Describir a los monstruos (Spanish Lesson): Describing Monsters Using Vocabul...
Dodson_Honors_Thesis_2006
1. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
SCHREYER HONORS COLLEGE
DEPARTMENT OF SPANISH, ITALIAN AND PORTUGUESE
INVESTIGATING THE SELECTION MECHANISM THAT FACILITATES
LANGUAGE PRODUCTION IN BILINGUALS
STEPHANIE R. DODSON
Spring 2006
A thesis
submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements
for a baccalaureate degree
in Spanish
with honors in Spanish
Reviewed and approved* by the following:
Judith F. Kroll
Liberal Arts Research Professor of Psychology and Linguistics
Thesis Supervisor
Priscilla Meléndez
Professor of Spanish
Honors Adviser
* Signatures are on file in the Schreyer Honors College.
2. 2
Abstract
How do bilinguals select the language of the words they speak? While a bilingual
is speaking one language, are words from the other language active and competing for
selection? If so, some mechanism is required to control this unwanted activation in order
to facilitate production in the desired language. This study investigates the cognitive
processes that facilitate lexical selection in highly proficient bilinguals. Using semantic
blocking and language-switching paradigms, we address the question of whether the
selection mechanism entails active inhibition of the non-target lexicon, or whether only
items from the target language behave as candidates for selection.
Previous studies have shown that picture naming is slower when pictures are
blocked in the same semantic category (e.g., all fruits), and also when bilinguals are
required to switch languages from one trial to the next (Costa & Santesteban, 2004;
Damian, Vigliocco, & Levelt, 2001; Kroll & Stewart, 1994; Meuter & Allport, 1999). A
set of 80 pictures was selected on the basis of semantic properties, with ten items
corresponding to each of eight semantic categories. Relatively proficient bilinguals were
instructed to name each picture in Spanish or English, with background color functioning
as a response language cue. Stimuli were presented in alternating semantically blocked
and mixed series, with the cue to name in one language or the other alternating regularly
every two trials.
The results demonstrated robust effects of language switching that were reduced
in the context of semantically blocked lists. We consider the implications of these results
for models of language selection that assume that proficient bilingual speakers have
3. 3
achieved a level of control in using their two languages that no longer requires active
inhibition of the more dominant language.
4. 4
Table of Contents
Chapter I: Introduction…………..5
Semantic Competition in Monolingual Lexical Selection…………..7
Semantic Interference Paradigms…………..9
Lexical Selection in Bilinguals: Specific to One Language?.............13
Language Switching Paradigms…………..18
Combining Language switching and Semantic Blocking Paradigms………21
Chapter II: Experiment 1…………..23
Method………..23
Data Analysis………….27
Predictions………………31
Results…………..32
Discussion…………..37
Chapter III: Experiment 2…………..38
Method………..38
Results…………..39
Discussion…………..40
Chapter IV: General Discussion…………..41
Chapter V: References…………..46
Appendix A: Language History Questionnaire…………49
Appendix B: Stimuli from Experiments 1 & 2…………51
Appendix C: Academic Vita…………53
5. 5
Chapter 1: Introduction
Bilingual speakers possess an extraordinary facility for choosing the right word in
the intended language during speech production. They can produce speech in one
language to the exclusion of the other, or intentionally switch back and forth between
lexicons within a given discourse. The latter act, known as code-switching, is a common
feature of bilingual communities and an oft-misunderstood phenomenon. Code-switching
is a cognitively demanding task that requires a great degree of control over both
languages. In recent decades, scholars have become interested in this behavior as a
vehicle for investigating how the mind processes language.
A common misperception about code-switching is that it denotes inadequate
proficiency in one or both languages (Hammink, 2000). In reality, proficient bilinguals
are capable of sticking to one language when conversing with monolinguals, but may
elect to code-switch in the presence of other bilinguals. Thus, code-switching does not
refer to the accidental blurting of a word or phrase in the wrong language, but rather to
the intentional mixing of languages among speakers who understand both.
Studies such as Poplack’s 1980 investigation of a Puerto Rican community in
New York City, entitled “Sometimes I'll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en
español,” have yielded scientific predictions about the nature of code-switching. Code-
switching constraints are descriptive, not prescriptive, meaning that they don’t instruct
bilinguals on how to code-switch, but rather predict the types of switches speakers are
likely to make. Poplack’s equivalence constraint states that intrasentential code-switching
will only occur at points in the sentence where syntactic structure and word order are the
6. 6
same in both languages, resulting in a sentence that is grammatical in either language
(Poplack, 1978/81; 1980). Consider the following:
According to the equivalence constraint, bilinguals favor switches such as A, which
occurs between clauses and respects the syntactic rules of both languages. B, however, is
ungrammatical because it occurs between the clitic and the verb, a point where Spanish
and English have different word orders (“gave him” vs. “him gave”). A proficient
bilingual is unlikely to make a switch such as B because it would make little sense to
interlocutors, disrupting the process of communication (Poplack, 1978/81; 1980).
Highly proficient bilinguals have a greater capacity for code-switching than do
novice second-language learners because they are better able to control and maneuver
between their two lexicons and produce sentences that are grammatical in both
languages. The ability to shift languages at a moment’s notice indicates a high degree of
control over both lexicons. This high level of control is also evidenced by the fact that
bilinguals are able to confine their speech to one language when conversing with
monolinguals. Clearly, highly proficient bilinguals possess some mechanism that allows
them to select the correct word in the desired language during spoken discourse. The
7. 7
present study investigates the nature of this mechanism and its implications for models of
speech production.
Semantic Competition in Monolingual Lexical Selection
Lexical selection is the process of choosing the word you want to say. Scholars
who study speech production characterize this process as a contest, in which many words
compete for selection and the most appropriate candidate wins. But how does the contest
work, and who are the competitors? To answer these questions, we must examine the
cognitive processes involved in speech production.
There are three distinct levels of representation involved in language processing
(see Caramazza, 1997; Costa, 2005; Francis, 2005; Levelt, 1989). The semantic, or
conceptual, level represents the concepts, or semantic information, that the speaker
intends to convey. The lexical level represents these concepts as words. Phonemes, or the
sound units that comprise words, are represented at the phonological, or sublexical, level.
Before lexical items may be accessed by the speech production system, the corresponding
representations must be activated, or made available for selection. A high level of
activation indicates a high degree of availability for production, while a low level of
activation indicates a small degree of availability (see Caramazza & Costa, 2001; Costa,
2005; Roelofs, 2001; Schriefers et al., 1991).
Currently accepted models of speech production assert that during semantic
processing, representations of semantically related concepts are activated simultaneously
with that of the target concept (see Caramazza, 1997; Costa, 2005; Damian et. al., 2001;
8. 8
Kroll & Stewart, 1994; Levelt, 2001). In other words, when the concept apple is
activated, related concepts (pear, grapes, etc.) become activated simultaneously.
Figure 2 represents how a monolingual speaker produces the word “dog.” When the
speaker sees a picture of a dog, the semantic representation for dog becomes activated
along with representations for related concepts such as cat, horse, leash, and collar.
Activation flows from the semantic to the lexical level. The lexical representation with
the highest level of activation spreads to the phonological level, at which point the
speaker produces the spoken word “dog” (see Costa, 2005).
The higher the activation levels of the various lexical candidates, the more
difficult it becomes for the speaker to select the correct word (see Costa, 2005;
Caramazza & Costa, 2001; Roelofs, 2001; Schriefers et al., 1991). To investigate how the
9. 9
lexical selection “contest” works, many researchers have conducted studies in which the
activation levels of semantic representations are manipulated, with the goal of observing
how semantic context affects the speaker’s ability to say the right word. In the next
section, we will discuss several of these studies and how they relate to the present
research.
Semantic Interference Paradigms
Experimental semantic interference paradigms have been used to support the
claim that semantically related concepts become activated along with the target concept
and behave as competitors during lexical selection. (e.g. Bloem & La Heij, 2003; Bloem,
Van den Boogaard, & La Heij 2004; Kroll & Stewart, 1994; Damian et. al., 2001; Stroop,
1935). Such paradigms, which manipulate the semantic context in which stimuli are
presented, are a useful tool for examining the mechanisms governing language
production in monolingual and bilingual speakers.
10. 10
Stroop Task
Stroop (1935) devised a procedure in which a series of color words was printed in
colors different from those represented by the words. Participants were instructed to
name the color of the print while ignoring the word names. In Figure 3, for example, the
participant is shown the word “green,” which is printed in red text, and is asked to name
the red color while ignoring the written word “green.” She has trouble saying the right
word because she is distracted by the presence of another color word.
11. 11
Stroop (1935) found that participants took longer to name colors printed in the
distracter words than to name the same colors printed as solid squares. This outcome
makes sense when viewed in the context of currently accepted models of language
processing. The participant in Figure 3 is receiving conceptual activation from two
sources: the color word “green” and the visual color red. Selecting the correct word is
more difficult in this context because the heightened activation levels make selection of
the target word “red” more difficult than it would be without the presence of a distracter
word.
Semantic Blocking Paradigms
Semantic blocking experiments such as the one used in the present study require
participants to perform picture naming or translation tasks while semantic context is
manipulated in such a fashion that stimuli are presented as part of a series of related or
unrelated items (see Damian et. al., 2001; Kroll & Stewart, 1994).
12. 12
The goal is to observe how recent activation of semantically related items affects the
speaker’s ability to produce the appropriate response.
Kroll and Stewart (1994) reported higher naming latencies in the blocked
condition, a result which they used to support the claim that semantically related items
behave as competitors during lexical selection. By their logic, the speech production
system endures competition from other experimental items, which enjoy an increased
level of activation because the participant recently named them. When other items in the
group bear a semantic relation to the target item, the degree of competition is greater due
to the already higher activation levels of the related items. This competition impairs
performance, slowing naming latencies. For example, naming the picture “elephant” is
more difficult when the speaker must choose “elephant” over other animals he recently
13. 13
named. When “elephant” is presented in a series of unrelated items such as “pear” and
“bicycle,” it is easier to choose the correct word because the unrelated items pose a lesser
degree of competition.
Lexical Selection in Bilinguals: Specific to One Language?
For someone who knows two or more languages, choosing the right word is even
more complicated than for someone who knows only one. A highly proficient bilingual
has two equivalent words for nearly every concept. For example, when a Spanish-English
bilingual wants to express the concept bicycle, she has two options: English “bicycle”
and Spanish “bicicleta.”
A bilingual must not only select the desired concept, but must also produce the right word
in the appropriate language. To accomplish this, the bilingual must employ some
14. 14
mechanism that allows her to select words from one language to the exclusion of others.
The nature of this mechanism has been widely debated.
A few central questions arise when researchers try to answer the question of how
a bilingual selects the right word in the intended language. In the previous section, we
established that lexical selection is a sort of “contest” governed by the activation levels of
representations for potential candidate words. In the case of bilingual speakers, do
representations from both languages enter the contest? Is selection restricted to items
from the target language only? Does the system actively inhibit representations from the
language that is not in use? In the next section, we will discuss several models that have
been presented in the literature and how the present study will shed further light on the
nature of lexical selection in bilinguals.
Language Specific and Non-specific Models of Selection
Two models that figure prominently in the literature on bilingual language
production are the language specific and language non-specific hypotheses (see Calomé,
2001; Costa, 2005; Finkbeiner, Gollan, & Caramazza, in press). Both models seek to
answer the question of how the lexical selection “contest” works by predicting which
representations behave as competitors. The language specific hypothesis (see Figure 5-A)
states that although representations from both languages become activated during speech
production, only items from the target language behave as competitors. The language
non-specific hypothesis (see Figure 5-B), on the other hand, predicts that representations
from both languages behave as competitors.
15. 15
Figure 5. Language Specific and Non-specific Models of Selection
Representations from both
languages compete for
selection
Language Non-specific Selection Model
Only representations from
the target language
compete for selection
Language Specific Selection Model
B.
A.
Both Images from Costa (2005)
16. 16
If lexical selection is language non-specific, then some mechanism must be in
place to keep representations from the non-response language from competing for
selection. One possibility researchers have proposed is that this mechanism entails active
inhibition of the non-response language (e.g., Green, 1998; Meuter & Allport, 1999).
Inhibitory Control Model
Green’s (1998) Inhibitory Control Model (ICM) postulates a mechanism that tags
lexical representations belonging to the non-response language and prevents them from
17. 17
competing for selection. The bilingual speaker in Figure 6 wants to say the word “chair”
in her L1, English. Representations for chair and semantically related candidates, both in
English and in the speaker’s L2, Spanish, receive activation at the lexical level. The
speech production system assigns each word a tag based on the language to which it
belongs. The system then inhibits lexical items from the non-response language—in this
case, L2 Spanish—while leaving words carrying the target language tag free to compete
for selection.
Language Switching Paradigms
Not only do bilinguals possess the ability to select lexical items from the
appropriate lexicon during speech production; they are also able to intentionally switch
back and forth between languages within a given discourse. Language switching
paradigms have previously been used as a tool to investigate the processes underlying
language selection in bilinguals (Costa & Santesteban, 2004; Meuter & Allport, 1999).
A typical language switching experiment is illustrated in Figure 7. The participant
is instructed to name pictures that appear on a computer screen, one at a time, while
alternating language every other trial. Background or picture color function as a response
language cue (in the above example, pictures with red backgrounds are named in English,
while those with black backgrounds are named in Spanish).
18. 18
A language switching paradigm generates four subtypes of critical trials, which
are summarized in Table 1:
Table 1. Trial Types Generated by a Language Switching Paradigm
L1 SWITCH Trials performed in the participant's
dominant language (L1), for which the
previous trial was performed in the non-
dominant language (L2)
L1 NON-SWITCH Trials performed in the participant's L1, for
which the previous trial was also
performed in L1
L2 SWITCH Trials performed in the participant's L2, for
which the previous trial was performed in
the other language
L2 NON-SWITCH Trials performed in the participant's L2, for
which the previous trial was also
performed in L2
Reported naming latencies are generally higher for switch versus non-switch trials, a
result which suggests that there is a cost to production as the system accommodates the
19. 19
language change (Costa & Santesteban, 2004; Meuter & Allport 1999). Meuter and
Allport (1999) reported that for non-balanced bilinguals (those with a clearly dominant
L1), the magnitude of switch cost was greater when switching into dominant L1 than
when switching into weaker L2.
The authors attributed this asymmetry to the relative levels of suppression needed to
switch between languages, asserting that the bilingual speaker must activate and suppress
each language as a whole unit. The stronger a bilingual's ability in a given language, the
greater the effort needed to suppress it; hence, the higher cost to switching into dominant
L1.
If L2 learners exert differential levels of suppression for L1 and L2, this begs the
question of whether switch cost asymmetry would be absent for bilinguals with near-
Image from Meuter & Allport (1999)
20. 20
equal abilities in two languages. Costa and Santesteban (2004) reported switch cost
asymmetry for L2 learners, but not for highly proficient Spanish-Catalan bilinguals.
In Barcelona, where the experiment was conducted, children speak Spanish and Catalan
from early childhood. These bilinguals are therefore more balanced than those who learn
a second language later in life. Surprisingly, these highly proficient bilinguals had
symmetrical switch costs not only when naming in L1 and L2, but also in L1 and a much
weaker L3. The authors used these results to assert that the very nature of the selection
mechanism is different for balanced and non-balanced bilinguals.
Combining language switching and semantic blocking paradigms
The present study seeks to investigate how bilingual language production is
affected by simultaneous manipulation of semantic and linguistic context. For this
purpose, we constructed a combined language switching and semantic blocking
paradigm, in which participants name pictures presented in alternating semantically
21. 21
blocked and mixed lists while switching language every other trial. The new paradigm
generates eight types of critical trials, which are illustrated in Figure 10:
Half the trials are performed in the dominant language (L1) and half in the non-dominant
language (L2). For each language, one subgroup consists of trials where a language
switch occurs, while the other contains non-switch trials. Of the switch and non-switch
trials, half are presented in the semantically blocked condition and half in the mixed
condition.
The reasons for this combined paradigm are multifold. In the first place, we will
have the opportunity to observe whether the semantic interference effect interacts with
switch costs during picture naming in L1 and L2. We will also have the opportunity to
see how the effects differ between our two groups of bilinguals: balanced (no dominant
L1) and L1 dominant (the L1, English, is clearly stronger). Our goal is to use the results
to gain a better understanding of the cognitive processes governing lexical selection in
22. 22
bilinguals--specifically, to address whether the selection mechanism entails active
inhibition of the non-target lexicon and whether selection is specific to just one language.
We will also have the opportunity to ascertain whether the selection mechanism is
different for balanced and non-balanced bilinguals.
Chapter 2: Experiment 1
Method
Participants
Participants were recruited from the Penn State community and paid for their
participation. All participants spoke Spanish and English. Mean age was 21 years, with
18 being the youngest and 28 the oldest. Twenty-seven were female and fifteen were
male. All had normal hearing and normal or corrected vision.
Participants were originally grouped on the basis of their native language (the first
language they learned, or the language they spoke with their parents while growing up).
However, because most participants were currently attending an English-speaking
university, it was necessary to reassess participants' language dominance on the basis of
self-ratings and performance in the respective languages. Furthermore, some participants
had been born to Spanish-speaking parents but were raised in the United States and
attended English-speaking schools, resulting in their so-called “native language” being
the weaker language and English the dominant language.
23. 23
Participants were re-grouped into two categories based on their language
dominance. Participants in the balanced group were those who enjoyed nearly equal
proficiency in both languages, with no clearly dominant L1. The L1 dominant group
consisted of bilinguals with higher proficiency in their first language, English.
Table 2 shows the mean self-ratings of the respective bilingual groups (L1
dominant and balanced) for their proficiency in Spanish and English. Participants were
asked to rate their reading proficiency, writing proficiency, speaking ability, and speech
comprehension ability for each language on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being the lowest
possible proficiency and 10 the highest (see Appendix B for the complete language
history questionnaire). The balanced group reported nearly equal proficiency in both
languages, with mean self-ratings of 9.34 for Spanish and 9.46 for English. The L1
dominant group, on the other hand, had self-ratings of 7.03 for Spanish and 9.70 for
English, a disparity that indicated higher proficiency in English.
Apparatus
The experiment was programmed with E-studio and run on a Dell PC using the
program E-prime. Stimuli and instructions were presented on the monitor and participants
24. 24
clicked the space-bar to begin each trial. Participants spoke into a microphone connected
to a button-box with a voice key that recorded their reaction times, or the time it took
them to begin to articulate the name of the picture. Responses were recorded for later
transcription and coding with respect to accuracy.
