Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:51:57.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Online Ambiguity Resolution in Bilingual Lexical Access

from Part III - Bilingual Sentence Processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2019

By
Omar García ,
Anna B. Cieślicka  and
Roberto R. Heredia
Edited by
Roberto R. Heredia  and
Anna B. Cieślicka
Roberto R. Heredia
Affiliation:
Texas A & M University
Anna B. Cieślicka
Affiliation:
Texas A & M University
Get access

Summary

This chapter reports on three experiments using the cross-modal lexical priming paradigm to explore whether interlingual homographs (i.e., words with competing semantic and overlapping orthographic representations) are activated selectively or nonselectively. The literature is somewhat controversial when it comes to the question of how bilinguals process ambiguous language. While the majority of studies suggest language nonselectivity, some research seems to indicate selective bilingual lexical access depending on the user’s linguistic needs and demands. In Experiment 1, which serves as a baseline, Spanish-English bilinguals listened to sentences in which a critical prime (e.g., trial) was associated with the English meaning of a homograph target (cases). In Experiment 2, participants were presented with homograph-translation primes (e.g., the stimulus married is presented before cases). Experiment 3, aside from the homograph-translation priming from Experiment 2, included a Spanish language mode induction variable presented at the beginning of the experiment. Results point to the effects of proficiency and priming in modulating language coactivation.

Keywords

ambiguity resolutionbilingual lexical accesscross-modal lexical primingcross-language priminghomographtranslation priming
Type
Chapter
Information
Bilingual Lexical Ambiguity Resolution , pp. 184 - 228
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Further Reading

Cook, V. J. (2015). Effects of the second language on the first. Clevedon: Multlingual Matters.Google Scholar
de Groot, A. M. B. (2011). Language and cognition in bilinguals and monolinguals: An introduction. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. A. (2005). Second language acquisition and first language loss in adult early bilinguals: Exploring some differences and similarities. Second Language Research, 21(3), 199–249.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (2000). L2 Influence on L1 in late bilingualism. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 175–206.Google Scholar
van Assche., E., Duyck, W., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Diependaele, K. (2009). Does bilingualism change native-language reading?: Cognate effects in a sentence context. Psychological Science, 20(8), 923–927.Google Scholar

