Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T06:07:44.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Theory Visualizations for Bilingual Models of Lexical Ambiguity Resolution

from Part I - Theoretical and Methodological Considerations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2019

By
Ben Falandays  and
Michael J. Spivey
Edited by
Roberto R. Heredia  and
Anna B. Cieślicka
Roberto R. Heredia
Affiliation:
Texas A & M University
Anna B. Cieślicka
Affiliation:
Texas A & M University
Get access

Summary

Connectionist models describe the human language system as a high-dimensional state space composed of a neural network in which layers of processing units for different aspects of a linguistic signal (visual or acoustic features, orthography, semantics, etc.) interact with one another. Lexical ambiguity emerges when there is conflicting input within or between processing layers. Bilingual connectionist models, such as the bilingual interactive activation (BIA) and bilingual interactive activation plus (BIA+) models, treat bilingualism as the inclusion of new dimensions into this network, resulting in new opportunities for conflict, such as interlingual homonyms and cognates. We outline connectionist accounts of lexical ambiguity resolution in monolinguals and bilinguals, which we visually depict as movement through a multidimensional state space.

Keywords

bilingual lexical processingbilingual connectionismconnectionist modelscontextual diversityinterlingual ambiguitieslexical ambiguityvisualizations of lexical fields
Type
Chapter
Information
Bilingual Lexical Ambiguity Resolution , pp. 17 - 41
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Further Reading

Dale, R., Fusaroli, R., Duran, N. D., & Richardson, D. C. (2013). The self-organization of human interaction. In Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 59, 43–95.Google Scholar

References

Adelman, J. S., Brown, G. D., & Quesada, J. F. (2006). Contextual diversity, not word frequency, determines word-naming and lexical decision times. Psychological Science, 17(9), 814–823.Google Scholar
Allopenna, P. D., Magnuson, J. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of memory and language, 38(4), 419–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altarriba, J., & Gianico, J. L. (2003). Lexical ambiguity resolution across languages: A theorical and empirical review. Experimental Psychology, 50(3), 159–170.Google Scholar
Altarriba, J., Kroll, J. F., Sholl, A., & Rayner, K. (1996). The influence of lexical and conceptual constraints on reading mixed-language sentences: Evidence from eye fixations and naming times. Memory and Cognition, 24(4), 477–492.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded Cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.Google Scholar
Chen, Q., Huang, X., Bai, L., Xu, X., Yang, Y., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2017). The effect of contextual diversity on eye movements in Chinese sentence reading. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 24(2), 510–518.Google Scholar
De Groot, A. M., Delmaar, P., & Lupker, S. J. (2000). The processing of interlexical homographs in translation recognition and lexical decision: Support for non-selective access to bilingual memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A(2), 397–428.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J., & van Heuven, W. J. (1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and language, 41(4), 496–518.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., & van Heuven, W. J. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(3), 175–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Routledge.Google Scholar
Elman, J. L. (1991). Distributed representations, simple recurrent networks, and grammatical structure. Machine Learning, 7(2–3), 195–225.Google Scholar
Elman, J. L. (2004). An alternative view of the mental lexicon. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(7), 301–306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elman, J. L. (2009). On the meaning of words and dinosaur bones: Lexical knowledge without a lexicon. Cognitive Science, 33(4), 547–582.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forster, K. I., & Chambers, S. M. (1973). Lexical access and naming time. Journal of Memory and Language, 12(6), 627–635.Google Scholar
French, R. M. (1998). A simple recurrent network model of bilingual memory. In Gernsbacher, M. A. & Derry, S. J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Annual Cognitive Science Society Conference (pp. 368–373). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R., & Matlock, T. (2001). Psycholinguistic perspectives on polysemy. In Cuyckens, H. & Zawada, B. (Eds.), Polysemy in cognitive linguistics. (pp. 213–239). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1994). Individual bilingualism. In The encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 1656–1660). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1995). A psycholinguistic approach to code-switching: The recognition of guest words by bilinguals. In Milroy, L. & Muysken, P. (Eds.), One speaker, two languages (pp. 259–275). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual’s language modes. In Nicol, J. (Ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing (pp. 1–22). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hills, T. T., Maouene, J., Riordan, B., & Smith, L. (2010). The associative structure of language: Contextual diversity in early word learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(3), 259–273.Google Scholar
Hoffman, R. R. (1980). Metaphor in science. In Honeck, R. P. & Hoffman, R. R. (Eds.), The psycholinguistics of figurative language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Jacquet, M., & French, R. M. (2002). The BIA++: Extending the BIA+ to a dynamical distributed connectionist framework. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(3), 202–205.Google Scholar
Johns, B. T., Dye, M., & Jones, M. N. (2016). The influence of contextual diversity on word learning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 23(4), 1214–1220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ju, M., & Luce, P. A. (2004). Falling on sensitive ears: Constraints on bilingual lexical activation. Psychological Science, 15(5), 314–318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaushanskaya, M., & Marian, V. (2004). Activation of non-target language phonology during bilingual visual word recognition: Evidence from eye-tracking. In Forbus, K., Gentner, D., & Regier, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 654–659). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kawamoto, A. H. (1993). Nonlinear dynamics in the resolution of lexical ambiguity: a distributed processing account. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 474–516.Google Scholar
Kim, K. H., Relkin, N. R., Lee, K. M., & Hirsch, J. (1997). Distinct cortical areas associated with native and second languages. Nature, 388(6638), 171–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kroll, J. F., & Bialystok, E. (2013). Understanding the consequences of bilingualism for language processing and cognition. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 497–514.Google Scholar
Lehrer, A. (1974). Semantic fields and lexical structure, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Li, P. (1996). Spoken word recognition of code-switched words by Chinese–English bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(6), 757–774.Google Scholar
Libben, M. R., & Titone, D. A. (2009). Bilingual lexical access in context: evidence from eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(2), 381–390.Google Scholar
Louwerse, M. M., Dale, R., Bard, E. G., & Jeuniaux, P. (2012). Behavior matching in multimodal communication is synchronized. Cognitive Science, 36(8), 1404–1426.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyons, J. (1963). Structural semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C., & Christiansen, M. H. (2002). Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter(1992) and Waters and Caplan(1996). Psychological Review, 109(1), 35–54.Google Scholar
Macnamara, J., & Kushnir, S. L. (1971). Linguistic independence of bilinguals: The input switch. Journal of Memory and Language, 10(5), 480.Google Scholar
Marian, V., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2004). Self-construal and emotion in bicultural bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(2), 190–201.Google Scholar
Marian, V., & Spivey, M. (2003a). Bilingual and monolingual processing of competing lexical items. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(2), 173–193.Google Scholar
Marian, V., & Spivey, M. (2003b). Competing activation in bilingual language processing: Within-and between-language competition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6(2), 97–115.Google Scholar
Marian, V., Spivey, M., & Hirsch, J. (2003). Shared and separate systems in bilingual language processing: Converging evidence from eyetracking and brain imaging. Brain and Language, 86(1), 70–82.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1987). Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition. Cognition, 25(1–2), 71–102.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18(1), 1–86.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L., & Johnston, J. C. (1977). The role of familiar units in perception of words and nonwords. Perception and Psychophysics, 22(3), 249–261.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88(5), 375–407.Google Scholar
Meuter, R. F., & Allport, A. (1999). Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection. Journal of memory and language, 40(1), 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyake, A., Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1994). Working memory constraints on the resolution of lexical ambiguity: Maintaining multiple interpretations in neutral contexts. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(2), 175–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, E. M., Federmeier, K. D., & Kutas, M. (2002). Switching languages, switching palabras (words): An electrophysiological study of code switching. Brain and Language, 80(2), 188–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Onnis, L., Spivey, M. J. (2012). Toward a new scientific visualization for the language sciences. Information, 3, 124–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plummer, P., Perea, M., & Rayner, K. (2014). The influence of contextual diversity on eye movements in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(1), 275–283.Google ScholarPubMed
Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1982). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: II. The contextual enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of the model. Psychological Review, 89(1), 60–94.Google Scholar
Schwartz, A. I., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). Bilingual lexical activation in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(2), 197–212.Google Scholar
Spevack, S. C., Falandays, J. B., Batzloff, B., & Spivey, M. J. (2018). Interactivity of language. Language and Linguistics Compass, 12(7), e12282.Google Scholar
Spivey, M. J. (2008). The continuity of mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Spivey, M. J., & Cardon, C. D. (2015). Methods for studying adult bilingualism. In Schwieter, J. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of bilingual language processing. (pp. 108–132). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spivey, M. J., & Dale, R. (2006). Continuous dynamics in real-time cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 207–211.Google Scholar
Spivey, M. J., & Marian, V. (1999). Cross talk between native and second languages: Partial activation of an irrelevant lexicon. Psychological Science, 10(3), 281–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spivey-Knowlton, M. J. (1996). Integration of visual and linguistic information: Human data and model simulations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester.Google Scholar
Strauss, J., Harris, H. D., & Magnuson, J. S. (2007). jTRACE: A reimplementation and extension of the TRACE model of speech perception and spoken word recognition. Behavior Research Methods, 39(1), 19–30.Google Scholar
Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(6), 645–659.Google Scholar
Tabossi, P. (1988). Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of sentential contexts. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 324–340.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, M. K., Leiman, J. M., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1979). Evidence for multiple stages in the processing of ambiguous words in syntactic contexts. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(4), 427–440.Google Scholar
Toscano, J. C., Anderson, N. D., & McMurray, B. (2013). Reconsidering the role of temporal order in spoken word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20(5), 981–987.Google Scholar
van Hell, J. G., & Tanner, D. (2012). Second language proficiency and cross‐language lexical activation. Language Learning, 62, 148–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Heuven, W. J., Dijkstra, T., & Grainger, J. (1998). Orthographic neighborhood effects in bilingual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(3), 458–483.Google Scholar
Vu, H., Kellas, G., & Paul, S. T. (1998). Sources of sentence constraint on lexical ambiguity resolution. Memory and Cognition, 26(5), 979–1001.Google Scholar
Weber, A., & Cutler, A. (2004). Lexical competition in non-native spoken-word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(1), 1–25.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×