THE CONTROL OF SPEECH PRODUCTION BY BILINGUAL

SPEAKERS : INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

Fitria Eka Saputri

Institut Agama Islam Negeri Metro

INTRODUCTION
Bilingualism is a complex psychological and socio-cultural phenomenon
encompassing a number of individual and social dimensions (Butler and Hakuta,
2004). It constitutes a widespread phenomenon, as in the world approximately
7000 languages are spoken in just 160 countries. Therefore over 50% of the world
population is bi- or even multilingual (Tucker, 1998; Grosjean, 1982, 1994).
Moreover, in many countries the number of spoken languages is constantly
growing due to massive immigration. The issue of language representation and
use in multilingual speakers and the related problem of multilingual competence
can be approached at different levels of description. Indeed, they constitute a
matter of interest not only for sociolinguistic models of language use and
stratification, but also for psycholinguistic theories of language development and
functioning, as well as neurolinguistic models of language representation in the
brain. In this chapter some of the most influential psycholinguistic models of
language representation and speech production in multilingual speakers are
introduced. The results from psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic investigations
will be taken into account in order to discuss the assumptions of such models.
Psycholinguistic approach takes its name from the field of
psycholinguistics which is an integration of the two fields of psychology and
linguistics. That’s why it is referred to as a hybrid field. According to Titone and
Danesi (1985:31), the term psycholinguistics was coined by Pronko in 1946.
However, a systematic theory was not formulated until 1950, Basically,
psycholinguistics is the study of relation between language and mind. In general,
it is defined as the study of the mental processes that a person uses in producing
understanding and storing language and how humans learn their mother tongue
and foreign languages. The interdisdiplinary field of psycholinguistics emerged
twice: once in 1900s in Europe and once in the middle of the 2(ith century in the
USA. In early decades of the 20th century, “ linguists tumedj to psychologists for
insights into how human beings use language. In the later period, psycholinguists;
turned to linguists for insights into the nature of language” (Carroll, 1994:12).
Between these two periods, behavioristic views dominated the area.

BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE PSYCHOLINGUISTIC APPROACH

As it is known and a Wepted by everyone, no child 'fails to learn a native
tongue and it is 'mainly l^qned before the age of five. I Children are not taught
language formally,: but they all reach the same level of proficiency in using their
native | tongue by the time schools begins.; It is amazing how each child succeeds
in acquisition and possesses idel same general abilities in using the language
without the proper help of grpv^ns-ups. Therefore, this is an area oi" enquiry form
to which the psycholinguistic approach is able to suggest] some formative notions.
The basic characteristics of the psycholinguistic approach are as follow: *1 I
Psycholinguistic approach supports the idea that language acquisition is innately
determined; that is, it is rewired by birth since both acquisition and improvement i
in language are a biological process.
Acquiring a language, which is specific to human beings, requires certain
perception skills| cognition abilities and other mechanisms that are related with
language. The child’s mastery of his native language in the first few years is
enabled by LAE), As it is asserted by Kess “ the stages on learning the mother
tongue appear to be very similar across languages and the principles which guide
the child’s formulations at successive stages may well be universal” (1992:318).
Thus, in child language acquisition research in order to discover what all children
bring to the process of learning, psycholinguistic approach make^ ' use of
Universal Grammar which is in a way an expanded version <pf LAD notion. LAD
works very well up to puberty. What happens to LAD after puberty is a matter of
heated discussion today. Categorizing is basic to human cognition and always
children to extend their knowledge): I of language. Early semantic development
may be formed by the child’s cognitive perceptions and grouping, Children
usually make, use of properties such as color, shape, and size to form categories
land for this reason as cited in Kess (¡1992:311) “ a legless lizard is not a snake “
but because of inefficient group in children may call it as a snake”. As the child
grows up the categories improve and become more in number. So, even different
groups are also achieved. The form of language are organized in their mind of
human beings with interdependent connections of memory, perception, thought,
meaning, and emotion. Language development is viewed as “one manifestation of
general development” in] terms of both cognitive and affective1 abilities (Brown,
1994:28). Such types of memory as short term memory, long term memory,
semantic memory, pragmatic memory, interim memory and the like are all
dependent on psycho linguistic background (Demirezen 2002a-200b).
Psycholinguistic approach regards competence and performance as distinctive
features of knowing a language. Competence is defined as “one’s underlying
knowledge of a system, event, or fact .. .non-observable ability to do something”
and performance is” observable ability to do something, to perform
something”(Brown, 1994:31).
This view was first put forward by Ferdinand de Saussure as a distinction
between langue and parole in 1916. Later Chomsky worked on linguistic
competence and performance in 1965. Yet competence and performance as terms
are still inadequate to cope with the language learning process since such new
terms as communicative competence, pragmatic competence, and interlingual and
intralingual competence type, which all have psycholinguistic bases are being
developed. In addition to competence and performance distinction,
psycholinguistic approach points out the difference between comprehension and
production. According to this view, while acquiring the first language, children
understand more than they can actually produce and children’s comprehension
precedes production. Even adults understand more vocabulary than they ever use
in speech, so is tire case for child language and in all aspects of language,
comprehension precede or facilitate production. Findings from educational
psychology give a great deal of support to this fact. In the acquisition of all
languages, semantic learning is dependent upon cognitive development.
According to Bhat (1991) as it is proposed by Slobin “ ...development is
paced by the growth of conceptual and communicative capacities...(and it) is
paced b y t he growth of perceptual and information-processing capacities”. In
brief, psycholinguistics is fundamental to not only mother tongue learning but also
to foreign language learning. It helps to develop language learning pedagogy both
in the field of first and second language learning. It draws parallelisms to Stephen
Krashen’s monitor model and input hypothesis, but it also claims that the natural
approach, created by Krashen, is weak because it disregards the socio-
psychological issues in teaching foreign languages.

THE FUNCTIONAL ARCHITECTURE OF THE BILINGUAL SPEECH

PRODUCTION SYSTEM
Several hypotheses have been put forward to account for the functional
architecture of the bilingual speech production system. In most cases these are the
reformulation of models originally proposed for monolingual speakers. Indeed,
psycholinguistic theorizing has usually held monolingualism as the canonical
form of language use (Vaid, 2002), implicitly assuming that monolingual
acquisition and processing are the norm. Such monolingual prejudice has proved
to be misguiding in cognitive research on multilingualism and has conditioned the
modelling of bilingual and multilingual competence. In fact, quite no one can be
considered purely monolingual as even monolingual children usually grow up in a
social environment where more than one variety of the same language is spoken
(e.g. the so-called “dialects”). Therefore, they learn to use a certain variety of the
language they are exposed to in specific linguistic and/or extra-linguistic contexts,
and other varieties in different contexts.
In other words, even those children who are generally regarded as
monolingual will develop a multilingual competence, based on lexical,
grammatical and pragmatic/discursive knowledge relative to each of the varieties
of the language to which they are exposed. Let’s consider the case of a Canadian
born in Quebec. He may acquire Quebecois as his mother tongue (L1) and use it
in familiar contexts, standard French as a second language (L2) used as language
of education and in formal contexts, and eventually English as a third language
(L3), used not in daily/life interactions but, for example, to write scientific articles
or to give lectures at international congresses.
 The issue of language production in polyglots raises several problems. A
major question concerns the functional architecture of the multilingual lexicon,
that is how words are represented, selected and accessed in multilingual speakers.
One of the most influential models of language production is the “bilingual
production model” (de Bot, 1992; de Bot and Schreuder, 1993), based on Levelt’s
“speaking model” (1989). In what follows we will attempt to integrate the model
proposed by de Bot (1992) with data from recent psycholinguistic,
neurophysiologic and neuroimaging investigations. De Bot’s bilingual
production model hypothesizes the existence of three subsystems for language
production (a conceptualizer, a formulator and an articulator, respectively), a
subsystem for comprehension (speech-comprehension system), and a lexicon
involved in both production and comprehension.
In multilingual speakers, the conceptualizer is assumed to be language
independent. It elaborates the conversational conventions and the contextual
information in order to signal “which language to choose”. It is at the level of the
formulator that the language to be used in the interaction will be chosen. The
formulator is considered a procedural system working on a system of declarative
knowledge: the lexicon. Adopting Paradis’ (1987) subset hypothesis, De Bot
(1992) proposed that L1 and L2 words form different subsets within one and the
same lexicon. Experimental and clinical studies suggest that age and modalities of
acquisition, as well as language use probably affect the organization of both
formulator and lexicon. In multilingual individuals who have acquired two or
more languages from birth, the formulator is probably represented in common
cortico-subcortical cerebral structures.
In this case the different languages would be maintained separate merely
by neurofunctional mechanisms. When a second language is learned after the age
of 8, however, the neurofunctional systems accounting for grammar and
phonology are most likely to be separate also at the neuroanatomical level
(Fabbro, 1996; Kim, Relkin, Lee and Hirsch, 1997). Furthermore, in fluent
bilinguals the lexicon is probably represented in common neural structures
(parietotemporal areas) and the neurofunctional separation between languages
might depend on word use relationships. In the formulator the preverbal message
is converted into a speech plan by means of two processes: lexical selection and
lexical access, respectively. When considering multilingual competence, it
becomes important to explain how a multilingual speaker selects the correct
lexical node in the target language preventing cross-language interference. As to
this respect, two major hypotheses have been proposed.
The first states that the intended meaning in the preverbal message
selectively activates the lexical items only of the selected language and not those
of the other language(s) (Soares and Grosjean, 1984; Macnamara and Kushnir,
1971). Such view has been generally abandoned in favour of an alternative
hypothesis claiming that the intended meaning activates the subsets of words
belonging to the languages mastered by the speaker and that the target word is
selected by creating an imbalance in their activation levels (De Bot, 1992; Green,
1986, 1998). It is postulated that each subset has its own specific activation
thresholds1 (Luria, 1973; Green, 1986, 1998; Paradis, 1989; 1993) and can be
selected by means of activation and inhibition processes2 (Inhibitory Control
Model, Green, 1998). Inhibition is generally automatic and avoids interferences
among the languages that form the multilingual competence. The selection of the
target lexical node is obtained by creating a differential level of activation in the
two or more lexicons of the multilingual speaker by means of both activation of
the target words and reactive inhibition of its competitors. In other terms, the
selection of a word in one language automatically triggers an inhibition process of
the competitors in the other language(s).
Consider the case of a trilingual individual who knows Italian (L1),
English (L2) and Dutch (L3). In this case, the activation of the word ‘bike’ (L2)
will inhibit the corresponding lexical items in L1 (i.e. Italian “bicicletta”) and L3
(i.e. Dutch “fiets” ) as well as semantically and phonologically similar
a cerebral lesion can lower the activation threshold of a language, which is thus
not lost, but simply inaccessible through the usual activation threshold. Generally,
such activation threshold is lower for comprehension than for expression. For this
reason, there are cases of bilingual aphasic patients with preserved
comprehension of a language associated to impaired production in it (Paradis,
1996).
 It is likely that inhibitory relations among languages are organized
differently in simultaneous interpreters in which both languages are concurrently
activated for many hours a day. In this particular profession, the activation
thresholds of the two languages are thus quantitatively different as opposed to
those of the other polyglots. Words in the three languages. The multilingual
speaker’s languages can receive three states of activation (Green, 1986). They can
be selected, active or dormant depending on the communicative situation. A
language is selected when it has been chosen for the interaction. The selected
language controls the speech output. A language is active when it has not been
chosen as the main code for the communicative exchange but is kept active during
the whole interaction. It works in parallel to the selected language but has no
direct access to the outgoing speech processing.
A dormant language does not receive any activation and consequently does
not play a role in ongoing processing. In the multilingual competence, one
language is always selected while the other(s) language(s) can be either active or
dormant. In this framework it is possible to explain the code-switching
phenomenon. Language switching occurs quite commonly for instance in
bilingual communities where both languages have the same social status (see
Grosjean, 1998). The habit of bilingual individuals to alternate between languages
within one coherent discourse may determine low thresholds of activation of
switching phenomena and a reduction in both languages’ mutual inhibition. In
such bilingual communities, it is quite normal for individuals to switch from one
language to the other while speaking informally.
In other communities, however, such behavior is intentionally avoided for
sociolinguistic reasons. For example, in Brussels, where both French and Flemish
are official languages, a public official or a bank employee would never switch
between the two languages and would stick to his/her interlocutor’s language,
even though most natives understand and speak both languages. In Belgium each
linguistic community has a strong identity which is fiercely defended also through
language use. This switching mechanism is not peculiar only to polyglot speakers,
but also to monolingual individuals who use it to select among different linguistic
registers according to the communicative context. For example, an individual may
ask his/her interlocutor to close the door by using a courtesy form (“Will you
please close the door?”) or a direct form (“Close the door”). In Paradis’ (1993)
opinion, the system accounting for the selection of one of the two registers is
similar to that accounting for the selection of one language rather than another.
Many neurologists and neurolinguists have discussed the possible
neurological organization of the switch mechanisms. Some of them, generally
defined as localizationists, claim that the activation of a specific language (for
example L1) and the concurrent inhibition of the other languages (e.g. L2, L3, and
the like) is subserved by specific brain areas. For example, Leischner (1943)
claimed that this center is localized in the left supramarginal gyrus, whereas,
according to Stengel and Zelmanovicz (1933) and Zatorre (1989), it is localized in
anterior structures of the left hemisphere. In Lebrun’s opinion (1971), the
switching mechanism is localized in the right hemisphere. Other authors have
criticized the idea of an anatomical center governing language switching.
Goldstein (1948), for example, suggested that any cerebral lesion impairs
switching between mental processes, and that the faculty of switching is only an
example of the more general faculty of abstraction. Paradis (1993) claims that
switching mechanisms are only one aspect of a more general system involved in
decision-taking processes.
In Paradis’ opinion, the switch function is part of a general system
responsible for the selection of behaviors such as standing up or sitting down,
speaking Italian or English, etc. Recent evidence suggests that the language
switching mechanism involves the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (Fabbro, Skrap,
and Aglioti, 2000; Hernandez, Dapretto, Mazziotta, and Bookheimer, 2001;
Holtzeimer, Fawatz, Wilson, and Avery, 2005). Indeed, Fabbro et al. (2000) report
the case of a bilingual patient with a lesion to the left anterior cingulated and to
the frontal lobe (marginally involving also the right anterior cingulate area). After
that lesion, the patient presented pathological switching between languages in the
absence of any other linguistic impairment.
Once the target lexical node has been selected, the formulator gains access
to its semantic, morphosyntactic and morphological features (lemma level) and
then to its phonological form (lexeme level). In case of single word production the
lexical information is directly transmitted to the articulator. In case of sentence
production, however, the information stored in the lemma level of word
representation is used to generate the argumental structure and hence the syntactic
organization of the sentence. At this point, the articulator converts the speech plan
into actual speech. During speech production in bilinguals both selected and
active languages are simultaneously activated at all levels with the exception of
the articulatory subsystem, which remains inactive for the non-selected language
(de Bot, 1992). The articulator transforms the strings of syllables of the selected
language in articulatory patterns. It is assumed that syllable articulatory programs
are automatized and that the level of automatism correlates with the level of
proficiency which, in turn, is a function of age of L2 acquisition.
In other words, a multilingual speaker can pronounce as a native speaker
words and sentences in two or more languages only if he/she has correctly
automatized the syllable articulatory programs before the age of 8. Advanced
bilinguals, usually early bilinguals, may have only one large articulatory system
containing all syllable articulatory programs for all the languages they master,
whereas less proficient bilinguals, usually late bilinguals, may have independent
stores for each language (e.g. Flege and Fletcher, 1992).

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
How much would Bill Murray have liked to be able to speak Japanese!
Bill Murray’s character in the movie Lost in Translation exemplifies the way we
feel when trying to communicate with someone that does not speak the same
language. Often, in such cases, the exchange of information is disrupted and even
translation does not seem to capture the communicative intention of the
interlocutors. Thus, to be able to speak two languages at will is obviously a
worthy skill to have. However, there is also a potential drawback, namely,
bilingual speakers need to control their production in such away that the two
languages do not end up mix edinanin appropriate manner during the discourse.
For example, if Bill Murray would have been an English–Japanese bilingual, he
would have had to be careful not to use English words when speaking to the
director of the commercial.
 This poses interesting problems to researchers in cognitive psychology:
How does a bilingual speaker control her two languages during speech
production? How do bilingual speakers manage to avoid massive interference
from the language they are not using? What is the role of the language-not-in-use
during lexical retrieval and phonological encoding? The articles included in this
issue aim at discussing the answers that have been put forward to some of these
questions. Of all topics covered by psycholinguistics perhaps the two most
neglected are bilingualism and language production. That is, most of the research
focuses on a) understanding language processing in monolingual contexts and b)
discovering the mechanisms involved in the receptive side of language. As a
consequence, our knowledge of the mechanisms and representations involved in
bilingual language production is limited. However, and despite this limitation, in
the last 10years, the number of studies that have addressed issues related to
bilingual speech production has increased considerably. This research has
especially helped in sharpening theoretical questions and creating a general
concurrence as to what features a model of speech production for bilingual
speakers must account for. As a result, we now have a theoretical framework from
which precise questions can be asked and from which detaile dhypothesesand
prediction scan be tested.
This has been a fundamental accomplishment that hopefully will generate
an increasing number of experimental studies helping to advance our knowledge
of how a single mind is able to produce speech in two (or more) different
languages. In this respect the emergence of the journal Bilingualism: Language
and Cognition in 1998 has played a relevant role in providing an interdisciplinary
outlet in which to discuss issues related to bilingual speech production from many
different perspectives (linguistics, psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics, etc.). Given
this state of affairs, we thought it was time to edit a Special Issue on Lexical
Access in Bilingual Speech Production, where different researchers will discuss
the most relevant observations and theoretical positions that have recently been
put forward. Additionally, from the beginning there was never a doubt that
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition was the right journal for such an issue to
appear.
 The seven articles included in this issue are the result of this initiative. As
mentioned earlier, one of the central issues in bilingual speech production refers to
the mechanisms that allow bilingual speakers to control their different languages
during language production. The main question here is: How do bilingual
speakers manage to produce speech in the intended language while preventing
massive interference from their other language(s)? This question revolves around
the issue of lexical access in speech production, and more concretely, what has
been called lexical selection. That is, in the course of speech production speakers
need to select the words from the lexicon that match their communicative
intention. Bilingual speakers not only need to ensure that the selected word
corresponds to the intended concept, but also that it corresponds to the appropriate
language in which the communicative act is being carried. Perhaps this is the
question that has attracted most research in recent years and, as a consequence, all
articles presented in this issue pay especial attention to it. In the first article, Kroll,
Bobb and Wodniecka state their case for a model in which language selection does
not have only a single locus.
Rather, they argue that the level at which language selection is achieved on
a set of factors that vary according to the experience of the bilingual, the demands
of the production task, and the degree of activity of the non-target language. In
doing so, they make an excellent review of the existing data on the issue of lexical
selection in bilingual speakers. Furthermore, they try to reconcile the seemingly
contradictory results by identifying the different factors that, according to the
authors ,may affect the level at which language selection takes place. The second
contribution, from Costa, La Heij and Navarrete, focuses on the dynamics of
bilingual lexical access. The basic issue assessed in this article is to what extent
the lexical and sub lexical representations of the non-response language are
activated during lexical access.
The authors offer a critical review of the experimental evidence in favor of
the parallel activation of the two languages of a bilingual, both from the semantic
to the lexical, and from the lexical to the sub lexical levels. The authors conclude
that it is some what premature to embrace the assumption of a parallel activation
of the bilingual’s two languages. They also propose various possibilities in which
this issue can be tested, and introduce the need to assess whether the bilingual
system honors the principle of interactivity between levels of representation. A
different and fresh look at the issue of lexical selection in bilingual speakers is