References

Altarriba, J. (1992). The representation of translation equivalents in bilingual memory. In Harris, R. J. (Ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals (pp. 157–174). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Altarriba, J., & Basnight-Brown, D. M. (2007). Methodological considerations in performing semantic- and translation-priming experiments across languages. Behavior Research Methods, 39(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
Altarriba, J., & Basnight-Brown, D. M. (2009). An overview of semantic processing in bilinguals: Methods and findings. In Pavlenko, A. (Ed.), The bilingual mental lexicon: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 79–98). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Altarriba, J., & Gianico, J. (2003). Lexical ambiguity resolution across languages: A theoretical and empirical review. Experimental Psychology, 50(3), 159–170.Google Scholar
Altarriba, J., Carlo, M. S., & Kroll, J. F. (1992). Language dominance and the processing of cross-language ambiguity. Poster presented at the fifth annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. F., & Maxwell, S. E. (2016). There’s more than one way to conduct a replication study: Beyond statistical significance. Psychological Methods, 21(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., Neely, J. H., et al. (2007). The English lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 445–459.Google Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278.Google Scholar
Basnight-Brown, D. M., & Altarriba, J. (2007). Differences in semantic and translation priming across languages: The role of language direction and language dominance. Memory and Cognition, 35(5), 953–965.Google Scholar
Baten, K., Hofman, F., & Loeys, T. (2011). Cross-linguistic activation in bilingual sentence processing: The role of word class meaning. Bilingualism, 14(3), 351–359.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.Google Scholar
Brenders, P., van Hell, J. G., & Dijkstra, A. (2011). Word recognition in child second language learners: Evidence from cognates and false friends. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109, 383–396.Google Scholar
Bueno, S., & Frenck-Mestre, C. (1998). L’effet de la fréquence lors du traitement des homographes interlexicaux. Psychologie Française, 43(4), 339–348.Google Scholar
Cieślicka, A. B. (2006). Literal salience in on-line processing of idiomatic expressions by L2 speakers. Second Language Research, 22, 115–144.Google Scholar
Cieślicka, A. B., & Heredia, R. R. (2016). Priming and online multiple language activation. In Heredia, R. R. & Cieślicka, A. B. (Eds.), Methods in bilingual reading comprehension Research (pp.123–156). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Cieślicka, A. B., & Heredia, R. R. (2017). How to “save your skin” when processing L2 idioms: An eye movement analysis of idiom transparency and cross-language similarity among bilinguals. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 5(3), 81–107.Google Scholar
Cieślicka, A. B., Heredia, R. R., & García, T. (2017). Task effects in bilingual idiom comprehension. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 53(1), 95–117.Google Scholar
Cieślicka, A. B. Heredia, R. R., Olivares, M. (2014). It’s all in the eyes: How language dominance, salience, and context affect eye movements during idiomatic language processing. In Aronin, L., L & Pawlak, M. (Eds.), Essential topics in applied linguistics and multilingualism: Studies in honor of David Singleton (pp. 21–42). Cham: Springer International.Google Scholar
Cohen, J., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., & Provost, J. (1993). PsyScope: An interactive graphical system for designing and controlling experiments in the Psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers. Behavioral Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computation, 25(2), 257–271.Google Scholar
Conklin, K., & Mauner, G. (2005). Investigating bilingual lexical access: Processing French-English homographs in sentential contexts. Paper presented at the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism (ISB4), Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.Google Scholar
Costa, A., Caramazza, A., & Sebastián‐Gallés, N. (2000). The cognate facilitation effect: Implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1283–1296.Google Scholar
de Groot, A. M. B., Delmaar, P., & Lupker, S. J. (2000). The processing of interlexical homographs in translation recognition and lexical decision: Support for non-selective access to bilingual memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A, 397–428.Google Scholar
Degani, T., & Tokowicz, N. (2010). Semantic ambiguity within and across languages: An integrative review. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(7), 1266–1303.Google Scholar
Degani, T., Prior, A., & Hajajra, W. (2018). Cross-language semantic influences in different script bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(4), 782–804.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T. (2005). Bilingual visual word recognition and lexical access. In Kroll, J. F. & de Groot, A. M. B. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 179–201). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 175–197.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., van Jaarsveld, H., & Ten Brinke, S. (1998). Interlingual homograph recognition: Effects of task demands and language intermixing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(1), 51–66.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., de Bruijn, E. R. A., Schriefers, H., & Ten Brinke, S. (2000). More on interlingual homograph recognition: Language intermixing versus explicitness of instruction. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3(1), 69–78.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Miwa, K., Brummelhuis, B., Sappelli, M., & Baayen, H. (2010). How cross-language similarity and task demands affect cognate recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(3), 284–301.Google Scholar
Dunn, A. L, & Fox Tree, J. E. (2014). More on language mode. International Journal of Bilingualism, 18(6), 605–613.Google Scholar
Durlik, J., Szewczyk, J., Muszyński, M., Wodniecka, Z., & Schiller, N. O. (2016). Interference and inhibition in bilingual language comprehension: Evidence from Polish-English interlingual homographs. PLoS ONE, 11(3), 1–18.Google Scholar
Elston-Güttler, K. E. (2000). An enquiry into cross-language differences in lexical-conceptual relationships and their effect on L2 lexical processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Elston-Güttler, K. E., & Williams, J. N. (2008). First language polysemy affects second language meaning interpretation: Evidence for activation of first language concepts during second language reading. Second Language Research, 24(2), 167–187.Google Scholar
Elston-Güttler, K. E., Gunter, T., & Kotz, S. (2005). Zooming into L2: Global language context and adjustment affect processing of interlingual homographs in sentences. Cognitive Brain Research, 25(1), 57–70.Google Scholar
Filippi, R., Karaminis, T., & Thomas, M. S. C. (2014). Language switching in bilingual production: Empirical data and computational modelling. Bilingualism, 17(2), 294–315.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1999). On sentence interpretation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Friesen, D. C., Jared, D., & Haigh, C. A. (2014). Phonological processing dynamics in bilingual word naming. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(3), 179–193.Google Scholar
García, O., Cieślicka, A. B., & Heredia, R. R. (2015). Nonliteral language processing and methodological considerations. In Heredia, R. R. & Cieślicka, A. B. (Eds.), Bilingual figurative language processing (pp. 117–168). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Garro, L. C. (1992). Lexical access in bilinguals: The case of English-based Spanish calques. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, CUNY.Google Scholar
Gerard, L. D., & Scarborough, D. L. (1989). Language-specific lexical access of homographs by bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(2), 305–315.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1998). Transfer and language mode. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(3), 175–176.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual’s language lodes. In Nicol, J. (Ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing (pp. 1–22). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (2008). Studying bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heredia, R. R. (1997). Bilingual memory and hierarchical models: A case for language dominance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 6(2), 34–39.Google Scholar
Heredia, R. R., & Cieślicka, A. B. (2016). Metaphoric reference: An eye movement analysis of Spanish–English and English–Spanish bilingual readers. Frontiers in Psychology. 7, 439.Google Scholar
Heredia, R. R., & Muñoz, M. E. (2015). Metaphoric reference: A real-time analysis. In Heredia, R. R. & Cieślicka, A. B. (Eds.), Bilingual figurative language processing. (pp. 89–116). New York: Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
Heredia, R. R., Cieślicka, A., & García, O. (2010a). Bilingual exhaustive language activation: Homograph and cognate processing. The 23rd Annual Meeting of the CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York, March.Google Scholar
Heredia, R. R., Cieślicka, A. B., & García, O. (2010b). Bilingual sentence processing: Multiple language activation. 51st Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, St. Louis, Missouri, November.Google Scholar
Hoshino, N., & Thierry, G. (2012). Do Spanish–English bilinguals have their fingers in two pies – or is it their toes? An electrophysiological investigation of semantic access in bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–6.Google Scholar
Hoversten, L. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2016). A time course analysis of interlingual homograph processing: Evidence from eye movements. Bilingualism, 19(2), 347–360.Google Scholar
Hsieh, M. C., Jeong, H., Dos Santos, K. K. H., Sasaki, Y., Lee, H. C., Yokoyama, S., Sugiura, M., … Kawashima, R. (2017). Neural correlates of bilingual language control during interlingual homograph processing in a logogram writing system. Brain and Language, 174, 72–85.Google Scholar
Huettig, F., & Altmann, G. T. M. (2004). The on-line processing of ambiguous and unambiguous words in context: Evidence from head-mounted eyetracking. In Carrieras, M. & Clifton, C., Jr. (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eyetracking, ERP and beyond (pp. 187–207). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Huttenga, G. (2015). Cross-linguistic influence among Dutch-English bilinguals’ associations to false cognates. Student Undergraduate Research e-Journal, 1(1), 1–4.Google Scholar
Jared, D., & Szucs, C. (2002). Phonological activation in bilinguals: Evidence from interlingual homograph naming. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(3), 225–239.Google Scholar
Jared, D., Cormier, P., Levy, B. A., & Wade-Woolley, L. (2012). Cross-language activation of phonology in young bilingual readers. Reading and Writing, 25(6), 1327–1343.Google Scholar
Jouravlev, O., & Jared, D. (2014). Reading Russian-English homographs in sentence contexts: Evidence from ERPs. Bilingualism, 17(1), 153–168.Google Scholar
Kennette, L. N., & van Havermaet, L. R. (2012). Interlingual homograph recognition by bilinguals: A new paradigm. The New School Psychology Bulletin, 9(2), 7–16.Google Scholar
Kreiner, H., & Degani, T. (2015). Tip-of-the-tongue in a second language: The effects of brief first-language exposure and long-term use. Cognition, 137, 106–114.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S. C., & Hoshino, N. (2014). Two languages in mind: Bilingualism as a tool to investigate language, cognition, and the brain. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 159–163.Google Scholar
Kučera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203–208.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26.Google Scholar
Lauro, J., & Schwartz, A. I. (2017). Bilingual non-selective lexical access in sentence contexts: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Memory and Language, 92, 217–233.Google Scholar
Libben, M. R., & Titone, D. A. (2009). Bilingual lexical access in context: Evidence from eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(2), 381–390.Google Scholar
Love, T., Maas, E., & Swinney, D. (2003). The influence of language exposure on lexical and syntactic language processing. Experimental Psychology, 50(3), 204–16.Google Scholar
Lyddy, F. (2012). What can homograph interpretation tell us about language status in Irish/English bilinguals?: Language status and homograph recognition. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 105–123.Google Scholar
Macizo, P., Bajo, T., & Cruz, M. M. (2010). Inhibitory processes in bilingual language comprehension: Evidence from Spanish-English interlexical homographs. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(2), 232–244.Google Scholar
Martín, M. C., Macizo, P., & Bajo, T. (2010). Time course of inhibitory processes in bilingual language processing. British Journal of Psychology, 101(4), 679–693.Google Scholar
Martin, C., Vu, H., Kellas, G., & Metcalf, K. (1999). Strength of discourse context as a determinant of the subordinate bias effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A(4), 813–839.Google Scholar
Matuschek, H., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., Baayen, H., & Bates, D. (2017). Balancing Type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 305–315.Google Scholar
Meuter, R. (2009). Neurolinguistic contributions to understanding the bilingual mental lexicon. In A. Pavlenko, The bilingual mental lexicon: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 1–25). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. A. (2002). Incomplete acquisition and attrition of Spanish tense/aspect distinctions in adult bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(1), 39–68.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. A. (2013). Bilingualism and the heritage language speaker. In the handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism (2nd ed., pp. 168–189). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Neely, J. H., Keefe, D. E., & Ross, K. L. (1989). Semantic priming in the lexical decision task: Roles of prospective prime-generated expectancies and retrospective semantic matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(6), 1003–1019.Google Scholar
Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (1994). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme and fragment norms. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Otwinowska, A., & Szewczyk, J. M. (2017). The more similar the better? Factors in learning cognates, false cognates and non-cognate words. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–18.Google Scholar
Parra, M. (2013). False recognition drive by meaning and form: The dynamics of bilingual memory representations. Unpublished master’s thesis, Florida Atlantic University.Google Scholar
Paul, S. T., Kellas, G., Martin, M., & Clark, M. B. (1992). Influence of contextual features on the activation of ambiguous word meanings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(4), 703–717.Google Scholar
Pivneva, I., Mercier, J., & Titone, D. (2013). Executive control modulates cross-language lexical activation during L2 reading: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(3), 787–796.Google Scholar
Poarch, G. J., & van Hell, J. G. (2012). Cross‐language activation in children’s speech production: Evidence from second language learners, bilinguals, and trilinguals. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 111, 419–438.Google Scholar
Poort, E. D., & Rodd, J. M. (2017). The cognate facilitation effect in bilingual lexical decision is influenced by stimulus list composition. Acta Psychologica, 180, 52–63.Google Scholar
Poort, E. D., Rodd, J. M., & Warren, J. E. (2016). Recent experience with cognates and interlingual homographs in one language affects subsequent processing in another language. Bilingualism, 19(1), 206–212.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. www.R-project.org/Google Scholar
Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory and Cognition, 14(3), 191–201.Google Scholar
Rayner, K., & Frazier, L. (1989). Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(5), 779–790.Google Scholar
Sánchez-Casas, R., & García-Albea, J. E. (2005). The representation of cognate and noncognate words in bilingual memory: Can cognate status be characterized as a special kind of morphological relation? In Kroll, J. F. & de Groot, A. M. B. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 226–250). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, A. I., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). Bilingual lexical activation in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 55 (2), 197–212.Google Scholar
Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(6), 645–659.Google Scholar
Swinney, D. A., Onifer, W., Prather, P., & Hirshkowitz, M. (1979). Semantic facilitation across sensory modalities in the processing of individual words and sentences. Memory and Cognition, 7(3), 159–165.Google Scholar
Tabossi, P. (1996). Cross-modal semantic priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11(6), 569–576.Google Scholar
Titone, D., Libben, M., Mercier, J., Whitford, V., & Pivneva, I. (2011). Bilingual lexical access during L1 sentence reading: The effects of L2 knowledge, semantic constraint, and L1–L2 intermixing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(6), 1412–1431.Google Scholar
Vaid, J., López, B. G., & Martínez, F. E. (2015). Linking the figurative to the creative: Bilingual’s comprehension of metaphors, jokes, and remote associates. In Heredia, R. R. & Cieślicka, A. B. (Eds.), Bilingual figurative language processing (pp. 53–86). New York: Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
van Hell, J. G., & Dijkstra, A. (2002). Foreign language knowledge can influence native language performance in exclusively native contexts. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 780–789.Google Scholar
van Hell, J. G., & Tanner, D. (2012). Second language proficiency and cross-language lexical activation. Language Learning, 62, 148–171.Google Scholar
van Heuven, W., Schriefers, H., Dijkstra, T., & Hagoort, P. (2008). Language conflict in the bilingual brain. Cerebral Cortex, 18(11), 2706–2716.Google Scholar
van Rinsveld, A., Schiltz, C., Brunner, M., Landerl, K., & Ugen, S. (2016). Solving arithmetic problems in first and second language: Does the language context matter?. Learning and Instruction, 42(3), 72–82.Google Scholar
Vu, H., & Kellas, G. (1999). Contextual strength and the subordinate bias effect: Reply to Rayner, Binder, and Duffy. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 52A(4), 853–855.Google Scholar
Vu, H., Kellas, G., & Paul, S. T. (1998). Sources of sentence constraint on lexical ambiguity resolution. Memory and Cognition, 26(5), 979–1001.Google Scholar
Vu, H., Kellas, G., Petersen, E., & Metcalf, K. (2003). Situation-evoking stimuli, domain of reference, and the incremental interpretation of lexical ambiguity. Memory and Cognition, 31(8), 1302–1315.Google Scholar
Wu, Y. J., & Thierry, G. (2013). Fast modulation of executive function by language context in bilinguals. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33(33), 13533–13537.Google Scholar
Zhu, Y., & Mok, P. P. K. (2018). Visual recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs in two non-native languages: Evidence from Asian adult trilinguals. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1–30.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×