Lexical competition in non-native spoken-word recognition

By Andrea Weber, Anne Cutler. 2004

538 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c126ab403ba94409c1854ff72ce15dc7bf8e277e

How researchers see this paper

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

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Language and Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

The Influence of Initial Exposure on Lexical Representation: Comparing Early and Simultaneous Bilinguals. (2005, result): “Weber (2002, Weber & Cutler, 2004) used a procedure similar to Spivey and Marian s and obtained equivalent results with late Dutch–English bilinguals.”
Individual differences in inhibitory control relate to bilingual spoken word processing* (2013, methodology): “…& Spivey, 2003a, b), age of acquisition and proficiency of the non-target language (Blumenfeld & Marian, 2007; Canseco-Gonzalez et al., 2010), cross-language phonemic confusability (Cutler et al., 2006; Weber & Cutler, 2004), and language mode (Canseco-Gonzalez et al., 2010; Grosjean, 1998, 2001).”
Second Language Proficiency and Cross-Language Lexical Activation (2012, methodology): “More specifically, distractor competition effects have been found in the L2 but not in the L1 in both nonimmersed Dutch-English (Weber & Cutler, 2004) and immersed Spanish-English (Ju & Luce, 2004) bilinguals, but in a different group of immersed bilinguals, Russian-English bilinguals, distractor…”
Juggling Two Languages in One Mind (2008, background): “…on spoken recognition that it may be possible to more easily enable selective access when listening to speech than when reading printed text (e.g., Ju & Luce, 2004; Weber & Cutler, 2004), but the majority of studies suggest the same sort of cross-language interactions observed in the visual domain.”
Constraints on parallel activation in bilingual spoken language processing: Examining proficiency and lexical status using eye-tracking (2007, background): “Yet, parallel language activation may be constrained by factors such as language proficiency (e.g., Weber & Cutler, 2004), language exposure (e.g., Spivey & Marian, 1999), and acoustic characteristics of the input signal (e.g., voice-onset time, Ju & Luce, 2004).”
Lexical and statistical evidence in the acquisition of second language phonemes (2007, background): “5 Recent studies by Pater (2003) and Weber and Cutler (2004) have attempted to experimentally tease apart effects of lexical representations from effects of on-line task demands.”
Understanding the Consequences of Bilingualism for Language Processing and Cognition (2013, background): “However, other studies of spoken word recognition have shown that under the right conditions, bilinguals are indeed able to exploit the cues available in speech to achieve selective access (Ju & Luce, 2004; Weber & Cutler, 2004).”
Non-native speech perception in adverse conditions: A review (2010, background): “…recorded, Russian listeners to English have been found to look at a stamp (Russian: marka) when they hear the English word marker, and Dutch listeners to English have been found to look at a lid (Dutch: deksel) as the English word desk is spoken (Spivey and Marian, 1999; Weber and Cutler, 2004).”
Asymmetric lexical access and fuzzy lexical representations in second language learners (2014, background): “Weber and Cutler (2004) and Cutler et al. (2006) examined pairs of L2 sounds that are both mapped onto one L1 category (and are therefore confusable).”
Development of the ability to lexically encode novel second language phonemic contrasts (2008, background): “…lexical representations that are contrastive, but their on-line perception ability during the listening task prevents them from perceiving the contrast accurately, then we might expect an asymmetry in their responses analogous to that found in Weber and Cutler (2004) and Cutler et al. (2006).”
Is it time to leave behind the Revised Hierarchical Model of bilingual language processing after fifteen years of service (2010, result): “…finding was later replicated in several studies by Marian and colleagues (Marian and Spivey, 2003; Marian, Blumenfeld and Boukrina, 2008; Marian, Spivey and Hirsch, 2003), and by Weber and Cutler (2004), although the last only observed an effect of L1 distracters on L2 targets and not vice versa.”
Parallel language activation during word processing in bilinguals: Evidence from word production in sentence context* (2013, background): “…language) and weaker L2 (the second language) served as the target language, other studies (Blumenfeld & Marian, 2007; Marian & Spivey, 2003b; Weber & Cutler, 2004) only obtained the effect with weaker L2 as the target language, indicating that relative proficiency in the two languages can…”