 and English Native and Foreign Proficient; and the 'Number of Languages Spoken'. The participants were tested under 3 within-subjects independent variables each with two levels: IV1='Contextual Meaning, Levels: No Meaning (Code: NoM), With Meaning (Code: WiM); IV2='Linguistic Load', Levels: Low (Code: L), High (Code: H); IV3='Cognitive Load', Levels: Low (Code: L), High (Code: H). The 3 independent variables were combined factorially together to form 8 different conditions (2x2x2). All participants did all 8 conditions. The sentences within these conditions were measured using 4 dependent variables: SPERI, SPIn, The Total Number of Mistakes Made and The Number of Phonetic Errors. 11 Participants Participants were all students (undergraduates and postgraduates) from Durham University with a mean age of 19.6 (sd=1.2). 36 females and 5 males participated in this study, totalling 41. There were 17 Monolinguals and 24 Multilinguals. Within the multilingual category, 12 were billingual, 9 were trilingual and 3 were polyglots (2 spoke 4 languages and 1 spoke 5 languages). The languages spoken in the multilingual category were German, Dutch, Mandarin, Cantonese, Hindi, Japanese, Russian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Spanish, French, Portuguese, Italian, Greek, Korean, Malay and Hungarian. All participants would have had an ILETS score of at least 6.5 (CEFR level of B2/C1, borderline high-intermediate to advanced) in English according to Durham University Entrance Requirements (The Complete University Guide, 2018). No participant had hearing problems. Materials 6 test trial sentences and 48 experimental trail sentences (6 in each of the 8 categories) were used (See Appendix C1). The sentences were spoken by the experimenter. The sentences were then superimposed over English Human Babble. The babble used was No 19 from the SG-10 Noise-data-base developed by Dr H. Steeneken (Steeneken, 2018) which was babble in a canteen with 100 people. Sentences were counterbalanced separately for each participant in the experiment. A MATLAB program was used to present the test and experimental run. Apparatus included a computer with 2 monitor screens, 2 keyboards, 1 mouse and headphones. The experimenter
and English Native and Foreign Proficient; and the' Number of Languages Spoken'. The participants were tested under 3 within - subjects autonomous variable star each with two levels: IV1='Contextual Meaning, Levels: No Meaning (Code: NoM), With Meaning (Code: WiM); IV2='Linguistic Load', Levels: Low (Code: L), High (Code: H); IV3='Cognitive Load', Levels: Low (Code: L), High (Code: H). The 3 autonomous variables were combine factorially together to shape 8 different conditions (2x2x2). All participant did all 8 conditions. The prison term within these conditions were measured use 4 dependent variable star: SPERI, SPIn, The Total act of Mistakes Made and The Number of Phonetic Errors. 11 Participants Participants were all scholar (undergraduates and postgraduates) from Durham University with a mean age of 19.6 (sd=1.2). 36 female and 5 males participated in this study, totalling 41. There were 17 monolingual and 24 Multilinguals. Within the multilingual category, 12 were billingual, 9 were trilingual and 3 were polyglots (2 spoke 4 languages and 1 spoke 5 languages). The linguistic process speak in the multilingual category were German, Dutch, Mandarin, Cantonese, Hindi, Japanese, Russian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Spanish, French, Portuguese, Italian, Greek, Korean, Malay and Hungarian. All participants would have had an ILETS score of at least 6.5 (CEFR level of B2 / C1, borderline eminent - average to advance) in English according to Durham University Entrance Requirements (The Complete University Guide, 2018). No participant had hearing trouble. Materials 6 test trial