201:
comprehend passages composed of words entirely from only one language more quickly than passages composed of words from both languages. They explain this result as an involuntary switch that happens when bilinguals comprehend passages with two languages. When comprehension procedures in one language fail due to the language contextually changing, then the switch mechanism will automatically direct input to another language system. Therefore, bilinguals are slower at reading mixed language passages than at single language passages because they must spend time switching languages. However, those studies failed to consider that the two languages might be activated simultaneously and there might be a later lexical competition in choosing which language information to use. The later lexical competition can also be used to explain why bilinguals spend more time understanding passages in mixed languages. However, other studies have found that there is no significant cost incurred by inter-sentential language switching and mixing. A 2010 paper showed that there was no cost to switching between languages when bilinguals read sentences for comprehension. Additionally, a 2012 paper found that when making metalinguistic judgments and performing non-comprehension based tasks, switch costs were evident, but there was no evidence to support the hypothesis that there is a cost at the switch site when bilinguals read a mixed sentence, indicating that under normal circumstances and given sufficient linguistic context, language switching does not incur a cost.
525:–English bilinguals. They investigated word presentation and the semantic constraint modulated language lexical access in bilinguals. Schwartz and Kroll used rapid serial visual presentation where the target word had to be named. No homograph effects were found, but less proficient bilinguals made more naming errors, particularly in low-constraint sentences. They observed cognate facilitation (nonselective bilingual lexical access) in low-constraint sentences, but not in high-constraint ones. The results suggest that the semantic constraint of a sentence may restrict cross-lingual activation effects. Similar results on cognate effects were obtained by van Hell and de Groot in their study of Dutch–English bilinguals in an L2 lexical decision task and a translation task in forward (from L1 to L2) and in the backward direction (from L2 to L1). Libben and Titone used the eye-tracking methodology and found that the cognate facilitation in semantically constraint sentences only happened at early stages of comprehension and rapidly resolved at later stages of comprehension.
286:
than in unrelated conditions. Even though the participants knew that the prime words always associated with their French meaning, they were still affected by the
English meaning of the homographic prime words. In later studies, researchers masked the briefly presented prime words to prevent participants from using conscious strategies. For instance, Sáchez-Casas et al. used Spanish–English bilinguals in a semantic categorization task on Spanish target words. They used three types of priming conditions: entirely identical cognates or non-cognates (rico-rico; pato-pato), translations of cognates or non-cognates (rich-rico; duck-pato) and non-word primes combined with cognate or non-cognate targets as a control condition (rict-rico vs. wuck-pato). They found that bilinguals responded to the cognate translation conditions as fast as the identical conditions, but the non-cognate translation was as slow as the control conditions.
241:–English bilinguals, cognates, interlingual homographs, and non-homographic control words were used. The cognates and control words were either high frequency or low frequency in both English and Spanish. The homographic non-cognates were high frequency in English and low frequency in Spanish or vice versa. The results generally supported the language-selective hypothesis. Even though there was a significant main effect of word type for the bilingual group, it was mainly caused by the slow response to interlingual homographs which were of low frequency in the target language but of high frequency in the non-target language. Results showed that there was no significant difference in the reaction time between bilinguals and monolinguals, which suggested that lexical access for bilinguals in this study was restricted to only one language.
263:
which could be supportive evidence for the assumption of language-nonselective access. Later, De Moor repeated the
English lexical decision study by Dijkstra et al. and found that the Dutch meaning of the interlingual homographs was also activated by English–Dutch bilinguals. After each homographic trial, she performed trials that translated previous homographs' Dutch definitions into English. For example, after the trial homographic word "brand", the English-translated "fire" would be presented. De Moor found there was a small but significant translation priming effect for subsequent English translation trials; it suggested that the lexical information of the Dutch word form was also activated, even though it did not affect the reaction time of the previous homographic trial.
465:
representing a letter. When the participant presses the key, the first segment appears (in this example, two words) and replaces the corresponding placeholders for the words on the right while the placeholders for the words on the left remain on the screen. When the key is pressed again, the two words from the first segment are replaced by their placeholders again and the next segment appears and takes the position of the corresponding placeholders. This continues until the whole text has been read. A follow-up comprehension question is presented to ensure that participants indeed pay attention to the meaning of the sentences. The interval between the two successive key presses is measured and registered as the response time.
390:
model, the features of its constituted letters are activated first. Then, these letter features work together and activate the letters of which they are part of the presented words. In turn, these letters activate the words of that language. The word candidates activate the language nodes which are connected and simultaneously send feedback activation to the letter level. Language nodes can also inhibit the activation of word candidates from other languages (e.g., the
English language node reduces the activation of Dutch word candidates). After a complex interactive process of activation and inhibition, the lexical candidate corresponding to the presented word becomes the most active word unit.
518:" means poison in German) or a control word was presented at the end (e.g., The woman gave her friend a pretty SHELL). "Constraint" means the degree to which the sentence frame preceding the target word biased that word. The sentence was then replaced by a target word (poison) for the lexical decision task. They found that for participants who saw a German film prior to the experiment and only in the first block of the experiment, they recognized the target faster after primed with the related homograph sentence than primed with the controlled sentence. This suggests that bilinguals can quickly "zoom into" the L2 processing situation even when the L1 activation was boosted.
142:). Lexical access is accessed sequentially, with one item at a time. In contrast, the parallel access models approach asserts that multiple entries can be activated at once, which means that the perceptual input from a word would activate all lexical items directly, even though some of them might not be necessary. In this way, numbers of potential candidates would be activated simultaneously and then the lexical candidates which are most consistent with the input stimulus would be chosen. Researchers addressed that both the serial and parallel processes are used for lexical organization and lexical access.
314:
place, all the syntactical and morphological information of the word and the meaning of the word will become accessible for further processing. In a broader way, it refers to lexical access is the entire period from the matching processing to the retrieval of lexical information. In the research of bilingual lexical access, word recognition uses single, out-of-context words from both languages to investigate all the aspects of bilingual lexical access.
399:
mental processing steps that bilinguals take to perform a particular language task. The language task schema regulates the output from the word identification system by altering the activation levels of representations within that system by inhibiting outputs from it. For example, when a bilingual switches from one language to another in translation, a change in the language schema corresponding to the languages must take place.
298:. "Lexical access in comprehension" is the process of how people make contact with lexical representation in their mental lexicon that contains the information, which enables them to understand the words or sentences. Word recognition is the most essential process of bilingual lexical access in language comprehension, in which researchers investigate the selective or non-selective recognition of isolated words. At the same time,
510:(L2) processing. This sentence context effect might be an efficient strategy to speed up the lexical search because it reduces the number of lexical candidates. For example, Elston-Guttler et al. showed that cross-lingual activation is very sensitive to the influence of a sentence context and previous activation state of the two languages in a semantic priming study. In their study,
412:
can be in a bilingual mode if they are talking to other bilinguals or reading text with mixed languages. However, if they listen to someone who is monolingual or is just speaking one language, the activation state would switch to a more monolingual mode. Based on this model, the bilinguals' language mode depends on the language users' expectation and by language environment.
377:
157:, researchers extended the theoretical approaches for the studies of bilingual lexical access. The computational models are now an essential component for mainstream theories, for example, the models of Bilingual Interactive Activation (BIA) model, the Semantic, Orthographic and Phonological Interactive Activation (SOPIA) model, and the Bilingual interactive Model of
161:(BLMOLA). Most computational models need to specify all the vague descriptive notions used in the earlier models and force researchers to clarify their theories. Those revised models test the viability of the original theories by comparing the empirical results with data generated from the model. Computational models are also able to generate new testable
475:
reaction time of each segment is registered. A follow-up comprehension question is presented to ensure that participants paid attention to the meaning of the sentences. A pictured object can be readily detected in a rapid serial visual presentation sequence when the target is specified by a superordinate category name such as animal or vehicle.
188:
other possibility that the recognition of a word is processed in parallel for both languages and the lexical information of both languages are activated, in which case lexical access is language non-selective. Research pertaining to lexical access has indicated that it is not achievable to completely suppress a known language.
532:(L1) reading. For example, van Assche et al. replicated the cognate effect in L1 with Dutch–English bilinguals, and found that a non-dominant language may affect native-language sentence reading, both at earliest and at later reading stages. Titone et al. observed this cross-language activation in English-
464:
Participants are faced with a screen on which a text appears in successive segments. They are asked to process each sequent segment by pressing a key. A trial starts with the presentation of groups of dashes separated by spaces. Each group serves as a placeholder for a word in the text with each dash
411:
mechanisms and languages as a whole can be achieved to different extents. The relative activation state of language is called language mode, and it is influenced by many factors, such as the person spoke or listened to, users’ language proficiency, the non-linguistic context and so on. Language users
439:
Most current studies of bilingual lexical access are based on the comprehension of isolated words without considering whether contextual information affects lexical access in bilinguals. However, in everyday communication, words are most often encountered in a meaningful context and not in isolation
200:
One interpretation is that bilinguals initially make a decision about the language of the word and then activate the appropriate language-selected lexicon. In this mechanism, an executive system directs the language switch for the input word. In earlier studies, researchers found that bilinguals can
178:
The two most prominent theories on lexical access for bilinguals, Language
Selective Access and Language Non-Selective Access, attempt to explain the process and stages of lexical activation and selection. These hypotheses focus on determining whether lexical candidates from different languages that
187:
also activated? If the answer is "no", it might suggest that language selection happens before the recognition of a word and only the lexical information of the target language is selectively activated, in which case lexical access is language selective. If the answer is "yes", it might suggest the
46:
is available. Research in this field seeks to fully understand these mental processes. Bilingual individuals have two mental lexical representations for an item or concept and can successfully select words from one language without significant interference from the other language. It is the field's
430:
and semantic representations. All these representations are assumed to be part of a word identification system that provides output to a task/decision system. The information flow in bilingual lexical processing proceeds exclusively from the word identification system toward a task/decision system
398:
The IC model is complementary to the BIA model. It focuses on the importance of task demands and regulation that happened during language processing by modifying the levels of activation of items in the language network. In this model, a key concept is the language task schema, which specifies the
230:(RT) of interlingual homographs is the same as the controlled monolingual word, then it supports the language-selective access hypothesis. If RT is significantly different for interlingual homographs than for the controlled monolingual word, it supports the language-nonselective access hypothesis.
1693:
352:
of the test language but lack meaning. There are two versions of decision task which are developed especially to study bilingual lexical access in word recognition: generalized lexical decision and language-specific lexical decision. In a generalized lexical decision task, the lexical decision is
313:
is usually used in both narrow and broad ways. When it is used in the narrow sense, it means the moment when a match occurs between a printed word and its orthographic word-form stored in the lexicon, or a match between a spoken word and its phonological word-form. Only after this match has taken
285:
by French words, which was told to the participants. The homographic primes were French words that were either semantically related to the
English words (e.g., "coin": "money" in English, "corner" in French) or not related. The results showed that bilinguals responded faster in related conditions
484:
This task records the participants’ eye movements and eye fixations as they read a text presented on a computer screen. It documents what the participants are looking at and also how long it takes for them. Experimental eye-tracking data is obtained to investigate topics such as understanding of
389:
The BIA model is an implemented connectionist model of bilingual visual word recognition. This language-nonselective model is structured by four levels of different linguistic representations: letter features, letters, words, and language tags (or language node). When a word is presented by this
262:
for Dutch–English bilinguals on a list of a cognate, homographs, and
English-control words. Although they did not find a significant difference in reaction time between interlingual homographs and English control words, they found that there was a significant facilitation effect of the cognates,
249:
Language-nonselective access is the automatic co-activation of information in both linguistic systems. It implies that when a bilingual encounters a spoken or written word, the activation happens in parallel in both contextually appropriate and inappropriate linguistic subsystems. Also, there is
363:
Participants are presented with a prime word before they respond to each target word. The prime words are either lexically related or unrelated to the target words, and the effect of the prime on target word processing will be measured. A target word that follows a related prime tends to have a
474:
Participants are presented with successive segments/words at a fixed rate in the same location on the screen. In this task, the participants cannot control the speed of reading; the experimenter determines the presentation speed. The participants are required to read the words aloud and their
145:
Knowledge of monolingual access led to the question of bilingual lexical access. Early models of bilingual lexical access shared similar characteristics with these monolingual lexical access models; the bilingual models began by focusing on if bilingual lexical access would be different from
456:
In sentence processing, a number of online measuring techniques are exploited to detect cognitive activity at the very moment it takes place or only slightly after. Cognates and interlingual homographs are often used as markers that are inserted in test sentences with the following tasks:
196:
Language-selective access is the exclusive activation of information in the contextually appropriate language system. It implies when a bilingual encounters a spoken or written word, the activation is restricted to the target language subsystem which contains the input word.
698:
329:
A participant is presented with a drawing or object and is asked to name the drawing or the object. Response latencies (the time it takes to make a response) are usually recorded for each word; sometimes response accuracies are recorded as well. A named example is the
50:
Bilingual lexical access researchers focus on the control mechanisms bilinguals use to suppress the language not in use when in a monolingual mode and the degree to which the related representations within the language not in use are activated. For example, when a
1754:
257:
which support the language-selective access, a sizable number of studies suggest that language-nonselective access takes place and it is highly unlikely to completely suppress the other language. For example, Dijkstra, van
Jaarsveld and Brinke used an English
221:; for example, the English word "room" is spelled identically to the Dutch word for "cream". Cognates are words from two languages that are identical (or very similar) in orthography and also have a large overlap in their meaning; for instance, the word
353:
made for both languages. The "yes" response is required if the presented letter sequence is a word in either language. In a language-specific lexical decision task, the "yes" response must be only given to the words from the target language.
146:
monolinguals. In addition, to study the activation process in a separate language, they also investigated whether the lexical activation would be processed in a parallel fashion for both languages or selectively processed for the target
343:
Participants are presented with written letter sequences and are asked to determine if each sequence is a word. Response times and/or accuracy are recorded. Usually, the nonword stimuli are pseudowords—sequences that obey the
250:
evidence that bilinguals take longer than monolinguals to detect non-words while in both bilingual and monolingual modes, providing evidence that bilinguals do not fully deactivate their other language while in a monolingual mode.
773:
165:
and allow researchers to manipulate conditions which might not be possible in normal experiments. For example, researchers can investigate and simulate the lexical access systems under various states of damage without using
536:
bilinguals at early reading stages only when the L2 was acquired early in life. They also concluded that the semantic constraint provided by a sentence can attenuate cross-language activation at later reading stages.
204:
In studies that investigate whether lexical candidates from different languages are activated selectively or non-selectively during bilingual lexical access, there are two basic types of stimuli used: interlingual
225:
is a cognate in
English and Dutch. Researchers used those types of stimuli to investigate if bilinguals process them in the same way as the matched control words which occur only in one language. If the
302:
also plays an important role in language comprehension, where researchers can investigate if the presence of words in a sentence context restricts lexical access only to the target language.
1542:
233:
In most early studies, researchers did not find clear RT differences between test items (interlexical homographs or cognates) and control items. For example, in Gerard and
Scarborough's
872:
Albert, M. L., & Obler, L. K. (1978). The
Bilingual Brain: Neuropsychological and Neurolinguistic Aspects of Bilingualism. Perspectives in Neurolinguistics and Psycholinguistics.
440:(e.g. in a newspaper article). Research done by DĂ©prez (1994) has shown that mixed utterances in children are not limited to the lexical level but also in the areas of morphology,
373:
Most current models in word recognition assume that bilingual lexical access is nonselective, which also take into account the demands of task and context-dependence of processing.
1646:
Elston-GĂĽttler, K. E., Gunter, T. C., & Kotz, S. A. (2005). Zooming into L2: Global language context and adjustment affect processing of interlingual homographs in sentences.
38:
can be understood as all aspects of the word processing, including all of the mental activity from the time when a word from one language is perceived to the time when all its
269:
can be understood as the various ways that two or more languages relate in the mind and affect a person's linguistic performance or development. Cross-linguistic effects of
528:
Although most studies on bilingual sentence processing focus on L2 processing, there are still a few studies that have investigated cross-language activation during their
150:. The bilingual models also study whether the bilingual system has a single lexicon combining words from both languages or separate lexicons for words in each language.
67:. Bilingual lexical access is the mental process that underlies this seemingly simple task: the process that makes the connection between the idea of a dog and the word
1679:
1608:
506:
The question of whether the presentation of words in a sentence context restricts lexical access to words of the target language only is studied mostly in bilinguals'
277:
overlap between different languages of cognates and interlingual homographs were also reported in many priming studies. For example, Beauvillain and Grainger had
1210:
426:
The BIA+ model is an extension and adaptation of the BIA model. The BIA+ model includes not only an orthographic representation and language nodes, but also
803:
1622:
1028:
Dijkstra, T.; Van Jaarsveld, H.; Ten Brinke, S. (April 1998). "Interlingual homograph recognition: effects of task demands and language intermixing".
514:–English bilinguals were presented with relatively low-constraint sentences in which a homograph (e.g., "The woman gave her friend a pretty GIFT"; "
1115:
Dijkstra, T., Van Jaarsveld, H., & Brinke, S. T. (1998). Interlingual homograph recognition: Effects of task demands and language intermixing.
448:. Researchers also began to investigate the cognitive nature of bilingual lexical access in context by examining word recognition in sentences.
380:
A flow chart representation of the BIA+ model for bilingual language processing including the word identification and task/decision subsystems.
134:
to distinguish whether the input item is a word or not; if it is, they will only retrieve the necessary information about that word (i.e., its
1412:
840:
421:
490:
114:
appear in the same order in the first and second language". In addition, "second language learners are also able to produce and process
1461:
Van Heuven, W. J., Dijkstra, T., & Grainger, J. (1998). Orthographic neighborhood effects in bilingual word recognition. Journal of
1721:
1503:
1660:
Eva Van Assche, Wouter Duyck, and Robert J. Hartsuiker. "Chapter 2, Context effects in bilingual sentence processing". p. 6.
581:
De Groot, A. M. (2011). Language and cognition in bilinguals and multilingual: An introduction. New York, NY, US: Psychology Press
469:
408:
127:
756:
736:
MROM-p: An interactive activation, multiple readout model of orthographic and phonological processes in visual word recognition
1737:
1128:
Beauvillain, C., & Grainger, J. (1987). Accessing interlexical homographs: Some limitations of language-selective access.
1522:
1755:
Bilingual lexical access during L1 sentence reading: the effects of L2 knowledge, semantic constraint, and L1-L2 intermixing
43:
1319:
Green, D. W. (1986). Control, activation, and resource: A framework and a model for the control of speech in bilinguals.
322:
In word recognition studies, the cognate or interlingual homograph effects are most often used with the following tasks:
735:
1776:
521:
Schwartz and Kroll used cognates and homographs as target words presented in low- and high-constraint sentences to
266:
747:
LĂ©wy, N., & Grosjean, F. (1997).A computational model of bilingual lexical access. Manuscript in preparation.
1475:
1781:
123:
91:
lexical access. These theories relied mainly upon generalizations without specifying how lexical access works.
1626:
294:
Once bilinguals acquire the lexical information from both languages, bilingual lexical access activates in
295:
154:
179:
share similar lexical features are activated when a word is presented. For instance, when the Dutch word
1602:
1083:
338:
259:
130:. Serial search models propose that when monolinguals encounter a word, they will look through all the
1063:
856:
1161:"Word reading and translation in bilinguals: the impact of formal and informal translation expertise"
358:
282:
485:
spoken language, cognitive processes related to spoken language, body language and lip-reading, etc.
882:
Moon, J.; Jiang, N. (January 2012). "Non-selective lexical access in different-script bilinguals".
299:
122:(Pienemann et al. 2005), just like first language learners", of which there are 2 models proposed:
103:
39:
1673:
1661:
1045:
899:
616:
331:
1142:
789:
Grainger, J., & Beauvillain, C. (1987). Language blocking and lexical access in bilinguals.
1259:"Behavioral and ERP evidence of word and pseudoword superiority effects in 7- and 11-year-olds"
1111:
1109:
1100:
652:
1717:
1590:
1499:
1418:
1408:
1385:
1367:
1288:
1192:
1010:
959:
940:
836:
591:
Costa, Albert; La Heij, Navarrete (22 June 2006). "The dynamics of bilingual lexical access".
546:
99:
20:
1580:
1572:
1375:
1359:
1278:
1270:
1182:
1172:
1037:
1000:
990:
960:"Linking Comprehension Costs to Production Patterns During the Processing of Mixed Language"
930:
891:
828:
608:
600:
551:
522:
310:
238:
234:
119:
56:
1211:
The influence of semantic constraints on bilingual word recognition during sentence reading
1476:
The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision
533:
529:
511:
507:
278:
131:
115:
107:
95:
1738:
Does bilingualism change native-language reading? Cognate effects in a sentence context
1713:
At the doors of lexical access: The importance of the first 250 milliseconds in reading
1585:
1560:
1380:
1347:
1283:
1258:
1187:
1160:
1005:
978:
158:
88:
52:
35:
24:
1209:
Van Assche, E., Drieghe, D., Duyck, W., Welvaert, M., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2011).
