Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T16:55:58.079Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Moses or Noah? A case of ‘potato-potahto’ when using a foreign language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2021

Sara Dhaene ,
Nicolas Dirix ,
Hélène Van Marcke  and
Evy Woumans Open the ORCID record for Evy Woumans [Opens in a new window]
Sara Dhaene
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000 Gent, Belgium
Nicolas Dirix
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000 Gent, Belgium
Hélène Van Marcke
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000 Gent, Belgium
Evy Woumans*
Affiliation:
Department of Translation, Interpreting and Communication, Ghent University, Groot-Brittanniëlaan 45, 9000 Gent, Belgium
*
Address for correspondence: Evy Woumans, Department of Translation, Interpreting and Communication, Ghent University, Groot-Brittanniëlaan 45, 9000Gent, Belgiumevy.woumans@ugent.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research among bilinguals suggests a foreign language effect for various tasks requiring a more systematic processing style. For instance, bilinguals seem less prone to heuristic reasoning when solving problem statements in their foreign (FL) as opposed to their native (NL) language. The present study aimed to determine whether such an effect might also be observed in the detection of semantic anomalies. Participants were presented NL and FL questions with and without anomalies while their eye movements were recorded. Overall, they failed to detect the anomaly in more than half of the trials. Furthermore, more illusions occurred for questions presented in the FL, indicating an FL disadvantage. Additionally, eye movement analyses suggested that reading patterns for anomalies are predominantly similar across languages. Our results therefore substantiate theories suggesting that FL use induces cognitive load, causing increased susceptibility to illusions due to partial semantic processing.

Keywords

semantic illusionsanomaly detectionlanguage processingbilingualismeye tracking
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , May 2022 , pp. 444 - 458
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Alter, AL (2013) The benefits of cognitive disfluency. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(6), 437–442. doi:10.1177/0963721413498894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alter, AL, Oppenheimer, DM, Epley, N and Eyre, RN (2007) Overcoming intuition: metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 569–567. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.569CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barr, DJ, Levy, R, Scheepers, C and Tily, HJ (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68 (3), 255–278. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barton, SB and Sanford, AJ (1993) A case study of anomaly detection: Shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment. Memory & cognition, 21 (4), 477–487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, D, Maechler, M, Bolker, B and Walker, S (2015) lme4 : Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1–10, http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.Google Scholar
Bates, D, Maechler, M, Bolker, B and Walker, S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67 (1), 1–48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blythe, HI, Liversedge, SP, Joseph, HS S. L., White, SJ and Rayner, K (2009) Visual information capture during fixations in reading for children and adults. Vision Research, 49 (12), 1583–1591. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2009.03. 0150.3758/BF03197179CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blythe, HI, Häikiö, T, Bertam, R, Liversedge, SP and Hyönä, J (2011) Reading disappearing text: Why do children refixate words? Vision Research, 51 (1), 84–92. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2010.10.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bohan, J and Sanford, A (2008) Semantic anomalies at the borderline of consciousness: An eye-tracking investigation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(2), 232–239. doi:10.1080/17470210701617219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bottoms, HC, Eslick, AN and Marsh, EJ (2010) Memory and the Moses illusion: Failures to detect contradictions with stored knowledge yield negative memorial consequences. Memory, 18, 670–678.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Braze, D, Shankweiler, D, Ni, W and Palumbo, LC (2002) Reader's eye movements distinguish anomalies of form and content. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bredart, S and Modolo, K (1988) Moses strikes again: Focalization effect on a semantic illusion. Acta Psychologica, 67 (2), 135–144. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(88)90009-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Büttner, AC (2007) Questions versus statements: Challenging an assumption about semantic illusions. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60 (6), 779–789. doi:10.1080/17470210701228744CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cantor, AD and Marsh, EJ (2017) Expertise effects in the Moses illusion: detecting contradictions with stored knowledge. Memory, 25 (5), 220–230. doi:10.1080/09658211.2016.1152377CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cipolletti, H, McFarlane, S and Weissglass, C (2016) The moral foreign-language effect. Philosophical Psychology, 29 (1), 23–40. doi:10.1080/09515089.2014.993063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, AE, Walsh, EK, Bills, MA, Kircher, JC and O'Brien, EJ (2018) Validation of semantic illusions independent of anomaly detection: evidence from eye movements. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71 (1), 113–121. doi:10.1080/17470218.2016.1264432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cop, U, Drieghe, D and Duyck, W (2015) Eye movement patterns in natural reading: A comparison of monolingual and bilingual reading of a novel. PLoS One, 10 (8), e0134008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costa, A, Foucart, A, Arnon, I, Aparici, M and Apesteguia, J (2014) “Piensa” twice: On the foreign language effect in decision making. Cognition, 130, 236–254. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Daneman, M, Lennertz, T and Hannon, B (2007) Shallow semantic processing and cognitive processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 85–105.Google Scholar
Erickson, TD and Mattson, ME (1981) From words to meaning: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20 (5), 540–551. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90165-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Favreau, M and Segalowitz, NS (1983) Automatic and controlled processes in the first- and second-language reading of fluent bilinguals. Memory & Cognition, 11 (6), 565–574. doi:10.3758/BF03198281CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fazio, LK and Marsh, EJ (2008) Slowing presenta-tion speed increases illusions of knowledge. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 180–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geipel, J, Hadjichristidis, C and Surian, L (2015) How foreign language shapes moral judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 59, 8–17. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.02.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, DG and Gigerenzer, G (2002) Models of ecological rationality: The recognition heuristic. Psychological Review, 109 (1), 75–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hannon, B and Daneman, M (2001) Susceptibility to semantic illusions: An individual-differences perspective. Memory & cognition, 29 (3), 449–461. doi:10.3758/BF03196396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannon, B and Daneman, M (2004) Shallow processing of text: An individual-differences account. Discourse Processes, 37, 187–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayakawa, S, Tannenbaum, D, Costa, A, Corey, JD and Keysar, B (2017) Thinking more or feeling less? Explaining the foreign-language effect on moral judgement. Psychological Science, 10, 1387–1397. doi:1o0i.1or1g7/170/.01197576/7095767197761270792404944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hothorn, T, Bretz, F and Westfall, P (2008) Simultaneous Inference in General Parametric Models. Biometrical Journal, 50(3), 346–363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelley, CM and Lindsay, DS (1993) Remembering mistaken for knowing: Ease of retrieval as a basis for confidence in answers to general knowledge questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keuleers, E, Brysbaert, M and New, B (2010) SUBTLEX-NL: A new measure for Dutch word frequency based on film subtitles. Behavior Research Methods, 42 (3), 643–650. doi:10.3758/BRM.42.3.643CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keysar, B, Hayakawa, S and An, SG (2012) The foreign language effect: Thinking in a foreign tongue reduces decision biases. Psychological Science, 23, 661–668. doi:10.1177/0956797611432178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsova, A, Brockhoff, PB and Christensen, RH B (2017) lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. doi:10.18637/jss.v082.i13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemhöfer, K and Broersma, M (2011) Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid Lexical Test for Advanced Learners of English. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 325–343. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0146-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loftus, EF (1975) Leading questions and the eye- witness report. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 560–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, EJ, Roediger, HL III, Bjork, RA and Bjork, EL (2007) The memorial consequences of multiple- choice testing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 194–199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marsh, EJ and Umanath, S (2013) Knowledge neglect: Failures to notice contradictions with stored knowledge. In Rapp, DN & Braasch, J (eds), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rayner, K (1986) Eye movements and the perceptual span in beginning and skilled readers. J Experimental Child Psychology, 41, 211–236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reder, LM and Kusbit, GW (1991) Locus of the Moses Illusion: Imperfect encoding, retrieval, or match? Journal of Memory and Language, 30 (4), 385–406. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(91)90013-ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shafto, M and MacKay, DG (2000) The Moses, Mega-Moses, and Armstrong illusions: Integrating language comprehension and semantic memory. Psychological Science, 11, 372 378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Song, H and Schwarz, N (2008) Fluency and the detection of misleading questions: Low processing fluency attenuates the Moses Illusion. Social Cognition, 26 (6), 791–799. doi:10.1521/soco.2008.26.6.791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A and Kahneman, D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211 (4481), 453–458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Umanath, S, Dolan, PO and Marsh, EJ (2014) Aging and the Moses Illusion: Older adults fall for Moses but if asked directly, stick with Noah. Memory, 22, 481–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Heuven, WJ, Mandera, P, Keuleers, E and Brysbaert, M (2014) SUBTLEX-UK: A new and improved word frequency database for British English. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67 (6), 1176–1190. doi:10.1080/17470218.2013.850521CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Oostendorp, H and De Mul, S (1990) Moses beats Adam: A semantic relatedness effect on a semantic illusion. Acta Psychologica, 74 (1), 35–46. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(90)90033-CCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, AF, Kretzschmar, F, Schlesewsky, M, Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I and Staub, A (2017) Comprehension demands modulate re-reading, but not first pass reading behavior. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1–37. doi:10.1080/17470218.2017.1307862Google Scholar
Winskel, H, Ratitamkul, T, Brambley, V, Nagarachinda, T and Tiencharoen, S (2016) Decision-making and the framing effect in a foreign and native language. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28, 427–436. doi:10.1080/20445911.2016.1139583CrossRefGoogle Scholar