The aims and objectives of the present research were to investigate and cross-check if immersion in a bilingual situation over a certain period of time had any modulatory effect on bilingual processing in an immigrant population. Then, main aim of the experiment was to test the performance in L1 in comparison to their L2.
Approach:
Theoretically, we tested two dominant bilingual processing theories—Bilingual Language Interaction Network for Comprehension of Speech (BLINCS) and Adaptive Control Hypothesis (ACH) in a parallel language activation paradigm using MouseTracker as a tool in a non-Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic (WEIRD) population. Bilingual language comprehension was tested using “listen, look and click” lexical access task in mouse-tracking hand movement experiment in which participants listened to the spoken word and clicked on the matching picture on the computer screen, and bilingual language production was tested using both semantic and phonetic verbal fluency task.
Data and analysis:
Data were collected in a controlled situation from 55 undergraduate and postgraduate students from Nepal who were studying in a technical college in South India. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed for Initiation Time and Response Time for mouse movement trajectories in lexical access task and, phonetic and semantic word production for verbal fluency task. Demographic profile and language measures of the participants were analyzed.
Findings:
Our results showed L2 immersion had no modulatory effect on bilingual processing. Irrespective of length of stay duration in a foreign country, the participants did not show much of processing difference in mouse initiation and response time in lexical access language comprehension mouse-tracking task. However, in language production task, the less immersed group produced more words in both phonetic and semantic fluency. Our study showed even an extended duration of L2 immersion is not detrimental to L1 mental lexicon.
Originality:
This is the first study of parallel language activation using mouse-tracking paradigm on Nepali–English bilingual population immersed in an L2 context in a foreign country.
Significance:
This study extends our earlier understanding of bilingual processing and also challenges the earlier claims of modulatory effect of L2 immersion on L1 by providing counter evidence to findings in previous studies.
AbutalebiJ.CaniniM.Della RosaP. A.GreenD. W.WeekesB. S. (2015). The neuroprotective effects of bilingualism upon the inferior parietal lobule: A structural neuroimaging study in aging Chinese bilinguals. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 33, 3–13. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2014.09.008
2.
AbutalebiJ.GreenD. (2007). Bilingual language production: The neurocognition of language representation and control. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20(3), 242–275. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2006.10.003
3.
ArnettJ. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63, 602–614.
4.
BarcaL.BenedettiF.PezzuloG. (2015). The effects of phonological similarity on the semantic categorisation of pictorial and lexical stimuli: Evidence from continuous behavioural measures. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28, 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2015.1101117
5.
BaurP. J. (2020). Expanding the reach of psychological science. Psychological Science, 31(1), 3–5.
6.
BausC.CostaA.CarreirasM. (2013). On the effects of second language immersion on first language production. Acta Psychologica, 142, 402–409.
7.
BlumenfeldH. K.MarianV. (2007). Constraints on parallel activation in bilingual spoken language processing: Examining proficiency and lexical status using eye-tracking. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(5), 633–660.
BlumenfeldH. K.MarianV. (2013). Parallel language activation and cognitive control during spoken word recognition in bilinguals. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 547–567. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.812093
10.
BlumenfeldH. K.SchroederS. R.BobbS. C.FreemanM. R.MarianV. (2016). Auditory word recognition across the lifespan: Links between linguistic and non linguistic inhibitory control in bilinguals and monolinguals. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 6(1), 119–146. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.14030.blu
11.
ChambersC. G.CookeH. (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(4), 1029.
12.
CostaA.PickeringM. J. (2019). The role of learning on bilinguals’ lexical architecture: Beyond separated vs. integrated lexicons. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(4), 685–686. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728918000809
13.
CostaA.SantestebanM.CañoA. (2005). On the facilitatory effects of cognate words in bilingual speech production. Brain and Language, 94, 94–103.
14.
CoventryK. R.GuddeH. B.DiesselH.CollierJ.Guijarro-FuentesP.VulchanovaM.VulchanovV.TodiscoE.ReileM.BreunesseM.PladoH.BohnemeyerJ.BsiliR.CaldanoM.DekovaR.DonelsonK.ForkerD.ParkY.PathakL. S.. . . Durmaz IncelO. (2023). Spatial communication systems across languages reflect universal action constraints. Nature Human Behavior, 7, 2099–2110. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01697-4
DarleyE. J.KentC.KazaninaN. (2020). A “no” with a trace of ‘yes’: A mouse-tracking study of negative sentence processing. Cognition, 198, 104084.
17.
DijkstraA.Van HeuvenW. J. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 175–197.
18.
EckeP. (2004). Language attrition and theories of forgetting: A cross-disciplinary review. International Journal of Bilingualism, 8(3), 321–354.
19.
EmmoreyK.BorinsteinH. B.ThompsonR.GollanT. H. (2008). Bimodal bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11, 43–61.
20.
FarmerT. A.AndersonS. E.FreemanJ. B.DaleR. (2016). Coordinating action and language. In KnoeferleP.Pyykkönen-KlauckP.CrockerM. W. (Eds.), Visually situated language comprehension (pp. 323–356). John Benjamins.
21.
FarmerT. A.AndersonS. E.SpiveyM. J. (2007). Gradiency and visual context in syntactic garden-paths. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 570–595.
22.
FarmerT. A.CargillS.HindyN.DaleR.SpiveyM. J. (2007). Tracking the continuity of language comprehension: Computer-mouse trajectories suggest parallel syntactic processing. Cognitive Science, 31, 889–909.
23.
FitzPatrickI.IndefreyP. (2010). Lexical competition in nonnative speech comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(6), 1165–1178.
24.
FreemanJ. B. (2018). Doing psychological science by hand. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(5), 315–323.
25.
FreemanJ. B.AmbadyN. (2010). Mouse Tracker: Software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 226–241.
26.
FreemanM. R.BlumenfeldH. K.MarianV. (2017). Crosslinguistic phonotactic competition and cognitive control in bilinguals. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 29(7), 783–794. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2017.1321553
27.
GollanT. H.MontoyaR. I. (2002). Semantic and letter fluency in Spanish–English bilinguals. Neuropsychology, 16(4), 562–576.
28.
GollanT. H.MontoyaR. I.CeraC.SandovalT. 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.
29.
GollanT. H.MontoyaR. I.Fennema-NotestineC.MorrisS. K. (2005). Bilingualism affects picture naming but not picture classification. Memory and Cognition, 33(7), 1220–1234.
30.
GollanT. H.SlatteryT. J.GoldenbergD.Van AsscheE.DuyckW.RaynerK. (2011). Frequency drives lexical access in reading but not in speaking: The frequency-lag hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 140, 186–190.
31.
GreenD. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(2), 67–81.
32.
GreenD. W.AbutalebiJ. (2013). Language control in bilinguals: The adaptive control hypothesis. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 515–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.796377
33.
GürelA. (2004). Selectivity in L2-induced L1 attrition: A psycholinguistic account. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17(1), 53–78.
34.
HayakawaS.MarianV. (2019). Consequences of multilingualism for neural architecture. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 15(1), 1–24.
35.
HenrichJ.HeineS. J.NorenzayanA. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?Behavior and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83.
36.
Hevia-TueroC.InceraS.Suárez-CoallaP. (2021). Does English orthography influence bilingual Spanish readers? The effect of grapheme crosslinguistic congruency and complexity on letter detection. Cognitive Development, 59, 101074.
37.
HommelB.ColzatoL. S.FischerR.ChristoffelsI. (2011). Bilingualism and creativity: Benefits in convergent thinking come with losses in divergent thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, Article 273.
38.
HoshinoN.KrollJ. F. (2008). Cognate effects in picture naming: Does cross-language activation survive a change of script?Cognition, 106, 501–511.
InceraS.McLennanC. T. (2016a). Mouse tracking reveals that bilinguals behave like experts. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(3), 610–620.
41.
InceraS.McLennanC. T. (2016b). The time course of within- and between-language interference in bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism, 22(1), 88–99.
42.
InceraS.TuftS. E.FernandesR. B.McLennanC. T. (2020). Using mouse tracking to investigate auditory taboo effects in first and second language speakers of American English. Cognition and Emotion, 34(6), 1291–1299.
43.
IsaacsB.KennieA. T. (1973). The set test as an aid to the detection of dementia in old people. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 123(575), 467–470. http://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.123.4.467
44.
IvanovaI.CostaA. (2008). Does bilingualism hamper lexical access in speech production?Acta Psychologica, 127, 277–288.
45.
JiaG.AaronsonD.WuY. (2002). Long-term language attainment of bilingual immigrants: Predictive variables and language group differences. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 599–621.
46.
KopkeB. (2007). Language attrition at the crossroads of brain, mind, and society. In KopkeB.SchmidM. S.KeijzerM.DostertS. (Eds.),. Language attrition. Theoretical perspectives (pp. 9–37). John Benjamins.
47.
KosmidisM. H.VlahouC. H.PanagiotakiP.KiosseoglouG. (2004). The verbal fluency task in the Greek population: Normative data, and clustering and switching strategies. Journal of International Neuropsychological Society, 10(2), 164–172.
48.
KrollJ. F.BobbS. C.MisraM.GuoT. (2008). Language selection in bilingual speech: Evidence for inhibitory processes. Acta Psychologica, 128, 416–430.
49.
KruegerB. I.StorkelH. (2020). Children’s response bias and identification of misarticulated words. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 63(1), 259–273.
50.
Lazaridou-ChatzigogaD.KaratsareasP. (2022). Language attrition and lived experiences of attrition among Greek speakers in London. Languages, 7, 307. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7040307
51.
LeeY.KaiserE.GoldsteinL. (2020). I scream for ice cream: Resolving lexical ambiguity with sub-phonemic information. Language and Speech, 63(3), 526–549.
52.
LemhöferK.BroersmaM. (2012). Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid lexical test for advanced learners of English. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 325–343.
53.
LinckJ. A.KrollJ. F.SundermanG. (2009). Losing access to the native language while immersed in a second language: Evidence for the role of inhibition in second-language learning. Psychological Science, 20(12), 1507–1515.
54.
MarianV.BlumenfeldH. K.KaushanskayaM. (2007). The language experience and proficiency questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 50(4), 940–967. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2007/067)
55.
MarianV.SpiveyM. (2003). Competing activation in bilingual language processing: Within-and between language competition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6(2), 97–115.
56.
MazauxJ. (1983). Boston diagnostic aphasia evaluation (BDAE). Adaptation Française. Lea and Febiger.
57.
McGuffinB.InceraS.WhiteH. S. (2021). The Bluegrass corpus: Audio-visual stimuli to investigate foreign accents. Behavior Research Methods53, 2502–2511.
58.
MeuterR. F. I.AllportA. (1999). Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 25–40.
59.
MishraR. K.SinghN. (2014). Language non-selective activation of orthography during spoken word processing in Hindi–English sequential bilinguals: An eye tracking visual world study. Reading and Writing, 27(1), 129–151.
60.
MishraR. K.SinghN. (2016). The influence of second language proficiency on bilingual parallel language activation in Hindi–English bilinguals. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28(4), 396–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2016.1146725
61.
MishraR. K.SinghN.PandeyA.HuettigF. (2012). Spoken language-mediated anticipatory eye movements are modulated by reading ability: Evidence from Indian low and high literates. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 5(1), 1–10.
62.
MokP. P.YuA. C. (2017). The effects of language immersion on the bilingual lexicon: Evidence from Chinese-English bilinguals. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7(5), 614–636.
63.
MolnarM.Ibáñez-MolinaA.CarreirasM. (2015). Interlocutor identity affects language activation in bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 81, 91–104.
64.
MorettL. M.MacWhinneyB. (2013). Syntactic transfer in English-speaking Spanish learners. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(1), 132–151.
65.
MuthukrishnaM.BellA. V.HenrichJ.CurtinC. M.GedranovichA.MclnerneyJ.ThueB. (2020). Beyond western, educated, industrial, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) psychology: Measuring and mapping scales of cultural and psychological distance. Psychological Science, 31(6), 678–701.
66.
MuthukrishnaM.HenrichJ.SlingerlandE. (2021). Psychology as a historical science. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 717–749.
67.
NanchenG.AbutalebiJ.AssalF.ManchonM.DemonetJ. F.AnnoniJ. M. (2016). Second language performances in elderly bilinguals and individuals with dementia: The role of L2 immersion. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 43, 49–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2016.09.004
68.
OpitzC. (2011). First language attrition and second language acquisition in a second language environment. [PhD thesis in Applied Linguistics] Center for Language and Communication Studies, Trinity College, University of Dublin.
69.
PaladinoM. P.MazzuregaM. (2020). One of us: On the role of accent and race in real-time in-group categorization. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 39(1), 22–39.
70.
ParadisM. (2011). Principles underlying the bilingual aphasia test (BAT) and its uses. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 25(6–7), 427–443. http://doi.org/10.3109/02699206.2011.560326
71.
PathakL. S. (2004). Child language acquisition: A case study. Nepalese Linguistics, 21, 87–93.
72.
PathakL. S. (2005). Thus Spake Poshak: Linguistic development of a 20-month-old child. In YadavaY. P. (Ed.), Contemporary issues in Nepalese linguistics (pp. 513–522). Linguistic Society of Nepal.
73.
PathakL. S. (2007). Poshak revisited: Further investigation on Nepali child language acquisition. In RaiN. K.YadavaY. P.et al., (Eds.), Recent studies in Nepalese linguistics (pp. 423–437). Linguistics Society of Nepal.
74.
PathakL. S. (2020). Parallel language activation in Nepali-English-Sanskrit: A psycholinguistic mousetracking study. A Mini-research Submitted to the Research Directorate, Rector’s Office, Tribhuvan University, Nepal.
75.
PathakL. S. (2022a). Activating three languages simultaneously in mental lexicon: An investigation of Nepali–English–Sanskrit parallel language activation. Tribhuvan University Journal, 37(2), 48–70. https://doi.org/10.3126/tuj.v37i02.51649
76.
PathakL. S. (2022b). Initiating and institutionalizing cognitive science and psycholinguistics in Nepal: A report. Gipan, 5(1), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.3126/gipan.v5i1.49542
77.
PathakL. S. (2024). Why Tribhuvan University needs to start academic program in cognitive science?Tribhuvan University Annual Day Publication.
78.
PathakL. S.PathakN.PathakA. (2024). Cognitive control performance as measured by clustering and switching in Nepali–English bilingual verbal fluency task. Gipan, 6(1), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.3126/gipan.v6i1.68126
79.
PathakL. S.PathakP. (2022). Bilingual stroop effect in high and low proficient Nepali-English bilinguals. Nepalese Linguistics, 35(1), 128–136. https://doi.org/10.3126/nl.v35i01.46570
80.
PathakL. S.RijalS. (2022). A study on bilingual verbal fluency task to measure the effect of instruction in first and second language performance. Nepalese Linguistics, 36(1), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.3126/nl.v36i1.49458
81.
PathakL. S.RijalS.PathakP. (2021). Instruction in second language enhances linguistic and cognitive abilities in first language as well: Evidence from public school education in Nepal. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science, 5, 287–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41809-021-00084-7
82.
PathakL. S.VulchanovaM.PathakP.MishraR. K. (2024). Trilingual parallel processing: Do the dominant languages grab all the attention?Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 28(1), 154–171. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728924000257
83.
PatraA.BoseA.MarinisT. (2020). Performance difference in verbal fluency in bilingual and monolingual speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23, 204–218. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728918001098
84.
PelegO.DeganiT.RaziqM.TahaN. (2019). Cross-lingual phonological effects in different-script bilingual visual-word recognition. Second Language Research, 36(4), 653–690.
85.
PrasadS.MishraR. K. (2021). Concurrent verbal working memory load constrains cross-linguistic translation activation: A visual world eye-tracking study on Hindi–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24(2), 241–270.
86.
PriorA.GollanT. H. (2011). Good language-switchers are good task-switchers: Evidence from Spanish–English and Mandarin–English bilinguals. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 17(4), 682–691.
87.
SandovalT. C.GollanT. H.FerreiraV. S.SalmonD. P. (2010). What causes the bilingual disadvantage in verbal fluency? The dual-task analogy. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 231–252.
88.
SeghierM. L.LazeyrasF.PegnaA. J.AnnoniJ.-M.ZimineI.MayerE.MichelC. M.KhatebA. (2004). Variability of fMRI activation during a phonological and semantic language task in healthy subjects. Human Brain Mapping, 23(3), 140–155. http://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20053
89.
ShookA.MarianV. (2013). The bilingual language interaction network for comprehension of speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(2), 304–324.
90.
SinghN.MishraR. K. (2012). Does language proficiency modulate oculomotor control? Evidence from Hindi–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(4), 771–781.
91.
SinghN.MishraR. K. (2013). Second language proficiency modulates conflict-monitoring in an oculomotor stroop task: Evidence from Hindi-English bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 322.
92.
SpiveyM. J.MarianV. (1999). Cross talk between native and second languages: Partial activation of an irrelevant lexicon. Psychological Science, 10(3), 281–284.
93.
SpiveyM. J.GrosjeanM.KnoblichG. (2005). Continuous attraction toward phonological competitors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(29), 10393–10398. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0503903102
94.
StrijkersK.CostaA.ThierryG. (2010). Tracking lexical access in speech production: Electrophysiological correlates of word frequency and cognate status. Cerebral Cortex, 20, 912–928.
95.
SulpizioS.FasoliF.MaassA.PaladinoM. P.VespignaniF.EysselF.BentlerD. (2015). The sound of voice: Voice-based categorization of speakers’ sexual orientation within and across languages. PLOS ONE, 10, Article e0128882.
96.
ThierryG.WuY. J. (2010). Chinese-English bilinguals reading English hear Chinese. The Journal of Neuroscience, 30, 7646–7651.
97.
TokowiczN.MichaelE. B.KrollJ. F. (2004). The roles of study-abroad experience and working-memory capacity in the types of errors made during translation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(3), 255–272.
98.
VulchanovaM.ChahbounS.Galindo-PrietoB.VulchanovV. (2019). Gaze and motor traces of language processing: Evidence from autism spectrum disorders in comparison to typical controls. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 36(7–8), 383–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2019.1652155
99.
WuY. J.ThierryG. (2012). How reading in a second language protects your heart. The Journal of Neuroscience, 32(19), 6485–6489.
100.
ZhangX.SamuelA. G. (2015). The activation of embedded words in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 79, 53–75.
101.
ZhaoL.YuanS.GuoY.WangS.ChenC.ZhangS. (2020). Inhibitory control is associated with the activation of output-driven competitors in a spoken word recognition task. The Journal of General Psychology, 149(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2020.1771675