47:
goal to understand whether these dual representations interact or affect one another.
1770:
1306:
1101:
Bilinguals in a monolingual and a bilingual speech mode: The effect on lexical access
1049:
903:
719:
Simulating cross-language competition with the bilingual interactive activation model
620:
494:
445:
431:
without any influence of this task/decision system on the activation state of words.
227:
832:
1665:
1274:
489:
479:
213:. Interlingual homographs are words from two languages that are identical in their
979:"When Language Switching has No Apparent Cost: Lexical Access in Sentence Context"
1711:
1493:
935:
918:
1543:
Sentence context modulates visual word recognition and translation in bilinguals
1537:
1535:
718:
345:
270:
254:
214:
139:
1694:
Bilingual lexical access in context: Evidence from eye movements during reading
693:
691:
334:, which has been used in various studies that examine bilingual lexical access.
1561:"Picture detection in rapid serial visual presentation: features or identity?"
1517:
1515:
1422:
1041:
895:
604:
206:
162:
1753:
Titone, D., Libben, M., Mercier, J., Whitford, V., & Pivneva, I. (2011).
1371:
1332:
Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system.
1177:
995:
1736:
Van Assche, E., Duyck, W., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Diependaele, K. (2009).
427:
349:
274:
218:
135:
28:
1594:
1389:
1292:
1196:
1143:
Bilingual lexical processing: Exploring the cognate/non-cognate distinction
1014:
944:
1227:
Van Assche, E (2012). "Bilingual Word Recognition in a Sentence Context".
364:
faster response latency than a target word preceded by an unrelated prime.
1363:
612:
210:
147:
111:
1698:
Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 35
1088:
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15
556:
167:
1576:
1141:
Sáchez-Casas, R. M., GarcĂa-Albea, J. E., & Davis, C. W. (1992).
441:
281:–English bilinguals make English lexical decisions on target strings
1759:
Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 37
1565:
Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance
919:"Language access and language selection in professional translators"
823:
De Groot, Annette M. B. (2012-11-05). "Bilingualism and Cognition".
106:. "Many early studies of second language acquisition focused on the
102:, resulting in more detailed research and a deeper understanding of
87:
Early research of bilingual lexical access was based on theories of
668:
Morton, J. (1969). Interaction of information in word recognition.
1064:
Orthographic and lexical constraints in bilingual word recognition
488:
376:
110:
development of learners and the general finding was that bound
60:
1084:
Language-specific lexical access of homographs by bilinguals
738:. Localist connectionist approaches to human cognition, 147.
717:
Dijkstra, T., Van Heuven, W.J.B., & Grainger, J. (1998).
502:
Studies of bilingual lexical access in sentence processing
71:
in the target language. While activating the English word
1348:"Cross-language lexical processes and inhibitory control"
778:
Handbook of bilingualism psycholinguistic approaches, 54,
977:
Gullifer, J. W.; J.F. Kroll; P.E. Dussias (2013-05-30).
577:
575:
573:
571:
23:
that studies the activation or retrieval process of the
1307:"Lexical Decision Tasks, Semantic Priming, and Reading"
857:
Linguistic independence of bilinguals: The input switch
1450:
One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing
1346:
Linck, J. A.; Hoshino, N.; Kroll, J. F. (2008-12-10).
808:
Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches,
369:
Models of bilingual lexical access in word recognition
1710:
Jon Andoni Dunabeitia, Nicola Molinaro (2014-09-30).
1495:
Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches
1448:
Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual's language modes.
768:
766:
764:
681:
Gleason, J. Berko & Ratner, N. Bernstein. (1998)
1559:
Potter MC, Wyble B, Pandav R, Olejarczyk J. (2010).
791:
The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39
774:
Bilingual visual word recognition and lexical access
685:
New York: Harcourt Brace. (Published November 1997).
452:
The main methodological tasks in sentence processing
63:
in English, they will come up with the English word
653:
Terminating and exhaustive search in lexical access
861:Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10
416:Bilingual interactive activation plus (BIA+) model
1405:Speech Perception and Comprehension in Bilinguals
1242:Kaplan, E.; Weintraub, S.; Goodglass, H. (1983).
804:Models of bilingual representation and processing
1523:Bilingual lexical activation in sentence context
1474:Dijkstra, A. F. J., & Heuven, W. V. (2002).
1229:Bilingual Word Recognition in a Sentence Context
1082:Gerard, L. D., & Scarborough, D. L. (1989).
79:) is most likely also in a state of activation.
1541:Van Hell, J. G., & De Groot, A. M. (2008).
1435:Grosjean, F. (1997). The bilingual individual.
699:Computational models of bilingual comprehension
697:Thomas, M. S., & Van Heuven, W. J. (2005).
632:
630:
1498:. Oxford University Press, 2009. p. 197.
651:Forster, K. I., & Bednall, E. S. (1976).
318:Main methodological tasks in word recognition
8:
1678:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
1607:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
1521:Schwartz, A. I., & Kroll, J. F. (2006).
964:University Park: The Pennsylvania University
855:Macnamara, J., & Kushnir, S. L. (1971).
385:Bilingual interactive activation (BIA) model
1692:Libben, M. R., & Titone, D. A. (2009).
