Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Cross-language effects in written word recognition: The case of bilingual deaf children*

  • ELLEN ORMEL (a1), DAAN HERMANS (a2), HARRY KNOORS (a3) and LUDO VERHOEVEN (a4)

Abstract

In recent years, multiple studies have shown that the languages of a bilingual interact during processing. We investigated sign activation as deaf children read words. In a word–picture verification task, we manipulated the underlying sign equivalents. We presented children with word–picture pairs for which the sign translation equivalents varied with respect to sign phonology overlap (i.e., handshape, movement, hand-palm orientation, and location) and sign iconicity (i.e., transparent depiction of meaning or not). For the deaf children, non-matching word–picture pairs with sign translation equivalents that had highly similar elements (i.e., strong sign phonological relations) showed relatively longer response latencies and more errors than non-matching word–picture pairs without sign phonological relations (inhibitory effects). In contrast, matching word–picture pairs with strongly iconic sign translation equivalents showed relatively shorter response latencies and fewer errors than pairs with weakly iconic translation equivalents (facilitatory effects). No such activation effects were found in the word–picture verification task for the hearing children. The results provide evidence for interactive cross-language processing in deaf children.

Copyright

Corresponding author

Address for correspondence: Ellen Ormel, Department of Linguistics, Radboud University Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9103, 6500 HD Nijmegen, The Netherlands. E.Ormel@let.ru.nl

Footnotes

Hide All
*

We would like to thank Marchien Hoffer for her contributions to this study. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. Parts of the data for the present study have been presented at the 5th International Symposium on Bilingualism, 2005 and the 20th Annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing, 2007. This research was supported by Royal Dutch Kentalis.

Footnotes

References

Hide All
Baayen, R., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX Lexical Database. Technical report. Pennsylvania, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.
Bialystok, E., Luk, G., & Kwan, E. (2005). Bilingualism, biliteracy, and learning to read: Interactions among languages and writing systems. Scientific studies of reading, 9 (1), 4361.
Bijeljac-Babic, R., Biardeau, A., & Grainger, J. (1997). Masked orthographic priming in bilingual word recognition. Memory and Cognition, 25, 447457.
Clark, L. E., & Grosjean, F. (1982). Sign recognition processes in American Sign Language: The effect of context. Language and Speech, 25 (4), 325340.
Damien, M. F., & Bowers, J. S. (2003). Locus of semantic interference in a word picture interference task. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10 (1), 111117.
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, 496518.
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 (3), 175197.
Dijkstra, T., van Heuven, W. J. B., & Grainger, J. (1998). Simulating cross-language competition with the bilingual interactive activation model. Psychologica Belgica, 38 (3/4), 177196.
Dijkstra, T., van Jaarsveld, H., & ten Brinke, S. (1998). Interlingual homograph recognition: Effects of task demands and language intermixing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 5166.
Emmorey, K., & Corina, D. (1990). Lexical recognition in sign language: Effects of phonetic structure and morphology. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 12271252.
Evans, C. (2004). Literacy development in deaf students: Case studies in bilingual teaching and learning. American Annals of the Deaf, 149 (1), 1727.
Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2002). Representation and competition in the perception of spoken words. Cognitive Psychology, 45, 220266.
Gerard, L. D., & Scarborough, D. L. (1989). Language-specific lexical access of homographs by bilingual. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 305313.
Gollan, T. H., Forster, K. I., & Frost, R. (1997). Translation priming with different scripts: Masked priming with cognates in Hebrew–English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23 (5), 11221139.
Groot, A. M. B. de, Delmaar, P., & Lupker, S. J. (2000). The processing of interlexical homographs in translation recognition and lexical decision: Support for nonselective access to bilingual memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53 (A), 397428.
Grote, K. & Linz, E. (2003). The influence of sign language iconicity on semantic conceptualization. In Muller, W. G. & Fisher, O. (eds.), From sign to signing: Iconicity in language and literature 3, pp. 2340. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hanson, V. L., & Feldman, L. B. (1989). Language specificity in lexical organization: Evidence from deaf signers’ lexical organization of American Sign Language and English. Memory and Cognition, 17 (3), 292301.
Hanson, V. L., & Feldman, L. B. (1991). What makes signs related? Sign Language Studies, 70, 3546.
Hell, J. G. van, & Dijkstra, T. (2002). Foreign language knowledge can influence native language performance in exclusively native context. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9 (4), 780789.
Heuven, W. J. B. van, Dijksta, T., & Grainger, J. (1998). Orthographic neighborhood effects in bilingual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 458483.
Irausquin, R., & Mommers, C. (2001). Leesladder. Een programma voor kinderen met leesmoeilijkheden. [Reading ladder. A program for children with reading difficulties]: Tilburg: Zwijsen.
Kandil, M. A., & Jiang, N. (2004). The role of scripts in bilingual lexical organization: Evidence from switching cost. Georgia State Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 1, 114.
Keatley, C. W., Spinks, J. A., & de Gelder, B. (1994). Asymmetrical cross-language priming effects. Memory & Cognition, 22 (1), 7084.
Klatter–Folmer, J., van Hout, R., Kolen, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2006). Language development in deaf children's interactions with deaf and hearing adults: A longitudinal study. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11 (2), 238251.
Klima, E. S., & Bellugi, U. (1979). The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Knoors, H. (2007). Educational responses to varying objectives of deaf parents of deaf children: A Dutch perspective. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12 (2), 243253.
Kooij, E. van der (2002). Phonological categories in Sign Language of The Netherlands: The role of phonetic implementation and iconicity. Utrecht: LOT.
Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S. C., & Wodniecka, Z. (2006). Language selectivity is the exception, not the rule: Arguments against a fixed locus of language selection in bilingual speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 119135.
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, 149174.
Lemhöfer, K., Dijkstra, T., & Michel, M. (2004). Three languages, one ECHO: Cognate effects in trilingual word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19 (5), 585611.
Marian, V., & Spivey, M. (2003). Competing activation in bilingual language processing: Within- and between-language competition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6 (2), 97115.
Markham, P. T., & Justice, E. M. (2004). Sign language iconicity and its influence on the ability to describe the function of objects. Journal of Communication Disorders, 37 (6), 535546.
Meier, R. (2002). Why different, why the same? Explaining effects and nn-effects of modality upon linguistic structure in sign and speech. In Meier, R., Cormier, K. & Quinto-Pozos, D. G. (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, 126. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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, 286292.
Ormel, E. (2008). Visual word recognition in bilingual deaf children. Ph.D. dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.
Ormel, E., Hermans, D., Knoors, H., & Verhoeven, L. (2009). The role of sign phonology and iconicity during sign processing: The case of deaf children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14, 436448.
Orlansky, M. D., & Bonvillian, J. D. (1984). The role of iconicity in early sign language acquisition. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49, 287292.
Padden, C., & Ramsey, C. (1998). Reading ability in signing deaf children. Topics in Language Disorders, 18 (4), 3046.
Pietrandrea, P. (2002). Iconicity and arbitrariness in Italian Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 2 (3), 296321.
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime. Psychology software tools, Learning Research and Development Centre, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
Schrooten, W., & Vermeer, A. (1994). Woorden in het basisonderwijs. 15.000 woorden aangeboden aan leerlingen (Studies in Meertaligheid 6). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
Stokoe, W. C. (1980). Sign language structure. Annual Review of Anthropology, 9, 365390.
Thierry, G., & Wu, Y. J. (2004). Electrophysiological evidence for language interference in late bilingual. NeuroReport, 15 (10), 15551558.
Thompson, R. L., Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G. (2009). The link between form and meaning in American Sign Language: Lexical processing effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory, and Cognition, 35 (2), 550557.
Tolar, T. D., Lederberg, A. R., Gokhale, S., & Tomasello, M. (2007). The development of the ability to recognize the meaning of iconic signs. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13 (2), 225240.
Treiman, R., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (1983). Silent reading: Insights from second-generation deaf readers. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 3965.
Wang, M., Koda, K., & Perfetti, C. A. (2003). Alphabetic and nonalphabetic L1 effects in English word identification: A comparison of Korean and Chinese English L2 learners. Cognition, 87, 129149.
Wijnendaele, I. van, & Brysbaert, M. (2002). Visual word recognition in bilinguals: Phonological priming form the second to the first language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28 (3), 619627.
Wu, Y. J., & Thierry, G. (2010). Chinese–English bilinguals reading English hear Chinese. The Journal of Neuroscience, 30 (22), 76467651.
Zwitserlood, P. (1996). Form priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11 (6), 589596.

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed