Being and Becoming Bilingual: Individual Differences and Consequences for Language Production.

By Erica B. Michael, Tamar H. Gollan. 2005

153 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5576006568c5ba9ae4d1b73e7f553d20798d271f

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

Effects of reading span and plausibility in the reanalysis of wh-gaps by Chinese-English second language speakers (2010, background): “This question becomes particularly relevant in light of previous research showing that there are increased memory demands on processing in a second language, particularly when the L2 is acquired late (e.g. Miyake and Friedman, 1998; Michael and Gollan, 2005).”
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Cognitive Correlates of Bilingualism (2010, background): “…of their working memory capacity because working memory resources are properly managed through such inhibitory processing (Bialystok et al., 2004; Bialystok, Craik, & Luk 2008; Fernandes, Craik, Bialystok, & Kreuger, 2007; Just & Carpenter, 1992; Michael & Gollan, 2005; Rosen & Engle, 1997).”
Language selectivity is the exception, not the rule: Arguments against a fixed locus of language selection in bilingual speech (2006, background): “A second factor that has been hypothesized to modulate the activity of the two languages (or the consequences of this activity) is the level of cognitive resources available to the speaker (see Michael and Gollan, 2005, for a recent review).”
Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent* (2009, background): “On one view, the explanation is attributed to the fact that bilinguals use each of their languages less often than monolinguals, creating “weaker links” among the relevant connections required for rapid and fluent speech production (Michael and Gollan, 2005).”
Cognitive and Linguistic Processing in the Bilingual Mind (2010, background): “Bilinguals are slower and commit more errors in picture naming even in their dominant language, obtain lower scores on verbal-fluency tasks, experience more tip-of-the-tongue states, and demonstrate more interference in lexical decision (Michael & Gollan, 2005).”
Lexical access in bilinguals: Effects of vocabulary size and executive control (2008, background): “Adult bilinguals who are highly proficient in both languages often reveal a deficit relative to monolinguals in tasks assessing aspects of linguistic processing (review in Gollan & Kroll, 2001; Michael & Gollan, 2005).”
Moving toward a neuroplasticity view of bilingualism, executive control, and aging (2014, background): “…word forms and concepts in the L1 (Bialystok, 2001; Bialystok, Luk, Peets, & Yang, 2010; Gollan et al., 2008; Gollan, Slattery, et al., 2011; Ivanova & Costa, 2008; Michael & Gollan, 2005; Whitford & Titone, 2012) or to an increased likelihood of intrusions of L2 knowledge onto L1 processing.”
Statistical Learning and Language: An Individual Differences Study (2012, unknown): “…overviews, see Bates, Dale, & Tal, 1995; Dörnyei, 2005; R. Ellis, 2004; Farmer, Misyak, & Christiansen, in press; MacDonald & Christiansen, 2002; Michael & Gollan, 2005; Vasilyeva, Waterfall, & Huttenlocher, 2008), less is known about individual differences in statistical learning within the…”
Cognitive Effects of Bilingualism: How Linguistic Experience Leads to Cognitive Change (2007, background): “In some areas, particularly linguistic ones, bilinguals are handicapped, possibility because of the cost of maintaining two representational systems (Michael & Gollan, 2005).”
The bilingual advantage in phonetic learning* (2014, unknown): “…(Ben-Zeev, 1977; Bialystok, 1991, 2001; Cummins, 1978; Ianco-Worrall, 1972; Jessner, 1999; Thomas, 1992), and better inhibitory control (Bialystok, Majumder & Martin, 2003; Bialystok & Viswanathan, 2009; Bruck & Genesee, 1995; Galambos & Goldin-Meadow, 1990; Green, 1998; Michael & Gollan, 2005).”
Cognitive control and lexical access in younger and older bilinguals. (2008, background): “Michael and Gollan (2005) proposed that inhibition may be the missing link that connects working memory and bilingual processing, implying that bilinguals may exhibit more efficient working memory abilities than monolinguals because the need to manage two language systems requires inhibition of one…”