Abstract
While several reviews provide an in-depth discussion on reactive language control, which is the language control process that is initiated when the non-target language disrupts the selection of target language words, few have touched on proactive language control, which is the language control process implemented as an anticipation of any non-target language interference disrupting the selection of target language words. In the current review, three prominent markers of proactive language control are discussed (i.e., the reversed language dominance effect, language-mixing costs, and the blocked language-order effect). Based on these three markers, it appears that proactive language control can be implemented to mainly restrict interference from the first language during bilingual language production, but is typically absent during bilingual language comprehension. The literature also implies that proactive language control might be partly domain general. With respect to the underlying mechanism of proactive language control, there are some indications that proactive language control relies on inhibition, but no unequivocal evidence has been provided so far.
Highlights
During bilingual language processing, words from the nontarget language are activated (e.g., Costa, Caramazza, & Sebastián-Gallés, 2000; Hermans, Bongaerts, De Bot, & Schreuder, 1998; Meade, Midgley, Dijkstra, & Holcomb, 2018) and sometimes even selected by mistake (e.g., Declerck, Lemhöfer, & Grainger, 2017; Gollan, Sandoval, & Salmon, 2011; Poulisse & Bongaerts, 1994)
While language control is typically viewed as one process, two types of control processes have been identified in the literature (e.g., Ma, Li, & Guo, 2016; Peeters & Dijkstra, 2018; see Braver, 2012): reactive language control, which is the language control process that is implemented when the non-target language disrupts the selection of target language words, and proactive language control
Three markers of proactive language control were scrutinized in this review article to examine proactive language control during both bilingual language production and comprehension
Summary
Words from the nontarget language are activated (e.g., Costa, Caramazza, & Sebastián-Gallés, 2000; Hermans, Bongaerts, De Bot, & Schreuder, 1998; Meade, Midgley, Dijkstra, & Holcomb, 2018) and sometimes even selected by mistake (e.g., Declerck, Lemhöfer, & Grainger, 2017; Gollan, Sandoval, & Salmon, 2011; Poulisse & Bongaerts, 1994). While language control is typically viewed as one process, two types of control processes have been identified in the literature (e.g., Ma, Li, & Guo, 2016; Peeters & Dijkstra, 2018; see Braver, 2012): reactive language control ( known as transient language control), which is the language control process that is implemented when the non-target language disrupts the selection of target language words, and proactive language control The focus of these reviews is typically on reactive language control, with little attention devoted to proactive language control. This is probably due to most language control studies focusing on reactive language control. To encourage future research into proactive language control, the current review will focus on this control process by discussing several of its markers
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
