Using the DRM paradigm to assess language processing in monolinguals and bilinguals

Bialystok, Ellen; Dey, Avanti; Sullivan, Margot D.; Sommers, Mitchell S.

doi:10.3758/s13421-020-01016-6

Cited by 15 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 82 publications

(87 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In recognition memory tasks, where participants have to recall recently studied stimulus words, L2 speakers perform better when recalling words in their L2, a less proficient language, and better than L1 speakers recalling words in their native language (Francis and Strobach, 2013). L2 speakers are also less likely to develop false memories of semantic lures (e.g., incorrectly recalling the word needle after studying the words thread, pin, point, and sharp) compared to monolinguals; however, they are more susceptible to phonological (formbased) memories (Bialystok et al, 2020), supporting the idea of L2 word form prominence discussed in Section "Form Prominence in L2".…”

Section: Fuzzy Lexical Representations Episodic Memory and The Complementary Learning Systemsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…While episodic memory, by definition, cannot subserve long-term lexical storage, which challenges the viability of the episodic L2 hypothesis, a number of observations point to a greater reliance of L2 speakers on episodic memory in tasks engaging episodic representations of recently activated L2 words ( Francis and Strobach, 2013 ; Bialystok et al, 2020 ). In recognition memory tasks, where participants have to recall recently studied stimulus words, L2 speakers perform better when recalling words in their L2, a less proficient language, and better than L1 speakers recalling words in their native language ( Francis and Strobach, 2013 ).…”

Section: What Consequences Does Fuzziness In Lrs Have For Lexical Processing?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fuzzy Lexical Representations in Adult Second Language Speakers

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We propose the fuzzy lexical representations (FLRs) hypothesis that regards fuzziness as a core property of nonnative (L2) lexical representations (LRs). Fuzziness refers to imprecise encoding at different levels of LRs and interacts with input frequency during lexical processing and learning in adult L2 speakers. The FLR hypothesis primarily focuses on the encoding of spoken L2 words. We discuss the causes of fuzzy encoding of phonological form and meaning as well as fuzzy form-meaning mappings and the consequences of fuzzy encoding for word storage and retrieval. A central factor contributing to the fuzziness of L2 LRs is the fact that the L2 lexicon is acquired when the L1 lexicon is already in place. There are two immediate consequences of such sequential learning. First, L2 phonological categorization difficulties lead to fuzzy phonological form encoding. Second, the acquisition of L2 word forms subsequently to their meanings, which had already been acquired together with the L1 word forms, leads to weak L2 form-meaning mappings. The FLR hypothesis accounts for a range of phenomena observed in L2 lexical processing, including lexical confusions, slow lexical access, retrieval of incorrect lexical entries, weak lexical competition, reliance on sublexical rather than lexical heuristics in word recognition, the precedence of word form over meaning, and the prominence of detailed, even if imprecisely encoded, information about LRs in episodic memory. The main claim of the FLR hypothesis – that the quality of lexical encoding is a product of a complex interplay between fuzziness and input frequency – can contribute to increasing the efficiency of the existing models of LRs and lexical access.

show abstract

Section: Fuzzy Lexical Representations Episodic Memory and The Complementary Learning Systemsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: What Consequences Does Fuzziness In Lrs Have For Lexical Processing?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Fuzzy Lexical Representations in Adult Second Language Speakers

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, some research has focused on false memories when languages are switched between encoding and retrieval (i.e., between-language false memory) (see Graves and Altarriba, 2014 for review). Second, another line of research has been interested in whether language and memory processes differ between bilinguals and monolinguals (e.g., Bialystok et al, 2020). Third, and the aim of this review, increasing interest has been centered on whether language proficiency influenced false memories when participants encode and retrieve information in the same language (i.e., within-language false memory).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Language Proficiency in False Memory: A Mini Review

Suarez

Beato

2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Memory errors and, specifically, false memories in the Deese/Roediger–McDermott paradigm have been extensively studied in the past decades. Most studies have investigated false memory in monolinguals’ native or first language (L1), but interest has also grown in examining false memories in participants’ second language (L2) with different proficiency levels. The main purpose of this manuscript is to review the current state of knowledge on the role of language proficiency on false memories when participants encode and retrieve information in the same language. To do so, a systematic literature search was conducted, and the available studies were reviewed. These studies differed in, for example, age, language proficiency, or material characteristics, including both high and low associative strength lists, and they reported different results. In this review, we attempted to make sense of the apparently contradictory results by carefully identifying participants’ language dominance and L2 proficiency. Specifically, the results indicated that, first, people are more prone to produce false memories in their dominant than in their non-dominant language. This result generalizes to lists with high and low associative strength, as well as to participants of different ages. Second, false memories do not differ between two languages when speakers are equally proficient in both languages. Finally, highly proficient L2 speakers produce more false memories in their L2 than speakers with lower L2 proficiency. The results of this review will be considered in the light of the theoretical frameworks of false memories and bilingual language processing.

show abstract

“…Language articles encompass comparisons across speakers of different languages (e.g., Mandarin versus English; Gao et al, 2018), comparisons of different number formats (e.g., Arabic versus Mandarin; Quinlan et al, 2020), and training to learn a nonnative phonetic contrast (e.g., Fuhrmeister & Myers, 2020). Bilingualism topics include comparisons of bilinguals and monolinguals (e.g., Bialystok et al, 2020;Ratiu et al, 2017), comparisons of individuals' first versus second language (e.g., Lempert, 2016), and second language learning (e.g., Yum et al, 2016). Notably, the higher number of papers that consider culture in Behavioral Research Methods relative to the other journals largely reflects the journal's role in publishing normed stimuli in a variety of linguistic and cultural contexts (e.g., Boukadi et al, 2015;Stadthagen-Gonzalez et al, 2016).…”

Section: Why Should the Field Of Cognitive Psychology Encompass The S...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Consideration of Culture in Cognition: How We Can Enrich Methodology and Theory

Gutchess¹,

Rajaram²

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we argue that adopting an inclusive approach where diverse cultures are represented in research is of prime importance for cognitive psychology. To date, the inclusion of culture in cognition has not been entrenched in the mainstream of cognitive psychology. We propose that the time has come for this to change. In an analysis of articles in representative cognitive psychology journals over the five-year period of 2016-2020, we find that only approximately 7% of articles consider culture, broadly defined. Of these articles, a majority (83%) focus on language or bilingualism, with the small number of remaining articles considering a variety of aspects of culture on an array of cognitive processes. As our discipline aspires to make research more global and collaborative, cognitive psychologists will benefit by expanding sample selection beyond the WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) samples that have constituted the vast majority of research participants thus far. Advances in methodology and theory made possible by the last century of cognitive research can be not only leveraged, but also will be enriched by a study of more diverse populations, paving the way to uncover cognitive processes that may be universal or can systematically differ as a function of cultural variations. To make a case for broadening this scope, we characterize the types of research conducted thus far that bring a cross-cultural lens to the study of cognition, and we discuss classic cognitive research that is in line with incorporating a cross-cultural perspective and the compatibility between a cross-cultural perspective and the classic tenets of cognitive psychology. Recognizing that not every research question calls for a cross-cultural perspective, we make suggestions for how researchers can enrich the study of cognitive psychology by broadening their approaches to incorporate greater cultural representation in the study of cognition.

show abstract

Using the DRM paradigm to assess language processing in monolinguals and bilinguals

Cited by 15 publications

References 82 publications

Fuzzy Lexical Representations in Adult Second Language Speakers

Fuzzy Lexical Representations in Adult Second Language Speakers

The Role of Language Proficiency in False Memory: A Mini Review

Consideration of Culture in Cognition: How We Can Enrich Methodology and Theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About