Chapter 1. Bilingualism, executive control, and eye movement measures of reading

Abstract

This chapter selectively reviews the literature on bilingual language processing, with a special focus on the link to executive control, eye movements during reading, and differences between two different groups that are often lumped together: bilinguals (i.e., individuals who know two languages) and multilinguals (i.e., individuals who know more than two languages). To this end, we first discuss ideas about the cognitive demands associated with knowing more than a single language. We then review how eye movement reading research has clarified two important consequences of knowledge and use of more than one language: (1) cross-language activation and its relation to executive function and (2) weakened local (i.e., word-level) and global (i.e., text-level) aspects of reading performance. Finally, we review what is currently known about the bilingual vs. multilingual distinction, and present a re-analysis of previously published data (Whitford & Titone, 2016) exploring the effects of bilingual vs. multilingual status on natural reading in both younger and older adults. Although preliminary, these findings, along with the growing literature reviewed here from other domains, illustrate the importance of taking the bilingualism/multilingualism distinction into account when trying to understand the cognitive implications of knowing more than one language.

Figuring Out How Verb-Particle Constructions Are Understood During L1 and L2 Reading

“…Second pass reading time was calculated by subtracting gaze duration from total reading time, or the total amount of time spent in a region. In turn, second pass reading time reflects additional processing of a region, particularly with respect to sentence- or discourse-level factors (for a review of eye-tracking measures, see Titone et al, 2016). Of note, in cases where participants only fixated the regions of interest on the first pass, the second pass time would be 0, and this would be included in the analysis.…”

Lexical entrenchment and cross-language activation: Two sides of the same coin for bilingual reading across the adult lifespan

“…Lexical entrenchment can be assessed through the word frequency effect, which reflects how easily a word can be identified. The standard finding is that high-frequency words (e.g., home ) are recognized more easily and more rapidly than low-frequency words (e.g., kelp ); this finding is indexed by more skipping, shorter fixations, and fewer regressions in the eye movement record (reviewed in Rayner, 1998, 2009; Rayner, Pollatsek, Ashby & Clifton, 2012; Titone et al, 2016; Whitford et al, 2016). Word frequency effects are often regarded as a signature of lexical access, and reflect important structural properties of the mental lexicon (Rayner, 1998, 2009).…”

“…Words with between-language lexical overlap include cognates , which share both orthography and semantics across languages (e.g., < piano> is an instrument in both English and French), and interlingual homographs , which share orthography, but not semantics across languages (e.g., < chat> is a conversation in English vs. cat in French). Studies involving both eye movement recordings and response-based tasks have generally reported facilitatory effects for cognates, and inhibitory effects for interlingual homographs (reviewed in de Groot, 2011; Kroll et al, 2016; Titone et al, 2016; Van Assche et al, 2012; Whitford et al, 2016).…”

“…Second, bilingualism entails cross-language activation; there is consensus that bilinguals have an integrated lexicon, wherein both their languages are concurrently represented, leading to the simultaneous co-activation of target- and non-target-language lexical representations during L1 and L2 processing. Cross-language activation can facilitate or inhibit lexical accessibility, depending on the nature of the task, nature of the cross-language overlap, and current target language (reviewed in de Groot, 2011; Kroll, Gullifer & Zirnstein, 2016; Lauro & Schwartz, 2017; Titone et al, 2016; Van Assche, Duyck & Hartsuiker, 2012; Whitford et al, 2016).…”

“…First, bilingualism entails reduced lexical entrenchment; bilinguals have less absolute experience with each of their languages than monolinguals, who, by definition, have experience with one language only, leading to reduced lexical quality and accessibility. As well, bilinguals generally have less absolute L2 than L1 experience, leading to reduced lexical quality and accessibility during L2 versus L1 processing (reviewed in Titone, Whitford, Lijewska & Itzhak, 2016; Whitford, Pivneva & Titone, 2016). Second, bilingualism entails cross-language activation; there is consensus that bilinguals have an integrated lexicon, wherein both their languages are concurrently represented, leading to the simultaneous co-activation of target- and non-target-language lexical representations during L1 and L2 processing.…”