Cover not available
Part of
Crossroads Semantics: Computation, experiment and grammar
Edited by Hilke Reckman, Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng, Maarten Hijzelendoorn and Rint Sybesma
[Not in series 210] 2017
► pp. 139–154

Chapter 9
Is bilingual speech production language-specific or non-specific?

The case of gender congruency in Dutch-English bilinguals

| Leiden University Centre for Linguistics
| Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, The Netherlands
The present paper looks at semantic interference and gender congruency effects during bilingual picture-word naming. According to Costa, Miozzo & Caramazza (1999), only the activation from lexical nodes within a language is considered during lexical selection. If this is accurate, these findings should uphold with respect to semantic and gender/determiner effects even though the distractors are in another language. In the present study three effects were found, (1) a main effect of language, (2) semantic effects for both target language and non-target language distractors, and (3) gender congruency effects for targets with target-language distractors only. These findings are at odds with the language-specific proposal of Costa et al. (1999). Implications of these findings are discussed.
Keywords: Language Production, Psycholinguistics, Gender congruency, bilingual language control
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Experiment – semantic interference and gender congruency effects in a bilingual picture-word interference paradigm
    • 2.1Methods
      • 2.1.1Participants
      • 2.1.2Materials
      • 2.1.3Design
      • 2.1.4Procedure
    • 2.2Results
  • 3.Discussion
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 12 April 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.210.09sch
References (20)
References
Baayen, R. H., R. Piepenbrock & L. Gulikers. 1995. The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Caramazza, A. 1997. How many levels of processing are there in lexical access? Cognitive Neuropsychology 14. 177–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costa, A. & A. Caramazza. 1999. Is lexical selection in bilingual speech production language-specific? Further evidence from Spanish-English and English-Spanish bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition 2. 231–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costa, A., M. Miozzo & A. Caramazza. 1999. Lexical selection in bilinguals: Do words in the bilingual’s two lexicons compete for selection? Journal of Memory and Language 41. 365–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costa, A., A. Colomé, A. Caramazza. 2000. Lexical access in speech production: The bilingual case. Psicológica 21. 403–437.Google Scholar
Costa, A., D. Kovacic, J. Franck, A. Caramazza. 2003. On the autonomy of the grammatical gender systems of the two languages of a bilingual. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 6. 181–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costa, A., F.-X. Alario & A. Caramazza. 2005. On the categorical nature of the semantic interference effect in the picture–word interference paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 12. 125–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Bot, K. 1992. A bilingual processing model: Levelt’s ‘Speaking’ model adapted. Applied Linguistics 13. 1–24.Google Scholar
Dell, G. 1986. A spreading activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review 93. 283–381. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finkbeiner, M., T. Gollan & A. Caramazza. 2006. Lexical access in bilingual speakers: What’s the (hard) problem? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 9. 153–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glaser, W. R. & F. J. Düngelhoff. 1984. The time course of picture word interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 10. 640–654.Google Scholar
Green, D. W. 1998. Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1. 67–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M., A. Roelofs & A. S. Meyer. 1999. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22. 1–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. 2001. Spoken word production: A theory of lexical access. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98. 13464–13471. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. & P. Indefrey. 2000. The speaking mind/brain: where do spoken words come from? In R. Port (ed.), Image, Language, Brain: Papers from the First Mind Articulation Project Symposium, 77–93. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mahon, B. Z., A. Costa, R. Peterson, K. A. Vargas & A. Caramazza. 2007. Lexical selection is not by competition: a reinterpretation of semantic interference and facilitation effects in the picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 33(3). 503.Google Scholar
Schiller, N. O. & A. Caramazza. 2003. Grammatical feature selection in noun phrase production: Evidence from German and Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language 48. 169–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schriefers, H. 1993. Syntactic processes in the production of noun phases. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 19. 841–850.Google Scholar
Schriefers, H. & E. Teruel. 2000. Grammatical gender in noun phrase production: The gender interference effect in German. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 26. 1368–1377.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Patricia Cabredo Hofherr & Jenny Doetjes
2021. The Oxford Handbook of Grammatical Number, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 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.