Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T15:34:37.092Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Non-selective lexical access in different-script bilinguals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2011

JIHYE MOON  and
NAN JIANG
JIHYE MOON*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
NAN JIANG
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
*
Address for correspondence Jihye Moon, Second Language Acquisition, 3215 Jiménez Hall College Park, MD 20742[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Lexical access in bilinguals is known to be largely non-selective. However, most studies in this area have involved bilinguals whose two languages share the same script. This study aimed to examine bilingual lexical access among bilinguals whose two languages have distinct scripts. Korean–English bilinguals were tested in a phoneme monitoring task in their first or second language. The results showed a simultaneous activation of the non-target language in a monolingual task, suggesting non-selective lexical access even among bilinguals whose two languages do not share the same script. Language dominance did not affect the pattern of results.

Keywords

phoneme monitoringbilingual lexical accessKoreanselectivenon-selectivelanguage dominance
Type
Research Notes
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 15 , Special Issue 1: Bilingual children with Specific Language Impairment , January 2012 , pp. 173 - 180
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

Blumenfeld, H. K., & Marian, V. (2007). Constraints on parallel activation in bilingual spoken language processing: Examining proficiency and lexical status using eye tracking. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22 (5), 633–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, C. G., & Cooke, H. (2009). Lexical competition during second language listening: Sentence context, but not proficiency, constrains interference from the native lexicon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1029–1040.Google Scholar
Colomé, A. (2001). Lexical activation in bilinguals’ speech production: Language-specific or language-independent? Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 721–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, A., Miozzo, M., & Caramazza, A. (1999). Lexical selection in bilinguals: Do words in the bilingual's two lexicons compete for selection? Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 365–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B., Delmaar, P., & Lupker, S. J. (2000). The processing of interlexical homographs in translation recognition and lexical decision: Support for nonselective access to bilingual memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 397–428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dijkstra, T. (2005). Bilingual word recognition and lexical access. In Kroll, J. F. & de Groot, A. M. B. (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, pp. 179–201. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, A. F. J., & 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. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, A. F. J., van Jaarsveld, H. J., & Ten Brinke, S. (1998). Interlingual homograph recognition: Effects of task demands and language intermixing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1 (1), 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J., & vanHeuven, W. J. B. Heuven, W. J. B. (1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language, 41 (4), 496–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grosjean, F. (1998). Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1 (2), 131–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermans, D., Bongaerts, T., de Bot, K., & Schreuder, R. (1998). Producing words in a foreign language: Can speakers prevent interference from their first language? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 213–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoshino, N., & Kroll, J. F. (2008). Cognate effects in picture naming: Does cross-language activation survive a change of script? Cognition, 106, 501–511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jared, D., & Kroll, J. F. (2001). Do bilinguals activate phonological representations in one or both of their languages when naming words? Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 2–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, A. I., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). Bilingual lexical activation in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 55 (2), 197–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marian, V., & Spivey, M. (1999). Activation of Russian and English Cohorts during bilingual spoken word recognition. In Hahn, M. & Stoness, S. C. (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-first Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 349–354. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
van Heuven, W. J. B., Dijkstra, T., & Grainger, J. (1998). Orthographic neighborhood effects in bilingual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 458–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Studnitz, R. E., & Green, D. (2002). Interlingual homograph interference in German-English bilinguals: Its modulation and locus of control. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, Y. J., & Thierry, G. (2010). Chinese–English bilinguals reading English hear Chinese. Journal of Neuroscience, 30 (22), 7646–7651.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed