alternative candidates from both languages are active all the way to the pho-
nological level (e.g. Colomé, 2001; Costa et al., 2000; Hoshino & Kroll, 2008)
or beyond the phonological level (e.g. Jacobs, 2007; Paterson & Goldrick,
2009). In these cases, the language of production is selected at the phonologi-
cal and phonetic levels respectively (cf. Figure 9.1 illustrating language selec-
tion at the phonetic level).
The disagreement in the literature regarding the manner and locus of
language selection results in part from the use of different experimental
paradigms and comparisons of bilinguals who differ in their proficiency
and dominance in the two languages (see Kroll et al., 2006, for a compre-
hensive review). For example, a number of studies on picture naming have
shown that bilinguals are faster to name a picture when the picture’s name
is a cognate translation that has the same meaning and similar phonology
across the bilingual’s two languages (e.g. lion-león) than when the picture’s
name is a non-cognate translation (e.g. leaf-hoja) (e.g. Christoffels et al.,
2006; Costa et al., 2000; Hoshino & Kroll, 2008; Kroll et al., in preparation).
The presence of cognate facilitation suggests that the name of the picture
in the non-target language is activated to the point where phonology is
specified.
Other studies have used a picture-word interference paradigm. In this
paradigm, bilinguals are asked to name a picture in one language, while
ignoring a distractor word presented auditorily or visually in the same or
other language (e.g. Costa & Caramazza, 1999; Costa et al., 1999; Costa
et al., 2003; Hermans et al., 1998; Knupsky & Amrhein, 2007). Typically, the
distractor word is manipulated in relation to the picture’s name, the timing
of the presentation relative to the picture, and the language of the presenta-
tion. The time-course of distractor effects is used to map out the stages of
production at which the non-target language is active and competes for
selection (i.e. the conceptual, lexical, and phonological levels). Past research
has shown that there is interference when the distractor word is semanti-
cally related to the picture’s name and facilitation when the distractor word
is phonologically related to the picture’s name, regardless of the language of
distractor words (e.g. Costa et al., 1999; Hermans et al., 1998). A critical
condition in these bilingual picture-word interference studies is a condition
where the distractor word is the translation of the name of the picture (e.g.
Costa et al., 1999) or a condition where the distractor word is phonologically
related to the translation of the picture’s name (e.g. Hermans et al., 1998).
Costa et al. (1999) showed that bilinguals named pictures with the transla-
tion distractor (e.g. the Spanish distractor mesa ‘table’ for the Catalan pic-
ture name taula ‘table’) faster than with an unrelated distractor (e.g. the
Spanish distractor jamón ‘ham’) and interpreted this facilitation effect as
evidence for language-specific selection. If alternative candidates from both
languages compete for selection, a distractor that is the translation itself
should have produced interference rather than facilitation because the lexical
204 Part 5: The Bilingual Brain