A bilingual production model: Levelt’s ‘speaking’ model adapted

By K. de Bot. 2003

815 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/489ac631b693fae856ca83904782371c8e467084

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Language and Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

Is Syntax Separate or Shared Between Languages? (2004, methodology): “For example, De Bot (1992) quoted an example in which, during simultaneous interpreting, the French argument structure of voter (‘‘to vote’’), which takes a noun phrase object, was used with the Dutch translation equivalent (stemmen), which takes a prepositional object.”
Linguistic skills and speaking fluency in a second language (2012, background): “Because De Bot (1992) and Kormos (2006) maintained the basic distinctions and processes of Levelt’s model of speech production in their adaptations of the model for L2 learners, we also use the same distinctions and processes to arrive at tasks tapping L2 cognitive fluency.”
Developing L2 Oral Proficiency Through Synchronous CMC: Output, Working Memory, and Interlanguage Development. (2013, background): “In the L1 literature, Levelt's model of language production (1989, 1993, 1995) has received the most empirical attention and is the most widely adapted model for depicting L2 or bilingual language production processes (De Bot, 1992; De Bot & Schreuder, 1993; Poulisse & Bongaerts, 1994).”
A control process model of code-switching (2014, methodology): “In Figure 1C, we depict the language networks as functionally distinct but interconnected in line with the notion that items and constructions in each network are subsets of the overall language network (Paradis, 1981; De Bot, 1992).”
Cross-linguistic structural priming in multilinguals: further evidence for shared syntax (2016, background): “…the current results are in line with a shared-syntax account, but they are hard to reconcile with a separate, interacting syntax account like De Bot (1992) according to which newly learned languages strongly overlap with the first language at first, but become more separated as the learner…”
Cross‐Linguistic Influence (2008, background): “In the more credible attempts at theory-building, researchers have focused on what is admittedly only part of an overall model, as in the characterization of second language speech production by De Bot (1992).”
Exploring the relationship between productive vocabulary knowledge and second language oral ability (2019, background): “…suggested that L2 learners with larger vocabularies might be equipped with well-organised lexical networks (Meara 1990, 2006), and therefore might be able to retrieve L2 words more economically and immediately in real-time communication (de Bot 1992; Kormos 2006; Levelt 1989; Skehan 2009).”
Triggered codeswitching: A corpus-based evaluation of the original triggering hypothesis and a new alternative (2006, methodology): “In this section, we will give an outline of the model by Levelt (1989, 1999), which De Bot (1992) has adapted for bilingual processing.”
PEER INTERACTION AND CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR ACCURACY AND FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT (2012, background): “…have been adopted by some SLA researchers to discuss focus on form (e.g., Doughty, 2001 ) or the output hypothesis (e.g., Izumi, 2003 ; see also de Bot, 1992 , who adapted the model for L2 speech), the current study focuses on the monitor in terms of its functionality for both production and…”
Formulaic Sequences: Are They Processed More Quickly than Nonformulaic Language by Native and Nonnative Speakers? (2008, background): “(de Bot 1992: 11) The holistic processing explanation suggests that one way the mind meets this daunting cognitive challenge is by using formulaic sequences.”
Age of acquisition effects in word recognition and production in first and second languages (2002, methodology): “If, as most theorists assume ( De Bot, 1992; Costa et al., 1999; Hell & de 1998; Kroll & Stewart, 1994), first and second language share common semantic representations, then second”
The dynamics of bilingual lexical access (2006, background): “However, and despite the obvious benefits of restricting activation to one language, models of bilingual speech production postulate that conceptual representations spread activation to the lexical representations of both languages of a bilingual (Green, 1986, 1998; de Bot, 1992; Poulisse and Bong”