Literature DB >> 30509156

What reading aloud reveals about speaking: Regressive saccades implicate a failure to monitor, not inattention, in the prevalence of intrusion errors on function words.

Elizabeth R Schotter1, Chuchu Li2, Tamar H Gollan2.   

Abstract

Bilinguals occasionally produce language intrusion errors (inadvertent translations of the intended word), especially when attempting to produce function word targets, and often when reading aloud mixed-language paragraphs. We investigate whether these errors are due to a failure of attention during speech planning, or failure of monitoring speech output by classifying errors based on whether and when they were corrected, and investigating eye movement behaviour surrounding them. Prior research on this topic has primarily tested alphabetic languages (e.g., Spanish-English bilinguals) in which part of speech is confounded with word length, which is related to word skipping (i.e., decreased attention). Therefore, we tested 29 Chinese-English bilinguals whose languages differ in orthography, visually cueing language membership, and for whom part of speech (in Chinese) is less confounded with word length. Despite the strong orthographic cue, Chinese-English bilinguals produced intrusion errors with similar effects as previously reported (e.g., especially with function word targets written in the dominant language). Gaze durations did differ by whether errors were made and corrected or not, but these patterns were similar for function and content words and therefore cannot explain part of speech effects. However, bilinguals regressed to words produced as errors more often than to correctly produced words, but regressions facilitated correction of errors only for content, not for function words. These data suggest that the vulnerability of function words to language intrusion errors primarily reflects automatic retrieval and failures of speech monitoring mechanisms from stopping function versus content word errors after they are planned for production.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bilinguals; eye movements; language production errors

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30509156      PMCID: PMC9350915          DOI: 10.1177/1747021818819480

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)        ISSN: 1747-0218            Impact factor:   2.138


  34 in total

1.  Prearticulatory and postarticulatory self-monitoring in Broca's aphasia.

Authors:  C C Oomen; A Postma; H H Kolk
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 4.027

2.  Language Control in Bilinguals: Monitoring and Response Selection.

Authors:  Francesca M Branzi; Pasquale A Della Rosa; Matteo Canini; Albert Costa; Jubin Abutalebi
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2015-04-01       Impact factor: 5.357

3.  A switch is not a switch: Syntactically-driven bilingual language control.

Authors:  Tamar H Gollan; Matthew Goldrick
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2017-08-07       Impact factor: 3.051

4.  Monitoring and self-repair in speech.

Authors:  W J Levelt
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1983-07

5.  Saccade size control in reading: evidence for the linguistic control hypothesis.

Authors:  K O'Regan
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1979-06

6.  Cognates interfere with language selection but enhance monitoring in connected speech.

Authors:  Chuchu Li; Tamar H Gollan
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2018-08

7.  Language control in bilingual adults with and without history of mild traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  Ileana Ratiu; Tamiko Azuma
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2016-12-28       Impact factor: 2.381

8.  Cross-language intrusion errors in aging bilinguals reveal the link between executive control and language selection.

Authors:  Tamar H Gollan; Tiffany Sandoval; David P Salmon
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2011-07-20

9.  Grammatical Constraints on Language Switching: Language Control is not Just Executive Control.

Authors:  Tamar H Gollan; Matthew Goldrick
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2016-05-18       Impact factor: 3.059

10.  What's easier: doing what you want, or being told what to do? Cued versus voluntary language and task switching.

Authors:  Tamar H Gollan; Daniel Kleinman; Christina E Wierenga
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2014-10-13
View more
  5 in total

1.  Using what's there: Bilinguals adaptively rely on orthographic and color cues to achieve language control.

Authors:  Julie Fadlon; Chuchu Li; Anat Prior; Tamar H Gollan
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2019-07-31

2.  Intact reversed language-dominance but exaggerated cognate effects in reading aloud of language switches in bilingual Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Tamar H Gollan; Chuchu Li; Alena Stasenko; David P Salmon
Journal:  Neuropsychology       Date:  2019-09-23       Impact factor: 3.295

3.  Minimal Overlap in Language Control Across Production And Comprehension: Evidence from Read-Aloud Versus Eye-Tracking Tasks.

Authors:  Danbi Ahn; Matthew J Abbott; Keith Rayner; Victor S Ferreira; Tamar H Gollan
Journal:  J Neurolinguistics       Date:  2020-02-07       Impact factor: 1.710

4.  What Cognates Reveal about Default Language Selection in Bilingual Sentence Production.

Authors:  Chuchu Li; Tamar H Gollan
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 4.521

5.  Cognitive control regions are recruited in bilinguals' silent reading of mixed-language paragraphs.

Authors:  Alena Stasenko; Chelsea Hays; Christina E Wierenga; Tamar H Gollan
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2020-02-26       Impact factor: 2.381

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.