Meaning-mapping in the Bilingual Cognitionand the RHM Model Supervisor: Department: Name: Candidate No: Word count: Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: Double Formatted: Line spacing: Double Formatted: Heading 1, Indent: First line: 0", Line spacing: Double Formatted: Line spacing: Double Content Sheet Introduction Language Processing in Bilingual Speakers Revised Hierarchical Model Conclusion Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: Double Formatted: Line spacing: Double Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt, After: 12 pt, Line spacing: Double Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0.5", Space Before: 12 pt, After: 12 pt, Line spacing: Double Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold, Underline Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold, No underline Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold Formatted: Font: 12 pt Formatted: Font: 12 pt Formatted: Justified, Space Before: 12 pt, After: 12 pt, Line spacing: Double References Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt, After: 12 pt, Line spacing: Double Formatted: Line spacing: Double Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line spacing: Double Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Line spacing: Double Introduction Language acquisition is an ability of a human being to recogniserecognize, understand and identify language and the capacity to make and utilize words for communications with other human beings. An ability of human being to use language productively and effectively depends upon how much he has knowledge on variety of tools like syntax, grammar, phonetics, vocabulary and other language rules. Acquisition of native language or mother tongue is the acquisition of first language, while acquiring of additional language is referred to as second language acquisition. There are many general approaches which states that how an infant acquire language. Rational frame theory states that children learn language by having interaction with environment (Hayes & Roche, 2001). This theory highlighted the importance functional circumstances and environment and also reveals the significance of forecasting and influencing emotional events like feelings and behaviors. MacWhinney (1999), competition model defined language acquisition process as a cognitive process. Language Processing in Bilingual Speakers Children are inclined towards native languages as they born, while the ability of a human being to learn L2 language (language other than the native language or in simple words the Formatted: Font: 12 pt Formatted: No underline Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: Double Formatted: Font: 8 pt Formatted: Justified, Indent: First line: 0.5", Line spacing: Double Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: Double Formatted: Justified, Indent: First line: 0.5", Line spacing: Double mother tongue) depends upon many factors like age, effort by learner, differences in native and second language, the urge and motivation level of learners etc. There is a view, that in language learning process, the learner gets help from native language knowledge, while some people states that it’s all about the exposure to the second language and practice of L2 language. No doubt, the input difference in L1 and L2 is very large, in both quantity wise and also quality-wise. For example, a child growing in an English language environment will definitely hear thousand of English words in a day. Thus, his input of L1 language, in both quality and quantity, is not comparable with inputs of L2 language. Second language learner might be able to get the same input quantity but the quality of L2 will still be different. An advantage to L2 learner is that he will get the linguistic and non-linguistic education formally. The research demonstrate that there is a relationship between amount of exposure to a language an individual get to the word (lexical) development (Lewedeg & Oller, 1997). The aim of this review is to discuss and analyse the main criticisms towards the Revised Hierarchical Model (RHM) and to investigate the capability of this model for research in bilingualism. I will critically evaluate the different views about the RHM in comparison with the Word-association Model, before drawing any conclusions. The first question is how the multilingual speaker processes the words while speaking different languages. L1 learners learn new things about this world as well as learning how to communicate in the form of his/her native language. On contrary, L1 learners have an advantage in already having the knowledge of the purpose of language and grammar but L2 learners have to search the meaning of words. L1 learners do not learn the meaning of words by listening or reading the meaning but rather they extract the meaning from continuing communication signals. In language development, the usage base approaches are also very useful. For many years, linguistic research on bilingualism was restricted only to those Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: Double exceptional cases that were experts in both languages and were able to interchange easily between both languages as they acquired both languages earlier in their life-time. While some researchers of that time were not interested in understanding the mechanism of language processing in bilinguals because they assumed that the native language processing was not affected by the L2 language. However, in recent years, circumstances have changed considerably as now researchers are studying unequal bilinguals who are not expert in L2 language and their study results demonstrate that the L2 does have an impact on L1 processing. In case of bilinguals, it is suspected that bilingual speakers probably use one or two memory stores. Recently, research highlighted that generally there are two different memory stores; if both languages are learnt at different settings, for example if one language is learnt at home while other is learnt at school but if both languages are leant at same time in same setting than an individual has the same memory store (Ervin, 1954). Another recent research have also addressed this issue and have tried to discover that how two languages are related to each other in real life and what sort of mechanisms are involved in the recovery of words and in language processing. Revised Hierarchical Model Theoretical and conceptual illustration in the memory of bilingual individual is extremely significant and an extensively discussed topic in the linguistic literature. Some research studies demonstrated that a person, who can speak two or more languages possibly have different memory storage for each language in his/her mind and there is no dependence between the illustrations, sign and symbols of any two languages (Kolers, 1963). While, some research studies showed that no matter how many languages a person can speak the representation Formatted: Font: 8 pt Formatted: Justified, Indent: First line: 0", Line spacing: Double Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold, Underline Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: Double system of all languages are the same (Schwanenflugel and Rey, 1986). Both of the above mentioned studies constitute the Revised Hierarchical Model (RHM). The basis of RHM is based on previous studies. Although, RHM applies to bilinguals who can learn both languages all together but rather the main focus of RHM model is to those bilingual speakers who can learn L2 language after getting expert in L1. The four main features of RHM model are the separation of lexical (word) and conceptual (meaning) representation, separate lexicon for languages and selective access, asymmetries and irregularity between L1 and L2 processing and finally the developmental feature of bilingualism. As per these studies, there are two levels to the representations; first level constitutes the word level known as lexical level whereas second level constitutes the meaning level known as conceptual level (Durgonoglu and Roediger, 1987). At level 1, the word of each language is individually stored, while level 2 (Conceptual level) consists of system of units in which the words of each language share the general semantic meaning. The bilingual speaker actually has representation of words and meanings in hierarchical manners which are stored separately and independently at lexical level but share common semantic system across two languages. Formatted: Font: 12 pt This figure is showing that lexical links from L2 to L1 are strong while these links are weak from L1 to L2. An individual can easily find out words when he or she is going to translate from L2 language to L1 but when an individual need to translate from L1 to L2, he or she finds it difficult to find out words from L1 to L2. Similarly conceptual links are strong in any human being related to Li language while these links are weak for L2 language. But one thing needs to mention that as an individual gets proficiency in L2 language, these conceptual links become stronger. Lexical links is the relationship between words of different languages at first level (lexical level), also known as word association. Whereas, the conceptual links is the relationship between words of any two languages in memory and also the sense and meaning they symbolises (Dufour and Kroll, 1995).In simple words, RHM explains that the lexical link is strong from a person’s second language to his/her first language as compare to lexical link of a person’s first language to second language. An individual associates his/her first language to second language, in learning process of second language. Human being learns words of second language by making association and relationship of these words with the words of first/native language. The conceptual links are not strong as far as the second language is concerned. It could only be strong, if an individual become an expert in second language and he/she does not depend on native language to know the meanings. This model also depicts the dominance of first language vocabulary over the second language vocabulary. Model of RHM describes the irregularity of lexical and conceptual links of L1 and L2 languages. As far as L1 is concerned, it has strong lexical and conceptual links while the L2 has weak lexical and conceptual links. There are possibilities that these links might turn around, if an individual leaves his/her native language and start speaking L2 language for a long period of time. Thus there are chances that his/her lexical and conceptual links become stronger in L2 language. Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Italic Comment [F1 :] Please write what this Iigure represents Formatted: Font: 7 pt, Italic Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Italic Formatted: Justified, Indent: First line: 0", Line spacing: Double Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: Double Comment [F2 :] Explain this clearly see the explanation below the figure This figure is showing word of same meaning in two different languages, one in English (friend) and other in Spanish (amigo). If a person whose first language is English, listen to the word ‘Friend’, sets of concepts will be automatically comes in his or her mind which will be different if he/she listen to the word ‘Amigo’ as both words have same meaning. But the association of person with these words is different. "Friend" may be connected with the thought of McDonalds and toys, while "amigo" may be related with the concepts like smiles and play. The difference in the conceptual characteristics is because of different situations in which the words are learned and used. Another model known as the Conceptual Feature Model that has argues that not matter a word relates to which language, it just simply stimulates sequence of conceptual and abstract aspects. These conceptual features are different for words having same meaning but different words are used in different languages as it is explained in example of ‘Friend’ and ‘Amigo’. The Formatted: Font: 12 pt Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Bold, Italic Formatted: Justified, Indent: First line: 0.5", Line spacing: Double Comment [F3 :] this Explain .em to sense make otesndo this reason for variation in conceptual features is that the words of different languages having the same meanings are learnt and used under different conditions and circumstances (De Groot, 1992). For example, friend and amigo are two different words, one is in English and other is in Spanish language, but the conceptual associations behind these two words are different. Other concept highlighted by this model is that the real and tangible words have more conceptual attributes than non-figurative and intangible words. Research on bilingual mind is performed to better understand the mechanisms that undergo in the bilingual mind to process all the learned information. The main aim behind this research is to use English language which is spoken and understood all around the world to make English advertisements for non-native consumers. The priority of all advertisers is to make advertisement in native language of consumers instead of their second language (Brill, 1994). In study by Brill (1994), two psycholinguistic models are used to investigate the framework of information processing in bilingual individuals while understanding the advertisement. When RHM model is employed, it is observed that if an advertising company markets its products by making advertisement in L1 language then consumers are able to understand, comprehend and remind such advertisement in better way as compare to when advertisement is made in L2 language. However, from information processing approach, there are also some situations in which advertisement in L2 language is as successful as in L1 language. As far as Conceptual Feature Model is concerned, it suggests that the concrete advertisement may influence the bilingual consumers and they might be better able to recall and comprehend the advertisement. Recent studies show that when an individual listens to some word in L2 language; the information about that word in first language also turns on (Dijkstra & Van Heuven, 2002). There is a perspective that, a bilingual speaker with a high proficiency in L2 might be able to work independently in second language but recent work demonstrates that, despite getting expertise Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: Double Comment [F4 :] clearly this explain in L2 does not mean that the individual is able to turn off the influence of L1 language. However, these influences are not only from L1 to L2. Sometimes L2 language also influences the L1 language when an individual has aptitude and expertise in l2 language (Van Hell & Dijkstra, 2002). Bilingual Interactive Activation Model (BIA) is a model of bilingual lexicon represented by McClelland and Rumelhart (1981). As per this model, when a expert bilingual is exposed to a visual inputs, many words become activates and they become compete with one another for selection. The identification of a word in both first and second language depends about the close properties of words in both L1 and L2 languages. In simple words, there is evidence that, when a person is doing any task only in one language, the close words become active in other language also. This can be explained with help of a simple example that gate is a word in English which has close or neighbor word game in same language and also has neighbor word in Spanish which is gato which means cat in Spanish language. These neighborhood features of words influence the selection of words. The word selection decision in cognates is faster in both L1 and L2. Bilingual are able to recognize the cognates easily as compare to monolingual. All these evidence support the basic idea of Bilingual Interactive Activation Model which states that no matter that a person wants to work in one language only, but if he or she is an expert and proficient bilingual, then while doing work in one language, the information about words in both languages become activated whether he or she is intended to do it or not. Some other studied also suggest that during initial stage of acquisition, the influence of first language is more on L2 than the influence of L2 on L1 (Jared & Kroll, 2001). As the skill in L2 increases, this influence comes at the same level. But in real life, an expert bilingual use one language more between two languages. Such influences are perfectly balanced. The hub of Revised Hierarchical Model is to describe that during processing the language how words to concept plan are developed and used. As per this model, the lexical representation is different in each language but conceptual systems are combined and incorporated. This model assumes that the conceptual links are stronger for L1 while for L2 they are weak. It also supposes that lexical links from L2 to L1 are strong while from L1 to L2 are weak, as the individual does not get expertise in initial states of language development and it is difficult for him to translate the words from L1 language to L2. However, due to strong hold and proficiency in L1, the learner can easily translate the words from L2 to L1. Several tests on performance of translation are done to provide the evidence for RHM. These translation test shows that translation from L1 to L2 is matter of Concepts while translation from L2 to L1 is matter of words. Moreover, it takes more time to translate from L1 to L2 as compare to doing translation from L2 to L1 (Kroll & Stewart, 1994). At later stages, the irregularity and asymmetries of RHM is explored both in expert bilinguals and in those individuals who are at different development stages of L2 language. There are also some studies which do not support RHM assumptions (Altarriba & Mathis, 1997). The main assumption in RHM is that, in L2 development, translation equivalents become active in L1. In BIA Model, the word form associations are active for expert and skilled bilingual while in RHM, translation equivalents become active for L2. Many researches are done showing how word processing changes with increasing level of proficiency in L2. These researches shows that lexical information has activated in L1 but the level and extent of activation of lexical information depends upon the level of proficiency of L2. These researches also supports the prediction of RHM model that translation correspondent and equivalent is important in initial states of acquisition of L2. Another question is raised by researchers whether the access to meaning of L2 words increases with expertise in L2 language. Actually, in early stage of acquisition, the information about meaning of L2 may be available. This result is against to some previous stages according to which access to meaning in L2 is achieved when a person starts getting proficiency in L2 language. Now let’s talk about the criticism which has been done on RHM model at different stages. The assumptions taken into RHM model are under questions by other researchers. It is the most popular recent model which describes the bilingual language processing. The critics said that there is little support and proof of separate lexicon and the little or no proof of having access to select language. Moreover, the addition of links between translation correspondents at the word/lexical level is likely to slow down word identification. Other researchers said that the link between L2 words and their meanings is stronger than mentioned in RHM model and the proof of difference is also existed between dependent and independent language semantic characteristics. The first problem point out by critics in RHM model is little or no evidence for the presence of separate lexicon for each language and activation and deactivation of selective access. According to RHM model, bilinguals can hamper or turn on one of their languages, depending on the situation (Dijkstra and Grainger, 1998). But as per critics instead of supporting this assumption, there are many evidences which are against this assumption of RHM model. In the field of spoken word identification, Spivey and Marian (1999) examined whether Russian– English bilinguals would be inclined by L2 knowledge while listening to L1 target words and instructions. They made use of the so-called “visual world model”. In this model members see a few familiar objects e.g., a candy, an apple, a candle and a fork and are asked to do an action on one of them (e.g., “pick up the candle”). The eye movements of members are followed to see which objects the participants possess. Under these conditions, member often look at the candy before they look at the candle. This interfering effect is reliable with the cohort model of auditory word recognition, which states that all words starting with the same initial sounds are activated at first and are subsequently reduce as more information reaches the brain. Given that both candle and candy start with the same sounds, so they compete with each other only for some time. Spivey and Marian (1999) observed whether a similar kind of competition would be experiential across languages. They reported that L2 names of the objects activated, even though theL2 was not involved in the experiment. Confirmation against language-selective access in illustration word identification was stated by Dijkstra and Schriefers (2000). They offered Dutch–English bilinguals with catalogs of English and Dutch words and asked the participants to press a button if an English word appeared. If Dutch word is showed, they were asked to wait for the next word. They were mainly concerned in the comparison between words that only exist in English (e.g., home) and words that exist both in English and in Dutch but have a different meaning in the two languages, such as room, which means “cream” in Dutch. The thought was that if participants were able to switch off their Dutch lexicon, they should not be affected by whether or not the letter sequence formed a word with a different meaning in Dutch. They found that participants needed more time to decide that a homograph was an English word (657 ms) than that a non- homograph was an English word (577 ms), even though the frequency of the homograph was much higher in English than in Dutch and even though all test words were readily recognized as valid English words (more than 97% correct responses). However, we get proof against language selective access, but not against RHM’s assumption of separate lexicons. It could be that there are two different lexicons, activated in parallel by the sensory input. Although the issue of separate lexicons with parallel access vs. a unitary lexicon with parallel access is very difficult to decide empirically, because evidence could be obtained by looking at word form interactions during visual word recognition. If it can be shown that word forms of one language do not interact with those of the other language as part of lexical access, then that would be good evidence for at least functionally separated lexicons. On the other hand, if the word forms of the non-target language interact in very much the same way as the word forms of the target language, then that would be good evidence for an integrated lexicon. A second challenge for the RHM is that it predicts a solid translation priming effect from L2 words to L1 targets, given the strong lexical connections between L2 words and their L1 translations. Unfortunately, the evidence here is very meager (Brysbaert and Hartsuiker, 2009). Much of the evidence is based on the masked priming technique. In this technique, a prime is presented before the target for such a short period of time (typically 50–80 ms) that it is not perceived consciously. Still, the prime has an effect on the target since associatively related primes induce faster target processing than unrelated primes. RHM is appealing because of the simplicity of the processes involved. Words are recognized, activate their meaning and their cross-language equivalents, and that is it. However, as soon as researchers attempt to implement the various assumptions in a working model or start to assess the detailed processes of word recognition and translation, they are confronted with the fact that the simple ideas behind RHM pose serious implementation problems. In the previous section we already discussed the issue of excitatory lexical connections. This problem is further exacerbated by the fact that many translations are not simple one-to-one mappings (Tokowicz and Kroll, 2007). Another example of how real-life language use complicates the belief of RHM is the finding that the reading of written words is not entirely based on the orthographic code, but involves the phonological code as well (Grainger, Kiyonaga and Holcomb, 2006). This can be concluded from the finding that a target word (e.g., brain) is more efficiently processed when it has been preceded by a briefly presented homophonic prime (brane) than when it has been preceded by a control prime that does not sound the same (brank). Again, this feature of language processing involves more than a simple “augmentation” of RHM by making a distinction between an orthographic and a phonological lexicon in L1 and L2. A fourth issue on which the RHM has been challenged concerns the assumption of limited conceptual mediation in L2 word understanding and translation. Only for very high levels of proficiency does the model assume equivalent conceptual mediation in L2 and L1. Already in the year of RHM’s publication, de Groot and van Hell (1994) published an article in which they questioned the limited involvement of semantics in L2 processing. They asked participants to translate words from L1 to L2 (forward) or from L2 to L1 (backward), and observed that very much the same variables predicted translation performance in each direction. In their own words: “meaning played a somewhat more important role in forward than in backward translation, whereas familiarity appeared to have a larger influence in backward translation. A few other differences between forward and backward translation were detected, but, when considering the complete stimulus set, the differences between translation directions were generally small”. Importantly, these were not data from balanced bilinguals, as could be assumed from the developmental hypothesis of RHM, but from unbalanced bilinguals with limited fluency in their second language. Even for them, conceptual mediation played a significant role in L2–L1 translation. Duyck and Brysbaert (2004) addressed the issue of asymmetric conceptual mediation with numerical stimuli. They made use of the finding that the time needed to understand numbers depends on the magnitude of the number: participants need more time to read large numbers (e.g., 9, 12) than small numbers (e.g., 1, 4). Duyck and Brysbaert examined whether this finding would result in a number magnitude effect when participants were asked to translate numbers. They indeed obtained such an effect, both in forward translation and in backward translation, indicating semantic access during L2 word translation (for similar results in backward translation from L3, see Duyck and Brysbaert, 2008). Importantly, these effects were observed even when using a set of newly learned number words (a so-called foreign language), which the participants acquired only one hour before testing. On the basis of these findings, Duyck and Brysbaert (2004) hypothesized that when there is a complete overlap of meaning between L1 and L2 words, new L2 words are not acquired through lexical connections or episodic connections, but by early mapping of L2 word forms to meaning. Brysbaert and Duyck cite the Thierry and Wu (2007) study as evidence contrary to the RHM in that it shows that there is cross-language activation of the translation equivalent in ERP measures for relatively proficient Chinese-English bilinguals when they perform a semantic relatedness task in their L2. The Thierry and Wu data are indeed problematic for the RHM because the RHM assumes that only learners at early stages of L2 acquisition will need to exploit the L1 translation equivalent for the purpose of accessing meaning. However, Brysbaert and Duyck go to some length to demonstrate that the L2 can be processed conceptually without lexical mediation. The Thierry and Wu data are therefore problematic for their account as well because the Chinese-English bilinguals in that study were immersed in English as the L2 and should by all accounts be able to process English without access to the Chinese translation equivalent. The main results of the Thierry and Wu study were recently replicated in a behavioral study with deaf signers reading English as their L2. Again, the result was that there was evidence for activation of the translation in American Sign Language when reading written words in English. Conclusion: In short, Brysbaert and Duyck argue that the RHM is no longer a useful characterization of the way in which bilinguals process words and concepts in each of their two languages. Their proposal to leave the model behind is based on findings in the research reported in the last 15 years that appear to refute the model's assumptions and predictions. In the last 15 years there have been a number of important discoveries that require that the model be revised. However, contrary to the conclusion that Brysbaert and Duyck reach, that a model of bilingual word recognition such as the BIA+ model (Dijkstra and Van Heuven, 2002) does a better job of accounting for the available data, we argue that the RHM was not primarily a model of word recognition but a model of word production. Furthermore, with respect to two of the model's central claims, one in regard to asymmetries between the two languages and the other concerning the consequences of L2 learning history, there remain enduring questions about development and control that can neither be answered within a narrow model of word recognition nor be left behind. Brysbaert and Duyck have reviewed a number of different empirical results and arguments that they consider problematic for the RHM. In 15 years of research, one hopes that new discoveries are reported. During this period we have learned a great deal about bilingual development and performance that requires revision to the RHM and indeed to all models of bilingual language processing. In this brief response, we have attempted to capture at least the spirit of these developments. The RHM had the appealing feature of being a testable model and the almost 300 citations of the Kroll and Stewart (1994) paper that Formatted: Font: Bold now appear in the Web of Science include a range of studies that have tested the model, extended the model, and applied the model more broadly. References: 1. Altarriba, J., & Mathis, K.M. (1997). Conceptual and lexical development in second language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 550–568. 2. Brysbaert M, Duyck W. Is it time to leave behind the Revised Hierarchical Model of bilingual language processing after 15 years of service? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. in press 3. Finkbeiner, M., Forster, K., Nicol, J., & Nakamura, K. (2004). The role of polysemy in masked semantic and translation priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 1-22. 4. Dufour, R., & Kroll, J.F. (1995). Matching words to concepts in two languages: A test of the concept mediation model of bilingual representation. Memory & Cognition 23 (2), 166-180. 5. David Luna, Laura A. Peracchio (1999), "WHAT’S IN A BILINGUAL’S MIND?: HOW BILINGUAL CONSUMERS PROCESS INFORMATION", in Advances in Consumer Research Volume 26, eds. Eric J. Arnould and Linda M. Scott, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 306-311. 6. De Groot, A. M. B+ (1992) Determinants of word translation+ Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1001–1018. 7. Dijkstra, T., van Heuven, W. J. B. & Grainger, J. (1998).Simulating cross-language competition with the bilingual interactive activation model. Psychologica Belgica, 38,177–196. Formatted: Line spacing: Double Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: Double Formatted: Line spacing: Double Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri), 12 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0", Space After: 0 pt, Line spacing: Double, Don't adjust space between Latin and Asian text, Don't adjust space between Asian text and numbers Formatted: Line spacing: Double 8. Dijkstra T. Bilingual word recognition and lexical access. In: Kroll JF, De Groot AMB, editors. Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. Oxford University Press; New York: 2005. pp. 179–201. 9. Harm, M. W. & Seidenberg, M. S. (2004). Computing the meanings ofwords in reading: Cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes. Psychological Review, 111, 662–720. 10. Kroll, J. F. & de Groot, A.M. B. (1997). Lexical and conceptual memory in the bilingual: Mapping form to meaning in two languages. In de Groot A. M.B.&KrollJ. F. (eds), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives, pp. 201–224. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers. 11. Kroll JF, Bobb SC, Misra MM, Guo T. Language selection in bilingual speech: Evidence for inhibitory processes. Acta Psychologica. 2008;128:416–430. 12. McClelland, J. L. & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in better perception, Part 1: An account of basic findings. Psychological review,88, 375–405. 13. Marslen-Wilson,W. D. (1987). Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition. Cognition, 25, 71–102. 14. Potter, M.C., So, K.F., Von Eckardt, B., & Feldman, L. (1984). Lexical and conceptual representation in beginning and proficient bilinguals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23(1), 23-38. 15. Perry, C., Ziegler, J. C. & Zorzi, M. (2007). Nested incremental priming in the development of computational theories: The CDP+ model of reading aloud. Psychological Review, 114,273–315. 16. van Heuven, W. J. B., Dijkstra, T. & Grainger, J. (1998). Orthographic neighborhood effects in bilingual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 458– 483. 17. Weber, A. & Cutler, A. (2004). Lexical competition in nonnative spoken-word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 1–25.