Cited by 379Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismReading and Literacy DevelopmentSecond Language Acquisition and Learning

Multilink: a computational model for bilingual word recognition and word translation

DIJKSTRA, TON, WAHL, ALEXANDER, BUYTENHUIJS, FRANKA, VAN HALEM, NINO, AL-JIBOURI, ZINA, DE KORTE, MARCEL, REKKÉ, STEVEN·2019·Bilingualism: Language and Cognition

Abstract

The computational BIA+ model (Dijkstra & Van Heuven, 2002) has provided a useful account for bilingual word recognition, while the verbal (pre-quantitative) RHM (Kroll & Stewart, 1994) has often served as a reference framework for bilingual word production and translation. According to Brysbaert and Duyck (2010), a strong need is felt for a unified implemented account of bilingual word comprehension, lexical-semantic processing, and word production. With this goal in mind, we built a localist-connectionist model, called Multilink, which integrates basic assumptions of both BIA+ and RHM. It simulates the recognition and production of cognates (form-similar translation equivalents) and non-cognates of different lengths and frequencies in tasks like monolingual and bilingual lexical decision, word naming, and word translation production. It also considers effects of lexical similarity, cognate status, relative L2-proficiency, and translation direction. Model-to-model comparisons show that Multilink provides higher correlations with empirical data than both IA and BIA+ models.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1366728918000287

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The integrity of language abilities in the untreated language facilitates cross-language generalization (CLG) via shared conceptual representations.

    “Our results, on the other hand, align with a parsimonious interpretation of language processing in bilingual aphasia: the integrity of language abilities in the untreated language facilitate CLG via shared conceptual representations53,54.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
DIJKSTRA, T., WAHL, A., BUYTENHUIJS, F., VAN HALEM, N., AL-JIBOURI, Z., DE KORTE, M., & REKKÉ, S.
Affiliations
Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
Corresponding author
DIJKSTRA, TON
Venue
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition
Published
2018-07-06
Volume
22
Issue
04
Pages
657-679
ISSN
  • 1366-7289 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-1841
OpenAlex
W2872183424
Cited by
379
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 57 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 13
FWCI
18.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Bilingualism Language and Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
Keywords
bilingual word recognition, BIA+ model, cognates, lexical decision, word naming, translation direction, second language proficiency, word similarity, bilingual lexical access

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review