The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Interlingual homograph recognition: Effects of task demands and language intermixing
Abstract
A series of three lexical decision experiments showed that interlingual homographs may be recognized faster than, slower than, or as fast as monolingual control words depending on task requirements and language intermixing. In Experiment 1, Dutch bilingual participants performed an English lexical decision task including English/Dutch homographs, cognates, and purely English control words. Reaction times to interlingual homographs were unaffected by the frequency of the Dutch reading and did not differ from monolingual controls. In contrast, cognates were recognized faster than controls. In Experiment 2, Dutch participants again performed an English lexical decision task on homographs, but, apart from nonwords, Dutch words were included which required a “no” reaction. Strong inhibition effects were obtained which depended on the relative frequency difference of the two readings of the homograph. These turned into frequency-dependent facilitation effects in Experiment 3, where participants performed a general lexical decision task, responding “yes” if a word of either language was presented. It is argued that bilingual word recognition models can only account for the series of experiments if they explain how lexical processing is affected by task demands and stimulus list composition.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision
Dijkstra, T., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (2002) · Bilingualism: Language and Cognition · doi:10.1017/s1366728902003012 · Cited by 1,730
Self-citationStudying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues
GROSJEAN, F. (1998) · Bilingualism: Language and Cognition · doi:10.1017/s136672899800025x · Cited by 1,077
Orthographic Neighborhood Effects in Bilingual Word Recognition
van Heuven, W. J. B., Dijkstra, T., & Grainger, J. (1998) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1006/jmla.1998.2584 · Cited by 772
Self-citationThe bilingual's language modes 1
Grosjean, F. (2020) · The Bilingualism Reader · doi:10.4324/9781003060406-39 · Cited by 498
Bilingual lexical activation in sentence context
Schwartz, A. I., & Kroll, J. F. (2006) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.004 · Cited by 392
Metadata
- Authors
- DIJKSTRA, T., VAN JAARSVELD, H., & BRINKE, S. T.
- Venue
- Bilingualism: Language and Cognition
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1998-04
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 51-66
- ISSN
- 1366-7289 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-1841
- OpenAlex
- W2147304943
- Cited by
- 435
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Interlingual homograph recognition: Effects of task demands and language intermixing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s1366728998000121
- The paper
- DIJKSTRA, T., VAN JAARSVELD, H., & BRINKE, S. T. (1998). Interlingual homograph recognition: Effects of task demands and language intermixing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728998000121
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.