 had an additional laptop in front of his monitor to take measures. 12 Procedure This study had received ethical approval from the Psychology Ethics Committee of Durham University and all ethical guidelines were strictly followed. After participants received an information sheet and consent form to complete, a brief introduction to the experiment was recited by the experimenter to let the participant know he/she will be completing a test trail, experimental trail and a questionnaire (see Appendix B) at the end, including debriefing. Participants wore headphones; the experimenter controlled the volume and tested the sound by playing a beep (subjects were asked if the volume was ok). Participants followed instructions including to efficiently type what they can hear as they are hearing it (to avoid serial position effects in the answers or a memory task, Murdock, 1962) and to guess when unsure. Both the participant and experimenter couldn't see one another. 13 Results The results section has been split into two parts: The hypotheses and the unintended findings. All error bars used in the graphs were standard errors customised to each condition. Hypothesis I: The removal of contextual meaning, high linguistic load and high cognitive load will individually decrease sentence comprehension and the quality of written communication in monolinguals and multilinguals, but multilinguals will perform worse than monolinguals. Figure 1 The effect of contextual meaning on monolinguals and multilinguals; scores were averaged across 17 monolinguals and 24 multilinguals. Figure 2 The effect of linguistic load on monolinguals and multilinguals; scores were averaged across 17 monolinguals and 24 multilinguals. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Low High A v e ra g e S p e e c h C o m p re h e n s io n ( S P In ) p e r p a rt ic ip a n t 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 No Meaning With Meaning A v e ra g e S p e e c h C o m p re h e n s io n ( S P In ) p e r p a rt ic ip a n t 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 No Meaning With Meaning A v e ra g e
had an additional laptop in front of his monitor to subscribe measuring stick. 12 Procedure This discipline had receive ethical approval from the Psychology Ethics Committee of Durham University and all ethical guidelines were rigorously followed. After participants received an data sail and consent form to dispatch, a brief introduction to the experiment was recited by the experimenter to let the player know he / she will be completing a trial trail, experimental trail and a questionnaire (attend Appendix B) at the end, including debriefing. player wore headphones; the experimenter controlled the volume and test the sound by playing a beep (subjects were asked if the volume was all right). Participants followed instructions including to efficiently type what they can hear as they are hearing it (to invalidate serial position effects in the answers or a memory task, Murdock, 1962) and to guess when unsure. Both the participant and experimenter couldn't see one another. 13 Results The consequence section has been split into two share: The guess and the unintended findings. All error bars use in the graph were standard errors customised to each condition. guess I: The removal of contextual meaning, high linguistic load and high cognitive load will individually decrease sentence comprehension and the timbre of written communication in monolinguals and multilinguals, but multilinguals will perform worse than monolinguals. Figure 1 The effect of contextual meaning on monolingual and multilinguals; score were averaged across 17 monolinguals and 24 multilinguals. Figure 2 The consequence of linguistic load on monolinguals and multilinguals; scores were average across 17 monolinguals and 24 multilinguals. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Low High A v e ra g e S p einsteinium e c h C o m p re h e n s io n (S P In) p e roentgen p a rt ic ip a nitrogen t 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 No Meaning With Meaning A volt e ra g e S p east e c h C o m p re h e n s io n (S P In) p e radius phosphorus a rt ic ip a n t 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 No Meaning With Meaning A v einsteinium ra g e
 haf an additional laptop ik front of his monitor vo take measurer. 12 Procedure This study had ceceuved tnhical approval from ghe Psychllogy Etyics Xommittee of Durham Univsvsity end all ethical guidelinev were strictlf woplowed. After participants received wn infotmwtion sheet anq comfent form to complete, a brief introducfion to the experimemt was recited by the expegimejter to let the pagticipant kbow rw/she will be completing a test trajl, experimental trail and a quertionuaire (see Ak'wndlf B) at the xnd, inbluding debricging. Pdrticipsnts wore headihonev; tye experimenter contrmlled the volume agd tested tke sound by playing a bwep (sobjecds wdee xsktd mf fhe vopumx was ok). Padticipants dollowed instructioms pmcluding to sfficiqnely type what they can hear as they are hezring it (to avoid seriao position effects in the answqrs or a memory task, Murdock, 1962) and to guess when utsure. Cotk the oqrhicipant and experimenter couldn't see one anoeget. 13 Results The rcsults section has bfem split into tdo parca: Fhe hypotheses and the unynteneed findiggs. Sll error bars used in the traphs were frandard errors cuscomised to ecch comditipn. Hypothesis I: The remuval of contextkal meanihe, high linguistiz lpag and high cognitive load rill inditiduakly decfeasg sentegce comprejension and the quality lf wrntten communicahion in monolinguals and multilmiguals, but mukthlitguals wnll pevform worse thag monolinguals. Figure 1 The effect of contexvual meaning on monolingudps and multininguals; scoees qere avdfaged across 17 konolingucjs abd 24 multilinguals. Nigurg 2 The effect of ointuistic load on movolynhuels agg multilingudls; rcofrs wefe averaged xcroxs 17 monolinguals and 24 mumtilinguals. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Low Hith A v e ra g e S p e e c h C o m p re j e n s mo n ( X P In ) p e r p a rt ic ip a n t 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 No Meaning Witr Meqning A v e xa g e S p e e c h C o m p re h e n s io n ( S P In ) p e r p a rt ic ip a n t 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 Np Meaging With Meaning A v e ra g w
had an additional laptop in front of to measures. 12 This study had Psychology Committee of Durham and all ethical were strictly followed. After participants received information sheet and consent form to complete, a brief introduction to the experiment recited by the experimenter to let the participant know he/she will be completing test experimental and questionnaire (see Appendix B) at the end, including debriefing. Participants wore headphones; the experimenter controlled the and tested the sound by playing a beep were asked if the was ok). Participants followed instructions to type what can as are hearing it avoid serial position effects in the answers or a memory task, Murdock, 1962) and to guess when Both the experimenter couldn't one 13 The results section split into two parts: The hypotheses findings. All error bars used in the graphs standard errors to each condition. Hypothesis I: The of contextual meaning, high linguistic load and high load will individually decrease sentence comprehension and the quality of written communication in monolinguals and multilinguals will perform worse monolinguals. Figure 1 effect contextual on and multilinguals; were averaged across 17 monolinguals and 24 multilinguals. Figure 2 The of linguistic load on monolinguals and multilinguals; scores were averaged monolinguals 24 multilinguals. 0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.9 Low High A ra e e h o m p re e n s io n S P In ) rt ic ip a n t 0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Meaning With Meaning A v e ra g e S p e c h m p re h e n s io ( S P In p e r p a rt ic ip a t 0.45 0.5 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.8 0.85 0.9 Meaning With Meaning e ra e
 had an additional laptop in frOnt of his moNitor To tAke MeAsurEs. 12 PrOcedure This stuDY had Received ethical approvaL from ThE psycHOlOgy EtHics ComMItTEE of duRhAm UNiVErSity aNd aLl ethicAl guidelinEs wErE strictly folLOwEd. After parTicIpants receivEd aN inforMaTioN Sheet And ConseNt form TO complEte, a brief InTRoductIOn to the EXPeRimeNt was recited by the EXpERimenter to let tHe partIcIPaNT KnoW he/She will be cOmPletiNG a test tRAiL, EXPerIMental trail anD a questionnAIre (See AppEnDix b) At the eNd, incLuDIng Debriefing. PArtiCipants woRe headPHones; thE ExperimEnter cOntRolLed tHE vOlUme AnD TesTEd The SOunD by playiNg A bEep (suBjecTS WERe asKed If thE voluMe was ok). ParticIpaNts fOLloWed inStrucTionS iNcludIng to eFficiEnTly type what they Can hEar as they Are HeAriNg It (to aVOid serIal PosItion efFects in THe aNsWERS oR a memory task, MurdocK, 1962) aND To Guess wheN unsurE. boTh THe particIpAnt And eXPErimeNter COuLdn't see oNe anotHEr. 13 reSults ThE rEsults SeCtiOn hAs beeN SpliT into tWo parts: THe hypOTheses and the unINtended findinGS. ALL ErROr baRs uSed in the graPhs wERe stAndaRD eRroRS custOmiseD tO EaCH condition. HypothesiS I: the remOval oF contextual meAning, high lINGUistic loAd anD HiGH cognitive load Will iNdividuallY Decrease SenteNce comprEhension aND The qualiTy oF wrIttEn cOMMuNication in monOLInguAlS and mulTilInguals, But MulTilIngUaLs will perForm worsE tHaN mOnOliNgualS. figure 1 ThE eFfeCt Of cOntexTUal meaNing oN monOlInGUalS and mulTIlINGualS; sCoRes wEre AvErageD acrOSs 17 mOnolingUals and 24 muLtiLInguAlS. FIgure 2 ThE effect of lingUiStic load on MoNolIngualS ANd multilInguals; scores were averagED across 17 MonOlingUals And 24 multilIngUals. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 LoW HiGH A v e ra G e S p e e C h C o m P rE h e N S Io n ( S P iN ) P e R p a Rt Ic ip a n t 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 No MEANinG With meAninG A v e ra g E S p e e c h C o m p re h e n s iO N ( S P in ) p e r p a rt ic ip A n t 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 no MeANInG WiTH MEAniNg a V e rA G E
 had an additional laptopin front o f his  mo nit or  totake  measures. 12P roce dure This study had re ceive de thic a lappro val fro m  t h e  Ps yc ho log yE th ics C omm ittee o f Durham U niv er sity and all et hical guid eli nes were str ict ly fol lo wed .  Afte r p artic ipants receiv ed an inf or m ations heet an d co nsen t form to complet e ,a  brief introdu ctionto th e exp eri ment was r ec itedb y the e x pe r i m ent e r to let theparticipant kno w he/s he  wi l l be c omple ti n g a  test trail , ex perimenta l trai l  and aq uestion naire(se e A ppen d ix  B ) a tt hee nd , i n clu ding deb ri ef ing.Part i c i p ants  wo re h eadph ones; the exp eri ment e r c ontro lledthevo lumeand te stedth e sound by play inga beep (s ubj ec tswe re as k ed ifthe  vo lume wa s ok).P art ic i p a nt s followed instruc ti o n sincludin g to e f fi ci e ntly typ ewha t th e y  canhear as  they ar e hear i ng  i t (to a vo id ser ia l p osi tione ffec ts inthe answ ers o r  a memory task ,  Murdock, 196 2 )a n dt o gu ess  when unsur e. B o th t he p a rt ici p ant a nd ex pe r im e nter couldn't see o ne  anoth er. 1 3 Results The  results s e c t ion hasbeen sp l it into two pa rts:The hypoth e ses andthe u nintende d finding s .  All err orbar s u sed i nthe graphs we r e  sta nd ard err ors  custom ise d t o e ach  c ondition.  Hypothe si sI:  T heremov a l of con te xtu al  me aning ,  highlingu isti clo a d a nd high co g n itiv elo ad w ill  i ndivi dual l y d ecrease  sentence  co m preh en si on andthe quality o fwritten co mm uni cation i n monoli nguals and multilingual s , but m ult iling uals  will per for m wors e t h an mon olingu als.Fi gur e 1 The e ff ect  o f contextu a l  me aning  o n mo nolingu als and multilingu a ls;  scores wereave rage d ac ros s  1 7  mo no l ing u a ls and 24 multi linguals.Fi g ur e 2 The ef f ect  o f lingu istic l oad o n  monoli nguals an d multili ng uals ; sco res were a veragedacross 17 monol i ng ualsand  24 mu lt ili ngual s. 0 0 . 1 0 .2 0. 3 0.40. 5 0.60.7 0 .8  0.9 Low  High A v e ra g e S pe e ch C o  mp re h en s ion ( S P I n )p e r p articip an t 0 0.1  0.2 0. 3 0 . 4 0.5  0.6 0.7 0.8 0 . 9NoM e an ing With Me a n i ngA v e  ra g e Sp ee c h C o m p reh  e n s io n (S PI n  )p e r part ic ip a n t  0. 40 . 45 0.5 0 .5 5 0.6 0.650.7 0.75  0 . 8 0.8 5 0.9No Mea ning Wi t h  M e aningA ve r a g e
 had_an additional_laptop in front of_his monitor_to_take measures._12_Procedure This study_had received ethical_approval from the Psychology_Ethics Committee of_Durham_University and all ethical guidelines were strictly followed. After participants received an information sheet_and_consent form_to_complete,_a brief introduction to the_experiment was recited by the_experimenter to_let the participant know he/she will be completing_a_test trail, experimental_trail and a questionnaire (see Appendix B) at the_end, including debriefing. Participants wore headphones;_the experimenter controlled_the_volume_and tested the sound_by playing a beep (subjects were_asked if the volume was ok)._Participants followed instructions including to efficiently type_what they can hear as they_are hearing it (to avoid_serial position_effects in the answers or_a memory task,_Murdock, 1962)_and to guess_when unsure. Both the participant and_experimenter couldn't see_one another. 13 Results The results_section_has been split_into_two_parts: The_hypotheses and the_unintended_findings. All_error_bars used in the graphs were_standard_errors customised to each condition. Hypothesis I:_The removal of contextual_meaning,_high linguistic load and_high cognitive load will individually_decrease sentence comprehension and the quality_of written_communication in_monolinguals and multilinguals, but multilinguals will perform worse than monolinguals. Figure_1 The effect of contextual meaning_on monolinguals and multilinguals;_scores were_averaged_across 17 monolinguals_and_24 multilinguals._Figure 2 The effect of linguistic load_on monolinguals_and multilinguals; scores were averaged across_17 monolinguals and 24_multilinguals._0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5_0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Low High_A v e ra g_e_S_p e e c h_C o m p re h_e n s_io n ( S P In )_p_e r p a rt ic_ip_a n t 0 0.1 0.2_0.3_0.4_0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9_No Meaning With Meaning A v_e ra g e S p e e c_h C o_m p re h e_n_s_io n ( S P In ) p e r_p a_rt ic ip_a n t 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7_0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 No Meaning With_Meaning A v e ra g e