LIN 3042 Applied Linguistics · Fall 2026
Linck et al. (2009): the four tasks
Toy versions of the four tasks in Linck, Kroll and Sunderman (2009), a couple of minutes each. Please use one device, and do each task once.
AI disclaimer. Content guided by Tommie Juzek; built upon his prompting by an AI assistant (Claude Opus 5.5, Anthropic); reviewed and approved by Tommie Juzek.
The study
Linck, Kroll and Sunderman (2009) compared two groups of American students learning Spanish: 25 on a semester abroad in Spain, and 20 in the classroom at home. Their hypothesis: immersion helps learners because it holds back (inhibits) their native language, English.
What the four tasks are for
- Main task Two main tasks test the hypothesis. They measure how easily the learners get at their English while Spanish is in play: translation recognition (comprehension) and verbal fluency (production).
- Background check Two background checks measure general cognitive ability, not language: reading span (working memory) and the Simon task (inhibitory control). They show whether the two groups started out alike, so that differences in the main tasks can be put down to immersion, and not to one group being better at this kind of thing anyway.
In each task, a coloured band after every answer tells you what kind of trial it was; the practice round explains each kind.
1 Translation recognition
Is the English word the translation of the Spanish one? Starts with a one-minute word list. In the paper: immersed learners were hardly slowed by English look-alikes of the Spanish word (cara – CARD); classroom learners were.
2 Verbal fluency
As many animals (and so on) as you can think of in 30 seconds. In the paper: immersed learners came up with more Spanish words, but fewer English ones.
3 Reading span
Judge sentences while you hold on to a growing list of words. In the paper: the two groups were alike (51.5 and 51.8 of 80 words).
4 Simon task
Answer by a square’s colour, and ignore where it is. In the paper: the groups were not quite alike (38 against 20 ms); the classroom group did better.
These are toy versions: the words, timings and numbers of trials are ours, not the paper’s. Your answers stay in your browser; nothing is stored or sent.
The article: Linck, J. A., Kroll, J. F., & Sunderman, G. (2009). Losing access to the native language while immersed in a second language: Evidence for the role of inhibition in second-language learning. Psychological Science, 20(12), 1507–1515. Free version