Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:32:50.990Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Predicting upcoming information in native-language and non-native-language auditory word recognition*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2016

ASTER DIJKGRAAF ,
ROBERT J. HARTSUIKER  and
WOUTER DUYCK
ASTER DIJKGRAAF*
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University
ROBERT J. HARTSUIKER
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University
WOUTER DUYCK
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University
*
Address for correspondence: A. Dijkgraaf, Department of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Monolingual listeners continuously predict upcoming information. Here, we tested whether predictive language processing occurs to the same extent when bilinguals listen to their native language vs. a non-native language. Additionally, we tested whether bilinguals use prediction to the same extent as monolinguals. Dutch–English bilinguals and English monolinguals listened to constraining and neutral sentences in Dutch (bilinguals only) and in English, and viewed target and distractor pictures on a display while their eye movements were measured. There was a bias of fixations towards the target object in the constraining condition, relative to the neutral condition, before information from the target word could affect fixations. This prediction effect occurred to the same extent in native processing by bilinguals and monolinguals, but also in non-native processing. This indicates that unbalanced, proficient bilinguals can quickly use semantic information during listening to predict upcoming referents to the same extent in both of their languages.

Keywords

bilingualismpredictionspeech perceptionvisual world paradigm
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 20 , Issue 5 , November 2017 , pp. 917 - 930
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This research was supported by a Concerted Research Action (GOA) from the Special Research Fund, Ghent University.

We thank Denis Drieghe and the Centre for Vision and Cognition (Southampton University) for making it possible for us to run a control study with monolinguals.

References

Adank, P., Evans, B. G., Stuart-Smith, J., & Scott, S. K. (2009). Comprehension of familiar and unfamiliar native accents under adverse listening conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 520.Google Scholar
Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Altmann, G. T. M., & Mirković, J. (2009). Incrementality and Prediction in Human Sentence Processing. Cognitive Science, 33, 583–609.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.Google Scholar
Baayen, H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX Lexical Database. Release 2 (CD-ROM). Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Bar, M. (2007). The proactive brain: using analogies and associations to generate predictions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 280–289.Google Scholar
Barr, D. J. (2008). Analyzing “visual world” eyetracking data using multilevel logistic regression. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 457–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boland, J. E. (2005). Visual arguments. Cognition, 95, 237–274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2014). Praat: doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.3.78). Retrieved from www.praat.org Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 977–990.Google Scholar
Chambers, C. G., & Cooke, H. (2009). Lexical competition during second-language listening: Sentence context, but not proficiency, constrains interference from the native lexicon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1029–1040.Google Scholar
Cook, V. (1997). The consequences of bilingualism for cognitive processing. In Groot, A. & Kroll, J. F. (eds.), Tutorials in Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Perspectives (pp. 279–300). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dell, G. S., & Chang, F. (2013). The P-chain: relating sentence production and its disorders to comprehension and acquisition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369, 20120394–20120394.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeLong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1117–1121.Google Scholar
Deyne, S., Navarro, D. J., & Storms, G. (2013). Better explanations of lexical and semantic cognition using networks derived from continued rather than single-word associations. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 480–498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dussias, P. E., Kroff, Valdés, R., J., Tamargo, Guzzardo, E., R., & Gerfen, C. (2013). WHEN GENDER AND LOOKING GO HAND IN HAND. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 353–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Federmeier, K. D. (2007). Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 44, 491–505 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
FitzPatrick, I., & Indefrey, P. (2007). Effects of sentence context in L2 natural speech comprehension. Proc. of the Cognitive Neuroscience Master of the Radbout University, 2, 43–56.Google Scholar
Foucart, A., Martin, C. D., Moreno, E. M., & Costa, A. (2014). Can bilinguals see it coming? Word anticipation in L2 sentence reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1461–1469.Google ScholarPubMed
Foucart, A., Ruiz-Tada, E., & Costa, A. (2015). Anticipation processes in L2 speech comprehension: Evidence from ERPs and lexical recognition task. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1–7.Google Scholar
Gollan, T. H., Montoya, R. I., Cera, C., & Sandoval, T. C. (2008). More use almost always means a smaller frequency effect: Aging, bilingualism, and the weaker links hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 787–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahne, A. (2001). What's different in second-language processing? Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 251–266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hopp, H. (2013). Grammatical gender in adult L2 acquisition: Relations between lexical and syntactic variability. Second Language Research, 29, 33–56.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2015). Semantics and Morphosyntax in Predictive L2 Sentence Processing. International Review of Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Huettig, F., & Altmann, G. T. M. (2005). Word meaning and the control of eye fixation: semantic competitor effects and the visual world paradigm. Cognition, 96, 23–32.Google Scholar
Huettig, F., & Janse, E. (2016). Individual differences in working memory and processing speed predict anticipatory spoken language processing in the visual world. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 80–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaan, E. (2014). Predictive sentence processing in L2 and L1: What is different? In Rothman, J. & Unsworth, S. (eds.), Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism (pp. 257–282).Google Scholar
Kamide, Y. (2008). Anticipatory Processes in Sentence Processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2, 647–670.Google Scholar
Keuleers, E., Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2010). SUBTLEX-NL: A new measure for Dutch word frequency based on film subtitles. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 643–650.Google Scholar
Koehne, J., & Crocker, M. W. (2015). The Interplay of Cross-Situational Word Learning and Sentence-Level Constraints. Cognitive Science, 39, 849–889.Google Scholar
Kutas, M., DeLong, K. A., & Smith, N. J. (2011). A look around at what lies ahead: Prediction and predictability in language processing. In Bar, M. (ed.), Predictions in the brain: Using our past to generate a future (pp. 190–207).Google Scholar
Lagrou, E., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Duyck, W. (2013a). Interlingual lexical competition in a spoken sentence context: Evidence from the visual world paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 963–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lagrou, E., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Duyck, W. (2013b). The influence of sentence context and accented speech on lexical access in second-language auditory word recognition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 508–517.Google Scholar
Lemhöfer, K., & Broersma, M. (2012). Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid Lexical Test for Advanced Learners of English. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 325–343.Google Scholar
Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106, 1126–1177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacDonald, M. C. (2013). How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mandera, P., Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (in press). Explaining human performance in psycholinguistic tasks with models of semantic similarity based on prediction and counting: A review and empirical validation. Journal of Memory and Language.Google Scholar
Mani, N., & Huettig, F. (2012). Prediction during language processing is a piece of cake – But only for skilled producers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 843–847.Google Scholar
Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 940–967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, C. D., Thierry, G., Kuipers, J.-R., Boutonnet, B., Foucart, A., & Costa, A. (2013). Bilinguals reading in their second language do not predict upcoming words as native readers do. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 574–588.Google Scholar
Matin, E., Shao, K. C., & Boff, K. R. (1993). Saccadic overhead: Information-processing time with and without saccades. Perception & Psychophysics, 53, 372–380.Google Scholar
McQueen, J. M., & Huettig, F. (2012). Changing only the probability that spoken words will be distorted changes how they are recognized. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 131, 509–517.Google Scholar
Misra, M., Guo, T., Bobb, S. C., & Kroll, J. F. (2012). When bilinguals choose a single word to speak: Electrophysiological evidence for inhibition of the native language. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 224–237.Google Scholar
Mitsugi, S., & Macwhinney, B. (2015). The use of case marking for predictive processing in second language Japanese. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19, 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 329–347.Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Rommers, J., Meyer, A. S., & Huettig, F. (2015). Verbal and nonverbal predictors of language-mediated anticipatory eye movements. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77, 720–730.Google Scholar
Saslow, M. G. (1967). Latency for saccadic eye movement. JOSA, 57 (8), 1030–1033.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schepens, J., Dijkstra, T., Grootjen, F., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (2013). Cross-Language Distributions of High Frequency and Phonetically Similar Cognates. PLoS ONE, 8, e63006.Google Scholar
Severens, E., Lommel, S. V., Ratinckx, E., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2005). Timed picture naming norms for 590 pictures in Dutch. Acta Psychologica, 119, 159–187.Google Scholar
Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2010). The brain is a prediction machine that cares about good and bad – any implications for neuropragmatics. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 22, 181–208.Google Scholar
van Heuven, W. J., Mandera, P., Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2014). SUBTLEX-UK: A new and improved word frequency database for British English. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 1176–1190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weber, A., Betta, A. M. D., & McQueen, J. M. (2014). Treack or trit: Adaptation to genuine and arbitrary foreign accents by monolingual and bilingual listeners. Journal of Phonetics, 46, 34–51.Google Scholar
Weber, A., & Broersma, M. (2012). Spoken word recognition in second language acquisition. In Chapelle, C. (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Weber, A., & Cutler, A. (2004). Lexical competition in non-native spoken-word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 1–25.Google Scholar
Woumans, E., Ceuleers, E., Van der Linden, L., Szmalec, A., & Duyck, W. (2015). Verbal and nonverbal cognitive control in bilinguals and interpreters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 1579–1586.Google Scholar
Zirnstein, M., Van Hell, J. G., & Kroll, J. F. (2015, May). How Bilingualism and Cognitive Control Impact L2 Reading Comprehension: Evidence from ERPs. Poster presented at the International Symposium on Bilingualism.Google Scholar