Procedure
Language History Questionnaire. Participants completed a questionnaire regarding their
language experience, foreign language education, and time spent abroad (see Appendix B
for the complete questionnaire). They self-rated their reading and writing proficiencies,
speaking ability, and speech comprehension ability for each language they spoke or had
studied. Self-ratings were on a scale from 1-10, with 1 being not proficient and 10 being
very proficient. Participants were asked to identify which language they spoke with their
parents; language(s) in which they received their education; and countries where they
were born, attended elementary school, and attended high school. They were also asked
to describe study abroad experience; list number of semesters of foreign language study;
and state if they were an international student or a foreign language graduate student,
major, or minor.
Picture Naming. Participants were asked to name pictures in Spanish and English, with
background color functioning as a response language cue. The first trial consisted of a
fixation point presented for 500 ms., followed by a blank screen for 30 ms., followed by a
picture stimulus. Subsequent trials consisted of a blank screen for 30 ms., followed by a
picture stimulus. Participants were instructed to name pictures as quickly and accurately
25. 25
as possible, and to say "no" if they didn't know the name of a picture. Pictures remained
onscreen indefinitely until a spoken response was produced, at which point pictures
disappeared and a second fixation point appeared. Participants controlled the pace at
which pictures appeared by pressing the space bar to start the next trial.
Stimuli
Ninety-two black and white line drawings served as stimuli, with 80 presented in
critical trials and 12 used for practice. The 80 test stimuli were selected on the basis of
semantic relationship, with ten items corresponding to each of eight semantic categories
(see Appendix A for a complete list of stimuli). Half the categories were classified as
living (farm animals, body parts, fruits and vegetables, and things that fly), and half as
non-living (clothing, kitchen items, furniture, and tools). Items were controlled for
cognate status (non-cognates of Spanish and English).
Design
Stimuli were presented in alternating semantically blocked and mixed series.
Critical trials comprised two blocks of 40 trials each, with a short pause after trial 40.
Semantic condition was alternated every 10 trials, so that each block of 40 consisted of
two blocked series and two mixed series. Background color (yellow or blue) alternated
every two trials.
Twelve practice trials preceded the experimental trials. Practice consisted of six
semantically blocked trials followed by six mixed trials. Practice items and semantic
categories were different from those presented in critical trials.
26. 26
Participants saw each stimulus only once, in either the blocked or mixed
condition, with half the stimuli appearing in each condition. The condition that items
appeared in was counterbalanced across subjects, with items from the respective
categories presented in a blocked context for half of participants, and a mixed context for
the other half. Starting condition was counter-balanced across subjects. Distribution of
living and non-living stimuli was counterbalanced so that each subject saw 2 living and 2
non-living categories in each condition.
Twelve counterbalanced versions of the design were produced, with the order of
presentation of stimuli within the conditions randomized. Twenty-four subversions were
generated by counterbalancing starting language across subjects, with respective
background colors corresponding to Spanish for half of participants and English for the
other half.
Data analysis
Three main variables were considered in the statistical analyses: response
language (L1 or L2), semantic condition (blocked or mixed), and trial type (switch or
non-switch). Analyses of variance (ANOVA’s) were conducted on mean naming
latencies and percent accuracy for each of the 8 trial types (see Figure 10 for a description
of the respective trial types).
Erroneous trials were excluded from the reaction time (RT) analysis. RT’s of less
than 300 ms. or more than 3000 ms. were excluded as outliers, along with RT’s beyond
2.5 standard deviations from the mean for each respective language (L1 and L2). First
trials from each group of 40 were excluded as warm-up trials. Additional trials were
27. 27
excluded due to technical error (microphone failure, participant pressing keys during
trial, background noises triggering microphone).
Due to the wide variability in participants' responses, two separate RT analyses
were conducted: a liberal analysis and a conservative analysis. For the conservative
analysis, responses were counted as correct only when the participant produced the exact
term used by experimenters to identify each picture. The liberal analysis included
additional responses (synonyms, semantically related items, and items that physically
resembled the target item) that could be considered plausible names for the picture. After
determining that there was no significant disparity in results between the liberal and
conservative analyses, we elected to use the liberal criteria for the final analyses because
it allowed more data points to be included.
Calculating Switch Costs and Semantic Interference
To examine how language switching and semantic context affect picture naming
performance, it is necessary to understand the calculations that allow us to quantify these
effects. Figure 11 explains how we calculate switch costs, or the difference in mean
naming latencies between switch and non-switch trials. Switch costs reflect how fast the
speech production system is able to adapt to the change of language. In other words, how
much slower is speech production when the speaker must switch languages from one
utterance to the next?
29. 29
Figure 12 summarizes the calculations used to determine magnitude of semantic
interference. By calculating the difference between mean naming latencies in the blocked
and mixed conditions, we can examine whether naming performance is affected by
semantic context. Significantly slower naming times in the blocked condition are an
indication of semantic interference.
30. 30
Predictions
In the first place, we expect to replicate the robust effect of semantic interference
reported by Kroll and Stewart (1994) and Damian et. al (2001). We also expect to
replicate the switch cost asymmetry reported by Meuter and Allport (1999), with greater
switch costs into the L1 than into the L2. Finally, we expect to replicate the differential
pattern of switch cost asymmetry between balanced and L1-dominant bilinguals reported
by Costa and Santesteban (2004). We hypothesize that results will indicate a differential
selection mechanism for balanced and non-balanced bilinguals, specifically that
proficient bilingual speakers have achieved a level of control in using their two languages
that no longer requires active inhibition of the more dominant language.
31. 31
Results
The ANOVA on the mean RTs produced a main effect of response language, with
longer overall naming latencies in the L2 than in the L1, F (1, 40) = 17.89, p < .001.
There was also a significant interaction between response language and type of bilingual,
F (1, 40) = 12.94, p < .001. The L1 dominant group had faster overall naming latencies in
both languages than the balanced group, and while both groups had faster RT’s in the L2,
the L1 dominant group had a greater differential between mean RT’s in the two
languages.
Effect of Semantic Blocking
The effect of semantic blocking for each response language and for each bilingual
group is shown in Figure 13. The ANOVA on the mean RTs failed to produce a main
effect of semantic blocking, F (1, 40) < 1. Semantic condition showed no significant
interaction with response language, F (1, 40) < 1, or with type of bilingual F (1, 40) < 1.
