Bilingual lexical access

Last updated

Bilingual lexical access is an area of psycholinguistics that studies the activation or retrieval process of the mental lexicon for bilingual people.

Contents

Bilingual lexical access can be understood as all aspects of the word processing, including all of the mental activity from the time when a word from one language is perceived to the time when all its lexical knowledge from the target language is available. [1] Research in this field seeks to fully understand these mental processes. Bilingual individuals have two mental lexical representations for an item or concept and can successfully select words from one language without significant interference from the other language. It is the field's goal to understand whether these dual representations interact or affect one another.

Bilingual lexical access researchers focus on the control mechanisms bilinguals use to suppress the language not in use when in a monolingual mode and the degree to which the related representations within the language not in use are activated. [2] For example, when a Dutch-English bilingual is asked to name a picture of a dog in English, he or she will come up with the English word dog. Bilingual lexical access is the mental process that underlies this seemingly simple task: the process that makes the connection between the idea of a dog and the word dog in the target language. While activating the English word dog, its Dutch equivalent (hond) is most likely also in a state of activation.

History

Early research of bilingual lexical access was based on theories of monolingual lexical access. These theories relied mainly upon generalizations without specifying how lexical access works.

Subsequent advancement in medical science has improved understanding of psycholinguistics, resulting in more detailed research and a deeper understanding of language production. "Many early studies of second language acquisition focused on the morphosyntactic development of learners and the general finding was that bound morphemes appear in the same order in the first and second language". [3] In addition, "second language learners are also able to produce and process simple sentences before complex sentences (Pienemann et al. 2005), just like first language learners", [3] of which there are 2 models proposed: serial search models and parallel access models. Serial search models [4] propose that when monolinguals encounter a word, they will look through all the lexical entries to distinguish whether the input item is a word or not; if it is, they will only retrieve the necessary information about that word (i.e., its semantics or orthography). Lexical access is accessed sequentially, with one item at a time. In contrast, the parallel access models approach [5] asserts that multiple entries can be activated at once, which means that the perceptual input from a word would activate all lexical items directly, even though some of them might not be necessary. In this way, numbers of potential candidates would be activated simultaneously and then the lexical candidates which are most consistent with the input stimulus would be chosen. Researchers [6] addressed that both the serial and parallel processes are used for lexical organization and lexical access.

Knowledge of monolingual access led to the question of bilingual lexical access. Early models of bilingual lexical access shared similar characteristics with these monolingual lexical access models; [7] the bilingual models began by focusing on if bilingual lexical access would be different from monolinguals. In addition, to study the activation process in a separate language, they also investigated whether the lexical activation would be processed in a parallel fashion for both languages or selectively processed for the target language. The bilingual models also study whether the bilingual system has a single lexicon combining words from both languages or separate lexicons for words in each language.

With the occurrence of widespread computational modeling, researchers extended the theoretical approaches for the studies of bilingual lexical access. The computational models are now an essential component for mainstream theories, for example, the models of Bilingual Interactive Activation (BIA) model, [8] the Semantic, Orthographic and Phonological Interactive Activation (SOPIA) model, [9] and the Bilingual interactive Model of Lexical Access (BLMOLA). [10] Most computational models need to specify all the vague descriptive notions used in the earlier models and force researchers to clarify their theories. Those revised models test the viability of the original theories by comparing the empirical results with data generated from the model. Computational models are also able to generate new testable hypotheses and allow researchers to manipulate conditions which might not be possible in normal experiments. [7] For example, researchers can investigate and simulate the lexical access systems under various states of damage without using aphasic subjects. [11]

Hypotheses

The two most prominent theories on lexical access for bilinguals, Language Selective Access and Language Non-Selective Access, attempt to explain the process and stages of lexical activation and selection. These hypotheses focus on determining whether lexical candidates from different languages that share similar lexical features are activated when a word is presented. [12] For instance, when the Dutch word work is activated, is the English word pork also activated? If the answer is "no", it might suggest that language selection happens before the recognition of a word and only the lexical information of the target language is selectively activated, in which case lexical access is language selective. [13] If the answer is "yes", it might suggest the other possibility that the recognition of a word is processed in parallel for both languages and the lexical information of both languages are activated, in which case lexical access is language non-selective. [14] Research pertaining to lexical access has indicated that it is not achievable to completely suppress a known language.

Language-selective access

Language-selective access is the exclusive activation of information in the contextually appropriate language system. [1] It implies when a bilingual encounters a spoken or written word, the activation is restricted to the target language subsystem which contains the input word. [15]

One interpretation is that bilinguals initially make a decision about the language of the word and then activate the appropriate language-selected lexicon. In this mechanism, an executive system directs the language switch for the input word. In earlier studies, researchers [16] [17] found that bilinguals can comprehend passages composed of words entirely from only one language more quickly than passages composed of words from both languages. They explain this result as an involuntary switch that happens when bilinguals comprehend passages with two languages. When comprehension procedures in one language fail due to the language contextually changing, then the switch mechanism will automatically direct input to another language system. Therefore, bilinguals are slower at reading mixed language passages than at single language passages because they must spend time switching languages. However, those studies failed to consider that the two languages might be activated simultaneously and there might be a later lexical competition in choosing which language information to use. The later lexical competition can also be used to explain why bilinguals spend more time understanding passages in mixed languages. [18] However, other studies have found that there is no significant cost incurred by inter-sentential language switching and mixing. A 2010 paper showed that there was no cost to switching between languages when bilinguals read sentences for comprehension. [19] Additionally, a 2012 paper found that when making metalinguistic judgments and performing non-comprehension based tasks, switch costs were evident, [20] but there was no evidence to support the hypothesis that there is a cost at the switch site when bilinguals read a mixed sentence, indicating that under normal circumstances and given sufficient linguistic context, language switching does not incur a cost. [21]

In studies that investigate whether lexical candidates from different languages are activated selectively or non-selectively during bilingual lexical access, there are two basic types of stimuli used: interlingual homographs and cognates. Interlingual homographs are words from two languages that are identical in their orthography but differ in their meaning or phonology; for example, the English word "room" is spelled identically to the Dutch word for "cream". Cognates are words from two languages that are identical (or very similar) in orthography and also have a large overlap in their meaning; for instance, the word film is a cognate in English and Dutch. Researchers used those types of stimuli to investigate if bilinguals process them in the same way as the matched control words which occur only in one language. If the reaction time (RT) of interlingual homographs is the same as the controlled monolingual word, then it supports the language-selective access hypothesis. If RT is significantly different for interlingual homographs than for the controlled monolingual word, it supports the language-nonselective access hypothesis. [22]

In most early studies, researchers did not find clear RT differences between test items (interlexical homographs or cognates) and control items. [23] For example, in Gerard and Scarborough's [24] word recognition research with English monolinguals and Spanish–English bilinguals, cognates, interlingual homographs, and non-homographic control words were used. The cognates and control words were either high frequency or low frequency in both English and Spanish. The homographic non-cognates were high frequency in English and low frequency in Spanish or vice versa. The results generally supported the language-selective hypothesis. Even though there was a significant main effect of word type for the bilingual group, it was mainly caused by the slow response to interlingual homographs which were of low frequency in the target language but of high frequency in the non-target language. Results showed that there was no significant difference in the reaction time between bilinguals and monolinguals, which suggested that lexical access for bilinguals in this study was restricted to only one language. [24]

Language-nonselective access

Language-nonselective access is the automatic co-activation of information in both linguistic systems. [1] It implies that when a bilingual encounters a spoken or written word, the activation happens in parallel in both contextually appropriate and inappropriate linguistic subsystems. Also, there is evidence that bilinguals take longer than monolinguals to detect non-words while in both bilingual and monolingual modes, providing evidence that bilinguals do not fully deactivate their other language while in a monolingual mode. [25]

Despite the observed null results which support the language-selective access, a sizable number of studies suggest that language-nonselective access takes place and it is highly unlikely to completely suppress the other language. For example, Dijkstra, van Jaarsveld and Brinke [26] used an English lexical decision task for Dutch–English bilinguals on a list of a cognate, homographs, and English-control words. Although they did not find a significant difference in reaction time between interlingual homographs and English control words, they found that there was a significant facilitation effect of the cognates, which could be supportive evidence for the assumption of language-nonselective access. Later, De Moor [12] repeated the English lexical decision study by Dijkstra et al. [26] and found that the Dutch meaning of the interlingual homographs was also activated by English–Dutch bilinguals. After each homographic trial, she performed trials that translated previous homographs' Dutch definitions into English. For example, after the trial homographic word "brand", the English-translated "fire" would be presented. De Moor found there was a small but significant translation priming effect for subsequent English translation trials; it suggested that the lexical information of the Dutch word form was also activated, even though it did not affect the reaction time of the previous homographic trial.[ citation needed ]

Cross-linguistic influence can be understood as the various ways that two or more languages relate in the mind and affect a person's linguistic performance or development. Cross-linguistic effects of orthographic and semantic overlap between different languages of cognates and interlingual homographs were also reported in many priming studies. For example, Beauvillain and Grainger [27] had French–English bilinguals make English lexical decisions on target stringsprimed by French words, which was told to the participants. The homographic primes were French words that were either semantically related to the English words (e.g., "coin": "money" in English, "corner" in French) or not related. The results showed that bilinguals responded faster in related conditions than in unrelated conditions. Even though the participants knew that the prime words always associated with their French meaning, they were still affected by the English meaning of the homographic prime words. In later studies, researchers masked the briefly presented prime words to prevent participants from using conscious strategies. For instance, Sáchez-Casas et al. [28] used Spanish–English bilinguals in a semantic categorization task on Spanish target words. They used three types of priming conditions: entirely identical cognates or non-cognates (rico-rico; pato-pato), translations of cognates or non-cognates (rich-rico; duck-pato) and non-word primes combined with cognate or non-cognate targets as a control condition (rict-rico vs. wuck-pato). They found that bilinguals responded to the cognate translation conditions as fast as the identical conditions, but the non-cognate translation was as slow as the control conditions. [29]

In language comprehension

Once bilinguals acquire the lexical information from both languages, bilingual lexical access activates in language comprehension. "Lexical access in comprehension" is the process of how people make contact with lexical representation in their mental lexicon that contains the information, which enables them to understand the words or sentences. Word recognition is the most essential process of bilingual lexical access in language comprehension, in which researchers investigate the selective or non-selective recognition of isolated words. At the same time, sentence processing also plays an important role in language comprehension, where researchers can investigate if the presence of words in a sentence context restricts lexical access only to the target language. [30]

In word recognition

Word recognition [1] is usually used in both narrow and broad ways. When it is used in the narrow sense, it means the moment when a match occurs between a printed word and its orthographic word-form stored in the lexicon, or a match between a spoken word and its phonological word-form. Only after this match has taken place, all the syntactical and morphological information of the word and the meaning of the word will become accessible for further processing. In a broader way, it refers to lexical access is the entire period from the matching processing to the retrieval of lexical information. In the research of bilingual lexical access, word recognition uses single, out-of-context words from both languages to investigate all the aspects of bilingual lexical access. [31]

Main methodological tasks in word recognition

In word recognition studies, the cognate or interlingual homograph effects are most often used with the following tasks:

Models of bilingual lexical access in word recognition

Most current models in word recognition assume that bilingual lexical access is nonselective, which also take into account the demands of task and context-dependence of processing. [12]

A flow chart representation of the BIA+ model for bilingual language processing including the word identification and task/decision subsystems. BIAfig.JPG
A flow chart representation of the BIA+ model for bilingual language processing including the word identification and task/decision subsystems.

Bilingual interactive activation (BIA) model

The BIA model is an implemented connectionist model of bilingual visual word recognition. [8] This language-nonselective model is structured by four levels of different linguistic representations: letter features, letters, words, and language tags (or language node). When a word is presented by this model, the features of its constituted letters are activated first. Then, these letter features work together and activate the letters of which they are part of the presented words. In turn, these letters activate the words of that language. The word candidates activate the language nodes which are connected and simultaneously send feedback activation to the letter level. Language nodes can also inhibit the activation of word candidates from other languages (e.g., the English language node reduces the activation of Dutch word candidates). After a complex interactive process of activation and inhibition, the lexical candidate corresponding to the presented word becomes the most active word unit.[ citation needed ]

Inhibitory control model (IC)

The IC model [35] [36] is complementary to the BIA model. It focuses on the importance of task demands and regulation that happened during language processing by modifying the levels of activation of items in the language network. In this model, a key concept is the language task schema, which specifies the mental processing steps that bilinguals take to perform a particular language task. The language task schema regulates the output from the word identification system by altering the activation levels of representations within that system by inhibiting outputs from it. For example, when a bilingual switches from one language to another in translation, a change in the language schema corresponding to the languages must take place. [37]

Language mode framework

In the language model framework, language processing mechanisms and languages as a whole can be achieved to different extents. The relative activation state of language is called language mode, and it is influenced by many factors, such as the person spoke or listened to, users’ language proficiency, the non-linguistic context and so on. Language users can be in a bilingual mode if they are talking to other bilinguals or reading text with mixed languages. However, if they listen to someone who is monolingual or is just speaking one language, the activation state would switch to a more monolingual mode. Based on this model, the bilinguals' language mode depends on the language users' expectation and by language environment. [38] [39] [40]

Bilingual interactive activation plus (BIA+) model

The BIA+ model is an extension and adaptation of the BIA model. [41] [42] The BIA+ model includes not only an orthographic representation and language nodes, but also phonological and semantic representations. All these representations are assumed to be part of a word identification system that provides output to a task/decision system. The information flow in bilingual lexical processing proceeds exclusively from the word identification system toward a task/decision system without any influence of this task/decision system on the activation state of words. [43]

In sentence processing

Most current studies of bilingual lexical access are based on the comprehension of isolated words without considering whether contextual information affects lexical access in bilinguals. However, in everyday communication, words are most often encountered in a meaningful context and not in isolation (e.g. in a newspaper article). Research done by Déprez (1994) has shown that mixed utterances in children are not limited to the lexical level but also in the areas of morphology, syntax, and pronunciation. Researchers also began to investigate the cognitive nature of bilingual lexical access in context by examining word recognition in sentences. [44] [45]

The main methodological tasks in sentence processing

In sentence processing, a number of online measuring techniques are exploited to detect cognitive activity at the very moment it takes place or only slightly after. Cognates and interlingual homographs are often used as markers that are inserted in test sentences with the following tasks:

A diagram demonstrating the acuity of foveal vision in reading EyeFixationsReading.gif
A diagram demonstrating the acuity of foveal vision in reading

Studies of bilingual lexical access in sentence processing

The question of whether the presentation of words in a sentence context restricts lexical access to words of the target language only is studied mostly in bilinguals' second language (L2) processing. This sentence context effect might be an efficient strategy to speed up the lexical search because it reduces the number of lexical candidates. For example, Elston-Guttler et al. [48] showed that cross-lingual activation is very sensitive to the influence of a sentence context and previous activation state of the two languages in a semantic priming study. In their study, German–English bilinguals were presented with relatively low-constraint sentences in which a homograph (e.g., "The woman gave her friend a pretty GIFT"; "gift" means poison in German) or a control word was presented at the end (e.g., The woman gave her friend a pretty SHELL). "Constraint" means the degree to which the sentence frame preceding the target word biased that word. The sentence was then replaced by a target word (poison) for the lexical decision task. They found that for participants who saw a German film prior to the experiment and only in the first block of the experiment, they recognized the target faster after primed with the related homograph sentence than primed with the controlled sentence. This suggests that bilinguals can quickly "zoom into" the L2 processing situation even when the L1 activation was boosted. [49]

Schwartz and Kroll [44] used cognates and homographs as target words presented in low- and high-constraint sentences to Spanish–English bilinguals. They investigated word presentation and the semantic constraint modulated language lexical access in bilinguals. Schwartz and Kroll used rapid serial visual presentation where the target word had to be named. No homograph effects were found, but less proficient bilinguals made more naming errors, particularly in low-constraint sentences. They observed cognate facilitation (nonselective bilingual lexical access) in low-constraint sentences, but not in high-constraint ones. The results suggest that the semantic constraint of a sentence may restrict cross-lingual activation effects. Similar results on cognate effects were obtained by van Hell and de Groot [45] in their study of Dutch–English bilinguals in an L2 lexical decision task and a translation task in forward (from L1 to L2) and in the backward direction (from L2 to L1). Libben and Titone [50] used the eye-tracking methodology and found that the cognate facilitation in semantically constraint sentences only happened at early stages of comprehension and rapidly resolved at later stages of comprehension. [51]

Although most studies on bilingual sentence processing focus on L2 processing, there are still a few studies that have investigated cross-language activation during their native language (L1) reading. For example, van Assche et al. [52] replicated the cognate effect in L1 with Dutch–English bilinguals, and found that a non-dominant language may affect native-language sentence reading, both at earliest and at later reading stages. Titone et al. [53] observed this cross-language activation in English-French bilinguals at early reading stages only when the L2 was acquired early in life. They also concluded that the semantic constraint provided by a sentence can attenuate cross-language activation at later reading stages.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Polysemy</span> Capacity for a sign to have multiple related meanings

Polysemy is the capacity for a sign to have multiple related meanings. For example, a word can have several word senses. Polysemy is distinct from monosemy, where a word has a single meaning.

Psycholinguistics or psychology of language is the study of the interrelation between linguistic factors and psychological aspects. The discipline is mainly concerned with the mechanisms by which language is processed and represented in the mind and brain; that is, the psychological and neurobiological factors that enable humans to acquire, use, comprehend, and produce language.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Neurolinguistics</span> Neuroscience and linguistics-related studies

Neurolinguistics is the study of neural mechanisms in the human brain that control the comprehension, production, and acquisition of language. As an interdisciplinary field, neurolinguistics draws methods and theories from fields such as neuroscience, linguistics, cognitive science, communication disorders and neuropsychology. Researchers are drawn to the field from a variety of backgrounds, bringing along a variety of experimental techniques as well as widely varying theoretical perspectives. Much work in neurolinguistics is informed by models in psycholinguistics and theoretical linguistics, and is focused on investigating how the brain can implement the processes that theoretical and psycholinguistics propose are necessary in producing and comprehending language. Neurolinguists study the physiological mechanisms by which the brain processes information related to language, and evaluate linguistic and psycholinguistic theories, using aphasiology, brain imaging, electrophysiology, and computer modeling.

Simultaneous bilingualism is a form of bilingualism that takes place when a child becomes bilingual by learning two languages from birth. According to Annick De Houwer, in an article in The Handbook of Child Language, simultaneous bilingualism takes place in "children who are regularly addressed in two spoken languages from before the age of two and who continue to be regularly addressed in those languages up until the final stages" of language development. Both languages are acquired as first languages. This is in contrast to sequential bilingualism, in which the second language is learned not as a native language but a foreign language.

Bilingualism, a subset of multilingualism, means having proficiency in two or more languages. A bilingual individual is traditionally defined as someone who understands and produces two or more languages on a regular basis. A bilingual individual's initial exposure to both languages may start in early childhood, e.g. before age 3, but exposure may also begin later in life, in monolingual or bilingual education. Equal proficiency in a bilingual individuals' languages is rarely seen as it typically varies by domain. For example, a bilingual individual may have greater proficiency for work-related terms in one language, and family-related terms in another language.

Bimodal bilingualism is an individual or community's bilingual competency in at least one oral language and at least one sign language, which utilize two different modalities. An oral language consists of a vocal-aural modality versus a signed language which consists of a visual-spatial modality. A substantial number of bimodal bilinguals are children of deaf adults (CODA) or other hearing people who learn sign language for various reasons. Deaf people as a group have their own sign language(s) and culture that is referred to as Deaf, but invariably live within a larger hearing culture with its own oral language. Thus, "most deaf people are bilingual to some extent in [an oral] language in some form". In discussions of multilingualism in the United States, bimodal bilingualism and bimodal bilinguals have often not been mentioned or even considered. This is in part because American Sign Language, the predominant sign language used in the U.S., only began to be acknowledged as a natural language in the 1960s. However, bimodal bilinguals share many of the same traits as traditional bilinguals, as well as differing in some interesting ways, due to the unique characteristics of the Deaf community. Bimodal bilinguals also experience similar neurological benefits as do unimodal bilinguals, with significantly increased grey matter in various brain areas and evidence of increased plasticity as well as neuroprotective advantages that can help slow or even prevent the onset of age-related cognitive diseases, such as Alzheimer's and dementia.

Language production is the production of spoken or written language. In psycholinguistics, it describes all of the stages between having a concept to express and translating that concept into linguistic forms. These stages have been described in two types of processing models: the lexical access models and the serial models. Through these models, psycholinguists can look into how speeches are produced in different ways, such as when the speaker is bilingual. Psycholinguists learn more about these models and different kinds of speech by using language production research methods that include collecting speech errors and elicited production tasks.

Sentence processing takes place whenever a reader or listener processes a language utterance, either in isolation or in the context of a conversation or a text. Many studies of the human language comprehension process have focused on reading of single utterances (sentences) without context. Extensive research has shown that language comprehension is affected by context preceding a given utterance as well as many other factors.

David Swinney was a prominent psycholinguist. His research on language comprehension contributed to methodological advances in his field.

The cohort model in psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics is a model of lexical retrieval first proposed by William Marslen-Wilson in the late 1970s. It attempts to describe how visual or auditory input is mapped onto a word in a hearer's lexicon. According to the model, when a person hears speech segments real-time, each speech segment "activates" every word in the lexicon that begins with that segment, and as more segments are added, more words are ruled out, until only one word is left that still matches the input.

Priming is the idea that exposure to one stimulus may influence a response to a subsequent stimulus, without conscious guidance or intention. The priming effect refers to the positive or negative effect of a rapidly presented stimulus on the processing of a second stimulus that appears shortly after. Generally speaking, the generation of priming effect depends on the existence of some positive or negative relationship between priming and target stimuli. For example, the word nurse might be recognized more quickly following the word doctor than following the word bread. Priming can be perceptual, associative, repetitive, positive, negative, affective, semantic, or conceptual. Priming effects involve word recognition, semantic processing, attention, unconscious processing, and many other issues, and are related to differences in various writing systems. Research, however, has yet to firmly establish the duration of priming effects, yet their onset can be almost instantaneous.

Bilingual interactive activation plus (BIA+) is a model for understanding the process of bilingual language comprehension and consists of two interactive subsystems: the word identification subsystem and task/decision subsystem. It is the successor of the Bilingual Interactive Activation (BIA) model which was updated in 2002 to include phonologic and semantic lexical representations, revise the role of language nodes, and specify the purely bottom-up nature of bilingual language processing.

The mental lexicon is defined as a mental dictionary that contains information regarding the word store of a language user, such as their meanings, pronunciations, and syntactic characteristics. The mental lexicon is used in linguistics and psycholinguistics to refer to individual speakers' lexical, or word, representations. However, there is some disagreement as to the utility of the mental lexicon as a scientific construct.

Linguistic prediction is a phenomenon in psycholinguistics occurring whenever information about a word or other linguistic unit is activated before that unit is actually encountered. Evidence from eyetracking, event-related potentials, and other experimental methods indicates that in addition to integrating each subsequent word into the context formed by previously encountered words, language users may, under certain conditions, try to predict upcoming words. In particular, prediction seems to occur regularly when the context of a sentence greatly limits the possible words that have not yet been revealed. For instance, a person listening to a sentence like, "In the summer it is hot, and in the winter it is..." would be highly likely to predict the sentence completion "cold" in advance of actually hearing it. A form of prediction is also thought to occur in some types of lexical priming, a phenomenon whereby a word becomes easier to process if it is preceded by a related word. Linguistic prediction is an active area of research in psycholinguistics and cognitive neuroscience.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bilingual memory</span>

Bilingualism is the regular use of two fluent languages, and bilinguals are those individuals who need and use two languages in their everyday lives. A person's bilingual memories are heavily dependent on the person's fluency, the age the second language was acquired, and high language proficiency to both languages. High proficiency provides mental flexibility across all domains of thought and forces them to adopt strategies that accelerate cognitive development. People who are bilingual integrate and organize the information of two languages, which creates advantages in terms of many cognitive abilities, such as intelligence, creativity, analogical reasoning, classification skills, problem solving, learning strategies, and thinking flexibility.

Viorica Marian is a Moldovan-born American psycholinguist, cognitive scientist, and psychologist known for her research on bilingualism and multilingualism. She is the Ralph and Jean Sundin Endowed Professor of Communication Sciences and Disorders, and professor of psychology at Northwestern University. Marian is the principal investigator of the Bilingualism and Psycholinguistics Research Group. She received her PhD in psychology from Cornell University, and master's degrees from Emory University and from Cornell University. Marian studies language, cognition, the brain, and the consequences of knowing more than one language for linguistic, cognitive, and neural architectures.

Charles Perfetti is the director of, and Senior Scientist for, the Learning and Research Development Center at the University of Pittsburgh. His research is centered on the cognitive science of language and reading processes, including but not limited to lower- and higher-level lexical and syntactic processes and the nature of reading proficiency. He conducts cognitive behavioral studies involving ERP, fMRI and MEG imaging techniques. His goal is to develop a richer understanding of how language is processed in the brain.

The word frequency effect is a psychological phenomenon where recognition times are faster for words seen more frequently than for words seen less frequently. Word frequency depends on individual awareness of the tested language. The phenomenon can be extended to different characters of the word in non-alphabetic languages such as Chinese.

Embodied bilingual language, also known as L2 embodiment, is the idea that people mentally simulate their actions, perceptions, and emotions when speaking and understanding a second language (L2) as with their first language (L1). It is closely related to embodied cognition and embodied language processing, both of which only refer to native language thinking and speaking. An example of embodied bilingual language would be situation in which a L1 English speaker learning Spanish as a second language hears the word rápido ("fast") in Spanish while taking notes and then proceeds to take notes more quickly.

An interlingual homograph is a word that occurs in more than one written language, but which has a different meaning or pronunciation in each language. For example word "done" is an adjective in English, a verb in Spanish and a noun in Czech.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 De Groot, A. M. (2011). Language and cognition in bilinguals and multilingual: An introduction. New York, NY, US: Psychology Press
  2. ↑ Costa, Albert; La Heij, Navarrete (22 June 2006). "The dynamics of bilingual lexical access". Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 9 (2): 137. doi:10.1017/s1366728906002495. hdl:11577/2714080. S2CID   144631676.
  3. 1 2 Fernandez, Eva (2011). Fundamentals of Psycholinguistics. Wiley-Blackwell.
  4. ↑ Forster, K. I., & Bednall, E. S. (1976). Terminating and exhaustive search in lexical access. Memory & Cognition, 4(1), 53-61.
  5. ↑ Morton, J. (1969). Interaction of information in word recognition. Psychological review, 76(2), 165-178.
  6. ↑ Gleason, J. Berko & Ratner, N. Bernstein. (1998) Psycholinguistics, 2nd edition. New York: Harcourt Brace. (Published November 1997).
  7. 1 2 Thomas, M. S., & Van Heuven, W. J. (2005). Computational models of bilingual comprehension. Handbook of bilingualism, 202.
  8. 1 2 Dijkstra, T., Van Heuven, W.J.B., & Grainger, J. (1998).Simulating cross-language competition with the bilingual interactive activation model. Psychologica Belgica, 38, 177-196.
  9. ↑ Grainger, J. (1998). MROM-p: An interactive activation, multiple readout model of orthographic and phonological processes in visual word recognition. Localist connectionist approaches to human cognition, 147.
  10. ↑ Léwy, N., & Grosjean, F. (1997).A computational model of bilingual lexical access. Manuscript in preparation.
  11. ↑ Neuroscience of multilingualism
  12. 1 2 3 Dijksta, T. (2005). Bilingual visual word recognition and lexical access. Handbook of bilingualism psycholinguistic approaches, 54, 179-201.
  13. ↑ Grainger, J., & Beauvillain, C. (1987). Language blocking and lexical access in bilinguals. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39(2), 295-319.
  14. ↑ Kroll, J. F., & Tokowicz, N. (2005). Models of bilingual representation and processing. Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, 531-553.
  15. 1 2 De Groot, Annette M. B. (2012-11-05). "Bilingualism and Cognition". The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. doi:10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0099. ISBN   978-1-4051-9473-0.
  16. ↑ Macnamara, J., & Kushnir, S. L. (1971). Linguistic independence of bilinguals: The input switch. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10(5), 480-487.
  17. ↑ Albert, M. L., & Obler, L. K. (1978). The Bilingual Brain: Neuropsychological and Neurolinguistic Aspects of Bilingualism. Perspectives in Neurolinguistics and Psycholinguistics.
  18. ↑ Moon, J.; Jiang, N. (January 2012). "Non-selective lexical access in different-script bilinguals". Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 15: 173–180. doi:10.1017/S1366728911000022. S2CID   145466759.
  19. ↑ Ibáñez, A.; P. Macizo; M. Bajo (2010). "Language access and language selection in professional translators". Acta Psychol. 135 (2): 257–266. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.07.009 . PMID   20705277.
  20. ↑ Guzzardo Tamargo, R.E. (2012). "Linking Comprehension Costs to Production Patterns During the Processing of Mixed Language". University Park: The Pennsylvania University.
  21. ↑ Gullifer, J. W.; J.F. Kroll; P.E. Dussias (2013-05-30). "When Language Switching has No Apparent Cost: Lexical Access in Sentence Context". Front Psychol. 4: 278. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00278 . PMC   3668438 . PMID   23750141.
  22. ↑ Dijkstra, T.; Van Jaarsveld, H.; Ten Brinke, S. (April 1998). "Interlingual homograph recognition: effects of task demands and language intermixing". Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 1 (1): 51–66. doi:10.1017/s1366728998000121. S2CID   145722035.
  23. ↑ Beauvillain, C. (1992). Orthographic and lexical constraints in bilingual word recognition. Cognitive processing in bilinguals, 83, 221.
  24. 1 2 Gerard, L. D., & Scarborough, D. L. (1989). Language-specific lexical access of homographs by bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(2), 305.
  25. ↑ Soares, C. and Grosjean, F. (1984). Bilinguals in a monolingual and a bilingual speech mode: The effect on lexical access. Memory and Cognition, 12(4), 380-386.
  26. 1 2 Dijkstra, T., Van Jaarsveld, H., & Brinke, S. T. (1998). Interlingual homograph recognition: Effects of task demands and language intermixing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(01), 51-66.
  27. ↑ Beauvillain, C., & Grainger, J. (1987). Accessing interlexical homographs: Some limitations of language-selective access. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(6), 658-672.
  28. ↑ Sáchez-Casas, R. M., García-Albea, J. E., & Davis, C. W. (1992). Bilingual lexical processing: Exploring the cognate/non-cognate distinction. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4(4), 293-310.
  29. ↑ Garcia, Adolfo (2014). "Word reading and translation in bilinguals: the impact of formal and informal translation expertise". Frontiers in Psychology. 5: 1302. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01302 . PMC   4228976 . PMID   25429279.
  30. ↑ Van Assche, E., Drieghe, D., Duyck, W., Welvaert, M., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2011). The influence of semantic constraints on bilingual word recognition during sentence reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 64(1), 88-107.
  31. ↑ Van Assche, E (2012). "Bilingual Word Recognition in a Sentence Context". Bilingual Word Recognition in a Sentence Context.
  32. ↑ Kaplan, E.; Weintraub, S.; Goodglass, H. (1983). Boston Naming Test. Philadelphia: Lee & Febiger.
  33. ↑ Coch, Donna (2012). "Behavioral and ERP evidence of word and pseudoword superiority effects in 7- and 11-year-olds". Brain Research. 1486: 68–81. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2012.09.041. PMC   3496077 . PMID   23036274.
  34. ↑ "Lexical Decision Tasks, Semantic Priming, and Reading". 2014.
  35. ↑ Green, D. W. (1986). Control, activation, and resource: A framework and a model for the control of speech in bilinguals. Brain and language, 27(2), 210-223.
  36. ↑ Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 1(02), 67-81.
  37. ↑ Linck, J. A.; Hoshino, N.; Kroll, J. F. (2008-12-10). "Cross-language lexical processes and inhibitory control". The Mental Lexicon. 3 (3): 349–374. doi:10.1075/ml.3.3.06lin. ISSN   1871-1340. PMC   2774929 . PMID   19907674.
  38. ↑ Grosjean, Francois. (2018). Speech Perception and Comprehension in Bilinguals. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. ISBN   978-1-118-83576-0. OCLC   1048925562.
  39. ↑ Grosjean, F. (1997). The bilingual individual. Interpreting, 2, 1-2.
  40. ↑ Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual's language modes. One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing, 1-22.
  41. ↑ Van Heuven, W. J., Dijkstra, T., & Grainger, J. (1998). Orthographic neighborhood effects in bilingual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(3), 458-483.
  42. ↑ Dijkstra, A. F. J., & Heuven, W. V. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 175-197.
  43. ↑ Judith F. Kroll, A. M. B. de Groot (2009). Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches. Oxford University Press, 2009. p. 197. ISBN   9780195373653.
  44. 1 2 Schwartz, A. I., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). Bilingual lexical activation in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(2), 197-212.
  45. 1 2 Van Hell, J. G., & De Groot, A. M. (2008). Sentence context modulates visual word recognition and translation in bilinguals. Acta Psychologica, 128(3), 431.
  46. ↑ Potter MC, Wyble B, Pandav R, Olejarczyk J. (2010). "Picture detection in rapid serial visual presentation: features or identity?". Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance. 36 (6): 1486–94. doi:10.1037/a0018730. PMC   2980565 . PMID   20695696.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  47. ↑ "Psycholinguistics and eye tracking". Tobii ecgnology. Archived from the original on 2013-06-07. Retrieved 2013-07-29.
  48. ↑ Elston-Güttler, K. E., Gunter, T. C., & Kotz, S. A. (2005). Zooming into L2: Global language context and adjustment affect processing of interlingual homographs in sentences. Cognitive Brain Research, 25(1), 57-70.
  49. ↑ Eva Van Assche, Wouter Duyck, and Robert J. Hartsuiker. "Chapter 2, Context effects in bilingual sentence processing". p. 6. S2CID   9512390.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  50. ↑ Libben, M. R., & Titone, D. A. (2009). Bilingual lexical access in context: Evidence from eye movements during reading. Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 35(2), 381.
  51. ↑ Jon Andoni Dunabeitia, Nicola Molinaro (2014-09-30). At the doors of lexical access: The importance of the first 250 milliseconds in reading. Frontiers E-books, 2014. p. 86. ISBN   9782889192601.
  52. ↑ Van Assche, E., Duyck, W., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Diependaele, K. (2009). Does bilingualism change native-language reading? Cognate effects in a sentence context. Psychological Science, 20(8), 923-927.
  53. ↑ Titone, D., Libben, M., Mercier, J., Whitford, V., & Pivneva, I. (2011). Bilingual lexical access during L1 sentence reading: the effects of L2 knowledge, semantic constraint, and L1-L2 intermixing. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 37(6), 1412.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.