Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T05:13:29.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Revisiting the Revised Hierarchical Model: Evidence for concept mediation in backward translation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2018

ZHAOHONG WU  and
ALAN JUFFS
ZHAOHONG WU*
Affiliation:
School of English and International Studies, Beijing Foreign Studies University, China
ALAN JUFFS
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Pittsburgh, USA
*
Address for correspondence: Zhaohong Wu, Room 202, School of English and International Studies, Beijing Foreign Studies University, No. 2 North Xisanhuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing, China100089[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A claim fundamental to the revised hierarchical model (Kroll & Stewart, 1994) was that concepts did not mediate backward translation, based on their findings of a category interference effect in forward translation in relatively fluent bilinguals but no category effect in backward translation. This study hypothesized that there was a category facilitation effect in L2-to-concept, which counterbalanced the category interference effect in concept-to-L1, resulting in an overall L2-to-L1 null category effect.

In a novel English word-pair semantic comparison task, participants were presented with a sequence of English word-pairs, and judged which word's real-world referent was bigger in size. Results found a significant category facilitation effect in both L2-to-concept for young Chinese adults and L1-to-concept for young English adults when increasing the number of trials. The findings help explain why Kroll and Stewart's finding of an overall L2-to-L1 null category effect cannot be evidence against concept mediation in backward translation.

Keywords

the revised hierarchical modelconcept mediationtranslationcategory effectbilingual lexicon
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , March 2019 , pp. 285 - 299
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 would like to thank Natasha Tokowicz, Marta Ortega-Llebaria, and the three anonymous reviewers for their invaluable comments on this study. This work was supported by the Departmental Research Grant of Linguistics at University of Pittsburgh awarded to Zhaohong Wu and by a grant from the Pittsburgh Science of Learning Center (www.learnlab.org) to Alan Juffs. The Pittsburgh Science of Learning Center was funded by the United States National Science Foundation award number SBE-0836012. Previously, it was NSF award number SBE-0354420. We are grateful to the participants for their time.