1492:Judith F. Kroll, A. M. B. de Groot (2009).
1147:European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4
818:
816:
59:bilingual is asked to name a picture of a
1584:
1379:
1282:
1186:
1176:
1004:
994:
934:
802:Kroll, J. F., & Tokowicz, N. (2005).
375:
1716:. Frontiers E-books, 2014. p. 86.
1480:Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5
1407:. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
1334:Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 1
1117:Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1
1103:. Memory and Cognition, 12(4), 380-386.
917:Ibáñez, A.; P. Macizo; M. Bajo (2010).
825:The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics
567:
237:research with English monolinguals and
1671:
1600:
1068:Cognitive processing in bilinguals, 83
1078:
1076:
713:
711:
422:Bilingual interactive activation plus
7:
1623:"Psycholinguistics and eye tracking"
1099:Soares, C. and Grosjean, F. (1984).
1030:Bilingualism: Language and Cognition
884:Bilingualism: Language and Cognition
593:Bilingualism: Language and Cognition
1527:Journal of Memory and Language, 55
1246:. Philadelphia: Lee & Febiger.
1215:Journal of Memory and Language, 64
1130:Journal of Memory and Language, 26
183:is activated, is the English word
153:With the occurrence of widespread
14:
1625:. Tobii ecgnology. Archived from
639:Fundamentals of Psycholinguistics
407:In the language model framework,
470:Rapid serial visual presentation
958:Guzzardo Tamargo, R.E. (2012).
833:10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0099
757:Neuroscience of multilingualism
683:Psycholinguistics, 2nd edition.
217:but differ in their meaning or
1275:10.1016/j.brainres.2012.09.041
98:has improved understanding of
1:
394:Inhibitory control model (IC)
1648:Cognitive Brain Research, 25
1403:Grosjean, Francois. (2018).
936:10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.07.009
827:. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
657:Memory & Cognition, 4(1)
493:A diagram demonstrating the
482:(or eye-movement recording):
245:Language-nonselective access
497:of foveal vision in reading
1798:
419:
267:Cross-linguistic influence
94:Subsequent advancement in
1742:Psychological Science, 20
1042:10.1017/s1366728998000121
896:10.1017/S1366728911000022
605:10.1017/s1366728906002495
290:In language comprehension
192:Language-selective access
1178:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01302
1062:Beauvillain, C. (1992).
996:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00278
703:Handbook of bilingualism
670:Psychological review, 76
75:, its Dutch equivalent (
17:Bilingual lexical access
1463:Memory and Language, 39
1165:Frontiers in Psychology
1159:Garcia, Adolfo (2014).
637:Fernandez, Eva (2011).
403:Language mode framework
1547:Acta Psychologica, 128
1321:Brain and language, 27
498:
435:In sentence processing
381:
296:language comprehension
155:computational modeling
128:parallel access models
734:Grainger, J. (1998).
723:Psychologica Belgica,
492:
379:
339:Lexical decision task
260:lexical decision task
253:Despite the observed
1364:10.1075/ml.3.3.06lin
1257:Coch, Donna (2012).
772:Dijksta, T. (2005).
124:serial search models
462:Self-paced reading:
409:language processing
306:In word recognition
300:sentence processing
104:language production
42:knowledge from the
1352:The Mental Lexicon
1244:Boston Naming Test
641:. Wiley-Blackwell.
499:
382:
332:Boston Naming Test
1777:Psycholinguistics
1414:978-1-118-83576-0
842:978-1-4051-9473-0
547:Bilingual lexicon
327:Word naming task:
120:complex sentences
100:psycholinguistics
21:psycholinguistics
1789:
1762:
1751:
1745:
1734:
1728:
1727:
1707:
1701:
1690:
1684:
1683:
1677:
1669:
1657:
1651:
1644:
1638:
1637:
1635:
1634:
1619:
1613:
1612:
1606:
1598:
1588:
1577:10.1037/a0018730
1556:
1550:
1539:
1530:
1519:
1510:
1509:
1489:
1483:
1472:
1466:
1459:
1453:
1446:
1440:
1433:
1427:
1426:
1400:
1394:
1393:
1383:
1343:
1337:
1330:
1324:
1317:
1311:
1310:
1303:
1297:
1296:
1286:
1254:
1248:
1247:
1239:
1233:
1232:
1224:
1218:
1207:
1201:
1200:
1190:
1180:
1156:
1150:
1139:
1133:
1126:
1120:
1113:
1104:
1097:
1091:
1080:
1071:
1060:
1054:
1053:
1025:
1019:
1018:
1008:
998:
974:
968:
967:
955:
949:
948:
938:
914:
908:
907:
879:
873:
870:
864:
853:
847:
846:
820:
811:
800:
794:
787:
781:
770:
759:
754:
748:
745:
739:
732:
726:
715:
706:
695:
686:
679:
673:
666:
660:
649:
643:
642:
634:
625:
624:
588:
582:
579:
552:Bilingual memory
311:Word recognition
235:word recognition
116:simple sentences
1797:
1796:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1788:
1787:
1786:
1782:Multilingualism
1767:
1766:
1765:
1752:
1748:
1735:
1731:
1724:
1709:
1708:
1704:
1691:
1687:
1670:
1659:
1658:
1654:
1645:
1641:
1632:
1630:
1621:
1620:
1616:
1599:
1558:
1557:
1553:
1540:
1533:
1520:
1513:
1506:
1491:
1490:
1486:
1473:
1469:
1460:
1456:
1447:
1443:
1434:
1430:
1415:
1402:
1401:
1397:
1345:
1344:
1340:
1331:
1327:
1318:
1314:
1305:
1304:
1300:
1256:
1255:
1251:
1241:
1240:
1236:
1226:
1225:
1221:
1208:
1204:
1158:
1157:
1153:
1140:
1136:
1127:
1123:
1114:
1107:
1098:
1094:
1081:
1074:
1061:
1057:
1027:
1026:
1022:
976:
975:
971:
957:
956:
952:
916:
915:
911:
881:
880:
876:
871:
867:
854:
850:
843:
822:
821:
814:
801:
797:
788:
784:
771:
762:
755:
751:
746:
742:
733:
729:
716:
709:
696:
689:
680:
676:
667:
663:
650:
646:
636:
635:
628:
590:
589:
585:
580:
569:
565:
543:
530:native language
508:second language
504:
454:
437:
424:
418:
405:
396:
387:
371:
320:
308:
292:
247:
194:
176:
132:lexical entries
108:morphosyntactic
96:medical science
85:
44:target language
12:
11:
5:
1795:
1793:
1785:
1784:
1779:
1769:
1768:
1764:
1763:
1746:
1729:
1722:
1702:
1685:
1652:
1639:
1614:
1571:(6): 1486–94.
1551:
1531:
1511:
1504:
1484:
1467:
1454:
1441:
1428:
1413:
1395:
1358:(3): 349–374.
1338:
1325:
1312:
1298:
1263:Brain Research
1249:
1234:
1219:
1202:
1151:
1134:
1121:
1105:
1092:
1072:
1055:
1020:
969:
950:
929:(2): 257–266.
909:
874:
865:
848:
841:
812:
795:
782:
760:
749:
740:
727:
707:
687:
674:
661:
644:
626:
583:
566:
564:
561:
560:
559:
554:
549:
542:
539:
503:
500:
487:
486:
476:
466:
453:
450:
436:
433:
420:Main article:
417:
414:
404:
401:
395:
392:
386:
383:
370:
367:
366:
365:
354:
335:
319:
316:
307:
304:
291:
288:
246:
243:
193:
190:
175:
172:
159:Lexical Access
84:
81:
36:lexical access
25:mental lexicon
19:is an area of
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1794:
1783:
1780:
1778:
1775:
1774:
1772:
1760:
1756:
1750:
1747:
1744:(8), 923-927.
1743:
1739:
1733:
1730:
1725:
1723:9782889192601
1719:
1715:
1714:
1706:
1703:
1699:
1695:
1689:
1686:
1681:
1675:
1667:
1663:
1656:
1653:
1649:
1643:
1640:
1629:on 2013-06-07
1628:
1624:
1618:
1615:
1610:
1604:
1596:
1592:
1587:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1555:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1538:
1536:
1532:
1529:(2), 197-212.
1528:
1524:
1518:
1516:
1512:
1507:
1505:9780195373653
1501:
1497:
1496:
1488:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1471:
1468:
1465:(3), 458-483.
1464:
1458:
1455:
1451:
1445:
1442:
1438:
1432:
1429:
1424:
1420:
1416:
1410:
1406:
1399:
1396:
1391:
1387:
1382:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1342:
1339:
1335:
1329:
1326:
1323:(2), 210-223.
1322:
1316:
1313:
1308:
1302:
1299:
1294:
1290:
1285:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1253:
1250:
1245:
1238:
1235:
1230:
1223:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1206:
1203:
1198:
1194:
1189:
1184:
1179:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1155:
1152:
1149:(4), 293-310.
1148:
1144:
1138:
1135:
1132:(6), 658-672.
1131:
1125:
1122:
1118:
1112:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1096:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1079:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1059:
1056:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1024:
1021:
1016:
1012:
1007:
1002:
997:
992:
988:
984:
983:Front Psychol
980:
973:
970:
965:
961:
954:
951:
946:
942:
937:
932:
928:
924:
920:
913:
910:
905:
901:
897:
893:
889:
885:
878:
875:
869:
866:
863:(5), 480-487.
862:
858:
852:
849:
844:
838:
834:
830:
826:
819:
817:
813:
809:
805:
799:
796:
793:(2), 295-319.
792:
786:
783:
779:
775:
769:
767:
765:
761:
758:
753:
750:
744:
741:
737:
731:
728:
724:
720:
714:
712:
708:
704:
700:
694:
692:
688:
684:
678:
675:
672:(2), 165-178.
671:
665:
662:
658:
654:
648:
645:
640:
633:
631:
627:
622:
618:
614:
613:11577/2714080
610:
606:
602:
598:
594:
587:
584:
578:
576:
574:
572:
568:
562:
558:
555:
553:
550:
548:
545:
544:
540:
538:
535:
531:
526:
524:
519:
517:
513:
509:
501:
496:
491:
483:
481:
477:
473:
471:
467:
463:
460:
459:
458:
451:
449:
447:
446:pronunciation
443:
434:
432:
429:
423:
415:
413:
410:
402:
400:
393:
391:
384:
378:
374:
368:
362:
360:
355:
351:
347:
342:
340:
336:
333:
328:
325:
324:
323:
317:
315:
312:
305:
303:
301:
297:
289:
287:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
261:
256:
251:
244:
242:
240:
236:
231:
229:
228:reaction time
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
202:
198:
191:
189:
186:
182:
173:
171:
169:
164:
160:
156:
151:
149:
143:
141:
137:
133:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
109:
105:
101:
97:
92:
90:
82:
80:
78:
74:
70:
66:
62:
58:
54:
48:
45:
41:
37:
32:
30:
26:
22:
18:
1758:
1749:
1741:
1732:
1712:
1705:
1697:
1688:
1655:
1647:
1642:
1631:. Retrieved
1627:the original
1617:
1603:cite journal
1568:
1564:
1554:
1546:
1526:
1494:
1487:
1479:
1470:
1462:
1457:
1449:
1444:
1437:Interpreting
1436:
1431:
1404:
1398:
1355:
1351:
1341:
1336:(02), 67-81.
1333:
1328:
1320:
1315:
1301:
1266:
1262:
1252:
1243:
1237:
1228:
1222:
1217:(1), 88-107.
1214:
1205:
1168:
1164:
1154:
1146:
1137:
1129:
1124:
1119:(01), 51-66.
1116:
1095:
1087:
1067:
1058:
1036:(1): 51–66.
1033:
1029:
1023:
986:
982:
972:
963:
953:
926:
923:Acta Psychol
922:
912:
887:
883:
877:
868:
860:
851:
824:
807:
798:
790:
785:
777:
752:
743:
730:
725:38, 177-196.
722:
702:
682:
677:
669:
664:
656:
647:
638:
596:
592:
586:
527:
520:
515:
505:
480:Eye tracking
478:
468:
461:
455:
438:
428:phonological
425:
406:
397:
388:
372:
356:
337:
326:
321:
309:
293:
271:orthographic
265:
255:null results
252:
248:
232:
222:
203:
199:
195:
184:
180:
177:
152:
144:
93:
86:
76:
72:
68:
64:
49:
33:
16:
15:
1650:(1), 57-70.
890:: 173–180.
346:orthography
215:orthography
140:orthography
89:monolingual
1771:Categories
1761:(6), 1412.
1633:2013-07-29
1482:, 175-197.
1423:1048925562
599:(2): 137.
563:References
207:homographs
174:Hypotheses
170:subjects.
163:hypotheses
34:Bilingual
1700:(2), 381.
1674:cite news
1549:(3), 431.
1439:, 2, 1-2.
1372:1871-1340
1269:: 68–81.
1090:(2), 305.
1050:145722035
904:145466759
621:144631676
350:phonology
219:phonology
136:semantics
112:morphemes
29:bilingual
1595:20695696
1390:19907674
1293:23036274
1197:25429279
1171:: 1302.
1015:23750141
945:20705277
810:531-553.
780:179-201.
659:, 53-61.
541:See also
275:semantic
211:cognates
148:language
31:people.
1666:9512390
1586:2980565
1452:, 1-22.
1381:2774929
1309:. 2014.
1284:3496077
1188:4228976
1006:3668438
989:: 278.
557:Lexicon
523:Spanish
359:priming
348:and/or
239:Spanish
168:aphasic
118:before
83:History
57:English
40:lexical
1720:
1664:
1593:
1583:
1502:
1421:
1411:
1388:
1378:
1370:
1291:
1281:
1195:
1185:
1070:, 221.
1048:
1013:
1003:
943:
902:
839:
705:, 202.
619:
534:French
512:German
495:acuity
444:, and
442:syntax
283:primed
279:French
1662:S2CID
1046:S2CID
900:S2CID
617:S2CID
361:task:
357:Word
53:Dutch
1718:ISBN
1680:link
1609:link
1591:PMID
1500:ISBN
1419:OCLC
1409:ISBN
1386:PMID
1368:ISSN
1289:PMID
1267:1486
1193:PMID
1011:PMID
941:PMID
837:ISBN
516:gift
273:and
223:film
209:and
185:pork
181:work
126:and
77:hond
27:for
1581:PMC
1573:doi
1376:PMC
1360:doi
1279:PMC
1271:doi
1183:PMC
1173:doi
1038:doi
1001:PMC
991:doi
931:doi
927:135
892:doi
829:doi
609:hdl
601:doi
138:or
73:dog
69:dog
65:dog
61:dog
1773::
1757:.
1740:.
1696:.
1676:}}
1672:{{
1605:}}
1601:{{
1589:.
1579:.
1569:36
1567:.
1563:.
1545:.
1534:^
1525:.
1514:^
1478:.
1417:.
1384:.
1374:.
1366:.
1354:.
1350:.
1287:.
1277:.
1265:.
1261:.
1213:.
1191:.
1181:.
1167:.
1163:.
1145:.
1108:^
1086:.
1075:^
1066:.
1044:.
1032:.
1009:.
999:.
985:.
981:.
962:.
939:.
925:.
921:.
898:.
888:15
886:.
859:.
835:.
815:^
806:.
776:.
763:^
721:.
710:^
701:.
690:^
655:.
629:^
615:.
607:.
595:.
570:^
341::
1726:.
1682:)
1668:.
1636:.
1611:)
1597:.
1575::
1508:.
1425:.
1392:.
1362::
1356:3
1295:.
1273::
1231:.
1199:.
1175::
1169:5
1052:.
1040::
1034:1
1017:.
993::
987:4
966:.
947:.
933::
906:.
894::
845:.
831::
623:.
611::
603::
597:9
472::
55:-
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.