Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T04:46:40.946Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recent experience with cognates and interlingual homographs in one language affects subsequent processing in another language*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2015

EVA D. POORT ,
JANE E. WARREN  and
JENNIFER M. RODD
EVA D. POORT*
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Psychology, University College London
JANE E. WARREN
Affiliation:
Department of Language and Communication, University College London
JENNIFER M. RODD
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Psychology, University College London
*
Address for correspondence: Eva Poort, Department of Experimental Psychology, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0AP, United Kingdom. eva.poort.12@ucl.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This experiment shows that recent experience in one language influences subsequent processing of the same word-forms in a different language. Dutch–English bilinguals read Dutch sentences containing Dutch–English cognates and interlingual homographs, which were presented again 16 minutes later in isolation in an English lexical decision task. Priming produced faster responses for the cognates but slower responses for the interlingual homographs. These results show that language switching can influence bilingual speakers at the level of individual words, and require models of bilingual word recognition (e.g., BIA+) to allow access to word meanings to be modulated by recent experience.

Keywords

lexical decisioncognatesinterlingual homographslanguage switchingword-meaning priming
Type
Research Notes
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 206 - 212
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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.)

Footnotes

*

We thank the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. JEW was funded by a grant from the Leverhulme Trust awarded to JMR.

References

Boada, R., Sánchez-Casas, R., Gavilán, J. M., García-Albea, J. E., & Tokowicz, N. (2013). Effect of multiple translations and cognate status on translation recognition performance of balanced bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 183–197.Google 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.Google Scholar
Costa, A., & Santesteban, M. (2004). Lexical access in bilingual speech production: Evidence from language switching in highly proficient bilinguals and L2 learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 491–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cristoffanini, P., Kirsner, K., & Milech, D. (1986). Bilingual lexical representation: The status of Spanish–English cognates. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 367–393.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, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 496–518.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Hilberink-Schulpen, B., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (2010). Repetition and masked form priming within and between languages using word and nonword neighbors. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 341–357.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
Eddington, C. M., & Tokowicz, N. (2013). Examining English–German translation ambiguity using primed translation recognition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 442–457.CrossRefGoogle 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, 305–315.Google Scholar
Grainger, J., & Beauvillain, C. (1987). Language blocking and lexical access in bilinguals. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39, 295–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grainger, J., Midgley, K., & Holcomb, P. J. (2010). Re-thinking the bilingual interactive-activation model from a developmental perspective (BIA-d). In Kali, M. & Hickmann, M. (eds.), Language acquisition across linguistic and cognitive systems (Vol. 52), pp. 267–283. Amsterdam/Philidelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Horner, A. J., & Henson, R. N. (2009). Bindings between stimuli and multiple response codes dominate long-lag repetition priming in speeded classification tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 757–779.Google Scholar
Keuleers, E., Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2010). SUBTLEX-NL: A new measure for Dutch word frequency based on film subtitles. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 643–650.Google Scholar
Lalor, E., & Kirsner, K. (2001). The representation of “false cognates” in the bilingual lexicon. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 552–559.Google Scholar
Laxén, J., & Lavaur, J.-M. (2010). The role of semantics in translation recognition: Effects of number of translations, dominance of translations and semantic relatedness of multiple translations. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 157–183.Google Scholar
Li, L., Mo, L., Wang, R., Luo, X., & Chen, Z. (2009). Evidence for long-term cross-language repetition priming in low fluency Chinese–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 476–490.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception, Part I: An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meuter, R. F. I., & Allport, A. (1999). Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peeters, D., Dijkstra, T., & Grainger, J. (2013). The representation and processing of identical cognates by late bilinguals: RT and ERP effects. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 315–332.Google Scholar
Pollatsek, A., & Well, A. D. (1995). On the use of counterbalanced designs in cognitive research: A suggestion for a better and more powerful analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 785–794.Google ScholarPubMed
Rastle, K., Harrington, J., & Coltheart, M. (2002). 358,534 nonwords: The ARC nonword database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 55, 1339–1362.Google Scholar
Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 510–532.Google Scholar
Rodd, J. M. (2000). Semantic representation and lexical competition: Evidence from ambiguity, (Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge University.).Google Scholar
Rodd, J. M., Cutrin, B. L., Kirsch, H., Millar, A., & Davis, M. H. (2013). Long-term priming of the meanings of ambiguous words. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 180–198.Google Scholar
Rodd, J. M., Gaskell, G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 245–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yarkoni, T., Balota, D., & Yap, M. (2008). Moving beyond Coltheart's N: A new measure of orthographic similarity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 971–979.Google Scholar
Zeelenberg, R., & Pecher, D. (2003). Evidence for long-term cross-language repetition priming in conceptual implicit memory tasks. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 80–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Poort supplementary material

Poort supplementary material 1

Download Poort supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 155.6 KB