scholarly journals Semantic facilitation and lexical access during sentence processing: An investigation of individual differences

1979 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 346-353 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald J. Foss ◽  
Randolph K. Cirilo ◽  
Michelle A. Blank
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Lexical Access ◽  
Sentence Processing

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN READING: THE CASE FOR LEXICAL ACCESS

1994 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 285-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Jay Samuels ◽  
Jan Carol Näslund
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Lexical Access

scholarly journals The semantic network, lexical access, and reading comprehension in monolingual and bilingual children: An individual differences study—CORRIGENDUM

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 461-461
Author(s):  
TESSA SPÄTGENS ◽  
ROB SCHOONEN
Keyword(s):  
Reading Comprehension ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Lexical Access ◽  
Semantic Network ◽  
Bilingual Children

In the article by Spätgens and Schoonen, the penultimate paragraph on page 237 incorrectly states that the coding for the Animacy variable is “(0 inanimate, 1 animate).” The correct coding should instead read “(0 animate, 1 inanimate).” We regret this omission and any problems it may have caused.

scholarly journals Individual differences in processing pseudo-inflected nonwords

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Schwarz ◽  
Mirjana Bozic ◽  
Brechtje Post
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Lexical Access ◽  
Word Processing ◽  
Morphological Processing ◽  
Vocabulary Size ◽  
Visual Priming ◽  
Morphological Segmentation ◽  
Visual Access ◽  
Whole Word

While the role of word stems has received much attention in morphological processing, the effects of inflectional suffixes on lexical access remain unclear. We address this gap as well as the contribution of individual differences on morphological segmentation with a visual priming experiment. Inflected and uninflected nonwords were preceded by a non-linguistic baseline string or the target’s suffix/word-final letters (e.g. XXXXing  SMOYING). The results indicate that the suffix length is crucial for morphological effects to surface in visual priming and that morphological processing may be modulated by the individual’s reading profile and vocabulary size. We interpret this as evidence for variable morphemic activation: morphological cues can facilitate visual access when rapid whole-word processing is unavailable. The theoretical implications are discussed.

scholarly journals Parsing preferences and individual differences in nonnative sentence processing: Evidence from eye movements

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-151
Author(s):  
Yesi Cheng ◽  
Jason Rothman ◽  
Ian Cunnings
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Lexical Processing ◽  
English Studies ◽  
Processing Efficiency ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
Attachment Preference ◽  
Ambiguity Advantage ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Processing Mechanisms

AbstractUsing both offline and online measures, the present study investigates attachment resolution in relative clauses in English natives (L1) and nonnatives (L2). We test how relative clause resolution interacts with linguistic factors and participant-level individual differences. Previous L1 English studies have demonstrated a low attachment preference and also an “ambiguity advantage” suggesting that L1ers may not have as strong a low attachment preference as is sometimes claimed. We employ a similar design to examine this effect in L1 and L2 comprehension. Offline results indicate that both groups exhibit a low attachment preference, positively correlated with reading span scores and with proficiency in the L2 group. Online results also suggest a low attachment preference in both groups. However, our data show that individual differences influence online attachment resolution for both native and nonnatives; higher lexical processing efficiency correlates with quicker resolution of linguistic conflicts. We argue that the current findings suggest that attachment resolution during L1 and L2 processing share the same processing mechanisms and are modulated by similar individual differences.

scholarly journals Individual differences in late bilinguals' L2 phonological processes: From acoustic-phonetic analysis to lexical access

2012 ◽  
Vol 22 (6) ◽  
pp. 680-689 ◽  
Author(s):  
Begoña Díaz ◽  
Holger Mitterer ◽  
Mirjam Broersma ◽  
Núria Sebastián-Gallés
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Lexical Access ◽  
Phonological Processes ◽  
Late Bilinguals

scholarly journals Semantic facilitation and lexical access during sentence processing

1978 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
pp. 644-652 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle A. Blank ◽  
Donald J. Foss
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Access ◽  
Sentence Processing
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document