prison term and 48 experimental trail sentences (6 in each of the 8 categories) were used (determine Appendix C1). The sentences were spoken by the experimenter. The sentences were then superimposed over English Human Babble. The babble used was No 19 from the SG-10 Noise - data - al-qaeda developed by Dr H. Steeneken (Steeneken, 2018) which was babble in a canteen with 100 people. Sentences were counterbalanced individually for each participant in the experiment. A MATLAB course of study was use to present the test and experimental run. Apparatus included a computer with 2 monitor screens, 2 keyboard, 1 mouse and headphones. The experimenter
 anf English Native and Fortign Proficient; aue the 'Iumber kf Languxges Spoken'. The participants wwre ttfted under 3 within-rubjects pndependebt veriables each wivg two lcrels: JY1='Contzxvual Meaning, Leyels: No Meating (Code: NoM), Figh Meaning (Code: WiM); IV2='Linguistic Load', Levels: Llw (Code: L), High (Codt: H); IV3='Ckgnitive Load', Levels: Low (Code: L), Hifh (Code: H). The 3 indeprndent variables were comblned factorially togetjer to form 8 disderent condigions (2x2x2). All participahts did all 8 conditions. The sengencex within tyewe fmnditions wxre mewsured using 4 dependant varoables: SPERI, SIIn, Tie Tital Number of Mistakxs Made and The Numbgr of Phonatnc Errors. 11 Participanrs Parthcipdnts qerd aml sfudentd (uidergraduatss and posttraduates) from Durhsm Lmiversity wifh a mqag age of 19.6 (sd=1.2). 36 females and 5 males particppatsd in this study, totallung 41. There were 17 Monopinguals wnd 24 Multilinguals. Within the multilingual categosy, 12 wxrd bnolingjql, 9 were trilingual and 3 were polyglots (2 spoke 4 mamglages and 1 spoke 5 languages). Yhf kwnguages spokgn in tks jultilingual categlry werg Germqn, Dutch, Iandsrin, Cantonese, Hindi, Japanewe, Russian, Bllgaeian, Serbian, Spanidh, French, Purtubuese, Italian, Greek, Korean, Mclay ahd Hungariaj. All parfkcipants would hxve hdd an ILTGS score of at lewst 6.5 (CEFR levzl of B2/C1, borcerlinq high-integmediate to advanced) in Fnglidh according to Durham University Entrance Cxquirements (Tne Cokplete Uuiverslty Guide, 2018). No pwrticipant had heariny probuems. Materpals 6 tesv trial sentqnces and 48 ex[grimental traml sentenses (6 in wach of ghe 8 categoriex) were usvd (See Appendix C1). The sektencgs were spoken by tht wxperimenter. Tne reneejcxs wewa then superhmpored pver Dnglish Humcn Babnle. The babble used fas Ho 19 from the SG-10 Noosc-data-base developqd by Dr H. Streneken (Steeneken, 2018) whici was uabble in a canteen with 100 people. Sentendes were foukterbalanced fepavatejy for eack participant in the experiment. A MATLAB program was used ro present the test snd experimxntal wun. Appardtus included a compyter with 2 monitov screens, 2 keyboards, 1 jouse dnd hfadphones. The experimenter
and English Native and Foreign Proficient; and of Spoken'. The were tested under with levels: IV1='Contextual Meaning, No Meaning (Code: With Meaning (Code: WiM); IV2='Linguistic Load', Low (Code: L), High (Code: H); IV3='Cognitive Load', Levels: Low (Code: L), High H). The 3 independent variables were combined factorially together to form 8 different (2x2x2). participants all conditions. The sentences within these conditions were measured using 4 dependent variables: SPERI, SPIn, The Total of Mistakes Made and The Number of Phonetic 11 Participants Participants were students (undergraduates and postgraduates) from University a mean of (sd=1.2). females and 5 participated in this study, totalling 41. There were 17 Monolinguals and 24 Multilinguals. Within the multilingual category, were billingual, trilingual and were (2 4 languages and 5 languages). The languages spoken in were German, Dutch, Mandarin, Cantonese, Hindi, Japanese, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Greek, Korean, Malay and All participants would have had an ILETS score at least 6.5 (CEFR level of B2/C1, borderline high-intermediate to advanced) in English according to Entrance Requirements (The Complete Guide, 2018). No had problems. 6 trial sentences 48 experimental trail sentences (6 in each of the 8 categories) used (See Appendix C1). The sentences were spoken by the sentences then superimposed over Human Babble. The babble was 19 from the SG-10 by H. which babble a canteen with 100 Sentences were counterbalanced separately for participant in the experiment. to present the test and experimental run. Apparatus a computer with 2 monitor screens, 2 1 mouse and headphones. The experimenter
 and English Native and ForeigN ProficienT; and tHe 'NUmbEr Of LaNguaGes Spoken'. The paRTiciPants were tested under 3 wiThin-sUbJEcts INdEpendEnt variABlES EacH wItH twO lEVeLs: IV1='COntExtual MEaning, LeveLs: NO MEaning (Code: Nom), wiTh Meaning (COde: wiM); IV2='LinguisTic load', LeVeLs: LOW (Code: l), HiGh (CodE: H); IV3='CoGNitive load', LevelS: LOW (Code: L), hIgh (Code: h). tHe 3 IndePendent variables wERe COmbined factoriAlly toGeTHeR TO foRm 8 dIfferent coNdItionS (2X2x2). All paRTiCIPAntS Did all 8 conditiOns. The senteNCes Within ThEse COnditiOns weRe MEasUred using 4 dePendEnt variabLes: SPEri, SPIn, ThE total NuMber of misTakEs MaDE aNd the nuMBer OF PHonETic errors. 11 PaRtIcIpantS ParTICIPantS weRe alL studEnts (undergradUatEs anD PosTgradUates) From duRham UNiversIty wiTh A mean age of 19.6 (sd=1.2). 36 femAles And 5 males pArtIcIpaTeD in thIS study, TotAllIng 41. TherE were 17 MoNOliNgUALS aNd 24 Multilinguals. WitHiN THe MultilinGual caTEgOrY, 12 Were billInGuaL, 9 werE TRilinGual ANd 3 Were polyGlots (2 sPOkE 4 lAnguageS aNd 1 spokE 5 lAngUagEs). The LAnguAges spOken in thE multILingual categorY Were German, DutCH, MANDaRIn, CaNtoNese, Hindi, JaPaneSE, RusSian, bUlGarIAn, SerBian, SPaNIsH, french, Portuguese, ItaLiAn, GreeK, KoreAn, Malay and HunGarian. All pARTIcipants WoulD HaVE had an ILETS scoRe of aT least 6.5 (CEFR LEvel of B2/C1, BordeRline higH-intermedIATe to advaNceD) in engLisH ACcOrding to DurhaM uNiveRsIty EntrAncE RequirEmeNts (the comPlEte UniverSity GuidE, 2018). NO pArTiCipAnt haD Hearing pRoBleMs. matErialS 6 Test trIal seNtenCeS aND 48 exPerimenTAl TRAil sEnTeNces (6 In eAcH of thE 8 catEGorIes) were Used (See ApPenDIx C1). THe SeNtences Were spoken by tHe ExperimentEr. the SentenCES were theN superimposed over EnglisH human BaBblE. The bAbblE used was NO 19 frOm the Sg-10 NoISe-data-Base deVelopEd By DR h. steenEKEn (steEnEken, 2018) which wAS BabBle in A cAnteEn with 100 pEople. Sentences were COunTerbalanced seParAtelY FOr EacH PaRTicIpANt iN THe experiment. A MAtLAB prograM wAS uSed to preseNT thE tEst and eXperimeNtal rUN. ApparaTus includEd a computEr With 2 MONitOr screens, 2 kEyboards, 1 Mouse and hEAdphoNEs. the exPerImenteR
 and English Native and Fo reign Prof icien t;and  t he ' Numb er of Language s  Spo ken'. The participants  were  t e sted un der 3  within - su b j ect sin dep en d en t var iab les eac h with two  le ve ls: IV1='Con t ex tual Meani ng,  Levels: NoMea ning ( Co de: NoM),  Wi th Me aning( Code:WiM); IV2 =' L inguis t ic Load ' ,  L evel s: Low (Code: L), Hi g h (Code: H); I V3='Co gn i ti v e  Lo ad' , Levels:Lo w (Co d e: L),H ig h ( Cod e : H). The 3 i ndependentv ari ableswe rec ombine d fac to r ial ly together  toform 8 di fferen t  condit i ons (2x 2x2).All  pa rtic i pa nt s d id all 8con d iti ons. The  s en tence s wi t h i n  the second ition s were measur edusin g  4depen dentvari ab les:SPERI,  SPIn ,The Total Numbe r of  Mistakes  Ma de  an dThe N u mber o f P hon etic Er rors. 1 1  Pa rt i c i pa nts Participants w er e al l studen ts (un d er gr a duates a nd  po stgr a d uates ) fr o mDurham U nivers i ty  w ith a m ea n ageof  19 .6(sd=1 . 2).36 fem ales and  5 ma l es participate d  in this stud y ,t o ta l ling  41 . There wer e 17 Mono ling u al s a n d 24Multi li n gu a ls. Within the mult il ingual  cate gory, 12 were  billingua l , 9 were t rili n gu a l and 3 were p olygl ots (2 spo k e 4 lang uages  and 1 s poke 5 la n g uages).The  la ngu age s sp oken in the m u l tili ng ual cat ego ry were  Ge rma n,Dut ch , Mandari n, Canto ne se ,Hi ndi , Jap a nese, Ru ss ian ,Bul garia n , Serb ian,Span is h, Fre nch, Po r tu g u ese,  I ta lian , G re ek, K orea n , M alay an d Hungari an. Allpa rt icipant s would haveha d an ILETS  s cor e of a t least 6. 5 (CEFR level of B2/C1, borderl ine  high -int ermediate  to  advan ced )  in En glishaccor di ngt o  Durh a m  U niv er sity Entra n c e R equir em ents  (The C omplete University Gui de, 2018). No  pa rtic i p an t h a dh ear in g  pr o b lems. Materials  6 test tr ia l  s entences a n d 4 8experim ental t rails entence s (6 in e ach of th e8 ca t e gor ies) wereused (Se e Appendi x  C1). Th e sen ten ces we re  sp okenby the exp erime nter.Th e sent ences  w ere then  superimposed over Engl ish Hu man B abb le. The b abb l e u sed was N o 19  from theSG- 10Noise -da t a-bas e de v el ope d  by D r H. Steeneken (S tee n e ke n, 2018) wh i c h  wa s bab ble in a c ante en with 100 peopl e . Sentences we re c o u nte rba l ance dseparately for  ea ch p articipa nt  in the exp eriment.  A MATLA B prog ram wa s usedt o  p r esentthetes t and exp eri me n tal run .Ap p aratus  inc lu ded acomput e r wi t h  2 monitor scree ns, 2 k eyboa r ds,  1 mo us e and h e adph ones. Theexperimente r
 and_English Native_and Foreign Proficient; and_the 'Number_of_Languages Spoken'._The_participants were tested_under 3 within-subjects_independent variables each with_two levels: IV1='Contextual_Meaning,_Levels: No Meaning (Code: NoM), With Meaning (Code: WiM); IV2='Linguistic Load', Levels: Low (Code:_L),_High (Code:_H);_IV3='Cognitive_Load', Levels: Low (Code: L),_High (Code: H). The 3_independent variables_were combined factorially together to form 8 different_conditions_(2x2x2). All participants_did all 8 conditions. The sentences within these conditions_were measured using 4 dependent variables:_SPERI, SPIn, The_Total_Number_of Mistakes Made and_The Number of Phonetic Errors. 11_Participants Participants were all students (undergraduates_and postgraduates) from Durham University with a_mean age of 19.6 (sd=1.2). 36_females and 5 males participated_in this_study, totalling 41. There were_17 Monolinguals and_24 Multilinguals._Within the multilingual_category, 12 were billingual, 9 were_trilingual and 3_were polyglots (2 spoke 4 languages_and_1 spoke 5_languages)._The_languages spoken_in the multilingual_category_were German,_Dutch,_Mandarin, Cantonese, Hindi, Japanese, Russian, Bulgarian,_Serbian,_Spanish, French, Portuguese, Italian, Greek, Korean, Malay_and Hungarian. All participants_would_have had an ILETS_score of at least 6.5_(CEFR level of B2/C1, borderline high-intermediate_to advanced)_in English_according to Durham University Entrance Requirements (The Complete University Guide, 2018)._No participant had hearing problems. Materials_6 test trial sentences_and 48_experimental_trail sentences (6_in_each of_the 8 categories) were used (See Appendix_C1). The_sentences were spoken by the experimenter._The sentences were then_superimposed_over English Human Babble. The babble_used was No 19 from the_SG-10 Noise-data-base developed by Dr_H._Steeneken_(Steeneken, 2018) which was babble_in a canteen with 100 people._Sentences were counterbalanced_separately for each participant in the experiment._A_MATLAB program was used to present_the_test and experimental run. Apparatus included_a_computer_with 2 monitor screens, 2_keyboards, 1 mouse and headphones. The_experimenter