4.3 Article

Language control in regional dialect speakers - monolingual by name, bilingual by nature?

Journal

BILINGUALISM-LANGUAGE AND COGNITION
Volume 25, Issue 3, Pages 511-520

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1366728921000973

Keywords

language control; language switching; dialect; bilingualism; bidialectal

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite being treated as a homogeneous control group, monolinguals frequently use multiple language varieties that may require control mechanisms. Research findings suggest that Orcadian Scots may be the dominant variety for participants of Scottish Standard English and Orcadian Scots, highlighting the need to scrutinize monolinguals for routine use of different language varieties to better understand mechanisms underlying their lexical access.
While research on bilingual language processing is sensitive to different usage contexts, monolinguals are still often treated as a homogeneous control group, despite frequently using multiple varieties that may require engagement of control mechanisms during lexical access. Adapting a language-switching task for speakers of (Scottish) Standard English and Orcadian Scots, we demonstrate switch cost asymmetries with longer naming latencies when switching back into Orcadian. This pattern, which is reminiscent of unbalanced bilinguals, suggests that Orcadian is the dominant variety of these participants - despite the fact they might be regarded as English monolinguals because of sociolinguistic factors. In conjunction with the observed mixing cost and cognate facilitation effect (indicative of proactive language control and parallel language activation, respectively), these findings show that 'monolinguals' need to be scrutinised for routine use of different varieties to gain a better understanding of whether and how mechanisms underlying their lexical access resemble those of bilinguals.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available