 and coming to a conclusion, by theory or other means, that all combinations are hierarchically ranked from best perceived to worst. The framework is missing more important factors in order to make an accurate prediction. What the framework has shown is general trends relating to linguistic load and contextual meaning. Multilinguals performed worse than monolinguals in both speech comprehension and quality of written communication in high linguistic load and no meaning conditions. This is a consequence of cross-language interactions on the phono-lexical and ortho-lexical level as described in the BLINCS model (Shook,2013). This framework has particularly shown how important contextual meaning, and therefore semantic processing, is to speech comprehension in multilinguals. This is because when there is no semantic processing, multilinguals are left with only phonolexical and ortho-lexical processing that can be easily confused. This study found that there were even instances where entire sentences were remodelled by multilinguals to create new semantic content in order to compensate for the lack of semantic 39 processing. The creation of new words and semantic content from phonetic elements within the original sentence was the biggest factor that caused the difference in the total number of mistakes between monolinguals and multilinguals, which were not considered phonetic errors in the design. This study found the effects of cognitive load to be miniscule for both monolinguals and multilinguals. This is indicative to the strategies implemented by both groups when writing their answers. It must have been the case that in situations where the sentences made no sense, monolinguals and multilinguals focused on phonetics to try and create semantic meaning that is feasible, rather than result to rote-memorisation, otherwise there would be a more considerable difference. However, semantic meaning would have less of an impact in monolinguals; monolinguals would have had enough linguistic experience and exposure to recognise a word completely from its phonetics and separate it from other words of similar phonetic construction, with semantic meaning taking a secondary role if necessary. This is why bottom-up models such as Shortlist B (Norris &McQueen, 2008) are more suitable for monolinguals and interactive activation models such as BLINCS are more suitable for multilinguals. For theories like Shortlist B, that proposes word perception to be a probabilistically determined selection of likely candidates influenced by previous words and confirmed through hearing the first phonetic syllables of the word, only speakers with enough linguistic experience
and coming to a conclusion, by theory or other mean, that all combination are hierarchically ranked from best perceive to bad. The framework is missing more significant factors in order to stool an accurate prediction. What the framework has shown is cosmopolitan trends relating to linguistic burden and contextual meaning. Multilinguals perform worse than monolinguals in both speech comprehension and quality of spell communication in high linguistic load and no meaning conditions. This is a consequence of crabbed - language interactions on the phono - lexical and ortho - lexical level as describe in the BLINCS model (Shook,2013). This model has particularly show how important contextual meaning, and therefore semantic processing, is to speech inclusion in multilinguals. This is because when there is no semantic processing, multilinguals are left with only phonolexical and ortho - lexical processing that can be easily confused. This study find that there were even instances where entire sentences were remodelled by multilinguals to create new semantic content in order to cover for the lack of semantic 39 processing. The creation of new discussion and semantic contentedness from phonetic elements within the original sentence was the biggest agent that caused the difference in the total number of error between monolinguals and multilinguals, which were not considered phonetic errors in the design. This study found the effect of cognitive load to be miniscule for both monolinguals and multilinguals. This is indicative to the strategies follow through by both groups when publish their answer. It must have been the case that in situations where the sentences made no sense, monolinguals and multilinguals focused on phonetics to sample and create semantic meaning that is feasible, rather than result to rote - memorisation, differently there would be a more considerable difference. However, semantic meaning would have less of an impact in monolinguals; monolinguals would have have enough linguistic experience and exposure to recognise a password completely from its phonetics and classify it from other words of exchangeable phonetic structure, with semantic meaning taking a secondary role if necessary. This is why bed - up models such as Shortlist B (Norris & McQueen, 2008) are more suitable for monolinguals and interactive activation model such as BLINCS are more suitable for multilinguals. For theories like Shortlist B, that propose word perception to be a probabilistically determined selection of likely candidates charm by previous words and confirmed through hearing the first phonetic syllables of the word, merely speaker with enough linguistic experience
 anf coming to a conclusion, by theory or ojhwr meais, that all comcinations are hierarchically rqnked from best perceived tu worst. Tje frameqork us missing more imijrtahb faccocs in order to kake an acwurate predicthov. Chat the framework has shown is genewal tremdd relating to jingliftic load and contextual meaning. Multimingualv performed wprse than monolinguals in hoth speech comprehenslon and quaoity if written cummunication in high ljnguistic load and no meaning cunditnons. This iw q cltsequence oh crosf-language inbvractiots on tne phono-lexicak aid oetho-lexical level as vescribed in the BLIGCS model (Skook,2013). This framework hqs parthculdrly whodn gox ijportajt rontextual jeaning, and therefore semantic pwicessing, is tk speesh comprehension in multilinguals. This is bedause when there is no wemantic processing, moltilinguajs are left with only phonolexical and ortho-lexicdl prkzeswikg tfqt can be easily confused. This study found that fhtre were even insbances where entirr demjences were reoodellzs gy multilinguals tl creatg new wemantic sontrnt in order to compensate dor the lack if semantic 39 procedsing. The cxeatiom of mew words and semantic eontenf from phonftic elemsvts within the ofigpnal sentenct was the biggest sactor thet cabsed the difgerencq in the tltal kgmber of mistakes hetwegn monmlinguals wnd multilinguals, which were nov considered khotetpc errors in tme design. This ftudy found thg effects of cugnitive lkad to ue miniscule for both monmpinguals and multiligguaos. Tyis is kvdicative to tne strateynes implenented by both gromps wfsn writing theix qnswers. It must haxe fevn vhe cwve that in shtuagiovx whefe the sentcncds msde no sense, monolincuala and multilingualx nocused ob phonetycs to try anc create semantic leaniig thav is frasyble, rather than result to rots-memorisahiok, otherwise trere would be a kore considerable difference. However, senantic meaning woold have less of an ikkact in monolmngualf; monolincuals would have had enough linguistig experience and exposhre to recohnise a word completely from its phonetics and separate it from other wores of similar phonstic consnruetipn, witr selentic meaning takpng a secondary role if necessarb. This is fhv bottom-up models such as Shottuist B (Norris &McQueen, 2008) are more suitagle for konolinguals and interactive acyivation models such as NLINCS arw mors suitable for multilinguals. For tkeoriew like Whorblist B, that pfoppscs word pegcepuion to be a probabilistically deternined wepection of likelb candidates lnfluehced bi previous words znd dlnfiroed through hraring the firxt phonetic syllablev jf the word, onoj speakers wijh enooyv linguistic experience
and coming to a conclusion, by theory means, all combinations hierarchically ranked from framework missing more important in order to an accurate prediction. What the framework shown is general trends relating to linguistic load and contextual meaning. Multilinguals performed than monolinguals in both speech comprehension and quality of written communication in high load no conditions. is a consequence of cross-language interactions on the phono-lexical and ortho-lexical level as described in the model (Shook,2013). This framework has particularly shown how contextual meaning, and therefore processing, is to speech comprehension multilinguals. is because there no processing, multilinguals are with only phonolexical and ortho-lexical processing that can be easily confused. This study found that there were instances where were remodelled multilinguals create semantic content in compensate for the lack of semantic creation of new words and semantic content from elements within original sentence was the biggest factor caused the difference in the total number of between monolinguals and multilinguals, which were not considered phonetic errors in the design. This study effects of cognitive load be miniscule for monolinguals multilinguals. is to the implemented by both groups when writing their answers. It must have the case that in situations where the sentences made no and focused on phonetics try and create semantic that feasible, rather than result otherwise would considerable However, meaning would have less an impact in monolinguals; monolinguals have had enough linguistic a word completely from its phonetics and separate from other words of similar phonetic construction, semantic meaning taking a secondary role if necessary. This is why bottom-up such as (Norris &McQueen, 2008) are more suitable for monolinguals interactive activation models such BLINCS are more suitable for multilinguals. For theories like B, proposes word to be a determined selection of candidates influenced by and confirmed hearing first the word, only speakers with enough experience
 and coming to a conclusion, by tHeory or othEr meaNs, tHat AlL comBinaTions are hierarCHicaLly ranked from best perceIved tO wORst. THE fRamewOrk is miSSiNG MorE iMpOrtAnT FaCtors In oRder to mAke an accurAte PrEdiction. What THe Framework hAs sHown is generaL trEnds reLaTinG To linGuiStic lOad and COntextUal meaninG. MULtilinGUals perFORmEd woRse than monolinguaLS iN Both speech compRehensIoN AnD QUalIty Of written cOmMunicATion in hIGh LINGuiSTic load and no mEaning condiTIonS. This iS a ConSEquencE of crOsS-LanGuage interaCtioNs on the phOno-lexICal and oRTho-lexiCal levEl aS deScriBEd In The bLinCS MOdEl (SHOok,2013). this framEwOrK has pArtiCULARly sHowN how ImporTant contextuaL meAninG, And ThereFore sEmanTiC procEssing, Is to sPeEch comprehensioN in mUltilinguAls. thIs iS bEcausE When thEre Is nO semantIc proceSSinG, mULTIlInguals are left with OnLY PhOnolexicAl and oRThO-lEXical proCeSsiNg thAT Can be EasiLY cOnfused. THis stuDY fOuNd that tHeRe were EvEn iNstAnces WHere Entire SentenceS were REmodelled by mulTIlinguals to crEAtE NEw SEmanTic Content in orDer tO CompEnsaTE fOr tHE lack Of semAnTIc 39 PRocessing. The creatioN oF new woRds anD semantic contEnt from phoNETIc elemenTs wiTHiN The original senTence Was the biggESt factor That cAused the DifferencE IN the totaL nuMbeR of MisTAKeS between monolINGualS aNd multiLinGuals, whIch WerE noT coNsIdered phoNetic errOrS iN tHe DesIgn. ThIS study foUnD thE eFfeCts of COgnitiVe loaD to bE mInIScuLe for boTH mONOlinGuAlS and MulTiLinguAls. THIs iS indicaTive to the StrATegiEs ImPlementEd by both groupS wHen writing ThEir AnswerS. iT must havE been the case that in situaTIons wheRe tHe senTencEs made no sEnsE, monolIngUAls and MultilInguaLs FocUSEd on pHONeTicS tO try and creATE seMantiC mEaniNg that iS feasible, rather thaN ResUlt to rote-memoRisAtioN, OThErwISe THerE wOUld BE A more considerabLe differenCe. hOwEver, semantIC meAnIng woulD have leSs of aN Impact iN monolingUals; monolInGualS WOulD have had enOugh lingUistic expERiencE AnD expoSurE to recOgNisE a worD complETelY from Its phoNeTics anD sepaRaTe it from Other words of similar phonEtic coNstruCtiOn, with semAntIC meAning takiNg a sEcondary roLe iF neCessaRy. THIs is wHy boTToM-up MOdels Such AS ShortlisT b (NOrrIS &mcqueen, 2008) are morE SUItaBle foR moNOlinguAls aNd interactive actiVAtion models sucH as BlinCS Are MOre sUiTable for multilIngUaLS. for theorIeS like ShortlIst B, that PrOPoses Word peRceptiOn to be a PRObABilistIcalLy dEtermined SelEcTIon of liKeLy CAndidaTes iNfLuenceD by preVIous WORds and confirmed tHrougH HEarinG The First PhOnetic sYLlabLes of the woRd, only speakErs witH enoUgh liNguistiC eXperieNce
 and coming to a conclusio n, by theo ry or  ot her  m eans , th at all combina t ions  are hierarchically ra nkedfr o m be s tperce ived to wo r s t.Th efra me w or k ismis sing mo re importa ntfa ctors in ord e rto make an  ac curate predi cti on. Wh at  th e  fram ewo rk ha s show n  is ge neral tre nd s  relat i ng to l i n gu isti c load and contex t ua l  meaning. Mult ilingu al s  p e r for med  worse tha nmonol i ngualsi nb o t h s p eech comprehe nsion and q u ali ty ofwr itt e n comm unica ti o n i n high ling uist ic load a nd nom eaningc onditio ns. Th isisa co n se qu enc eo f c r os s-l a ngu age inte ra ct ionson t h e p hono -le xica l and  ortho-lexica l l evel asdescr ibedin t he  BLIN CS mod el (S ho ok,2013). Thisfram ework has  pa rt icu la rly s h own ho w i mpo rtant c ontextu a l m ea n i n g,  and therefore sem an t i cprocessi ng, is to  s p eech com pr ehe nsio n in mu ltil i ng uals. Th is isb ec au se when  t here i snosem antic proc essing , multil ingua l s are left wit h  only phonole x ic a l  a n d or tho -lexical pr oces s ingthat ca n b e  easi ly co nf u se d . This study foundth at the re we re even insta nces where e n tire sen tenc e sw ere remodelled  by m ultilingua l s to cre ate n ew seman tic conte n t  in orde r t o c omp ens a t efor the lacko f  sem an tic 39pro cessing . T hecre ati on  of new w ords and  s em an ti c c onten t  from ph on eti cele ments within  theorig in al sen tence w a st h e bi gg es t fa cto rthatcaus e d t he diff erence in  th e  tot al  n umber o f mistakes be tw een monoli ng ual s andm u ltilingu als, which were not con s ideredpho netic  err ors in th e d esign.  Th i s stud y foun d the  e ffe c t s ofc o gn iti ve  load to b e min iscul eforboth mo nolinguals and mul t ili nguals. Thisisindi c a ti vet ot hest r ate g i es implementedby both gr ou p swhen writi n g t he ir answ ers. It  must have be en the ca se that i nsitu a t ion s where th e senten ces maden o sen s e,  mono lin gualsan d m ultil ingual s  fo cused  on ph on eticsto tr yand crea te semantic meaning tha t is f easib le,  rather t han res ult to ro te-m emorisatio n,oth erwis e t h ere w ould be  am ore c onsi d erable di f fe ren c e .However, se m a n tic  mean ing wouldhave  less of an impac t  in monolingua ls;m o nol ing u alswo uld have had e nou gh l inguisti cexperienceand expo su r e torecogn ise aword co m p le t ely fr om i tsphonetics  an ds eparate  i tf rom ot herwo rds of  simil a r ph o n etic constructio n, wi t h  sema n tic  mean in g takin g  a s econdary r ole if nece ssary.  Thi s iswhy bot to m-up m ode ls  such as S h ortlist B  (Nor ris &Mc Qu een,  20 08) ar e mo r e  suit able  f ormonolingu a l sa nd  i n ter acti ve ac ti vati on models such asBLI N CS aremo res u itable fo r multilingu als . For t heories li k e Sh o rt l ist B , that  propo ses wor d  pe rc eptiontob e  a probab ilistical l y d et ermi ned sele ct ionof  li ke ly candidates i nfluence d by pre v i ous wo rds andc onfirm ed  through hea ringth e  firstp h one tic syl l abl esofthewor d, o n ly speakers with enoughling uisti c  ex perie nce
 and_coming to_a conclusion, by theory_or other_means,_that all_combinations_are hierarchically ranked_from best perceived_to worst. The framework_is missing more_important_factors in order to make an accurate prediction. What the framework has shown is_general_trends relating_to_linguistic_load and contextual meaning. Multilinguals_performed worse than monolinguals in_both speech_comprehension and quality of written communication in high_linguistic_load and no_meaning conditions. This is a consequence of cross-language interactions_on the phono-lexical and ortho-lexical level_as described in_the_BLINCS_model (Shook,2013). This framework_has particularly shown how important contextual_meaning, and therefore semantic processing, is_to speech comprehension in multilinguals. This is_because when there is no semantic_processing, multilinguals are left with_only phonolexical_and ortho-lexical processing that can_be easily confused._This study_found that there_were even instances where entire sentences_were remodelled by_multilinguals to create new semantic content_in_order to compensate_for_the_lack of_semantic 39 processing._The_creation of_new_words and semantic content from phonetic_elements_within the original sentence was the biggest_factor that caused the_difference_in the total number_of mistakes between monolinguals and_multilinguals, which were not considered phonetic_errors in_the design._This study found the effects of cognitive load to be miniscule_for both monolinguals and multilinguals. This_is indicative to the_strategies implemented_by_both groups when_writing_their answers._It must have been the case that_in situations_where the sentences made no sense,_monolinguals and multilinguals focused_on_phonetics to try and create semantic_meaning that is feasible, rather than_result to rote-memorisation, otherwise there_would_be_a more considerable difference. However,_semantic meaning would have less of_an impact in_monolinguals; monolinguals would have had enough linguistic_experience_and exposure to recognise a word_completely_from its phonetics and separate it_from_other_words of similar phonetic construction,_with semantic meaning taking a secondary_role if necessary. This is why bottom-up models such_as Shortlist B_(Norris &McQueen, 2008) are more_suitable_for_monolinguals and interactive activation models such as BLINCS are more_suitable for_multilinguals. For theories_like Shortlist B, that proposes word perception to be a_probabilistically determined selection of likely candidates influenced_by previous words and confirmed through hearing the first phonetic syllables_of the word, only speakers with enough linguistic_experience