Schotter Elizabeth R, Li Chuchu, Gollan Tamar H
1 Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
2 Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2019 Aug;72(8):2032-2045. doi: 10.1177/1747021818819480. Epub 2019 Jan 29.
Bilinguals occasionally produce (inadvertent translations of the intended word), especially when attempting to produce function word targets, and often when reading aloud mixed-language paragraphs. We investigate whether these errors are due to a failure of attention during speech planning, or failure of monitoring speech output by classifying errors based on whether and when they were corrected, and investigating eye movement behaviour surrounding them. Prior research on this topic has primarily tested alphabetic languages (e.g., Spanish-English bilinguals) in which part of speech is confounded with word length, which is related to word skipping (i.e., decreased attention). Therefore, we tested 29 Chinese-English bilinguals whose languages differ in orthography, visually cueing language membership, and for whom part of speech (in Chinese) is less confounded with word length. Despite the strong orthographic cue, Chinese-English bilinguals produced intrusion errors with similar effects as previously reported (e.g., especially with function word targets written in the dominant language). Gaze durations did differ by whether errors were made and corrected or not, but these patterns were similar for function and content words and therefore cannot explain part of speech effects. However, bilinguals regressed to words produced as errors more often than to correctly produced words, but regressions facilitated correction of errors only for content, not for function words. These data suggest that the vulnerability of function words to language intrusion errors primarily reflects automatic retrieval and failures of speech monitoring mechanisms from stopping function versus content word errors after they are planned for production.
双语者偶尔会产生(对预期单词的无意翻译),尤其是在尝试生成功能词目标时,以及在大声朗读混合语言段落时经常出现这种情况。我们通过根据错误是否以及何时得到纠正来对错误进行分类,并研究围绕这些错误的眼动行为,以此来探究这些错误是由于言语规划过程中注意力的失败,还是言语输出监控的失败。此前关于这个主题的研究主要测试的是字母语言(例如,西班牙语 - 英语双语者),在这些语言中词性与单词长度相互混淆,而单词长度与跳词(即注意力下降)有关。因此,我们测试了29名汉英双语者,他们的语言在拼写、视觉提示语言归属方面存在差异,并且对于他们来说,词性(在中文中)与单词长度的混淆程度较低。尽管有强烈的拼写提示,但汉英双语者产生的侵入性错误与之前报道的具有相似的影响(例如特别是对于用主导语言书写的功能词目标)。注视持续时间确实因错误是否被制造和纠正而有所不同,但这些模式对于功能词和实词来说是相似的,因此无法解释词性效应。然而,双语者对错误产生的单词的回溯频率高于对正确产生的单词的回溯频率,但回溯仅有助于纠正实词的错误,而不能纠正功能词的错误。这些数据表明,功能词对语言侵入性错误的易感性主要反映了自动检索以及言语监控机制在计划生成后无法阻止功能词与实词错误的情况。