her private escuela (school) forced all students to wear.
30b. Jenny refused to wear the clothes that her private escuela (school) forced all students to wear.
31a. The children darted into the mysterious green bosque (forest) as the hunter followed behind.
31b. The children darted towards the strange green bosque (forest) as the hunter followed behind.
32a. Kate bought red papers for Valentine's Day and cut them into corazón (heart) shaped pieces.
32b. Kate bought craft papers for the special day and cut them into corazón (heart) shaped pieces.
33a. Alexandra took the baked cookies out of her brand new horno (oven) and smelled it.
33b. Alexandra took the tasty food out of her brand new horno (oven) and smelled it.
34a. John put cheese on the trap to catch the noisy ratón (mouse) that lives in the attic.
34b. John put bait on the trap to catch the noisy ratón (mouse) that lives in the attic.
35a. For Halloween we bought tools to carve a large calabaza (pumpkin) to place next to the door.
35b. For the class we bought tools to carve a large calabaza (pumpkin) to place next to the door.
36a. The patisserie brought the sack of white harina (flour) to try the new recipe.
36b. The chef brought a full bowl of white harina (flour) to try the new recipe.
37a. The police sat down in front of the jewel ladrón (thief) and looked at him.
37b. The child sat down in front of the jewel ladrón (thief) and looked at him.
38a. The little prey squeaked as the bald águila (eagle) glided down to snatch it away.
38b. The little animal looked up as the bald águila (eagle) glided down to snatch it away.
39a. Sam went to the dumpster to throw away the full bag of nasty basura (garbage) that was very old.
39b. Sam went down to the basement to gather the full bag of nasty basura (garbage) that was very old.
40a. Janet dried her dog with the white toalla (towel) after the heavy rain.
40b. Janet patted her dog with the white toalla (towel) after the heavy rain.
41a. Angela made a pumpkin pie using a special receta (recipe) that she got from her grandmother.
41b. Angela made something new with a special receta (recipe) that she got from her grandmother.
42a. I usually wash my dishes with a soft esponja (sponge) that I bought from the grocery store.
42b. I usually wash my feet with a soft esponja (sponge) that I bought from the grocery store.
43a. The kids decided to skip the meal to enjoy the sweet postre (dessert) that Sarah made.
43b. The kids decided to skip the line to enjoy the sweet postre (dessert) that Sarah made.
44a. Sean was asked to blow and tie up the yellow globo (balloon) for the birthday party.
44b. Sean was asked to reach and hold the yellow globo (balloon) for the birthday party.
45a. The witch looked for a tree branch to transform into a useful escoba (broom) she wanted to have.
45b. The woman looked for a tree branch to transform into a useful escoba (broom) she wanted to have.
46a. The cleaning product removed the strange mancha (stain) in seconds after it touched the clothes.
46b. The interesting product left the strange mancha (stain) in seconds after it touched the clothes.
47a. The astronauts gazed into the sky to see a trace of the flying cohete (rocket) they sent earlier.
47b. The scientists gazed into the sky to see a trace of the flying cohete (rocket) they sent earlier.
48a. The ice cream sundae was topped with a ripe cereza (cherry) on the top.
48b. The ice cream sundae was served with a ripe cereza (cherry) on the top.
49a. She took her mittens and a woolen bufanda (scarf) out of the storage chest.
49b. She took her leggings and a woolen bufanda (scarf) out of the storage chest.
50a. At a dark fall night you can hear the chirping grillo (cricket) on the back porch.
50b. At a dark quiet time you can hear the chirping grillo (cricket) on the back porch.
51a. Aladdin asked Genie whether he could get a flying alfombra (carpet) for his birthday present.
51b. Trevor asked Annie whether he could get a flying alfombra (carpet) for his birthday present.
52a. Emma pulled back the plastic shower cortina (curtain) and stepped into the tub.
52b. Emma glanced at the new shower cortina (curtain) and stepped into the tub.
53a. The girl went into the bathtub with soap and made burbuja (bubble) with the soap.
53b. The girl went out to the backyard with toys and made burbuja (bubble) with the soap.
54a. One must press the round botón (button) in order for the machine to work.
54b. One must touch the round botón (button) in order for the machine to work.
55a. Snow White bit into the poisoned manzana (apple) that the wicked witch had given her.
55b. The woman checked the poisoned manzana (apple) that the wicked witch had given her.
56a. Tom set up the trap for Jerry with a piece of small queso (cheese) hanging from the ceiling.
56b. Robert set up a prank for Ian with a piece of small queso (cheese) hanging from the ceiling.
57a. San Francisco was devastated after the large terremoto (earthquake) many years ago.
57b. The island was devastated after the large terremoto (earthquake) many years ago.
58a. Before the game the goalkeeper put on his leather guante (glove) as he waved at his fans.
58b. Before the show the comedian bought a leather guante (glove) as he waved at his fans.
59a. The golden glove winner showed off his proud trofeo (trophy) that he finally won.
59b. The happy young man showed off the proud trofeo (trophy) that he finally won.
60a. The shore near the sea had few eggs that a green tortuga (turtle) laid last week.
60b. The place near the tree had few eggs that a green tortuga (turtle) laid last week.
17
61a. The beautiful bride glided down the aisle to the nervous novio (groom) and handed him flowers.
61b. The little girls glided down the aisle to the nervous novio (groom) and handed him flowers.
62a. I shrieked when I saw the large hairy araña (spider) that was crawling under the table.
62b. I shrieked when I saw the wild hairy araña (spider) that was crawling under the table.
63a. James put the book back on the wooden estante (shelf) and hurried out of the room.
63b. James put the paper back on the wooden estante (shelf) and hurried out of the room.
64a. Lily took out her sewing kit and put on her small silver dedal (thimble) before mending.
64b. Lily took out her toolbox and put on her small silver dedal (thimble) before mending.
Appendix B
List of filler sentences.

Comprehension questions were presented with two answer choices in parenthesis, with the correct answer boldfaced.
1. Two of the five dining halls on campus open early in the morning.
Do all the dining halls open early in the morning? (yes, no)
2. Liam asked for chocolate chip cookies after finishing the bowl of broccoli.
What does Liam want? (broccolis, cookies)
3. Charlotte named her baby after the main character from her favorite novel.
What was the baby named after? (movie, novel)
4. Noah had to take three statistics classes to meet the requirement.
What class was required? (calculus, statistics)
5. Oliver planted tomato seeds and hoped they would sprout soon.
What did Oliver plant? (tomato, potato)
6. Ben purchased the tickets for the popular movie that has been playing for few days.
What were the tickets for? (movie, musical)
7. Dorothy lost her shiny shoes when she visited the park last weekend.
Where Dorothy's shoes shiny? (yes, no)
8. The authors were late to the book signing event last night.
Were the authors on time? (yes, no)
9. That was the fifth taza of tea that we drank while working on our assignments.
What were we drinking? (tea, coffee)
10. Sophia and Olivia decided to skip school to go to the beach on lunes.
Did the girls skip the school on Monday? (yes, no)
11. Our cat seemed to be confused when she met the pequeño puppy for the first time.
Was the cat happy to meet the puppy? (yes, no)
12. Chloe almost fainted when she continuously worked out for 3 h at the gimnasio.
How many hours did Chloe work out? (three, four)
13. Leo was proud that he successfully finished his first maratón.
Does Leo frequently run a marathon? (yes, no)
14. Isaac watched the meteor shower with the new telescopio he bought yesterday.
Does Issac like the meteor shower? (yes, no)
15. Ruby visited Europe for the first time when her tía moved to Rome.
Who moved to Rome? (the aunt, Ruby)
16. The coach yelled at his equipo after the first quarter was over.
Was the coach happy with the team? (yes, no)
17. The little cat fell asleep on the sofá in front of the heater.
18. The store had to close the parking lot for ten días for renovation.
19. Due to the snow Bob fell from his bicicleta and missed the practice.
20. The blue ball rolled down the beach and fell in the agua.
21. Joe was playing with her kite when she stepped on a jelly fish.
22. When the power went out Jacob lost all the unsaved work on his computatora.
23. Jennifer ate oatmeal for breakfast and a sandwich for almuerzo yesterday.
24. Tomorrow the Red Sox will play the Yankees for the second time this año.
25. Our team humiliated our rivals in the semi–finales of last tournament.
26. Lilly goes to the shelter to walk the dogs during her lunch break every day.
27. When the butter is melted, add the flour and sugar and mix well.
28. The red flowers became more colorful after Peter watered them last night.
29. Tom was doing the dishes when the pizza delivery guy knocked on the door.
30. The police officer is chasing a barking dog in the park near the fountain.
31. After completing his homework Eric went to his room to play on his Xbox.
32. Sonia regretted cheating on her exam and emailed her instructor.
33. The red dice seemed slightly larger than the blue dados.
34. The plastic basket was just large enough for the gato to sleep in.
35. The swan is swimming between the cañas with her offspring.
36. Anton forgot to lock his door when he left the casa.
37. The small caja lay on the street for three weeks before the mailman picked it up.
38. Laura made a trap for annoying fruit flies with leftover cerveza.
39. Joshua had potatoes and chicken as cena for the last three days.
40. My mom can make the most delicious pie with limones from the lemon tree in the backyard.
41. The brave little girl did not cry when the dentista pulled her tooth.
42. Some of the math problems only made sense to only few of the estudiantes in the class.
18
43. The youngest paloma escaped through the open window.

44. Michelle bought a pound of almendras from the grocery store.
45. The fire fighter rescued the scared kitty from the tall árbol.
46. Adam was so low on dining dólares that he had to live off of junk food for days.
47. Cody sold his old laptop for a high precio to a naïve freshman boy.
48. The pirate with a wooden leg found a botella with a letter in it.
49. The cowboy and the sheriff returned the stolen horse.
50. Graham saw his baby sister falling into the swimming pool and saved her just in time.
51. A handsome stranger gave the old lady a large bouquet of yellow flowers.
52. Lillian was happy that her sister loved the birthday gift.
53. Josephine cut the onions to make the onion rings for the potluck party.
54. Isabelle read the last book of the trilogy in a day.
55. Kathy and Phil are meeting at the renovated mall for their first date.
56. The farmer taught his oldest son how to milk a cow.
57. Many visitors went to the zoo to see the newborn twin tigers.
58. The new television show with the attractive actor is popular among teenage girls.
59. It was so warm outside that Dave was happy to get a free ice cream at the swimming pool.
60. The tennis player won the tournament for the third time in a row.
61. The woman bought new designer shoes and a dress for the job talk.
62. Victoria bought her mother a present for Christmas.
63. William is showing off his new car to his friends.
64. The chef cut the beef with the sharpest knife in the kitchen.
Appendix C. The complete list of paragraphs used for reading aloud, in the sample experimental order that was presented to
one of the bilinguals. In mixed language paragraphs, the switched words are indicated by italicization (content words) or
bold–face (function words)
Story 1, English word order, single language

Afterwards all of the people in the town spoke of nothing except the firmness with which she executed her plans. She went out daily, holding her husband by the
arm as if he were her prisoner. She kept all of the windows of the estate wide open, and the sun faded the satin of the arm–chairs and even fell upon the ancestral
portraits. She entertained every night at the card games, because no one dared to refuse her invitations and she stayed at her husband's side playing his cards. She
caressed him before the guests and patting his cheek she would say to her husband that he was a poor man because he didn't know how to play without her help.
Story 1, English word order, mixed language

Afterwards all of la people in the town hablaba of nothing except the firmness con which she executed her plans. She went out daily, holding her marido by the arm
as if he were su prisoner. She mantenía all of the windows de the estate wide open, and the sol faded the satin of the arm–chairs y even fell upon the ancestral
portraits. She entertained every noche at the card games, because no one dared to refuse her invitations and ella stayed at her husband's lado playing his cards. She
caressed him before los guests and patting his cachete she would say to her husband that él was a poor man because he didn't know how to jugar without her help.
Story 2, English word order, mixed language

He durmió for 4 h during the last two days, y the last noche, alone on the plateau with sus palm trees and his lantern; he had not slept at all. The cielo was so
overcast and low que he felt the weight of it resting on su brow. Late at night, nevertheless, he thought he heard a profundo, far–off sound across the silence. It was
the thunder of lluvia on the mountain. Esa afternoon, as a matter of fact, he había noticed that the southwest horizon was very oscuro. Dawn came at last, el sun
rose, and he volvió to his office con the storm lantern. He went on escribiendo, alone.
Story 2, English word order, single language

He slept for 4 h during the last two days, and the last night, alone on the plateau with his palm trees and his lantern; he had not slept at all. The sky was so overcast
and low that he felt the weight of it resting on his brow. Late at night, nevertheless, he thought he heard a deep, far–off sound across the silence. It was the thunder
of rain on the mountain. That afternoon, as a matter of fact, he had noticed that the southwest horizon was very dark. Dawn came at last, the sun rose, and he
returned to his office with the storm lantern. He went on writing, alone.
Story 3, Spanish word order, single language

Recuerdo muy bien la primera vez que lo vi. Estaba sentado en medio del patio, las palmas apoyadas en el suelo y reía silenciosamente. Al principio, creí que
bostezaba o temblaba de nervios pero, al enfocar la vista, descubrí que tenia los ojos cerrados y reía con encanto. Era un muchacho robusto, con cara de morsa y
pelo rizado y negro. Aquella risa callada, parecía una invención de los sentidos. El muchacho se había sentado encima de un hormiguero. Las hormigas se le subían
por el pecho; las costillas, los brazos, y la espalda. Algunas paseaban por su cara y hasta se metían en sus orejas. Su cuerpo estaba lleno de puntos negros y seguía
sin hacer ruido, con los párpados bajos.
Story 3, Spanish word order, mixed language

Recuerdo very bien la primera vez que lo vi. Estaba sitting en medio del patio, the palmas apoyadas en el ground y reía silenciosamente. Al principio, creí that
bostezaba o temblaba de nervios pero, al enfocar la vista, descubrí que tenia los eyes cerrados y reía con encanto. Era un muchacho robusto, with cara de morsa y
pelo rizado y black. Aquella risa callada, parecía una invención of los sentidos. El boy se había sentado encima de un hormiguero. The hormigas se le subían por el
chest; las costillas, los brazos, and la espalda. Algunas paseaban por su face y hasta se metían en his orejas. Su cuerpo estaba lleno de puntos negros y seguía sin
hacer ruido, con los eyelids bajos.
Story 4, Spanish word order, mixed language

Mi abuelita era una woman muy religiosa. Tenía her santos a quienes les rezaba, pero su favorito era el que traía la rain. A él le rezaba when ella quería algún favor
o necesitaba support espiritual. Abuelita also era una persona seria. Ella casi nunca smiled. Era una mujer fuerte and segura de si misma, pero en cierto modo tenía
su ternura, aunque at primera vista no se le notaba debido a su personality rígida. De vez en cuando, hasta demostraba un cierto sentido del humor. Más que nada,
era una persona very inteligente. Un día de summer, andaba yo con mis patines en frente of la casa de mis parents cuando oí la voz de mi abuelita that venía de la
window de su cocina.
19
Story 4, Spanish word order, single language

Mi abuelita era una mujer muy religiosa. Tenía sus santos a quienes les rezaba, pero su favorito era el que traía la lluvia. A él le rezaba cuando ella quería algún
favor o necesitaba apoyo espiritual. Abuelita también era una persona seria. Ella casi nunca sonreía. Era una mujer fuerte y segura de si misma, pero en cierto
modo tenía su ternura, aunque a primera vista no se le notaba debido a su carácter rígida. De vez en cuando, hasta demostraba un cierto sentido del humor. Más
que nada, era una persona muy inteligente. Un día de verano, andaba yo con mis patines en frente de la casa de mis padres cuando oí la voz de mi abuelita que
venía de la ventana de su cocina.
References
Abutalebi, J., & Green, D. W. (2007). Bilingual language production: The neurocognition of language representation and control. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20(3),
242–275. https://doi.org/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 & Cognitive
Processes, 23(4), 557–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960801920602.
Abutalebi, J., & Green, D. W. (2016). Neuroimaging of language control in bilinguals: Neural adaptation and reserve. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(4),
689–698. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728916000225.
Altarriba, J., Kroll, J. F., Sholl, A., & Rayner, K. (1996). The influence of lexical and conceptual constraints on reading mixed-language sentences: Evidence from eye
fixations and naming times. Memory & Cognition, 24(4), 477–492. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03200936.
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511801686.
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language,
59(4), 390–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005.
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(3), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001.
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.
18637/jss.v067.i01.
Beauvillain, C., & Grainger, J. (1987). Accessing interlexical homographs: Some limitations of a language-selective access. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(6),
658–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596x(87)90108-2.
Bialystok, E. (2009). Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S1366728908003477.
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., & Luk, G. (2012). Bilingualism: Consequences for mind and brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(4), 240–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tics.2012.03.001.
Blanco-Elorrieta, E., & Pylkkanen, 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, 290–301. https://doi.org/10.1523/
jneurosci.2597-15.2016.
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: Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 37(37), 9022–9036. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0553-17.2017.
Bloom, P. A., & Fischler, I. (1980). Completion norms for 329 sentence contexts. Memory & Cognition, 8, 631–642. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03213783.
Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and
improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977–990. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.977.
Choi, W., Lowder, M. W., Ferreira, F., Swaab, T. Y., & Henderson, J. M. (2017). Effects of word predictability and preview lexicality on eye movements during reading:
A comparison between young and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 32(3), 232–242. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000160.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.02.002.
Cuetos, F., Glez-Nosti, M., Barbón, A., & Brysbaert, M. (2011). SUBTLEX-ESP: Spanish word frequencies based on film subtitles. Psicológica, 32(2), 133–143. https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010729.
Declerck, M., Koch, I., Duñabeitia, J. A., Grainger, J., & Stephan, D. N. (2019). What absent switch costs and mixing costs during bilingual language comprehension can
tell us about language control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000627.
Declerck, M., Lemhöfer, K., & Grainger, J. (2017). Bilingual language interference initiates error detection: Evidence from language intrusions. Bilingualism: Language
and Cognition, 20(5), 1010–1016. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000845.
Declerck, M., & Philipp, A. M. (2015). A review of control processes and their locus in language switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(6), 1630–1645. https://
doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0836-1.
Declerck, M., & Philipp, A. M. (2018). Is inhibition implemented during bilingual production and comprehension? n-2 language repetition costs unchained. Language,
Cognition and Neuroscience, 33, 608–617. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2017.1398828.
Dijkstra, T., Van Heuven, W. J. B., & Grainger, J. (1998). Simulating cross-language competition with the bilingual interactive activation model. Psychologica Belgica,
38(3–4), 177–196.
Drieghe, D., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2005). Eye movements and word skipping during reading revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 31(5), 954–969. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.31.5.954.
Dussias, P. E. (2001). Psycholinguistic complexity in codeswitching. International Journal of Bilingualism, 5(1), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/
13670069010050010501.
Dussias, P. E. (2003). Spanish-English code mixing at the auxiliary phrase: Evidence from eye-movement data. Revista Internacional de Linguistica Iberoamericana, 1,
7–34. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/41678169.
Duyck, W., Van Assche, E., Drieghe, D., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2007). Visual word recognition by bilinguals in a sentence context: Evidence for nonselective lexical access.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(4), 663–679. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.4.663.
Festman, J., Rodriguez-Fornells, A., & Münte, T. F. (2010). Individual differences in control of language interference in late bilinguals are mainly related to general
executive abilities. Behavioral and Brain Functions: BBF, 6(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-9081-6-5.
Flores, A. (1987). Spanish stories = cuentos españoles : Stories in the original Spanish with new English translations. New York: Dover Publications.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000190.
García, N. (2013). Grandma's santo on its head : Stories of days gone by in hispanic villages of New Mexico = el santo patas arriba de mi abuelita : Cuentos de días gloriosos en
pueblitos hispanos de Nuevo México/Nasario García. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Gollan, T. H., & Ferreira, V. S. (2009). Should I stay or should I switch? A cost-benefit analysis of voluntary language switching in young and aging bilinguals. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(3), 640–665. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014981.
Gollan, T. H., & Goldrick, M. (2016). Grammatical constraints on language switching: Language control is not just executive control. Journal of Memory and Language,
90, 177–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.04.002.
Gollan, T. H., & Goldrick, M. (2018). A switch is not a switch: Syntactically-driven bilingual language control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
20
Cognition, 44(1), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000462.

Gollan, T. H., Schotter, E. R., Gomez, J., Murillo, M., & Rayner, K. (2014). Multiple levels of bilingual language control: Evidence from language intrusions in reading
aloud. Psychological Science, 25(2), 585–595. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613512661.
Gollan, T. H., Stasenko, A., Li, C., & Salmon, D. P. (2017). Bilingual language intrusions and other speech errors in Alzheimer's disease. Brain and Cognition, 118, 27–44.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BANDC.2017.07.007.
Gollan, T. H., Weissberger, G. H., Runnqvist, E., Montoya, R. I., & Cera, C. M. (2012). Self-ratings of spoken language dominance: A multilingual naming test (MINT)
and preliminary norms for young and aging Spanish-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(3), 594–615. https://doi.org/10.1017/
s1366728911000332.
Grainger, J., & Dijkstra, T. (1992). On the representation and use of language information in bilinguals. In R. J. Harris (Vol. Ed.), Advances in Psychology: Vol. 83, (pp.
207–220). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0166-4115(08)61496-x.
Grainger, J., Midgley, K., & Holcomb, P. J. (2010). Chapter 14. Re-thinking the bilingual interactive-activation model from a developmental perspective (BIA-d). In M.
Kail (Ed.). Language acquisition across linguistic and cognitive systems (pp. 267–283). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(2), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S1366728998000133.
Green, D. W., & Abutalebi, J. (2013). Language control in bilinguals: The adaptive control hypothesis. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(July 5), 515–530. https://doi.
org/10.1080/20445911.2013.796377.
Guzzardo Tamargo, R. E., Valdés Kroff, J. R., & Dussias, P. E. (2016). Examining the relationship between comprehension and production processes in code-switched
language. Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 138–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.12.002.
Hartanto, A., & Yang, H. (2016). Disparate bilingual experiences modulate task-switching advantages: A diffusion-model analysis of the effects of interactional context
on switch costs. Cognition, 150, 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.01.016.
Kleinman, D., & Gollan, T. H. (2016). Speaking two languages for the price of one: Bypassing language control mechanisms via accessibility-driven switches.
Psychological Science, 27(5), 700–714. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616634633.
Kolers, P. A. (1966). Reading and talking bilingually. American Journal of Psychology, 79(3), 357–376.
Lenth, R. (2019). Emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans.
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(2), 381–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014875.
Li, C., & Gollan, T. H. (2018). Cognates interfere with language selection but enhance monitoring in connected speech. Memory & Cognition, 46(6), 923–939. https://
doi.org/10.3758/s13421-018-0812-x.
Macizo, P., Bajo, T., & Paolieri, D. (2012). Language switching and language competition. Second Language Research, 28(2), 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0267658311434893.
Mercier, J., Pivneva, I., & Titone, D. (2014). Individual differences in inhibitory control relate to bilingual spoken word processing. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 17(1), 89–117. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728913000084.
Meuter, R. F. I., & Allport, A. (1999). bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(1), 25–40.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2602.
Mickes, L., Wixted, J. T., Fennema-Notestine, C., Galasko, D., Bondi, M. W., Thal, L. J., et al. (2007). Progressive impairment on neuropsychological tasks in a
longitudinal study of preclinical Alzheimer's disease. Neuropsychology, 21(6), 696–705. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.21.6.696.
Moreno, E. M., Federmeier, K. D., & Kutas, M. (2002). Switching languages, switching palabras (words): An electrophysiological study of code switching. Brain and
Language, 80(2), 188–207. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2001.2588.
Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2005). Processing semantic anomalies in two languages: An electrophysiological exploration in both languages of Spanish–English
bilinguals. Cognitive Brain Research, 22(2), 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COGBRAINRES.2004.08.010.
Morrison, R. E. (1984). Manipulation of stimulus onset delay in reading: Evidence for parallel programming of saccades. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 10(5), 667–682. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.10.5.667.
Mosca, M., & de Bot, K. (2017). bilingual language switching: Production vs. Recognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00934.
Orfanidou, E., & Sumner, P. (2005). Language switching and the effects of orthographic specificity and response repetition. Memory & Cognition, 33(2), 355–369.
https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03195323.
Peeters, D., Runnqvist, E., Bertrand, D., & Grainger, J. (2014). Asymmetrical switch costs in bilingual language production induced by reading words. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(1), 284–292. https://doi.org/10.1037/A0034060.
Philipp, A. M., & Huestegge, L. (2015). Language switching between sentences in reading: Exogenous and endogenous effects on eye movements and comprehension.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(4), 614–625. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728914000753.
Pollatsek, A., Reichle, E. D., & Rayner, K. (2003). Modeling eye movements in reading: Extensions of the E–Z reader model. In J. Hyönä, R. Radach, & H. Deubel (Eds.).
The mind's eye (pp. 361–390). Amsterdam: North-Holland. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-044451020-4/50021-9.
Poulisse, N. (1999). Slips of the tongue: Speech errors in first and second language production, Vol. 20. John Benjamins Publishing.
Poulisse, N., & Bongaerts, T. (1994). First language use in second language production. Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 36–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/15.1.36.
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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617711000580.
R Core Team (2014). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-
project.org/.
Ratiu, I., & Azuma, T. (2017). Language control in bilingual adults with and without history of mild traumatic brain injury. Brain and Language, 166, 29–39. https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.BANDL.2016.12.004.
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0033-2909.124.3.372.
Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1457–1506.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902816461.
Rayner, K., Reichle, E. D., Stroud, M. J., Williams, C. C., & Pollatsek, A. (2006). The effect of word frequency, word predictability, and font difficulty on the eye
movements of young and older readers. Psychology and Aging, 21(3), 448–465. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.21.3.448.
Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (2006). E-Z reader: A cognitive-control, serial-attention model of eye-movement behavior during reading. Cognitive Systems
Research, 7(1), 4–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2005.07.002.
Reitan, R. M. (1958). Validity of the Trail making test as an indicator of organic brain damage. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 8(3), 271–276. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.
1958.8.3.271.
Reynolds, M. G., Schlöffel, S., & Peressotti, F. (2016). Asymmetric switch costs in numeral naming and number word reading: Implications for models of bilingual
language production. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02011 2011.
Rodriguez-Fornells, A., Krämer, U. M., Lorenzo-Seva, U., Festman, J., & Münte, T. F. (2012). Self-assessment of individual differences in language switching. Frontiers in
Psychology, 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00388.
Ruigendijk, E., Hentschel, G., & Zeller, J. P. (2016). How L2-learners brains react to code-switches: An ERP study with Russian learners of German. Second Language
Research, 32(2), 197–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658315614614.
Schotter, E. R., Li, C., & Gollan, T. H. (2019). What reading aloud reveals about speaking: Regressive saccades implicate a failure to monitor, not inattention, in the
prevalence of intrusion errors on function words. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021818819480
1747021818819480.
Schwartz, A. I., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). Bilingual lexical activation in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 197–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.
21
2006.03.004.
Slattery, T. J., & Yates, M. (2018). Word skipping: Effects of word length, predictability, spelling and reading skill. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(1),
250–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1310264.
Stasenko, A., Matt, G. E., & Gollan, T. H. (2017). A relative bilingual advantage in switching with preparation: Nuanced explorations of the proposed association
between bilingualism and task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(11), 1527–1550. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000340.
Thomas, M. S. C., & Allport, A. (2000). Language switching costs in bilingual visual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 43(1), 44–66. https://doi.org/
10.1006/jmla.1999.2700.
Vaid, J., & Frenck-Mestre, C. (2002). Do orthographic cues aid language recognition? A laterality study with French–English bilinguals. Brain and Language, 82(1),
47–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00008-1.
Van Hell, J. G., & Witteman, M. J. (2009). The neurocognition of switching between languages: A review of electrophysiological studies. Multidisciplinary approaches to
code switching (pp. 53–84). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.41.06hel.
Verreyt, N., Woumans, E., Vandelanotte, D., Szmalec, A., & Duyck, W. (2016). The influence of language-switching experience on the bilingual executive control
advantage. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(1), 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728914000352.
Whitford, V., & Titone, D. (2016). Eye movements and the perceptual span during first- and second-language sentence reading in bilingual older adults. Psychology and
Aging, 31(1), 58–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039971.
Zheng, X., Roelofs, A., & Lemhöfer, K. (2018). Language selection errors in switching: Language priming or cognitive control? Language. Cognition and Neuroscience,
33(2), 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2017.1363401.
22

Ahn Et Al. - 2020 - Minimal Overlap in Language Control Across Product

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ahn Et Al. - 2020 - Minimal Overlap in Language Control Across Product

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Neurolinguistics 54 (2020) 100885

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Minimal overlap in language control across production and

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

switched languages in their overt speech.

Current Age 20.5 1.9

Age at first exposure 4.3 3.2 0.7 1.3

2.3.1. Mixed–language paragraphs for the read–aloud task

2.3.2. Sentences for the silent–reading–with–eyetracking task

Target word mean frequency (per million)

Target word mean length (letters)

Mean pre–target word length (letters)a

Mean number of words preceding the target word

Percentage of norming participants correctly guessing the target word

2.4.1. Mixed language paragraph read–aloud task

Note: Negro is Spanish for black; que is Spanish for that.

3.1. Mixed–language paragraph Read–Aloud task

3.2. Comparisons between the Silent–Reading and Read–Aloud tasks

Complete intrusions 1.3 (1.6) 2.4 (2.1)

3.3. Single–fixation duration

(Intercept) −2.57 0.16 −15.89 −2.25 0.14 −16.49

3.4. Gaze duration

3.5. Go–past time

3.6. Regression rate

Paragraph reading aloud

3.7. Skipping rate

List of experimental sentences, a) predictable, b) unpredictable

List of filler sentences.

43. The youngest paloma escaped through the open window.

Story 1, English word order, single language

Story 1, English word order, mixed language

Story 2, English word order, mixed language

Story 2, English word order, single language

Story 3, Spanish word order, single language

Story 3, Spanish word order, mixed language

Story 4, Spanish word order, mixed language

Story 4, Spanish word order, single language

Cognition, 44(1), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000462.

You might also like