scholarly journals Towards a distributed connectionist account of cognates and interlingual homographs: Evidence from semantic relatedness tasks

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva Denise Poort ◽  
Jennifer M Rodd
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Decision ◽  
Response Competition ◽  
Semantic Relatedness ◽  
Control Word ◽  
Recent Experience ◽  
Facilitation Effect ◽  
Major Drawback ◽  
Dutch Translation ◽  
Interlingual Homographs ◽  
Cross Lingual

This article has been published in PeerJ.Background. Current models of how bilinguals process cognates (e.g. “wolf”, which has the same meaning in Dutch and English) and interlingual homographs (e.g. “angel”, meaning “insect’s sting” in Dutch) are based primarily on data from lexical decision tasks. A major drawback of such tasks is that it is difficult—if not impossible—to separate processes that occur during decision making (e.g. response competition) from processes that take place in the lexicon (e.g. lateral inhibition). Instead, we conducted two English semantic relatedness judgement experiments. Methods. In Experiment 1, highly proficient Dutch–English bilinguals (N = 29) and English monolinguals (N = 30) judged the semantic relatedness of word pairs that included a cognate (e.g. “wolf”–“howl”; n = 50), an interlingual homograph (e.g. “angel”–“heaven”; n = 50) or an English control word (e.g. “carrot”–“vegetable”; n = 50). In Experiment 2, another group of highly proficient Dutch–English bilinguals (N = 101) read sentences in Dutch that contained one of those cognates, interlingual homographs or the Dutch translation of one of the English control words (e.g. “wortel” for “carrot”) approximately 15 minutes prior to completing the English semantic relatedness task.Results. In Experiment 1, there was an interlingual homograph inhibition effect of 39 ms only for the bilinguals, but no evidence for a cognate facilitation effect. Experiment 2 replicated these findings and also revealed that cross-lingual long-term priming had an opposite effect on the cognates and interlingual homographs: recent experience with a cognate in Dutch speeded processing of those items 15 minutes later in English but slowed processing of interlingual homographs. However, these priming effects were smaller than previously observed using a lexical decision task.Conclusion. After comparing our results to studies in both the bilingual and monolingual domain, we argue that bilinguals appear to process cognates and interlingual homographs as monolinguals process polysemes and homonyms, respectively. In the monolingual domain, processing of such words is best modelled using distributed connectionist frameworks. We conclude that it is necessary to explore the viability of such a model for the bilingual case. Data, scripts, materials and pre-registrations. Experiment 1: www.osf.io/ndb7p; Experiment 2: www.osf.io/2at49.

scholarly journals Towards a distributed connectionist account of cognates and interlingual homographs: evidence from semantic relatedness tasks

PeerJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. e6725 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva D. Poort ◽  
Jennifer M. Rodd
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Decision ◽  
Response Competition ◽  
Semantic Relatedness ◽  
Control Word ◽  
Decision Task ◽  
Recent Experience ◽  
Facilitation Effect ◽  
Major Drawback ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Interlingual Homographs

Background Current models of how bilinguals process cognates (e.g., “wolf”, which has the same meaning in Dutch and English) and interlingual homographs (e.g., “angel”, meaning “insect’s sting” in Dutch) are based primarily on data from lexical decision tasks. A major drawback of such tasks is that it is difficult—if not impossible—to separate processes that occur during decision making (e.g., response competition) from processes that take place in the lexicon (e.g., lateral inhibition). Instead, we conducted two English semantic relatedness judgement experiments. Methods In Experiment 1, highly proficient Dutch–English bilinguals (N = 29) and English monolinguals (N = 30) judged the semantic relatedness of word pairs that included a cognate (e.g., “wolf”–“howl”; n = 50), an interlingual homograph (e.g., “angel”–“heaven”; n = 50) or an English control word (e.g., “carrot”–“vegetable”; n = 50). In Experiment 2, another group of highly proficient Dutch–English bilinguals (N = 101) read sentences in Dutch that contained one of those cognates, interlingual homographs or the Dutch translation of one of the English control words (e.g., “wortel” for “carrot”) approximately 15 minutes prior to completing the English semantic relatedness task. Results In Experiment 1, there was an interlingual homograph inhibition effect of 39 ms only for the bilinguals, but no evidence for a cognate facilitation effect. Experiment 2 replicated these findings and also revealed that cross-lingual long-term priming had an opposite effect on the cognates and interlingual homographs: recent experience with a cognate in Dutch speeded processing of those items 15 minutes later in English but slowed processing of interlingual homographs. However, these priming effects were smaller than previously observed using a lexical decision task. Conclusion After comparing our results to studies in both the bilingual and monolingual domain, we argue that bilinguals appear to process cognates and interlingual homographs as monolinguals process polysemes and homonyms, respectively. In the monolingual domain, processing of such words is best modelled using distributed connectionist frameworks. We conclude that it is necessary to explore the viability of such a model for the bilingual case. Data, scripts, materials and pre-registrations. Experiment 1: http://www.osf.io/ndb7p; Experiment 2: http://www.osf.io/2at49.

scholarly journals Studies of cross-lingual long-term priming

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva Denise Poort ◽  
Jennifer M Rodd
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Decision ◽  
Priming Effect ◽  
Bayes Factors ◽  
Decision Task ◽  
Recent Experience ◽  
Facilitation Effect ◽  
P Values ◽  
Interlingual Homographs ◽  
Cross Lingual

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.

scholarly journals Cross-lingual priming of cognates and interlingual homographs from L2 to L1

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva Denise Poort ◽  
Jennifer M Rodd
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Native Language ◽  
Semantic Relatedness ◽  
Recent Experience ◽  
Current Experiment ◽  
Facilitation Effect ◽  
Word Forms ◽  
Interlingual Homographs ◽  
Cross Lingual ◽  
High Level

Many word forms exist in multiple languages, and can have either the same meaning (cognates) or a different meaning (interlingual homographs). Previous experiments have shown that processing of interlingual homographs in a bilingual’s second language is slowed down by recent experience with these words in the bilingual’s native language, while processing of cognates can be speeded up (Poort et al., 2016; Poort & Rodd, 2019a). The current experiment replicated Poort and Rodd’s (2019a) Experiment 2 but switched the direction of priming: Dutch-English bilinguals (N = 106) made Dutch semantic relatedness judgements to probes related to cognates (n = 50), interlingual homographs (n = 50) and translation equivalents (n = 50) they had seen 15 minutes previously embedded in English sentences. The current experiment is the first to show that a single encounter with an interlingual homograph in one’s second language can also affect subsequent processing in one’s native language. Cross-lingual priming did not affect the cognates. The experiment also extended Poort and Rodd (2019a)’s finding of a large interlingual homograph inhibition effect in a semantic relatedness task in the participants’ L2 to their L1, but again found no evidence for a cognate facilitation effect in a semantic relatedness task. These findings extend the growing literature that emphasises the high level of interaction in a bilingual’s mental lexicon, by demonstrating the influence of L2 experience on the processing of L1 words. Data, scripts, materials and pre-registration available via https://osf.io/2swyg/?view_only=b2ba2e627f6f4eaeac87edab2b59b236.

Visual recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs in two non-native languages

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 441-470 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yanjiao Zhu ◽  
Peggy Pik Ki Mok
Keyword(s):  
Word Recognition ◽  
Lexical Decision ◽  
Response Time ◽  
Visual Word Recognition ◽  
Visual Recognition ◽  
Lexical Processing ◽  
Facilitation Effect ◽  
Native Languages ◽  
Asian Populations ◽  
Interlingual Homographs

Abstract Previous studies on bilingual visual word recognition have been mainly based on European participants, while less is understood about Asian populations. In this study, the recognition of German-English cognates and interlingual homographs in lexical decision tasks was examined in the two non-native languages of Cantonese-English-German trilinguals. In the L2 English task, cognates were reacted to faster and more accurately than their matched non-cognates, while in the equivalent L3 German task, no cognate facilitation effect was found. However, cognate facilitation effects on response time and accuracy were observed in another L3 German task including cognates and interlingual homographs. The study suggests that Asian trilinguals access L2 and L3 in a language non-selective manner, despite their low proficiency in the recently acquired L3. Meanwhile, lexical processing in a non-proficient L3 is to a great extent affected by multiple contextual factors.

scholarly journals The facilitation effect of associative and semantic relatedness in word recognition

Psihologija ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 367-385
Author(s):  
Milena Jakic ◽  
Dusica Filipovic-Djurdjevic ◽  
Aleksandar Kostic
Keyword(s):  
Word Recognition ◽  
Lexical Decision ◽  
Priming Effect ◽  
Semantic Relatedness ◽  
Facilitation Effect ◽  
Distributed Models ◽  
The Third ◽  
Associative Relatedness

In this study we addressed three issues concerning semantic and associative relatedness between two words and how they prime each other. The first issue is whether there is a priming effect of semantic relatedness over and above the effect of associative relatedness. The second issue is how difference in semantic overlap between two words affects priming. In order to specify the semantic overlap we introduce five relation types that differ in number of common semantic components. Three relation types (synonyms, antonyms and hyponyms) represent semantic relatedness while two relation types represent associative relatedness, with negligible or no semantic relatedness. Finally, the third issue addressed in this study is whether there is a symmetric priming effect if we swap the position of prime and target, i.e. whether the direction of relatedness between two words affects priming. In two lexical decision experiments we presented five types of word pairs. In both experiments we obtained stronger facilitation for pairs that were both semantically and associatively related. Closer inspection showed that larger semantic overlap between words is paralleled by greater facilitation effect. The effects did not change when prime and target swap their position, indicating that the observed facilitation effects are symmetrical. This outcome complies with predictions of distributed models of memory.

scholarly journals Recent experience with cognates and interlingual homographs in one language affects subsequent processing in another language

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 206-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
EVA D. POORT ◽  
JANE E. WARREN ◽  
JENNIFER M. RODD
Keyword(s):  
Word Recognition ◽  
Lexical Decision ◽  
Lexical Decision Task ◽  
Decision Task ◽  
Recent Experience ◽  
Word Meanings ◽  
Bilingual Speakers ◽  
Subsequent Processing ◽  
Word Forms ◽  
Interlingual Homographs

This experiment shows that recent experience in one language influences subsequent processing of the same word-forms in a different language. Dutch–English bilinguals read Dutch sentences containing Dutch–English cognates and interlingual homographs, which were presented again 16 minutes later in isolation in an English lexical decision task. Priming produced faster responses for the cognates but slower responses for the interlingual homographs. These results show that language switching can influence bilingual speakers at the level of individual words, and require models of bilingual word recognition (e.g., BIA+) to allow access to word meanings to be modulated by recent experience.

scholarly journals The cognate facilitation effect in bilingual lexical decision is influenced by stimulus list composition

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva Denise Poort ◽  
Jennifer M Rodd
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Decision ◽  
Lexical Access ◽  
Strong Evidence ◽  
Preceding Trial ◽  
Target Language ◽  
Facilitation Effect ◽  
Stimulus List ◽  
Competition Effects ◽  
Interlingual Homographs ◽  
Specific Impact

This article has been published in Acta Psychologica. Cognates share their form and meaning across languages: “winter” in English means the same as “winter” in Dutch. Research has shown that bilinguals process cognates more quickly than words that exist in one language only (e.g. “ant” in English). This finding is taken as strong evidence for the claim that bilinguals have one integrated lexicon and that lexical access is language non-selective. Two English lexical decision experiments with Dutch-English bilinguals investigated whether the cognate facilitation effect is influenced by stimulus list composition. In Experiment 1, the ‘standard’ version, which included only cognates, English control words and regular non-words, showed significant cognate facilitation (31 ms). In contrast, the ‘mixed’ version, which also included interlingual homographs, pseudohomophones (instead of regular non-words) and Dutch-only words, showed a significantly different profile: a non-significant disadvantage for the cognates (8 ms). Experiment 2 examined the specific impact of these three additional stimuli types and found that only the inclusion of Dutch words significantly reduced the cognate facilitation effect. Additional exploratory analyses revealed that, when the preceding trial was a Dutch word, cognates were recognised up to 50 ms more slowly than English controls. We suggest that when participants must respond ‘no’ to non-target language words, competition arises between the ‘yes’- and ‘no’-responses associated with the two interpretations of a cognate, which (partially) cancels out the facilitation that is a result of the cognate’s shared form and meaning. We conclude that the cognate facilitation effect is a real effect that originates in the lexicon, but that cognates can be subject to competition effects outside the lexicon.

Homography and Polysemy as Factors in Bilingual Word Recognition

1992 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denise Klein ◽  
Estelle Ann Doctor
Keyword(s):  
Word Recognition ◽  
Lexical Decision ◽  
Response Times ◽  
Semantic Representation ◽  
Bilingual Memory ◽  
Lexical Decisions ◽  
Interlingual Homographs ◽  
Decision Times

This study reports an experiment which examines semantic representation in lexical decisions as a source of interconnection between words in bilingual memory. Lexical decision times were compared for interlingual polysemes such as HAND which share spelling and meaning in both languages, and interlingual homographs such as KIND which share spelling but not meaning. The main result was faster “response times for polysemes than for interlingual homographs. Current theories of monolingual word recognition and bilingual semantic representation are discussed, and the findings are accommodated within the model of bilingual word recognition proposed by Doctor and Klein.

Stroop-Like Serial Position Effects in Color Naming of Words and Nonwords

2006 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 105-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harvey H. C. Marmurek ◽  
Caroline Proctor ◽  
Andrea Javor
Keyword(s):  
Color Naming ◽  
Control Word ◽  
Initial Letter ◽  
Facilitation Effect ◽  
Position Effects ◽  
Serial Position Effects ◽  
Color Response ◽  
Initial Onset ◽  
Lexical Processes ◽  
Naming Latencies

Color-naming latencies to noncolor words and nonwords were faster when the onset or final phoneme of the displays corresponded to the onset or final phoneme of the color response. For example, for displays printed in red, the word rack and nonword rask, which share the initial onset phoneme with the response, led to faster naming than did the control word chap and nonword chup. Conversely, when the onset or final phoneme of the displays matched the onset or final phoneme of a conflicting color response (e.g., rack printed in blue), latencies were longer than to control items. Facilitation effects were stronger than interference effects, and the onset phoneme facilitation effect was augmented by coloring only the initial letter in the display. It is hypothesized that nonlexical processes that govern the translation of print to speech may be a source of facilitation in Stroop-like tasks, whereas lexical processes are more likely to contribute to interference.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document