Bilingual lexical access

Bilingual lexical access^[1] is an area in psycholinguistics research that studies the activation or retrieval process of the mental lexicon for people who can speak two languages. Bilingual lexical access can be understood as all aspects of word processing, including all the mental activity from the perception of the word from one language until all its lexical knowledge from the target language is available.^[2] Research in this field seeks to fully understand these mental processes. Bilingual individuals have two mental lexical representations for an item or concept and are able to successfully select words from one language without significant interference from the other language. Thus, it is important to understand whether these dual representations interact or affect one another. Bilingual lexical access researchers focus on the control mechanisms bilinguals use to suppress the language not in use when in a monolingual mode and the degree to which the related representations within the language not in use are activated.^[3] For example, when a Dutch-English bilingual is asked to name a picture of a dog in English, he or she will come up with the English word dog. Bilingual lexical access is the mental process that underlies this seemingly simple task: the process that makes the connection between the “idea” dog and the word dog in the target language. While activating the English word dog, the Dutch word hond (its equivalent in Dutch), is most likely also in a state of activation.

History

Early research of bilingual lexical access was generated from the theories of unilingual lexical access. Theories derived from early unilingual research relied mainly upon generalizations without precise specification of how these specific systems of lexical access works. Due to the advancement of medical science within the last decade, the field of Psycholinguistics has evolved immensely, resulting in more detailed research and therefore, a deeper understanding of the mechanisms behind language production. "Many early studies of second language acquisition focused on the morphosyntactic development of learners, and the general findings was that bound morphemes appear in the same order in the first and second language"(Bardovi-Harlig 1999.^[4] In addition, "second language learners are also able to produce and process simple sentences before complex sentences"(Pienemann et al.2005),just like first language learners." For example, the theory of serial search models and parallel access models. Serial Search Models^[5] propose that when monolinguals encounter a word, they will look through all the lexical entries to distinguish whether the input item is a word not, and then they will only retrieve the necessary information about that word (i.e., its semantics or orthography). They also propose that the lexical access would process sequentially by activating only one lexical entry at a time. In contrast, the Parallel Access Models^[6] believe that multiple entries can be activated at once, which means that the perceptual input from a word would activate all lexical items directly, even though some of them might not be necessary. In this way, numbers of potential candidates would be activated simultaneously and then the lexical candidates which are most consistent with the input stimulus would be chosen. Later, the researchers^[7] addressed that both the serial and parallel process are accounted for the lexical organization and lexical access. Knowledge of unilingual access has inevitably led to the curiosity of bilingual lexical access. Early models of bilingual lexical access shared similar characteristics with these unilingual lexical access models.^[8] For example, the bilingual models began with focusing on whether the lexical access for bilinguals would be different from monolinguals. In addition to study the activation process in separate language, they also investigated whether the lexical activation would be processed in a parallel fashion for both languages or selectively processed for the target language. In this case, the bilingual models also studied whether the bilingual system has a single lexicon combining words from both languages or separate lexicons for words in each language. With the occurrence of widespread computational modeling, researchers extended the theoretical approaches for the studies of bilingual lexical access.The computational models are now essential component for mainstream theories, for example, the models of Bilingual Interactive Activation [BIA] model,^[9] the Semantic, Orthographic and Phonological Interactive Activation [SOPIA] model,^[10] and the Bilingual interactive Model of Lexical Access [BLMOLA].^[11] Since most computational models need to specify all the vague descriptive notions used in the earlier models, they force researchers to be more clarified with their theories. Those revised models can also serve as to test the viability of the original theories by comparing the empirical results with data generated from the model. In addition, the computational models can also help to generate new testable hypothesis and allow researchers to manipulate conditions which might not be possible in normal experimentation.^[8] For example, researchers can investigate and simulate the lexical access systems under various states of damage without using aphasic people.^[12]

Two main hypotheses in bilingual lexical access

The two most prominent theories on lexical access for bilinguals, Language Selective Access and Language Non-Selective Access, attempt to explain the process and stages of lexical activation and selection. These hypotheses focus on determining whether lexical candidates from different languages that share similar lexical features are activated when a word is presented.^[13] For instance, when the Dutch word vork is activated, is the English word pork also activated? If the answer is “no”, it might suggest that language selection happens before the recognition of a word and only the lexical information of the target language is selectively activated, in which case lexical access is language selective.^[14] If the answer is “yes”, it might suggest the other possibility that the recognition of a word is processed in parallel for both languages and the lexical information of both languages are activated, in which case lexical access is language non-selective.^[15] Research pertaining to lexical access has indicated that it is not achievable to completely suppress a known language.

Language-selective access

Language-selective access is the exclusive activation of information in the contextually appropriate language system.^[2] It implies that when a bilingual encounters a spoken or written word, the activation is restricted to the target language subsystem, which contains the input word.

One possibility is that bilinguals initially make a decision about the language of the word and then activate the appropriate language-selected lexicon. In this mechanism, an executive system directs the language switch for the input word. In earlier studies, researchers^[16][17] found that bilinguals can comprehend passages composed of words entirely from only one language more quickly than passages composed of words from both languages. They explain this result as an involuntary switch that happens when bilinguals comprehend passages with two languages. When comprehension procedures in one language fail due to the language contextually changing, then the switch mechanism will automatically direct input to another language system. Therefore, bilinguals are slower at reading mixed language passages than at single language passages because they must spend time on switching languages. However, those studies failed to consider that the two languages might be activated simultaneously and there might be a later lexical competition in choosing which language information to use. The later lexical completion can also be used to explain why bilinguals spend more time understanding passages in mixed languages.^[18] However, other studies have found that there is no significant cost incurred by inter-sentential language switching and mixing.^[19] showed that there was no cost to switching between languages when bilinguals read sentences for comprehension. Additionally, Guzzardo Tamargo, R.E.^[20] found that when making metalinguistic judgments and performing non-comprehension based tasks, switch costs were evident but there was no evidence to support the hypothesis that there is a cost at the switch site when bilinguals read a mixed sentence. This indicates that under normal circumstances and given sufficient linguistic context, language switching does not incur a cost.^[21]

In studies that investigate whether lexical candidates from different languages are activated selectively or non-selectively during bilingual lexical access, there are two basic types of stimuli used: interlingual homographs and cognates. Interlingual homographs are words from two languages that are identical in their orthography, but different in their meaning, or phonology. For example, the English word room means cream in Dutch. Cognates are words from two languages which are identical (or very similar) in orthography and also have large overlap in their meaning. For example, the word film is cognate for English and Dutch. Researchers used those types of stimuli to investigate whether bilinguals process them in the same way as the matched control words which occur only in one language. If the reaction time (RT) of interlexical homographs is same as the controlled monolingual word, then it supports the language-selective access hypothesis. If RT is significantly different for interlexical homographs than for the controlled monolingual word, it supports the language-nonselective access hypothesis.^[22]

In most early studies, researchers did not find clear RT differences between test items (interlexical homographs or cognates) and control items.^[23] For example, in Gerard and Scarborough’s^[24] word recognition research with English monolinguals and Spanish-English bilinguals, cognates, homograph non-cognates and nonhomographic control words were used. The cognates and control words were either high frequency or low frequency in both English and Spanish. The homographic non-cognates were high frequency in English and low frequency in Spanish or vice versa. The results generally supported the language-selective hypothesis. Even though there was a significant main effect of word type for the bilingual group, it was mainly caused by the slow response to homographic noncognates which were of low frequency in the target language but of high frequency in the non-target language. Finally, there was no significant difference in the reaction time between bilinguals and monolinguals, which suggested that the lexical access for bilinguals in this research was restricted to only one language.^[24]

Language-nonselective access

Language-nonselective access is the automatic co-activation of information in both linguistic systems.^[2] It implies that when a bilingual encounters a spoken or written word, the activation happens in both contextually appropriate and inappropriate linguistic subsystems. Also, there is evidence that bilinguals take longer than monolinguals to detect non-words while in both bilingual and monolingual modes, providing evidence that bilinguals do not fully inactivate their other language while in a monolingual mode.^[25]

In spite of the observed null results which support the language-selective access, a sizable number of studies suggests that language-nonselective access, in which the representation of a word to a bilingual often gives rise to parallel activation in both languages, indeed takes place and it highly unlikely to completely suppress the other language. For example, Dijkstra, van Jaarsveld & Ten Brinke^[26] used an English lexical decision task for Dutch-English bilinguals on a list of cognate, homographs and English controlled words. Even though they did not find a significant difference in reaction time between interlingual homographs and English control words, they found that there was a significant facilitation effect of the cognates, which could be supportive evidence for the assumption of language-nonselective access. Later, De Moor^[13] repeated the English lexical decision study by Dijkstra et al.^[26] and found that the Dutch meaning of the interlingual homographs was also activated by English-Dutch bilinguals. Following each homographic trial, she used English trials which were the translation of the Dutch meaning of the previous homographs. For example, after the trial homographic word brand, the English word fire would be presented, which was the English translations of Dutch word brand. De Moor found there was a small but significant translation priming effect for the following English translation trials.It suggested that the lexical information of the Dutch word form was also activated, even though it did not affect the reaction time of the previous homographic trial.

