Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T11:15:36.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cross-linguistic activation in bilingual sentence processing: The role of word class meaning*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2010

KRISTOF BATEN ,
FABRICE HOFMAN  and
TOM LOEYS
KRISTOF BATEN*
Affiliation:
German Department Faculty of Arts and Philosophy, Ghent University
FABRICE HOFMAN
Affiliation:
German Department Faculty of Arts and Philosophy, Ghent University
TOM LOEYS
Affiliation:
Department of Data Analysis Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Ghent University
*
Address for correspondence: Kristof Baten, German Department, Faculty of Arts and Philosophy, Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates how categorial (word class) semantics influences cross-linguistic interactions when reading in L2. Previous homograph studies paid little attention to the possible influence of different word classes in the stimulus material on cross-linguistic activation. The present study examines the word recognition performance of Dutch–English bilinguals who performed a lexical decision task to word targets appearing in a sentence. To determine the influence of word class meaning, the critical words either showed a word class overlap (e.g. the homograph tree [noun], which means “step” in Dutch) or not (e.g. big [adj], which is a noun in Dutch meaning “piglet”). In the condition of word class overlap, a facilitation effect was observed, suggesting that both languages were active. When there was no word class overlap, the facilitation effect disappeared. This result suggests that categorial meaning affects the word recognition process of bilinguals.

Keywords

sentence processingvisual word recognitionsemantic constraintword class
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , July 2011 , pp. 351 - 359
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

*

We gratefully acknowledge the contribution of the students from Ghent University. We also wish to thank Frederic Lamsens and Gitte Callaert for technical support, and Sien Uytterschout for her comments on language. We also thank Marc Brysbaert and Janet van Hell for their valuable comments on an earlier version. The study's results were presented at the Second Language Research Forum, held at Michigan State University, East-Lansing, 29 October – 1 November 2009.

References

Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1993). The Celex Lexical Database (cd-rom). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Bates, D. (2005). Fitting linear mixed models in R. The Newsletter of the R Project, 5, 27–29.Google Scholar
Beauvillain, C., & Grainger, J. (1987). Accessing interlexical homographs: Some limitations of a language-selective access. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 658–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caramazza, A., & Brones, I. (1979). Lexical access in bilinguals. Bulletin of the Pyschonomic Society, 13, 212–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, C. G., & Cooke, H. (2009). Lexical competition during second-language listening: Sentence context, but not proficiency, constrains interference from the native lexicon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1029–1040.Google Scholar
Christoffanini, P., Kirsner, K., & Milech, D. (1986). Bilingual lexical representations: The status of Spanish–English cognates. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 38 (A), 367–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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., Delmaar, Ph., & Lupker, S. J. (2000). The processing of interlexical homographs in translation recognition and lexical decision: Support for non-selective access to bilingual memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53 (A), 397–428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dijkstra, T., De Bruijn, E., Schriefers, H., & Ten Brinke, S. (2000). More on interlingual homograph recognition: Language intermixing versus explicitness of instruction. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3, 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 496–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Timmermans, M., & Schriefers, H. (2000). On being blinded by your other language: Effects of task demands on interlingual homograph recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 445–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (1998). The BIA-model and bilingual word recognition. In Grainger, J. & Jacobs, A. (eds.), Localist connectionist approaches to human cognition, pp. 189–225. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence 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, 175–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T., van Jaarsveld, H., & Ten Brinke, S. (1998). Interlingual homograph cognition: Effects of task demands and language intermixing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duyck, W., Desmet, T., Verbeke, L. P. C., & Brysbaert, M. (2004). WordGen: A tool for word selection and nonword generation in Dutch, English, German, and French. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36, 488–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duyck, W., Van Assche, E., Drieghe, , , D., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2007). Visual word recognition by bilinguals in a sentence context: Evidence for nonselective lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 33, 663–679.Google Scholar
Elston-Güttler, K. E. (2000). An inquiry into cross-language lexical–conceptual relationships and their effect on L2 lexical processing. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge.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
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
Elston-Güttler, K. E., Paulmann, S., & Kotz, S. A. (2005). Who's in control? Proficiency and L1 influence on L2 processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 1593–1610.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Font, N. (2001). Rôle de la langue dans l'accès au lexique chez les bilingues: Influence de la proximité orthographique et sémantique interlangue sur la reconnaissance visuelle de mots. [The role of language in bilingual lexical access: Influence of interlingual orthographic and semantic proximity on visual word recognition]. Ph.D. dissertation, Université Paul Valery, Montpellier, France.Google Scholar
French, R. M., & Jacquet, M. (2004). Understanding bilingual memory: Models and data. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 87–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerard, L. D., & Scarborough, D. L. (1989).Language-specific lexical access of homographs by bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 15, 305–313.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jared, D., & Szucs, C. (2002). Phonological activation in bilinguals: Evidence from interlingual homograph naming. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 225–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & Tokowicz, N. (2005). Models of bilingual representation and processing: Looking back and to the future. In Kroll, J. F. & De Groot, A. M. B. (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, pp. 531–553. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lemhöfer, K., & Dijkstra, T. (2004). Recognizing cognates and interlingual homographs: Effects of code similarity in language-specific and generalized lexical decision. Memory and Cognition, 32, 533–550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, P., & Yip, M. C. (1998). Context effects and the processing of spoken homophones. Reading and Writing, 10, 223–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loeys, T., Rosseel, Y., & Baten, K. (2010). A joint modeling approach for reaction time and accuracy in psycholinguistic experiments. Ms., University of Ghent. [submitted]Google Scholar
Macnamara, J., & Kushnir, S. L. (1971). Linguistic independence of bilinguals: The input switch. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 480–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meuter, R. (2009). Neurolinguistic contributions to understanding the bilingual mental lexicon. In Pavlenko, A. (ed.), The bilingual mental lexicon: Interdisciplinary approaches, pp. 1–25. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team (2007). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. http://www.R-project.org (retrieved October 11, 2010).Google Scholar
Schwartz, A. I., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). Bilingual lexical activation in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 197–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunderman, G., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). First language activation during second language lexical processing: An investigation of lexical form, meaning, and grammatical class. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 387–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Hell, J. G. (2002). Bilingual word recognition beyond orthography: On meaning, linguistic context and individual differences. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 209–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Hell, J. G., & De Groot, A. M. B. (2008). Sentence context modulates visual word recognition and translation in bilinguals. Acta Psychologica, 128, 431–451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1991). Influences of semantic and syntactic context on open- and closed-class words. Memory and Cognition, 19, 95–112.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
Willems, K. (2000). Form, meaning and reference in natural language: A phenomenological account of proper names. Onoma, 35, 85–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar