scholarly journals Bilingual writing coactivation: lexical and sublexical processing in a word dictation task – Corrigendum

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
Antonio Iniesta ◽  
Daniela Paolieri ◽  
Francisca Serrano ◽  
M. Teresa Bajo
Keyword(s):  
Sublexical Processing ◽  
Bilingual Writing

scholarly journals Bilingual writing coactivation: lexical and sublexical processing in a word dictation task

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Antonio Iniesta ◽  
Daniela Paolieri ◽  
Francisca Serrano ◽  
M. Teresa Bajo
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Native Language ◽  
Phonological Representation ◽  
Sublexical Processing ◽  
Bilingual Writing

Abstract Bilinguals’ two languages seem to be coactivated in parallel during reading, speaking, and listening. However, this coactivation in writing has been scarcely studied. This study aimed to assess orthographic coactivation during spelling-to-dictation. We took advantage of the presence of polyvalent graphemes in Spanish (one phonological representation with two orthographic specifications, e.g., / b /for both the graphemes v and b) to manipulate orthographic congruency. Spanish–English bilinguals were presented with cross-linguistic congruent (movement–movimiento) and incongruent words (government–gobierno) for a dictation task. The time and accuracy to initiate writing and to type the rest-of-word (lexical and sublexical processing) were recorded in both the native language (L1) and the second language (L2). Results revealed no differences between conditions in monolinguals. Bilinguals showed a congruency and language interaction with better performance for congruent stimuli, which was evident from the beginning of typing in L2. Language coactivation and lexical–sublexical interaction during bilinguals’ writing are discussed.

Sublexical Processing in Reading Chinese: A Development Study

1999 ◽  
Vol 14 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 503-524 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ningning Wu ◽  
Xiaolin Zhou ◽  
Hua Shu
Keyword(s):  
Development Study ◽  
Sublexical Processing ◽  
Reading Chinese

Bilingual writing vs. translating

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-136
Author(s):  
Qiu Xiaolong
Keyword(s):  
Bilingual Writing

scholarly journals Immediate Auditory Repetition of Words and Nonwords: An ERP Study of Lexical and Sublexical Processing

PLoS ONE ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. e91988 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaorong Cheng ◽  
Graham Schafer ◽  
Patricia M. Riddell
Keyword(s):  
Sublexical Processing

Tussen Lezen En Luisteren

1992 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
pp. 27-38
Author(s):  
Ton Dijkstra
Keyword(s):  
Stimulus Onset Asynchrony ◽  
Divided Attention ◽  
Single Channel ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Race Model ◽  
Stimulus Onset ◽  
Sublexical Processing ◽  
Temporal Aspects ◽  
Onset Asynchrony ◽  
Processing Differences

Two divided attention experiments investigated whether graphemes and phonemes can mutually activate each other during bimodal sublexical processing. Dutch subjects reacted to target letters and/or speech sounds in single-channel and bimodal stimuli. In some bimodal conditions, the visual and auditory targets were congruent (e.g., visual A, auditory /a:/), in others they were not (e.g., visual U, auditory /a:/). Temporal aspects of cross-modal activation were examined by varying the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) of visual and auditory stimulus components. Processing differences among stimuli (e.g., the letters A and U) were accounted for by correcting the obtained bimodal reaction times by means of the predictions of an independent race-model. Comparing the results of the adapted congruent and incongruent conditions for each SOA, it can be concluded that (a) cross-modal activation takes place in this task situation; (b) it is bidirectional, i.e. it spreads from grapheme to phoneme and vice versa; and (c) it occurs very rapidly.

"Père Céleste, La Créature Était Bilingue" ("Heavenly Father, the creature was bilingual"): Beckett De L'anglais Au Français

2007 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 98-108
Author(s):  
Tom Bishop
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Unique Case ◽  
Bilingual Writing ◽  
Initial Change

Beckett represents a unique case of bilingual writing, not only because he self-translated (or self-adapted) his writing in the other language, but also because, as of the time he decided to write in French (and after having written only in French for some ten years) he uses both languages as language of first composition for the remainder of his life. In Beckett, there is not just a double creation but in fact a quadruple creation. We view the period of and the reasons for this initial change and then examine and illustrate the singularities of these four variables in Beckett's work.

Bilingual writing for the monolingual reader: blowing up the canon

1992 ◽  
Vol 11 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 271-275 ◽  
Author(s):  
CECIL L. NELSON
Keyword(s):  
Blowing Up ◽  
Bilingual Writing

scholarly journals A mare in a pub? Nonnative facilitation in phonological priming

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kira Gor ◽  
Svetlana V Cook
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Processing ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Nonnative Speakers ◽  
Unrelated Word ◽  
Phonological Priming ◽  
Lexical Competition ◽  
Sublexical Processing ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Prime Target

A phonological priming experiment reports inhibition for Russian prime-target pairs with onset overlap in native speakers. When preceded by the phonological prime /kabɨla/, the target /kabak/ ( кобыла – КАБАК, mare – PUB) takes longer to respond than the same target preceded by a phonologically unrelated word. English-speaking late learners of Russian also show inhibition, but only for high-frequency prime-target pairs. Conversely, they show facilitation for low-frequency pairs. In semantic priming (e.g. carnation – DAISY), facilitation is observed for the same two lexical frequency ranges both in native speakers and learners of Russian, suggesting that the primes and targets in the low-frequency range are familiar to the nonnative participants. We interpret nonnative phonological facilitation for low-frequency words as evidence for sublexical processing of less familiar words that is accompanied by reduced lexical competition in nonnative lexical access. We posit that low lexical competition is due to unfaithful, or fuzzy phonolexical representations: nonnative speakers are unsure about the exact phonological form of low-frequency words. Such unfaithful representations are not strongly engaged in lexical competition and selection. High reliance on sublexical rather than lexical processing may be a general property of nonnative word recognition in case when the words are less familiar and have a low level of entrenchment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document