Cognate and meaning frequency effects on homonym processing

Abstract

Purpose:

This study investigated the influence of L1 co-activation and meaning frequency of homonyms on L2 lexical access of Brazilian Portuguese–English bilinguals during an L2 meaning decision task.

Design:

Eighty-four university students completed a meaning decision task—with cognate homonyms—a meaning recognition task, a Language History Questionnaire, and an L2 proficiency test. The meaning decision task was composed of 128 prime words followed by one out of three possible targets: related to the dominant meaning, related to the subordinate one, or unrelated. Independent variables were cognate status (64 cognate × 64 non-cognate words), homonym status (64 homonym × 64 non-homonyms), prime-sharedness (16 dominant meaning shared words × 16 subordinate meaning shared words), and target-relatedness (64 related to dominant meaning × 64 related to subordinate meaning × 64 unrelated words). Dependent variables were reaction times and accuracy.

Data and analysis:

Data were analyzed using linear mixed effect models in R.

Findings:

Results showed that, in this sample of bilinguals, processing of target words related to the meaning of the prime was confounded when primes were homonyms. In general, this interference was not decreased by the co-activation of cognate words across languages. Accuracy scores benefited from cognate status only when no ambiguity was present. Word processing was faster and more accurate when target words were related to the dominant meaning of the homonym prime, which shared this same meaning across languages.

Originality:

L1 co-activation via cognate words was not enough to decrease homonym interference effect in L2 word processing.

Implications:

This study lends support for a non-selective bilingual lexical access view and for frequency approaches during L2 word recognition. It also indicates limitations of the cognate facilitation effect.

Keywords

Bilingualism lexical access homonyms frequency ambiguity

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alderson

J. C.

Huhta

(2005). The development of a suite of computer-based diagnostic tests based on the Common European Framework. Language Testing, 22(3), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532205lt310oa

Arêas da Luz Fontes

A. B.

Schwartz

A. I.

(2010). On a different plane: Cross-language effects on the conceptual representations of within-language homonyms. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(4), 508–532.

Arêas da Luz Fontes

A. B.

Schwartz

A. I.

(2011). Working memory influences on cross-language activation during bilingual lexical disambiguation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(3), 360–370.

Arêas da Luz Fontes

A. B.

Schwartz

A. I.

(2015). Bilingual access of homonym meanings: Individual differences in bilingual access of homonym meanings. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(4), 639–656.

Barr

D. J.

Levy

Scheepers

Tily

H. J.

(2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001

Bates

Maechler

Bolker

Walker

(2015). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4 (1.1-26). https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html

Beatty-Martínez

A. L.

Navarro-Torres

C. A.

Dussias

P. E.

Bajo

M. T.

Guzzardo Tamargo

R. E.

Kroll

J. F.

(2020). Interactional context mediates the consequences of bilingualism for language and cognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46(6), 1022–1047. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000770

Brenders

Van Hell

J. G.

Dijkstra

(2011). Word recognition in child second language learners: Evidence from cognates and false friends. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109(4), 383–396.

Bultena

Dijkstra

van Hell

J. G.

(2013). Cognate and word class ambiguity effects in noun and verb processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(9), 1350–1377. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.718353

10.

Carrasco-Ortiz

Midgley

K. J.

Frenck-Mestre

(2012). Are phonological representations in bilinguals language specific? An ERP study on interlingual homophones. Psychophysiology, 49(4), 531–543.

11.

Casaponsa

Duñabeitia

J. A.

(2015). Lexical organization of language-ambiguous and language-specific words in bilinguals. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(3), 589–604.

12.

Comesaña

Ferré

Romero

Guasch

Soares

A. P.

García-Chico

(2015). Facilitative effect of cognate words vanishes when reducing the orthographic overlap: The role of stimuli list composition. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(3), 614–635.

13.

Comesaña

Sánchez-Casas

Soares

A. P.

Pinheiro

A. P.

Rauber

Frade

Fraga

(2012). The interplay of phonology and orthography in visual cognate word recognition: An ERP study. Neuroscience Letters, 529(1), 75–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2012.09.010

14.

Davis

Sánchez-Casas

García-Albea

J. E.

Guasch

Molero

Ferré

(2010). Masked translation priming: Varying language experience and word type with Spanish–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 137–155.

15.

Degani

Tokowicz

(2010). Ambiguous words are harder to learn. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(3), 299–314. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728909990411

16.

Dijkstra

Grainger

Van Heuven

W. J. B.

(1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 496–518.

17.

Dijkstra

Miwa

Brummelhuis

Sappelli

Baayen

(2010). How cross-language similarity and task demands affect cognate recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(3), 284–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.12.003

18.

Dijkstra

Van Heuven

W. J. B.

(2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(3), 175–197.

19.

Duffy

S. A.

Morris

R. K.

Rayner

(1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 429–446.

20.

Durlik

Szewczyk

Muszyński

Wodniecka

(2016). Interference and inhibition in bilingual language comprehension: Evidence from Polish-English interlingual homographs. PLOS ONE, 11(3), Article e0151430.

21.

Elston-Güttler

K. E.

Paulmann

Kotz

S. A.

(2005). Who’s in control? Proficiency and L1 influence on L2 processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(10), 1593–1610.

22.

Kousaie

Laliberté

Zunini

R. L.

Taler

(2015). A behavioral and electrophysiological investigation of the effect of bilingualism on lexical ambiguity resolution in young adults. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, Article 682.

23.

Lalor

Kirsner

(2000). Cross-lingual transfer effects between English and Italian cognates and non-cognates. International Journal of Bilingualism, 4(3), 385–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069000040030501

24.

Lauro

Schwartz

A. I.

(2017). Bilingual non-selective lexical access in sentence contexts: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Memory and Language, 92, 217–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.06.010

25.

Zhang

Tsai

Puls

(2014). Language History Questionnaire (LHQ 2.0): A new dynamic web-based research tool. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(3), 673–680.

26.

Libben

M. R.

Titone

D. A.

(2009). Bilingual lexical access in context: Evidence from eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 35(2), 381–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014875

27.

Midgley

K. J.

Holcomb

P. J.

Grainger

(2011). Effects of cognate status on word comprehension in second language learners: An ERP investigation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(7), 1634–1647.

28.

Palma

Titone

(2020). Bilingual lexical access and reading. In Heredia

R. R.

Cieslicka

A. B.

(Eds.), Bilingual lexical ambiguity resolution (pp. 159–183). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316535967

29.

Perfetti

C. A.

Hart

(2001). The lexical bases of comprehension skill. In Gorfien

D. S.

(Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity (pp. 67–86). American Psychological Association.

30.

Perfetti

C. A.

Hart

(2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. In Verhoeven

Elbro

Reitsma

(Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy. Studies in written language and literacy (Vol. 11, pp. 189–213). John Benjamins.

31.

Poarch

G. J.

Van Hell

J. G.

(2014). Cross-language activation in same-script and different-script trilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism, 18(6), 693–716.

32.

PPGI-UFSC. (2020). Our evolving understanding of bilingual language activation during comprehension. Online talk by Ana Schwartz. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sQ-kJkXUaU&ab_channel=PPGIUFSC

33.

Psychology Software Tools, Inc. (2012). [E-Prime 2.0]. http://www.pstnet.com

34.

R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.r-project.org

35.

Rodd

J. M.

Gaskell

M. G.

Marslen-Wilson

W. D.

(2004). Modelling the effects of semantic ambiguity in word recognition. Cognitive Science, 28, 89–104.

36.

Sá-Leite

A. R.

Fraga

(2017). Learning, representation, and processing of ambiguous words in bilinguals. Escritos de Psicología, 10(1), 69–87.

37.

Sereno

S. C.

O’Donnell

P. J.

Rayner

(2006). Eye movements and lexical ambiguity resolution: Investigating the subordinate-bias effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(2), 335–350.

38.

Strijkers

Costa

Thierry

(2010). Tracking lexical access in speech production: Electrophysiological correlates of word frequency and cognate effects. Cerebral Cortex, 20(4), 912–928. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhp153

39.

Tokowicz

Kroll

J. F.

(2007). Number of meanings and concreteness: Consequences of ambiguity within and across languages. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(5), 727–779.

40.

UCLES. (2021). Cambridge English: International language standards. https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/exams-and-tests/cefr/

41.

Van Assche

Brysbaert

Duyck

. (2020). Bilingual lexical access. In Heredia

R. R.

Cieslicka

A. B.

(Eds.), Bilingual lexical ambiguity resolution (pp. 42–67). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316535967

42.

Voga

Grainger

(2007). Cognate status and cross-script translation priming. Memory & Cognition, 35(5), 938–952.

43.

Warms

T. L.

(1995). Lexical and sublexical processing in aphasia. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 9(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0911-6044(95)00001-1

44.

Whitford

Titone

(2015). Second-language experience modulates eye movements during first- and second-language sentence reading: Evidence from a gaze-contingent moving window paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(4), 1118–1129.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.08 MB