scholarly journals A Database of Dutch–English Cognates, Interlingual Homographs and Translation Equivalents

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva D. Poort ◽  
Jennifer M. Rodd
Keyword(s):  
Interlingual Homographs

scholarly journals Neurolinguistics

2007 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-88
Keyword(s):  
Los Angeles ◽  
Brain Research ◽  
Event Related Potential ◽  
Cortical Activation ◽  
Fmri Study ◽  
Neuroimaging Data ◽  
Interlingual Homographs ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Phonological Complexity ◽  
Cortical Activation Pattern

07–165Crinion, J., R. Turner, A. Grogan, T. Hanakawa, U. Noppeney, J. T. Devlin, T. Aso, S. Urayama, H. Fukuyama, K. Stockton, K. Usui, D. W. Green & C. J. Price (U College, London, UK; [email protected]), Language control in the bilingual brain. Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science) 312.5779 (2006), 1537–1540.07–166Desai, Rutvik (U Trier, Germany), Lisa L. Conant, Eric Waldron & Jeffrey R. Binder, fMRI of past tense processing: The effects of phonological complexity and task difficulty. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (MIT Press) 18.2 (2006), 278–297.07–167Kerkhofs, Roel (Radboud U, the Netherlands; [email protected]), Ton Dijkstra, Dorothee J. Chwilla & Ellen R.A. de Bruijn, Testing a model for bilingual semantic priming with interlingual homographs: RT and N400 effects. Brain Research (Elsevier) 1068. 1 (2006), 170–183.07–168Kyung Hwan, Kim & Kim Ja Hyun (U Yonsei, South Korea), Comparison of spatiotemporal cortical activation pattern during visual perception of Korean, English, Chinese words: An event-related potential study. Neuroscience Letters (Elsevier) 394.3 (2006), 227–232.07–169Paradis, Michel (McGill U, Canada; [email protected]), More belles infidels – or why do so many bilingual studies speak with forked tongue?Journal of Neurolinguistics (Elsevier) 19. 3 (2006), 195–208.07–170Poldrack, Russell, A. (U California, Los Angeles, USA; [email protected]), Can cognitive processes be inferred from neuroimaging data? Trends in Cognitive Science (Elsevier) 10.2 (2006), 59–63.07–171Ylinen, Sari (U Helsinki, Finland; [email protected]), Anna Shestakova, Minna Huotilainen, Paavo Alku & Risto Näätänen, Mismatch negativity (MMN) elicited by changes in phoneme length: A cross-linguistic study. Brain Research (Elsevier) 1072.1 (2006), 175–185.07–172Yokoyama Satoru (U Tohoku, Japan),Hideyuki Okamoto, Tadao Miyamoto, Kei Yoshimoto, Jungho Kim, Kazuki Iwata, Hyeonjeong Jeong, Shinya Uchida, Naho Ikuta, Yuko Sassa, Wataru Nakamura, Kaoru Horie, Shigeru Sato & Ryuta Kawashima, Cortical activation in the processing of passive sentences in L1 and L2: An fMRI study. NeuroImage (Elsevier) 30. 2 (2006), 570–579.

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.

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.

Recognition of Cognates and Interlingual Homographs: The Neglected Role of Phonology

1999 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 496-518 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ton Dijkstra ◽  
Jonathan Grainger ◽  
Walter J.B. van Heuven
Keyword(s):  
Interlingual Homographs

Visual Word Recognition in Multilinguals

2018 ◽  
pp. 117-143
Author(s):  
Ton Dijkstra ◽  
Walter J. B. van Heuven
Keyword(s):  
Pattern Recognition ◽  
Reaction Time ◽  
Word Recognition ◽  
Eye Tracking ◽  
Sentence Context ◽  
Event Related Potential ◽  
Word Retrieval ◽  
Context Sensitive ◽  
Temporal Properties ◽  
Interlingual Homographs

This chapter on the reading of words by multilinguals considers how retrieving words in two or more languages is affected by the lexical properties of the words, the sentence context in which they occur, and the language to which they belong. Reaction time and event-related potential (ERP) studies are discussed that investigate the processing of cognates, interlingual homographs, and words with different numbers of neighbors, both in isolation and in sentence context. After reviewing different models for multilingual word retrieval, it is concluded that multilingual word recognition involves a language-independent, context-sensitive, and interactive pattern recognition routine, with temporal properties that can be determined not only by “classical” reaction time techniques, but even better by up-to-date research techniques such as eye-tracking and ERP recordings.

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.

Cross-language semantic parafoveal preview benefits in bilinguals

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olessia Jouravlev ◽  
Mark McPhedran ◽  
Vegas Hodgins ◽  
Debra Jared
Keyword(s):  
Target Word ◽  
Target Language ◽  
Preview Benefit ◽  
Activation Model ◽  
The Gaze ◽  
Total Fixation ◽  
Interlingual Homographs ◽  
French Words ◽  
Boundary Paradigm ◽  
Cross Language

The aim of this project was to identify factors contributing to cross-language semantic preview benefits. In Experiment 1, Russian-English bilinguals read English sentences with Russian words presented as parafoveal previews. The gaze-contingent boundary paradigm was used to present sentences. Critical previews were cognate translations of the target word (CTAPT - START), noncognate translations (CPOK - TERM), or interlingual homograph translations (MOPE - SEA). A semantic preview benefit (i.e., shorter fixation durations) was observed for cognate and interlingual homograph translations, but not for noncognate translations. In Experiment 2, English-French bilinguals read English sentences with French words used as parafoveal previews. Critical previews were interlingual homograph translations of the target word (PAIN - BREAD) or interlingual homograph translations with a diacritic added (PÁIN - BREAD). A robust semantic preview benefit was found only for interlingual homographs without diacritics, although both preview types produced a semantic preview benefit in the total fixation duration. Our findings suggest that semantically-related previews need to have substantial orthographic overlap with words in the target language to produce cross-language semantic preview benefits in early eye fixation measures. In terms of the Bilingual Interactive Activation + model, the preview word may need to activate the language node for the target language before its meaning is integrated with that of the target word.

scholarly journals Naming interlingual homographs: Variable competition and the role of the decision system

2006 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 281-297 ◽  
Author(s):  
ERICA SMITS ◽  
HEIKE MARTENSEN ◽  
TON DIJKSTRA ◽  
DOMINIEK SANDRA
Keyword(s):  
Word Recognition ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Decision Processes ◽  
Target Language ◽  
Stimulus List ◽  
Decision Level ◽  
Response Deadline ◽  
Interlingual Homographs ◽  
Naming Latencies

To investigate decision level processes involved in bilingual word recognition tasks, Dutch–English participants had to name Dutch–English homographs in English. In a stimulus list containing items from both languages, interlingual homographs yielded longer naming latencies, more Dutch responses, and more other errors in both response languages if they had a high-frequency Dutch reading. Dutch naming latencies were slower than or equally slow as English naming latencies. In a stimulus list containing only English words and homographs, there was no homograph effect in naming latencies, although homographs did elicit more errors than control words. The results are interpreted as the consequence of list-induced variability in the competition between lexical items of the two languages involved. In addition, two additional decision processes have to be assumed: a language check, and a response deadline for non-target-language responses.

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.

Bilingual Lexical Access: Interlingual Homographs and the Cross-Modal Lexical Paradigm

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Omar Garcia ◽  
Roberto R. Heredia ◽  
Anna B. Cieslicka
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Access ◽  
The Cross ◽  
Interlingual Homographs
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document