Interlanguage correspondences and their manifestation in receptive bilinguals

Interlanguage correspondences and their manifestation in receptive bilinguals Adam Kříž (Charles University, Prague)— Jan Chromý (Charles University, Prague) ADAM KŘÍŽ — JAN CHROMÝ ABSTRACT The current paper presents the results of aqualitative analysis of speech errors made during the L2 picture-naming task in the context of two mutually intelligible languages. The task was performed by native speakers of Slovak and its target language was Czech. The errors demonstrate that production is partly based on the so-called interlanguage analogies and interiorized rules derived from them. Such issues have been rather overlooked in the previous literature. Our qualitative findings offer aviable starting point for formulating novel hypotheses for quantitative studies on lexical access in bilinguals. The evidence discussed here shows that examining less commonly studied languages in their specific contexts can substantially enrich the research that has traditionally focused on better studied languages, such as English, French, German or Dutch. KEYWORDS bilingualism, Czech, picture-naming task, production errors, Slovak DOI https://doi.org/10.14712/18059635.2022.1.6 1 INTRODUCTION One of the central questions in the (psycholinguistic) research on bilingualism is to what extent both are languages activated during language comprehension and production. The existing scientific evidence points clearly to the conclusion that the cross-language activation in abilingual is always present, even when processing items from just one of the languages available to the bilingual individual (e.g., de Groot 2011; Broersma, Carter and Acheson 2016; Frances, Navarra-Barindelli and Martin 2021; Hoshino, Beat ty-Martínez, Navarro-Torres and Kroll 2021). However, it is still debatable how items from two different languages really interact with one another and at what level of language processing the interaction takes place. The current paper1 deals with several important theoretical accounts of bilingual language processing, with aspecific focus on speech production and cognates. The research tradition in this field has largely focused on examining generally well-studied languages, such as English, French, Spanish or Dutch. In contrast, the current paper presents the results of aqualitative analysis of picture-naming data 1 The work was supported by the European Regional Development Fund project “Creativity and Adaptability as Conditions of the Success of Europe in an Interrelated World” (reg. no.: CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000734). OPEN ACCESS 108 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 1/2022 from an empirical study conducted on rather understudied languages, namely Czech and Slovak. Specifically, we examine the types of errors made by native speakers of Slovak in naming pictures in Czech. The investigation of errors in apicture-naming task in two closely related, mutually intelligible languages represents aunique research design which can consequently provide important findings about bilingual lexical access in general. 2 COGNATES AND BILINGUAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING Generally, the evidence for cross-language activation comes mainly from studies manipulating lexical stimuli with formal similarities across the languages under investigation. Among these, the so-called cognates occupy aprominent position. Cognates are defined as words which share meaning and form across the languages. The formal overlap can be total (identical cognates, e.g., finger in English, Finger in German) or just partial to various degrees (e.g., garden in English, Garten in German). Cognates fall into what Woolard (1999) terms bivalent elements. As she shows, mainly in the Castilian-Catalan setting, such elements can be deployed socially meaningfully and strategically by members of the respective speech communities. At the same time, it can be argued that they serve as tools for preventing amisunderstanding in bilingual communication (see Nábělková and Sloboda 2008). Thus, as such, they play asignificant role in language adaptation and accommodation. The reason to believe that they can be utilized strategically and intentionally stems also from findings that they are learned more easily than non-cognate forms (e.g., Comesaña, Soares and Lima 2010) and are processed/produced more quickly and accurately than non-cognates (e.g., Lemhöfer, Huestegge and Mulder 2018). These findings are known as the cognate facilitation effect. The cognate facilitation effect in the simple picture-naming task can be explained by the double activation boost of the phonological form of the cognate. The boost comes from two languages, instead of only one in the case of non-cognate (e.g., Kroll, Bobb, Misra and Guo 2008: 421). Costa, Santesteban and Caño (2005: 99–101) postulate that lexical nodes of co-activated units trigger the activation of corresponding phonological units. Because cognates share (more or less) the same form, the phonological units receive arelatively high activation. Furthermore, according to the authors, the phonological segments send the activation back to the formerly activated lexical units and they, in turn, send it to the formal segments. Several iterations are assumed until the target representation is selected. Apparently, the presented view is based on the idea of interactive processing, involving feedback between the respective levels. This view accounts for the difference in the effect magnitude between the dominant and non-dominant languages. The activation level of the lexical nodes belonging to the dominant language is higher, hence they can effectively boost the activation of the segments of anon-dominant language target. In contrast, when producing words in the dominant language, their activation is already high enough, so any additional boost is not necessary or effective (although see Klaus, Lemhöfer and Schriefers 2018, OPEN ACCESS ADAM Kříž — JAN CHROMý 109 who demonstrate using apicture-word interference task with L1 Dutch and L2 English speakers that even L2 properties affect L1 production). The proposed existence of the feedback between lexical and phonological nodes, as incorporated in Costa, Santesteban and Caño (2005), can also mean competition at the lemma/lexical level. Broersma, Carter and Acheson (2016) argue that this competition can lead to the cognate inhibition effect. At the same time, they add that the inhibition can be outweighed by the benefits at the phonological level. Additionally, Li and Gollan (2018: 926) consider the higher cross-language competition in cognates as aprecondition for higher intrusion and self-correction rates in cognates, as opposed to non-cognates. The authors (ibid.) frame this consideration within the conflict-monitoring hypothesis concerning the self-monitoring of speech (Nozari, Dell and Schwartz 2011). The above accounts of cognate effects suppose that the effect is the result of the general features of the processing system. However, there are also different approaches based on the postulation that cognates are represented differently from non-cognates. Costa, Santesteban and Caño (2005: 97–98) mention that the effect can stem either from larger morphological overlap (i.e. shared morphological representations) or from larger conceptual overlap (i.e. shared conceptual representations). Nevertheless, the authors reject both approaches. First, they argue it is unclear how the final correct pronunciation of the cognates would be executed if the stem were shared across the languages. According to Costa, Santesteban and Caño (2005), the assumption that there are rules for form transformation between languages seems to be rather unconvincing. They claim that there is no obvious systematicity in the creation of cognates from the same stem across languages. Second, the same authors claim it is unclear to them how the formal similarities can impact semantic dimensions. However, De Groot (2011: 247) offers apossible explanation. She references studies on L2 vocabulary acquisition and argues that during this process, L2 learners can perceive cognate similarity as acue, saying that the meaning of the form(s) is more similar than it is the case in other words. As aresult, the different meaning representations in cognates can arise. One link between the processing and representational aspects of bilingual production can be found in the concepts of language cue and language tag. The WEAVER++ model (Roelofs 2018; Dell and Cholin 2012), which is aspecific modification of Levelt’s model (Levelt 1989), suggests that the intention to speak aparticular language is encoded in the conceptualizer. The intention is materialized in the form of alanguage cue as part of the preverbal message. In addition, the model holds that each lemma encompasses the information on language membership in the form of alanguage tag. The match between the language cue and the language tag leads to ahigher activation of the target and consequently to its production (see de Groot 2011: 228–229). De Groot (ibid.: 229) adds that concepts that are similar to the language cue and tag are broadly accepted in the models of bilingual speech production, indicating that they help bilingual individuals to identify the intended language during language processing. The task of language cue/tag can be interpreted differently depending on which theoretical stance is taken. Inherent in most models is the assumption that the activation going from the conceptual level to the lexical level is generalizable across OPEN ACCESS 110 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 1/2022 languages (Klaus, Lemhöfer and Schriefers 2018: 867). The real inconsistencies and divisions can be found in the discussions about the language-specificity of the lexical selection (ibid.: 867). Broersma, Carter and Acheson (2016) survey the views that treat the competition for selection as an optional mechanism or one that emerges mainly in less proficient bilinguals (e.g., Costa and Santesteban 2004). This reflects the claims made by Kroll, Bobb, Misra and Guo (2008: 417) that “the intention to speak one language alone may be influenced by the relative dominance of the two languages for the bilingual, by the context in which spoken production occurs, and by features of the two languages themselves”. This topic was discussed also by de Groot (2011: 229), among others, who elaborates on the theoretical approaches that focus on tackling the communicative situations, whereby language mixing does not pose any serious issue for aspeaker (ibid.). She recalls De Bot’s approach (De Bot 1992), which assumes the simultaneous generation of two speech plans, which allows rapid language switches. Additionally, de Groot cites De Bot and Schreuder’s approach (De Bot and Schreuder 1993) according to which the language cue is weighted, depending on the consequences of language mixing in aparticular situation. It holds that in contexts where language mixing is not uncommon and communicatively disruptive, the weight assigned to the language cue can be low, which in turn allows the production of amixed output. 3 PRESENT STUDY: THE CZECH-SLOVAK CONTEXT The psycholinguistic empirical research addressing the processing and production issues in bilinguals covers studies from various settings and contexts. Acrucial difference lies in the targeted population. The focus has been on both monolingual and bi-/ multilingual populations (Antón-Méndez and Gollan 2010), on proficient and nonproficient bilinguals (Allen and Conklin 2013), on speakers acquiring their second language in the natural environment and on speakers learning L2 in classroom settings (Poarch and van Hell 2012), on clinical and non-clinical populations (Grasso, Peña, Bedore, Hixon and Griffin 2018), on speakers using two related languages (Dutch-English; Muylle, Van Assche and Hartsuiker 2022), two relatively distant languages (Spanish-English; Hoshino and Kroll 2008) or totally different languages with different orthographic systems (Japanese-English; ibid.). However, there are still language constellations which are understudied and which have apotential to contribute to the general debates about the essence of bilingual production and processing. One such constellation is the Czech-Slovak language context. Both languages belonging to the West-Slavic language family are genetically and socially closely related, which underlies their mutual intelligibility. Structurally, Czech and Slovak can be perceived as a dialect continuum (Dickins 2009). As such, shared cognates (be it identical or non-identical ones) dominate over non-cognates in both lexicons. This can be seen as one peculiarity characterizing the languages in question. Word forms that share meanings but look and sound completely different are salient exceptions and often become subjects of popular comments or jokes. ReOPEN ACCESS ADAM Kříž — JAN CHROMý 111 garding formally shared items, Nábělková and Sloboda (2008) distinguish between bivalent elements (see Woolard 1999 above) and parallel elements. The former correspond to identical cognates, the latter to non-identical cognates. Aconsiderable number of parallel elements contain systematic interlanguage correspondences. Here, Sloboda’s (2004) term of interlanguage analogies is of relevance to understanding how non-identical cognates function. Sloboda (ibid.) claims that Czech and Slovak speakers develop interlanguage analogies to identify the units of asecond language. Analogies can cover more language levels and are derived from monitoring regularities in the differences between languages, e.g. the awareness of the existence of non-identical cognate pairs, such as smích (Czech)— smiech (Slovak) ‚laugh‘, líh— lieh ‚alcohol‘, mícha— miecha ‚spinal cord‘, can lead to forming an analogy í— ie, i.e. an interiorized rule, which says that í (in certain positions and certain words) corresponds to ie in the second language. The Czech-Slovak sociolinguistic context resembles the situation in Scandinavian languages. Thus certain terms describing its core features are adopted from or, conversely, can be applied to Swedish-Danish-Norwegian sociolinguistic situations. One such term is semi-communication (Haugen 1966). The term was introduced specifically for inter-Scandinavian communication and stresses the fact that divergence between languages can cause communication noise and misunderstandings. Over the course of time, its popularity among researchers has decreased as it is perceived to be misleading, and alternative terms are used instead (Braunmüller 2002). Receptive bilingualism can be taken as an example (e.g., Zeevaert and ten Thije 2007). The term refers simply to communication situations in which aspeaker sticks to his/her own native language, while being able to understand the second language used by the interlocutor. Despite the mutual comprehensibility, the switching to the second language or attempts to acquire it can be detected, especially in the context of living/being in the second language environment. As far as Slovaks living in the Czech Republic are concerned, the accommodation to Czech is supported by the publicly discussed problems of Czechs— and namely young Czechs— to understand the Slovak language properly (Sloboda 2004). The accommodation to Czech is also driven by tendencies to adjust behaviors to the majority norms (ibid.) or is based on Slovak speakers perceiving the vitality of the Slovak language as low (Sloboda 2005). It is worth noting that the decision to acquire Czech is usually not accompanied by attempts to do so officially, in classes or by using grammar books. The second language acquisition in this context takes place naturally by observing patterns that occur in everyday speech. The data suggest that the Slovaks’ accommodation to Czech concerns mainly noncognates (Musilová 2006). 4 PRESENT STUDY: METHODOLOGY BACKGROUND AND GOALS We conducted an empirical study on two subpopulations of native speakers of Slovak using one of the most widely used paradigms in speech production research, namely OPEN ACCESS 112 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 1/2022 L2 picture-naming task. Two subpopulations were tested— Slovaks living in Slovakia and Slovaks living in Prague on along-term basis. Thus we tested a) receptive bilinguals in their L1 environment and b) receptive bilinguals immersed fully in the L2 environment. The research that aims at speech production (in bilinguals) using behavioral methods is concerned mainly with the analysis of reaction times in the tasks employed. It is not to say that the research on bilingualism is totally oblivious to the (qualitative) analysis of errors, but those are mostly tracked in studies with clinical populations. For example, Gollan, Stasenko, Li and Salmon (2017) focus on reading errors in Spanish-English bilinguals with Alzheimer’s disease, and McMillen, Griffin, Peña, Bedore and Oppenhneim (2020) present work on error patterns in abloc cyclic naming task in Spanish-English bilingual children with and without developmental language disorder. Existing research distinguishes errors like intrusions, semantic errors, selfcorrections, no responses, cut-offs or phonological errors including alliterations or non-words (McMillen, Griffin, Peña, Bedore and Oppenhneim 2020). Poulisse (2000) classifies several types of speech errors (slips of the tongue) and discusses their origin. In her paper on Dutch-English bilinguals and their speech, she puts aspecial emphasis on the so-called L1/L2 blends consisting of features from both languages. See, for instance, he cwame as amixture of the Dutch kwam and the English came. She interprets such blends as the result of simultaneous activation of both languages. Any comments on, or definition of, systematic errors mirroring interlanguage correspondences are absent in her list. Our main goal is to show that in the receptive bilingual situation with two genetically closely related languages the L2 word production can lead to specific incomplete, non-target units. These units can be described as L1/L2 blends containing features of both languages in question. We believe they are based on what Sloboda (2004) calls interlanguage analogies. The occurrence of such forms can stem from blurred/absent representations of the L2 word form itself. The blurred/absent representations are then the result of the speakers’ lower need to fully, intentionally acquire L2 material and consequently of their relatively lower L2 proficiency. PARTICIPANTS The group of Slovak speakers living in Slovakia comprised 30 participants (16 women and 14 men). Their mean age was 20.8 years (range = 18–24, SD = 1.5). The group of Slovak speakers living in the Czech Republic comprised 46 participants (31 women, 15 men) with amean age of 33 years (range = 20–60, SD = 9.3), the mean age of migration to the Czech Republic was 22.7 years (range = 17–47, SD = 6.5) and the mean length of residence in the Czech Republic was 9.9 years (range = 20 months— 37 years, SD = 7.2). Several self-assessment scales were used to measure the participants’ proficiency in Czech or Slovak and their exposure to these languages. Their responses are summarized in Table 1; the numbers indicate how many respondents picked the corresponding option on the scale. OPEN ACCESS ADAM Kříž — JAN CHROMý 113 Participant group Variable and points on thescale Czech proficiency very bad bad average good very good native-like Slovaks in Slovakia 12 14 4 Slovaks in Czechia 2 16 25 3 Czech spoken production almost never rarely sometimes often very often Slovaks in Slovakia 16 11 3 Slovaks in Czechia 5 6 13 11 11 Exposure to Czech audio-visual content almost never rarely sometimes often very often Slovaks in Slovakia 1 3 4 11 11 Slovaks in Czechia 5 11 15 15 Slovak spoken production almost never rarely sometimes often very often Slovaks in Czechia 1 1 5 10 29 Exposure to Slovak audio-visual content almost never rarely sometimes often very often Slovaks in Czechia 9 14 13 7 3 Table 1.Self-assessment scales The table shows that the proficiency and production of Czech is at ahigher level in the Slovaks in Czechia than in the Slovaks in Slovakia, while the passive encounter does not differ much. No participant reported any clinical speech or cognitive deficit or vision problems. Just two participants (both from the group of Slovaks living in Slovakia) stated that their native language, along with Slovak, is Hungarian. The remaining participants all identified themselves as monolingual Slovak speakers (note that in the CzechSlovak sociolinguistic context, it is very rare that Czech/Slovak speakers consider themselves bilingual, even though they understand the second respective language, see Nábělková 2008). Twenty-five Slovaks in Czechia assessed their current Slovak competence as worse than before moving to the country. The other participants in the group see no change. STIMULI For the stimuli selection, the BOSS database was used (Brodeur, Dionne-Dostie, Montreuil and Lepage 2010; Brodeur, Guérard and Bouras 2014). The database contains color photographs of various objects on awhite background. 156 pictures were selected, covering several semantic categories (vegetables and fruits, food, animals, tools, buildings, products, body parts, and furniture) and names classified as identiOPEN ACCESS 114 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 1/2022 cal cognates (n = 62), non-identical cognates (n = 58) and completely different words (n = 36). Non-identical cognates included words differing just by one phonological unit (kohout /Czech/— kohút /Slovak/ ‚cockerel‘) or more elements (loket /Czech/— lakeť /Slovak/ ‚elbow‘). Just 136 items were the subject of analysis as some of the items served as fillers. PROCEDURE The participants took part in individual experimental sessions. Written instructions were presented in the participants’ native language for the Slovaks living in Slovakia, whilst the Slovaks living in the Czech Republic could choose between Slovak or Czech instructions. When explaining the instructions and communicating with the participants, the experimenter used the Czech language. The participants gave their informed consent and got afinancial reward for their participation. The task was designed using the DMDX software package (Forster and Forster 2003) and was run on aDell Inspiron 15 5559 laptop, with amonitor size of 15,6” and resolution of 1920x1080. Each individual trial consisted of apresentation of afixation cross (+) for 350ms, which was then replaced by aphotograph. The photograph remained on the screen for the maximum of 5000ms. The trials were presented in arandom order for each participant. The participants wore headphones with amicrophone and were asked to name the object on the screen as quickly as possible. They were told to produce aCzech one-word name. The recordings were coded and analyzed using the software package CheckVocal (Protopapas 2007). After the task, each participant completed ashort interview in which they were asked questions about their own task performance. 5 PRESENT STUDY: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The participants in both groups produced various types of errors ranging from nonresponses to total intrusions (e.g., saying aSlovak word, non-cognate or non-identical cognate, instead of aCzech form). Our focus was on aspecific speech error type. We assumed that the close relatedness of the languages can lead to systematic L1/L2 blends reflecting frequent interlanguage correspondences/rules/analogies (we use all three terms interchangeably). Crucially, we detected such blends in both participant groups. In what follows, we provide examples and ashort classification of the blends. As our intention is merely to present evidence for this error type, we do not make any proper distinction between the participant groups when summarizing the data. Only at some places we mention whether agiven error comes from aSlovak living in Slovakia or in Czechia. It is done just to underscore the fact that both groups exhibit similar behaviors. Subsequently, we turn our attention also to intrusions as we think they are indicative of certain aspects of language processing which hold also for L1/L2 blends. Finally, we try to identify primary mechanisms underlying the speech error types under analysis. Generally, we claim that incorrect speech outputs stem either from the specifics of L2 word representation or from issues in the speech production (or both). OPEN ACCESS ADAM Kříž — JAN CHROMý 115 L1/L2 BLENDS WITH INTERLANGUAGE CORRESPONDENCES This type of errors (blends) supports the notion of independent representations of regular interlanguage analogies. To give ageneral example of an interlanguage analogy, Slovak ending -ok corresponds in many Czech equivalents to -ek, for instance, lepok (Slovak)— lepek (Czech) ‚gluten‘, korok (Slovak)— korek (Czech) ‚cork‘. Both languages contain also equivalents consisting of identical sounds (in case of -ok— -ek it is the identical cognates potok ‚brook‘ or oblek ‚suit‘, for example). However, we propose that the number of pairs containing the -ok— -ek distinction and the frequency of their use make the distinction salient enough to be abasis for the creation of an interlanguage rule/analogy, as is suggested by Sloboda (2004). Such analogies are then represented as special psycholinguistic units in the speakers’ minds and can be apart of language processing/production (similarly to the representations of phonemes, affixes etc.). Depending on several factors (general language activation, language proficiency, word activation, speech settings, etc.), aspeaker can get confused and apply an analogy inappropriately (e.g. in aword which is identical across the languages). In the picture-naming data from our experiment, we identified several types of non-existing words which differ from the targets only by awrongly applied analogy. The inappropriate application of an analogy included the insertion of aCzech version of an analogy: 1.into an identical cognate, 2.into anon-identical cognate, 3.into aSlovak non-cognate, 4.into aCzech non-cognate, further 5.placing aSlovak version of an analogy into aCzech non-cognate and 6.combining Czech and Slovak versions of analogies in non-identical cognates. Regarding type 1 (Czech version of an analogy in an identical cognate), we observed aparticipant (aSlovak in Czechia) producing the non-word žralek which was immediately repaired as žralok (see the analogy -ok— -ek discussed above; the word žralok ‚shark‘ is an identical cognate). Asimilar outcome occurred also in aparticipant (aSlovak in Czechia) naming the picture of an elephant slůn, even though both languages have the same name for the animal, slon. The non-word was immediately changed to the correct word by the subject. This time, the initial mismatch was apparently derived from the observation of the ó/o/ô (Slovak)— ů (Czech) correspondence, e.g., trón (Slovak)— trůn (Czech) ‚throne‘, soľ (Slovak)— sůl (Czech) ‚salt‘, stôl (Slovak)— stůl (Czech) ‚table‘. Other examples include forms like tulen for seal (produced by three Slovaks in Slovakia and six Slovaks in the Czech Republic, the correct word is tuleň, based on the analogy -eň— -en, e.g. Slovak word: jeleň, Czech word: jelen ‚deer‘); or soud (produced by two Slovaks in Slovakia, once corrected to the correct form sud ‚barrel‘, and produced by two Slovaks in the Czech Republic, based on the analogy u/ú— ou, e.g. Slovak word: kút, Czech word: kout ‚corner‘). Type 2 (Czech version of an analogy in anon-identical cognate) covers outputs like studně (produced by two Slovaks in Slovakia and four Slovaks in Czechia, the analogy is a— eat the end of words following certain consonants, cf. Slovak word studňa, Czech word studna ‚water well‘) or kuš (produced by ten Slovaks in Slovakia, motivated by the analogy ô— ů, cf. Slovak word kôš, Czech word koš ‚bin‘). Examples of type 3 (Czech version of an analogy in aSlovak non-cognate) include ďumbír (produced by aSlovak in Slovakia; analogy ie— í, Slovak word ďumbier, Czech word zázvor ‚ginger‘), lívik (produced by aSlovak in Slovakia, then corrected to lievik; OPEN ACCESS 122 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 1/2022 REFERENCES Allen, D.B. and K.Conklin (2013) Crosslinguistic similarity and task demands in Japanese-English bilingual processing. PLoS One 8/8, e72631. Antón-Méndez, I. and T.H.Gollan (2010) Not just semantics: Strong frequency and weak cognate effects on semantic association in bilinguals. Memory & Cognition 38/6, 723–739. Braunmüller, K. (2002) Semmicomunication and accommodation: observations from the linguistic situation in Scandinavia. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 12/1, 1–23. Brodeur, M.B., E. Dionne-Dostie, T. Montreuil and M.Lepage (2010) The Bank of Standardized Stimuli (BOSS), anew set of 480 normative photos of objects to be used as visual stimuli in cognitive research. PloS One 5/5, e10773. Brodeur, M.B., K. Guérard and M.Bouras (2014) Bank of standardized stimuli (BOSS) phase II: 930 new normative photos. PloS One 9/9, e106953. Broersma, M., D. Carter and D.J.Acheson (2016) Cognate Costs in Bilingual Speech Production: Evidence from Language Switching. Frontiers in Psychology 7/1461. Comesaña, M., A. P. Soares and C.Lima (2010) Semantic representations of new cognate vs. noncognate words: Evidence from two second language learning methods. Procedia— Social and Behavioral Sciences 5, 199–203. Costa, A. and M.Santesteban (2004) Lexical access in bilingual speech production: Evidence from language switching in highly proficient bilinguals and L2 learners. Journal of Memory and Language 50/4, 491–511. Costa, A., M. Santesteban and A.Caño (2005) On the facilitatory effects of cognate words in bilingual speech production. Brain and Language 94/1, 94–103. De Bot, K. (1992) Abilingual production model: Levelt’s “speaking” model adapted. Applied Linguistics 13/1, 1–24. De Bot, K. and R.Schreuder (1993) Word production and the bilingual lexicon. In: Schreuder, R. and B.Weltens (eds) The bilingual lexicon, 191–214. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. De Groot, A.M.B. (2011) Language and Cognition in Bilinguals and Multilinguals. New York: Psychology Press. Dell, G.S. and J.Cholin (2012) Language production. In: Spivey, M.J., K. McRae and M.F.Joanisse (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 426–442. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dickins, T. (2009) Češi aslovenština. Naše společnost 7/1, 12–26. Forster, K.I. and J.C.Forster (2003) DMDX: AWindows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 35/1, 116–124. Frances, C., E. Navarra-Barindelli and C.D.Martin (2021) Inhibitory and facilitatory effects of phonological and orthographic similarity on L2 word recognition across modalities in bilinguals. Scientific Reports 11/12812. Gollan, T.H., A. Stasenko, C. Li and D.P.Salmon (2017) Bilingual language intrusions and other speech errors in Alzheimer’s disease. Brain and Cognition 118/5, 27–44. Grasso, S.M., E. D. Peña, L. M. Bedore, J. G. Hixon and Z.Griffin (2018) Cross-linguistic cognate production in Spanish–English bilingual children with and without specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 61/3. 619–633. Haugen, E. (1966) Semmicommunication: the language gap in Scandinavia. Sociological Inquiry 36/2, 280–297. Hoshino, N., A. L. Beatty-Martínez, C. A. Navarro-Torres and J.F.Kroll (2021) Do Cross-Language Script Differences Enable Bilinguals to Function Selectively When Speaking in One Language Alone? Frontiers in Communication 6/668381. Hoshino, N. and J.F.Kroll (2008) Cognate effects in picture naming: does cross-language activation survive achange of script? Cognition 106/1, 501–511. OPEN ACCESS ADAM Kříž — JAN CHROMý 123 Kirsner, K., E. Lalor and K.Hird (1993) The bilingual lexicon: Exercise, meaning and morphology. In: Schreuder, R. and B.Weltens (eds) The Bilingual Lexicon, 215–246. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Klaus, J., K. Lemhöfer and H.Schriefers (2018) The second language interferes with picture naming in the first language: evidence for L2 activation during L1 production. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 33/7, 867–877. Kroll, J.F., S. C. Bobb, M. Misra and T.Guo (2008) Language selection in bilingual speech: evidence for inhibitory processes. Acta Psychologica 128/3. 416–430. Lemhöfer, K., L. Huestegge and K.Mulder (2018) Another cup of TEE? The processing of second language near-cognates in first language reading. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 33/8, 968–991. Levelt, W.J.M. (1989) Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Li, C. and T.H.Gollan (2018) Cognates interfere with language selection but enhance monitoring in connected speech. Memory & Cognition 46/6, 923–939. McMillen, S., Z. Griffin, E. Peña, L. Bedore and G.Oppenheim (2020) “Did ISay Cherry?” Error Patterns on aBlocked Cyclic Naming Task for Bilingual Children With and Without Developmental Language Disorder. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 63/4, 1–17. Mulder, K., T. Dijkstra and R.H.Baayen (2015) Cross-language activation of morphological relatives in cognates: The role of orthographic overlap and task-related processing. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 9/16. Musilová, K. (2006) Slovenští vysokoškoláci vČR (výsledky ankety). In: Nábělková, M. and J.Pátková (eds) Česko-slovenská súčasnosť ačeská slovakistika. Zborník prác k10.výročiu pražskej univerzitnej slovakistiky, 102–130. Praha: Filozofická fakulta UK. Muylle, M., E. Van Assche and R.Hartsuiker (2022) Comparing the cognate effect in spoken and written second language word production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 25/1, 93–107. Nábělková, M. (2008) Slovenčina ačeština vkontakte. Bratislava/Praha: Veda. Nábělková, M. and M.Sloboda (2008) Československá komunikácia: semikomunikácia, bivalentnosť areflexia vzájomnej zrozumiteľnosti slovenčiny ačeštiny. In: Tóth, A.J. and A.Uhrinová (eds) Slovenčina vmenšinovom prostredí, 156–165. Békéscsaba: Výskumný ústav Slovákov vMaďarsku. Nozari, N., G. S. Dell and M.F.Schwartz (2011) Is comprehension necessary for error detection? Aconflict-based account of monitoring in speech production. Cognitive psychology 63/1, 1–33. Poarch, G.J. and J.G. van Hell (2012) Cross-language activation in children’s speech production: Evidence from second language learners, bilinguals, and trilinguals. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 111/3, 419–438. Poulisse, N. (2000) Slips of the tongue in first and second language production. Studia Linguistica 54/2, 136–149. Protopapas, A. (2007) CheckVocal: Aprogram to facilitate checking the accuracy and response time of vocal responses from DMDX. Behavior Research Methods 39/4, 859–862. Roelofs, A. (2018) Aunified computational account of cumulative semantic, semantic blocking, and semantic distractor effects in picture naming. Cognition, 172, s.59–72. Sloboda, M. (2004) Slovensko-česká (semi)komunikace avzájemná (ne)srozumitelnost. Čeština doma ave světě 12/3–4, 208–220. Sloboda, M. (2005) Od aspektov bilingválnej komunikácie kjazykovej asimilácii aretencii: Prípadová štúdia slovenskej rodiny vČesku. Slovenská reč 70/6, 338–354. Woolard, K.A. (1999) Simultaneity and bivalency as strategies in bilingualism. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 8/1, 3–29. Zeevaert, L. and J.D. ten Thije (2007) Introduction. In: Thije, J.D. ten and L.Zeevaert (eds) Receptive Multilingualism. Linguistic analyses, language policies and didactic OPEN ACCESS 124 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 1/2022 concepts, 1–25. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Zheng, X., A. Roelofs and K.Lemhöfer (2020) Language selection contributes to intrusion errors in speaking: Evidence from picture naming. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 23/4, 788–800. Adam Kříž Institute of Czech Language and Theory of Communication Faculty of Arts, Charles University nám. Jana Palacha 2, Praha 1, Czechia 116 38 ORCID ID: 0000-0002-9349-5342 [email protected] Jan Chromý Institute of Czech Language and Theory of Communication Faculty of Arts, Charles University nám. Jana Palacha 2, Praha 1, Czechia 116 38 ORCID ID: 0000-0001-6646-8026 [email protected] OPEN ACCESS