No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Lexical Organization and Reorganization in the Multilingual Mind
Abstract
This chapter discusses the manner in which recent developments in mental lexicon research have created new implications for the understanding of how multilingualism develops and how it is maintained across the lifespan. It considers multilinguals to be persons who are able to understand and speak two or more languages. The chapter discusses the notion of a mental lexicon within the context of its historical roots in generative linguistics and psycholinguistics. It examines two dominant metaphors in the literature: one in which the multilingual person is characterized as possessing interacting lexical stores and the other in which the multilingual person is characterized as possessing a network of interacting lexical items in a single multilingual lexical store. The chapter explores the special role that structurally‐complex words may play in the organization of words in the mind and how the specific nature of a multilingual's lexical system is shaped by the linguistic and morphological properties of the languages.
... 2). Indeed, many researchers now believe that a bilingual/ multilingual mental lexicon may be the default rather than the exception (Libben & Schwieter, 2019;Vaid & Meuter, 2017). ...
... Abandoning a representational approach in favor of a dynamic, activity-based view has both theoretical and experimental advantages (Libben, 2022). Moreover, it may be beneficial to entertain the notion that the bilingual brain and the cognitive capacity to acquire multiple languages may be the default rather than the exception (Libben & Schwieter, 2019;Vaid & Meuter, 2017 With respect to experimental methods, particularly neuroimaging, significant strides have been made to uncover the cognitive and neural underpinnings of bilingualism. Although studies employing these methods have opened a new chapter in our understanding of the bilingual brain, such understanding is subject to the application and limitations of the methods available (Bhatia, 2018;Vaid, 2018). ...
Psycholinguistic approaches to examining bilingualism are relatively recent applications that have emerged in the 20th century. The fact that there are more than 7,000 current languages in the world, with the majority of the population actively using more than one language, offers the opportunity to examine language and cognitive processes in a way that is more reflective of human nature. While it was once believed that exposing infants and children to more than one language could lead to negative consequences for cognition and overall language competence, current evidence shows that this is not the case. Among the many topics studied in psycholinguistics and bilingualism is whether two language systems share an integrated network and overlap in the brain, and how the mind deals with cross-linguistic activation and competition from one language when processing in another. Innovative behavioral, electrophysiological, and neuroscientific methods have significantly elucidated our understanding of these issues. The current state of the psychology and neuroscience of bilingualism finds itself at the crossroads of uncovering a holistic view of how multiple languages are processed and represented in the mind and brain. Current issues, such as exploring the cognitive and neurological consequences of bilingualism, are at the forefront of these discussions.
... In the last decades, many empirical investigations have studied the mechanisms of bilingualism and aimed to explain how the human brain is capable of simultaneously hosting two or more distinct languages. While much of the research originally focused either on early bilingualism or on comparing early and late bilinguals, enhanced attention has been shed on late bilingualism in its own right (Vega-Mendoza et al., 2015) and on the question of how more than two languages interact in adult speakers of multiple languages (Abunuwara, 1992;DeLuca et al., 2019;Ferreira & Schwieter, 2014;Libben & Schwieter, 2019;Linck et al., 2015). The present study will contribute to this research by focusing on the mechanisms underlying late multilingualism. ...
... The RHM has been a prominent model of the mental lexicon of late bilinguals for more than 25 years. During this time, many experimental findings have supported the model or suggested extensions and modifications (Chou et al., 2021;Clenton, 2015;Dijkstra et al., 2019;Francis & Gallard, 2005;Gibson, 2019;Heredia, 1996;Kroll & Tokowicz, 2001;Kroll et al., 2010;Libben & Schwieter, 2019;Ni & Jin, 2020;Palmer et al., 2010;Pavlenko, 2009;Poarch et al., 2015;Tytus & Rundblad, 2016). For example, Heredia (1997) suggested that the critical distinction is not between L1 and L2 (as in Kroll & Stewart, 1994) but between one's dominant and less dominant language (which are often but not always the same as L1 and L2). ...
Speakers of multiple languages must store the respective lexical items efficiently to enable correct access. Importantly, all items must be linked to semantic information and world knowledge. One prominent model of the mental lexicon of late bilinguals is the Revised Hierarchical Model (Kroll & Stewart 1994), which postulates bidirectional but asymmetrical connections between separate stores for L1 (native language) and L2 (second/foreign language), and a shared conceptual store. Using German native speakers with advanced English proficiency, Experiment 1 largely confirmed model predictions regarding different preferred mental routes and processing times depending on translation direction. Moreover, the original design was extended by including abstract stimuli and picture naming in L2. A series of additional measures, such as proficiency and age of acquisition, served to specify the language experience of the participants and made it possible to compare the results with a group of non-native speakers of German (Experiment 2). Interestingly, the results suggest that the model also applies to two or more non-native languages, potentially influenced by the experimental and general language context.
... In the last decades, many empirical investigations have studied the mechanisms of bilingualism and aimed to explain how the human brain is capable of simultaneously hosting two or more distinct languages. While much of the research originally focused either on early bilingualism or on comparing early and late bilinguals, enhanced attention has been shed on late bilingualism in its own right (Vega-Mendoza et al., 2015) and on the question of how more than two languages interact in adult speakers of multiple languages (Abunuwara, 1992;DeLuca et al., 2019;Ferreira & Schwieter, 2014;Libben & Schwieter, 2019;Linck et al., 2015). The present study will contribute to this research by focusing on the mechanisms underlying late multilingualism. ...
... The RHM has been a prominent model of the mental lexicon of late bilinguals for more than 25 years. During this time, many experimental findings have supported the model or suggested extensions and modifications (Chou et al., 2021;Clenton, 2015;Dijkstra et al., 2019;Francis & Gallard, 2005;Gibson, 2019;Heredia, 1996;Kroll & Tokowicz, 2001;Kroll et al., 2010;Libben & Schwieter, 2019;Ni & Jin, 2020;Palmer et al., 2010;Pavlenko, 2009;Poarch et al., 2015;Tytus & Rundblad, 2016). For example, Heredia (1997) suggested that the critical distinction is not between L1 and L2 (as in Kroll & Stewart, 1994) but between one's dominant and less dominant language (which are often but not always the same as L1 and L2). ...
Speakers of multiple languages must store the respective lexical items efficiently to enable correct access. Importantly, all items must be linked to semantic information and world knowledge. One prominent model of the mental lexicon of late bilinguals is the Revised Hierarchical Model ( Kroll & Stewart, 1994 ), which postulates bidirectional but asymmetrical connections between separate stores for L1 (native language) and L2 (second/foreign language), and a shared conceptual store. Using German native speakers with advanced English proficiency, Experiment 1 largely confirmed model predictions regarding different preferred mental routes and processing times depending on translation direction. Moreover, the original design was extended by including abstract stimuli and picture naming in L2. A series of additional measures, such as proficiency and age of acquisition, served to specify the language experience of the participants and made it possible to compare the results with a group of non-native speakers of German (Experiment 2). Interestingly, the results suggest that the model also applies to two or more non-native languages, potentially influenced by the experimental and environmental language context.
... Handbook-length projects over the past 20 years or so are both testament to this rapid growth and recognition of cognitive approaches to bilingualism as a sub-field within bilingualism (de Groot & Kroll, 1997;Kroll & de Groot, 2005;Schwieter, 2015Schwieter, , 2019De Houwer & Ortega, 2018). At the same time as this expansion occurred, another related sub-field emerged in a neighbouring discipline. ...
... The mental lexicon is a well-studied area in psycholinguistics but it was only recently that researchers began to entertain the idea that a "multilingual mental lexicon" may be the default rather than the exception to a monolingual mental lexicon (Libben, 2017;Libben & Schwieter, 2019;Vaid & Meuter, 2017). In other words, studying the mental lexicon should begin with the understanding that it is equipped with the ability to represent and process words in more than one language. ...
This article discusses research in the field of bilingualism that has the potential to inform the related, albeit disconnected, field of Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies (CTIS). It reviews issues such as lexical access and the multilingual mental lexicon, inhibitory control and the "bilingual advantage debate". This debate refers to the question whether bilingualism leads to cognitive advantages that monolinguals do not develop. Although these claims have not been fully tested in translators and interpreters-both novice and advanced professionals-it is plausible that if there are indeed cognitive advantages that arise from managing "two languages in one mind", such benefits may correlate with neural and cognitive changes due to the training, accumulated experience and expertise of translators and interpreters. These topics merit inclusion in the expanding set of prominent research themes in CTIS. Future research in CTIS can use findings from bilingualism and the bilingual advantage debate to account for the peculiarities of translational cognition.
... It takes a shift in language dominance to change the expected pattern of better recovery in L1; language is dynamic, and patterns of language use clearly affect language processing in the brain Libben and Schwieter 2019). However, evidence suggests that even when non-L1 becomes highly proficient and predominantly used, L1 may be more resilient against brain-related deterioration. ...
For multilinguals, acquiring and processing language is similar to other cognitive skills: they are grounded in mechanisms of sensory processing and motor control (Paradis, 2019). Recent clinical and experimental research on multilingualism have introduced innovative neuroimaging measures and psychological methods that have significantly shed light on what we know (and do not know) about how multiple languages are processed, represented, and controlled in the mind/brain (Schwieter, 2019).
Since the 1990s and 2000s, a plethora of behavioral and neurological research has demonstrated that for multilinguals, all languages are active to some degree in the mind, even when only using one. Furthermore, the need for the mind to manage the ongoing competition that arises from this parallel activation has been shown to affect cognition (e.g., executive functioning) (Giovannoli et al., 2020), modify the structure and functioning of the brain (e.g., changes in the areas where language control and executive control overlap) (Costa and Sebastian-Galles, 2014), and slow the onset or progression of cognitive and neural decline (Bialystok, 2017).
The goal of “Multilingualism: Consequences for brain and mind” is to bring together state-of-the art papers that examine the cognitive and neurological consequences of multilingualism through an exploration of how two or more languages are processed, represented, and/or controlled in one brain/mind. The included peer-reviewed papers are either theoretically or empirically oriented and present new findings, frameworks, and/or methodologies on how multilingualism affects the brain and mind.
... It takes a shift in language dominance to change the expected pattern of better recovery in L1; language is dynamic, and patterns of language use clearly affect language processing in the brain (Green and Abutalebi 2013;Libben and Schwieter 2019). However, evidence suggests that even when non-L1 becomes highly proficient and predominantly used, L1 may be more resilient against brain-related deterioration. ...
Recent neurolinguistic theories converge on the hypothesis that the languages of multilingual people are processed as one system in the brain. One system for the multiple languages is also at the core of a translanguaging framework of multilingualism—a framework that focuses on each speaker’s complete linguistic repertoire rather than on the separate languages they know. However, evidence from neuroimaging studies suggests at least some nonoverlapping activations of the first-acquired language (L1) and other (non-L1) languages of multilingual people, especially when the age of acquisition and/or levels of proficiency differ across the languages. Neurolinguistic studies of acquired language disorders have demonstrated that in multilingual people who experience language impairments due to brain lesion, L1 may be less impaired or better recovered than non-L1. This paper explores the evidence available to date from the study of acquired language impairment regarding this potential primacy of the first-acquired language. Findings suggest that L1 may be better preserved in many instances of language impairment, challenging the theory of a single system for multiple languages.
... (Grundy & Timmer, 2017) Indeed, in the context of increasing globalization and cross-cultural communication, there are even more bilinguals or multilinguals than monolinguals (Grosjean & Li, 2013). This means that studying bilingualism and cognition is becoming more and more important and critical (Altarriba & Isurin, 2013;Schwieter, 2015Schwieter, , 2019, with some researchers calling for the bilingual/multilingual mind to be viewed as "the default" rather than the exception (Libben, 2017;Libben & Schwieter, 2019). As suggested by Bialystok (2017), it may now be time to rethink the concept of working memory from this bilingual perspective. ...
According to George Miller (1956), a pioneer of the ‘cognitive revolution’ and proponent of the buzzword concept of the “magical number seven,” cognitive science in the modern sense had only started in the 1950s and gradually took shape in the mid-1970s. Based on Miller’s (2003) historical account, cognitive science as a scientific field of study was originally comprised of six core disciplines, spanning psychology, linguistics, and neuroscience, as well as anthropology, artificial intelligence, and philosophy. Over the last half century, cognitive scientists have probed into the underlying mechanisms and processes of human cognition, encompassing perception, attention, consciousness, reasoning, planning, learning, and memory, among many other topics. The six constituting disciplines have all flourished and complement each other, giving rise to a new set of interdisciplinary research agendas subsuming language acquisition and cognitive development, psycholinguistics and language processing, second language acquisition and bilingualism/multilingualism, etc.
... Under these assumptions, researchers are now entertaining the idea that the mental lexicon of the multilingual mind may be the default rather than the exception to a monolingual mental lexicon (Vaid & Meuter, 2017). Because bilingualism is far more common among humans than monolingualism, it may be wise to conceptualize the default mental lexicon as in fact the bilingual lexicon in which complex word representations and translation ambiguity are the norm (Libben, 2017;Libben & Schwieter, 2019). ...
Bilingual Lexical Ambiguity Resolution - edited by Roberto R. Heredia January 2020
In our increasingly multilingual modern world, understanding how languages beyond the first are acquired and processed at a brain level is essential to design evidence-based teaching, clinical interventions and language policy. Written by a team of world-leading experts in a wide range of disciplines within cognitive science, this Handbook provides a comprehensive overview of the study of third (and more) language acquisition and processing. It features 30 approachable chapters covering topics such as multilingual language acquisition, education, language maintenance and language loss, multilingual code-switching, ageing in the multilingual brain, and many more. Each chapter provides an accessible overview of the state of the art in its topic, while offering comprehensive access to the specialized literature, through carefully curated citations. It also serves as a methodological resource for researchers in the field, offering chapters on methods such as case studies, corpora, artificial language systems or statistical modelling of multilingual data.
Bringing together cutting-edge research, this Handbook is the first comprehensive text to examine the pivotal role of working memory in first and second language acquisition, processing, impairments, and training. Authored by a stellar cast of distinguished scholars from around the world, the Handbook provides authoritative insights on work from diverse, multi-disciplinary perspectives, and introduces key models of working memory in relation to language. Following an introductory chapter by working memory pioneer Alan Baddeley, the collection is organized into thematic sections that discuss working memory in relation to: Theoretical models and measures; Linguistic theories and frameworks; First language processing; Bilingual acquisition and processing; and Language disorders, interventions, and instruction. The Handbook is sure to interest and benefit researchers, clinicians, speech therapists, and advanced undergraduate and postgraduate students in linguistics, psychology, education, speech therapy, cognitive science, and neuroscience, or anyone seeking to learn more about language, cognition and the human mind.
The last 50 years have witnessed an exponential growth and significant progress in working memory and language sciences research independently and jointly, though a generalizable theory or model that transcends disciplines is still absent from the literature. Drawing on multidisciplinary insights from cognitive science and emerging patterns from language sciences, we propose an integrated account of working memory as a viable taxonomy framework for linking its putative components and processes with aspects of language acquisition and processing domains and skills, bilingual development, and specific language impairments. We end the chapter by outlining further directions to reinforce the reintegration of working memory and language sciences as couched within the key tenets and basic principles of this integrative account.
Chunks are multi-word sequences that constitute an important component of the mental lexicon. In second language (L2) acquisition, chunking is essential for attaining fluency and idiomaticity. In the present study, in order to examine whether chunks provide a processing advantage over non-chunks for L2 learners at different levels of proficiency, three groups (beginner, intermediate, and advanced) English-speaking learners of Chinese participated in an online acceptability judgment task and a familiarity rating task. Our results revealed that the participants in all three groups processed chunks faster and with fewer errors than they did non-chunks. It was also found that the observed processing advantage of chunks could not be explained by a familiarity effect alone, thus suggesting that L2 learners across the board store chunks as holistic units. The implications of chunk instruction in relation to input frequency and variability in L2 settings are also discussed.
This book fills an existing gap in the field of third language acquisition (L3A) by bringing together theoretical, empirical, and practical accounts that contribute to informed teaching practices in multilingual classrooms. The volume is organised into three sections that focus on prominent syntactic transfer models in the field of L3A and together provide insights into the interplay of the influences of prior languages in L3 syntax and how we can enrich the practical field of instructed L3 acquisition. Part I includes original papers dealing with new developments of existing theoretical models on syntactic transfer in L3A and Part II consists of empirical studies testing existing models from different perspectives (formal, lexico-functional, and neurocognitive). Following these two sections, Part III discusses how theory can inform practices for L3 learning and teaching. This concise compilation brings to light innovations, not only in terms of theoretical refinements and practical implementations, but also in offering an impressive range of language combinations. This book is intended to act as a unique resource for scholars, applied linguists, language educators, both novices and experts alike, in and beyond the field of L3A.
The mental lexicon has served as an almost ideal meeting ground for the cognitive sciences. In order for research on lexical processing to fulfill its potential to provide the elusive links among brain, cognition and culture, it is necessary to re-examine the view that the mental lexicon is a knowledge store of discrete lexical items. I suggest that metaphors from quantum physics, in particular the notions of wave/particle duality and superposition, are extremely valuable to an understanding of the contents of the mental lexicon and to the framing of research methodologies. Taken together, these perspectives lead us away from the assumption that the mind/brain contains representations for words. What they lead us toward is the view that the observation of words in the world may not require the postulation of words in the mind/brain.
This study examined whether the lexical processing of German compounds is driven by semantic transparency and applied an overt visual priming experiment to manipulate the transparency of modifiers or heads. When manipulating modifiers, participants responded to compounds like Hundeauge (“dog’s eye”) or Hühnerauge (“corn”; literal: “hen's eye”) that were preceded by their transparent (Hund, “dog”) or opaque (Huhn, “hen”) modifier, respectively, or unrelated controls. When manipulating heads, participants responded to compounds like Pferdeohr (“horse’s ear”) or Eselsohr (“dog-ear”; literal: “donkey’s ear”) that were preceded by their transparently or opaquely related head Ohr (“ear”), or an unrelated control. Results showed that compound frequency was facilitatory, head frequency was inhibitory, and modifier frequency was both. These findings indicate that compound constituents and their corresponding independent words compete in compound processing. Furthermore, both modifiers and heads induced priming regardless of their semantic transparency, indicating that lexical representation in German incorporates constituent structure, regardless of semantic transparency.
This study explores the effects of individual differences on the production of words when switching between a strong and significantly weaker language. Variables of interest included non-linguistic cognitive control, lexical robustness (i.e., the size and strength of the lexicon), and frequency of codeswitching in daily life. Seventy university students who were English (L1) speakers learning Spanish (L2) and French (L3) completed a language questionnaire and participated in: a Simon task; lexical robustness measures in all three languages; and a picture-naming task involving cued language switching between the L1 and L2. The results suggested that cognitive control and L2 lexical robustness had modulating effects on language switching, but only in limited cases. L3 lexical robustness did not affect L1-L2 language switching, however, both L1 and L2 lexical robustness had differential influences, with smaller differences between L1 and L2 switch costs being related to higher levels of L2. Counterintuitively, participants who reported more frequently codeswitching in daily life showed larger switch costs in both L1 and L2. We discuss the implications for these findings and emphasize the importance of examining a more comprehensive spectrum of variables that explain how multilingual experiences shape the networks that support cognition and language regulatory processes.
We present models of semantic transparency in which the perceived transparency of English noun–noun compounds, and of their constituent words, is predicted on the basis of the expectedness of their semantic structure. We show that such compounds are perceived as more transparent when the first noun is more frequent, hence more expected, in the language generally; when the compound semantic relation is more frequent, hence more expected, in association with the first noun; and when the second noun is more productive, hence more expected, as the second element of a noun–noun compound. Taken together, our models of compound and constituent transparency lead us to two conclusions. Firstly, although compound transparency is a function of the transparencies of the constituents, the two constituents differ in the nature of their contribution. Secondly, since all the significant predictors in our models of compound transparency are also known predictors of processing speed, perceived transparency may itself be a reflex of ease of processing.
Aims and Objectives/Purpose/Research Questions: This article proposes the Scalpel Model, a new model of third and additional language (L3/Ln) acquisition. The model aims to identify and examine what happens beyond the initial state of acquisition and what factors may influence change from one state of knowledge to another.
Design/Methodology/Approach: The article briefly examines the currently proposed hypotheses and models and evaluates the existing evidence for their predictions. It highlights several cognitive and experiential factors affecting crosslinguistic influence that are not taken into account by the current models. These factors include: structural linguistic complexity, misleading input or lack of clear unambiguous evidence for some property or construction, construction frequency in the target L3, and prevalent language activation or use.
Data and Analysis: Findings of recently published research are discussed to support of the Scalpel Model. In particular, findings of differential learnability of properties within the same groups of learners suggest that L1 or L2 transfer happens property by property and is influenced by diverse factors.
Findings/Conclusions: The Scalpel Model explicitly argues that wholesale transfer of one of the previously acquired languages does not happen at the initial stages of acquisition because it is not necessary. It also argues that transfer can be from the L1 or the L2 or both, but it is not only facilitative.
Originality: The new model increases the explanatory coverage of the current experimental findings on how the L3/Ln linguistic representations develop.
Significance/Implications: The model emphasizes the importance of the cognitive, experiential and linguistic influences on the L3/Ln beyond transfer from the L1 or L2. Thus it aligns L3/Ln acquisition with current debates within L2 acquisition theory.
What might the study of language processing look like if the canonical language user were assumed to be bilingual? In this chapter we offer some reflections on how the origins, assumptions and practices of psycholinguistics constructed a particular view of language and of the typical language user, with distinct consequences for the construction of bilingualism as an object of inquiry. We suggest that if psycholinguistics is to fully embrace its “bilingual turn” it will benefit from exploring new ways of conceptualizing and approaching the study of bilingual language processing rather than uncritically adopting questions and approaches that were initially framed to understand single language use. Specifically, we suggest that research designs that allow language phenomena to emerge, rather than be expressly manipulated or restricted by researchers’ preconceived assumptions and that build in a broader range of variables and consider an expanded range of bilingual groups, will advance our understanding of the bilingual mental lexicon in important ways.
In recent years, researchers have acknowledged that the study of third language acquisition cannot simply be viewed as an extension of the study of bilingualism, and the present volume’s authors agree that a point of departure that embraces the unique properties that differentiate L2 acquisition from L3/Ln acquisition is essential. From linguistic, sociological, psychological, educational and cognitive viewpoints, it has become increasingly apparent that the study of L3/Ln acquisition can provide new evidence to help resolve ongoing debates in these areas of study. This volume uniquely provides a wide-ranging overview of current trends in the study of adult additive multilingualism from formal, psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives, adding new insights into adult multilingual epistemology. This collection includes critical reviews of L3/Ln morphosyntax, phonology, and the lexicon, as well as individual studies with unique language pairings including Romance, Germanic, Slavic, and Asian languages.
While research on third language (L3) and multilingualism has recently shown remarkable growth, the fundamental question of what makes trilingualism special compared to bilingualism, and indeed monolingualism, continues to be evaded. In this contribution we consider whether there is such a thing as a true monolingual, and if there is a difference between dialects, styles, registers and languages. While linguistic and psycholinguistic studies suggest differences in the processing of a third, compared to the first or second language, neurolinguistic research has shown that generally the same areas of the brain are activated during language use in proficient multilinguals. It is concluded that while from traditional linguistic and psycholinguistic perspectives there are grounds to differentiate monolingual, bilingual and multilingual processing, a more dynamic perspective on language processing in which development over time is the core issue, leads to a questioning of the notion of languages as separate entities in the brain.
In two picture-naming experiments we examined whether bilinguals co-activate the non-target language during word production in the target language. The pictures were presented out-of-context (Experiment 1) or in visually presented sentence contexts (Experiment 2). In both experiments different participant groups performed the task in Dutch, their native language (L1), or in English, their second language (L2). The pictures’ names were Dutch–English cognates or non-cognates, the cognate effect serving as the marker of activation of the non-target language. In Experiment 2 we also examined the effect of sentence constraint. In both experiments a cognate effect occurred, but it was modulated by language and sentence constraint: The effect was larger in L2 than in L1, larger with low-constraint sentences than with high-constraint sentences, and disappeared in the high-constraint L1 condition. These results extend earlier bilingual word-recognition and out-of-context production studies, suggesting that also during word production in context, co-activation of the non-target language occurs.
Normal aging is an inevitable race between increasing knowledge and decreasing cognitive capacity. Crucial to understanding and promoting successful aging is determining which of these factors dominates for particular neurocognitive functions. Here, we focus on the human capacity for language, for which healthy older adults are simultaneously advantaged and disadvantaged. In recent years, a more hopeful view of cognitive aging has emerged from work suggesting that age-related declines in executive control functions are buffered by life-long bilingualism. In this paper, we selectively review what is currently known and unknown about bilingualism, executive control, and aging. Our ultimate goal is to advance the views that these issues should be reframed as a specific instance of neuroplasticity more generally and, in particular, that researchers should embrace the individual variability among bilinguals by adopting experimental and statistical approaches that respect the complexity of the questions addressed. In what follows, we set out the theoretical assumptions and empirical support of the bilingual advantages perspective, review what we know about language, cognitive control, and aging generally, and then highlight several of the relatively few studies that have investigated bilingual language processing in older adults, either on their own or in comparison with monolingual older adults. We conclude with several recommendations for how the field ought to proceed to achieve a more multifactorial view of bilingualism that emphasizes the notion of neuroplasticity over that of simple bilingual versus monolingual group comparisons.
This article elucidates the Typological Primacy Model (TPM; Rothman, 2010, 2011, 2013) for the initial stages of adult third language (L3) morphosyntactic transfer, addressing questions that stem from the model and its application. The TPM maintains that structural proximity between the L3 and the L1 and/or the L2 determines L3 transfer. In addition to demonstrating empirical support for the TPM, this article articulates a proposal for how the mind unconsciously determines typological (structural) proximity based on linguistic cues from the L3 input stream used by the parser early on to determine holistic transfer of one previous (the L1 or the L2) system. This articulated version of the TPM is motivated by argumentation appealing to cognitive and linguistic factors. Finally, in line with the general tenets of the TPM, I ponder if and why L3 transfer might obtain differently depending on the type of bilingual (e.g. early vs. late) and proficiency level of bilingualism involved in the L3 process.
Quantitative predictions are made from a model for word recognition. The model has as its central feature a set of "logogens," devices which accept information relevant to a particular word response irrespective of the source of this information. When more than a threshold amount of information has accumulated in any logogen, that particular response becomes available for responding. The model is tested against data available on (1) the effect of word frequency on recognition, (2) the effect of limiting the number of response alternatives, (3) the interaction of stimulus and context, and (4) the interaction of successive presentations of stimuli. Implications of the underlying model are largely upheld. Other possible models for word recognition are discussed as are the implications of the logogen model for theories of memory. (30 ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Code-switching (CS) is central to many bilingual communities and, though linguistic and sociolinguistic research has characterised different types of code-switches (alternations, insertions, dense CS), the cognitive control processes (CPs) that mediate them are not well understood. A key issue is how during CS speakers produce the right words in the right order. In speech, serial order emerges from a speech plan in which items are represented in parallel. We propose that entry into the mechanism for speech planning (a competitive queuing mechanism) is governed by CPs best suited to the particular types of code-switches. Language task schemas external to the language network govern access. In CS, they are coordinated cooperatively and operate in a coupled or in an open control mode. The former permits alternations and insertions whereas the latter is required for dense CS. We explore predictions of this CP model and its implications for CS research.
The present article addresses the following question: what variables condition syntactic transfer? Evidence is provided in support of the position that third language (L3) transfer is selective, whereby, at least under certain conditions, it is driven by the typological proximity of the target L3 measured against the other previously acquired linguistic systems (cf. Rothman and Cabrelli Amaro, 2007, 2010; Rothman, 2010; Montrul et al., 2011). To show this, we compare data in the domain of adjectival interpretation between successful first language (L1) Italian learners of English as a second language (L2) at the low to intermediate proficiency level of L3 Spanish, and successful L1 English learners of L2 Spanish at the same levels for L3 Brazilian Portuguese. The data show that, irrespective of the L1 or the L2, these L3 learners demonstrate target knowledge of subtle adjectival semantic nuances obtained via noun-raising, which English lacks and the other languages share. We maintain that such knowledge is transferred to the L3 from Italian (L1) and Spanish (L2) respectively in light of important differences between the L3 learners herein compared to what is known of the L2 Spanish performance of L1 English speakers at the same level of proficiency (see, for example, Judy et al., 2008; Rothman et al., 2010). While the present data are consistent with Flynn et al.’s (2004) Cumulative Enhancement Model, we discuss why a coupling of these data with evidence from other recent L3 studies suggests necessary modifications to this model, offering in its stead the Typological Primacy Model (TPM) for multilingual transfer.
The Revised Hierarchical Model (RHM) of bilingual language processing dominates current thinking on bilingual language processing. Recently, basic tenets of the model have been called into question. First, there is little evidence for separate lexicons. Second, there is little evidence for language selective access. Third, the inclusion of excitatory connections between translation equivalents at the lexical level is likely to impede word recognition. Fourth, the connections between L2 words and their meanings are stronger than proposed in RHM. And finally, there is good evidence to make a distinction between language-dependent and language-independent semantic features. It is argued that the Revised Hierarchical Model cannot easily be adapted to incorporate these challenges and that a more fruitful way forward is to start from existing computational models of monolingual language processing and see how they can be adapted for bilingual input and output, as has been done in the Bilingual Interactive Activation model.
A parallel distributed processing model of visual word recognition and pronunciation is described. The model consists of sets of orthographic and phonological units and an interlevel of hidden units. Weights on connections between units were modified during a training phase using the back-propagation learning algorithm. The model simulates many aspects of human performance, including (a) differences between words in terms of processing difficulty, (b) pronunciation of novel items, (c) differences between readers in terms of word recognition skill, (d) transitions from beginning to skilled reading, and (e) differences in performance on lexical decision and naming tasks. The model's behavior early in the learning phase corresponds to that of children acquiring word recognition skills. Training with a smaller number of hidden units produces output characteristic of many dyslexic readers. Naming is simulated without pronunciation rules, and lexical decisions are simulated without accessing word-level representations. The performance of the model is largely determined by three factors: the nature of the input, a significant fragment of written English; the learning rule, which encodes the implicit structure of the orthography in the weights on connections; and the architecture of the system, which influences the scope of what can be learned.
Speech comprehension and production are governed by control processes. We explore their nature and
dynamics in bilingual speakers with a focus on speech production. Prior research indicates that
individuals increase cognitive control in order to achieve a desired goal. In the adaptive control
hypothesis we propose a stronger hypothesis: Language control processes themselves adapt to the
recurrent demands placed on them by the interactional context. Adapting a control process means
changing a parameter or parameters about the way it works (its neural capacity or efficiency) or the way
it works in concert, or in cascade, with other control processes (e.g., its connectedness). We distinguish
eight control processes (goal maintenance, conflict monitoring, interference suppression, salient cue
detection, selective response inhibition, task disengagement, task engagement, opportunistic planning).
We consider the demands on these processes imposed by three interactional contexts (single language,
dual language, and dense code-switching). We predict adaptive changes in the neural regions and circuits
associated with specific control processes. A dual-language context, for example, is predicted to lead to
the adaptation of a circuit mediating a cascade of control processes that circumvents a control dilemma.
Effective test of the adaptive control hypothesis requires behavioural and neuroimaging work that
assesses language control in a range of tasks within the same individual.
Recent research on language production suggests that bilinguals shift from using inhibitory control mechanisms to a language-specific selective mechanism during development (Costa, Santesteban, & Ivanova, 2006). Costa et al. argue that the robustness of the L2 lexical representations may be critical to the functionality of a language-specific selective mechanism. Accordingly, in the present study we measured the lexical robustness of a group of 54 English dominant learners of Spanish using a verbal fluency task and investigated its effect on their performance in a picture-naming task with language switches. The results suggest that L2 lexical robustness predicts the shift to a language-specific selective mechanism during speech production. Moreover, we demonstrate a specific threshold of lexical robustness necessary to engage the mechanism.
Speakers who routinely use more than one language may not use any of their languages in ways which are exactly like that of a monolingual speaker. In sequential bilingualism, for example, there is often evidence of interference from the L1 in the L2 system. Describing these interference phenomena and accounting for them on the basis of theoretical models of linguistic knowledge has long been a focus of interest of Applied Linguistics. More recently, research has started to investigate linguistic traffic which goes the other way: L2 interferences and contact phenomena evident in the L1. Such phenomena are probably experienced to some extent by all bilinguals. They are, however, most evident among speakers for whom a language other than the L1 has started to play an important, if not dominant, role in everyday life (Schmid and Köpke, 2007). This is the case for migrants who move to a country where a language is spoken which, for them, is a second or foreign language. We refer to the phenomena of L1 change and L2 interference which can be observed in such situations as language attrition.
This study places the predictions of the bilingual interactive
activation model (Dijkstra & Van Heuven, 1998) and the revised hierarchical model (Kroll &
Stewart, 1994) in the same context to
investigate lexical processing in a second language (L2). The performances
of two groups of native English speakers, one less proficient and the
other more proficient in Spanish, were compared on translation
recognition. In this task, participants decided whether two words, one in
each language, are translation equivalents. The items in the critical
conditions were not translation equivalents and therefore required a
“no” response, but were similar to the correct translation in
either form or meaning. For example, for translation equivalents such as
cara-face, critical distracters included (a) a form-related
neighbor to the first word of the pair (e.g., cara-card), (b) a
form-related neighbor to the second word of the pair, the translation
equivalent (cara-fact), or (c) a meaning-related word
(cara-head). The results showed that all learners, regardless of
proficiency, experienced interference for lexical neighbors and for
meaning-related pairs. However, only the less proficient learners also
showed effects of form relatedness via the translation equivalent.
Moreover, all participants were sensitive to cues to grammatical class,
such that lexical interference was reduced or eliminated when the two
words of each pair were drawn from different grammatical classes. We
consider the implications of these results for L2 lexical processing and
for models of the bilingual lexicon. a
In the world today, bilingualism is more common than monolingualism. Thus, the default mental lexicon may in fact be the bilingual lexicon. More than ever, social and technological innovation have created a situation in which lexical knowledge may change dramatically throughout an individual’s lifetime. This book offers a new perspective for the understanding of these phenomena and their consequences for the representation of words in the mind and brain. Contributing authors are leaders in the field who provide a re-analysis of key assumptions and a re-focusing of research. They bring new insights and new findings that advance the understanding of both bilingualism and the mental lexicon. This volume serves to generate new directions and advances in bilingualism research.
Recent years have seen increasing interest in research on bilingualism and second language learning. These studies of bilinguals have revealed aspects of the human mind that are otherwise inaccessible by focusing on monolinguals alone. In this chapter we review the recent behavioral and neurocognitive evidence on how second language (L2) learners and bilinguals represent, access, and acquire words in the bilingual lexicon. Our review focuses on the dynamics between the two languages and the developmental trajectory that results as learners become more proficient in the L2. The neurocognitive evidence largely converges with the behavioral findings, showing that words in each of the bilingual's two languages are activated in parallel when understanding and speaking each of the two languages. Consequently, regulation is required to enable control of each language. The goal of ongoing research on the bilingual lexicon is to further examine the dynamics and consequences of cross-language interaction and the implications for language use in contexts in which the grammar and phonology are also engaged.
In many languages, compounding is a fundamental process for the generation of novel words. When this process is productive (as, e.g., in English), native speakers can juxtapose two words to create novel compounds that can be readily understood by other speakers. The present paper proposes a large-scale, data-driven computational system for compound semantic processing based on distributional semantics, the CAOSS model (Compounding as Abstract Operation in Semantic Space). In CAOSS, word meanings are represented as vectors encoding their lexical co-occurrences in a reference corpus. Given two constituent words, their composed representation (the compound) is computed by using matrices representing the abstract properties of constituent roles (modifier vs. head). The matrices are also induced through examples of language usage. The model is then validated against behavioral results concerning the processing of novel compounds, and in particular relational effects on response latencies. The effects of relational priming and relational dominance are considered. CAOSS predictions are shown to pattern with previous results, in terms of both the impact of relational information and the dissociations related to the different constituent roles. The simulations indicate that relational information is implicitly reflected in language usage, suggesting that human speakers can learn these aspects from language experience and automatically apply them to the processing of new word combinations. The present model is flexible enough to emulate this procedure, suggesting that relational effects might emerge as a by-product of nuanced operations across distributional patterns.
Aims
Over the past decade in particular, formal linguistic work within L3 acquisition has concentrated on hypothesizing and empirically determining the source of transfer from previous languages—L1, L2 or both—in L3 grammatical representations. In view of the progressive concern with more advanced stages, we aim to show that focusing on L3 initial stages should be one continued priority of the field, even—or especially—if the field is ready to shift towards modeling L3 development and ultimate attainment.
Approach
We argue that L3 learnability is significantly impacted by initial stages transfer, as such forms the basis of the initial L3 interlanguage. To illustrate our point, the insights from studies using initial and intermediary stages L3 data are discussed in light of developmental predictions that derive from the initial stages models.
Conclusions
Despite a shared desire to understand the process of L3 acquisition in whole, inclusive of offering developmental L3 theories, we argue that the field does not yet have—although is ever closer to—the data basis needed to effectively do so.
Originality
This article seeks to convince the readership of the need for conservatism in L3 acquisition theory building, whereby offering a framework on how and why we can most effectively build on the accumulated knowledge of the L3 initial stages in order to make significant, steady progress.
Significance
The arguments exposed here are meant to provide an epistemological base for a tenable framework of formal approaches to L3 interlanguage development and, eventually, ultimate attainment.
A cogent, freshly written synthesis of new and classic work on crosslinguistic influence, or language transfer, this book is an authoritative account of transfer in second-language learning and its consequences for language and thought. It covers transfer in both production and comprehension, and discusses the distinction between semantic and conceptual transfer, lateral transfer, and reverse transfer. The book is ideal as a text for upper-level undergraduate and graduate courses in bilingualism, second language acquisition, psycholinguistics, and cognitive psychology, and will also be of interest to researchers in these areas.
The research reports on a study investigating the cognitive benefits of bilingualism in children who speak the minority languages of Sardinian and Scottish Gaelic, in addition to their respective 'national' languages of Italian and English. One hundred and twenty-one children, both bilingual and monolingual, were administered a series of standardised cognitive ability tests targeted at the four areas that have been previously shown to be advantageous to bilingual children in the literature, namely, cognitive control, problem-solving ability, metalinguistic awareness and working memory. The bilingual children significantly outperformed the monolingual children in two of the four sub-tests, and the Scottish children significantly outperformed the Sardinian children in one of the sub-tests. The differences found were largely due to the superior performance of the Scottish bilingual children who receive a formal bilingual education, in contrast to the Sardinian bilingual children who mostly only speak the minority language at home. The implications of the results are discussed.
We compared naming patterns for common household objects by monolingual speakers of English and Mandarin and Mandarin-English bilinguals in both their L1 and L2. These bilinguals arrived in the U.S. no earlier than age 15, thus having a well-entrenched L1 and relatively late L2 immersion, and their two languages are dissimilar on many dimensions. Results showed changes to both L1 and L2 word use that increased with greater L2 usage, implying that the lexical network remains plastic over an extended time period. The influence of each language on the other can be understood in the context of specific L1-L2 lexical category differences and other semantic variables. The bilingual outcomes are not consistent with perspectives in which the network stabilizes once an L1 is well-entrenched, nor in which speaking dissimilar languages or continuing to use L1 protects L1 from change. Instead, it supports a more dynamic view of lexical representation in which L1 and L2 representations can be modified at any time and interconnections between them cause each to impact the other.
Up until around ten years ago, third language acquisition (L3A) research was generally subsumed under the umbrella term of second language acquisition (L2A). In this short space of time, however, L3A has established itself as an independent strand of linguistic research, providing an invaluable source of information into language and language acquisition. This paper emphasises the crucial differences between L2A and L3A. It provides a snapshot of the current state of cognitive research into L3A, discussing studies in the domains of morphology, syntax, phonology and lexicon. Recently proposed (specific L3) generative models are discussed, such as Cumulative Enhancement Model (Flynn, Foley & Vinnitskaya, 2004), L2 Status Factor (Bardel & Falk, 2007) and Typological Primacy Model (Rothman, 2011) together with an alternative proposal (Contextual Complexity Hypothesis, Hawkins & Casillas, 2007). Finally this paper highlights the gaps in our knowledge and the direction for future research in this fast-growing area of research.
The brain has an extraordinary ability to functionally and physically change or reconfigure its structure in response to environmental stimulus, cognitive demand, or behavioral experience. This property, known as neuroplasticity, has been examined extensively in many domains. But how does neuroplasticity occur in the brain as a function of an individual's experience with a second language? It is not until recently that we have gained some understanding of this question by examining the anatomical changes as well as functional neural patterns that are induced by the learning and use of multiple languages. In this article we review emerging evidence regarding how structural neuroplasticity occurs in the brain as a result of one’s bilingual experience. Our review aims at identifying the processes and mechanisms that drive experience-dependent anatomical changes, and integrating structural imaging data with current knowledge of functional neural plasticity of language and other cognitive skills. The evidence reviewed so far portrays a picture that is highly consistent with structural neuroplasticity observed for other domains: second language experience-induced brain changes, including increased gray matter density and white matter integrity, can be found in children, young adults, and the elderly; can occur rapidly with short-term language learning or training; and are sensitive to age, age of acquisition, proficiency or performance level, language-specific characteristics, and individual differences. We conclude with a theoretical perspective on neuroplasticity in language and bilingualism, and point to future directions for research.
Although compound words often seem to be words that themselves contain words, this paper argues that this is not the case for the vast majority of lexicalized compounds. Rather, it is claimed that as a result of acts of lexical processing, the constituents of compound words develop into new lexical representations. These representations are bound to specific morphological roles and positions (e.g., head, modifier) within a compound word. The development of these positionally bound compound constituents creates a rich network of lexical knowledge that facilitates compound processing and also creates some of the well-documented patterns in the psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic study of compounding.
Recent studies have shown that when bilinguals or multilinguals read written words, listen to spoken words, or plan words that they intend to speak in one language alone, information in all of the languages that they know is momentarily active. That activation produces cross-language competition that sometimes converges to facilitate performance and sometimes diverges to create costs to performance. The presence of parallel activation across languages has been documented in comprehension, in studies of word recognition, and also in production, in studies of lexical speech planning. The observation that one of the two or more languages cannot be switched off at will is particularly surprising in production, where the intention to express a thought should be guided by conceptually driven processes. Likewise, in comprehension, recent studies show that placing words in sentence context in one language alone is insufficient to restrict processing to that language. The focus of current research on the multilingual lexicon is therefore to understand the basis of language nonselectivity, to consider how the language in use is ultimately selected, and to identify the cognitive consequences of having a lexical system that is open to influence by the languages not in use. In this article, we review the recent cognitive and neural evidence on each of these issues, with special consideration to the question of how the nature of the evidence itself shapes the conclusions drawn about the organization and access to the lexicon in individuals who speak more than one language.
During speech comprehension, bilinguals co-activate both of their languages, resulting in cross-linguistic interaction at various levels of processing. This interaction has important consequences for both the structure of the language system and the mechanisms by which the system processes spoken language. Using computational modeling, we can examine how cross-linguistic interaction affects language processing in a controlled, simulated environment. Here we present a connectionist model of bilingual language processing, the Bilingual Language Interaction Network for Comprehension of Speech (BLINCS), wherein interconnected levels of processing are created using dynamic, self-organizing maps. BLINCS can account for a variety of psycholinguistic phenomena, including cross-linguistic interaction at and across multiple levels of processing, cognate facilitation effects, and audio-visual integration during speech comprehension. The model also provides a way to separate two languages without requiring a global language-identification system. We conclude that BLINCS serves as a promising new model of bilingual spoken language comprehension.
Several studies on L3 lexicon, and recently also some on L3 syntax, have convincingly shown a qualitative difference between the acquisition of a true L2 and the subsequent acquisition of an L3. Some studies even indicate that L2 takes on a stronger role than L1 in the initial state of L3 syntax (e.g. Bardel and Falk, 2007; Rothman and Cabrelli Amaro, 2010). In this article we further investigate syntactic transfer from L1/L2 to L3 in learners at an intermediate level of proficiency in the target language. Data have been obtained from 44 learners of German as L3, testing the placement of object pronouns in both main and subordinate clauses in a grammaticality judgement/correction task (GJCT). The learners constitute two groups (both n = 22): One group has English as L1 and French as L2 and the other group has French as L1 and English as L2. This particular combination of background languages allows us to pinpoint the source of transfer, since object placement is pre-verbal in French and post-verbal in English, this being applied in both main and subordinate clauses. In target language (TL) German, however, the object placement varies between pre-verbal in the sub clause and post-verbal in the main clause. The two groups behave differently as to both acceptance and rejection of the test items (60 grammatical and ungrammatical main and sub clauses with object pronouns). This difference is significant and can be ascribed to their L2s, respectively. Our results thus show that the L2 transfers into the L3 even at an intermediate level, and on the basis of this we claim a strong role for the L2 status factor.
Research on individual multilingualism and third language acquisition has expanded greatly in recent years. A theoretical correlate of this is the recognition of the fact that humans are potentially multilingual by nature, that multilingualism is the default state of language competence, and that this in turn has implications for an adequate theory of language competence, use and acquisition. Traditional second language acquisition (SLA) research usually treats all non-first language learners as second language (L2) learners. The recent focus on third language (L3) acquisition means that one has begun taking the complexity of multilingual learners' language background into account. This gives raise to reflection about some of the currently used basic terminology in the field, in particular how the concepts first, second and third language are understood. These terms are used variably in the literature. One approach, the common practice of labelling a multilingual's languages along a linear chronological scale as L1, L2, L3, L4 etc., is shown here to be untenable, being based on an inadequate conception of multilingualism. A different and arguably more satisfactory approach is based on the conventional dichotomy of L1 (established during infancy) versus L2 (added after infancy) and relates the notion of L3 to the presence of a more complex language background. The limitation to a three-order hierarchy involving the distinction between the concepts of L1, L2 and L3 is discussed and adopted as a working hypothesis, awaiting further research on this issue. Finally, the problems with the expressions first, second and third language have become more apparent with the emergence of research on L3 acquisition. Maybe the time is ripe to work for a change of these established terms? As possible replacements, primary, secondary and tertiary language are put forward for discussion. The paper stresses the need for reconsideration and clarification of the concepts L1, L2 and L3 from the point of view of multilingual language users and learners.