References

Altarriba, J., & Mathis, K. M. (1997). Conceptual and Lexical Development in Second Language Acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 550–568. doi:10.1006/jmla.1997.2493Google Scholar
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. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005Google Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67 (1), 48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01Google Scholar
Becker, C. A. (1980). Semantic Context Effects in Visual Word Recognition: An Analysis of Semantic Strategies. Memory and Cognition, 8, 493–512.Google Scholar
Blaxton, T. A., & Neely, J. H. (1983). Inhibition from semantically related primes: evidence of a category-specific inhibition. Memory and Cognition, 11, 500–510. doi:10.3758/BF03196987Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1983). The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning, 33, 1–17. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1983.tb00983.xGoogle Scholar
Box, G. E. P., & Cox, D. R. (1964). An Analysis of Transformations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 26, 211–252.Google Scholar
Chen, H.-C., & Ng, M.-L. (1989). Semantic facilitation and translation priming effects in Chinese-English bilinguals. Memory & Cognition, 17, 454–462. doi:10.3758/BF03202618Google Scholar
Costa, A., Alario, F. X., & Caramazza, A. (2005). On the categorical nature of the semantic interference effect in the picture-word interference paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 125–131. doi:10.3758/BF03196357Google Scholar
Costa, A., Mahon, B., Savova, V., & Caramazza, A. (2003). Level of categorisation effect: A novel effect in the picture-word interference paradigm. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 205–234. doi:10.1080/01690960143000524Google Scholar
Damian, M. F., & Als, L. C. (2005). Long-Lasting Semantic Context Effects in the Spoken Production of Object Names. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1372–1384. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.31.6.1372Google Scholar
Damian, M. F., Vigliocco, G., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2001). Effects of semantic context in the naming of pictures and words. Cognition, 81, B77–B86. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00135-4Google Scholar
de Groot, A. M. B. (1992). Determinants of Word Translation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1001–1018. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.18.5.1001Google Scholar
de Groot, A. M. B., & Poot, R. (1997). Word Translation at Three Levels of Proficiency in a Second Language: The Ubiquitous Involvement of Conceptual Memory. Language Learning, 47, 215–264. doi:10.1111/0023-8333. 71997007Google Scholar
de Vaan, L., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2007). Regular morphologically complex neologisms leave detectable traces in the mental lexicon. The Mental Lexicon, 2, 1–24. doi:10.1075/ml.2.1.02vaaGoogle Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (2006). The comparative fallacy in L2 processing research. In O'Brien, M. G., Shea, C., & Archibald, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2006), pp. 33–40. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Dufour, R., & Kroll, J. F. (1995). Matching Words to Concepts in Two Languages: A Test of the Concept Mediation Model of Bilingual Representation. Memory & Cognition, 23, 166–180. doi:10.3758/BF03197219Google Scholar
Ferré, P., Sánchez-Casas, R., & Guasch, M. (2006). Can a Horse Be a Donkey? Semantic and Form Interference Effects in Translation Recognition in Early and Late Proficient and Nonproficient Spanish‐Catalan Bilinguals. Language Learning, 56, 571–608. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00389.xGoogle Scholar
Guasch, M., Sánchez-Casas, R., Ferré, P., & García-Albea, J. E. (2008). Translation performance of beginning, intermediate and proficient Spanish-Catalan bilinguals: Effects of form and semantic relations. The Mental Lexicon, 3, 289–289. doi:10.1075/ml.3.3.03guaGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N. (2000). Lexical representation and development in a second language. Applied linguistics, 21 (1), 47–77. doi:10.1093/applin/21.1.47Google 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. doi:10.1006/jmla.1994.1008Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., van Hell, J. G., Tokowicz, N., & Green, D. W. (2010). The Revised Hierarchical Model: A critical review and assessment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 373–381. doi:10.1017/S136672891000009XGoogle Scholar
Kuipers, J.-R., & La Heij, W. (2008). Semantic facilitation in category and action naming: Testing the message-congruency account. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 123–139. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.05.005Google Scholar
Kuperman, V., Schreuder, R., Bertram, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2009). Reading Polymorphemic Dutch Compounds: Toward a Multiple Route Model of Lexical Processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 876–895. doi:10.1037/a0013484Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P., & Christensen, R. (2017). lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82 (13), 1–26. doi:10.18637/jss.v082.i13Google Scholar
La Heij, W., Hooglander, A., Kerling, R., & van der Velden, E. (1996). Nonverbal context effects in forward and backward word translation: Evidence for concept mediation. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 648–665. doi:10.1006/jmla.1996.0034Google Scholar
Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90, 227–234. doi:10.1037/h0031564Google Scholar
Navarrete, E., del Prato, P., & Mahon, B. Z. (2012). Factors Determining Semantic Facilitation and Interference in the Cyclic Naming Paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 38. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00038Google Scholar
Oppenheim, G. M., Dell, G. S., & Schwartz, M. F. (2010). The dark side of incremental learning: a model of cumulative semantic interference during lexical access in speech production. Cognition, 114, 227–252. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.09.007Google Scholar
Plaut, D. C., & Booth, J. R. (2000). Individual and developmental differences in semantic priming: Empirical and computational support for a single-mechanism account of lexical processing. Psychological Review, 107, 786–823. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.107.4.786Google Scholar
Psychology Software Tools, Inc. [E-Prime 2.0]. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.pstnet.com.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/.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. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(86)90014-8Google Scholar
Sholl, A., Sankaranarayanan, A., & Kroll, J. F. (1995). Transfer between Picture Naming and Translation: A Test of Asymmetries in Bilingual Memory. Psychological Science, 6, 45–49. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00303.xGoogle Scholar
Starreveld, P. A., & La Heij, W. (1995). Semantic Interference, Orthographic Facilitation, and Their Interaction in Naming Tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 686–698. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.21.3.686Google 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. doi:10.1017/S0272263106060177Google Scholar
Tokowicz, N. (2015). Lexical processing and second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge.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. doi:10.1080/01690960601057068Google Scholar
Tokowicz, N., & Tuninetti, A. (2012). Formal Models of Bilingual Lexicons. In Chapelle, C. (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, pp. 2173–2179: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
van Hell, J. G., & de Groot, A. M. B. (1998). Conceptual representation in bilingual memory: Effects of concreteness and cognate status in word association. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 193–211. doi:10.1017/S1366728998000352Google 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. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2584Google Scholar