Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T20:42:40.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cross-language mediated priming: Effects of context and lexical relationship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2008

ANA I. SCHWARTZ  and
ANA B. ARÊAS DA LUZ FONTES
ANA B. ARÊAS DA LUZ FONTES*
Affiliation:
University of Texas at El Paso
*
Address for correspondence: Ana Schwartz, Department of Psychology, 500 W. University Ave., University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas 79968, USA[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examined how linguistic context influences the nature of bilingual lexical activation. We hypothesized that in single-word context, form-related words would receive the strongest activation while, in sentence context, semantically related words would receive the strongest activation. Spanish–English bilinguals performed a semantic verification task on English target words preceded by a prime. On critical trials, the prime and target words were paired based either on a form-mediated relationship through the native language (L1), [e.g., bark (barco): BOAT] (Experiment 1) or on a semantically-mediated relationship [e.g., boat (barco): BARK] (Experiment 2). The prime word was presented either in isolation or after a sentence context. In Experiment 1 interference was observed in the single word condition only. In Experiment 2 interference was observed in both single-word and sentence contexts. The findings demonstrate that the context in which words are embedded has an impact on the type of lexical competitors that become active.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 95 - 110
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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

Altarriba, J., Kroll, J. F., Sholl, A. & Rayner, K. 1996. The influence of lexical and conceptual constraints on reading mixed-language sentences: Evidence from eye fixations and naming times. Memory and Cognition, 24, 477–492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Binder, K. S. & Morris, R. K. 1995. Eye movements and lexical ambiguity resolution: Effects of prior encounter and discourse topic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1186–1196.Google ScholarPubMed
Chen, H.-C. & Ng, M.-L. 1989. Semantic facilitation and translation priming effects in Chinese–English bilinguals. Memory and Cognition, 17, 454–462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Bruijn, E. R. A., Dijkstra, T., Chwilla, D. J. & Schriefers, H. J. 2001. Language context effects on interlingual homograph recognition: Evidence from event-related potentials and response times in semantic priming. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 155–168.CrossRefGoogle 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, T., De Bruijn, E., Schriefers, H. & Brinke, S. T. 2000. More on interlingual homograph recognition: Language intermixing versus explicitness of instruction. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3, 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T. & Van Hell, J. G. 2003. Testing the language mode hypothesis using trilinguals. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 6, 2–16.CrossRefGoogle 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, 175–197.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dopkins, S., Morris, R. K. & Rayner, K. 1992. Lexical ambiguity and eye fixations in reading: A test of competing models of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 461–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K. & Rayner, K. 1988. Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 429–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elston-Güttler, K. 2000. An enquiry into cross-language differences in lexical–conceptual relationships and their effect on L2 lexical processing. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge.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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Folk, J. R. & Morris, R. K. 1995. Multiple lexical codes in reading: Evidence from eye movements, naming time, and oral reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1412–1429.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. 1990. Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. 1991. Cognitive processes and mechanisms in language comprehension: The structure building framework. In Bower, G. H. (ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Advances in Research and Theory 27), pp. 217–263. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. 1996. The Structure-Building Framework: What it is, what it might also be, and why. In Britton, B. K. (ed.), Models of understanding text, pp. 289–311. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. 1997. Attenuating interference during comprehension: The role of suppression. In Medin, D. L. (ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (vol. 37), pp. 85–104. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. & Faust, M. E. 1991a. The mechanism of suppression: A component of general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 245–262.Google ScholarPubMed
Gernsbacher, M. A. & Faust, M. E. 1991b. The role of suppres-sion in sentence comprehension. In Simpson (ed.), pp. 97–128.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. & Faust, M. E. 1995. Skilled suppres-sion. In Dempster, F. N. (ed.), Interference and inhibition in cognition, pp. 295–327. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A., Varner, K. R. & Faust, M. E. 1990. Investigating differences in general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 430–445.Google ScholarPubMed
Gollan, T. H., Forster, K. I. & Frost, R. 1997. Translation priming with different scripts: Masked priming with cognates and noncognates in Hebrew–English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 1122–1139.Google ScholarPubMed
Green, D. W. 1998. Mental control of the bilingual lexico–semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, S. N. & Saint-Aubin, J. 2004. Letter detection for homographs with different meanings in different language texts. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 241–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. 1997. Processing mixed language: Issues, findings and models. In De Groot, A. M. B. & Kroll, J. F. (eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives, pp. 225–254. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Herdman, C. M. & LeFevre, J. A. 1992. Individual differences in the efficiency of word recognition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 95–102.CrossRefGoogle 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, 213–229.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotz, S. A. & Elston-Güttler, 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
Morris, R. K., Rayner, K. & Pollatsek, A. 1990. Eye movement guidance in reading: The role of parafoveal letter and space information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 268–281.Google ScholarPubMed
Neely, J. H. 1991. Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In Besner, D. & Humphreys, G. W. (eds.), Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition, pp. 264–336. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Onifer, W. & Swinney, D. A. 1981. Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory and Cognition, 9, 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallier, C., Colomé, A. & Sebastián-Gallés, N. 2001. The influence of native-language phonology on lexical access: Exemplar-based versus abstract lexical entries. Psychological Science, 12, 445–449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pecher, D. 2001. Perception is a two-way junction: Feedback semantics in word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8, 545–551.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perfetti, C. A. & Hart, L. 2001. The lexical basis of comprehension skill. In Gorfein, D. S. (ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity. Decade of behavior, pp. 67–86. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raaijmakers, J. G. W. 2003. A further look at the language-as-fixed-effect fallacy. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57, 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raaijmakers, J. G. W., Schrijnemakers, J. M. C. & Gremmen, F. 1999 How to deal with “The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy”: Common misconceptions and alternative solutions. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 416–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, K. & Morris, R. K. 1991. Comprehension processes in reading ambiguous sentences: Reflections from eye movements. In Simpson (ed.), pp. 175–198.Google Scholar
Schwanenflugel, P. J. & Rey, M. 1986. Interlingual semantic facilitation: Evidence for a common representational system in the bilingual lexicon. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 605–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, A. I. & Kroll, J. F. 2006. Bilingual lexical activation in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 197–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, A. I., Kroll, J. F. & Diaz, M. 2007. Reading words in Spanish and English: Mapping orthography to phonology in two languages. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 106–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sereno, S. C., Brewer, C. C. & O'Donnell, P. J. 2003. Context effects in word recognition: Evidence for early interactive processing. Psychological Science, 14, 328–333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silverberg, S. & Samuel, A. G. 2004. The effect of age of second language acquisition on the representation and processing of second language words. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 381–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, G. B. (ed.) 1991. Understanding word and sentence (Advances in psychology 77). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. B. & Kreuger, M. A. 1991. Selective access of homograph meanings in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 627–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. & West, R. F. 1983. On priming by a sentence context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swinney, D. A. 1979. Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabossi, P. & Zardon, F. 1993. Processing ambiguous words in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 359–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tzelgov, J. & Eben-Ezra, S. 1992. Components of the between-language semantic priming effect. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4, 253–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Hell, J. G. 1998. Cross-language processing and bilingual memory organization. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Van Heuven, W. J. B., Dijkstra, T. & Grainger, J. 1998. Orthographic neighborhood effects in bilingual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 458–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Orden, G. C. 1987. A ROWS is a ROSE: Spelling sound and reading. Memory and Cognition, 15, 181–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
von Studnitz, R. E. & Green, D. W. 2002 Interlingual homograph interference in German–English bilinguals: Its modulation and locus of control. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar