Bilingual Lexical Access
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 22 (3), 2019, 537–554 C Cambridge University Press 2018 doi:10.1017/S1366728918000111 ARUNA SUDARSHAN Bilingual lexical access: A School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, McGill University, Montreal, Canada dynamic operation modulated Centre for Research on Brain, Language and Music, by word-status and individual McGill University, Montreal, Canada SHARI R. BAUM differences in inhibitory School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, ∗ McGill University, Montreal, Canada control Centre for Research on Brain, Language and Music, McGill University, Montreal, Canada (Received: October 06, 2016; final revision received: January 11, 2018; accepted: January 17, 2018; first published online 16 May 2018) A question central to bilingualism research is whether representations from the contextually inappropriate language compete for lexical selection during language production. It has been argued recently that the extent of interference from the non-target language may be contingent on a host of factors. In two studies, we investigated whether factors such as word-type and individual differences in inhibitory control capacities influence lexical selection via a cross-modal picture-word interference task and a non-linguistic Simon task. Highly proficient French–English bilinguals named non-cognate and cognate target pictures in L2 (English) while ignoring auditory distractors in L1 (French) and L2. Taken together, our results demonstrated that lexical representations from L1 are active and compete for selection when naming in L2, even in highly proficient bilinguals. However, the extent of cross-language activation was modulated by both word-type and individual differences in inhibitory control capacities. Keywords: bilingualism, lexical access, inhibitory control, picture-word interference, Simon task Background successful word production (e.g., Levelt, 1989; Levelt, Roelofs & Meyer, 1999). Language production is a complex incremental process The spreading activation principle has had a crucial where speakers utter a part of the message while influence on bilingual language production models. simultaneously processing additional information that Drawing on substantial evidence from psycholinguistic needs to be incorporated into that message (Pechmann, and neuroimaging studies (e.g., Abutalebi & Green, 1989). This is accomplished at rapid rates of about 150– 2007; Knupsky & Amrhein, 2007; Kroll, Bobb, Misra 300 words per minute (Goldman-Eisler, 1968). Despite & Guo, 2008), bilingual models of lexical access propose this speed of processing, our speech is not particularly that the spreading activation principle is simultaneously error-prone. Current models of lexical access typically functional across both languages known to a bilingual, embrace the spreading activation principle to explain regardless of the intention to speak in one language alone the manner in which spoken language is accomplished (e.g., Costa & Caramazza, 1999; Hermans, Bongaerts, (Collins & Loftus, 1975). According to the spreading De Bot & Schreuder, 1998; Kroll, Bobb & Wodniecka, activation principle, target conceptual representations 2006). Further, models of word production suggest that spread proportional activations to their corresponding the process of lexical access is not purely discreet but lexical forms. Selection of the appropriate lexical form rather more continuous and interactive. For example, is achieved by a competitive process among the activated according to the Interactive Activation Model (Dell, lexical representations; ultimately, the lexical item with Schwartz, Martin, Saffran & Gagnon, 1997) during lexical the highest activation is selected. Once a lexical form form access, corresponding phonological forms become is selected, its phonological forms are retrieved and active (through spreading activation) and can influence corresponding articulatory routines are engaged for the access of lexical forms through bottom-up feedback. Additionally, during the access of phonological forms, ∗ This research was supported by a Fonds de Recherche du Québec - activated phonological representations can send feedback Société et Culture (FRQSC) grant awarded to Dr. Shari R. Baum. The to the lexical level which can then influence which authors sincerely acknowledge the financial support received from the phonological forms are selected. With non-selectivity Graduate Scholar Stipend awarded to Aruna Sudarshan by the Centre (parallel activation of alternatives in both languages) in for Research on Brain, Language and Music, McGill University. language activation, bilingual models typically assume Address for correspondence: Aruna Sudarshan, 2001, McGill College, 8th Floor, Montreal, Quebec H3A 1G1 [email protected] Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.202.226, on 28 Sep 2021 at 00:16:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728918000111 538 Aruna Sudarshan and Shari R. Baum that lexical selection entails competition between lemmas to investigate the nature of cross-linguistic activity by or lexical forms (e.g., Levelt et al., 1999). However, examining the extent to which distractor words affect whether lexical selection entails competition between target picture-naming by varying the time-course and the cross-linguistic alternatives is still debated (e.g., Costa relationship between the target picture and the distractor. & Caramazza, 1999; Hermans et al., 1998). In their seminal study, Hermans et al. (1998) provided Two contrasting views have been proposed to critical evidence in favour of the language non-specific account for the mechanisms underlying lexical selection. selection account. Younghighly-proficient Dutch–English According to the language-specific selection mechanism bilinguals named target pictures in English (L2) while (e.g., Costa & Caramazza, 1999), while lexical forms from ignoring distractors either in English or in Dutch (L1). both languages are simultaneously activated, competition The distractors were semantically related to the picture, is restricted to the lexical forms of the target language phonologically related to the picture’s name in the target alone. In other words, a language cue effectively prompts language, phonologically related to the picture’s name the operative language and lexical alternatives only in the non-target language (phono-translation distractors) from that language compete for selection. On the other or were unrelated to the picture. Additionally, the SOA hand, the language non-specific selection mechanism between picture and distractor presentation was varied (e.g., Hermans et al., 1998; Knupsky & Amrhein, such that the distractors were either presented at −300m, 2007) argues that lexical selection entails cross-language −150ms, 0ms or +150ms in relation to the target. Naming competition. The process of lexical selection then latency patterns showed that semantic distractors in both proceeds by inhibiting lexical alternatives from the non- English (at SOAs −300ms, −150ms and 0ms) and target language (e.g., Green, 1998) and selecting lexical Dutch (at SOA −150ms) interfered with picture-naming forms with the highest activation levels from the target latencies and phonologically-related distractors in both language. With respect to the locus of selection, whereas English (at all SOAs) and Dutch (at SOA +150ms) facili- some studies have demonstrated that the target language tated picture-naming latencies. Critically, naming latency is selected at the lexical level (e.g., Hermans et al., 1998), patterns showed that both English (at SOA 0ms) and Dutch other studies have demonstrated evidence that cross- (at SOAs −300ms, −150ms and 0ms) phono-translation language activity extends to the level of phonology (e.g., distractors interfered with target picture-naming latencies, Hoshino & Kroll, 2007). suggesting that lexical selection entails cross-language The picture-word interference (PWI) paradigm has competition. Moreover, the inhibitory effect was observed been popularly employed by many bilingual production at a time-course similar to semantic interference effects, studies to test the predictions of the aforementioned suggesting the presence of cross-language activity at lexical selection accounts. In this task, the target picture the lemma level but not at the phonological level. is presented along with a visual or an auditory distractor Other studies, however, have provided evidence in favour word at variable intervals with respect to the presentation of cross-language phonological activation at sub-lexical of the target picture-stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA)1. levels (e.g., Knupsky & Amrhein, 2007). The objective of the task is for the bilingual to name Selectivity at the level of phonology was reassessed in a the picture in one language while ignoring the distractor study by Knupsky and Amrhein (2007). English–Spanish word that is presented in the same or the other language. and Spanish–English bilinguals named pictures either in Naming latency is typically measured from the time English or Spanish while ignoring distractor words in the target picture is presented to the onset of the vocal either English or Spanish. Distractors were phonologically response to picture-naming. Typically, distractor words related to the target picture (e.g., direct condition – that are semantically related to the target picture name target: fish; distractor: fist) phonologically