32. 32
The three-way interaction between type of bilingual, response language, and semantic
condition also failed to reach significance, F (1, 40) < 1. Thus, the results failed to
replicate the robust effects of semantic interference reported by Kroll and Stewart (1994)
and Damian et. al (2001). Before we discuss possible explanations for this outcome, let’s
examine the effect of language switching from our combined paradigm.
Effect of Language Switching
The effect of language switching for each response language and for each
bilingual group is shown in Figure 14. The ANOVA on the mean RTs produced a main
effect of switching, with longer naming latencies for switch than for no-switch trials, F
(1, 40) = 8.26, p < .001. Analysis of errors also produced a switching effect, with higher
accuracy for non-switch trials, F (1, 40) = 3.18, p < .001. However, the significant
observation of a language switch cost did not interact with type of bilingual, F (1, 40) <
1, nor with response language, F (1, 40) < 1. The three-way interaction, between type of
33. 33
bilingual, response language, and trial type also failed to reach significance, F (1, 40) < 1.
These results failed to replicate the switch cost asymmetry reported by Meuter
and Allport (1999), with greater switch costs into the L1 than into the L2, and also failed
to replicate the differential pattern of switch cost asymmetry between balanced and L1-
dominant bilinguals reported by Costa and Santesteban (2004). That is, neither group of
bilinguals produced a switch cost asymmetry, although both groups suffered significant
switch costs following a change of language.
Interaction between Switching and Blocking Effects
The ANOVA on the mean RTs produced a significant interaction between
semantic condition and trial type, F (1, 40) = 3.05, p < .001. The three-way interaction,
between, response language, semantic condition and trial type was also significant, F (1,
40) = 1.26, p < .001. Before we take a closer look at the nature of this interaction, we will
reanalyze the effect of semantic interference by including data from just the non-switch
trials, or those in which the speaker did not experience a switch cost. The effect of
semantic blocking for each response language and for each bilingual group, including
data from the non-switch trials only, is shown in Figure 16.
34. 34
In our analysis of non-switch trials, neither bilingual group experienced
semantic interference in L1. The balanced group was slightly faster overall than the L1
dominant group, but this difference was not significant. In L2, the situation was markedly
different. In the first place, the L1 dominant group had slower overall naming latencies
than the balanced group. Secondly, the L1 dominant group suffered semantic interference
in the L2 blocked condition, while the balanced group did not. Paired t-Tests produced a
significant effect of semantic interference due to blocking in L2 non-switch trials for the
L1 dominant group, t22 = -1.56, but no significant interference effect for the balanced
group, t18 < 1.
Next, we will examine how trial type (switch or non-switch) interacts with
semantic condition (blocked or mixed). Figure 15 shows the mean magnitude of switch
costs in the respective conditions (see Figure 11 for a review of how to calculate switch
costs).
35. 35
For picture naming in L1, the L1 dominant group produced larger switch costs
than the balanced group in both the blocked and mixed conditions. In the L2 mixed
condition, the L1 dominant group experienced larger switch costs than the balanced
group. In the L2 blocked condition, however, the L1 dominant group experienced no
switch costs whatsoever. Considering that the L1 dominant group produced a semantic
blocking effect in L2, it is possible that the interaction between semantic blocking and
language switching caused switch costs to be eliminated in the L2 blocked condition.
In both languages, the balanced group had greater switch costs in the mixed than
in the blocked condition. The balanced speakers also produced a switch cost asymmetry
in the mixed condition, with significantly higher switch costs in L2. In the blocked
condition, however, the balanced group did not produce a switch cost asymmetry, with
nearly equal switch costs for L1 and L2. Surprisingly, the L1 dominant group
experienced no switch cost asymmetry in the mixed condition, the only condition in
which it produced switch costs.
36. 36
Discussion
It is noteworthy that both the L1 dominant and balanced groups experienced
greater switch costs in the mixed than in the blocked condition. One possible explanation
is that the speech production system can only be slowed down to a certain point. In other
words, semantic interference was already slowing production in the blocked condition,
which gave the system time to catch up so that the effects of language switching, which
also had the potential to slow down the system, were less pronounced. Another way to
look at it is that since naming latencies were generally faster in the mixed condition, the
efficiency enjoyed by the system in this condition had the potential to suffer more
damage than in the blocked condition, when the system was already bogged down by
semantic interference. Let’s imagine language switching as a lawsuit and switch costs as
the monetary damages we hope to collect. We can do greater damage and expect to
collect more money by suing Bill Gates, who has a lot to lose, than by suing someone
who is broke and already heavily in debt.
Another striking outcome was the fact in the analysis of non-switch trials,
neither bilingual group suffered semantic interference for picture naming in L1, but both
experienced it in L2. This outcome is especially puzzling when viewed in the context of
previous studies that employed semantic blocking paradigms (Damian et. al, 2001; Kroll
& Stewart, 1994). To investigate how the semantic blocking paradigm affects naming
performance in participants who only know one language, we decided to conduct the
experiment with a group of monolingual, English-speaking participants.
37. 37
Chapter 3: Experiment 2
Method
Method, procedure, stimuli, and design were identical to those used in Experiment
1, except that participants named pictures only in English. Background color still
alternated between yellow and blue, but no special instructions were given regarding
these colors.
Participants
Twelve undergraduate students were paid for their participation. All participants
were monolingual in English. Four had studied a foreign language at Penn State for no
more than four semesters, while eight had not studied a language at the university level.
None had lived or studied abroad in a non-English-speaking country or were planning to
major or minor in a foreign language. For those who had studied a foreign language in
high school or college, mean self-rating of L2 proficiency was 2.11 (1= not proficient,
10= very proficient), indicating that all participants were functionally monolingual and
had minimal foreign language proficiency. Mean age was 19.6 years, with 18 being the
youngest and 24 the oldest. Five were female and seven were male. All had normal
hearing and normal or corrected vision.
38. 38
Results
Figure 17 shows mean naming latencies in the semantically blocked and mixed
conditions for the monolingual speakers. The ANOVA on the mean RTs failed to
produce a main effect of semantic blocking, with similar naming latencies in the blocked
and mixed conditions, F (1, 40) < 1. Analysis of accuracy, however, did produce a
significant main effect of semantic blocking, with higher percent accuracy in the
semantically mixed condition than in the blocked condition, F (1, 40) = 8.84, p < .001.
To determine whether language switching, and not the effect of switching background
color, was the true cause of switch costs in the bilingual experiment, we examined
whether color switching had any effect on mean naming latencies. The ANOVA
produced no effect of trial type, with similar naming latencies in color switch and non-
color switch trials F (1, 40) < 1. Figure 18 shows mean naming latencies for each
semantic condition and for each trial type, demonstrating that color switching does not
influence naming times.
39. 39
Discussion
Considering that the monolingual speakers did produce a semantic effect of
accuracy, though not in the RT analysis, it is evident that some degree of interference due
to blocking did take place. The failure to produce a semantic interference in the RT
analysis can possibly be explained in terms of the nature of our experimental paradigm.
While both Kroll and Stewart (1994) and Damian et. al (2001) required participants to
name pictures in a monolingual (L1) context, as in the present experiment, there were
fundamental differences in the nature of the paradigms employed. In the first place, the
semantically blocked and mixed series were longer in the previous studies. This could be
problematic for producing semantic interference, since the magnitude of semantic
interference increases as the speaker moves through a progression of related items (see
Belke, Meyer, and Damian, 2005).
40. 40
Figure 19 illustrates how compounding activation levels of semantically related
items make picture naming more and more difficult as the speaker progresses through a
blocked series. The higher the activation levels of different animal words, the more
difficult it is for the speaker to produce the correct response. The semantically blocked
series used in the present study consisted of only 10 trials each; it is possible that this was
simply not long enough for semantic interference from blocking to take effect.
Another factor that may have influenced results is the repetition of the same
picture within a given series. Repetition of stimuli within the lists further increases the
magnitude of semantic interference, as it progressively compounds the activation levels
of the different stimuli. Belke et. al (2005) reported that semantic interference only arose
after all the items in a blocked series had already been viewed and named once. The
paradigm used by Damian et. al (2001) repeated the same item five times within a given
block, though never consecutively, while in the present study, each picture appears just
once in each condition (once in a blocked series and once in a mixed series).
41. 41
In summary, the fact that the monolingual speakers had lower accuracy in the
blocked condition indicates that some degree of semantic interference due to blocking did
take place. Although the RT analysis produced no significant interference effect, it is
likely that semantic blocking would have affected the mean RT's had our experimental
paradigm involved longer series and repetition of items within a given series.
Chapter IV: General Discussion
In Experiment 1, semantic interference in the blocked condition was observed
only for bilinguals performing non-switch trials in the L2. The effect was more
pronounced in the L1 dominant group and did not reach significance in the balanced
group, although the balanced speakers did have slower naming latencies in the blocked
condition. Both groups showed robust effects of language switching that were reduced in
the context of semantically blocked lists. In Experiment 2, monolingual speakers failed to
produce semantic interference due to blocking in the RT analysis, but did experience
semantic interference in the analysis of accuracy, with higher accuracy in the mixed than
in the blocked condition.
The most surprising result was the lack of switch costs experienced by the L1
dominant group in the L2 blocked condition. It is also noteworthy that the balanced
speakers produced a switch cost asymmetry in the mixed condition, with significantly
higher switch costs in L2, yet experienced no switch cost asymmetry in the blocked
condition, with nearly equal switch costs for L1 and L2. Since all other variables were
42. 42
equal except for type of bilingual, it is reasonable to assume that these disparities denote
some fundamental difference in the way balanced bilinguals and non-balanced L2
learners process language.
Let’s return to the central issues currently being debated in the literature. First and
foremost, there is the question of whether lexical selection in bilinguals is language
specific or language non-specific, and if it is non-specific, whether the selection
mechanism entails active inhibition of the non-response language. Results from the
present study may be interpreted in several ways. Costa & Santesteban (2004) used the
differential patterns of switch cost asymmetry observed in balanced and L1 dominant
bilinguals to argue that the nature of lexical selection is different for balanced and non-
balanced bilinguals. According to their hypothesis, lexical selection is language specific
for non-balanced L2 learners, who must exercise differential levels of inhibition in their
L1 and L2. Balanced bilinguals, however, reach a “threshold” at which selection becomes
language non-specific, which could explain the absence of switch cost asymmetries for
the balanced bilinguals.
In the present study, it is clear that the nature of selection is somehow different for
balanced and for L1-dominant bilinguals. However, results from Experiment 1 failed to
replicate the differential pattern of switch cost asymmetry between balanced and L1-
dominant bilinguals reported by Costa and Santesteban (2004). That is, neither group of
bilinguals produced a switch cost asymmetry, although both groups suffered significant
switch costs. Let’s review Figures 14 and nine, which show reported switch cost
asymmetries (or lack thereof) for the two types of bilinguals from the present study and
from Costa and Santesteban (2004), respectively.
43. 43
The failure to replicate the pattern of asymmetry may be explained in terms of the nature
of the experimental paradigms employed. First and foremost, the present study entailed
semantic blocking as well as language switching, while the paradigm employed by Costa
and Santesteban did not include a semantic interference component. The significant
interaction between trial type and semantic condition observed in the present study,
which showed that switch costs were reduced in the context of semantically blocked lists,
may have altered the pattern of switch cost asymmetry that would have been observed for
switching only. Evidence to support this hypothesis includes the fact that the balanced
speakers showed asymmetry in the mixed condition, but not in the blocked condition.
Another aspect of our experimental paradigm that may have affected results is the
absence of repetition of the same picture. The paradigm employed by Costa and
44. 44
Santesteban (2004) entailed multiple repetitions of the same item within each list. Figure
19 illustrates how the magnitude of semantic interference increases as a participant
progresses through a semantically blocked series, as activation levels of semantically
related items become higher and increase the degree of competition experienced.
Repetition also serves to progressively increase the activation levels of the different
stimuli. It follows that the magnitude of switch costs would progressively increase due to
multiple repetitions of the same item within each series. Thus, this fundamental
difference between the two paradigms may have prevented the present study from
replicating the pattern of asymmetry reported by Costa and Santesteban.