To provide clarity, cross-linguistic influence can be understood as the various ways that two or more languages relate in the mind and affect a persons linguistic performance or development.^[1] Cross-linguistic effects of orthographic and semantic overlap between different languages of cognates and interlingual homographs were also reported in many priming studies. For example, Beauvillain and Grainger^[27] had French-English bilinguals make English lexical decisions on target strings primed by French words, which was told to the participants. The homographic primes were French words that were either semantically related to the English words (e.g., coin-money, where coin means corner in French) or not related. The results showed that the bilinguals responded faster in related conditions than unrelated conditions. Even though the participants knew that the prime words were always belonged to their French meaning, they were still affected by the English meaning of the homographic prime words. In the later studies, researchers masked the briefly presented prime words to prevent participants from using conscious strategies. For example, Sáchez-Casas et al.^[28] used Spanish-English bilinguals in a semantic categorization task on Spanish target words. They used three types of priming conditions: entirely identical cognates or non-cognates (rico-rico; pato-pato), translations of cognates or non-cognates (rich-rico; duck-pato) and non-word primes combined with cognate or non-cognate targets as a control condition (rict-rico vs. wuck-pato). They found that the bilinguals responded to the cognate translation conditions as fast as the identical conditions, but the non-cognate translation was as slow as the control conditions.

Bilingual lexical access in language comprehension

Once bilinguals acquire the lexical information from both languages, the bilingual lexical access will be activated in language comprehension. The lexical access in comprehension is the process how people make contact with lexical representation in their mental lexicon that contains the information, which enables them to understand the words or sentences. Word recognition would be no doubt the most essential process of bilingual lexical access in language comprehension, in which researchers investigate the selective or non-selective recognition of isolated words. At the same time, sentence processing also plays an important role in language comprehension, in which researchers can investigate whether the presentation of words in a sentence context would restrict lexical access to the target language only.^[29]

Bilingual lexical access in word recognition

Word recognition^[2] is a term usually used in both narrow and broad ways. When it is used in the narrow sense, it means the moment when a match occurs between a printed word and its orthographic word-form stored in the lexicon, or a match between a spoken word and its phonological word-form. Only after this match has taken place, all the syntactical and morphological information of the word and the meaning of the word will become accessible for further processing. In a broader way, it refers to lexical access is the entire period from the match processing to the retrieval of lexical information. In the research of bilingual lexical access, word recognition uses single, out-of-context words from both languages to investigate all the aspects of bilingual lexical access.

Main methodological tasks in word recognition

In word recognition studies, the cognate or interlingual homograph effects are most often used with following task:

1. Word naming task: During a word naming task, a participant is presented with a drawing or object and is asked to name the drawing or the object. Usually during a naming task, response latencies (the time it takes to make a response) are recorded for each word. Sometimes response accuracies are recorded as well. An example of this word naming task is the Boston Naming Test, which has been used on various studies that examine the bilingual lexical access.^[30]
2. Lexical decision task: The participants are presented with written letter sequences and asked to decide for each of them whether it is a word or not. Again, response times and/or accuracy are registered. Usually, the nonword stimuli are pseudowords, which are letter strings that obey the orthography and/or phonology of the test language but lack of meaning. There are two versions of decision task which are developed specially to study bilingual lexical access in word recognition: generalized lexical decision and language-specific lexical decision. In generalized lexical decision task, the lexical decision is made for both languages. The “yes” response is required if the presented letter sequence is a word in either language. In language-specific lexical decision task, the “yes” response must be only given to the words from the target language.
3. Word priming task: The participants are presented with a prime word before they respond to each target word. The prime words are either lexically related or unrelated with the target words, and the effect of the prime on target word processing will be measured. A target word that follows a related prime tends to have a faster response latency than a target word preceded by an unrelated prime.

Models of bilingual lexical access in word recognition

Most current models in word recognition take the assumption that bilingual lexical access is nonselective, which also take into account the demands of task and context dependence of processing.^[13]

A flow chart representation of the BIA+ model for bilingual language processing including the word identification and task/decision subsystems.

