↓ Skip to main content

Bilingual Picture–Word Studies Constrain Theories of Lexical Selection

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Bilingual Picture–Word Studies Constrain Theories of Lexical Selection
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00381
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew L. Hall

Abstract

Whether lexical selection is by competition is the subject of current debate in studies of monolingual language production. Here, I consider whether extant data from bilinguals can inform this debate. In bilinguals, theories that accept the notion of lexical selection by competition are divided between those positing competition among all lexical nodes vs. those that restrict competition to nodes in the target language only. An alternative view rejects selection by competition altogether, putting the locus of selection in a phonological output buffer, where some potential responses are easier to exclude than others. These theories make contrasting predictions about how quickly bilinguals should name pictures when non-target responses are activated. In Part 1, I establish the empirical facts for which any successful theory must account. In Part 2, I evaluate how well each theory accounts for the data. I argue that the data do not support theories that reject lexical selection by competition, and that although theories where competition for selection is restricted to the target language can be altered to fit the data, doing so would fundamentally undermine the distinctness of their position. Theories where selection is by competition throughout both target and non-target language lexicons must also be modified to account for the data, but these modifications are relatively peripheral to the theoretical impetus of the model. Throughout, I identify areas where our empirical facts are sparse, weak, or absent, and propose additional experiments that should help to further establish how lexical selection works, in both monolinguals and bilinguals.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Malaysia 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 54 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 31%
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 5 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 25 42%
Linguistics 13 22%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 9 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 December 2011.
All research outputs
#20,165,369
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#23,771
of 29,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,848
of 180,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#217
of 239 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,379 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 180,328 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 239 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.