Effects of Lexical Competition and Dialect Exposure on Phonological Priming

2016 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia G. Clopper ◽  
Abby Walker

A cross-modal lexical decision task was used to explore the effects of lexical competition and dialect exposure on phonological form priming. Relative to unrelated auditory primes, matching real word primes facilitated lexical decision for visual real word targets, whereas competing minimal pair primes inhibited lexical decision. These effects were robust across two English vowel pairs (mid–front and low–front) and for two listener groups (mono-dialectal and multi-dialectal). However, both the most robust facilitation and the most robust inhibition were observed for the mid–front vowel words with few phonological competitors for the mono-dialectal listener group. The mid–front vowel targets were acoustically more distinct than the low–front vowel targets, suggesting that acoustic–phonetic similarity leads to stronger lexical competition and less robust facilitation and inhibition. The multi-dialectal listeners had more prior exposure to multiple different dialects than the mono-dialectal group, suggesting that long-term exposure to linguistic variability contributes to a more flexible processing strategy in which lexical competition extends over a longer period of time, leading to less robust facilitation and inhibition.

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 437-442 ◽  
Author(s):  
KIRA GOR

Research on nonnative auditory word recognition makes use of a lexical decision task with phonological priming to explore the role of phonological form in nonnative lexical access. In a medium-lag lexical decision task with phonological priming, nonnative speakers treat minimal pairs of words differentiated by a difficult phonological contrast as a repetition of the same word. While native speakers show facilitation in medium-lag priming only for identical word pairs, nonnative speakers also show facilitation for minimal pairs. In short-lag phonological priming, when the prime and the target have phonologically overlapping onsets, nonnative speakers show facilitation, while native speakers show inhibition. This review discusses two possible reasons for facilitation in nonnative phonological priming: reduced sensitivity to nonnative phonological contrasts, and reduced lexical competition of nonnative words with underdifferentiated, or fuzzy phonolexical representations. Nonnative words may be processed sublexically, which leads to sublexical facilitation instead of the inhibition resulting from lexical competition.


1998 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 666-683 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georgije Lukatela ◽  
Stephen J. Frost ◽  
M.T. Turvey

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 247-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Svetlana V. Cook ◽  
Kira Gor

Previous research on phonological priming in a Lexical Decision Task (LDT) has demonstrated that second language (L2) learners do not show inhibition typical for native (L1) speakers that results from lexical competition, but rather a reversed effect – facilitation (Gor, Cook, & Jackson, 2010). The present study investigates the source of the reversed priming effect and addresses two possible causes: a deficit in lexical representations and a processing constraint. Twenty-three advanced learners of Russian participated in two experiments. The monolingual Russian LDT task with priming addressed the processing constraint by manipulating the interstimulus interval (ISI, 350 ms and 500 ms). The translation task evaluated the robustness of lexical representations at both the phonolexical level (whole-word phonological representation) and the level of form-to-meaning mapping, thereby addressing the lexical deficit. L2 learners did not benefit from an increased ISI, indicating lack of support for the processing constraint. However, the study, found evidence for the representational deficit: when L2 familiarity with the words is controlled and L2 representations are robust, L2 learners demonstrate native-like processing accompanied by inhibition; however, when the words have fragmented (or fuzzy) representations, L2 lexical access is unfaithful and is accompanied by reduced lexical competition leading to facilitation effects.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva Denise Poort ◽  
Jennifer M Rodd

Poort, Warren and Rodd (2016) showed that bilinguals profit from recent experience with an identical cognate in their native language when they encounter the same word in their second language. We conducted two experiments employing the same cross-lingual long-term priming paradigm to determine whether this is also the case for non-identical cognates, as this would indicate they share an orthographic representation in the bilingual lexicon. In Experiment 1, Dutch–English bilinguals read Dutch sentences containing identical cognates (e.g. “winter”–“winter”), non-identical cognates (e.g. “baard”–“beard”) or the Dutch translations (e.g. “fiets”) of English control words (e.g. “bike”). These words were presented again in an English lexical decision task approximately 19 minutes later. The analysis revealed only weak evidence, based both on p-values and Bayes factors, for a small 6-9 ms facilitative priming effect. Experiment 2 aimed to determine whether including interlingual homographs (e.g. “angel”–“angel”) in the experiment modulates the size of the priming effect. This time, the analysis revealed no evidence for a priming effect, either based on p-values or Bayes factors, in either version of the experiment for either the cognates or the interlingual homographs. In line with previous findings (Poort & Rodd, 2017, May 9), we did find strong evidence for an interlingual homograph inhibition effect and no evidence for a cognate facilitation effect. We conclude that, since the cross-lingual long-term priming effect is largely semantic in nature, the lexical decision tasks we used were not sensitive enough to detect an effect of priming.Note: This manuscript has not been peer-reviewed.


1993 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
pp. 996-1003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Edwards ◽  
Margaret Lahey

This study examined the influence of nonlexical response factors on the speed of auditory lexical decisions in children and adults. Two groups of children (6- and 7-year-olds, 8- and 9-year-olds) and adults participated in three tasks: a real-word lexical decision task in which subjects were asked to say "yes" as quickly as possible to real words; a nonword lexical decision task in which subjects were asked to say "no" as quickly as possible to nonwords; and an auditory-vocal reaction time task in which subjects were asked to say "yes" or "no" to a tone. Response times on all tasks decreased with age. However, the age-related differences on the real-word lexical decision task disappeared when differences in auditory-vocal reaction times were taken into account. This result suggests that a large part of developmental differences in the speed of lexical processing may be due to nonlexical response factors.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document