Results from Experiment 2, in which the monolingual speakers failed to produce
semantic interference due to blocking in the RT analysis, but did experience semantic
interference in the analysis of accuracy, with higher accuracy in the mixed than in the
blocked condition, may shed further light on results from Experiment 1. Taking into
consideration this outcome and results from Belke et. al (2005), which reported that
semantic interference only arose after all the items in a blocked series had already been
viewed and named once, this indicates that semantic interference did occur to some
degree, but did not have time to fully take effect during the course of each series.
Considering the fundamental differences in the paradigms employed in the
present study and in Costa and Santesteban (2004), it is difficult to compare results from
the two experiments. However, results from both experiments indicate that there is a
fundamental difference in the way that balanced bilinguals and non-balanced L2 learners
process language. The fact that the balanced speakers produced a switch cost asymmetry
in the mixed condition, with significantly higher switch costs in L2, yet experienced no
45. 45
switch cost asymmetry in the blocked condition, with nearly equal switch costs for L1
and L2, is consistent with the hypothesis that balanced bilinguals have developed a
selection mechanism that no longer requires active inhibition of the non-dominant
language. The switch cost asymmetry was eliminated in the blocked condition due to the
interaction with semantic blocking, but in the mixed condition, no differential levels of
inhibition were required to suppress the non-response language. Thus, we can tentatively
conclude that our results support Costa and Santesteban’s hypothesis that lexical
selection is language non-specific and involves active inhibition until bilinguals reach a
certain threshold of ability, after which it becomes language specific and requires no
inhibition. Future research is required that uses a paradigm with multiple repetitions and
longer series in order to allow for semantic interference to fully take effect.
46. 46
Chapter 5: References
Belke, E., Meyer, A. S., & Damian, M.F. (2005). Refractory effects in picture naming as
assessed in a semantic blocking paradigm. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 58A, 667-692.
Bloem, I., & La Heij, W. (2003). Semantic facilitation and semantic interference in word
translation: Implications for models of lexical access in language production.
Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 468-488.
Bloem, I., Van den Boogaard, S., & La Heij, W. (2004). Semantic facilitation and
semantic interference in language production: Further evidence for the conceptual
selection model of lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 307-323.
Calomé, A (2001). Lexical activation in bilinguals' speech production: Language-specific
or language-independent? Journal of Memory and language, 45, 721-736.
Caramazza, A. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access?
Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 177-208.
Costa, A. (2005). Lexical access in bilingual production. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. De
Groot (Eds.), The Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches (pp.
308-325). New York: Oxford University Press.
Costa, A. & Santesteban, M. (2004). Lexical access in bilingual speech production:
Evidence from language switching in highly proficient bilinguals and L2 learners.
Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 491-511.
Damian, M. F., Vigliocco, G., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2001). Effects of semantic context in
the naming of pictures and words. Cognition, 81, B77-B86.
47. 47
Finkbeiner, M., Gollan, T. & Caramazza, A. (in press). Bilingual lexical access: What’s
the (hard) problem? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.
Francis, W. S. (2005). Bilingual semantic and conceptual representation. In J. F. Kroll
& A. M. B. De Groot (Eds.), The Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic
Approaches (pp. 251-267). New York: Oxford University Press.
Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 67-81.
Hammink J. E. (2000). A Comparison of the Code Switching Behavior and
Knowledge of Adults and Children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Texas at El Paso. Retrieved March 31, 2006, from
http://hamminkj.cafeprogressive.com/CS_paper.htm.
Hermans, D., Bongaerts, T., De Bot, K., & Schreuder, R. (1998). Producing words in a
foreign language: Can speakers prevent interference from their first language?
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 213-229.
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture
naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory
representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149-174.
La Heij, W. (2005). Selection processes in monolingual and bilingual lexical access. In
J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. De Groot (Eds.), The Handbook of Bilingualism:
Psycholinguistic Approaches (pp. 289-307). New York: Oxford University Press.
Meuter, R. F. I. (2005). Language selection in bilinguals: Mechanisms and
processes. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. De Groot (Eds.), The Handbook of
48. 48
Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches (pp. 349-370). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Meuter, R. F. I., & Allport, A. (1999). Bilingual language switching in naming:
Asymmetrical costs of language selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 40,
25-40.
Poplack, S. 1980. “Sometimes I'll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en español:
Toward a typology of code-switching.” Linguistics, 18. 581-618.
Schriefers, H., Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1990). Exploring the time-course of
lexical access in production: Picture-word interference studies. Journal of
Memory and Language, 29, 86-102.
Stroop, J. Ridley. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 18, 643-662.
49. 49
Appendix A: Stimuli from Experiments 1 & 2
Picture/ English
Name
Spanish Name Semantic Category Animacy
hair pelo body parts LIVING
hand mano body parts LIVING
arm brazo body parts LIVING
leg pierna body parts LIVING
hair pelo body parts LIVING
foot pie body parts LIVING
ear oreja body parts LIVING
finger dedo body parts LIVING
eye ojo body parts LIVING
lips labios body parts LIVING
bee abeja things that fly LIVING
fly mosca things that fly LIVING
bird pájaro things that fly LIVING
eagle águila things that fly LIVING
peacock pavo real things that fly LIVING
duck pato things that fly LIVING
penguin pingüino things that fly LIVING
ostrich avestruz things that fly LIVING
butterfly mariposa things that fly LIVING
swan cisne things that fly LIVING
rooster gallo farm animals LIVING
pig cerdo farm animals LIVING
donkey burro farm animals LIVING
rabbit conejo farm animals LIVING
horse caballo farm animals LIVING
chicken gallina farm animals LIVING
cow vaca farm animals LIVING
goat cabra farm animals LIVING
cat gato farm animals LIVING
sheep oveja farm animals LIVING
grapes uvas Fruits and Vegetables LIVING
corn maíz Fruits and Vegetables LIVING
carrot zanahoria Fruits and Vegetables LIVING
watermelon sandía Fruits and Vegetables LIVING
apple manzana Fruits and Vegetables LIVING
Celery apio Fruits and Vegetables LIVING
pumpkin calabaza Fruits and Vegetables LIVING
cherry cereza Fruits and Vegetables LIVING
mushroom seta Fruits and Vegetables LIVING
strawberry fresa Fruits and Vegetables LIVING
tie corbata Clothing NON-LIVING
hat sombrero Clothing NON-LIVING
glove guante Clothing NON-LIVING
shoe zapato Clothing NON-LIVING
coat abrigo Clothing NON-LIVING
sock calcetín Clothing NON-LIVING
skirt falda Clothing NON-LIVING
pants pantalones Clothing NON-LIVING
belt cinturón Clothing NON-LIVING
shirt camisa Clothing NON-LIVING
51. 51
Appendix B: Language History Questionnaire
Subject #:________________________________ Date:_________________
Language History Questionnaire
This questionnaire is designed to give us a better understanding of your experience with
languages. Please answer these questions as thoroughly and accurately as possible.
1. Gender: Female Male 2. Age: ________ years
3. Right-handed Left-handed
4. Do you have any known visual or hearing problems (corrected or uncorrected)?
No Yes [Please explain] ______________________________
5. Please name the countries…
Where you were born: ____________________________
Where you attended elementary/middle school:_____________________
Where you attended high school:_______________________
6. Which language(s) do you speak at home with your parents? ___________________
Please self-rate your proficiency in the following areas for your first language (the one
you use at home with your parents):
Reading proficiency (1= not literate, 10= very literate): __________________
Writing proficiency (1= not literate, 10= very literate): __________________
Speaking ability (1= not fluent, 10= very fluent): __________________
Speech comprehension ability (1= unable to understand conversation, 10= perfectly able
to understand): __________________
7. Now, please rate your proficiency in these areas for any second language(s) that you
speak/have studied.
Language:______________________________________
Reading proficiency (1= not literate, 10= very literate): __________________
Writing proficiency (1= not literate, 10= very literate): __________________
Speaking ability (1= not fluent, 10= very fluent): __________________
Speech comprehension ability (1= unable to understand conversation, 10= perfectly able
to understand): __________________
Language:______________________________________
Reading proficiency (1= not literate, 10= very literate): __________________
Writing proficiency (1= not literate, 10= very literate): __________________
Speaking ability (1= not fluent, 10= very fluent): __________________
52. 52
Speech comprehension ability (1= unable to understand conversation, 10= perfectly able
to understand): __________________
8. Besides foreign language classes, have you attended school or university in a language
other than the one you use at home? Please explain:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
9. Have you taken foreign language classes? If so, please list language(s) studied and # of
semesters.
Elementary/middle/high school: ____________________________________________
College: _______________________________________________________________
10. What grades do you normally earn in foreign language classes?
Mostly A’s
Mostly A’s and B’s
Mostly B’s
Mostly B’s and C’s
Mostly C’s
11. Please check all of the following that apply to you:
Taking a second language for a requirement, and interested in being a major or minor.
Taking a second language, but not interested in being a major or minor.
A second language minor.
A second language major.
A second language graduate student.
An international student.
12. Have you studied or lived abroad? If so, please list:
Country Approx. dates Length of Stay Language
13. Please list any other information regarding your language experience.
53. 53
Appendix C: Academic Vita of Stephanie R. Dodson
srd173@gmail.com
48 Hampton Place
Walkersville, MD 21793 USA
(301) 514-7187
EDUCATION
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA Fall 2002 – Spring 2006
• B.A. in Spanish
• Minor in Linguistics
• Schreyer Honors College
• Cumulative GPA 3.92 / 4.00
• Expected Graduation Date: May 2006
GRANTS AND AWARDS
• Fulbright English Teaching
Assistantship to South Korea July 2006 – July 2007
• Phi Beta Kappa Society Spring 2006 - Present
• Spanish Department Certificate
of Excellence Award Spring 2006
• John W. White Scholarship
for Excellence in Spanish Spring 2005
• Schreyer Honors College International Thesis
Research Grant Summer 2004
• Student Enrichment Grant,
College of Liberal Arts Summer 2004
• Academic Excellence Scholarship Fall 2002 - Spring 2006
• Dean’s List Fall 2002 - Present
• National Honors Society Fall 2001 - Present
FOREIGN LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY
• Spanish - Advanced conversational, grammatical, and written proficiency
• German, French - Elementary written proficiency
STUDY ABROAD EXPERIENCE
Study Abroad at El Colegio San Pedro Nolasco, Concepción, Chile July 2001 - January 2002
• Developed Spanish skills
High School trip to Yokohama, Japan June 2000
• Visited a Japanese high school for one week
INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
Universitat de Barcelona, Spain May - August 2004
• Designed an experiment in collaboration with Spanish researchers for project
investigating language processing in bilinguals
54. 54
• Recruited research participants from the Barcelona area and conducted an
experiment
• Analyzed data using Excel and discussed results in the context of background
literature
• Attended seminars and lectures
UNDERGRADUATE LABORATORY RESEARCH
Language and Cognition Research Lab, Penn State University January 2003 - May 2006
• Conducted honors thesis research under the supervision of Dr. Judith Kroll
• Designed an experiment on language processing in bilinguals
• Performed data collection and analysis, recruited participants and trained new
research assistants
• Utilized software including Excel, StatView, E-Prime, DmDx, Word and
Powerpoint
MULTILINGUAL VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCE
Mission of Mercy Summer 2002
• Served as bilingual receptionist and community interpreter for Spanish-speaking
patients
Frederick Memorial Hospital Summer 2002
• Served as intermediary between Spanish-speaking patients and medical
personnel
YOUTH MENTORING EXPERIENCE
Big Brother/ Big Sister Spring 2003 - Fall 2004
• Interacted with a local youth during weekly mentoring sessions
Frederick County Public Schools June 2002
• Helped teach a three-week ESL course for middle school students
WORK EXPERIENCE
Language and Cognition Research Lab
• Conducted research and trained research assistants June – August 2005
• Assisted graduate students with research projects May - August 2003
MBNA America May – August 2003
• Interacted with the public as a telesales associate
Poffenbarger Veterinary Clinic June 1998 - June 2002
• As a veterinary assistant, assisted doctors, performed secretarial work, answered
phones, filled prescriptions, cleaned facilities and cared for animals
CLUBS AND ACTIVITIES
• Penn State Spanish Club Fall 2003 - Spring 2006
• Penn State Linguistics Club Spring 2005 - Spring 2006
• Penn State German Club Fall 2002 - Spring 2003
• Private voice lessons January 1996 - July 2001
STUDENT LEADERSHIP POSITIONS
• Spanish Club Reporter Fall 2004 - Spring 2005
