Volume 4, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2452-1949
  • E-ISSN: 2452-2147
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Boersma, P. and D. Weenink
    1999–2005 PRAAT: Doing phonetics by computer. www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/
  2. Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson
    1992 ‘Left’ and ‘right’ in Tenejapa: Investigating a linguistic and conceptual gap. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung45(6): 590–611. 10.1524/stuf.1992.45.14.590
    https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.1992.45.14.590 [Google Scholar]
  3. 1993 “Uphill” and “downhill” in Tzeltal. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology3(1): 46–74. 10.1525/jlin.1993.3.1.46
    https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.1993.3.1.46 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bustamante-López, I. and M. Niño-Murcia
    1995 Impositive speech acts in Northern Andean Spanish: A pragmatic description. Hispania781: 885–897. 10.2307/345173
    https://doi.org/10.2307/345173 [Google Scholar]
  5. Carvalho, A. M.
    2004 I speak like the guys on TV: Palatalization and the urbanization of Uruguayan Portuguese. Language Variation and Change161: 127–151. 10.1017/S0954394504162030
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394504162030 [Google Scholar]
  6. 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 Sciences33(2–3): 87–88. 10.1017/S0140525X10000063
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000063 [Google Scholar]
  7. 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. Psicológica32(2): 133–144.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dahl, Ö.
    2015 How WEIRD are WALS languages. MPI-EVA, Leipzig. Presented at theDiversity Linguistics: Retrospect and Prospect, Leipzig.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 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 Language47(1): 91–124. 10.1006/jmla.2001.2840
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2840 [Google Scholar]
  10. De León, L.
    1991Space Games in Tzotzil: Creating a Context for Spatial Reference. Nijmegen: Max Planck Research Group for Cognitive Anthropology, Working paper no. 4.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Dijkstra, T. and W. van Heuven
    2002 The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition51: 175–197. 10.1017/S1366728902003012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728902003012 [Google Scholar]
  12. Duranti, A.
    1997Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511810190
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810190 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gächter, S.
    2010 (Dis) advantages of student subjects: What is your research question?Behavioral and Brain Sciences33(2–3): 92–93. 10.1017/S0140525X10000099
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000099 [Google Scholar]
  14. Goldinger, S. D.
    1996 Auditory lexical decision. Language and Cognitive Processes11(6): 559–568. 10.1080/016909696386944
    https://doi.org/10.1080/016909696386944 [Google Scholar]
  15. 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: General140(2): 186–209. 10.1037/a0022256
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022256 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gómez Rendón, J.
    2005 La media lengua de Imbabura. InH. Olbertz and P. Muysken, eds.Encuentros y conflictos: bilingüismo y contacto de lenguas en el mundo andino. Frankfurt/ Madrid: Vervuert/ Iberoamericana. 39–57. 10.31819/9783865278968‑003
    https://doi.org/10.31819/9783865278968-003 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2008) Mestizaje lingüístico en los Andes: génesis y estructura de una lengua mixta. Quito: Abya-Yala.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Grainger, J. and C. Beauvillain
    1987 Language blocking and lexical access in bilinguals. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology39(2): 295–319. 10.1080/14640748708401788
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748708401788 [Google Scholar]
  19. Grainger, J. and A. M. Jacobs
    1996 Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model. Psychological Review103(3): 518–565. 10.1037/0033‑295X.103.3.518
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.3.518 [Google Scholar]
  20. Greenfield, P. M.
    2017 Cultural change over time: Why replicability should not be the gold standard in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science12(5): 762–771. 10.1177/1745691617707314
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617707314 [Google Scholar]
  21. Guion, S.
    2003 The vowel systems of Quichua-Spanish bilinguals: Age of acquisition effects on the mutual influence of the first and second languages. Phonetica601: 98–128. 10.1159/000071449
    https://doi.org/10.1159/000071449 [Google Scholar]
  22. Haboud, M.
    1998Quichua y castellano en los Andes ecuatorianos: los efectos de un contacto prolongado. Quito: Abya-Yala.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2004 Quichua language vitality: An Ecuadorian perspective. International Journal of the Sociology of Language1671: 69–82. 10.1515/ijsl.2004.022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.2004.022 [Google Scholar]
  24. Haboud, M. and E. de la Vega
    2008 Ecuador. InA. Palacios, ed.El español en América: contactos lingüísticos en Hispanoamérica. Barcelona: Ariel. 161–187.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Haboud, M. and A. Palacios
    2017 Imperatividad y atenuación en el castellano andino ecuatoriano. InA. Palacios, ed.Variación y cambio lingüístico en situaciones de contacto. Madrid/ Frankfurt: Iberoamericana/ Vervuert. 21–54. 10.31819/9783954876648‑002
    https://doi.org/10.31819/9783954876648-002 [Google Scholar]
  26. Henrich, J., Heine, S. and A. Norenzayan
    2010 The weirdest people in the world?Behavioral and Brain Sciences331: 61–135. 10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X [Google Scholar]
  27. 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.
  28. 1996 Request formation in Ecuadorian Quichua. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences23(2): 117–135.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Jaeger, T. F. and E. Norcliffe
    2009 The cross-linguistic study of sentence production. Language and Linguistics Compass31. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2009.00147.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00147.x [Google Scholar]
  30. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Keatley, C. and B. D. Gelder
    1992 The bilingual primed lexical decision task: Cross-language priming disappears with speeded responses. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology4(4): 273–292. 10.1080/09541449208406188
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09541449208406188 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kotz, S. A.
    2001 Neurolinguistic evidence for bilingual language representation: A comparison of reaction times and event-related brain potentials. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition4(2): 143–154. 10.1017/S1366728901000244
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728901000244 [Google Scholar]
  33. Lema Guanolema, S. F.
    1997Gramática 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]
  34. Levinson, S. C.
    1992 Primer for the field investigation of spatial description and conception. Pragmatics2(1): 5–47.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 1996 Language and space. Annual Review of Anthropology25(1): 353–382. 10.1146/annurev.anthro.25.1.353
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.25.1.353 [Google Scholar]
  36. Levinson, S. C., P. Brown, E. Danzinger, L. De León, J. B. Haviland, E. Pederson
    1992 Man and Tree & Space Games. InS. C. Levinson, ed.Space Stimuli Kit 1.2. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. 7–14. 10.17617/2.2458804
    https://doi.org/10.17617/2.2458804 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lipski, J.
    2011 Encontros lingüísticos fronteiriços. Ideação13(2): 83–100. e-revista.unioeste.br/index.php/ideacao/article/viewArticle/6109
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 2013¿Qué diciendo nomás? Tracing the sources of the Andean Spanish gerund. Spanish in Context101: 227–260. 10.1075/sic.10.2.03lip
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.10.2.03lip [Google Scholar]
  39. 2014 Syncretic discourse markers in Kichwa-influenced Spanish: transfer vs. emergence. Lingua1511: 216–239. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.002 [Google Scholar]
  40. 2015a Portuguese/portuñol in Misiones, Argentina: another Fronterizo?InS. Sessarego and M. González, eds.New Perspectives on Hispanic Contact Linguistics. Frankfurt & Madrid: Vervuert/Iberoamericana. 253–281. 10.31819/9783954878314‑013
    https://doi.org/10.31819/9783954878314-013 [Google Scholar]
  41. 2015b Colliding vowel systems in Andean Spanish: carryovers and emergent properties. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism51: 91–121. 10.1075/lab.5.1.04lip
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.5.1.04lip [Google Scholar]
  42. 2016 Language switching constraints: More than syntax? Data from Media Lengua. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 10.1017/S1366728916000468
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000468 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2017a Ecuadoran Media Lengua: More than a “half”-language?International Journal of American Linguistics821: 233–262. 10.1086/689845
    https://doi.org/10.1086/689845 [Google Scholar]
  44. 2017b Portuguese or Portuñol? Language contact in Misiones, Argentina. Journal of Linguistic Geography41: 47–64. 10.1017/jlg.2016.12
    https://doi.org/10.1017/jlg.2016.12 [Google Scholar]
  45. 2018a La interfaz portugués-castellano en Misiones, Argentina: zona de prueba para la alternancia de lenguas. Estudios Filológicos601: 169–190.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 2018b La evolución de la interfaz portugués-español en el noreste argentino. InD. Corbella and A. Fajardo, eds.Español y portugués en contacto: préstamos léxicos e interferencia. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 391–412.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 2019 Field-testing code-switching constraints: A report on a strategic languages project Languages4(1): 7. 10.3390/languages4010007
    https://doi.org/10.3390/languages4010007 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2020 Can a bilingual lexicon be sustained by phonotactics alone? Evidence from Ecuadoran Quichua and Media Lengua. The Mental Lexicon15(2): 330–365. 10.1075/ml.19024.lip
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.19024.lip [Google Scholar]
  49. Machery, E.
    2010 Explaining why experimental behavior varies across cultures: A missing step in “The weirdest people in the world?” Behavioral and Brain Sciences33(2–3): 101–102. 10.1017/S0140525X10000178
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000178 [Google Scholar]
  50. Majid, A. and S. C. Levinson
    2010 WEIRD languages have misled us, too. Behavioral and Brain Sciences33(2–3): 103. 10.1017/S0140525X1000018X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X1000018X [Google Scholar]
  51. Meyer, D. E. and R. W. Schvaneveldt
    1971 Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology90(2): 227–234. 10.1037/h0031564
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031564 [Google Scholar]
  52. Mueller, S. T. and B. J. Piper
    2014 The Psychology Experiment Building Language (PEBL) Test Battery. Journal of Neuroscience Methods2221: 250–259. 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2013.10.024
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2013.10.024 [Google Scholar]
  53. Muysken, P.
    1981 Halfway between Quechua and Spanish: The case for relexification. InA. Valdman and A. Highfield, eds.Theoretical Orientations in Creole Studies. New York: Academic Press. 52–78.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 1988 Media Lengua and linguistic theory. Canadian Journal of Linguistics331: 409–422. 10.1017/S0008413100013207
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100013207 [Google Scholar]
  55. 1997 Media Lengua. InS. Thomason, ed.Contact Languages: A Wider Perspective. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 365–426. 10.1075/cll.17.13muy
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cll.17.13muy [Google Scholar]
  56. 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 Neuroscience30(9): 1009–1032. 10.1080/23273798.2015.1080373
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1080373 [Google Scholar]
  57. Palmer, G.
    2006 Energy through fusion at last: Synergies in cognitive anthropology and cognitive linguistics. InM. 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]
  58. Pederson, E., E. Danziger, D. Wilkins, S. Levinson, S. Kita and G. Senft
    1998 Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization. Language74(3): 557–589. 10.1353/lan.1998.0074
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1998.0074 [Google Scholar]
  59. 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 Sciences115(45): 11401–11405. 10.1073/pnas.1721165115
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1721165115 [Google Scholar]
  60. Rai, T. S. and A. Fiske
    2010 ODD (observation-and description-deprived) psychological research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences33(2–3): 106–107. 10.1017/S0140525X10000221
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000221 [Google Scholar]
  61. Rindstedt, C. and K. Aronsson
    2002 Growing up monolingual in a bilingual community: The Quichua revitalization paradox. Language in Society311: 721–742. 10.1017/S0047404502315033
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404502315033 [Google Scholar]
  62. Sánchez Parga, J.
    2013Qué significa ser indígena para el indígena: más allá de la comunidad y la lengua. Quito: Abya-Yala.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Scarborough, D. L., L. Gerard and C. Cortese
    1984 Independence of lexical access in bilingual word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior23(1): 84–99. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(84)90519‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(84)90519-X [Google Scholar]
  64. Silverstein, M.
    1981The Limits of Awareness. Sociolinguistic Working Paper Number 84. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Soares, C. and F. Grosjean
    1984 Bilinguals in a monolingual and a bilingual speech mode: The effect on lexical access. Memory and Cognition12(4): 380–386. 10.3758/BF03198298
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198298 [Google Scholar]
  66. Speed, L. J., W. Wnuk and M. Ajid
    2018 Studying psycholinguistics out of the lab. InA. 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]
  67. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 2013Cuentos y tradiciones de Pijal: Relatos en Media Lengua. North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 2015 Production and perception of stop consonants in Spanish, Quichua, and Media Lengua. Doctoral dissertation, University of Manitoba.
  70. Tang, K.
    2012 A 61 million word corpus of Brazilian Portuguese film subtitles as a resource for linguistic research. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics241: 208–214.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Thomas, M. S. and A. Allport
    2000 Language switching costs in bilingual visual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language43(1): 44–66. 10.1006/jmla.1999.2700
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2700 [Google Scholar]
  72. Tzelgov, J. and S. Eben-Ezra
    1992 Components of the between-language semantic priming effect. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology4(4): 253–272. 10.1080/09541449208406187
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09541449208406187 [Google Scholar]
  73. Von Studnitz, R. E. and D. W. Green
    1997 Lexical decision and language switching. International Journal of Bilingualism1(1): 3–24. 10.1177/136700699700100102
    https://doi.org/10.1177/136700699700100102 [Google Scholar]
  74. Wassmann, J. and P. R. Dasen
    1998 Balinese spatial orientation: Some empirical evidence of moderate linguistic relativity. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute4(4): 689–711. 10.2307/3034828
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3034828 [Google Scholar]
  75. Whalen, D. H. and J. McDonough
    2015 Taking the laboratory into the field. Annual. Review of Linguistics1(1): 395–415. 10.1146/annurev‑linguist‑030514‑124915
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124915 [Google Scholar]
  76. Woutersen, M., K. de Bot and B. Weltens
    1995 The bilingual lexicon: Modality effects in processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research24(4): 289–298. 10.1007/BF02145058
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02145058 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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