Cover not available
Article published In:
Language Ecology
Vol. 4:2 (2020) ► pp.175–201

A tale of two lexical-decision tasks

The reality of taking the lab to the field

 | Pennsylvania State University
As a probe into the degree of integration of the bilingual lexicon, a series of lexical-decision tasks was carried out in two bilingual speech communities with greatly differing linguistic, cultural, and socio-historical characteristics: Misiones province in northeastern Argentina (Portuguese-Spanish), and three indigenous communities in northern Ecuador (Quichua and the mixed language known as Media Lengua). In both cases the results suggest a tightly integrated bilingual lexicon, but the pattern of responses was qualitatively and quantitatively different for each group, to such an extent as to potentially challenge the assumption of universal validity for lexical decision tasks.
Keywords: lexical decision, bilingual communities, Spanish, Portuguese, Quichua, Media Lengua, field research
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Lexical decision tasks
  • 2.Lexical decision #1: Portuguese and Spanish in Misiones, Argentina
    • 2.1The setting
    • 2.2Participants
    • 2.3Materials
    • 2.4Procedure
    • 2.5Results and discussion
  • 3.Lexical decision #2: Quichua and Media Lengua in Ecuador
    • 3.1The setting
    • 3.2Participants
    • 3.3Materials
    • 3.4Procedure
    • 3.5Results and discussion
  • 4.General discussion: A tale of two lexical-decision environments
    • 4.1Similarities between the two sets of results
    • 4.2Principal differences between the two sets of results
    • 4.3Exploring the details of each bilingual environment
  • 5.Conclusion: The cross-linguistic/ cross-cultural validity of lexical decision experiments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 7 May 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/le.19007.lip
References (76)
References
Boersma, P. and D. Weenink. 1999–2005. PRAAT: Doing phonetics by computer. [URL]
Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson. 1992. ‘Left’ and ‘right’ in Tenejapa: Investigating a linguistic and conceptual gap. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 45 (6): 590–611. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. “Uphill” and “downhill” in Tzeltal. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 3 (1): 46–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bustamante-López, I. and M. Niño-Murcia. 1995. Impositive speech acts in Northern Andean Spanish: A pragmatic description. Hispania 78 1: 885–897. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carvalho, A. M. 2004. I speak like the guys on TV: Palatalization and the urbanization of Uruguayan Portuguese. Language Variation and Change 16 1: 127–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ceci, S. J., D. M. Kahan and D. Braman. 2010. The WEIRD are even weirder than you think: Diversifying contexts is as important as diversifying samples. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (2–3): 87–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuetos, F., M. Glez-Nosti, A. Barbon and M. Brysbaert. 2011. SUBTLEX-ESP: Frecuencias de las palabras espanolas basadas en los subtitulos de las peliculas. Psicológica 32 (2): 133–144.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö. 2015. How WEIRD are WALS languages. MPI-EVA, Leipzig. Presented at the Diversity Linguistics: Retrospect and Prospect, Leipzig.
De Groot, A. M., S. Borgwaldt, M. Bos and E. van den Eijnden. 2002. Lexical decision and word naming in bilinguals: Language effects and task effects. Journal of Memory and Language 47 (1): 91–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De León, L. 1991. Space Games in Tzotzil: Creating a Context for Spatial Reference. Nijmegen: Max Planck Research Group for Cognitive Anthropology, Working paper no. 4.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T. and W. van Heuven. 2002. The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 5 1: 175–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duranti, A. 1997. Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gächter, S. 2010. (Dis) advantages of student subjects: What is your research question? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (2–3): 92–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldinger, S. D. 1996. Auditory lexical decision. Language and Cognitive Processes 11 (6): 559–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gollan, T. H., T. J. Slattery, D. Goldenberg, E. van Assche, W. Duyckand, K. Rayner. 2011. Frequency drives lexical access in reading but not in speaking: The frequency-lag hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 140 (2): 186–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gómez Rendón, J. 2005. La media lengua de Imbabura. In H. Olbertz and P. Muysken, eds. Encuentros y conflictos: bilingüismo y contacto de lenguas en el mundo andino. Frankfurt/ Madrid: Vervuert/ Iberoamericana. 39–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Mestizaje lingüístico en los Andes: génesis y estructura de una lengua mixta. Quito: Abya-Yala.Google Scholar
Grainger, J. and C. Beauvillain. 1987. Language blocking and lexical access in bilinguals. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 39 (2): 295–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grainger, J. and A. M. Jacobs. 1996. Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model. Psychological Review 103 (3): 518–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenfield, P. M. 2017. Cultural change over time: Why replicability should not be the gold standard in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science 12 (5): 762–771. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guion, S. 2003. The vowel systems of Quichua-Spanish bilinguals: Age of acquisition effects on the mutual influence of the first and second languages. Phonetica 60 1: 98–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haboud, M. 1998. Quichua y castellano en los Andes ecuatorianos: los efectos de un contacto prolongado. Quito: Abya-Yala.Google Scholar
2004. Quichua language vitality: An Ecuadorian perspective. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 167 1: 69–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haboud, M. and E. de la Vega. 2008. Ecuador. In A. Palacios, ed. El español en América: contactos lingüísticos en Hispanoamérica. Barcelona: Ariel. 161–187.Google Scholar
Haboud, M. and A. Palacios. 2017. Imperatividad y atenuación en el castellano andino ecuatoriano. In A. Palacios, ed. Variación y cambio lingüístico en situaciones de contacto. Madrid/ Frankfurt: Iberoamericana/ Vervuert. 21–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henrich, J., Heine, S. and A. Norenzayan. 2010. The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 1: 61–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hurley, J. K. 1993. A cross-cultural pragmatic study of Spanish and Quichua request strategies as influenced by language contact in Otavalo, Ecuador. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
1996. Request formation in Ecuadorian Quichua. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 23 (2): 117–135.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. and E. Norcliffe. 2009. The cross-linguistic study of sentence production. Language and Linguistics Compass 3 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jarrín Paredes, E. G. 2013. Estereotipos lingüísticos del purismo en relación al kichwa y a la media lengua en las comunidades de Angla, Casco Valenzela, El Topo y Ucsha de la parroquia San Pablo del Lago, Cantón Otavalo, Provincia de Imbabura. Licenciatura thesis, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador.
Keatley, C. and B. D. Gelder. 1992. The bilingual primed lexical decision task: Cross-language priming disappears with speeded responses. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 4 (4): 273–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kotz, S. A. 2001. Neurolinguistic evidence for bilingual language representation: A comparison of reaction times and event-related brain potentials. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 4 (2): 143–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lema Guanolema, S. F. 1997. Gramática del quichua: didáctica de la lengua quichúa con las últimas reformas de la Real Academia Lingüística: Un valor, una cultura, una expresión. Quito: Abya-Yala.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 1992. Primer for the field investigation of spatial description and conception. Pragmatics 2 (1): 5–47.Google Scholar
1996. Language and space. Annual Review of Anthropology 25 (1): 353–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C., P. Brown, E. Danzinger, L. De León, J. B. Haviland, E. Pederson et al. 1992. Man and Tree & Space Games. In S. C. Levinson, ed. Space Stimuli Kit 1.2. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. 7–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lipski, J. 2011. Encontros lingüísticos fronteiriços. Ideação 13(2): 83–100. [URL]
2013. ¿Qué diciendo nomás? Tracing the sources of the Andean Spanish gerund. Spanish in Context 10 1: 227–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. Syncretic discourse markers in Kichwa-influenced Spanish: transfer vs. emergence. Lingua 151 1: 216–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015a. Portuguese/portuñol in Misiones, Argentina: another Fronterizo? In S. Sessarego and M. González, eds. New Perspectives on Hispanic Contact Linguistics. Frankfurt & Madrid: Vervuert/Iberoamericana. 253–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015b. Colliding vowel systems in Andean Spanish: carryovers and emergent properties. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5 1: 91–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. Language switching constraints: More than syntax? Data from Media Lengua. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017a. Ecuadoran Media Lengua: More than a “half”-language? International Journal of American Linguistics 821: 233–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017b. Portuguese or Portuñol? Language contact in Misiones, Argentina. Journal of Linguistic Geography 41: 47–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018a. La interfaz portugués-castellano en Misiones, Argentina: zona de prueba para la alternancia de lenguas. Estudios Filológicos 601: 169–190.Google Scholar
2018b. La evolución de la interfaz portugués-español en el noreste argentino. In D. Corbella and A. Fajardo, eds. Español y portugués en contacto: préstamos léxicos e interferencia. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 391–412.Google Scholar
2019. Field-testing code-switching constraints: A report on a strategic languages project Languages 4 (1): 7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Machery, E. 2010. Explaining why experimental behavior varies across cultures: A missing step in “The weirdest people in the world?” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (2–3): 101–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Majid, A. and S. C. Levinson. 2010. WEIRD languages have misled us, too. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (2–3): 103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D. E. and R. W. Schvaneveldt. 1971. Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology 90 (2): 227–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mueller, S. T. and B. J. Piper. 2014. The Psychology Experiment Building Language (PEBL) Test Battery. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 222 1: 250–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muysken, P. 1981. Halfway between Quechua and Spanish: The case for relexification. In A. Valdman and A. Highfield, eds. Theoretical Orientations in Creole Studies. New York: Academic Press. 52–78.Google Scholar
1988. Media Lengua and linguistic theory. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 33 1: 409–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997. Media Lengua. In S. Thomason, ed. Contact Languages: A Wider Perspective. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 365–426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norcliffe, E., A. C. Harris and T. F. Jaeger. 2015. Cross-linguistic psycholinguistics and its critical role in theory development: Early beginnings and recent advances. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30 (9): 1009–1032. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, G. 2006. Energy through fusion at last: Synergies in cognitive anthropology and cognitive linguistics. In M. Achard, R. Dirven and F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, eds. Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 263–300.Google Scholar
Pederson, E., E. Danziger, D. Wilkins, S. Levinson, S. Kita and G. Senft. 1998. Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization. Language 74 (3): 557–589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rad, M. S., A. J. Martingano and J. Ginges. 2018. Toward a psychology of Homo sapiens: Making psychological science more representative of the human population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (45): 11401–11405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rai, T. S. and A. Fiske. 2010. ODD (observation-and description-deprived) psychological research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (2–3): 106–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rindstedt, C. and K. Aronsson. 2002. Growing up monolingual in a bilingual community: The Quichua revitalization paradox. Language in Society 31 1: 721–742. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sánchez Parga, J. 2013. Qué significa ser indígena para el indígena: más allá de la comunidad y la lengua. Quito: Abya-Yala.Google Scholar
Scarborough, D. L., L. Gerard and C. Cortese. 1984. Independence of lexical access in bilingual word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 23 (1): 84–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M. 1981. The Limits of Awareness. Sociolinguistic Working Paper Number 84. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.Google Scholar
Soares, C. and F. Grosjean. 1984. Bilinguals in a monolingual and a bilingual speech mode: The effect on lexical access. Memory and Cognition 12 (4): 380–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speed, L. J., W. Wnuk and M. Ajid. 2018. Studying psycholinguistics out of the lab. In A. M. B. de Groot and P. Hagoort, eds. Research Methods in Psycholinguistics and the Neurobiology of Language: A Practical Guide. New York: Wiley-Blackwell. 190–207.Google Scholar
Stewart, J. 2011. A brief descriptive grammar of Pijal Media Lengua and an acoustic vowel space analysis of Pijal Media Lengua and Imbabura Quichua. M.A. thesis, University of Manitoba.
2013. Cuentos y tradiciones de Pijal: Relatos en Media Lengua. North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace.Google Scholar
2015. Production and perception of stop consonants in Spanish, Quichua, and Media Lengua. Doctoral dissertation, University of Manitoba.
Tang, K. 2012. A 61 million word corpus of Brazilian Portuguese film subtitles as a resource for linguistic research. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 24 1: 208–214.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. S. and A. Allport. 2000. Language switching costs in bilingual visual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 43 (1): 44–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tzelgov, J. and S. Eben-Ezra. 1992. Components of the between-language semantic priming effect. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 4 (4): 253–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Von Studnitz, R. E. and D. W. Green. 1997. Lexical decision and language switching. International Journal of Bilingualism 1 (1): 3–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wassmann, J. and P. R. Dasen. 1998. Balinese spatial orientation: Some empirical evidence of moderate linguistic relativity. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 4 (4): 689–711. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whalen, D. H. and J. McDonough. 2015. Taking the laboratory into the field. Annual. Review of Linguistics 1 (1): 395–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woutersen, M., K. de Bot and B. Weltens. 1995. The bilingual lexicon: Modality effects in processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24 (4): 289–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar