1887
Volume 4, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2542-3835
  • E-ISSN: 2542-3843
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The transfer of words from one language to another is ubiquitous in many of the world’s languages. While loanwords have a rich literature in the fields of historical linguistics, language contact, and sociolinguistics, little work has been done examining how loanwords are processed by bilinguals with knowledge of both the source and recipient languages. The present study uses pupillometry to compare the online processing of established loanwords in Puerto Rican Spanish to native Spanish words by highly proficient Puerto Rican Spanish-English bilinguals. Established loanwords elicited a significantly larger pupillary response than native Spanish words, with the pupillary response modulated by both the frequency of the loanword itself and of the native Spanish counterpart. These findings suggest that established loanwords are processed differently than native Spanish words and compete with their native equivalents, potentially due to both intra- and inter-lingual effects of saliency.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.21010.joh
2021-08-20
2021-10-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adler, R. M., Valdés Kroff, J. R., & Novick, J. M.
    (2020) Does integrating a code-switch during comprehension engage cognitive control?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46(4), 741.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alnæs, D., Sneve, M. H., Espeseth, T., Endestad, T., van de Pavert, S. H. P., & Laeng, B.
    (2014) Pupil size signals mental effort deployed during multiple object tracking and predicts brain activity in the dorsal attention network and the locus coeruleus. Journal of Vision, 14(1), 1–20. 10.1167/14.4.1
    https://doi.org/10.1167/14.4.1 [Google Scholar]
  3. Andrews, S.
    (1992) Frequency and neighborhood effects on lexical access: Lexical similarity or orthographic redundancy?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(2), 234–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Aston-Jones, G., & Cohen, J. D.
    (2005) An integrative theory of locus coeruleus-norepinephrine function: adaptive gain and optimal performance. The Annual Review of Neuroscience, 28, 403–450. 10.1146/annurev.neuro.28.061604.135709
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.28.061604.135709 [Google Scholar]
  5. Attar, N., Schneps, M., & Pomplun, M.
    (2013) Pupil size as a measure of working memory load during a complex visual search task. Journal of Vision, 13, 160. 10.1167/13.9.160
    https://doi.org/10.1167/13.9.160 [Google Scholar]
  6. Backus, A.
    (2012) A usage-based approach to borrowability. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, 27.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Beatty, J., & Kahneman, D.
    (1996) Pupillary changes in two memory tasks. Psychonomic Science, 5, 371–372. 10.3758/BF03328444
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03328444 [Google Scholar]
  8. Beatty-Martínez, A. L., & Dussias, P. E.
    (2017) Bilingual experience shapes language processing: Evidence from codeswitching. Journal of Memory and Language, 95, 173–189. 10.1016/j.jml.2017.04.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  9. Blanco-Elorrieta, E., & Pylkkänen, L.
    (2017) Bilingual language switching in the lab vs. in the wild: The spatio-temporal dynamics of adaptive language control. Journal of Neuroscience, 37, 9022–9036. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0553‑17.2017
    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0553-17.2017 [Google Scholar]
  10. (2018) Ecological Validity in Bilingualism Research and the Bilingual Advantage. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(12), 1117–1126. 10.1016/j.tics.2018.10.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Boada, R., Sánchez-Casas, R., Gavilán, J. M., Garcia-Albea, J. E., & Tokowicz, N.
    (2013) Effect of multiple translations and cognate status on translation recognition performance of balanced bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(1), 183–197. 10.1017/S1366728912000223
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728912000223 [Google Scholar]
  12. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D.
    (2020) Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.1.09, retrieved fromwww.praat.org/
  13. Bosma, E., Blom, E., Hoekstra, E., & Versloot, A.
    (2019) A longitudinal study on the gradual cognate facilitation effect in bilingual children’s Frisian receptive vocabulary. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(4), 371–385. 10.1080/13670050.2016.1254152
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1254152 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bradshaw, J. L.
    (1967) Pupil size as a measure of arousal during information processing. Nature, 216, 515–516. 10.1038/216515a0
    https://doi.org/10.1038/216515a0 [Google Scholar]
  15. Byers-Heinlein, K., Morin-Lessard, E., & Lew-Williams, C.
    (2017) Bilingual infants control their languages as they listen. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(34), 9032–9037. 10.1073/pnas.1703220114
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1703220114 [Google Scholar]
  16. Carrol, S. E.
    (1992) On cognates. Second Language Research, 8(2), 93–119.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Costa, A., Caramazza, A., & Sebastian-Gallés, N.
    (2000) The cognate facilitation effect: implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(5), 1283.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Davies, M.
    (2016–) Corpus del Español: Two billion words, 21 countries. Available online atwww.corpusdelespanol.org/web-dial/. (Web / Dialects)
  19. Delong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., Groppe, D. M., & Kutas, M.
    (2011) Overlapping dual ERP responses to low cloze probability sentence continuations. Psychophysiology, 48(9), 1203–1207. 10.1111/j.1469‑8986.2011.01199.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01199.x [Google Scholar]
  20. Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J., & Van Heuven, W. J.
    (1999) Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and language, 41(4), 496–518. 10.1006/jmla.1999.2654
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2654 [Google Scholar]
  21. Dijkstra, T., Miwa, K., Brummelhuis, B., Sappelli, M., & Baayen, H.
    (2010) How cross-language similarity and task demands affect cognate recognition. Journal of Memory and language, 62(3), 284–301. 10.1016/j.jml.2009.12.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  22. Elston-Güttler, K. E., Gunter, T. C., & Kotz, S. A.
    (2005) Zooming into L2: Global language context and adjustment affect processing of interlingual homographs in sentences. Cognitive Brain Research, 25, 57–70. 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.04.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.04.007 [Google Scholar]
  23. Fasiolo, M., Nedellec, R., Goude, Y., & Wood, S. N.
    (2018) Scalable visualisation methods for modern Generalized Additive Models. Arxiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.03307
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Foote, S. L., & Morrison, J. H.
    (1987) Extrathalamic modulation of cortical function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 10, 67–95. 10.1146/annurev.ne.10.030187.000435
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ne.10.030187.000435 [Google Scholar]
  25. Fricke, M., Kroll, J. F., & Dussias, P. E.
    (2016) Phonetic variation in bilingual speech: A lens for studying the production-comprehension link. Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 110–137. 10.1016/j.jml.2015.10.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  26. Gabay, S., Pertzov, Y., & Henik, A.
    (2011) Orienting of attention, pupil size, and the norepinephrine system. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 123–129. 10.3758/s13414‑010‑0015‑4
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-010-0015-4 [Google Scholar]
  27. Gagl, B., Hawelka, S., & Hutzler, F.
    (2011) Systematic influence of gaze position on pupil size measurement: analysis and correction. Behavior Research Methods, 43(4), 1171–1181. 10.3758/s13428‑011‑0109‑5
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0109-5 [Google Scholar]
  28. Goldrick, M., Putnam, M., & Schwartz, L.
    (2016) Coactivation in bilingual grammars: A computational account of code mixing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(5), 857–876. 10.1017/S1366728915000802
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728915000802 [Google Scholar]
  29. Goldwater, B. C.
    (1972) Psychological significance of pupillary movements. Psychological Bulletin, 77, 340–355. 10.1037/h0032456
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032456 [Google Scholar]
  30. Gollan, T. H., Slattery, T. J., Goldenberg, D., Van Assche, E., Duyck, W., & Rayner, K.
    (2011) Frequency drives lexical access in reading but not in speaking: The frequency-lag hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(2), 186. 10.1037/a0022256
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022256 [Google Scholar]
  31. Grosjean, F.
    (1995) A psycholinguistic approach to code-switching: The recognition of guest words by bilinguals. One speaker, two languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-switching, 259–275. 10.1017/CBO9780511620867.012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620867.012 [Google Scholar]
  32. Guasch, M., Ferré, P., & Haro, J.
    (2017) Pupil dilation is sensitive to the cognate status of words: further evidence for non-selectivity in bilingual lexical access. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(1), 49–54. 10.1017/S1366728916000651
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000651 [Google Scholar]
  33. Gunter, T. C., Friederici, A. D., & Schriefers, H.
    (2006) Syntactic Gender and Semantic Expectancy: ERPs Reveal Early Autonomy and Late Interaction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(4), 556–568. 10.1162/089892900562336
    https://doi.org/10.1162/089892900562336 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hartsuiker, R. J., Pickering, M. J., & Veltkamp, E.
    (2004) Is Syntax Separate or Shared between Languages? Cross-Linguistic Syntactic Priming in Spanish-English Bilinguals. Psychological Science, 15(6), 409–414. 10.1111/j.0956‑7976.2004.00693.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00693.x [Google Scholar]
  35. Haspelmath, M.
    (2009) Lexical borrowing: Concepts and issues. InM. Haspelmath and U. Tadmor (Eds.), Loanwords in the World’s Languages (pp.35–54). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110218442.35
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110218442.35 [Google Scholar]
  36. Hoshino, N., & Kroll, J. F.
    (2008) Cognate effects in picture naming: Does cross-language activation survive a change of script?Cognition, 106(1), 501–511. 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  37. Jescheniak, J. D., & Schriefers, H.
    (1998) Discrete serial versus cascaded processing in lexical access in speech production: Further evidence from the coactivation of near-synonyms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24(5), 1256–1274.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Johns, M. A., Valdés Kroff, J. R., & Dussias, P. E.
    (2019) Mixing things up: How blocking and mixing affect the processing of codemixed sentences. International Journal of Bilingualism, 23(2), 584–611. 10.1177/1367006917752570
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006917752570 [Google Scholar]
  39. Kay, G.
    (1995) English loanwords in Japanese. World Englishes, 14(1), 67–76. 10.1111/j.1467‑971X.1995.tb00340.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1995.tb00340.x [Google Scholar]
  40. Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M.
    (2010) Wuggy: A multilingual pseudoword generator. Behavior Research Methods42(3), 627–633. 10.3758/BRM.42.3.627
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.3.627 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kuchinsky, S. E., Ahlstrom, J. B., Vaden Jr., K. I., Cute, S. L., Humes, L. E., Dubno, J. R., & Eckert, M. A.
    (2013) Pupil size varies with word listening and response selection difficulty in older adults with hearing loss. Psychophysiology, 50, 23–34. 10.1111/j.1469‑8986.2012.01477.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01477.x [Google Scholar]
  42. Kuitert, S. R.
    (2013) English Loanwords in Norwegian: A Loanword Processing Study in Young Speakers of Norwegian (Master’s thesis, Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet, Trondheim, Norway). Retrieved from: https://ntnuopen.ntnu.no/ntnu-xmlui/handle/11250/243497
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Kutas, M. & Hillyard, S. A.
    (1980a) Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207(4427), 203–205. 10.1126/science.7350657
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7350657 [Google Scholar]
  44. (1980b) Event-related brain potentials to semantically inappropriate and surprisingly large words. Biological Psychology, 11(2), 99–116. 10.1016/0301‑0511(80)90046‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-0511(80)90046-0 [Google Scholar]
  45. (1984) Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307, 161–163. 10.1038/307161a0
    https://doi.org/10.1038/307161a0 [Google Scholar]
  46. Lagrou, E., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Duyck, W.
    (2011) Knowledge of a second language influences auditory word recognition in the native language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(4), 952–965.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Libben, M. R., & Titone, D. A.
    (2009) Bilingual lexical access in context: evidence from eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(2), 381.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Linck, J. A., Kroll, J. F., & Sunderman, G.
    (2009) Losing access to the native language while immersed in a second language: Evidence for the role of inhibition in second-language learning. Psychological Science, 20(12), 1507–1515. 10.1111/j.1467‑9280.2009.02480.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02480.x [Google Scholar]
  49. Litcofsky, K. A., & Van Hell, J. G.
    (2017) Switching direction affects switching costs: Behavioral, ERP, and time-frequency analyses of intra-sentential codeswitching. Neuropsychologia, 97, 112–139. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  50. Makowski, D.
    (2018) The Psycho Package: An Efficient and Publishing-Oriented Workflow for Psychological Science. Journal of Open Source Software, 3(22), 470. Available fromhttps://github.com/neuropsychology/psycho.R. 10.21105/joss.00470
    https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00470 [Google Scholar]
  51. Morales, A.
    (2009) Diccionario de anglicismos actuales: fotografía desde la Internet. Academia Puertorriqueña de la Lengua Española.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Moreno, E. M., Federmeier, K. D., & Kutas, M.
    (2002) Switching Languages, Switching Palabras (Words): An Electrophysiological Study of Code Switching. Brain and Language, 80, 188–207. 10.1006/brln.2001.2588
    https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2001.2588 [Google Scholar]
  53. Muysken, P.
    (2013) Language contact outcomes as the result of bilingual optimization strategies. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(4), 709–730. 10.1017/S1366728912000727
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728912000727 [Google Scholar]
  54. Myers-Scotton, C.
    (1993) Duelling Languages. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. (2002) Contact linguistics: Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299530.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299530.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  56. (2006) Multiple voices: An introduction to bilingualism. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Peeters, D., Dijkstra, T., & Grainger, J.
    (2013) The representation and processing of identical cognates by late bilinguals: RT and ERP effects. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(4), 315–332. 10.1016/j.jml.2012.12.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  58. Poplack, S.
    (1980) Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en español. Linguistics, 18(7/8), 581–618. 10.1515/ling.1980.18.7‑8.581
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1980.18.7-8.581 [Google Scholar]
  59. (2012) What does the Nonce Borrowing Hypothesis hypothesize?Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(3), 644–648. 10.1017/S1366728911000496
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728911000496 [Google Scholar]
  60. (2018) Borrowing: Loanwords in the Speech Community and in the Grammar. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Poplack, S., Sankoff, M., & Miller, C.
    (1988) The social correlates and linguistic processes of lexical borrowing and assimilation. Linguistics, 26, 47–104. 10.1515/ling.1988.26.1.47
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1988.26.1.47 [Google Scholar]
  62. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2021) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL: https://www.R-project.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Samuels, E. R., & Szabadi, E.
    (2008) Functional neuroanatomy of the noradrenergic locus coeruleus: its role in the regulation of arousal and autonomic function part I: principles of functional organisation. Current Neuropharmacology, 6, 235–253. 10.2174/157015908785777229
    https://doi.org/10.2174/157015908785777229 [Google Scholar]
  64. Sankoff, D., Poplack, S., & Vanniarajan, S.
    (1990) The case of the nonce loan in Tamil. Language Variation and Change, 2, 71–101. 10.1017/S0954394500000272
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500000272 [Google Scholar]
  65. Schmid, H. J.
    (2007) Entrenchment, salience, and basic levels. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 117, 138.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Schmidtke, J.
    (2014) Second language experience modulates word retrieval effort in bilinguals: evidence from pupillometry. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00137
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00137 [Google Scholar]
  67. (2018) Pupillometry in Linguistic Research: An introduction and review for second language researchers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 529–549. 10.1017/S0272263117000195
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263117000195 [Google Scholar]
  68. Schoonbaert, S., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Pickering, M. J.
    (2007) The representation of lexical and syntactic information in bilinguals: Evidence from syntactic priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(2), 153–171. 10.1016/j.jml.2006.10.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  69. Schuster, S., Himmelstoss, N. A., Hutzler, F., Richlan, F., Kronbichler, M., & Hawelka, S.
    (2021) Cloze enough? Hemodynamic effects of predictive processing during natural reading. NeuroImage, 228, 117–687. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117687
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117687 [Google Scholar]
  70. Segui, J., Mehler, J., Frauenfelder, U., & Morton, J.
    (1982) The word frequency effect and lexical access. Neuropsychologia, 20(6), 615–627. 10.1016/0028‑3932(82)90061‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(82)90061-6 [Google Scholar]
  71. Sirois, S., & Brisson, J.
    (2014) Pupillometry. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 5(6), 679–692. 10.1002/wcs.1323
    https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1323 [Google Scholar]
  72. Stammers, J. R., & Deuchar, M.
    (2012) Testing the nonce borrowing hypothesis: Counter-evidence from English-origin verbs in Welsh. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(3), 630–643. 10.1017/S1366728911000381
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728911000381 [Google Scholar]
  73. Strijkers, K., Costa, A., & Thierry, G.
    (2010) Tracking lexical access in speech production: electrophysiological correlates of word frequency and cognate effects. Cerebral Cortex, 20(4), 912–928. 10.1093/cercor/bhp153
    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhp153 [Google Scholar]
  74. Tamaoka, K. & Miyaoka, Y.
    (2003) The cognitive processing of Japanese loanwords in katakana. Japanese Psychological Research, 45(2), 69–79. 10.1111/1468‑5884.t01‑1‑00035
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5884.t01-1-00035 [Google Scholar]
  75. Thierry, G., & Wu, Y. J.
    (2007) Brain potentials reveal unconscious translation during foreign-language comprehension. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(30), 12530–12535. 10.1073/pnas.0609927104
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0609927104 [Google Scholar]
  76. Thomason, S. G. & Kaufman, T.
    (1988) Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkley, CA: University of California Press. 10.1525/9780520912793
    https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520912793 [Google Scholar]
  77. Titone, D., Libben, M., Mercier, J., Whitford, V., & Pivneva, I.
    (2011) Bilingual lexical access during L1 sentence reading: The effects of L2 knowledge, semantic constraint, and L1–L2 intermixing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(6), 1412–1431.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Torres Cacoullos, R., & Travis, C. E.
    (2015) Gauging convergence on the ground: Code-switching in the community. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19(4), 365–386. 10.1177/1367006913516046
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006913516046 [Google Scholar]
  79. (2018) Bilingualism in the Community: Codeswitching and grammars in contact. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108235259
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235259 [Google Scholar]
  80. Travis, C. E., Torres Cacoullos, R., & Kidd, E.
    (2017) Cross-language priming: A view from bilingual speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(2), 283–298. 10.1017/S1366728915000127
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728915000127 [Google Scholar]
  81. Van Assche, E., Duyck, W., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Diependaele, K.
    (2009) Does bilingualism change native-language reading? Cognate effects in a sentence context. Psychological science, 20(8), 923–927. 10.1111/j.1467‑9280.2009.02389.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02389.x [Google Scholar]
  82. van Hout, R. & Muysken, P.
    (1994) Modeling lexical borrowability. Language Variation and Change, 6, 39–62. 10.1017/S0954394500001575
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500001575 [Google Scholar]
  83. van Rij, J., Hendriks, P., Van Rijn, H., Harald Baayen, R., & Wood, S. N.
    (2019) Analyzing the Time Course of Pupillometric Data. Trends in Hearing, 23, 1–22. 10.1177/2331216519832483
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2331216519832483 [Google Scholar]
  84. van Rij, J., Wieling, M., Baayen, R. H., & Van Rijn, H.
    (2017) itsadug: Interpreting time series and autocorrelated data using GAMMs. R package version 2.3
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Wetzel, N., Buttelmann, D., Schieler, A., & Widmann, A.
    (2016) Infant and adult pupil dilation in response to unexpected sounds. Developmental Psychobiology, 58(3), 382–392. 10.1002/dev.21377
    https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.21377 [Google Scholar]
  86. Wieling, M.
    (2018) Analyzing dynamic phonetic data using generalized additive mixed modeling: A tutorial focusing on articulatory differences between L1 and L2 speakers of English. Journal of Phonetics, 70, 86–116. 10.1016/j.wocn.2018.03.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2018.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  87. Wood, S. N.
    (2011) Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 73(1), 3–36. 10.1111/j.1467‑9868.2010.00749.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9868.2010.00749.x [Google Scholar]
  88. (2017) Generalized additive models: an introduction with R. Chapman and Hall/CRC. 10.1201/9781315370279
    https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315370279 [Google Scholar]
  89. Wood, S. N., Pya, N., & Saefken, B.
    (2016) Smoothing parameter and model selection for general smooth models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 111, 1548–1575. 10.1080/01621459.2016.1180986
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2016.1180986 [Google Scholar]
  90. Wood, S. N.
    (2003) Thin-plate regression splines. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (B), 65(1), 95–114. 10.1111/1467‑9868.00374
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9868.00374 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.21010.joh
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.21010.joh
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): bilingualism; borrowing; loanwords; online processing; pupillometry
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error