Bilingual writing coactivation: Lexical and sublexical processing in a word dictation task

Abstract

Bilinguals’ two languages seem to be coactivated in parallel during reading, speaking, and listening. However, this coactivation in writing has been scarcely studied. This study aimed to assess orthographic coactivation during spelling-to-dictation. We took advantage of the presence of polyvalent graphemes in Spanish (one phonological representation with two orthographic specifications, e.g., / b /for both the graphemes v and b) to manipulate orthographic congruency. Spanish–English bilinguals were presented with cross-linguistic congruent (movement–movimiento) and incongruent words (government–gobierno) for a dictation task. The time and accuracy to initiate writing and to type the rest-of-word (lexical and sublexical processing) were recorded in both the native language (L1) and the second language (L2). Results revealed no differences between conditions in monolinguals. Bilinguals showed a congruency and language interaction with better performance for congruent stimuli, which was evident from the beginning of typing in L2. Language coactivation and lexical–sublexical interaction during bilinguals’ writing are discussed.

Transfer effects from language processing to visual attention dynamics: The impact of orthographic transparency

“…However, the first access to the word representation during writing‐to‐dictation assessed with performance in the first key performance (Iniesta, Paolieri, et al, 2021 ; Muscalu & Smiley, 2018 ) showed a clear dissociation between languages in monolinguals and bilinguals. That is, performance in Spanish was modulated by word length, whereas performance in English was modulated by word frequency and age of acquisition.…”

“…Bosse et al, 2003 ; Folk & Rapp, 2004 ; Roux & Bonin, 2012 ; Tainturier et al, 2013 ) showing a general influence of lexical (frequency and AoA) but also phonological (length and neighbours) variables in both languages during the later writing stage (rest of the word). However, during the early stage of writing (the first key; Iniesta, Paolieri, et al, 2021 ; Muscalu & Smiley, 2018 ), the transparent orthography (i.e. Spanish) biased processing towards phonological processing, whereas the opaque orthography (i.e.…”

“…The participants were instructed to press the space bar when they finished writing. Writing times and accuracy were collected from the onset of the stimulus to the first keypress (the first key performance) and from the first keypress to the end of the word (the rest of the word performance) (see Iniesta, Paolieri, et al, 2021 ; Muscalu & Smiley, 2018 ). A 30‐second break was introduced in the middle of the task (trial 45).…”

“…Critically, a previous study on writing‐to‐dictation suggested differences in the processing strategy (lexical vs. phonological) and the grain size of processing depending on the language transparency (Iniesta, Paolieri, et al, 2021 ). That is, bilinguals committed qualitatively different errors in English and Spanish during a writing‐to‐dictation task involving words with polyvalent graphemes (a sublexical/phonological manipulation in which one phonological representation has two orthographic specifications, for example, /b/for both the graphemes v and b).…”

“…An advantage of writing‐to‐dictation tasks is that they provide an early and a late measure of writing processes. Thus, two temporal moments can be explored separately; the time needed to initiate writing, and the time spent writing the word (Iniesta, Paolieri, et al, 2021 ; Muscalu & Smiley, 2018 ); therefore, it is possible to evaluate the time course of the processing. Hence, while we expected that the effects of our variables would affect late measures of writing (i.e.…”