Bilingual Interactive Activation (BIA) model

The BIA model is an implemented connectionist model of bilingual visual word recognition.^[9] This language-nonselective model is structured by four hierarchical levels of different linguistic representations: letter features, letters, words, and language tags (or language node). When a word is presented by this model, the features of its constituted letters are firstly activated. Then, these letter features work together and activate the letters of which they are part in the presented words. In turn, these letters activate the words of that language. The word candidates activate the language nodes which are connected. They simultaneously send feedback activation to the letter level. Language nodes can also inhibit the activation of word candidates from other languages (e.g., the English language node reduces the activation of Dutch word candidates). After a complex interactive process of activation and inhibition, the lexical candidate corresponding to the presented word becomes the most active word unit.

Inhibitory Control model (IC)

The IC model^[31][32] is developed at large extent compatible with and complementary to the BIA model. This inhibitory control model focuses on the importance of task demands and regulation happened during language processing by modifying the levels of activation of items in language network. In this model, a key concept is the language task schema, which specifies the mental processing steps that bilinguals take to perform a particular language task. The language task schema regulates the output from the word identification system by altering the activation levels of representations within that system and by inhibiting outputs from the system. For example, when a bilingual switches from one language to another in translation, a change in the language schema corresponding to much take place.

Language Mode Framework

In the language mode framework,^[33][34] language processing mechanisms and languages as a whole can be achieved to different extents. The relative activation state of language is called language mode, and it is influenced by many factors, such as the person spoken or listened to, users’ language proficiency, the nonlinguistic context and so on. Language users can be in a bilingual mode if they are talking to other bilinguals or reading text with mixed languages. However, if they listen to someone who is monolingual or is just speaking one language, the activation state would switch to a more monolingual mode. Based on this model, the bilinguals’ language mode depends on the language users’ expectation and by language environment.

Bilingual Interactive Activation plus (BIA+) model

The BIA+ model is an extension and adaptation of the BIA model.^[35][36] The BIA+ model includes not only orthographic representation and language nodes, but also phonological and semantic representations. All these representations are assumed to be part of a word identification system that provides output to a task/decision system. The information flow in bilingual lexical processing proceeds exclusively from the word identification system toward a task/decision system without any influence of this task/decision system on the activation state of words.

Bilingual lexical access in sentence processing

Most current studies of bilingual lexical access are based on the comprehension of isolated words without considering whether contextual information affects lexical access in bilinguals. However, in everyday communication, words are most often encountered in a meaningful context and not in isolation (e.g. in a newspaper article). Research done by Déprez (1994) has shown that mixed utterances in children are not limited to the lexical level but also in the areas of morphology, syntax, and pronunciation. Researchers also began to investigate the cognitive nature of bilingual lexical access in context by examining word recognition in sentences.^[37][38]

The main methodological tasks in sentence processing

In sentence processing, a number of on-line measuring techniques are exploited to detect the cognitive activity at the very moment it takes place or only slightly after. The cognate or interlingual homograph words are often used as a marker inserted in test sentences with following tasks:

1. Self-paced reading: The participants are faced with a screen, on which a text appears in successive segment. They are asked to process each sequent segment by pressing a key. A trial starts with the presentation of groups of dashes separated by spaces. Each group serving as a placeholder for a word in the text, which is to be presented on that trial and each dash representing a letter. When the participant subsequently presses the key, the first segment appears, say the first two words, replacing the corresponding placeholders for the right words, while the placeholders for the left words remain on the screen. Once pressing the key again, the two words from the first segment are replaced by their placeholders again and the next segment appears, taking the position of the corresponding placeholders. This continues until the whole text has been read. A follow-up comprehension question is presented to ensure that participants indeed pay attention to the meaning of the sentences. The interval between the two successive key presses is measured and registered as the response time.
2. Rapid serial visual presentation:The participants are presented with the successive segments/words one by one at a fixed rate in the same location on the screen. In this task, the participants cannot control the speed of reading, while the experimenter determines the presentation speed. The participants are required to read the words aloud and their reaction time of each segment is registered. Again, a follow-up comprehension question is presented to ensure that participants indeed pay attention to the meaning of the sentences.A pictured object can be readily detected in a rapid serial visual presentation sequence when the target is specified by a superordinate category name such as animal or vehicle.
3. Eye tracking (or eye-movement recording): A more natural and more sensitive on-line technique, which records the participants’ eye movements and eye fixations while they read a text presented on a computer screen. It documents what the participants are looking at and also how long it takes for them. Experimental eye tracking data is obtained to investigate topics such as understanding of spoken language,cognitive processes related to spoken language, body language and lip reading, and etc.^[39] {{^[39]}}

Studies of bilingual lexical access in sentence processing

The question whether the presentation of words in a sentence context restricts lexical access to words of the target language only are most studied in bilinguals’ second language (L2) processing. This sentence context effect might be an efficient strategy to speed up lexical search, because it reduces the number of lexical candidates. For example, Elston-Guttler et al.^[40] showed that cross-lingual activation is very sensitive to the influence of a sentence context and previous activation state of the two languages in a semantic priming study. In their study, German-English bilinguals were presented with relatively low-constraint sentences in which a homograph (e.g., The woman gave her friend a pretty GIFT; gift means poison in German) or a control word was presented at the end (e.g., The woman gave her friend a pretty SHELL). “Constraint” means the degree to which the sentence frame preceding the target word biased that word. The sentence was then replaced by a target word (poison) for lexical decision task. They found that only for participants who saw a German film prior to experiment and only in the first block of the experiment, participants could recognize the target faster after primed with the related homograph sentence than primed with the controlled sentence. This suggests that bilinguals can quickly “zoom into” the L2 processing situation even the L1 activation was boosted.

Later, Schwartz and Kroll^[37] used cognate and homograph as target words presented in low- and high-constraint sentences to Spanish-English bilinguals. They investigated how word presentation and the semantic constraint modulated language lexical access in bilinguals. Schwartz and Kroll used rapid serial visual presentation and the target word had to be named. No homograph effects were found, but less proficient bilinguals made more naming errors, especially in low-constraint sentences. They observed cognate facilitation (nonselective bilingual lexical access) in low-constraint sentences, but not in high-constraint ones. The results suggest that the semantic constraint of a sentence may restrict cross-lingual activation effects. Similar results on cognate effects were obtained by van Hell and de Groot^[38] in their study of Dutch-English bilinguals in an L2 lexcial decision task and a translation task in forward (from L1 to L2) and in backward direction (from L2 to L1). Libben and Titone^[41] used eye tracking methodology and found that the cognate facilitation in semantically constraint sentences only happened at early stages of comprehension and rapidly resolved at later stages of comprehension.

Although the majority of studies on bilingual sentence processing are focused on L2 processing, there are still a few studies that have investigated cross-language activation during their native language (L1) reading. For example, van Assche et al.^[42] replicated the cognate effect in L1 with Dutch-English bilinguals, and found that a non-dominant language may affect native-language sentence reading, both at earliest and at later reading stages. Titone et al.^[43] observed this cross-language activation in English-French bilinguals at early reading stages only when the L2 was acquired early in life. They also concluded that the semantic constraint provided by a sentence can attenuate cross-language activation at later reading stages.

See also

• Lexicon
• Bilingual Lexicon
• Bilingual memory

References

1. Crosslinguistic influence
2. De Groot, A. M. (2011). Language and cognition in bilinguals and multilinguals: An introduction. New York, NY, US: Psychology Press
3. Costa, Albert; La Heij, Navarrete (22 June 2006). "The dynamics of bilingual lexical access". Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 9 (2): 137. doi:10.1017/s1366728906002495.
4. Fernandez, Eva (2011). Fundamentals of Psycholinguistics. Wiley-Blackwell.
5. Forster, K. I., & Bednall, E. S. (1976). Terminating and exhaustive search in lexical access. Memory & Cognition, 4(1), 53-61.
6. Morton, J. (1969). Interaction of information in word recognition. Psychological review, 76(2), 165-178.
7. Gleason, J. Berko & Ratner, N. Bernstein. (1998) Psycholinguistics, 2nd edition. New York: Harcourt Brace. (Published November 1997).
8. Thomas, M. S., & Van Heuven, W. J. (2005). Computational models of bilingual comprehension. Handbook of bilingualism, 202.
9. Dijkstra, T., Van Heuven, W.J.B., & Grainger, J. (1998).Simulating cross-language competition with the bilingual interactive activation model. Psychologica Belgica, 38, 177-196.
10. Grainger, J. (1998). MROM-p: An interactive activation, multiple readout model of orthographic and phonological processes in visual word recognition. Localist connectionist approaches to human cognition, 147.
11. Léwy, N., & Grosjean, F. (1997).A computational model of bilingual lexical access. Manuscript in preparation.
12. Neuroscience of multilingualism
13. Dijksta, T. (2005). Bilingual visual word recognition and lexical access. Handbook of bilingualism psycholinguistic approaches, 54, 179-201.
14. Grainger, J., & Beauvillain, C. (1987). Language blocking and lexical access in bilinguals. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39(2), 295-319.
15. Kroll, J. F., & Tokowicz, N. (2005). Models of bilingual representation and processing. Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, 531-553.
16. Macnamara, J., & Kushnir, S. L. (1971). Linguistic independence of bilinguals: The input switch. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10(5), 480-487.
17. Albert, M. L., & Obler, L. K. (1978). The Bilingual Brain: Neuropsychological and Neurolinguistic Aspects of Bilingualism. Perspectives in Neurolinguistics and Psycholinguistics.
18. Moon, J.; Jiang, N. (January 2012). "Non-selective lexical access in different-script bilinguals.". Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 15: 173–180. doi:10.1017/S1366728911000022.
19. Ibáñez, A.; P. Macizo; M. Bajo (2010). "Language access and language selection in professional translators.". Acta Psychol (135): 257–266.
20. Guzzardo Tamargo, R.E. (2012). "Linking Comprehension Costs to Production Patterns During the Processing of Mixed Language.". University Park: The Pennsylvania University.
21. Gullifer, J. W.; J.F. Kroll; P.E. Dussias (2013-05-30). "When Language Switching has No Apparent Cost: Lexical Access in Sentence Context". Front Psychol. 4.
22. Dijkstra, T.; Van Jaarsveld, H.; Ten Brinke, S. (April 1998). "Interlingual homograph recognition: effects of task demands and language intermixing.". Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 1 (1): 51–66. doi:10.1017/s1366728998000121.
23. Beauvillain, C. (1992). Orthographic and lexical constraints in bilingual word recognition. Cognitive processing in bilinguals, 83, 221.
24. Gerard, L. D., & Scarborough, D. L. (1989). Language-specific lexical access of homographs by bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(2), 305.
25. Soares, C. and Grosjean, F. (1984). Bilinguals in a monolingual and a bilingual speech mode: The effect on lexical access. Memory and Cognition, 12(4), 380-386.
26. Dijkstra, T., Van Jaarsveld, H., & Brinke, S. T. (1998). Interlingual homograph recognition: Effects of task demands and language intermixing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(01), 51-66.
27. Beauvillain, C., & Grainger, J. (1987). Accessing interlexical homographs: Some limitations of a language-selective access. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(6), 658-672.
28. Sáchez-Casas, R. M., García-Albea, J. E., & Davis, C. W. (1992). Bilingual lexical processing: Exploring the cognate/non-cognate distinction. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4(4), 293-310.
29. Van Assche, E., Drieghe, D., Duyck, W., Welvaert, M., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2011). The influence of semantic constraints on bilingual word recognition during sentence reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 64(1), 88-107.
30. Kaplan, E.; Weintraub, S.; Goodglass, H. (1983). Boston Naming Test. Philadelphia: Lee & Febiger.
31. Green, D. W. (1986). Control, activation, and resource: A framework and a model for the control of speech in bilinguals. Brain and language, 27(2), 210-223.
32. Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 1(02), 67-81.
33. Grosjean, F. (1997). The bilingual individual. Interpreting, 2, 1-2.
34. Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual’s language modes. One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing, 1-22.
35. Van Heuven, W. J., Dijkstra, T., & Grainger, J. (1998). Orthographic neighborhood effects in bilingual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(3), 458-483.
36. Dijkstra, A. F. J., & Heuven, W. V. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 175-197.
37. Schwartz, A. I., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). Bilingual lexical activation in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(2), 197-212.
38. Van Hell, J. G., & De Groot, A. M. (2008). Sentence context modulates visual word recognition and translation in bilinguals. Acta psychologica, 128(3), 431.
39. "Psycholinguistics and eye tracking". Tobii ecgnology. Retrieved 2013-07-29.
40. Elston-Güttler, K. E., Gunter, T. C., & Kotz, S. A. (2005). Zooming into L2: Global language context and adjustment affect processing of interlingual homographs in sentences. Cognitive Brain Research, 25(1), 57-70.
41. Libben, M. R., & Titone, D. A. (2009). Bilingual lexical access in context: Evidence from eye movements during reading. Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 35(2), 381.
42. Van Assche, E., Duyck, W., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Diependaele, K. (2009). Does bilingualism change native-language reading? Cognate effects in a sentence context. Psychological Science, 20(8), 923-927.
43. 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.