This study aims to investigate lexical access to unadapted English loanwords in Croatian speakers with different levels of English proficiency by exploring the effects of associative-semantic priming. It is expected that associative-semantic relatedness will have a facilitating effect on word recognition in all proficiency groups and in both language directions. Contrary to previous research on unadapted English loanwords, we expect that the effect of proficiency will also be significant.
Methodology:
To find appropriate stimuli for the main study, three preparatory studies were conducted. The main study consisted of a proficiency test, a questionnaire on language use and exposure, and two cross-language (first language [L1] and second language [L2]) priming experiments (L2–L1/L1–L2).
Data and Analysis:
Reaction times were analyzed by fitting linear mixed-effects model in R 3.6.1 environment for statistical computing.
Findings:
The results showed that associative-semantic relatedness significantly facilitates lexical access to unadapted English loanwords in both language directions and all proficiency groups. The effect of proficiency on reaction times was also significant in both experiments.
Originality:
Unadapted English loanwords provide a unique opportunity for the study of bilingual lexical access because of their specific nature—they occur in L1 and L2 in the same orthographic form, they often do not have adequate native equivalents, and are used by all proficiency groups. However, very little research has been done in that field.
Implications:
While unadapted English loanwords are common in many languages, the cognitive processing of this specific group of loanwords is still relatively understudied. Thus, the results of this study not only add to the existing knowledge on bilingual lexical access, but also provide new insight into loanword processing.
AllanD. (1992). Oxford placement test. Oxford University Press.
2.
AltarribaJ.Basnight-BrownD. (2007). Methodological considerations in performing semantic- and translation-priming experiments. Behavior Research Methods, 39(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192839
3.
Alvarez-MelladoE. (2020). An annotated corpus of emerging anglicisms in Spanish newspaper headlines. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Code Switching (pp. 1–8). Marseille.
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, 390–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
5.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. J. (2013). Random-effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
6.
Basnight-BrownD. M.AltarribaJ. (2007). Differences in semantic and translation priming across languages: The role of language direction and language dominance. Memory & Cognition, 35, 953–965. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193468
7.
BirtićM.Blagus BartolecG.HudečekL.JojićLjKovačevićB.LewisK.Matas IvankovićI.MihaljevićM.MilošI.RamadanovićE.VidovićD. (2013). Školski rječnik hrvatskoga jezika. Školska knjiga.
8.
BogunovićI.ĆosoB. (2019). Leksički pristup hrvatskih govornika engleskog s različitim razinama jezičnog znanja. Suvremena lingvistika, 45(87), 1–22. https://hrcak.srce.hr/223082
9.
BogunovićI.ĆosoB.GuaschM.Pavlinušić VilusE.FerréP.HinojosaJ. A. (2022). Normative database for English loanwords in Croatian. figshare. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21687830.v1
10.
BogunovićI.Jelčić ČolakovacJ. (2019). Uloga neformalnih aktivnosti u nenamjernom usvajanju jezika: Povezanost uporabe jezika i jezičnog znanja. Fluminensia, 31(2), 181–199. https://hrcak.srce.hr/230838
11.
BorucinskyM.BogunovićI. (2022). Crpljenje engleskih riječi iz korpusa hrvatskog jezika. Fluminensia, 34(2), 435–461. https://doi.org/10.31820/f.34.2.13
12.
BrannenM. Y.PiekkariR.TietzeS. (2014). The multifaceted role of language in international business: Unpacking the forms, functions, and features of a critical challenge to MNC theory and performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 45, 495–507. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2014.24
CasaponsaA.DuñabeitiaJ. A. (2016). Lexical organization of language-ambiguous and language-specific words in bilinguals. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 589–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1064977
15.
CasaponsaA.ThierryG.DuñabeitiaJ. A. (2020). The role of orthotactics in language switching: An ERP investigation using masked language priming. Brain Sciences, 10(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10010022
16.
ČeponS. (2017). Anglicizmi v poslovni nomenklaturi turistinih podjetij v Sloveniji. Revija za ekonomske in poslovne vede, 2, 35–49.
17.
Cergol KovačevićK. (2012). Visual cognate processing in Croatian speakers of global English. Suvremena lingvistika, 74, 155–173. https://hrcak.srce.hr/94340
18.
Chaouch-OrozcoA.AlonsoJ. G.RothmanJ. (2021). Individual differences in bilingual word recognition: The role of experiential factors and word frequency in cross-language lexical priming. Applied Psycholinguistics, 42, 447–474. https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271642000082X
19.
Chaouch-OrozcoA.González AlonsoJ.DuñabeitiaJ.RothmanJ. (2023). The elusive impact of L2 immersion on translation priming. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 45(2), 393–415. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000249
20.
Chaouch-OrozcoA.González AlonsoJ.RothmanJ. (2020). Individual differences in bilingual word recognition: The role of experiential factors and word frequency in cross-language lexical priming. Applied Psycholinguistics, 42, 447–474. https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271642000082X
De GrootA. M. B.NasG. L. J. (1991). Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates in compound bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 90–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(91)90012-9
24.
De WildeV.BrysbaertM.EyckmansJ. (2019). Learning English through out-of-school exposure: Which levels of language proficiency are attained and which types of input are important?Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(1), 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728918001062
25.
DijkstraT.Van HeuvenW. J. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(3), 177–197. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728902003012
26.
Drljača MargićB. (2009). Latentno posuđivanje u hrvatskome i drugim jezicima–posljedice i otpori. Rasprave Instituta za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje, 35, 53–71. https://hrcak.srce.hr/50700
27.
Drljača MargićB. (2011). Leksički paralelizam: Je li opravdano govoriti o nepotrebnom posuđenicama (engleskog podrijetla)?Fluminensia, 23(1), 53–66. https://hrcak.srce.hr/78241
28.
Drljača MargićB. (2012). Croatian university students’ perception of stylistic and domain-based differences between Anglicisms and their native equivalents. In DąbrowskaM.LeśniewskaJ.PiątekB. (Eds.), Languages, literatures and cultures in contact: English and American studies in the age of global communication, volume 2: Language and culture (pp. 109–126). Tertium.
29.
Drljača MargićB. (2014). Contemporary English influence on Croatian: A university students’ perspective, language contact around the globe. In Koll-StobbeA.KnospeS. (Eds.), Proceedings of the LCTG3 Conference (pp. 73–92). Peter Lang.
FieldF. W.ComrieB. (2002). Linguistic borrowing in bilingual contexts. Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.62
32.
Filipan-ŽignićB.Turk SakačM. (2016). Utjecaj novih medija na jezik mladih u pisanim radovima. Slavistična revija, 64(4), 463–474. https://srl.si/sql_pdf/SRL_2016_4_04.pdf
33.
FlocciaC.Delle LucheC.LepadatuI.ChowJ.RatnageP.PlunkettK. (2020). Translation equivalent and cross-language semantic priming in bilingual toddlers. Journal of Memory and Language, 112, 104086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104086
GluszekA.HansenK. (2013). Language attitudes in the Americas. In HowardG.WatsonB. M. (Eds.), The social meanings of languages, dialects, and accents: An international perspective (pp. 26–44). Peter Lang.
36.
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, 787–814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.07.001
37.
GollanT. H.SlatteyT. J.GoldenbergD.van AsscheE.DuyckW.RaynerK. (2012). Fequency drives lexical access in reading but not in speaking: The frequency lag hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(2), 186–209. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022256
38.
GreenallA. K. (2005). To translate or not to translate: Attitudes to English loanwords in Norwegian. In PreislerB.FabriciusA.HaberlandH.KjaerbeckS.RisagerK. (Eds.), The consequences of mobility (pp. 212–226). Roskilde University.
GuaschM.Sanchez-CasusR.FerreP.Garcia-AlbeaJ. E. (2011). Effects of the degree of meaning similarity on cross-language semantic priming in highly proficient bilinguals. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23(8), 942–961. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2011.589382
41.
HaidarS. (2019). The role of English in developing countries: English is a passport to privilege and need for survival in Pakistan. English Today, 35(3), 42–48. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078418000469
42.
HeymanT.BruninxA.HutchisonK. A.StormsG. (2018). The (un)reliability of item-level semantic priming effects. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 2173–2183. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1040-9
43.
HorobinS. (2016). How English became English: A short history of a global language. Oxford University Press.
44.
HoshinoN.ThierryG. (2011). Language selection in bilingual word production: Electrophysiological evidence for cross-language competition. Brain Research, 1371, 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2010.11.053
45.
JohnsM. A.DussiasP. E. (2021). Of revistas and magacínes: Lexical competition in the online processing of established loanwords. Journal of Second Language Studies, 4(2), 375–411. https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.21010.joh
46.
JohnsonJ. S.NewportE. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(89)90003-0
47.
KeuleersE.BrysbaertM. (2010). Wuggy: A multilingual pseudoword generator. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 627–633. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.3.627
48.
KrollJ. F.StewartE. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149–174. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1008
49.
KuchinkeL.VõM. L.HofmannM.JacobsA. M. (2007). Pupillary responses during lexical decisions vary with word frequency but not emotional valence. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 65, 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2007.04.004
50.
LeeY.JangE.ChoiW. (2018). L2-L1 translation priming effects in a lexical decision task: Evidence from low proficient Korean-English bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 267. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00267
51.
LiL.MoL.WangR.LuoX.ChenZ. (2006). Evidence for long-term cross-language repetition priming in low fluency Chinese-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(1), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728908003453
52.
McKenzieR. M. (2010). The social psychology of English as a global language: Attitudes, awareness and identity in the Japanese context. Springer.
53.
Mihaljević DjigunovićJ.CergolK.QingminL. (2006). Utjecaj medija na nenamjerno usvajanje engleskog vokabulara. In GranićJ. (Ed.), Jezik i mediji: Jedan jezik: Više svjetova (pp. 445–452). Hrvatsko društvo za primijenjenu lingvistiku.
54.
Mihaljević DjigunovićJ.GeldR. (2002). English in Croatia today: Opportunities for incidental vocabulary acquisition. Studia Romanica et Anglica Zagrabiensia, 43, 335–352.
55.
MuñozC. (2011). Input and long-term effects of starting age in foreign language learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 49(2), 113–134. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2011.006
Nikolić-HoytA. (2005). Englesko-hrvatski jezično-kulturni dodiri. In StolacD.IvanetićN.PritchardB. (Eds.), Jezik u društvenoj interakciji. Zbornik radova sa savjetovanja održanoga 16. i 17. svibnja u Opatiji (pp. 353–358). Hrvatsko društvo za primijenjenu lingvistiku.
Pavlinušić VilusE.BogunovićI.ĆosoB. (2022). Lexical access to unadapted English loanwords in Croatian: Evidence from translation priming. In BotinisA. (Ed.), ExLing 2022 Paris: Proceedings of 13th International Conference of Experimental Linguistics (pp. 141–145). ExLing Society.
60.
PereaM.DuñabeitiaJ. A.CarreirasM. (2008). Masked associative/semantic priming effects across languages with highly proficient bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(4), 916–930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.01.003
61.
PetersE. (2018). The effect of out-of-class exposure to English language media on learners’ vocabulary knowledge. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 169(1), 142–168. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.00010.pet
62.
PetersE.WebbS. (2018). Incidental vocabulary acquisition through viewing L2 television and factors that affect learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(3), 551–577. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263117000407
63.
RappR. (2005). On the relationship between word frequency and word familiarity. In FisseniB.SchmitzH. C.SchröderB.WagnerP. (Eds.), Sprachtechnologie, mobile Kommunikation und linguistische Ressourcen (pp. 249–263). Peter Lang.
64.
R core team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/
65.
SchneiderW.EschmanA.ZuccolottoA. (2002). E-prime user’s guide. Psychology Software Tools Inc.
66.
SchoonbaertS.DuyckW.BrysbaertM.HartsuikerR. J. (2009). Semantic and translation priming from a first language to a second and back: Making sense of the findings. Memory & Cognition, 37(5), 569–586. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.5.569
67.
SchröterP.SchroederS. (2018). Exploring early language detection in balanced bilingual children: The impact of language-specificity on cross-language nonword recognition. International Journal of Bilingualism, 22(3), 3015–3315. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006916672751
68.
SchwieterJ.SundermanG. (2009). Concept selection and developmental effects in bilingual speech production. Language and Learning, 59(4), 897–927. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00529.x
69.
Skelin HorvatA. (2015). Jezik adolescenata–od slenga preko kolokvijalnoga do standarda. In SuvalaA.PandžaJ. (Eds.), Nestandardi hrvatski jezik prema standardnom hrvatskom jeziku, Zbornik radova 6. Simpozija učitelja i nastavnika hrvatskoga jezika (pp. 67–72). Agencija za odgoj i obrazovanje.
70.
StolacD.VlastelićA. (2014). Jezik reklama. Hrvatska sveučilišna naklada; Filozofski fakultet Sveučilišta u Rijeci.
Van KesterenR.DijkstraT.de SmedtK. (2012). Markedness effects in Norwegian–English bilinguals: Task-dependent use of language-specific letters and bigrams. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 2129–2154. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.679946
74.
WangM. (2015). A study on the relationship between age onset of English learning and English achievement. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(1), 164–168. https://doi:10.17507/tpls.0501.22
75.
Weber-FoxC. M.NevilleH. J. (1996). Maturational constraints on functional specializations for language processing: ERP and behavioral evidence in bilingual speakers. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8(3), 231–256. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1996.8.3.231
WilliamsR.MorrisR. (2004). Eye movements, word familiarity, and vocabulary acquisition. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 312–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440340000196
78.
WuY. J.ThierryG. (2012). Unconscious translation during incidental foreign language processing. NeuroImage, 59, 3468–3473. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728917000748
79.
YeeL. T. (2017). Valence, arousal, familiarity, concreteness, and imageability ratings for 292 two-character Chinese nouns in Cantonese speakers in Hong Kong. PLOS ONE, 12, Article e0174569. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174569
