In this study, the locus of language selection in bilingual lexical access is investigated based on some basic factors such as first languages, second language proficiency, age of acquisition and multilingualism. In particular, this study explores competition between bilinguals’ languages and proposes two language selection models; Inhibitory Control Model (Green, 1998) and Concept Selection Model (La Heij, 2005). In experiment 1, the participants were asked to perform a word translation task from their second language (L2) to first language (L1). Each target was accompanied by a distracter item in the form of a picture or a word which was related/unrelated to the target word semantically. As a result, all participants translated target words faster when they are accompanied with semantically related/unrelated word distracters than picture distracters. On the other hand, they translated target words faster when they are accompanied with unrelated word distracters than related word distracters. Finally, they translated target words faster when they are accompanied with related picture distracters than unrelated picture distracters. In experiment 2, participants were asked to perform a switching task with the numbers in their first language and second language according to the background color of the digits. Finally, the language switching cost was larger when switching from L2 to L1 than vice versa. The results have shown that while the factors such as L1 andage of acquisition do not affect the locus of language selection during lexical access, proficiency in L2 and multilingualism factors affect the locus of language selection.
This article focuses on the versatility of the cloze technique, as a tool not only for measuring second-language proficiency, but also for selecting and training both translators (written cloze) and interpreters (aural cloze). When presented auditorily, the cloze test discriminates pass and fail interpreter students, given the external pacing and speed stress experienced by simultaneous interpreters in real life. The article offers several ways to administer the cloze technique as well as examples of such doctored material.
The current paper discusses possibilities for school students to successfully pass TORFL-I/B1, TORFL-II/B2 and TORFL-III/C1. The relevance of this article is determined by the fact that despite Russian as a foreign (second) language has been taught within the framework of the TORFL system for more than two decades, there is a shortage of methodological material aimed at preparing school students for TORFL. In addition, the issue of choosing the level of testing in accordance with the level of Russian language proficiency and taking into account age specifics is not sufficiently covered in Russian academic literature. The aim of this paper is to define age reference marks for school students who plan to pass TORFL. The materials to review and analyse were the works of Russian and foreign researchers in the field of foreign (second) language proficiency, language development of children and adolescents, assessment of school students communicative competence, language assessment, and correlation of these data with the requirements for completing tasks of the TORFL-I/B1, TORFL-II/B2, TORFL-III/C1 Writing subtests selected as an example. The paper has resulted in providing recommendations on the choice of examination level for senior and junior school students, within the framework of TORFL-I/B1, TORFL-II/B2, TORFL-III/C1, which can also be used in the development of training courses in Russian as a foreign language for schools. The authors concluded that there is need to develop a new methodological area in testing of Russian as a foreign language system capable to provide guidelines and recommendations for preparing school students for examinations, and designing TORFL training courses and teaching materials according to the school students age.