Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T13:27:24.480Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A few suggestions on broadening the cross-linguistic relevance of the Multilink model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2018

RAMESH KUMAR MISHRA
RAMESH KUMAR MISHRA*
Affiliation:
University of Hyderabad
*
Address for correspondence: Ramesh Kumar Mishra, Center for Neural and Cognitive Sciences, Science Complex, University of Hyderabad, Gachibowli, Hyderabad 500049[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In their keynote article, Dijkstra, Wahl, Buytenhuijs, van Halem, Al-jibouri, De Korte & Rekke (2018) propose a new model that aims to integrate and take care of the possible shortcomings of both the Revised Hierarchical Model (RHM, Kroll & Stewart, 1994) and Bilingual Interactive Activation model (BIA and several of its later versions, Dijkstra & Van Heuven, 1998). They begin their proposal by examining the objections/issues raised by Brysbaert and Duyck (2010) on RHM. It is well known that RHM is a developmental, production-based model which mostly predicted performance on translation-based tasks albeit with different predictions for translation recognition vs. production with regard to second language proficiency; BIA being a connectionist model of bilingual word recognition majorly emphasized on language non –selective selection and parallel language activation. Having been developed in and around Dutch (English as the second language), it took cognate status and orthographic similarity between words very seriously. Cognate status and orthographic similarity as factors won't count much as theoretical constructs around which a hypothesis could be developed if we look round the diverse types of orthographies and phonologies we find around the world.

Keywords

multilinkRHMbilingualtranslation
Type
Peer Commentaries
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , August 2019 , pp. 691 - 692
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

Brysbaert, M., & Duyck, W. (2010). Is it time to leave behind the Revised Hierarchical Model of bilingual language processing after fifteen years of service?. Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 13 (3), 359–371.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, A., & Van Heuven, W.J.B. (1998). The BIA-model and bilingual word recognition. In Grainger, J. & Jacobs, A. (Eds.), Localist Connectionist Approaches to Human Cognition (pp. 189–225). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, A., Wahl, A., Buytenhuijs, F., van Halem, N., Al-jibouri, Z., de Korte, M., & Rekké, S. (2018). Multilink: a computational model for bilingual word recognition and word translation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, doi:10.1017/S1366728918000287.Google Scholar
Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 1 (2), 67–81.Google Scholar
Mishra, R. K., & Singh, N. (2014). Language non-selective activation of orthography during spoken word processing in Hindi–English sequential bilinguals: An eye tracking visual world study. Reading and Writing, 27 (1), 129–151.Google Scholar
Mishra, R. K., & Singh, N. (2016). The influence of second language proficiency on bilingual parallel language activation in Hindi–English bilinguals. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28 (4), 396–411.Google Scholar
Rayner, K., Li, X., & Pollatsek, A. (2007). Extending the E-Z reader model of eye movement control to Chinese readers. Cognitive science, 31 (6), 1021–1033.Google Scholar
Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D. L., & Rayner, K. (1998). Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological review, 105 (1), 125.Google Scholar
Salverda, A. P., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2010). Tracking the time course of orthographic information in spoken-word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36 (5), 1108.Google Scholar
Shook, A., & Marian, V. (2013). The bilingual language interaction network for comprehension of speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16 (2), 304–324.Google Scholar
Skeide, M. A., Kumar, U., Mishra, R. K., Tripathi, V. N., Guleria, A., Singh, J. P., Eisner, F., & Huettig, F. (2017). Learning to read alters cortico-subcortical cross-talk in the visual system of illiterates. Science advances, 3 (5), e1602612.Google Scholar
Singh, N., & Mishra, R. K. (2012). Does language proficiency modulate oculomotor control? Evidence from Hindi–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15 (4), 771–781.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268 (5217), 1632–1634.Google Scholar