Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:58:01.666Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A tale of two frequency effects: Toward a verification model of L2 word recognition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 November 2019

Nan Jiang Open the ORCID record for Nan Jiang [Opens in a new window] ,
Man Li  and
Taomei Guo
Nan Jiang*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
Man Li
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
Taomei Guo
Affiliation:
Beijing Normal University
*
*Corresponding author. Email: njiang@umd.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examined the activation of first language (L1) translations in second language (L2) word recognition in a lexical decision task. Test materials included English words that differed in the frequency of their Chinese translations or in their surface lexical frequency while other lexical properties were controlled. Chinese speakers of English as a second language of different proficiencies and native speakers of English were tested. Native speakers produced a reliable lexical frequency effect but no translation frequency effect. English as a second language speakers of lower English proficiency showed both a translation frequency effect and a lexical frequency effect, but those of higher English proficiency showed a lexical frequency effect only. The results were discussed in a verification model of L2 word recognition. According to the model, L2 word recognition entails a checking procedure in which activated L2 words are checked against their L1 translations. The two frequency effects are seen to have two different loci. The lexical frequency effect is associated with the initial activation of L2 lemmas, and the translation frequency effect arises in the verification process. Existing evidence for verification in L2 word recognition and new issues this model raises are discussed.

Keywords

lexical decisionsecond languagetranslation frequency effectverificationword recognition
Type
Original Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 215 - 236
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

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

Andrews, S. (1982). Phonological recoding: Is the regularity effect consistent? Memory & Cognition, 10, 565–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Athanasopoulos, P. (2007). Interaction between grammatical categories and cognition in bilinguals: The role of proficiency, cultural immersion, and language of instruction. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 689–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Athanasopoulos, P., Dering, B., Wiggett, A., Kuipers, J. R., & Thierry, G. (2010). Perceptual shift in bilingualism: Brain potentials reveal plasticity in pre-attentive colour perception. Cognition, 116, 437–443.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Becker, C. A. (1976). Allocation of attention during visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 556.Google ScholarPubMed
Beijing Language Institute (BLI). (1986). A frequency dictionary of modern Chinese. Beijing: Beijing Language Institute Press.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M., Lagrou, E., & Stevens, M. (2017). Visual word recognition in a second language: A test of the lexical entrenchment hypothesis with lexical decision times. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20, 530–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 977–990.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brysbaert, M., & Stevens, M. (2018). Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A tutorial. Journal of Cognition, 1, 1–20. doi:10.5334/joc.10 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheng, C., Wang, M., & Perfetti, C. A. (2011). Acquisition of compound words in Chinese–English bilingual children: Decomposition and cross-language activation. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 583–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colombo, L., Pasini, M., & Balota, D. A. (2006). Dissociating the influence of familiarity and meaningfulness from word frequency in naming and lexical decision performance. Memory & Cognition, 34, 1312–1324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colomé, A. (2001). Lexical activation in bilinguals’ speech production: Language-specific or language-independent? Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 721–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, V. J., Bassetti, B., Kasai, C., Sasaki, M., & Takahashi, J. A. (2006). Do bilinguals have different concepts? The case of shape and material in Japanese L2 users of English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 10, 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, A., Pannunzi, M., Deco, G., & Pickering, M. J. (2017). Do bilinguals automatically activate their native language when they are not using it? Cognitive Science, 41, 1629–1644.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Degani, T., Prior, A., Eddington, C. M., Arêas da Luz Fontes, A., & Tokowicz, N. (2013). Beyond semantic ambiguity: Effects of translation ambiguity in a single-language context. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
de Groot, A. M. B., Borgwaldt, S., Bos, M., & Van den Eijnden, E. (2002). Lexical decision and word naming in bilinguals: Language effects and task effects. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 91–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diependaele, K., Lemhöfer, K., & Brysbaert, M. (2013). The word frequency effect in first- and second-language word recognition: A lexical entrenchment account. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 843–863.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ecke, P. (2015). Parasitic vocabulary acquisition, cross-linguistic influence, and lexical retrieval in multilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18, 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forster, K. I. (1976). Accessing the mental lexicon. In Wales, R. J. & Walker, E. (Eds.), New approaches to language mechanisms (pp. 257–287). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, T., & Izura, C. (2011). Word association in L1 and L2. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 373–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gollan, T. H., Montoya, R. I., Fennema-Notestine, C., & Morris, S. K. (2005). Bilingualism affects picture naming but not picture classification. Memory & Cognition, 33, 1220–1234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grainger, J. (1993). Visual word recognition in bilinguals. In Schreuder, R. & Weltens, B. (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon (pp. 11–25). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grainger, J., Midgley, K. J., & Holcomb, P. J. (2010). Re-thinking the bilingual interactive-activation model from a developmental perspective (BIA-d). In Kail, M. & Hickman, M. (Eds.), Language acquisition across linguistic and cognitive systems (pp. 267–284). Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexicosemantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1998). Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 131–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, C. J., & Ecke, P. (2003). Parasitism as a default mechanism in L3 vocabulary acquisition. In Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (Eds.), The multilingual lexicon (pp. 71–85). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jared, D., & Kroll, J. F. (2001). Do bilinguals activate phonological representations in one or both of their languages when naming words? Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 2–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N. (1999). Testing processing explanations for the asymmetry in masked cross-language priming. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2, 59–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N. (2000). Lexical representation and development in a second language. Applied Linguistics, 21, 47–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J., & Davis, C. (2003). Task effects in masked cross-script translation and phonological priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 484–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ko, I. Y., Wang, M., & Kim, S. Y. (2011). Bilingual reading of compound words. Journal of Psycholinguist Research, 40, 49–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koda, K. (1989). Effects of L1 orthographic representation on L2 phonological coding strategies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 201–222.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2016). lmerTest: Tests in linear mixed effects models. https://CRAN.R-project.orgpackagelmerTest 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. doi:10.18637/jss.v082.i13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luke, S. G. (2017). Evaluating significance in linear mixed-effects models in R. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 1494–1502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meade, G., Midgley, K. J., Sehyr, Z. S., Holcomb, P. J., & Emmorey, K. (2017). Implicit co-activation of American Sign Language in deaf readers: An ERP study. Brain and Language, 170, 50–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moon, J., & Jiang, N. (2012). Nonselective lexical access in different-script bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 173–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morford, J. P., Wilkinson, E., Villwock, A., Piñar, P., & Kroll, J. F. (2011). When deaf signers read English: Do written words activate their sign translations? Cognition, 118, 286–292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. (1989). Speech act behavior across languages. In Dechert, H. W. & Raupach, M. (Eds.), Transfer in language production (pp. 53–67). Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
Oppenheim, G., Wu, Y. J., & Thierry, G. (2018). Found in translation: Late bilinguals do automatically activate their native language when they are not using it. Cognitive Science, 42, 1700–1713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paap, K. R., Newsome, S. L., McDonald, J. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1982). An activation–verification model for letter and word recognition: The word-superiority effect. Psychological Review, 89, 573.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. (1998). Effects of syllable frequency and syllable neighborhood frequency in visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 134–144.Google Scholar
Thierry, G., & Wu, Y. J. (2004). Electrophysiological evidence for language interference in late bilinguals. NeuroReport, 15, 1555–1558.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thierry, G., & Wu, Y. J. (2007). Brain potentials reveal unconscious translation during foreign-language comprehension. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 12530–12535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tokowicz, N. (2014). Translation ambiguity affects language processing, learning, and representation. In Miller, R. T., Martin, K. I., Eddington, C. M., Henery, A., Miguel, N. M., Tseng, A. M., … Walter, D. (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 2012 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 170–180). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
van Heuven, W. J. B., Dijkstra, T., & Grainger, J. (1998). Orthographic neighborhood effects in bilingual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 458–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villameriel, S., Dias, P., Costello, B., & Carreiras, M. (2016). Cross-language and cross-modal activation in hearing bimodal bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 87, 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wade-Woolley, L. (1999). First language influences on second language word reading: All roads lead to Rome. Language Learning, 49, 447–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, M., & Koda, K. (2005). Commonalities and differences in word identification skills among learners of English as a second language. Language Learning, 55, 71–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, M., Lin, C. Y., & Gao, W. (2010). Bilingual compound processing: The effects of constituent frequency and semantic transparency. Writing Systems Research, 2, 117–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, X., Wang, J., & Malins, J. G. (2017). Do you hear “feather” when listening to “rain”? Lexical tone activation during unconscious translation: Evidence from Mandarin-English bilinguals. Cognition, 169, 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wen, Y., Filik, R., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (2018). Electrophysiological dynamics of Chinese phonology during visual word recognition in Chinese-English bilinguals. Scientific Reports, 8, 68–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wen, Y., & van Heuven, W. J. (2017). Chinese translation norms for 1,429 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 1006–1019.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wen, Y., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (2018). Limitations of translation activation in masked priming: Behavioural evidence from Chinese-English bilinguals and computational modeling. Journal of Memory and Language, 101, 84–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, Y. J., & Thierry, G. (2010). Chinese–English bilinguals reading English hear Chinese. Journal of Neuroscience, 30, 7646–7651.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, Y. J., & Thierry, G. (2012). Unconscious translation during incidental foreign language processing. NeuroImage, 59, 3468–3473.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, T., van Heuven, W. J. B., & Conklin, K. (2011). Fast automatic translation and morphological decomposition in Chinese-English bilinguals. Psychological Science, 22, 1237–1242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zughoul, M. R. (1991). Lexical choice: Towards writing problematic word lists. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 45–59.Google Scholar