Bilinguals recognize second language (L2) words more quickly when their forms are similar to their first language (L1) counterparts, known as cognates, due to cross-language orthographic and phonological similarities. However, it remains unclear how orthography functions independently from phonology because these two representations are difficult to separate in phonetic alphabetic scripts. To address this, we investigated cognates in Mandarin Chinese and Japanese, both of which employ logographic scripts where orthography does not directly correspond to phonology as it does in alphabetic scripts.
Methodology:
In a masked translation priming experiment, highly proficient Chinese–Japanese bilinguals performed a semantic categorization task on L2 Japanese words with four prime–target types: orthographically identical cognates, nonidentical cognates, noncognates, and unrelated pairs. We manipulated the prime durations (33 and 50 ms) to assess the orthographic components in masked priming.
Data and analysis:
We analyzed reaction times for semantic categorizations on L2 target words using a linear mixed-effects model.
Findings/conclusions:
The results showed that reaction times were shorter for L2 targets primed by L1 identical cognates than by noncognates at both prime durations, indicating a distinct processing advantage for identical cognates. For nonidentical cognates, facilitation appeared only with a 33-ms prime duration, suggesting that longer primes activate language-specific orthographic markers. Importantly, the results indicate that these orthographic markers are incorporated in the word-recognition system of bilinguals’ mental lexicon and influence the degree of language activation, particularly in the processing of logographic cognates by Chinese–Japanese bilinguals.
Originality:
This study is the first to demonstrate that orthographic markers in the mental lexicon of Chinese–Japanese bilinguals modulate the nonselective language activation during cognate processing.
Significance:
Our findings highlight the critical role of orthography in cognate processing, independent of phonological mediation.
AllenD.ConklinK.MiwaK. (2021). Cross-linguistic lexical effects in different-script bilingual reading are modulated by task. International Journal of Bilingualism, 25(1), 168–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006920943974
2.
AndoE.JaredD.NakayamaM.HinoY. (2014). Cross-script phonological priming with Japanese Kanji primes and English targets. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26(8), 853–870. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2014.971026
3.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
4.
BobbS. C.HolzenK. V.MayorJ.ManiN.CarreirasM. (2020). Co-activation of the L2 during L1 auditory processing: An ERP cross-modal priming study. Brain and Language, 203, 104739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2019.104739
5.
BowersJ. S.MimouniZ.ArguinM. (2000). Orthography plays a critical role in cognate priming: Evidence from French/English and Arabic/French cognates. Memory & Cognition, 28(8), 1289–1296. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03211829
CasaponsaA.CarreirasM.DuñabeitiaJ. A. (2014). Discriminating languages in bilingual contexts: The impact of orthographic markedness. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 424. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00424
8.
CasaponsaA.CarreirasM.DuñabeitiaJ. A. (2015). How do bilinguals identify the language of the words they read?Brain Research, 1624, 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2015.07.035
9.
CasaponsaA.DuñabeitiaJ. A. (2016). Lexical organization of language-ambiguous and language-specific words in bilinguals. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(3), 589–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1064977
10.
ChngK. Y. T.YapM. J.GohW. D. (2019). Cross-modal masked repetition and semantic priming in auditory lexical decision. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(2), 599–608. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1540-8
11.
ComesañaM.Sánchez-CasasR.SoaresA. P.PinheiroA. P.RauberA.FradeS.FragaI. (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
12.
DalmaijerE. S.MathôtS.StigchelS. V. der. (2014). PyGaze: An open-source, cross- platform toolbox for minimal-effort programming of eyetracking experiments. Behavior Research Methods, 46(4), 913–921. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0422-2
13.
DavisC.Sánchez-CasasR.García-AlbeaJ. E.GuaschM.MoleroM.FerréP. (2010). Masked translation priming: Varying language experience and word type with Spanish–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(2), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728909990393
14.
De GrootA. M.NasG. L. (1991). Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates in compound bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(1), 90–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(91)90012-9
15.
DijkstraT.MiwaK.BrummelhuisB.SappelliM.BaayenH. (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
16.
DijkstraT.PeetersD.HieselaarW.van GeffenA. (2023). Orthographic and semantic priming effects in neighbour cognates: Experiments and simulations. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 26(2), 371–383. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728922000591
17.
DijkstraT.van HeuvenW. J. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(3), 175–197. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728902003012
18.
DijkstraT.WahlA.BuytenhuijsF.HalemN. V.Al-JibouriZ.KorteM. D.RekkéS. (2019). Multilink: A computational model for bilingual word recognition and word translation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(4), 657–679. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728918000287
19.
DuyckW.AsscheE. V.DriegheD.HartsuikerR. J. (2007). Visual word recognition by bilinguals in a sentence context: Evidence for nonselective lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(4), 663–679. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.4.663
20.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.
21.
FerrandL.GraingerJ. (1993). The time course of orthographic and phonological code activation in the early phases of visual word recognition. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31(2), 119–122. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03334157
22.
FerréP.Sánchez-CasasR.ComesañaM.DemestreJ. (2017). Masked translation priming with cognates and noncognates: Is there an effect of words’ concreteness?Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(4), 770–782. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000262
23.
FinkbeinerM.ForsterK.NicolJ.NakamuraK. (2004). The role of polysemy in masked semantic and translation priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.01.004
24.
FrancesC.Navarra-BarindelliE.MartinC. D. (2021). Inhibitory and facilitatory effects of phonological and orthographic similarity on L2 word recognition across modalities in bilinguals. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 12812. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92259-z
25.
García-AlbeaJ. E.Sanchez-CasasR. M.IgoaJ. M. (1998). The contribution of word form and meaning to language processing in Spanish: Some evidence from monolingual and bilingual studies. In HillertmD. (Ed.), Sentence processing: A crosslinguistic perspective (pp. 183–209). Academic Press.
26.
GraingerJ.DijkstraT. (1992). On the representation and use of language information in bilinguals. In HarrisR. J. (Ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals (Vol. 83, pp. 207–220). North-Holland Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.https://doi.org/10.1016/s0166-4115(08)61496-x
27.
GreenD. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(2), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728998000133
28.
HoshinoN.MidgleyK. J.HolcombP. J.GraingerJ. (2010). An ERP investigation of masked cross-script translation priming. Brain Research, 1344, 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2010.05.005
29.
HoverstenL. J.TraxlerM. J. (2016). A time course analysis of interlingual homograph processing: Evidence from eye movements. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(2), 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728915000115
30.
KesterenR.van DijkstraT.SmedtK. de. (2012). Markedness effects in Norwegian–English bilinguals: Task-dependent use of language-specific letters and bigrams. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(11), 2129–2154. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.679946
31.
KieferM. (2008). Top-down modulation of unconscious “automatic” processes: A gating framework. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 3(1–2), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10053-008-0032-2
32.
KinoshitaS.LupkerS. J. (2003). Masked priming: The state of the art. Psychology Press.
33.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
34.
LemhöferK.DijkstraT. (2004). Recognizing cognates and interlingual homographs: Effects of code similarity in language-specific and generalized lexical decision. Memory & Cognition, 32(4), 533–550. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03195845
35.
LiuC.Wanner-KawaharaJ.YoshiharaM.LupkerS. J.NakayamaM. (2023). Cognate translation priming with Chinese–Japanese bilinguals: No effect of interlingual phonological similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 49(11), 1823–1843. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001240
36.
MiwaK.LibbenG.DijkstraT.BaayenH. (2014). The time-course of lexical activation in Japanese morphographic word recognition: Evidence for a character-driven processing model. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(1), 79–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.790910
37.
NakamuraK.DehaeneS.JobertA.BihanD. L.KouiderS. (2005). Subliminal convergence of Kanji and Kana words: Further evidence for functional parcellation of the posterior temporal cortex in visual word perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(6), 954–968. https://doi.org/10.1162/0898929054021166
38.
NakayamaM.SearsC. R.HinoY.LupkerS. J. (2012). Cross-script phonological priming for Japanese-English bilinguals: Evidence for integrated phonological representations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(10), 1563–1583. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.606669
39.
NorrisD.KinoshitaS.HallJ.HensonR. (2018). Is reading automatic? Are the ERP correlates of masked priming really lexical?Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(9), 1152–1167. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2018.1493516
40.
ParkS.XiongK.TamaokaK. (2014a). Dookei nizi kanzi go no hinsisei ni kansuru nikkantyuu deeta beesu [A database of grammatical categories for orthographically-similar two-kanji compound words among Japanese, Korean and Chinese]. Kotoba No Kagaku [Studia Linguistica], 27, 53–111. https://doi.org/10.18999/stul.27.53
41.
ParkS.XiongK.TamaokaK. (2014b). Dookei nizi kanzi go no hinsisei ni kansuru nikkantyuu deeta beesu no gaiyoo [A description of the database of grammatical categories for orthographically-similar two-kanji compound words among the Japanese, Korean and Chinese languages]. Kotoba No Kagaku [Studia Linguistica], 27, 3–23. https://doi.org/10.18999/stul.27.3
42.
PeetersD.DijkstraT.GraingerJ. (2013). The representation and processing of identical cognates by late bilinguals: RT and ERP effects. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(4), 315–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.12.003
43.
R Core Team. (2023). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
44.
Sánchez-CasasR.García-AlbeaJ. E. (2005). The representation of cognate and noncognate words in bilingual memory: Can cognate status be characterized as a special kind of morphological relation? In KrollJ. F.de GrootA. M. B. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (Vol. 23, pp. 226–250). Oxford University Press.
45.
Tiffin-RichardsS. P. (2024). Cognate facilitation in bilingual reading: The influence of orthographic and phonological similarity on lexical decisions and eye-movements. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 27, 964–981. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728923000949
46.
Van HeuvenW. J. B.DijkstraT. (2010). Language comprehension in the bilingual brain: fMRI and ERP support for psycholinguistic models. Brain Research Reviews, 64(1), 104–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresrev.2010.03.002
47.
WangX.ForsterK. I. (2010). Masked translation priming with semantic categorization: Testing the sense model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(3), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728909990502
48.
WongB. W. L.HemelstrandS.InoueT. (2024). Revisiting the influence of phonological similarity on cognate processing: Evidence from Cantonese–Japanese bilinguals. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78, 619–737. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218241242631
49.
XiaV.AndrewsS. (2015). Masked translation priming asymmetry in Chinese–English bilinguals: Making sense of the sense model. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(2), 294–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.944195
50.
XiongK.NiikuniK.MuramotoT.KiyamaS. (2023). Asymmetric effects of sub-lexical orthographic/phonological similarities on L1-Chinese and L2-Japanese visual word recognition. In KoizumiM. (Ed.), The Mouton-NINJAL library of linguistics (Volume 5): Issues in Japanese psycholinguistics from comparative perspectives (pp. 211–229). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110778946-012
51.
XiongK.VerdonschotR. G.TamaokaK. (2020). The time course of brain activity in reading identical cognates: An ERP study of Chinese-Japanese bilinguals. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 55, 100911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2020.100911
52.
ZhangE. H.LiJ.ZhangX. D.LiD.CaoH. W. (2022). Electrophysiological correlates of masked orthographic and phonological priming in Chinese–English bilinguals. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 16648. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-21072-z
53.
ZhangN.WuZ.WangM. (2025). Cross-language phonological activation in bilingual visual word recognition: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 32, 2059–2089. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-025-02692-8
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.