In general, discussion of cross-linguistic influence has focussed almost exclusively on the role of L1 in L2 production, both in the form of cross-linguistic influence on the learner's interlanguage and in the form of language switches to the L1 during L2 production. As yet, there has been little work done on the influence of a learner's other previously learned L2s in the acquisition of a new language (L3). The few studies that have been been carried out on the role of L2 in L3 production however show that L2 does play an important role in L3 acquisition. This paper presents the results of ongoing research on non-adapted language switches, using data from a two-year longitudinal case study of an adult learner of L3 Swedish with L1 English and L2 German. Our study is based on 844 non-adapted language switches. We identified four main types of switch, three of which had pragmatic purpose, namely: (i) EDIT (marking self-repair, beginning of turntake etc.), (ii) META (used for asides, to comment on L3 performance or ask for help) and (iii) INSERT (use of non-L3 items to overcome lexical problems in L3), and the last of which we refer to as Without Identified Pragmatic Purpose (WIPP switch; cf. 'non-intentional switches', Poulisse and Bongaerts 1994). We found that while L1 English prevailed in EDIT, META and INSERT functions, almost only L2 German occurred in WIPP switches. Most of these WIPP switches were function words. We also noticed that a number of the English utterances used in INSERT function appeared to show German influence, although this was not the case when English was used in META function. Our results show that in this case study of L3 acquisition, L1 and L2 play different roles. We suggest that L2 German, which was shown to be the non-L3 language predominantly used to supply material for lexical construction attempts in the L3 (Williams and Hammarberg 1994), is activated in parallel to the L3 interlanguage, underlying L3 production and even L1 production. We refer to this as the DEFAULT SUPPLIER role. L1 English, on the other hand, is more seldom used in lexical construction attempts in the L3 or activated in parallel but rather is kept separate from the L3 and used largely with a metalinguistic function. We refer to this as the INSTRUMENTAL role. We propose a developmental model of L3 production based on de Bot's (1992) model of bilingual speech production but involving role assignment to the background languages, such that only the language which has been assigned the role of DEFAULT SUPPLIER is regularly activated in parallel to the L3 interlanguage. Over time, these two roles are largely taken over by the L3 itself. We suggest that these roles also exist in L2 acquisition but since there is only one background language, this takes over both roles and overt distinctions between them collapse.
A transfer paradigm was used to investigate the relationship between picture naming and translation English-Spanish bilniguals first named pictures and subsequently translated words in both their first (LI) and second (L2) languages Some words in the translation task were repetitions of concepts that had previously been named as pictures Whereas picture naming produced reliable transfer to translation from L1 to L2, it produced no transfer to translation from L2 to L1 The results support the claim that connections in bilingual memory are asymmetric Translation is conceptually mediated from L1 to L2 but lexically mediated from L2 to L1
A series of progressive demasking and lexical decision experiments investigated how the recognition of target words exclusively belonging to one language is affected by the existence of orthographic neighbors from the same or the other language of bilingual participants. Increasing the number of orthographic neighbors in Dutch systematically slowed response times to English target words in Dutch/English bilinguals, while an increase in target language neighbors consistently produced inhibitory effects for Dutch and facilitatory effects for English target words. Monolingual English speakers also showed facilitation due to English neighbors, but no effect of Dutch neighbors. The experiments provide evidence for parallel activation of words in an integrated Dutch/English lexicon. An implemented version of such a model making these assumptions, the Bilingual Interactive Activation (BIA) model, is shown to account for the overall pattern of results.
Three experiments are reported in which picture naming and bilingual translation were performed in the context of semantically categorized or randomized lists. In Experiments 1 and 3 picture naming and bilingual translation were slower in the categorized than randomized conditions. In Experiment 2 this category interference effect in picture naming was eliminated when picture naming alternated with word naming. Taken together, the results of the three experiments suggest that in both picture naming and bilingual translation a conceptual representation of the word or picture is used to retrieve a lexical entry in one of the speaker's languages. When conceptual activity is sufficiently great to activate a multiple set of corresponding lexical representations, interference is produced in the process of retrieving a single best lexical candidate as the name or translation. The results of Experiment 3 showed further that category interference in bilingual translation occurred only when translation was performed from the first language to the second language, suggesting that the two directions of translation engage different interlanguage connections. A model to account for the asymmetric mappings of words to concepts in bilingual memory is described. (C) 1994 Academic Press, Inc.
The abstract for this document is available on CSA Illumina.To view the Abstract, click the Abstract button above the document title.
During early stages of second language acquisition adult learners make frequent errors of lexical form. An experiment was performed to examine this effect in the laboratory. More and less fluent bilinguals in English and Spanish performed a translation recognition task in which they decided whether the second of two words was the correct translation of the first. In the critical conditions of the experiment the words were not correct translation equivalents, but related by lexical form (e.g., man-hambre (hunger) instead of man-hombre (man)) or by meaning (e.g., man-mujer (woman) instead of man-hombre (man)). Less fluent participants suffered more interference for form-related than for semantically related words relative to unrelated controls, but the reverse pattern held for more fluent participants. The results support a progression from reliance on word form to reliance on meaning with increasing proficiency in the second language. The performance of the more fluent bilinguals further suggests that the ability to retrieve semantic information directly for second-language words can potentially override some of the costs associated with lexical competition in languages that access shared lexical features.
The paper opens with an evaluation of the BIA model of bilingual word recognition in the light of recent empirical evidence. After pointing out problems and omissions, a new model, called the BIA+, is proposed. Structurally, this new model extends the old one by adding phonological and semantic lexical representations to the available orthographic ones, and assigns a different role to the so-called language nodes. Furthermore, it makes a distinction between the effects of non-linguistic context (such as instruction and stimulus list composition) and linguistic context (such as the semantic and syntactic effects of sentence context), based on a distinction between the word identification system itself and a task/decision system that regulates control. At the end of the paper, the generalizability of the BIA+ model to different tasks and modalities is discussed.
Recent research shows that speakers of languages with obligatory plural marking (English) preferentially categorize objects based on common shape, whereas speakers of nonplural-marking classifier languages (Yucatec and Japanese) preferentially categorize objects based on common material. The current study extends that investigation to the domain of bilingualism. Japanese and English monolinguals, and Japanese–English bilinguals were asked to match novel objects based on either common shape or color. Results showed that English monolinguals selected shape significantly more than Japanese monolinguals, whereas the bilinguals shifted their cognitive preferences as a function of their second language proficiency. The implications of these findings for conceptual representation and cognitive processing in bilinguals are discussed.