Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-n7pht Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-09T20:16:55.113Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Masked translation priming: Varying language experience and word type with Spanish–English bilinguals*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2009

CHRIS DAVIS ,
ROSA SÁNCHEZ-CASAS ,
JOSÉ E. GARCÍA-ALBEA ,
MARC GUASCH ,
MARGARITA MOLERO  and
PILAR FERRÉ
CHRIS DAVIS*
Affiliation:
MARCS Auditory Laboratories, University of Western Sydney, Australia
ROSA SÁNCHEZ-CASAS
Affiliation:
Departament de Psicologia, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Spain
JOSÉ E. GARCÍA-ALBEA
Affiliation:
Departament de Psicologia, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Spain
MARC GUASCH
Affiliation:
Departament de Psicologia, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Spain
MARGARITA MOLERO
Affiliation:
Department de Filologies Romàniques, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Spain
PILAR FERRÉ
Affiliation:
Departament de Psicologia, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Spain
*
Address for correspondence: Professor Chris Davis, PhD, MARCS Auditory Laboratories, Building 5, Bankstown Campus, University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith South DC NSW 1797, Australiachris.davis@uws.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Spanish–English bilingual lexical organization was investigated using masked cognate and non-cognate priming with the lexical decision task. In Experiment 1, three groups of bilinguals (Spanish dominant, English dominant and Balanced) and a single group of beginning bilinguals (Spanish) were tested with Spanish and English targets primed by cognate and non-cognate translations. All the bilingual groups showed cognate but not non-cognate priming. This cognate priming effect was similar in magnitude to the within-language repetition priming effect; it did not vary across participants who had different second-language acquisition histories, nor was the size of the priming effect modulated by the direction of the translation. The beginning bilingual group only showed cognate priming when the primes were in Spanish (L1) and the targets in English (L2). In Experiment 2, both form-related and unrelated word baselines were used with a single group of bilinguals. The results were the same as Experiment 1: cognate priming and no non-cognate priming. Experiment 3 examined the cognate priming effect with reduced orthographic and phonological overlap. Despite this reduced form overlap, it was found that the cognate effect was the same size as the within-language repetition effect. These results indicate that cognate translations are special and ways of modifying models of bilingual lexical processing to reflect this were considered.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 137 - 155
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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

*

This research was supported by research grants from the Spanish Ministry of Education to the first two authors, and by grants PB87-0531 and SEJ2006-11955 from the Dirección General de Investigación Científica y Técnica (Spanish Ministry of Education) to the third author. We wish to thank the lecturers, staff and students from St. Louis University (Madrid campus) and participants at Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona who participated in the experiments. We also thank Marc Brysbaert and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript and Jeesun Kim for useful discussion of this work.

References

Altarriba, J., Pollatsek, A. & Rayner, K. (1992). Lack of semantic parafoveal preview effect: Evidence from bilinguals. Paper presented at the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, St. Louis, November.Google Scholar
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., Neely, J. H., Nelson, D. L., Simpson, G. B. & Treiman, R. (2007). The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bozic, M., Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Stamatakis, E. A., Davis, M. H. & Tyler, L. K. (2007). Differentiating morphology, form, and meaning: Neural correlates of morphological complexity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1464–1475.Google Scholar
Caramazza, A. & Brones, I. (1979). Lexical access in bilinguals. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 13, 212–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coltheart, M., Davelaar, E., Jonasson, J. T. & Besner, D. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. In Dornic, S. (ed.), Attention and performace VI, pp. 535–555. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Davis, C., Kim, J. & Forster, K. I. (2008). Being forward not backward: Lexical limits to masked priming. Cognition, 10, 673–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, C. J. & Perea, M. (2005). BuscaPalabras: A program for deriving orthographic and phonological neighborhood statistics and other psycholinguistic indices in Spanish. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 665–671.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Groot, A. M. B. & Kroll, J. F. (1997). Tutorials in bilingualism: Introduction and preview. In de Groot, A. M. B. & Kroll, J. F. (eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives, pp. 1–66. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.Google Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B. & Nas, G. L. J. (1991). Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates in compound bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 90–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, A. & van Heuven, W. J. B. (1998). The BIA model and bilingual word recognition. In Grainger, J. & Jacobs, A. M. (eds.), Localist connectionist approaches to human cognition, pp. 189–225. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.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, 175–297.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, 51–66.Google Scholar
Domínguez, A., Segui, J. & Cuetos, F. (2002). The time-course of inflectional morphological priming. Linguistics, 40, 235–259.Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, M., Forster, K. I, Nicol, J. & Nakamura, K. (2004). The role of polysemy in masked semantic and translation priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, K. I., Davis, C., Schoknecht, C. & Carter, R. (1987). Masked priming with graphemically related forms: Repetition or activation? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39A, 211–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, K. I. & Forster, J. C. (1990). Users guide to the DMASTR display system. Tucson, AZ: Department of Psychology, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
García-Albea, J. E., Sánchez-Casas, R., Bradley, D. C. & Forster, K. I. (1985). Cross-language priming effects in bilingual word recognition. Paper presented to the Fifth Australian Language Conference, Melbourne, November.Google Scholar
García-Albea, J. E., Sánchez-Casas, R. & Igoa, J. M. (1998). The contribution of word form and meaning to language processing in Spanish: Some evidence from monolingual and bilingual studies. In Hillert, D. (ed.), Sentence processing: A cross-linguistic perspective (Syntax And Semantics, 3), pp. 183–209). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
García-Albea, J. E., Sánchez-Casas, R. & Valero, T. (1996). Form and meaning contribution to word recognition in Catalan–Spanish bilinguals. Paper presented to the IX Conference of the European Society for Cognitive Psychology, Würzburg, Germany.Google Scholar
Giraudo, H. & Grainger, J. (2003). On the role of derivational affixes in recognizing complex words: Evidence from masked priming. In Baayen, R. H. and Schreuder, R. (eds.), Morphological structure in language processing, pp. 209–232. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gollan, T. H., Forster, K. I. & Frost, R. (1997). Translation priming with different script: Masked priming with cognates and non-cognates in Hebrew–English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 23, 1122–1139.Google Scholar
Grainger, J. & Frenck-Mestre, C. (1998). Masked priming by translation equivalents in proficient bilinguals. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 601–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grainger, J. & O'Regan, J. K. (1992). A psychophysical investigation of language priming effects in two English–French bilinguals. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4, 323–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N. & Forster, K. I. (2001). Cross-language priming asymmetries in lexical decision and episodic recognition. Journal of Memory & Language, 44, 32–51.Google Scholar
Keatley, C., Spinks, J. & de Gelder, B. (1994). Asymmetrical cross-language priming effects. Memory and Cognition, 22, 70–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, J. & Davis, C. (2001). Loss of rapid phonological in reading Hanja, the logographic script of Korean. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8, 785–790.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Kotz, S. A. & Elston-Güettler, K. (2004). The role of proficiency on processing categorical and associative information in the L2 as revealed by reaction times and event-related brain potentials. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17, 215–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F. & De Groot, A. M. B. (1997). Lexical and conceptual memory in the bilingual: Mapping form to meaning in two languages. In A. Groot, De and Kroll, J. F. (eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives, pp. 169–199. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.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.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F. & Tokowicz, N. (2001). The development of conceptual representation for words in a second language. In Nicol, J. L. (ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing, pp. 49–71. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lalor, E. E. (1996). The role of morphology in the organization of a single bilingual system. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Western Australia, Australia.Google Scholar
Lemhöfer, K., Dijkstra, T. & Michel, M. (2004). Three languages, one ECHO: Cognate effects in trilingual word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19, 585–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Bozic, M. & Randall, B. in press. Early decomposition in visual word recognition: Dissociating morphology, form, and meaning. Language and Cognitive Processes.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W.D. & Tyler, L. K. (2007). Morphology, language and the brain: The decompositional substrate for language comprehension. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B. Biological Sciences. 362, 823–836.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McClelland, J. L. & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interaction activation model of context effects in letter perception. Part 1. Psychological Review, 88, 375–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perea, M., Duñabeitia, J. A. & Carreiras, M. (2008). Masked priming effects across languages with highly proficient bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 916–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perea, M. & Gotor, A. (1997). Associative and semantic priming effects occur at very short SOAs in lexical decision and naming. Cognition, 67, 223–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sánchez-Casas, R., Davis, C. W. & García-Albea, J. E. (1992). Bilingual lexical processing: Exploring the cognate/non-cognate distinction. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4, 293–310.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. and De Groot, A. M. B. (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, pp. 226–250. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sánchez-Casas, R., García-Albea, J. E. & Igoa, J. M. (2003). On the representations of inflections and derivations: Data from Spanish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32, 621–668.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sánchez-Casas, R., Guasch, M., Ferré, P. & Esteban, S. (2007). El papel de la forma en los efectos de priming enmascarado en las palabras cognaticias. Anuario de Psicología, 38, 25–44.Google Scholar
Tokowicz, N., Kroll, J. F., De Groot, A. M. B. & Van Hell, J. G. (2002). Number-of-translation norms for Dutch–English translation pairs: A new tool for examining language production. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, Computers, 34, 435–451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanderelst, D., Speybroeck, S., Brysbaert, M. & Forster, K. I. (submitted). The e-detection task to measure the visibility of primes in masked-priming experiments.Google Scholar
Van Hell, J. G. & De Groot, A. M. B. (1998). Conceptual representation in bilingual memory: Effects of concreteness and cognate status in word association. Bilingualism, 1, 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voga, M. & Grainger, J. (2007). Cognate status and cross-script translation priming. Memory and Cognition. 35, 938–952.Google Scholar
Williams, J. N. (1994). The relationship between word meanings in the first and second language: Evidence for a common, but restricted, semantic code. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 6, 195–220.Google Scholar