Cover not available
Part of
Bilingualism: A framework for understanding the mental lexicon
Edited by Maya Libben, Mira Goral and Gary Libben
[Bilingual Processing and Acquisition 6] 2017
► pp. 103–122

Non-selective language activation and bilingualism as the default mental lexicon

The current chapter takes the approach that the default mental lexicon is the bilingual mental lexicon. We present a subset of models from the bilingual research literature and argue that such models could be adapted to simultaneously explain multilingual and monolingual language functioning. We specifically focus on how these models address the issue of selective vs. non-selective language access in the multilingual language user and discuss how these conceptual paradigms can be applied to human language processing in general. We focus specifically on three factors that modulate selective/non-selective access: (1) lexical features (2) language dominance and (3) semantic context.
Article outline
  • 1.The impact of lexical features on selective vs. non-selective language activation
    • 1.1The online processing of interlingual homographs
    • 1.2The online processing of cognate words
  • 2.Models of bilingual language processing
    • 2.1Grosjean’s Language Mode Hypothesis
    • 2.2The Bilingual Activation Plus Model (BIA+)
  • 3.The effect of language dominance on non-selective access
  • 4.The effect of context on non-selective bilingual access
    • 4.1The role of language context
    • 4.2The role of sentence context
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • References
Published online: 20 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.6.05lib
References (37)
References
Altarriba, J., & Gianico, J. (2003) Lexical ambiguity resolution across languages: A theorical and empirical review. Experimental Psychology, 50(3), 159–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beauvillain, C., & Grainger, J. (1987). Accessing interlexical homographs: Some limitations of a language-selective access. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(6), 658–672. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Bruijn, R. A., Dijkstra, T., Chwilla, D. J., & Schriefers, H. J. (2001). Language context affects on interlingual homograph recognition: Evidence from event-related potentials and response times in semantic priming. Bilingual Language Cognition, 4, 155–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B., & Nas, G. L. (1991). Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates in compound bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(1), 90–123. DOI logoGoogle 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, 53A, 397–428. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T., De Bruijn, E., Schriefers, H., & Brinke, S. T. (2000). More on interlingual homograph recognition: Language intermixing versus explicitness of instruction. Bilingualism, 3(1), 69–78. DOI logoGoogle 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, 496–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T., & Van Heuven, W. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 175–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Van Jaarsveld, H., & Ten Brinke, S. (1998). Interlingual homograph recognition: Effects of task demands and language intermixing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 51–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T., & Van Heuven, W. J. B. (1998). The BIA model and bilingual word recognition. In J. Grainger & A. Jacobs (Eds.), Localist connectionist approaches to human cognition (pp. 189–225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 429–446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duffy, S. A., Kambe, G., & Rayner, K. (2001). The effect of prior disambiguating context on the comprehension of ambiguous words: Evidence from eye movements. In D. S. Gorfein (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity. Decade of behavior (pp. 27–43). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duyck, W., Van Assche, E., Drieghe, D., & Hartsuiker, R. (2007). Visual word recognition by bilinguals in a sentence context: Evidence for nonselective lexical access. JEP: LMC, 33, 663–679.Google Scholar
Frenck, C., & Pynte, J. (2003). Semantic representation and surface forms: A look at across-language priming in bilinguals. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 16, 383–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1998) Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 131–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2001). The bilingual’s language modes. In J. Nicol (Ed.), One Mind Two Languages (pp. 1–22). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jackobsen, R. (2006). Statistical reports Quebec: Language across a nation. In P. Balais (Ed.), Canada as a Nation (pp. 58–89). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kerkhofs, R., Dijkstra, T., Chwilla, D., & De Bruijn, E. (2006). Testing a model for bilingual semantic priming with interlingual homographs: RT and N400 effects. Brain Research, 1068(1), 170–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lemhofer, K., & Dijkstra, T. (2004). Recognizing cognates and interlingual homographs: Effects of code similarity in language-specific and generalized lexical decision. Memory & Cognition, 32(4), 533–550. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lemhofer, K., Dijkstra, T., Baayen, H., Schriefers, H., Grainger, J., & Zwitserlood, P. (2008). Native language influence on word recognition in a second language: A megastudy. JEP: LMC, 34(1), 12–31.Google Scholar
Libben, M., & Titone, D. A. (2009). Bilingual lexical access in context: Evidence from eye movement recordings during L1 reading. JEP: LMC, 35(2), 381–390.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paulman, P. M., Paulman, A. A., Harrison, J. D., Susman, J. L., & Finkelstein, K. (2006). Precepting medical residents in the office. Oxford, UK: Radcliffe.Google Scholar
Pivneva, I., Mercier, J., & Titone, D. (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), 787–796. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rayner, K., & Frazier, L. (1989). Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 15(5), 779–790. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rayner, K., Binder, K. S., & Duffy, S. A. (1999). Contextual strength and the subordinate bias effect: Comment on Martin, Vu, Kellas, and Metcalf. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 52A(4), 841–852. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and taxation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14, 191–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, A. I., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). Bilingual lexical activation in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 197–212. DOI logoGoogle 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), 106–129. DOI logoGoogle 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, 28–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tabossi, P. (1988). Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of sentential contexts. Journal of Memory & Language, 27(3), 324–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tabossi, P., & Zardon, F. (1993). Processing ambiguous words in context. Journal of Memory & Language, 32(3), 359–372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Titone, D., Libben, M., 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), 1412–1431. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Hell, J. (1998). Cross-language processing and bilingual memory organization. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Van Hell, J. G., & Dijkstra, T. (2002). Foreign language knowledge can influence native language performance in exclusively native contexts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 780–789. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Hell, J. G., & De Groot, A. M. B. (2008). Sentence context modulates visual word recognition and translation in bilinguals. Acta Psychologica, 128, 431–451. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Karimi, Hossein, Michele Diaz & Eva Wittenberg
2024. Delayed onset facilitates subsequent retrieval of words during language comprehension. Memory & Cognition 52:3 ► pp. 491 ff. DOI logo
Schwieter, John W. & Anat Prior
2020. Translation Ambiguity. In Bilingual Lexical Ambiguity Resolution, ► pp. 96 ff. DOI logo
GORAL, MIRA
2019. The bilingual mental lexicon beyond Dutch–English written words. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 22:04 ► pp. 680 ff. DOI logo
Kuzmina, Ekaterina, Mira Goral, Monica Norvik & Brendan S. Weekes
2019. What Influences Language Impairment in Bilingual Aphasia? A Meta-Analytic Review. Frontiers in Psychology 10 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.