High frequency words are read more quickly and accurately than low frequency words, a phenomenon called the frequency effect. In the current study, we examine several possible predictors for explaining individual differences between bilinguals in their sensitivity to frequency in the second language: specific second language exposure and vocabulary; general language abilities (therefore also evident in native language performance); and general cognitive ability (non-linguistic sensitivity to regularities).
Approach:
We used an individual differences approach with unbalanced Hebrew–English bilinguals, two typologically different languages that do not share a writing system, which allows a clear discrimination between native language and second language exposure and vocabulary.
Data and analysis:
To examine frequency effects, 69 Hebrew–English bilingual adults completed lexical decision tasks in native language and second language. In addition, participants completed vocabulary tests in both languages, reported language use and proficiency, and performed a statistical learning task. Data were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models.
Findings:
The results demonstrated that only vocabulary knowledge in the second language was a significant predictor of frequency effects in the second language. In addition, neither sensitivity to frequency in the native language nor statistical learning ability (a measure of general sensitivity to regularities) predicted sensitivity to frequency in the second language.
Originality:
Using an individual differences approach with bilinguals of two typologically different languages that do not share a writing system allows us to distinguish between native language and second language proficiency, and therefore identify the unique contribution of predictive factors from each of the languages to efficient visual word recognition in second language.
Implications:
The current findings support the lexical entrenchment hypothesis and highlight the importance of testing a variety of bilingual populations.
ArciuliJ. (2017). The multi-component nature of statistical learning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 372(1711), 20160058.
2.
ArciuliJ.SimpsonI. C. (2012). Statistical learning is related to reading ability in children and adults. Cognitive Science, 36(2), 286–304.
3.
BaayenR. H. (2001). Word frequency distributions (Vol. 18). Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
4.
BaayenR. H.DavidsonD. J.BatesD. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412.
5.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278.
6.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1. 1–7.
7.
BrooksP. J.KwokaN.KempeV. (2017). Distributional effects and individual differences in L2 morphology learning. Language Learning, 67(1), 171–207.
8.
BrysbaertM.LagrouE.StevensM. (2017). Visual word recognition in a second language: A test of the lexical entrenchment hypothesis with lexical decision times. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(3), 530–548.
9.
ButlerB.HainsS. (1979). Individual differences in word recognition latency. Memory & Cognition, 7(2), 68–76.
10.
CarreirasM.ArmstrongB. C.PereaM.FrostR. (2014). The what, when, where, and how of visual word recognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(2), 90–98.
11.
ConwayC. M.BauernschmidtA.HuangS. S.PisoniD. B. (2010). Implicit statistical learning in language processing: Word predictability is the key. Cognition, 114(3), 356–371.
12.
CopU.KeuleersE.DriegheD.DuyckW. (2015). Frequency effects in monolingual and bilingual natural reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(5), 1216–1234.
13.
CunninghamA. E.StanovichK. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 934.
14.
DąbrowskaE. (2018). Experience, aptitude and individual differences in native language ultimate attainment. Cognition, 178, 222–235.
15.
DaviesM. (2007). Time Magazine corpus: 100 million words, 1920s–2000s. Retrieved from http://corpus.byu.edu/time.
16.
DiependaeleK.LemhöferK.BrysbaertM. (2013). The word frequency effect in first-and second-language word recognition: A lexical entrenchment account. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(5), 843–863.
17.
DirixN.BrysbaertM.DuyckW. (2018). How well do word recognition measures correlate? Effects of language context and repeated presentations. Behavior Research Methods, 1–17. doi:10.3758/s13428-018-1158-9.
18.
DörnyeiZ. (2014). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.
19.
DuyckW.VanderelstD.DesmetT.HartsuikerR. J. (2008). The frequency effect in second-language visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(4), 850–855.
20.
EricksonL. C.ThiessenE. D. (2015). Statistical learning of language: Theory, validity, and predictions of a statistical learning account of language acquisition. Developmental Review, 37, 66–108.
21.
EvansJ. L.SaffranJ. R.Robe-TorresK. (2009). Statistical learning in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52(2), 321–335.
22.
FadlonJ.LiC.PriorA.GollanT. (2019). Using what’s there: Bilinguals adaptively rely on orthographic and color cues to achieve language control. Cognition, 191, 103990. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2019.06.002.
23.
FrostR. (1994). Prelexical and postlexical strategies in reading: Evidence from a deep and a shallow orthography. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(1), 116–129.
24.
FrostR.DeutschA.ForsterK. I. (1997). What can we learn from the morphology of Hebrew? A masked-priming investigation of morphological representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(4), 829–856.
25.
FrostR.SiegelmanN.NarkissA.AfekL. (2013). What predicts successful literacy acquisition in a second language?Psychological Science, 24(7), 1243–1252.
26.
GilboaA. (unpublished). Hebrew version of the Shipley Vocabulary Scale.
27.
GollanT. H.MontoyaR. I.CeraC.SandovalT. C. (2008). More use almost always means a smaller frequency effect: Aging, bilingualism, and the weaker links hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(3), 787–814.
28.
GollanT. H.SlatteryT. J.GoldenbergD.Van AsscheE.DuyckW.RaynerK. (2011). Frequency drives lexical access in reading but not in speaking: The frequency-lag hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(2), 186–209.
29.
JiangN. (2019). Phonology based bilingual activation among different-script bilinguals?Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 175–197. doi:10.1017/S1366728918000664.
30.
KatzirT.SchiffR.KimY. S. (2012). The effects of orthographic consistency on reading development: A within and between cross-linguistic study of fluency and accuracy among fourth grade English-and Hebrew-speaking children. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 673–679.
31.
KaufmanS. B.DeYoungC. G.GrayJ. R.JiménezL.BrownJ.MackintoshN. (2010). Implicit learning as an ability. Cognition, 116(3), 321–340.
32.
KempeV.MacWhinneyB. (1996). The crosslinguistic assessment of foreign language vocabulary learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 17(2), 149–183.
33.
KiddE. (2012). Implicit statistical learning is directly associated with the acquisition of syntax. Developmental Psychology, 48(1), 171–184.
34.
KiddE.ArciuliJ. (2016). Individual differences in statistical learning predict children’s comprehension of syntax. Child Development, 87(1), 184–193.
35.
KiddE.DonnellyS.ChristiansenM. H. (2018). Individual differences in language acquisition and processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(2), 154–169.
36.
KilgarriffA.RychlýP.SmržP.TugwellD. (2004). Itri-04-08 the sketch engine. Information Technology, 105, 116.
37.
KodaK. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
38.
KolanL.LeikinM.ZwitserloodP. (2011). Morphological processing and lexical access in speech production in Hebrew: Evidence from picture–word interference. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(3), 286–298.
39.
KoriatA. (1984). Reading without vowels: Lexical access in Hebrew. In BoumaH.BouwhuisD. G. (Eds.), Attention and Performance X: Control of language processes (pp. 227–242). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
40.
KupermanV.Van DykeJ. A. (2013). Reassessing word frequency as a determinant of word recognition for skilled and unskilled readers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(3), 802–823.
41.
KupermanV.DriegheD.KeuleersE.BrysbaertM. (2013). How strongly do word reading times and lexical decision times correlate? Combining data from eye movement corpora and megastudies. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(3), 563–580.
42.
LemhöferK.DijkstraT.SchriefersH.BaayenR. H.GraingerJ.ZwitserloodP. (2008). Native language influences on word recognition in a second language: A megastudy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(1), 12–31.
43.
LiX.BicknellK.LiuP.WeiW.RaynerK. (2014). Reading is fundamentally similar across disparate writing systems: A systematic characterization of how words and characters influence eye movements in Chinese reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 895–913.
44.
LiuP.LiX.HanB. (2015). Additive effects of stimulus quality and word frequency on eye movements during Chinese reading. Reading and Writing, 28(2), 199–215.
45.
LiuY.ReichleE. D.LiX. (2016). The effect of word frequency and parafoveal preview on saccade length during the reading of Chinese. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(7), 1008–10025.
46.
LukeS. G. (2017). Evaluating significance in linear mixed-effects models in R. Behavior Research Methods, 49(4), 1494–1502.
47.
MarianV.BlumenfeldH. K.KaushanskayaM. (2007). The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50(4), 940–967.
48.
MishraR. K. (2019). A few suggestions on broadening the cross-linguistic relevance of the Multilink model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(4), 691–692.
49.
MisyakJ. B.ChristiansenM. H. (2012). Statistical learning and language: An individual differences study. Language Learning, 62(1), 302–331.
50.
MonaghanP.ChangY. N.WelbourneS.BrysbaertM. (2017). Exploring the relations between word frequency, language exposure, and bilingualism in a computational model of reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 93, 1–21.
51.
MonsellS. (1991). The nature and locus of word frequency effects in reading. In BesnerD.HumphreysG. (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 148–197). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
52.
MortonJ. (1970). A functional model of human memory: In NormanD. A. (Ed.), Models of human memory (pp. 203–254). New York: Academic Press.
53.
NewB.FerrandL.PallierC.BrysbaertM. (2006). Reexamining the word length effect in visual word recognition: New evidence from the English Lexicon Project. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(1), 45–52.
54.
OnnisL.FrankS. L.YunH.Lou-MagnusonM. (2016). Statistical learning bias predicts second language reading efficiency. In PapafragouA.GrodnerD.MirmanD. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th annual meeting of the cognitive science society, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, August 10–13, 2016. (pp. 2105–2110). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
55.
ParadisJ.JiaR. (2017). Bilingual children’s long-term outcomes in English as a second language: Language environment factors shape individual differences in catching up with monolinguals. Developmental Science, 20(1), e12433. doi:10.1111/desc.12433.
56.
PerfettiC. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357–383.
57.
PerfettiC. A.HartL. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. In VerhoevenL.ElbronC.ReitsmaP. (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp. 189–213). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
58.
PivnevaI.MercierJ.TitoneD. (2014). Executive control modulates cross-language lexical activation during L2 reading: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(3), 787–796.
PriorA.MarkusE. (2014). Morphological activation in sentence context: When the root prevails over the meaning. Language, Cognition & Neuroscience, 29(9), 1180–1188.
61.
RauA. K.MollK.SnowlingM. J.LanderlK. (2015). Effects of orthographic consistency on eye movement behavior: German and English children and adults process the same words differently. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 130, 92–105.
62.
RaynerK.DuffyS. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14(3), 191–201.
63.
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
64.
RobinsonP. (2003). Attention and memory during SLA. In DoughtyC. J.LongM. H. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 631–678). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
65.
ScarboroughD. L.CorteseC.ScarboroughH. S. (1977). Frequency and repetition effects in lexical memory. Human Perception and Performance, 3(1), 3–17.
66.
SchepensJ.DijkstraT.GrootjenF. (2012). Distributions of cognates in Europe as based on Levenshtein distance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(1), 157–166.
67.
ShipleyW. C. (1946). Institute of living scale. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
68.
SiegelmanN.BogaertsL.FrostR. (2017a). Measuring individual differences in statistical learning: Current pitfalls and possible solutions. Behavior Research Methods, 49(9), 418–432.
69.
SiegelmanN.BogaertsL.ChristiansenM. H.FrostR. (2017b). Towards a theory of individual differences in statistical learning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 3721711, pii: 20160059.
70.
SmithY.WaltersJ.PriorA. (2019). Target accessibility contributes to asymmetric priming in translation and cross-language semantic priming in unbalanced bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(1), 157–176.
71.
SpencerM.KaschakM. P.JonesJ. L.LoniganC. J. (2015). Statistical learning is related to early literacy-related skills. Reading and Writing, 28(4), 467–490.
72.
StanovichK. E.CunninghamA. E. (1992). Studying the consequences of literacy within a literate society: The cognitive correlates of print exposure. Memory & Cognition, 20(1), 51–68.
73.
StrasserK.VergaraD.RíoM. F. (2017). Contributions of print exposure to first and second grade oral language and reading in Chile. Journal of Research in Reading, 40(S1), S87–S106.
74.
TomoschukB.FerreiraV. S.GollanT. H. (2018). When a seven is not a seven: Self-ratings of bilingual language proficiency differ between and within language populations. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(3), 1–21.
75.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A. (1999). TOWRE: Test of word reading efficiency: Examiner’s manual. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
76.
Van HeuvenW. J.WenY. (2019). The need for a universal computational model of bilingual word recognition and word translation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(4), 695–696. 13(3), 359–371.
77.
Van PattenB. (2015). Input processing in adult SLA. In VanPattenB.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 113–134). New York: Routledge.
78.
WhitfordV.TitoneD. (2012). Second-language experience modulates first-and second-language word frequency effects: Evidence from eye movement measures of natural paragraph reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(1), 73–80.
79.
WickhamH. (2016). Introduction. In ggplot2 (pp. 3–10). Cham: Springer.
80.
YapM. J.BalotaD. A.SibleyD. E.RatcliffR. (2012). Individual differences in visual word recognition: Insights from the English Lexicon Project. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(1), 53–79.
81.
ZacharyR. A. (1991). The manual of the Shipley Institute of Living Scale. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