found in the next article, by Finkbeiner, Gollanand Caramazza. The sea uthors
refer to bilingual lexical access as the “hard problem”, but quickly argue that the
problem may not be as hard as it seems at first sight.
They argue that the models that have been proposed to describe the
process of lexical selection in bilinguals have difficulties in accounting for the full
range of findings in the literature. In this scenario, the authors make an interesting
shift of perspective, and argue that this failure may stem from the embracement of
a basic (although controversial) assumption of models of monolingual lexical
access: the competitive nature of lexical selection. They further argue that if one
drops such an assumption, then the “hard problem” of bilingual lexical access is
not so hard after all, as competition between different lexical alternatives across
languages will not be present. This is an interesting novel proposal and an
example of how research in bilingualism may provide useful insights into general
issues of language processing in monolinguals as well. In the fourth article,
Roelofs and Verhoef focus on a further step in the processes of lexical access, that
in which the phonological properties of the target word are retrieved. Assuming
the parallel activation of the phonological forms of words in two languages,
bilinguals need to develop a control mechanism that ensures phonological
encoding in the desired language (and not of the corresponding translation). They
propose a bilingual control model in which condition-action rules determine what
is done with the activated phonological information depending on the target
language. They further put to test this view by simulating two sets of results that
have been interpreted as revealing the process of phonological encoding (the
cognate facilitation effect and the between-language phonological facilitation
effect of spoken distractor words in object naming).
The fifth contribution, by Hernandez and Meschyan, is oriented more
towards empirical findings. The authors explore the extent to which speech
production in second language (L2) involves a more effortful lexical retrieval than
in first language (L1). To do so, they ask participants to name pictures in either
their L1 or L2, while being scanned by functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging
(fMRI). The results of the experiment reveal an increased activity in various brain
areas for L2 naming, suggesting that picture naming in a less proficient L2
requires more effort to establish links between motor codes and visual forms. In
the sixth article, De Groot and Christoffels discuss issues about language control
in the context of simultaneous interpreting. The authors discuss how models of
bilingual language production need to be adapted in order to give an account of
the performance of simultaneous interpreters, and review some of the critical
findings in this domain. They place special emphasis on the notion of a “global”
control, where control involves the activation and/or inhibition of complete
language systems, and “local” control, which has impact on a restricted set of
memory representations. They further argue that bilingual control is a special case
of the control of action in general, and therefore, from this perspective,
simultaneous interpreters offer a unique opportunity to investigate bilingual
control in general. The last contribution, by Myers-Scotton, brings the perspective
of a contact linguist to this special issue. The author discusses findings and
hypotheses from empirical data of naturally- occurring code switching that are
relevant to the questions being asked by psycholinguists. In particular, the author
first interprets some of the data observed in code-switching from a linguistic
perspective, and then generates hypotheses that can be studied in the laboratory.
This is a very productive, although at the same time, a very difficult enterprise that
the author accomplishes quite nicely. The result of this collection of articles is, in
our view, a rather comprehensive state of the art of lexical access in Bilingual
Language Production, in terms of the review of both the experimental evidence
and theoretical perspectives. Furthermore, by pointing out some the weakness of
the theoretical explanations, the reader will hopefully be inspired to develop new
experimental research. Finally, and although most of the contributions correspond
to cognitive psychologists, an effort has been made to craft the articles in such a
way that are accessible to scientists of other disciplines.
We would like to finish this Introduction by making the following
reflection. Given that bilingualism is a wide spread phenomenon an ditis
becoming the rule rather than the exception in economically developed countries,
a deep understanding of the cognitive and brain mechanisms involved in language
production can only be achieved if explored in the context of bilingual speakers. If
we factor out such a variable from our analyses and explore questions related to
speech production only from the monolingual perspective, an important part of the
story will be neglected. This is an important point in the context of speech
production, given that the need of controlling two languages during lexicalization
involves a set of cognitive processes that may interact in complex ways with the
linguistic system of the speaker. As a consequence, if we do not address speech
production from a bilingual perspective, we run the risk of ending up with the
wrong (or at best limited) model of speech production. Finally, we wish to thank
all who contributed to this Special Issue, and also to there viewers, whose
comments’ and feedback guarantee the quality of the present set of articles. Also,
we would like to thank the editors of Bilingualism: Language and Cognition for
their enthusiasm with which the proposal was received, and especially to David
Green for his advice and direction through this long process that started in
November of 2003.
REFFERENCE

Albert Costa, Dept. Psicologia B`asica, Universitat de Barcelona, P. Vall

d’Hebron, 171, 08035 Barcelona, Spain

Abutalebi J, Cappa SF and Perani D (2001). The bilingual brain as revealed by

functional neuroimaging. Bilingualism Lang.

Cogn., 4: 179-190 Albert, M.L., and Obler, L.K. (1978). The bilingual brain. New

York: Academic Press.

Asher J, and Garcia R (1969). The optimal age to learn a foreign language.

Modern Language Journal, 28: 334-341

Bloomfield L (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Butler

YG and Hakuta K (2004). Bilingualism and Second Language Acquisition.

In T K Bhatia and W C Ritchie (eds.) The Handbook of Bilingualism. (pp. 114-

144).

Blakwell Publishing. Malden , MA Caplan D (1992). Language. Structure,

processing and disorders.

Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press Chee, M. W. L., Tan, E. W. L., and Thiel,

T. (1999). Mandarian and English single word processing studied with

functional magnetic resonance imaging. The Journal of Neuroscience, 19,

3050–3056.

Chen H-C. and Leung Y.S. (1989). Patterns of lexical processing in a nonnative

language. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn., 15, 316-325.

Chomsky N (1988). Language and problems of knowledge: the Managua

Lectures, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts Chomsky, N. (1995). The

minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.