Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T10:01:55.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Target accessibility contributes to asymmetric priming in translation and cross-language semantic priming in unbalanced bilinguals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2017

YISRAEL SMITH ,
JOEL WALTERS  and
ANAT PRIOR
YISRAEL SMITH
Affiliation:
Bar Ilan University
JOEL WALTERS
Affiliation:
Bar Ilan University
ANAT PRIOR*
Affiliation:
University of Haifa
*
Address for correspondence: Anat Prior, Edmond J. Safra Brain Research Center, Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israelaprior@edu.haifa.ac.il
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The current study examined within- and cross-language connectivity in four priming conditions: repetition, translation, within-language semantic and cross-language semantic priming. Unbalanced Hebrew–English bilinguals (N = 89) completed a lexical decision task in one of the four conditions in both languages. Priming effects were significantly larger from L1 to L2 for translation priming and marginally so for cross-language semantic priming. Priming effects were comparable for L1 and L2 in repetition and within-language semantic priming. These results support the notion that L1 words are more effective primes but also that L2 targets benefit more from priming. This pattern of results suggests that the lower frequency of use of L2 lexical items in unbalanced bilinguals contributes to asymmetrical cross-language priming via lower resting-level activation of targets and not only via less efficient lexical activation of primes, as highlighted by the BIA+ model.

Keywords

primingfrequencyBIARHMcross-languagewithin-language
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , January 2019 , pp. 157 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

The authors thank Andrei Markus for programming assistance and Nachshon Korem for help in data collection and coding. The research was supported by EU-FP7 Grant IRG-249163 to AP, and by the Edmond J. Safra Center for the Study of Learning Disabilities at the University of Haifa.

References

Altarriba, J., & Basnight-Brown, D. M. (2007). Methodological considerations in performing semantic- and translation-priming experiments across languages. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 1–18.Google Scholar
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., Neely, J. H., Nelson, D. L., Simpson, G. B., & Treiman, R. (2007). The English lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–59.Google Scholar
Barber, H. A., Otten, L. J., Kousta, S. T., & Vigliocco, G. (2013). Concreteness in word processing: ERP and behavioral effects in a lexical decision task. Brain and Language, 125, 47–53.Google Scholar
Basnight-Brown, D. M. (2014). Models of lexical access and bilingualism. In Heredia, R. R. & Altarriba, J. (eds.) Foundations of bilingual memory, pp. 85–110, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Basnight-Brown, D. M., & Altarriba, J. (2007). Differences in semantic and translation priming across languages: The role of language direction and language dominance. Memory & Cognition, 35, 953–65.Google Scholar
Becker, C. A. (1979). Semantic context and word frequency effects in visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 252–259.Google Scholar
Chen, B., Liang, L., Cui, P., & Dunlap, S. (2014). The priming effect of translation equivalents across languages for concrete and abstract words. Acta Psychologica, 153, 147–152.Google Scholar
Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC psycholinguistic database. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33, 497–505.Google 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, 5, 175–197.Google Scholar
Dimitripoulou, M., Duňabeitia, J.A., & Carreiras, M. (2011). Two words, one meaning: Evidence of automatic co-activation of translation equivalents. Frontiers in Psychology, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00188.Google Scholar
Duňabeitia, J. A., Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. (2010). Masked translation priming effects with highly proficient simultaneous bilinguals. Experimental Psychology, 57, 98–107.Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, M., Forster, K., Nicol, J., & Nakamura, K. (2004). The role of polysemy in masked semantic and translation priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 1–22.Google Scholar
Francis, W. S. (2005). Bilingual semantic and conceptual representation. In Kroll, J. F. & de Groot, A. M. B. (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, pp. 251–267. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
French, R. M., & Jacquet, M. (2004). Understanding bilingual memory: Models and data. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 87–93.Google Scholar
Frost, R. (1995). Phonological computation and missing vowels: Mapping lexical involvement in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 398–408.Google Scholar
Frost, R. (1998). Toward a strong phonological theory of visual word recognition: True issues and false trails. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 71–99.Google Scholar
Frost, R., Katz, L., & Bentin, S. (1987). Strategies for visual word recognition and orthographical depth: a multilingual comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 104.Google Scholar
Gollan, T. H., Forster, K. I., & Frost, R. (1997). Translation priming with different scripts: masked priming with cognates and non-cognates in Hebrew-English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 1122–39.Google 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.Google 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.Google Scholar
Grainger, J., Midgley, K., & Holcomb, P. J. (2010). Re- thinking the bilingual interactive-activation model from a developmental perspective (BIA-d). In Kail, M. & Hickmann, M. (eds.), Language acquisition across linguistic and cognitive systems, pp. 267–284. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (1999). Testing processing explanations for the asymmetry in masked cross-language priming. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2, 59–75.Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (2000). Lexical representation and development in a second language. Applied Linguistics, 21, 47–77.Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (2002). Form–meaning mapping in vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 617–637.Google Scholar
Jiang, N., & Forster, K. (2001). Cross-language priming asymmetries in lexical decision and episodic recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 32–51.Google Scholar
Jin, Y. (1990). Effects of concreteness on cross-language priming in lexical decisions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70, 1139–1154.Google Scholar
Kiran, S., & Lebel, K.R. (2007). Crosslinguistic semantic and translation priming in normal bilingual individuals and bilingual aphasia. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 21, 277–303.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.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & Tokowicz, N. (2005). Models of bilingual representation and processing: Looking back and to the future. In Kroll, J. F. & Groot, A. M. B. De (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, pp. 531–533. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google 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.Google Scholar
Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259–284.Google Scholar
Lucas, M. (2000). Semantic priming without association: A meta-analytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 618–30.Google Scholar
Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. The Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 940–967.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375.Google Scholar
Nakayama, M., Ida, K., & Lupker, S.J. (2016). Cross-script L1-L1 noncognate translation priming in lexical decision depends on L2 proficiency: Evidence from Japanese-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19, 1001–1022.Google Scholar
Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (2004). The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 402–407.Google Scholar
Prior, A., MacWhinney, B., & Kroll, J. F. (2007). Translation norms for English and Spanish: The role of lexical variables, word class, and L2 proficiency in negotiating translation ambiguity. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 1029–1038.Google Scholar
Rastle, K., Harrington, J., & Coltheart, M. (2002). 358,534 nonwords: The ARC Nonword Database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 1339–1362.Google Scholar
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2012). E-Prime User's Guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools, Inc.Google Scholar
Schoonbaert, S., Duyck, W., Brysbaert, M., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2009). Semantic and translation priming from a first language to a second and back: Making sense of the findings. Memory & Cognition, 37, 569–86.Google Scholar
Stone, G. O., & Van Orden, G. C. (1992). Resolving empirical inconsistencies concerning priming, frequency, and nonword foils in lexical decision. Language and Speech, 35, 295–324.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.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.Google Scholar
Wen, Y., & van Heuven, W.J.B. (2016). Non-cognate translation priming in masked priming lexical decision experiments: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, doi:10.3758/s13423-016-1151-1Google Scholar
Yap, M. J., & Balota, D. A. (2015). Visual word recognition. In Pollatsek, A. & Treiman, R. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of reading, pp. 26–43. New York, NY: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar