Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T09:08:22.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phonological coactivation in the bilinguals’ two languages: Evidence from the color naming task*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2015

PEDRO MACIZO
PEDRO MACIZO*
Affiliation:
University of Granada Mind, Brain and Behavior Research Center, Spain
*
Address for correspondence: Pedro Macizo, Dpto. Psicología Experimental, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad de Granada, Campus de Cartuja s/n. 18071 GranadaSpain[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We evaluate whether bilinguals activate the phonology of their first language (L1) when they speak in their second language (L2). In Experiment 1, Spanish–English (L1–L2) bilinguals performed a color naming task in which they named the color of pictures in L2 while the phonological relationship between the color names and picture names in L1 was evaluated. The bilinguals were slower when color names and picture names were phonologically related in L1 relative to a control condition in which they were unrelated. The same pattern of results was obtained in Experiment 2 when bilinguals with less L2 proficiency were evaluated. These results suggest that bilinguals coactivated the phonology of their two languages and that the phonology in L1 influenced the production of speech in L2. This finding is explained in terms of cascade models of bilingual language production.

Keywords

Bilingual speech productionphonological coactivationcolor naming task
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , March 2016 , pp. 361 - 375
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

*

This study was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (research project PSI2012–32287). We wish to thank Bradley Bloomfield, Natalia Paredes and Verónica Juárez for helping in testing participants.

References

Basnight-Brown, D. M., & Altarriba, J. (2007). Differences in semantic and translation priming across languages: The role of language direction and language dominance. Memory & Cognition, 35, 953–965. doi:10.3758/BF03193468 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bloem, I., & La Heij, W. (2003). Semantic facilitation and semantic interference in word translation: Implications for models of lexical access in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 468–488. doi: 10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00503-X Google Scholar
Bloem, I., van den Boogaard, S., & La Heij, W. (2004). Semantic facilitation and semantic interference in language production: Further evidence for the conceptual selection model of lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 307–323. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caramazza, A. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 177–208. doi: 10.1080/026432997381664 Google Scholar
Colomé, A. (2001). Lexical activation in bilinguals' speech production: language-specific or language-independent? Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 721–736. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2001.2793 Google Scholar
Colomé, A., & Miozzo, M. (2010). Which words are activated during bilingual word production? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 96–109. doi: 10.1037/a0017677 Google Scholar
Costa, A. (2005). Lexical access in bilingual production. In Kroll, J. F. & De Groot, A. M. B. (Eds.), Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches (pp. 308–325). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Costa, A., Miozzo, M., & Caramazza, A. (1999). Lexical selection in bilinguals: Do words in the bilingual's two lexicons compete for selection? Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 365–397. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1999. 2651 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, A., Caramazza, A., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2000). The cognate facilitation effect: Implications for the models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 26, 1283–1296. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.26.5.1283 Google Scholar
Damian, M. F., & Dumay, N. (2009). Exploring phonological encoding through repeated segments. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24, 685–712. doi: 10.1080/01690960802351260 Google Scholar
de Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt's speaking model adapted. Applied Linguistics, 13, 1–24. doi: 10.1093/applin/13.1.1 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. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(91)90012-9 Google Scholar
Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.283 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dell, G. S., Schwartz, M. F., Martin, N., Saffran, E. M., & Gagnon, D.A. (1997). Lexical access in aphasic and nonaphasic speakers. Psychological Review, 104, 801–838. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.104.4.801 Google Scholar
Dumay, N., & Damian, M. F, (2011). A word-order constraint in single-word production?Failure to replicate Janssen, Alario, and Caramazza (2008). Psychological Science, 22, 559–561. doi: 10.1177/0956797611401754 Google Scholar
Elston-Güttler, K. E., Gunter, T. C., & Kotz, S. A. (2005). Zooming into L2: Global language context and adjustment affect processing of interlingual homographs in sentences. Cognitive Brain Research, 25, 57–70. doi:10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.04.007 Google Scholar
Goldrick, M. (2014). Phonological processing: The retrieval and encoding of word form information in speech production. In Goldrick, M., Ferreira, V., & Miozzo, M. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language production (pp. 228–244). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gollan, T.H., & Acenas, L.A. (2004). What is a TOT? Cognate and Translation Effects on Tip-of-the-Tongue states in Spanish–English and Tagalog–English Bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 30, 246–269. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.30.1.246 Google ScholarPubMed
Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 67–81. doi: 10.1017/S1366728998000133 Google Scholar
Griffin, Z. M., & Bock, K. (1998). Constraint, word frequency, and the relationship between lexical processing levels in spoken word production. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 313–338. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1997. 2547 Google Scholar
Harley, T. A. (1993). Phonological activation of semantic competitors during lexical access in speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 291–309. doi: 10.1080/01690969308406957 Google Scholar
Hermans, D. (2000). Word production in a foreign language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Hermans, D., Bongaerts, T., de Bot, K., & Schreuder, R. (1998). Producing words in a foreign language: can speakers prevent interference from their first language? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 213–230. doi: 10.1017/S1366728998000364 Google Scholar
Hermans, D., Ormel, E., Van den Besselaar, R., & van Hell, J. G. (2011). Lexical activation in bilinguals’ speech production is dynamic: How language ambiguous words can affect cross-language activation . Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 1687–1709. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2010.530411 Google 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. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2000.2747 Google Scholar
Janssen, N., Alario, F. X., & Caramazza, A. (2008). A word-order constraint on phonological activation. Psychological Science, 19, 216–220. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02070.x Google Scholar
Jescheniak, J. D., Oppermann, F., Hantsch, A., Wagner, V., Mädebach, A., & Schriefers, H. (2009). Do perceived context pictures automatically activate their phonological code? Experimental Psychology, 56, 56–65. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169.56.1.56 Google Scholar
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, 119–135. doi: 10.1017/S1366728906002483 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Dijkstra, A., Janssen, N., & Schriefers, H. (2000, November). Selecting the language in which to speak. Experiments on lexical access in bilingual production. Paper presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Michael, E., Tokowicz, N., & Dufour, R. (2002). The development of lexical fluency in a second language. Second Language Research, 18, 137–171. doi: 10.1191/0267658302sr201oa Google Scholar
Kuipers, J. R., & La Heij, W. (2009). The limitations of cascading in the speech production system. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24, 120–135. doi: 10.1080/01690960802234177 Google Scholar
La Heij, W., & Boelens, H. (2011). Color-object interference: Further tests of an executive control account. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108, 156–169. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2010.08.007 Google Scholar
La Heij, W., Boelens, H., & Kuipers, J. R. (2010). Object interference in children's colour and position naming: Lexical interference or task-set competition? Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 568–588. doi: 10.1080/01690960903381174 Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1999). Models of word production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 223–232. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01319-4 Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X99001776 Google Scholar
Linck, J. A., Kroll, J. F., & Sunderman, G. (2009). Losing access to the native language while immersed in a second language: Evidence for the role of inhibition in second language learning. Psychological Science, 20, 1507–1515. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02480.x Google Scholar
Macizo, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2006). Reading for repetition and reading for translation: Do they involve the same processes? Cognition, 99, 1–34. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2004.09.012 Google Scholar
Macizo, P., Bajo, T., & Martín, M. C. (2010). Inhibitory processes in bilingual language comprehension: Evidence from Spanish–English interlexical homographs. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 232–244. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2010.04.002 Google Scholar
Macizo, P., Bajo, T., & Paolieri, D. (2012). Language switching and language competition. Second Language Research, 28, 131–149. doi: 10.1177/0267658311434893 Google Scholar
Meyer, A. S. (1996). Lexical access in phrase and sentence production: Results from picture–word interference experiments. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 477–496. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1996.0026 Google Scholar
Meyer, A. S., & Damian, M. (2007). Activation of distractor names in the picture–picture interference paradigm. Memory and Cognition, 35, 494–503. doi: 10.3758/BF03193289 Google Scholar
Morsella, E., & Miozzo, M. (2002). Evidence for a cascade model of lexical access in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 555–563. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.28.3.555 Google Scholar
Navarrete, E., & Costa, A. (2005). Phonological activation of ignored pictures: Further evidence for a cascade model of lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 359–377. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2005.05.001 Google Scholar
Navarrete, E., & Costa, A. (2009). The distractor picture paradox in speech production: Evidence from the word translation task. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38, 527–547. doi: 10.1007/s10936-009-9119-1 Google Scholar
Oppermann, F., Jescheniak, J. D., Schriefers, H., & Görges, F. (2010). Semantic relatedness among objects promotes the activation of multiple phonological codes during object naming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 356–370. doi: 10.1080/17470210902952480 Google Scholar
Pérez, M. A., & Navalón, C. (2003). Normas españolas de 290 nuevos dibujos: Acuerdo en la denominación, concordancia de la imagen, familiaridad, complejidad visual y variabilidad de la imagen [Spanish norms of 290 new pictures: Naming agreement, picture agreement, familiarity, visual complexity and picture variability]. Psicológica, 24, 215–241.Google Scholar
Poulisse, N. & Bongaerts, T. (1994). First language use in second language production. Applied Linguistics, 15, 36–57. doi: 10.1093/applin/15.1.36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapp, B., & Goldrick, M. (2000). Discreteness and interactivity in spoken word production. Psychological Review, 107, 460–499. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.107.3.460 Google Scholar
Roelofs, A. (2008). Tracing attention and the activation flow in spoken word planning using eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 353–368. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.34.2.353 Google Scholar
Roselli, M., Ardila, A., Jurado, M. B., & Salvatierra, J. L. (2014). Cognate facilitation effect in balanced and non-balanced Spanish–English bilinguals using the Boston Naming Test. International Journal of Bilingualism, 18, 649–662. doi: 10.1177/1367006912466313 Google Scholar
Roux, S., Bonin, P., & Kandel, S. (2013). The “BIG BIRD” of the “YELLOW YOUNG” man: Do nontarget properties cascade? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 763–784. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2013.828317 Google Scholar
Sánchez-Casas, R., & García-Albea, J. E. (2005). The representation of cognate and noncognate words on bilingual memory: Can cognate status be characterized as a special kind of morphological relation? In Kroll, J. F. & Groot, A. M. B. De (Eds.), Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches (pp. 226–250). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, W. (1995). Micro experimental laboratory. Pittsburg, PA: Psychology Software Tools.Google Scholar
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime user's guide (Version 1.1). Pittsburg: Psychology Software Tools.Google Scholar
Schriefers, H., Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1990). Exploring the time course of lexical access in production: Picture–word interference studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 86–102. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(90)90011-N Google Scholar
Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174–215. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.6.2.174 Google Scholar
van Hell, J. G., & Tanner, D. (2012). Second language proficiency and cross-language lexical activation. Language Learning, 62, 148–171. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00710.x Google Scholar