DOCSLIB.ORG

UC San Diego UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UC San Diego UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations UC San Diego UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Cross-linguistic studies of lexical access and processing in monolingual English and bilingual Hindī-English speakers Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/86k9s280 Author Iyer, Gowri Krovi Publication Date 2006 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY Cross-linguistic studies of lexical access and processing in monolingual English and bilingual Hindī-English speakers A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Language and Communicative Disorders by Gowri Krovi Iyer Committee in charge: University of California, San Diego Professor Jeffrey Elman, Co-Chair Professor Victor Ferreira Professor Maria Polinsky San Diego State University Professor Beverly Wulfeck, Chair Professor Judy Reilly Texas A & M University Professor Jyotsna Vaid 2006 Copyright Gowri Krovi Iyer, 2006 All rights reserved. The dissertation of Gowri Krovi Iyer is approved, and it is accceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm: Co-Chair Chair University of California, San Diego San Diego State University 2006 iii Dedicated to the loving memory of my mentor, Professor Elizabeth Bates, who has been an inspiration to me both professionally and personally and a truly incredible person who will be missed dearly by all of her colleagues, students, family and friends. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page....................................................................................................................iii Dedication………………...................................................................................................iv Table of Contents.................................................................................................................v List of Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………...…x List of Tables and Figures..................................................................................................xi Preface..............................................................................................................................xvi Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................…xix Vita....................................................................................................................................xxi Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………xxii Chapter 1: Lexical Access in Monolinguals..............................................................…....1 1. Models of Lexical Access in Speech Production…………………................1 1.2. Picture Naming………………………………………………........6 1.3. Word Reading ………..…………….……….……………….......11 Chapter 2: Bilingualism…………..…………………………………………………….18 1. Lexical Access in Bilingual Speakers…………………..………….………19 2. Models of Speech Production in Bilingual Speakers ……………………...21 Chapter 3: Cross-linguistic Comparisons of Lexical Access and Literacy in Monolinguals and Bilinguals…………………………………………........35 1. Predictors of Lexical Access in Production Tasks: Evidence from Monolinguals…….......................................................................................35 1.1. Picture Naming……………………………………………….….35 1.1.1. Picture Naming: Developmental Evidence………………38 v 1.2. Word Reading………………………...……………………...….40 1.3. Picture Naming vs. Word Reading: A comparison……………...42 2. Predictors of Lexical Access in Production Tasks: Evidence from Bilinguals……………………………………………………………….....43 2.1. Picture Naming…………………...……………………………...44 2.2. Word Reading………………………...………………………….45 3. Relationship between Naming Tasks and Literacy……………………...…48 4. Languages of Interest…………………………………………………....…50 5. Summary of Predictions………………………………………………..…..56 Chapter 4: Age of Acquisition Ratings in English Monolinguals………...…………….58 1. Background and Rationale….……………….……………………………….58 2. Method…………………………………………….…………………………60 2.1.1. Subjects…………………………………………….……….……60 2.2. Materials…………………………………………….…...………61 2.3. Design and Procedure…………………………………….……..62 3. Results and Discussion……………………………………………...……….62 4. Future Directions………………………………………………………...…..63 Chapter 5: Picture Naming in English Monolingual Adults and Children: An On-line Behavioral Study…………………………………………..………….....64 1. Rationale………………………………………………………………….….64 2. Method…………………………………………………………………….…65 2.1. Subjects………………………………………………………..…65 2.2. Materials………………………………………………………....66 2.3. Design……………………………………………………………67 vi 2.4. Procedure……………………………………………………..….67 2.5. Scoring…………………………………………………….……..68 2.6. Data Reduction……………………………………………….…..70 3. Results and Discussion………………………………………………...…….72 4. Summary and Future Directions……………………..………...………...…..97 Chapter 6: Age of Acquisition and Frequency Ratings in Hindī-English Bilinguals....101 1. Rationale……………………………………………………………………101 2. Method………………………………………………………………..….…102 2.1. Subjects……………………………………………………....…102 2.2. Materials………………………………………………..…..…..103 2.3. Design and Procedure……………………………………….…103 3. Results and Discussion……………………………………………………..104 4. Future Directions……………………………………………………...…....107 Chapter 7: Picture Naming and Word Reading in Hindī-English Bilingual Adults and Children: An Online Behavioral Study…………………………..….....108 1. Rationale…………………………………………………………….……...108 2. Method…………………………………………………………………...…108 2.1. Subjects…………………………………………………….…...108 2.2. Materials………………………………………………….….…110 2.3. Design……………………………………………………….….111 2.4. Procedure…………………………………………………….....112 2.5. Scoring………………………………………………………….114 2.6. Data Reduction…………………………………………….........116 vii 3. Results and Discussion…………………………………………………..…119 4. Summary and Future Directions………………………………...……….…163 Chapter 8: Comparison of Monolinguals and Bilinguals…………………………...…167 1. Comparison of Monolingual and Bilingual Populations..……………….…167 2. Effects of different Proficiency Levels and Languages on Lexical Access Tasks……………………………………………………………………….169 3. Lexical Access and Literacy: Relationship between PN and WR…….……172 4. Cross-language Relationships…………………………………...………….176 4.1. Cross-language Correlations for Dependent Measures…………177 4.2. Cross-language Relationships between Predictors and Naming Behavior………………………………………………...……...179 5. Summary……………………………………………………………………185 Chapter 9: Conclusions and Future Directions…………….………………………......188 Appendix A: List of Stimuli...................................................................................…....205 Appendix B: Screening Measures……………………………………………………...214 1. Control Subject Information……………………………………………..…214 2. Assessment of Handedness…………………………………………………215 3. Language History Questionnaire………………………………………...…216 4. Children’s Phone Screen Questionnaire……………………...…………….219 Appendix C: Language Proficiency Measures………………………………………...221 1. Hindī Passage 1 (for 8-10 year old Bilinguals)………………………...…...221 2. Hindī Passage 2 (for 11-13 year old Bilinguals)…………………………....222 3. Hindī Passage 3 (for college-age Adult Bilinguals)…………………..…....224 viii 4. English Passage 1 (for 8-10 year old Bilinguals)……………………….…..225 5. English Passage 2 (for 11-13 year old Bilinguals)…………………….…....226 6. English Passage 3 (for college-age Adult Bilinguals)……………..……….229 References……………………………………………………………………………...231 ix LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AoA Age of acquisition PN Picture Naming WR Word Reading HPN Hindī picture naming HWR Hindī word reading EPN English picture naming EWR English word reading RT reaction times L1 first language or dominant language L2 second language or non-dominant language x LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 3.1. Comparison of Hindī and English………………………………………..55 Table 3.2. Main issues and predictions……………………………………………...57 Table 5.1. Correlational analyses between the dependent measures and item position to determine fatigue effects……………………………..…………..……74 Table 5.2 (a). Summary statistics of valid RTs (RTs with codable response) and nameability for the four age groups (over items)………………………...75 Table 5.2 (b). Summary statistics of target RTs (RTs with target response) and name agreement for the four age groups (over items)……………….……...…76 Table 5.3 (a). Distribution of valid RT and nameability for the different response types for the four groups…………………………………………………...….77 Table 5.3 (b). Distribution of invalid responses across the 4 age groups……………….77 Table 5.4 (a). Correlations among the dependent variables for the 5-7 year olds………80 Table 5.4 (b). Correlations among the dependent variables for the 8-10 year olds……..80 Table 5.4 (c). Correlations among the dependent variables for the 11-13 year olds…....80 Table 5.4 (d). Correlations among the dependent variables for the Adults…………..…81 Table 5.5 (a). Pairwise Correlations of Mean Total RTs with nameability across the 4 age groups…………………………………………………………….….82 Table 5.5 (b). Pairwise Correlations of Mean target RTs with name agreement across the 4 age groups……………………………………………………….…......82 Table 5.6 (a). Charactersitics of the Dominant Responses for 235 Items………………84 Table 5.6 (b). Correlations among the 8 predictor variables……………………………85 Table 5.7. Correlations among the predictor variables and the dependent measures (target RT and name agreement)………………...………………………86 Table 5.8. Unique variance contributed on the last step of Step-wise regression analysis for the dependent measures (target RT and name agreement)……………………………………………………………….88 xi Table 5.9 (a). Factor Analyses:
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Task Context Effects in Bilingual Nonword Processing
    Task Context Effects in Bilingual Nonword Processing Kristin Lemhöfer1 and Ralph Radach2 1Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands 2Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL Abstract. To investigate the language-specific or language-integrated nature of bilingual lexical processing in different task contexts, we studied how bilinguals process nonwords that differ in their relative resemblance to the bilinguals’ two languages in different versions of the lexical decision task. Unbalanced German-English bilinguals performed a pure-German, a pure-English, and a mixed lexical decision task on the same set of nonwords that were either very English-like or very German-like. Rejection latencies for these two nonword categories were reversed in the pure-English and pure-German conditions: Nonwords that were more similar to the current target language were rejected more slowly. In the mixed task, reaction times were generally slower, and nonwords resembling the participants’ subdominant language (English) were harder to reject. The results suggest that task context substantially alters the criteria for the word/nonword decision in bilinguals. Keywords: bilingual lexical access, nonwords, lexical decision, language membership coding Investigating how people read and process nonwords has two languages within the bilingual lexicon are functionally proven to be a powerful tool for the understanding of the separate or integrated: Is it the global lexical activation in both structure and function of the mental lexicon. Therefore, most languages(i.e.,
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4 the Mental Lexicon of Multilingual Adult Learners of Italian L3: a Study of Word Association Behavior and Cross-Lingual Semantic Priming
    Chapter 4 The mental lexicon of multilingual adult learners of Italian L3: A study of word association behavior and cross-lingual semantic priming Anna Gudmundson Stockholm University This study, a partial replication of the study conducted by Fitzpatrick & Izura (2011) on bilingual speakers, investigates the structure and processing of the mental lex- icon of multilingual speakers of first language (L1) Swedish, second language (L2) English and third language (L3) Italian in order of acquisition. By way of word association tasks in all three languages, the effect of language status (L1, L2, L3) and association category (i.e., the different kinds of word association responses) on reaction time (RT) and association distribution (i.e., proportion of associations in different association categories) is measured. Results show a significant effect of language status on association distribution and on RT. The present study also investigates the effect of long-term cross-lingual semantic priming and lexical me- diation between L3 and L2 in a lexical decision task (LDT), i.e. if the activation of L3 conceptual information is mediated by the corresponding word form in the L2. The primes in this study are English words whose Italian translation equiva- lents were present in the prior L3 Italian word association task. The translation equivalents obtained shorter RTs compared to control words, which indicates that L2 English words were activated during the L3 Italian word association task. The kind of cross-lingual priming found in the multilinguals investigated in this study would imply that, besides the L1, also an L2 could mediate in lexical processing, and that the L1 does not have a privileged status in that respect.
    [Show full text]
  • Testing for Nonselective Bilingual Lexical Access Using L1 Attrited Bilinguals
    brain sciences Article Testing for Nonselective Bilingual Lexical Access Using L1 Attrited Bilinguals He Pu 1,*, Yazmin E. Medina 2, Phillip J. Holcomb 2 and Katherine J. Midgley 2 1 Department of Psychology, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155, USA 2 Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, USA; [email protected] (Y.E.M.); [email protected] (P.J.H.); [email protected] (K.J.M.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-(619)-594-3209 Received: 5 April 2019; Accepted: 27 May 2019; Published: 1 June 2019 Abstract: Research in the past few decades generally supported a nonselective view of bilingual lexical access, where a bilingual’s two languages are both active during monolingual processing. However, recent work by Costa et al. (2017) brought this into question by reinterpreting evidence for nonselectivity in a selective manner. We manipulated the factor of first language (L1) attrition in an event-related potential (ERP) experiment to disentangle Costa and colleagues’ selective processing proposal versus the traditional nonselective processing view of bilingual lexical access. Spanish–English bilinguals demonstrated an N400 effect of L1 attrition during implicit L1 processing in a second language (L2) semantic judgment task, indicating the contribution of variable L1 lexical access during L2 processing. These results are incompatible with Costa and colleagues’ selective model, adding to the literature supporting a nonselective view of bilingual lexical access. Keywords: bilingual lexical access; language-selective access; language-nonselective access; L1 attrition; ERP; N400 1. Introduction For decades, researchers investigated the nature of bilingual lexical access during single-language processing: are bilinguals capable of processing only the target language or are both languages activated? The former view, known as language-selective access, proposes that bilinguals activate lexical units in the target language without non-target language translation activation.
    [Show full text]
  • Redalyc.Lexical Access in Speech Production: the Bilingual Case
    Psicológica ISSN: 0211-2159 [email protected] Universitat de València España Costa, Albert; Caramazza, Alfonso Lexical access in speech production: the bilingual case Psicológica, vol. 21, núm. 2, 2000, pp. 403-437 Universitat de València Valencia, España Disponible en: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=16921211 Cómo citar el artículo Número completo Sistema de Información Científica Más información del artículo Red de Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal Página de la revista en redalyc.org Proyecto académico sin fines de lucro, desarrollado bajo la iniciativa de acceso abierto Psicológica (2000), 21, 403-437 Lexical Access in Speech Production: The Bilingual Case Albert Costa*, Àngels Colomé**and Alfonso Caramazza* * Harvard University **Universitat de Barcelona In this paper we review models of lexical access in speech production in bilingual speakers. We focus on two major aspects of lexical access: a) how lexical selection is achieved, and b) whether lexical access involves cascaded or discrete stages of processing. We start by considering the major assumptions of how lexical access works in monolingual speakers, and then proceed to discuss those assumptions in the context of bilingual speakers. The main theoretical models and the most recent experimental evidence in their favor are described. Key words: Speech Production, Lexical Access, Bilingualism. Speaking involves translating concepts and ideas into patterns of sounds produced by our articulatory organs. During this "translation" process, speakers have to retrieve the appropriate words for conveying the intended message. Furthermore, they must combine these words according to the grammatical properties of the language being spoken. Finally, they have to retrieve information about how to articulate the selected words.
    [Show full text]
  • Context Effects in Bilingual Sentence Processing: Task Specificity
    Chapter 2 Context Effects in Bilingual Sentence Processing: Task Specifi city Eva Van Assche , Wouter Duyck , and Robert J. Hartsuiker Abstract This chapter provides an overview of bilingualism research on visual word recognition in sentence context and relates this work to task-specifi c context factors. Many studies examining bilingual word recognition out-of-context have shown that words from both languages become activated when reading in one lan- guage (i.e., language-nonselective lexical access). A recent research line investi- gated whether presentation of words in a sentence context, providing a language cue and/or semantic constraint to restrict lexical access to words in the target language, modulates this language-nonselective activation. Recent lexical decision , transla- tion , naming , and eye - tracking studies suggest that the language of the sentence context cannot restrict lexical access to words of the target language. Eye-tracking studies revealed that semantic constraint of a sentence does not necessarily restrict language-nonselective access, although there is evidence that it has a relatively late effect, and that it affects language-nonselective activation in lexical decision, trans- lation, and naming studies. Introduction A fundamental issue in the domain of bilingualism concerns the organization of the bilingual language system. One viewpoint is that bilinguals have two separate lexi- cons that can be accessed selectively so that they can effectively function like mono- linguals. Another viewpoint is that they have an integrated lexicon containing all words in both languages that can be accessed in a language-nonselective way. In the last decade, more and more researchers have provided evidence for this latter view.
    [Show full text]
  • Japanese Bilinguals T ∗ Kexin Xionga, , Rinus G
    Journal of Neurolinguistics 55 (2020) 100911 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Neurolinguistics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jneuroling The time course of brain activity in reading identical cognates: An ERP study of Chinese - Japanese bilinguals T ∗ Kexin Xionga, , Rinus G. Verdonschotb, Katsuo Tamaokac,d a Graduate School of Arts and Letters, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan b Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Institute of Biomedical & Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan c Graduate School of Humanities, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan d College of Foreign Languages, Donghua University, Shanghai, China ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Previous studies suggest that bilinguals’ lexical access is language non-selective, especially for Bilingual cognate recognition orthographically identical translation equivalents across languages (i.e., identical cognates). The Language non-selective activation present study investigated how such words (e.g., 学校 meaning “school” in both Chinese and Chinese - Japanese bilingual Japanese) are processed in the (late) Chinese - Japanese bilingual brain. Using an L2-Japanese Event-related potential (ERP) lexical decision task, both behavioral and electrophysiological data were collected. Reaction N250 times (RTs), as well as the N400 component, showed that cognates are more easily recognized N400 than non-cognates. Additionally, an early component (i.e., the N250), potentially reflecting ac- tivation at the word-form level, was also found. Cognates
    [Show full text]
  • Language and Cognitive Processes
    This article was downloaded by:[Northwestern University] On: 9 October 2007 Access Details: [subscription number 764698746] Publisher: Psychology Press Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Language and Cognitive Processes Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713683153 Constraints on parallel activation in bilingual spoken language processing: Examining proficiency and lexical status using eye-tracking Henrike K. Blumenfeld a; Viorica Marian a a Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA Online Publication Date: 01 August 2007 To cite this Article: Blumenfeld, Henrike K. and Marian, Viorica (2007) 'Constraints on parallel activation in bilingual spoken language processing: Examining proficiency and lexical status using eye-tracking', Language and Cognitive Processes, 22:5, 633 - 660 To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/01690960601000746 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01690960601000746 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
    [Show full text]
  • Lexical Processing in the Bilingual Brain: Evidence from Grammatical/Morphological Deficits
    APHASIOLOGY, 2010, 24 (2), 262–287 Lexical processing in the bilingual brain: Evidence from grammatical/morphological deficits Michele Miozzo University of Cambridge, UK, and Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA Albert Costa and Mireia Herna´ndez University of Barcelona, Spain Brenda Rapp Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA Background: A few studies have recently documented cases of proficient bilingual individuals who, subsequent to neural injury, suffered selective deficits affecting specific aspects of lexical processing. These cases involved disruption affecting the production of words from a specific grammatical category (verbs or nouns) or the production of irregular versus regular verb forms. Critically, these selective deficits were manifested in a strikingly similar manner across the two languages spoken by each of the individuals. Aims: The present study aims at reviewing these cases of selective cross-linguistic deficits and discussing their implications for theories concerning lexical organisation in the bilingual brain. Methods & Procedures: The studies reviewed here employed a variety of behavioural tests that were specifically designed to investigate the availability in aphasic patients of lexical information concerning nouns and verbs and their morphological characteristics. Outcomes & Results: The brain-damaged bilingual speakers reviewed in the present study exhibited selective deficits for nouns, verbs, or irregularly inflected verbs in both of their languages. Conclusions: The selectivity and cross-language nature of the deficits reviewed here indicates that at least certain language substrates are shared in proficient bilingual people. The fact that these deficits affect grammatical class distinctions and verb inflections—information that is part of the lexicon—further indicates that shared neural substrates support lexical processing in proficient bilingual people.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cognate Facilitation Effect in Bilingual Lexical Decision Is Influenced by Stimulus List Composition
    This article is now available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691816302839 THE COGNATE FACILITATION EFFECT IN BILINGUAL LEXICAL DECISION IS INFLUENCED BY STIMULUS LIST COMPOSITION Eva D. Poorta,1 and Jennifer M. Rodda,2 a Department of Experimental Psychology University College London 26 Bedford Way London WC1H 0AP United Kingdom 1 Corresponding author: Eva Poort 26 Bedford Way London WC1H 0AP United Kingdom email: [email protected] 2email: [email protected] 1 ABSTRACT Cognates share their form and meaning across languages: “winter” in English means the same as “winter” in Dutch. Research has shown that bilinguals process cognates more quickly than words that exist in one language only (e.g. “ant” in English). This finding is taken as strong evidence for the claim that bilinguals have one integrated lexicon and that lexical access is language non- selective. Two English lexical decision experiments with DutchEnglish bilinguals investigated whether the cognate facilitation effect is influenced by stimulus list composition. In Experiment 1, the ‘standard’ version, which included only cognates, English control words and regular non- words, showed significant cognate facilitation (31 ms). In contrast, the ‘mixed’ version, which also included interlingual homographs, pseudohomophones (instead of regular non-words) and Dutch- only words, showed a significantly different profile: a non-significant disadvantage for the cognates (8 ms). Experiment 2 examined the specific impact of these three additional stimuli types and found that only the inclusion of Dutch words significantly reduced the cognate facilitation effect. Additional exploratory analyses revealed that, when the preceding trial was a Dutch word, cognates were recognised up to 50 ms more slowly than English controls.
    [Show full text]
  • Use of Cognates in Bilingual Speakers: a Picture-Word
    USE OF COGNATES IN BILINGUAL SPEAKERS 1 Use of Cognates in Bilingual Speakers: A Picture-Word Interference Paradigm Study Kristina Marchetti A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Communication Sciences and Disorders University of Wisconsin-River Falls 2015 Naomi Hashimoto, PhD, CCC-SLP Michael Harris, PhD, CCC-SLP David Furniss, PhD USE OF COGNATES IN BILINGUAL SPEAKERS 2 Table of Contents Abstract………………………………………….………………………………..……………….4 Chapter 1: Introduction……………….………………………………………………….……..…5 Picture Naming…………………………….…………………………………………..………….5 Discrete & Cascade Models…………………………….…………………………………………7 Lexical Non-Selectivity……………………………….……………………………...………….10 Cognates……………………………………….…………………………………...…….………12 Picture Word Interference Paradigm……………………………………………..….…….…….17 Chapter 2: Purpose…………………………………………….……………………….….…….19 Chapter 3: Method…………………………………………….……………………….…….…..21 Participants………………………………….…………………………………………………....21 Stimuli Development…………………………….………………………….…………………...24 Procedure…………………………………….…………………….………..…………………...24 Chapter 4: Results…………………………………………………………………….………….26 Chapter 5: Discussion………………………………….………………………..……………….27 References………………………………….…………………………………………......……...31 USE OF COGNATES IN BILINGUAL SPEAKERS 3 List of Tables Table 1: Language History……………………………………………………...…………….….22 Table 2: Language Proficiency………………………………………………………………..…22 Table 3: Means and Standard Deviation of reaction times……….…………….………………..26 Appendix A: Stimulus set………………………………………...…………….………………..37
    [Show full text]
  • Lexical Access in Bilingual Speech Production: Language Specific Lexical Selection
    Lexical Access in Bilingual Speech Production: Language Specific Lexical Selection Autor: Val Mejuto, Janire (Licenciada en Filología Inglesa y Máster en Psicolingüística, Profesora de Inglés en Educación Secundaria). Público: Psicolingüística. Materia: Inglés. Idioma: Español. Título: Lexical Access in Bilingual Speech Production: Language Specific Lexical Selection. Resumen The present article explores the mechanisms of bilingual lexical access. That is to say, how bilinguals can speak in one language while the other does not interfere.This process is compared to that followed by a monolingual. In addition, it will also address the issue of code switching and how it affects to bilingual lexical access. Finally, it will also consider how phonology affects this lexical selection, which is often ignored. Palabras clave: bilingualism, lexical access, bilingual brain, code switching. Title: Lexical Access in Bilingual Speech Production: Language Specific Lexical Selection. Abstract The present article explores the mechanisms of bilingual lexical access. That is to say, how bilinguals can speak in one language while the other does not interfere.This process is compared to that followed by a monolingual. In addition, it will also address the issue of code switching and how it affects to bilingual lexical access. Finally, it will also consider how phonology affects this lexical selection, which is often ignored. Keywords: bilingualism, lexical access, bilingual brain, code switching. Recibido 2018-09-28; Aceptado 2018-10-03; Publicado 2018-10-25; Código PD: 100177 Understanding how speakers map abstract concepts and intended messages into sounds has been intriguing psycholinguists in recent years. In addition, bilingualism has provided language production a new and interesting scope for further research.
    [Show full text]
  • Bilingual Lexical Access and Cognate Idiom Comprehension
    Bilingual Lexical Access and Cognate Idiom Comprehension Eve Fleisig Princeton University Princeton, NJ [email protected] Abstract Language transfer can facilitate learning L2 words whose form and meaning are similar to L1 words, or hinder speakers when the languages differ. L2 idioms introduce another layer of chal- lenge, as language transfer could occur on the literal or figurative level of meaning. Thus, the me- chanics of language transfer for idiom processing shed light on how literal and figurative meaning is stored in the bilingual lexicon. Three factors appear to influence how language transfer affects idiom comprehension: bilingual fluency, processing of literal-figurative vs. figurative cognate idioms (idioms with the same wording and meaning in both languages, or the same meaning only), and comprehension of literal vs. figurative meaning of a given idiom. To examine the relationship between these factors, this study investigated English-Spanish bilinguals’ reaction time on a lexical decision task examining literal-figurative and figurative cognate idioms. The results suggest that fluency increases processing speed rather than slow it down due to language transfer, and that language transfer from L1 to L2 occurs on the level of figurative meaning in L1-dominant bilinguals. 1 Introduction Speakers learning a new language may be helped or hindered by similarities with their native language. Language transfer—the influence of a speaker’s native language (L1) on the new language (L2)—can facilitate learning L2 words whose form and meaning are similar to L1 words, but can confuse speakers when the languages differ (as with false cognates). Thus, understanding the mechanics of language transfer helps to illuminate potential difficulties for language learners.
    [Show full text]