What do foreign neighbors say about the mental lexicon?

Bilingualism

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 167-172

  Vitevitch, Michael S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

Author keywords

corpus analysis; English; phonological neighbor; Spanish

Indexed keywords

EID: 82955198448     PISSN: 13667289     EISSN: 14691841     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1366728911000149     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Arbesman, S., Strogatz, S. H., & Vitevitch, M. S. (2010). The structure of phonological networks across multiple languages. International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, 20, 679-685.
2. Bates, E., D'Amico, S., Jacobsen, T., Szekely, A., Andonova, E., Devescovi, A., Herron, D., Lu, C.-C., Pechmann, T., Pleh, C., Wicha, N., Federmeier, K., Gerdjikova, I., Gutierrez, G., Hung, D., Hsu, J., Iyer, G., Kohnert, K., Mehotcheva, T., Orozco-Figueroa, A., Tzeng, A., & Tzeng, O. (2003). Timed picture naming in seven languages. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 344-380. (Pubitemid 37544956)
3. Bialystok, E. (2010). Bilingualism. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1, 559-572.
4. Brauer, M. (1998). Stroop interference in bilinguals: The role of similarity between the two languages. In A. F. Healy & L. E. Bourne, Jr. (eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention, pp. 317-337. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5. Costa, A., Caramazza, A., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2000). The cognate facilitation effect: Implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1283-1296.
6. Costa, A., Santesteban, M., & Ivanova, I. (2006). How do highly proficient bilinguals control their lexicalization process? Inhibitory and language-specific selection mechanisms are both functional. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 32, 1057-1074. (Pubitemid 44343917)
7. Cutler, A., Sebastián-Gallés, N., Soler-Vilageliu, O., & van Ooijen, B. (2000). Constraints of vowels and consonants on lexical selection: Cross-linguistic comparisons. Memory & Cognition, 28, 746-755. (Pubitemid 30664109)
8. Dale, P. S., & Fenson, L. (1996). Lexical development norms for young children. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 125-127. (Pubitemid 126416713)
9. De Groot, A. M. B., Delmaar, P., & Lupker, S. J. (2000). The processing of interlexical homographs in translation recognition and lexical decision: Support for non-selective access to the bilingual memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2, 397-428.
10. Dijkstra, A. [F. J.], & Van Heuven, W. J. B. (1998). The BIA-model and bilingual word recognition. In J. Grainger & A. M. Jacobs (eds), Localist connectionist approaches to human cognition, pp. 189-225. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11. Dijkstra, A. F. J., & Van Heuven, W. J. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 175-197.
12. Dijkstra, T. [A. F. J.], Miwa, K., Brummelhuis, B., Sappelli, M., & Baayen, H. (2010). How cross-language similarity and task demands affect cognate recognition. Journal of Memory & Language, 62, 284-301.
13. Duyck, W. (2005). Translation and associative priming with cross-lingual pseudohomophones: Evidence for nonselective phonological activation in bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 6, 1340-1359. (Pubitemid 43083733)
14. García Lecumberri, M. L., & Cenoz Iragui, J. (1997). L2 perception of English vowels: Testing the validity of Kuhl's prototypes. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 10, 55-68.
15. Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1997). Integrating form and meaning: A distributed model of speech perception. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 613-656.
16. Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition, 1, 67-81.
17. Greenberg, J. H., & Jenkins, J. J. (1967). Studies in the psychological correlates of the sound system of American English. In L. A. Jakobovits & M. S. Miron (eds.), Readings in the psychology of language, pp. 186-200. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
18. Ju, M., & Luce, P. A. (2004). Falling on sensitive ears: Constraints on bilingual lexical activation. Psychological Science, 15, 314-318. (Pubitemid 38706671)
19. Landauer, T. K., & Streeter, L. A. (1973). Structural differences between common and rare words: Failure of equivalence assumptions for theories of word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 12, 119-131.
20. Lemhöfer, K., & Dijkstra, T. [A. F. J.] (2004). Recognizing cognates and interlingual homographs: Effects of code similarity in language-specific and generalized lexical decision. Memory & Cognition, 32, 533-550. (Pubitemid 39296286)
21. Lemhöfer, K., Dijkstra,T.[A. F. J.], Schriefers, H., Baayen, R. H., Grainger, J., & Zwisterlood, P. (2008). Native language influences on word recognition in a second language: A megastudy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 34, 12-31.
22. Levenshtein, V. I. (1966). Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady, 10, 707-710.
23. Luce, P. A., & Large, N. R. (2001). Phonotactics, density and entropy in spoken word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16, 565-581. (Pubitemid 33130105)
24. Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing, 19, 1-36. (Pubitemid 28092986)
25. MacKain, K. W., Best, C. T., & Strange, W. (1981). Categorical perception of English/r/and/l/by Japanese bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 2, 369-390. (Pubitemid 12007719)
26. Marian, V., & Blumenfeld, H. (2006). Phonological neighborhood density guides lexical access in native and non-native language production. Journal of Social and Ecological Boundaries, 2, 3-35.
27. McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1-86.
28. Meara, P. (2006). Emergent properties of multilingual lexicons. Applied Linguistics, 27, 620-644. (Pubitemid 44853604)
29. Norris, D. (1994). Shortlist: Aconnectionist model of continuous speech recognition. Cognition, 52, 189-234.
30. Nusbaum, H. C., Pisoni, D. B., & Davis, C. K. (1984). Sizing up the Hoosier mental lexicon: Measuring the familiarity of 20,000 words (Research on Speech Perception, Progress Report No. 10). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Psychology Department, Speech Research Laboratory.
31. Roodenrys, S., Hulme, C., Lethbridge, A., Hinton, M., & Nimmo, L. M. (2002). Word-frequency and phonological-neighborhood effects on verbal short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 1019-1034.
32. Sandoval, T. C., Gollan, T. H., Ferreira, V. S., & Salmon, D. P. (2010). What causes the bilingual disadvantage in verbal fluency? The dual-task analogy. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 231-252.
33. Sebastián-Gallés, N., Marti-Antonin, M. A., Carreiras-Valina, M. F., & Cuetos-Vega, F. (2000). Lexesp. Lexico informatizado del espanol. In Edicions de la Universitat de Barcelona. [CD-ROM]
34. Storkel, H. L., Armbruster, J., & Hogan, T. P. (2006). Differentiating phonotactic probability and neighborhood density in adult word learning. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 1175-1192.
35. Storkel, H. L., & Hoover, J. R. (2010). An on-line calculator to compute phonotactic probability and neighborhood density based on child corpora of spoken American English. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 497-506.
36. Vitevitch, M. S. (2002). The influence of phonological similarity neighborhoods on speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 28, 735-747.
37. Vitevitch, M. S. (2008). What can graph theory tellus about word learning and lexical retrieval? Journal of Speech Language Hearing Research, 51, 408-422. (Pubitemid 351838305)
38. Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (2004). A web-based interface to calculate phonotactic probability for words and nonwords in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 481-487. (Pubitemid 40140309)
39. Vitevitch, M. S., & Rodríguez, E. (2005). Neighborhood density effects in spoken word recognition in Spanish. Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders, 3, 64-73.
40. Vitevitch, M. S., & Stamer, M. K. (2006). The curious case of competition in Spanish speech production. Language & Cognitive Processes, 21, 760-770.
41. Vitevitch, M. S., & Stamer, M. K. (2009). The influence of neighborhood density (and neighborhood frequency) in Spanish speech production: A follow-up report (University of Kansas). Spoken Language Laboratory Technical Report, 1, 1-6.
42. Vitevitch, M. S., Stamer, M. K., & Sereno, J. A. (2008) Word length and lexical competition: Longer is the same as shorter. Language & Speech, 51, 361-383.