 predicts sentences with high linguistic load and no meaning to be especially difficult in multilinguals, due to the importance of semantic meaning in the interactive process, as well as interference from multiple languages on the phono-lexical and ortho-lexical levels. The length of a sentence is predicted to magnify these effects by having more words to process. Hypothesis I thus predict the removal of contextual meaning, high linguistic load and high cognitive load to individually decrease sentence comprehension and the quality of written communication in monolinguals, but more so in multilinguals. From Hypothesis I, if the quality of written communication decreases more in multilinguals, then Hypothesis II predicts more mistakes and phonetic errors as a whole for multilinguals than for monolinguals. From studies that have found language experience, immersion, exposure as well as age of acquisition to play a role in performance, Hypothesis III predicts an increase in performance from multilinguals whose native language is not English to multilinguals whose native language includes English. All hypotheses were shown to be correct. There were 4 main unintended findings from this research. Finding I found a relationship between the number of languages spoken and performance. Finding II found that monolinguals and multilinguals categorise sentences differently to the framework proposed. Finding III found 3 main categories of perceptual difference in the sentences used between monolinguals and multilinguals. Finding IV analysed specific sentences from Finding III to observe differences in the mistakes performed by monolinguals and multilinguals. 7 Methods Theoretical Framework This paper proposes that all syntactically and grammatically correct sentences can be classified into 8 different categories that combine levels varying in contextual meaning (no meaning or with meaning), linguistic load (high or low linguistic load) and cognitive load (high or low cognitive load). This paper defines these levels for the purposes of this study alone. Sentences and level definitions used have been invented; predictability of words was done by self-judgement. Contextual Meaning No Meaning (NoM): The sentences make no logical sense at all. The words used in these sentences have very low predictability with each other. It is designed such it would be very difficult to guess the word from the context if not heard. With Meaning (WiM): The sentences have logical meaning. The words used are a higher predictability than the NoM conditions. Linguistic Load High Linguistic Load (LinH or H): The majority of words present in these sentences individually have high
predicts sentences with high linguistic load and no meaning to be particularly unmanageable in multilinguals, due to the importance of semantic meaning in the interactive process, equally well as interference from multiple linguistic process on the phono - lexical and ortho - lexical levels. The distance of a prison term is predicted to overstate these effects by having more password to process. Hypothesis I therefore predict the removal of contextual meaning, high linguistic load and high cognitive load to individually decrease sentence comprehension and the timbre of written communication in monolinguals, but more so in multilinguals. From Hypothesis I, if the timbre of written communication decreases more in multilinguals, then Hypothesis II predicts more mistakes and phonetic errors as a whole for multilinguals than for monolingual. From studies that have find language experience, immersion, exposure equally well as age of acquisition to play a role in performance, Hypothesis III predicts an addition in operation from multilinguals whose native terminology is not English to multilinguals whose native language includes English. All hypotheses were shown to be correct. There were 4 main unintended findings from this inquiry. discover I found a kinship between the numeral of lyric spoken and performance. Finding II found that monolinguals and multilinguals categorise sentences differently to the model proposed. Finding III found 3 main categories of perceptual difference in the sentences used between monolinguals and multilinguals. Finding IV analysed specific sentences from Finding III to note remainder in the mistakes performed by monolinguals and multilinguals. 7 Methods Theoretical Framework This paper proposes that all syntactically and grammatically right sentences can be classified into 8 different categories that combine levels varying in contextual meaning (no meaning or with meaning), linguistic load (high or broken linguistic load) and cognitive burden (high or low cognitive cargo). This paper specify these levels for the purpose of this study entirely. Sentences and level definitions use have been invented; predictability of discussion was done by self - judgement. Contextual Meaning No Meaning (NoM ): The sentences make no logical sense at all. The words use in these sentences have very abject predictability with each other. It is designed such it would be very difficult to guess the word from the context if not heard. With Meaning (WiM ): The prison term have logical meaning. The words used are a higher predictability than the NoM conditions. Linguistic Load High Linguistic Load (LinH or H ): The majority of words present in these prison term individually get high
 prfdicts sentences with hinh linguistic loce and io meanjng to bd especially difficult in muptulingyals, due to the importxnce of svmantic mwaniig in the interarfive process, zd weno as interferekce from muntiple languagas ou the phono-lexical and ortho-lexical jevels. Yhf length of a fenttncq is irtdicted to magnify these effects gy haviig more words tp process. Hypothesis I thud prfdict the removal lf contextuql mqqning, high lknguistic load and higg cognitive load to individuallh decxease sentebcw clkprehension and nhe quality on writtan comminication in mpnonintuals, but more so in kultilinguals. From Hypotheshs I, if the quality od wrijten wommjbicxtikn dscreasfs jore in mumtilinguals, then Hypothesis II pwvcicts more mjstakef wnd phonetic errors as a whole for multplinfuals than for monolingyals. From studies thaj have fougd language experience, immersion, exposure as well as aje of agquirutlon to play a role in performance, Hypothesis YJI pgedicts an increafe in perfotmwnvg from multilivguals whkse native languagf is noj Englush to mujtilonguals whose native languate includes Vnglush. All hypotheses were shown to ne cotrect. There were 4 main bnintehded findinhs from tgks research. Findkng I found a relationship betwqen the nnmber of laneuaggs spokqn and pervormakwe. Finding II founf thaj mononinguals ajd multilinguals categorise senvxnces differemtny no the frcmeworl proposed. Figding III founb 3 main eategofies of pegceptual vifference ig the sentencad used betwexn monoligguaos abd multkuinguals. Findimg IV analysed specufic sentences frok Fkhding III to obwerce differences on ghe mpstekes [arformed by konouineials xnd mulunlikguxls. 7 Methods Theoretical Frajework This paper lrjposes tyat all fyntactically and grammatically corrxct seitencex cwn be classified into 8 differeht categogief that combige lcvelf varying nn contextual meaning (no meaning or with meaning), linguistix load (high or low klnguistic loed) and cognitiva load (high or low cignitive load). Thix paper defines these levelv for the purposes of this study alone. Sentences and level definitions used hace beei ynvented; prsdicyabilpty pf worqs wes done by self-judbement. Contextual Meaning No Meening (NoM): Dhz sentences make no logical srnre at all. The words used in these senfences hsve very low predictability witn each other. It is desigked such ut wohld be verb difficult to guess the wmrd feom the conbext if not hexrd. Wlth Meaninh (WiK): Che sentences have logical meanint. The qogds used are a hmgher predicbanility than jhe NoM conditiona. Lihhuistkc Load High Kinguistic Loac (LinH or H): The majogitr of words prewvnt in these xentencvs individualky have higv
predicts sentences with high linguistic load and to especially difficult multilinguals, due to in interactive process, as as interference from languages on the phono-lexical and ortho-lexical The length of a sentence is predicted to magnify these effects by having words to process. Hypothesis I thus predict the removal of contextual meaning, high load high load individually decrease sentence comprehension and the quality of written communication in monolinguals, but more so in From Hypothesis I, if the quality of written decreases more in multilinguals, Hypothesis II predicts more mistakes phonetic as a for than monolinguals. From studies have found language experience, immersion, exposure as well as age of acquisition to play a role in Hypothesis III increase in from whose language is not multilinguals whose native language includes English. shown to be correct. There were 4 main findings from research. Finding I found a relationship the number of languages spoken and performance. Finding found that monolinguals and multilinguals categorise sentences differently to the framework proposed. Finding III found categories of perceptual difference the sentences used monolinguals multilinguals. IV specific sentences Finding III to observe differences in the mistakes performed by monolinguals multilinguals. 7 Methods Theoretical Framework This paper proposes that all grammatically sentences can be into 8 different categories combine varying in contextual meaning or meaning), or linguistic and cognitive load (high low cognitive load). This paper these levels for the Sentences and level definitions used have been invented; of words was done by self-judgement. Contextual No Meaning (NoM): The sentences make no logical sense at all. The used in have very low predictability with each other. It designed such it would very difficult to guess the word from the context not With Meaning The sentences have meaning. The words are a higher the NoM Linguistic High or H): The majority of words in sentences individually have high
 predicts sentences with high Linguistic Load aNd nO meAnIng tO be eSpecially diffiCUlt iN multilinguals, due to the ImporTaNCe of SEmAntic Meaning IN tHE IntErAcTivE pROcEss, as WelL as inteRference frOm mUlTiple languagES oN the phono-lExiCal and ortho-lExiCal levElS. ThE LengtH of A sentEnce is PRedictEd to magniFy THese efFEcts by hAVInG morE words to process. HyPOtHEsis I thus prediCt the rEmOVaL OF coNteXtual meaniNg, High lINguistiC LoAD ANd hIGh cognitive loAd to individUAllY decreAsE seNTence cOmpreHeNSioN and the qualIty oF written cOmmuniCAtion in MOnolingUals, buT moRe sO in mULtIlIngUaLS. FrOM HYpoTHesIs I, if the QuAlIty of WritTEN COmmuNicAtioN decrEases more in muLtiLingUAls, Then HYpothEsis iI PrediCts morE mistAkEs and phonetic erRors As a whole fOr mUlTilInGuals THan for MonOliNguals. FRom studIEs tHaT HAVe Found language experIeNCE, iMmersion, ExposuRE aS wELl as age oF aCquIsitION to plAy a rOLe In perforMance, HYPoThEsis III PrEdicts An IncReaSe in pERforMance fRom multiLinguALs whose native lANguage is not EnGLiSH To MUltiLinGuals whose nAtivE LangUage INcLudES EnglIsh. AlL hYPoTHeses were shown to be cOrRect. ThEre weRe 4 main unintenDed findingS FROm this reSearCH. FINding I found a reLatioNship betweEN the numbEr of lAnguages Spoken and PERformancE. FiNdiNg Ii foUND tHat monolinguaLS And mUlTilinguAls CategorIse SenTenCes DiFferently To the fraMeWoRk PrOpoSed. FiNDing III fOuNd 3 mAiN caTegorIEs of peRceptUal dIfFeREncE in the sENtENCes uSeD bEtweEn mOnOlingUals ANd mUltilinGuals. FindIng iv anaLySeD specifIc sentences frOm finding III To ObsErve diFFErences iN the mistakes performed by MOnolingUalS and mUltiLinguals. 7 MEthOds TheOreTIcal FrAmeworK This PaPer PROposeS THaT alL sYntacticalLY And GrammAtIcalLy correCt sentences can be clASsiFied into 8 diffeRenT catEGOrIes THaT ComBiNE leVELs varying in contExtual meanInG (No Meaning or wITh mEaNing), linGuistic Load (hIGh or low LinguistiC load) and cOgNitiVE LoaD (high or low CognitivE load). This PAper dEFiNes thEse Levels FoR thE purpOses of THis Study Alone. SEnTences And leVeL definitIons used have been inventeD; prediCtabiLitY of words wAs dONe bY self-judgEmenT. ContextuaL MeAniNg No MEanINg (NoM): the sENtEncES make No loGIcal sense AT aLl. THE WoRds used in thESE SenTenceS haVE very lOw prEdictability with eACh other. It is desIgneD SUch It wOUld bE vEry difficult to GueSs THE word froM tHe context if Not heard. wiTH MeanIng (WiM): the senTences hAVE lOGical mEaniNg. THe words usEd aRe A Higher pReDiCTabiliTy thAn The NoM ConditIOns. LINGuistic Load High LInguiSTIc LoaD (linh or H): THe MajoritY Of woRds present In these sentEnces iNdivIdualLy have hIgH
 predicts sentences with h igh lingui sticloa d a nd  nomean ing to be espe c iall y difficult in multili ngual s, duet othe i mportan c eo f  se ma nt icme a ni ng in  th e inter active pro ces s,  as well asi nt erferencefro m multiple l ang uageson  th e  phon o-l exica l ando rtho-l exical le ve l s. The lengtho f  a  sen tence is predicte d  t o  magnify these  effec ts by h avi ngmore words  t o pro c ess. Hy p ot h e s isI  thus predict  the remova l  of  conte xt ual meanin g, hi gh lin guistic loa d an d high co gnitiv e  load t o  indivi dually  de cre ases en te nce  c o mpr e he nsi o n a nd the q ua li ty of  wri t t e n  com mun icat ion i n monolingual s,butm ore  so i n mul tili ng uals.  FromHypot he sis I, if the q uali ty of wri tte ncom mu nicat i on dec rea ses  more i n multi l ing ua l s ,  t hen Hypothesis IIpr e d ic ts moremistak e san d  phoneti cerr orsa s  a wh olef or  multili nguals th an  for mo no lingua ls . F rom  stud i es t hat ha ve found  lang u age experience ,  immersion, e x po s u re as w ell  as age ofacqu i siti on t o  p lay a rol e inpe r fo r mance, Hypothesis I II  predi cts a n increase in  performan c e from mul tili n gu a ls whose nativ e lan guage is n o t Englis h tomultilin guals who s e  nativelan gua geinc l u de s English. Al l hypo th eses we reshown t o b e c orr ect .There wer e 4 main  u ni nt en ded  find i ngs from  t his  r ese arch. Findin g I f ound  a  r e lat ionship be t w eenth enumb erof  lang uage s  sp oken an d perform anc e . Fi nd in g II fo und that mono li nguals and  m ult ilingu a l s catego rise sentences differen t ly to t heframe work  proposed . F inding  II I  found  3 mai n cat eg ori e s  of p e r ce ptu al  differenc e inthe s en tenc es used  between monolingu a lsand multiling ual s. F i n di ngI Va nal ys e d s p e cific sentences  from Find in g  I II to obse r vedi fferenc es in t he mi s takes p erformedby monoli ng uals a ndmultilingu als. 7 M ethods Th e oreti c al  Fram ewo rk Thi spap er pr oposes tha t all  synta ct ically  andgr ammatica lly correct sentences c an beclass ifi ed into 8  di f fer ent categ orie s that com bin e l evels  va r yingin c o nt ext u al me anin g  (no mean i ng  or w it h meaning), l i ngu istic  lo a d (hig h or  low linguistic l o ad) and cognit ivel o ad(hi g h or  l ow cognitive l oad ). T his pape rdefines the se level sf or th e purp oses o f thiss t ud y  alone . Se nte nces andlev el definit io ns used h avebe en inv ented; pred i c tability of word s was d one b y  se lf-ju dg ement.C onte xtual Mean ing No Mean ing (N oM):  Thesentenc es  makenolo gical sens e  at all.The w ords us ed  inthe se sen tenc e s  have  ver ylow  predicta b i li t ywi t h e achother .It i s designe d  such it  wo u ld be v er y d i f ficult to g uess the w ord  from t he context if n o th eard.  WithMeanin g (WiM) :  Th esentenc esh a ve logica l meaning .  Th eword s used a re  a h ig her  p redictability t han theNoM cond i t ions.Lin g uist i c Load  H igh Linguist ic Lo ad (LinH o r H):  The ma j ori tyofword s p rese n t in these sentences ind ivid ually hav e hig h
 predicts_sentences with_high linguistic load and_no meaning_to_be especially_difficult_in multilinguals, due_to the importance_of semantic meaning in_the interactive process,_as_well as interference from multiple languages on the phono-lexical and ortho-lexical levels. The length_of_a sentence_is_predicted_to magnify these effects by_having more words to process._Hypothesis I_thus predict the removal of contextual meaning, high_linguistic_load and high_cognitive load to individually decrease sentence comprehension and the_quality of written communication in monolinguals,_but more so_in_multilinguals._From Hypothesis I, if_the quality of written communication decreases_more in multilinguals, then Hypothesis II_predicts more mistakes and phonetic errors as_a whole for multilinguals than for_monolinguals. From studies that have_found language_experience, immersion, exposure as well_as age of_acquisition to_play a role_in performance, Hypothesis III predicts an_increase in performance_from multilinguals whose native language is_not_English to multilinguals_whose_native_language includes_English. All hypotheses_were_shown to_be_correct. There were 4 main unintended_findings_from this research. Finding I found a_relationship between the number_of_languages spoken and performance._Finding II found that monolinguals_and multilinguals categorise sentences differently to_the framework_proposed. Finding_III found 3 main categories of perceptual difference in the sentences_used between monolinguals and multilinguals. Finding_IV analysed specific sentences_from Finding_III_to observe differences_in_the mistakes_performed by monolinguals and multilinguals. 7 Methods_Theoretical Framework_This paper proposes that all syntactically_and grammatically correct sentences_can_be classified into 8 different categories_that combine levels varying in contextual_meaning (no meaning or with_meaning),_linguistic_load (high or low linguistic_load) and cognitive load (high or_low cognitive load)._This paper defines these levels for the_purposes_of this study alone. Sentences and_level_definitions used have been invented; predictability_of_words_was done by self-judgement. Contextual_Meaning No Meaning (NoM): The sentences_make no logical sense at all. The words used_in these sentences_have very low predictability with_each_other._It is designed such it would be very difficult to_guess the_word from the_context if not heard. With Meaning (WiM): The sentences have_logical meaning. The words used are a_higher predictability than the NoM conditions. Linguistic Load High Linguistic Load_(LinH or H): The majority of words present_in these sentences individually have high