Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:42:29.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The illusory benefit of cognates: Lexical facilitation followed by sublexical interference in a word typing task

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2018

LAURA M. MUSCALU  and
PATRICIA A. SMILEY
LAURA M. MUSCALU*
Affiliation:
Cornell University Ithaca College
PATRICIA A. SMILEY
Affiliation:
Pomona College
*
Address for correspondence: Laura Muscalu, Cornell University, College of Human Ecology, 335 MVR Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853USA[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cognate facilitation and cognate interference in word production have been elicited separately, in different paradigms. In our experiment, we created conditions for facilitation and interference to occur sequentially, and identified the levels at which the two processes manifested. Bilinguals translated cognates and noncognates from L2 to L1 and typed the translations. Response-onset latencies were shorter for cognates (cognate-facilitation) but execution latencies were longer, and cross-language orthographic errors were more frequent for cognates than for noncognates (cognate-interference). Facilitation at onset followed by interference during word execution suggests that the language-selection mechanism operated efficiently at the lexical level but inefficiently at the sublexical level. It also suggests that language selection is not an event with irreversible outcome, but selection at one level may not guarantee language-selectivity at subsequent levels. We propose that a model of bilingual language production that specifies multiple language-selection processes at multiple loci of selection can accommodate this phenomenon.

Keywords

bilingual language processingcognatesorthographic interferencelanguage-selection mechanism
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , August 2019 , pp. 848 - 865
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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 wish to acknowledge Deborah Burke for astute comments on the manuscript, Judith Kroll for consultation on the research, and Jasmin Sadat and the anonymous reviewers for invaluable feedback. We also are indebted to the participants who offered their time and enthusiasm for the project.

References

Balling, L. W. (2013). Reading authentic texts: What counts as cognate? Bilingualism:Language and Cognition, 16, 637–653. doi:10.1017/S1366728911000733Google Scholar
Baese-Berk, M. M., & Goldrick, M. (2009). Mechanisms of interaction in speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24, 527–554. doi: 10.1080/01690960802299378Google Scholar
Behmer, L. P., & Crump, M. J. C. (2015). Crunching big data with finger tips: How typists tune their performance toward the statistics of natural language. In Jones, M. (ed.), Big Data in Cognitive Science, pp. 1–28. Abingdon, UK: Taylor & FrancisGoogle Scholar
Bonin, P., Peereman, R., & Fayol, M. (2001). Do Phonological Codes Constrain the Selection of Orthographic Codes in Written Picture Naming? Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 688–720. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2000.2786Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 977–90.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M., Van Dyck, G., & Van de Poel, M. (1999). Visual word recognition in bilinguals: Evidence from masked phonological priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 137–148. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.25.1.137Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 904–911. doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5Google Scholar
Burke, D., MacKay, D. G., Worthley, J. S., & Wade, E. (1991). On the tip of the tongue: What causes word finding failures in young and older adults? Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 542–579. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(91)90026-GGoogle Scholar
Buz, E., & Jaeger, T. F. (2015). The (in)dependence of articulation and lexical planning during isolated word production. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 1–21. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/23273798.2015.1105984Google 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.2001.2793Google 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.1999.2651Google Scholar
Costa, A., & Caramazza, A. (1999). Is lexical selection in bilingual speech production language specific? Further evidence from Spanish-English and English-Spanish bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2, 231–244. doi: 10.1017/S1366728999000334Google Scholar
Costa, A., Caramazza, A., & Sebastian-Galles, N. (2000). The cognate facilitation effect: Implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1283–1296. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.26.5.1283Google Scholar
Costa, A., Colomé, A., Gómez, O., & Sebastian-Gallés, N. (2003). Another look at cross-language competition in bilingual speech: Lexical and phonological factors. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6, 167–179. doi: 10.1017/S1366728903001111Google Scholar
De Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt's speaking model adapted. Applied Linguistics, 13, 1–24.Google Scholar
De Bot, K., & Schreuder, R. (1993). Word production and the bilingual lexicon. In Schreuder, R. & Weltens, B. (eds.), The bilingual lexicon, pp. 191–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.Google Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B. (1993). Word-type effects in bilingual processing tasks: Support for a mixed representational system. In Schreuder, R. & Weltens, B. (eds.), The bilingual lexicon, pp. 27–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.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)90012-9Google Scholar
Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.283Google 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. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1999.2654Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Miwa, K., Brummelhuis, B., & Baayen, H. (2010). How cross-language similarity and task demands affect recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 284–301. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.12.003Google 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, 23, 175–197. doi: 10.1017/S1366728902003012Google Scholar
Doctor, E. A., & Klein, D. (1992). Phonological processing in bilingual word recognition. In Harris, R. J. (ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals, pp. 237–252. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, M., Gollan, T. H., & Caramazza, A. (2006). Lexical access in bilingual speakers: What's the (hard) problem? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 153–166. doi: 10.1017/S1366728906002501Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., & Hojen, A. (2004). Why are non-native (L2) utterances longer than native-produced utterances? The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116, 2604. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4785387Google Scholar
Goldrick, M., & Blumstein, S. E. (2006). Cascading Activation from Phonological Planning to Articulatory Processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 649–683. doi: 10.1080/01690960500181332Google Scholar
Gollan, T. H., & Acenas, L. R. (2004). What is 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: 10.1037/0278-7393.30.1.246Google Scholar
Gollan, T. H., & Kroll., J. (2001). Bilingual lexical access. In Rapp, B. (ed.), Handbook of Cognitive Neuropsychology: What Deficits Reveal about Human Mind, pp. 321–345. New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Gollan, T.H., & Goldrick, M. (2012). Does bilingualism twist your tongue? Cognition, 125, 491–497. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.08.002Google Scholar
Gollan, T.H., Montoya, R.I., Cera, C., & Sandoval, T.C. (2008). More use almost always means a smaller frequency effect: Aging, bilingualism, and the weaker links hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 787–814. doi:10.1016/J.Jml.2007.07.001Google Scholar
Gollan, T. H., Slattery, T. J., Goldenberg, D., Van Assche, E., Duyck, W., & Rayner, K. (2011). Frequency drives lexical access in reading but not in speaking: The frequency-lag hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 186–209. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022256Google Scholar
Grainger, J., & Jacob, A. M. (1996). Orthographic Processing in Visual Word Recognition: A multiple Read-Out Model. Psychological Review, 103, 518–565. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.103.3.518Google Scholar
Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 67–81. doi: 10.1017/S1366728998000133Google Scholar
Heller, J. R., & Goldrick, M. (2014). Grammatical constraints on phonological encoding in speech production. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21 (6), 1576–1582. doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0616-3Google 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. doi: 10.1017/S1366728998000364Google Scholar
Hermans, D. (2000). Word production in a foreign language. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Nijmejen, Nijmejen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Hermans, D. (2004). Between-language identity effects in picture-word interference tasks: a challenge for language-nonspecific or language-specific models of lexical access? International Journal of Bilingualism, 8, 115–125. doi: 10.1177/13670069040080020101Google Scholar
Jacobs, A., Fricke, M., & Kroll, J. (2015). Cross-language activation begins during speech planning and extends into second language speech. Language Learning, 66, 324–353. doi: 10.1111/lang.12148Google Scholar
Jacobs, A., Gerfen, C., & Kroll, J. (2005). Inhibiting first language phonology in planning and producing speech in a second language. Paper presented at the European Society for Cognitive Psychology, Leiden, The NetherlandsGoogle 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.2000.2747Google Scholar
Jones, M. N., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (2004). Case-sensitive letter and bigram frequency counts from large-scale English corpora. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36, 388–396. doi: 10.3758/bf03195586Google Scholar
Kawamoto, A. H., Kello, C. T., Jones, R., & Bame, K. (1998). Initial phoneme versus whole-word criteria to initiate pronunciation: Evidence based on response latency and initial phoneme duration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 862–885. doi: /10.1037/0278-7393.24.4.862Google Scholar
Kello, C. T., Plaut, D. C., & MacWhinney, B. (2000). The task-dependence of stage versus cascaded processing: An empirical and computational study of stroop interference in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 340–360. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.129.3.340Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S., & 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/S1366728906002483Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Dijkstra, A., Janssen, N., & Schriefers, H. (2000). 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., & De Groot, A. M. B. (1997). Lexical and conceptual memory in the bilingual: Mapping form to meaning in two languages. In De Groot, A. M. B. & Kroll, J. F. (eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives, pp. 169–199. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google 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. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1008Google Scholar
La Heij, W. (2005). Selection processes in monolingual and bilingual lexical access. In Kroll, J. F. & De Groot, A. M. B. (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, pp. 289–307. New York: Oxford University Press.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.Google Scholar
Li, C., Goldrick, M., & Gollan, T. (2017). Bilinguals’ twisted tongues: Frequency lag or interference? Memory and Cognition, 45, 600–610. doi: 10.3758/s13421-017-0688-1Google Scholar
Logan, G. D., & Crump, M. J. C. (2009). The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing: The disruptive effects of attention to the hands in skilled typewriting. Psychological Science, 20, 1296–1300. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02442.xGoogle Scholar
Macizo, P. (2016). Phonological coactivation in the bilinguals' two languages: evidence from the color naming task. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,19, 361–375. doi: 10.1017/S136672891500005XGoogle 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.2004.09.012Google Scholar
MacKay, D. G. (1987). The organization of perception and action: A theory for language and other cognitive skills. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Marian, V., & Spivey, M. (2003). Competing activation in bilingual language processing: Within- and between- language competition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6, 97–115. doi: 10.1017/S1366728903001068Google Scholar
Muscalu, L. (2007). The role of phonological activation in bilinguals’ orthographic realization of words (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA.Google Scholar
Nas, G. (1983). Visual word recognition in bilinguals: Evidence for a cooperation between visual and sound based codes during access to a common lexical store. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 526–534. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(83)90319-5Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. B., Beckman, M. E., & Ladd, D. R. (2000). Conceptual foundations of phonology as a laboratory science. In Burton-Roberts, N., Carr, P. & Docherty, G. J. (eds.), Conceptual and empirical foundations of phonology, pp. 273–303. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Pinet, S., Dubarry, A. S., & Alario, F. X. (2016). Response retrieval and motor planning during typing. Brain and Language, 159, 74–83. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2016.05.012Google Scholar
Pinet, S., Ziegler, J., & Alario, F. X. (2016). Typing is writing: Linguistic properties modulate typing execution. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. Advance Online Publication. doi:10.3758/s13423-016-1044-3Google Scholar
Poulisse, N., & Bongaerts, T. (1994). First language use in second language production. Applied Linguistics, 15, 36–57. doi: 10.1093/applin/15.1.36Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1982). Simulating a skilled typist: A study of skilled cognitive-motor performance. Cognitive Science, 6, 1–36. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0601_1Google Scholar
Sadat, J., Martin, C. D., Costa, A., & Alario, F. X. (2014). Reconciling phonological neighborhood effects in speech production through single trial analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 68, 33–58. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2013.10.001Google Scholar
Sadat, J., Martin, C. D., Alario, F. X., & Costa, A. (2012). Characterizing the bilingual disadvantage in noun phrase production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 41, 159–179. doi: 10.1007/s10936-011-9183-1Google Scholar
Sadat, J., Martin, C. D., Magnuson, J. S., Alario, F. X., & Costa, A. (2016). Breaking down the bilingual cost in speech production. Cognitive Science, 40 (8), 1911–1940. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12315Google Scholar
Schaeffer, M., Dragsted, B., Hvelplund, K. T., Balling, L., & Carl, M. (2016). Word Translation Entropy: Evidence of Early Target Language Activation During Reading for Translation. In Carl, M., Bangalore, S. & Schaeffer, M. (eds.), New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB, pp. 183–210. Cham, Heidelberg, New York, London: Springer International PublishingGoogle Scholar
Schepens, J., Dijkstra, T., Grootjen, F., & Van Heuven, W. (2013). Cross-Language Distributions of High Frequency and Phonetically Similar Cognates. PLOS ONE, 8, 1–15. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone0063006Google 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. doi: 10.1080/01690960500463920Google Scholar
Stone, G. O., Vanhoy, M. D., & Van Orden, G. C. (1997). Perception is a two-way street: Feedforward and feedback phonology in visual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 337–359. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1996.2487Google 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. doi:10.1080/01690960601057068Google Scholar
Van Orden, G. C., & Goldinger, S. D. (1994). Interdependence of form and function in cognitive systems explains perception in printed words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 1269–1291. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.20.6.1269Google Scholar
Yaniv, I., Meyer, D. E., Gordon, P. C., Huff, C. A., & Sevald, C. A. (1990). Vowel similarity, connectionist models, and syllable structure in motor programming of speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90007-MGoogle Scholar