Does bilingualism twist your tongue?

Cognition

Volumn 125, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 491-497

  Gollan, Tamar H ^a   Goldrick, Matthew ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bilingualism; Competition; Nonwords; Phonological; Speech error; Structural similarity; Tongue twister

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BILINGUALISM; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; NORMAL HUMAN; PHONETICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPEECH ARTICULATION; SPEECH RATE; TONGUE;

ADOLESCENT; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MULTILINGUALISM; PHONETICS; SPEECH ARTICULATION TESTS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84867399253     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: 18737838     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.08.002     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (submitted for publication). Random effects structure in mixed-effects models: Keep it maximal.
2. Bialystok E., Craik F.I.M., Green D.W., Gollan T.H. Bilingual minds. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 2009, 10:89-129.
3. Bialystok E., Craik F.I.M., Luk G. Cognitive control and lexical access in younger and older bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2008, 34:859-873.
4. Bradlow A., Clopper C., Smiljanic R., Walter M.A. A perceptual phonetic similarity space for languages: Evidence from five native language listener groups. Speech Communication 2010, 52:930-942.
5. Cohen J.D., MacWhinney B., Flatt M., Provost J. PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 1993, 25:257-271.
6. Colomé Á. Lexical activation in bilinguals' speech production: Language-specific or language-independent. Journal of Memory and Language 2001, 45:721-736.
7. Costa A., Hernández M., Costa-Faidella J., Sebastian-Galles N. On the bilingual advantage in conflict processing: Now you see it, now you do not. Cognition 2009, 113:135-149.
8. Costa A., Roelstraete B., Hartsuiker R.J. The lexical bias effect in bilingual speech production: Evidence for feedback between lexical and sublexical levels across languages. Psychonomic Bulleting and Review 2006, 13:972-977.
9. Dell G.S., Burger L.K., Svec W.R. Language production and serial order: A functional analysis and a model. Psychological Review 1997, 104:123-147.
10. Goldrick M. Linking speech errors and generative phonological theory. Language and Linguistics Compass 2011, 5:397-412.
11. Goldrick M., Larson M. Phonotactic probability influences speech production. Cognition 2008, 107:1155-1164.
12. Gollan T.H., Brown A.S. From tip-of-the-tongue data to theoretical implications in two steps: When more TOTs means better retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2006, 135:462-483.
13. Gollan T.H., Montoya R.I., Cera C., Sandoval T.C. More use almost always means a smaller frequency effect: aging, bilingualism, and the weaker links hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 58:787-814.
14. Gollan T.H., Slattery T.J., Goldenberg D., van Assche E., Duyck W., Rayner K. Frequency drives lexical access in reading but not in speaking: The frequency-lag hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2011, 140:186-209.
15. Ivanova I., Costa A. Does the bilingualism hamper lexical access in speech production?. Acta Psychologica 2008, 127:277-288.
16. Jaeger T.F. Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 59:434-446.
17. Jescheniak J.D., Levelt W.J.M. Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1994, 20:824-843.
18. Kaufman A.S., Kaufman N.L. Kaufman brief intelligence test - 2004, AGS Publishing, Circle Pine, MN. 2n ed.
19. Kittredge A.K., Dell G.S., Verkuilen J., Schwartz M.F. Where is the effect of lexical frequency in word production? Insights from aphasic picture naming errors. Cognitive Neuropsychology 2008, 25:463-492.
20. Kroll J.F., Bobb S.C., Misra M., Guo T. Language selection in bilingual speech: Evidence for inhibitory processes. Acta Psychologica 2008, 128:416-430.
21. Pierrehumbert J., Beckman M., Ladd D.R. Conceptual foundations of phonology as a laboratory science. Phonological knowledge 2000, 273-303. Oxford University Press, Oxford. N. Burton-Roberts, P. Carr, G. Docherty (Eds.).
22. Rosselli M., Ardila A., Araujo K., Weekes V.A., Caracciolo V., Padilla M., et al. Verbal fluency and repetition skills in healthy older Spanish-English bilinguals. Applied Neuropsychology 2000, 7:17-24.
23. Shipley W.C. Institute of living scale 1946, Western Psychological Services, Los Angeles.
24. Summers C., Bohman T., Peña E.D., Bedore L.M., Gillam R.B. Bilingual performance on nonword repetition in Spanish and English. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 2010, 45:481-493.
25. Wilshire C.E. Serial order in phonological encoding: An exploration of the "word onset effect" in laboratory-induced errors. Cognition 1998, 68:143-166.
26. Wilshire C.E. The "Tongue Twister" paradigm as a technique for investigating phonological encoding. Language and Speech 1999, 42:57-82.