Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-zzcdp Total loading time: 0.48 Render date: 2021-12-04T18:31:41.553Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

7 - Bilingual Lexical Access and Reading

from Part III - Bilingual Sentence Processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2019

Roberto R. Heredia
Affiliation:
Texas A & M University
Anna B. Cieślicka
Affiliation:
Texas A & M University
Get access

Summary

This chapter provides an overview of research conducted over the past few decades on bilingual lexical access during reading using eye movement measures. We first present a summary of earlier work on bilingual single-word processing and outline the predictions of the bilingual interactive activation plus model (BIA+; Dijkstra & Van Heuven, 2002) regarding bilingual lexical access during reading. We then review the studies focusing on lexical access during L2 processing and then during L1 processing, while distinguishing systematically early and late stages of processing. Overall, the findings demonstrate that bilingual lexical access during reading is nonselective, as predicted by the BIA+, and that cross-language activation may occur more strongly during L2 than during L1 reading. Several other factors, such as semantic constraint and L2 proficiency, are also identified that modulate cross-language activation and the unfolding of lexical access.

Type
Chapter
Information
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

Titone, V., Whitford, V., Lijewska, A., & Itzhak, I. (2016). Bilingualism, executive control, and eye movement measures of reading: A selective review and reanalysis of bilingual vs. multilingual reading data. In Schwieter, J. (Ed.), Cognitive control and consequences in the multilingual mind (pp. 1146). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Assche, E., Duyck, W., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2012). Bilingual word recognition in a sentence context. Frontiers in Psychology, 3:174. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00174Google Scholar
van Assche, E., Duyck, W., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2016). Context effects in bilingual sentence processing: Task specificity. In Heredia, R. R., Altarriba, J., & Cieślicka, A. B. (Eds.), Methods in bilingual reading comprehension research (pp. 1131). New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitford, V., Pivneva, I., & Titone, D. (2016). Eye movement methods to investigate bilingual reading. In Heredia, R. R., Altarriba, J., & Cieślicka, A. B. (Eds.), Methods in bilingual reading comprehension research (pp. 183212). New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altarriba, J., Kroll, J. F., Scholl, A., & Rayner, K. (1996). The influence of lexical and conceptual constraints on reading mixed-languages sentences: Evidence from eye fixations and naming times. Memory and Cognition, 24(4), 477492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balling, L. W. (2013). Reading authentic texts: What counts as cognate? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(3), 637653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumenfeld, H. K., & Marian, V. (2014). Cognitive control in bilinguals: Advantages in Stimulus-Stimulus inhibition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(3), 610629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bultena, S., Dijkstra, T., & van Hell, J. G. (2014). Cognate effects in sentence context depend on word class, L2 proficiency, and task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(6), 12141241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charteris-Black, J. (2002). Second language figurative proficiency: A comparative study of Malay and English. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 104133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cieślicka, A. B., & Heredia, R. R. (2017). How to “save your skin” when processing L2 idioms: An eye movement analysis of idiom transparency and cross-language similarity among bilinguals. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 5(3), 81107.Google Scholar
Cop, U., Dirix, N., van Assche, E., Drieghe, D., & Duyck, W. (2016). Reading a book in one or two languages? An eye movement study of cognate facilitation in L1 and L2 reading. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(4), 747769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(4), 496518. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Miwa, K., Brummelhuis, B., Sappelli, M., & Baayen, H. (2010). How cross-language similarity and task demands affect cognate recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 284301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T., & Rekké, S. (2010). Toward a localist-connectionist model of a word translation. The Mental Lexison, 5(3), 401420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Timmermans, M., & Schriefers, H. (2000). On being blinded by your other language: Effects of task demands on interlingual homograph recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(4), 445464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(3), 175197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, R., van Jaarsveld, T., & Ten Brinke, S. (1998). Interlingual homograph recognition: Effects of tasks demands and language intermixing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(1), 5166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Wahl, A., Buythenhuijs, F., van Halem, N., Al-Jibouri, Z., De Korte, M., & Rekké, S. (2019). Multilink: A computational model for bilingual word recognition and word translation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(4), 657679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duyck, W., Vanderelst, D., Desmet, T., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2008). The frequency effect in second-language visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15, 850855.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duyck, W., van Assche, E., Drieghe, D., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2007). Visual word recognition by bilinguals in a sentence context: Evidence for nonselective lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(4), 663679.Google Scholar
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1990). Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(2), 181200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gadsby, N., Arnott, W. L., & Copland, D. A. (2008). An investigation of working memory influences on lexical ambiguity resolution. Neuropsychology, 22(2), 209216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gollan, T. H., Montoya, R. I., Cera, C., & Sandoval, T. C. (2008). More use almost always means a smaller frequency effect: Aging, bilingualism and the weaker links hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 787814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunter, T. C., Wagner, S., & Friederici, A. D. (2003). Working memory and lexical ambiguity resolution as revealed by ERPs: A difficult case for activation theories. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(5), 643657.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henderson, J. M., Luke, S. G., Schmidt, J., & Richards, J. E. (2013). Co-registration of eye movements and event-related potentials in connected-text paragraph reading. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 7(28), 113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoversten, L. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2016). A time course analysis of interlingual homograph processing: Evidence from eye movements. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(2), 347360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irujo, S. (1993). Steering clear: Avoidance in the production of idioms. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 205219.Google Scholar
Jared, D., & Szucs, C. (2002). Phonological activation in bilinguals: Evidence from interlingual homograph naming. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(3), 225239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kawamoto, A. H. (1988). Distributed representations of ambiguous words and their resolution in a connectionist network. In Small, S. I., Cottrell, G. W., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (Eds.). Lexical ambiguity resolution (pp. 195228). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauro, J., & Schwartz, A. I. (2017). Bilingual non-selective access in sentence contexts: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Memory and Language, 92, 217233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemhöfer, K., Dijkstra, T., Schriefers, H., Baayen, R. H., Grainger, J., & Zwisterlood, P. (2008). Native language influences on word recognition in a second language: A megastudy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1231.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), 381390.Google ScholarPubMed
Onifer, W., & Swinney, D. A. (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory and Cognition, 9, 225236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palma, P., Whitford, V., & Titone, D. A. (in press). Cross-language activation and executive control modulate within-language ambiguity resolution: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.
Pivneva, I., Mercier, J., & Titone, D. A. (2014). Executive control modulates cross-language lexical activation during L2 reading: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(3), 787796.Google ScholarPubMed
Pivneva, I., Palmer, C., & Titone, D. A. (2012). Inhibitory control and L2 proficiency modulate bilingual language production: Evidence from spontaneous monologue and dialogue speech. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(57).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 14571506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rayner, K., Pollatsek, A., Ashby, J., & Clifton, C. (2012). Psychology of reading (2nd ed.). London: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, K., Sereno, S. C., Morris, R. K., Schmauder, A. R., & Clifton, C. (1989). Eye movements and on-line language comprehension processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4(3–4), SI21SI49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, A. I., & Arêas da Luz Fontes, A. B. (2015). Bilingual access of homonym meanings: Individual differences in bilingual access of homonym meanings. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(4), 639656.Google Scholar
Schwartz, A. I., Kroll, J. F., & Diaz, M. (2007). Reading words in Spanish and English: Mapping orthography to phonology in two languages. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(1), 106129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., Leiman, J. M., & Bienkowski, M. (1982). Automatic access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations of knowledge-based processing. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 489537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sereno, S. C., Pacht, J. M., & Rayner, K. (1992). The effect of meaning frequency on processing lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Psychological Science, 3(5), 296301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, G. B., & Burgess, C. (1985). Activation and selection processes in the recognition of ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11(1), 2839.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. B., & Kreuger, M. (1991). Selective access of homograph meanings in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 627643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: Reconsiderations of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabossi, P., & Zardon, F. (1993). Processing ambiguous words in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 359372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titone, D. A., Columbus, G., Whitford, V., Mercier, J., & Libben, M. (2015). Contrasting bilingual and monolingual idiom processing. In Heredia, R. R., and Cieślicka, A. B. (Eds.), Bilingual figurative language processing (pp.171207). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titone, D. A., Libben, M. R., Mercier, J., Whitford, V., & Pivneva, I. (2011). Bilingual lexical access during L1 sentence reading: The effects of L2 knowledge, semantic constraint, and L1-L2 intermixing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(6), 14121431.Google ScholarPubMed
van Assche, E., Drieghe, D., Duyck, W., Welvaert, M., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2011). The influence of semantic constraints on bilingual word recognition during sentence reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 88107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Assche, E., Duyck, W., & Brysbaert, M. (2013). Verb processing by bilinguals in sentence contexts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 237259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Assche, E., Duyck, W., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Diependaele, K. (2009). Does bilingualism change native-language reading? Cognate effects in a sentence context. Psychological Science, 20(8), 923927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Hell, J. G., & Dijkstra, T. (2002). Foreign language knowledge can influence native language performance in exclusively native contexts. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9(4), 780789.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitford, V., & Joanisse, M. F. (2018). Do eye movements reveal differences between monolingual and bilingual children’s first-language and second-language reading? A focus on word frequency effects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 173, 318337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitford, V., & Titone, D. (2012). Second-language experience modulates first-and second-language word frequency effects: Evidence from eye movement measures of natural paragraph reading. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 19(1), 7380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitford, V., & Titone, D. (2015). Second-language experience modulates eye movements during first- and second-language sentence reading: Evidence from a gaze-contingent moving window paradigm. Journal of Experiment Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(4), 11181129.Google ScholarPubMed
Whitford, V., & Titone, D. (2019). Lexical entrenchment and cross-language activation: Two sides of the same coin for bilingual reading across the adult lifespan. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(1), 5877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2
Cited by

Send book to Kindle

To send 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 sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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
×

Send book to Dropbox

To send 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 sending content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Send book to Google Drive

To send 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 sending content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×