Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T14:04:16.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ambiguous words are harder to learn*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2010

TAMAR DEGANI  and
NATASHA TOKOWICZ
TAMAR DEGANI
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
NATASHA TOKOWICZ*
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
*
Address for correspondence: Natasha Tokowicz, Learning Research & Development Center, 3939 O'Hara St., Room 634, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Relatively little is known about the role of ambiguity in adult second-language learning. In this study, native English speakers learned Dutch–English translation pairs that either mapped in a one-to-one fashion (unambiguous items) in that a Dutch word uniquely corresponded to one English word, or mapped in a one-to-many fashion (ambiguous items), with two Dutch translations corresponding to a single English word. These two Dutch translations could function as exact synonyms, corresponding to a single meaning, or could correspond to different meanings of an ambiguous English word (e.g., wisselgeld denotes the monetary meaning of the word change, and verandering denotes alteration). Several immediate and delayed tests revealed that such translation ambiguity creates a challenge for learners. Furthermore, words with multiple translations corresponding to the same meaning are more difficult to learn than words with multiple translations corresponding to multiple meanings, suggesting that a one-to-many mapping underlies this ambiguity disadvantage.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , July 2010 , pp. 299 - 314
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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 project was supported by NSF-BCS 0745372 and a Language Learning Grant awarded to NT. We thank the members of the PLUM Lab and Kevin Jarbo, Adiam Mekonen, and Angela Sperl for research assistance, and Charles A. Perfetti and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. A version of this research was presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, in November 2008.

References

Anderson, J. R. (1974). Retrieval of propositional information from long-term memory. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 451–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R., & Reder, L. M. (1999). The fan effect: New results and new theories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 186–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, B. C., & Plaut, D. C. (2008). Settling dynamics in distributed networks explain task differences in semantic ambiguity effects: Computational and behavioral evidence. Presented at the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Neely, J. H., Nelson, D., Simpson, G. B., & Treiman, R. (2002). The English Lexicon Project: A web-based repository of descriptive and behavioral measures for 40,481 English words and nonwords. Washington University, http://elexicon.wustl.edu/ (retrieved August 14, 2007).Google Scholar
Boada, R., Sánchez-Casas, R., García-Albea, J. E., Gaviln, J. M., & Ferr, P. (2009). Effect of number of translations and cognate status in translation recognition performance of proficient bilinguals. Presented at the Seventh International Symposium on Bilingualism, Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Bogaards, P. (2001). Lexical units and the learning of foreign language vocabulary. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 321–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byers-Heinlein, K., & Werker, J. F. (2009). Monolingual, bilingual, trilingual: Infants’ language experience influences the development of a word-learning heuristic. Developmental Science, 12, 815–823.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Degani, T., Prior, A., & Tokowicz, N. (in press). Bidirectional transfer: The effect of sharing a translation. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology.Google Scholar
Degani, T., & Tokowicz, N. (in press). Semantic ambiguity within and across languages: An integrative review. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.Google Scholar
Doherty, M. J. (2004). Children's difficulty in learning homonyms. Journal of Child Language, 31, 203–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dufour, R., & Kroll, J. F. (1995). Matching words to concepts in two languages: A test of the concept mediation model of bilingual representation. Memory and Cognition, 23, 166–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duyck, W., & de Houwer, J. (2008). Semantic access in second-language visual word processing: Evidence from the semantic Simon paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15, 961–966.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Electronic commerce. (2007). Dictionary.com. http://dictionary.com (retrieved October 22, 2007).Google Scholar
Elston-Güttler, K. E., & Friederici, A. D. (2005). Native and L2 processing of homonyms in sentential context. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 256–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C., & Prince, P. (1997). Second language autonomy. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 481–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Bailey, L. M., & Wenger, N. R. (1992). Young children and adults use lexical principles to learn new nouns. Developmental Psychology, 28, 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N. (2002). Form–meaning mapping in vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 617–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N. (2004). Semantic transfer and its implications for vocabulary teaching in a second language. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 416–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, D. E., & Murphy, G. L. (2001). The representation of polysemous words. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 259–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klepousniotou, E., & Baum, S. R. (2007). Disambiguating the ambiguity advantage effect in word recognition: An advantage for polysemous but not homonymous words. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lotto, L., & de Groot, A. M. B. (1998). Effects of learning method and word type on acquiring vocabulary in an unfamiliar language. Language Learning, 48, 31–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1997). Second language acquisition and the Competition Model. In de Groot, A. M. B. & Kroll, J. F. (eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives, pp. 113–142. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Markman, E. M., & Wachtel, G. F. (1988). Children's use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meanings of words. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 121–157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mazzocco, M. M. M. (1997). Children's interpretations of homonyms: A developmental study. Journal of Child Language, 24, 441–467.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception. Part 1: An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, A., MacWhinney, B., & Kroll, J. F. (2007). Translation norms for English and Spanish: The role of lexical variables, word class, and L2 proficiency in negotiating translation ambiguity. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 1029–1038.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodd, J., 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
Sánchez-Casas, R., Buratti, B. S., & Igoa, J. M. (1992). Are bilingual lexical representations interconnected? Presented at the Fifth Conference of the European Society for Cognitive Psychology, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Storkel, H. L., & Maekawa, J. (2005). A comparison of homonym and novel word learning: The role of phonotactic probability and word frequency. Journal of Child Language, 32, 827–853.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Talamas, A., Kroll, J. F., & Dufour, R. (1999). From form to meaning: Stages in the acquisition of second-language vocabulary. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2, 45–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tokowicz, N. (2005). The role of proficiency in the influence of L1/L2 differences on L2 processing. Presented at symposium Cross-language Interaction at Different Levels of Proficiency: Psycholinguistic Studies of Late L2 Learners, chaired by J. G. van Hell & T. Dijkstra, held at the Fifth International Symposium on Bilingualism, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
Tokowicz, N., & Kroll, J. F. (2007). Number of meanings and concreteness: Consequences of ambiguity within and across languages. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 727–779.CrossRefGoogle 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
Tokowicz, N., & MacWhinney, B. (2005). Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to violations in second language grammar: An event-related potential investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 173–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tokowicz, N., Michael, E. B., & Kroll, J. F. (2004). The roles of study-abroad experience and working-memory capacity in the types of errors made during translation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 255–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tokowicz, N., Michael, E. B., & Smith, C. J. (2007). Choices, choices, choices: The consequences of activating too many translation alternatives. Presented at the Forty-Eighth Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Long Beach, CA.Google Scholar
Tokowicz, N., Prior, A., & Kroll, J. F. (2009). Bilingual speech production depends on translation ambiguity. Ms., University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 127–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, M. D. (1988). The MRC psycholinguistic database: Machine readable dictionary, version 2. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 20, 6–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WordNet 3.0, Princeton University, 2006.Google Scholar