Models vary in the extent to which language control processes are domain general. Those that posit that language control is at least partially domain general insist on an overlap between language control and executive control at the goal level. To further probe whether or not language control is domain general, we conducted the first event-related potential (ERP) study that directly compares language-switch costs, as an index of language control, and task-switch costs, as an index of executive control. The language switching and task switching methodologies were identical, except that the former required switching between languages (English or Spanish) whereas the latter required switching between tasks (color naming or category naming). This design allowed us to directly compare control processes at the goal level (cue-locked ERPs) and at the task performance level (picture-locked ERPs). We found no significant differences in the switch-related cue-locked and picture-locked ERP patterns across the language and task switching paradigms. These results support models of domain-general language control.

To investigate possible universal and modality-specific factors that influence the neurophysiological response during lexical processing, we recorded event-related potentials while a large group of deaf adults ( n = 40) viewed 404 signs in American Sign Language (ASL) that varied in ASL frequency, concreteness, and iconicity. Participants performed a go/no-go semantic categorization task (does the sign refer to people?) to videoclips of ASL signs (clips began with the signer’s hands at rest). Linear mixed-effects regression models were fit with per-participant, per-trial, and per-electrode data, allowing us to identify unique effects of each lexical variable. We observed an early effect of frequency (greater negativity for less frequent signs) beginning at 400 ms postvideo onset at anterior sites, which we interpreted as reflecting form-based lexical processing. This effect was followed by a more widely distributed posterior response that we interpreted as reflecting lexical-semantic processing. Paralleling spoken language, more concrete signs elicited greater negativities, beginning 600 ms postvideo onset with a wide scalp distribution. Finally, there were no effects of iconicity (except for a weak effect in the latest epochs; 1,000–1,200 ms), suggesting that iconicity does not modulate the neural response during sign recognition. Despite the perceptual and sensorimotoric differences between signed and spoken languages, the overall results indicate very similar neurophysiological processes underlie lexical access for both signs and words.