EVIDENCE OF NON-SELECTIVE LEXICAL ACCESS IN CHILDREN FROM A PORTUGUESE-ENGLISH BILINGUAL SCHOOL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The issue of language selectivity regarding lexical access of bilingual adults has been thoroughly reported in the literature. However, studies with bilingual children are still limited, especially in the Brazilian context. To fill this gap, the present study was conducted with the goal of investigating whether the same cognate facilitation effect reported for bilingual adults is also true for bilingual children. To do so, two experiments were carried out. In Experiment 1, 53 Portuguese-English bilingual children from 3rd and 7th grade took part in a lexical decision task which had a Portuguese and an English version. In Experiment 2, 18 English monolinguals performed the English version of the lexical decision task. The results of Experiment 1 showed that the cognate effect was evident for the two groups of bilinguals when the task was performed in the L2- English, even though no statistical difference between the two groups of bilinguals was found. When performing the task in the L1 – Portuguese, the bilingual groups showed no cognate effect, which suggests that these participants had not reached a level of proficiency in which the L2 can influence L1 processing. The results of Experiment 2 showed no cognate facilitation effect for monolinguals, indicating that the results of the bilingual participants, in the English version of the lexical decision task, were indeed due to the cognate status of the words of the bilingual's two languages. In short, the present results favor the nonselective view of lexical access and the effect of proficiency in the perception of cross language similarity.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".