Cross-language activation and executive control modulate within-language ambiguity resolution: Evidence from eye movements.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An important question within psycholinguistics is how knowledge of multiple languages impacts the coactivation of word forms and meanings during language comprehension. To the extent that a bilingual's known languages are always partially active, as predicted by models such as the bilingual interactive activation plus model (Dijkstra & Van Heuven, 2002), cross-language activation should influence which meanings are accessed and in which order. Here, we monitored the eye movements of 48 French-English and 40 English-French bilingual adults as they read within-language homonyms embedded in more or less semantically constraining English sentences. The within-language homonyms were either cognate homonyms, whose subordinate meanings were also French cognates (e.g., sage, "herb" or, less frequently, "wise man" in English and, also, "wise man" in French), or uniquely English (e.g., chest). French-English bilinguals processed cognate homonyms with subordinate meanings more quickly than uniquely English homonyms with subordinate meanings, and individual differences in executive control capacity modulated their processing of uniquely English homonyms only. In contrast, English-French bilinguals processed all within-language homonyms similarly, regardless of cognate status and executive control capacity. Our findings suggest that cross-language activation impacts within-language ambiguity resolution by changing the relative dominance of the meanings associated with a word form, and that cross-language activation varies as a function of the language tested (first or second language). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".