Studied by 45 people
Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.
What is the mechanism of language control in bilingual comprehension?
non selective
What is the non selective language control?
the bilingual’s different languages intervene while processing takes place
What is selective access?
when one language is heard, only that language is active and is processed
What is the context of bilingual comprehension involve?
top-down and bottom up-factors
Word recognition does not occur?
in isolation
Why does word recognition not occur in isolation?
prior sentence & discourse context
syntax
pragmatics
language context in bilinguals
What is language mode?
the state of activation of a bilingual’s languages and language processing mechanisms at a given point in time
What is spoke word recognition?
1. Incremental activation of potential word candidates that closely match the incoming sensory input as speech sounds unfold over time
2. Selection among possible word candidates for the best match
3. Integration of selected word into the representation of the surrounding context
What were the task of Marian & Spivey (1999)?
used a visual display of objects and eye-tracking
What did they have to name in the 1999 test?
Names of two objects in different languages sound similar at the beginning
e.g., “marku” means stamp in Russian
“marker” was the English competitor
What was the sentence that was listened to in the 1999 task?
Poloji marku nije krestika (Put the stamp below the cross)
What was the results of the Marian & Spivey (1999) task?
Bilinguals looked more to the marker than to the ruler (32 vs. 7%)
What did the results suggest in the Marian & Spivey task (1999)?
non selective access was used
What was the limitation of the Marian & Spivey (1999) task?
BUT bilinguals knew they were in a study on bilingualism, were tested by bilinguals, and were tested in each language back-to-back
What was different in the Marian & Spivey (2003) task?
bilinguals were only tested in one of their languages and more in monolingual language mode
How were the results different in the Marian & Spivey (2003) task?
did not look more to marker than to ruler
What is evidence of the Marian & Spivey (2003)?
evidence that nontarget language representation were not activated (selective access) 8 vs. 5%
What happened when the target was in L2 English?
bilinguals did look at the interlingual competitor in their L1 Russian 18% vs. 7%) using nonselective access
What was the Ju & Luce (2004) study?
Similar experiment with Spanish-English bilinguals
e.g., “playa” means beach in Spanish
“pliers” was the English competitor object
What was manipulated in the study?
Manipulated the VOT of /p/ in “playa”
Could sound like a Spanish /p/ or an English /p/
What suggested selective access in Ju & Luce (2004)?
Spanish VOT which had no English interference
What suggested nonselective access in Ju & Luce (2004)?
English VOT which had English interference
What do the results suggest in Ju & Luce (2004)?
Bottom-up phonetic information about the relevant language altered lexical access
What was the Paulmann et al. (2004) task?
German-English bilinguals watched a 20 min video in L1 or L2
What was the performance task in the Paulmann et al. (2006) study?
Performed a primed LDT (lexical decision task) on L2 English words
What were the two conditions the Paulmann et al. (2006) study?
Prime word could be an IH (e.g., “gift” means poison in German) or a control word (“shell”)
LDT on target word presented immediately after (the English translation of the German meaning of the IH; e.g., “poison”)
What was measured in the Paulmann et al. (2006) & Elston-Guttler et. al (2005) study?
measured semantic priming on the target word (POISON)
What do these results suggest in the Paulmann et al. (2006) study?
language switch to no language switch
What do these results suggest in the Paulmann et al. (2006) study?
non languages switches
What do the results suggest in Paulmann et al (2006) study?
found semantic priming on the target word utilizing nonselective access & didn’t matter which video participants watched
What were the RTs in Paulmann et al (2006) study?
shorter after IH than control word
What were the N400s in Paulmann et al (2006) study?
smaller after IH than control word
What was the Elston-Guttler et al. (2005) study?
Same paradigm except that the IH or control words were embedded in L2 English sentences —> final word could be an IH or a control word & LDT on target word presented after
What was the sentence and the words presented in Elston-Guttler et al. (2005) study?
On holiday he found the perfect:
GIFT
SHELL
POISON
What did these results suggest in Elston-Guttler et al. (2005)?
language to no language switch
What did these results suggest in Elston-Guttler et al. (2005)?
no language switch
What was non selective access in the Elston-Guttler et al. (2005)?
1st half after German film where there was found semantic priming on the target word but none in the 2nd half
What was selective access in the Elston-Guttler et al. (2005)?
no semantic priming in entire experiment after English film
What did the Elston-Guttler et al. (2005) imply?
zooming-in hypothesis
What is the zooming-in hypothesis?
bilinguals adjust to a monolingual language context such that less and less interference from the nontarget language occurs over time
How did zoom in help in the English film?
English film helped participants zoom in to English for the whole experiment
What did the German film help with zooming in?
activated German knowledge prior to experiment
But reading lots of English sentences helped participants zoom in to English by the 2nd half
What is the BIMOLA?
similar to the BIA model but made for speech comprehension
What does the BIMOLA include?
global language information as a source of context that directly influence word recognition
What does the BIMOLA account for?
account for effects of language mode
Note 
Flashcard (93)