This study reports on two experiments investigating the effects of script differences on masked translation priming in highly proficient early Hindi-English bilinguals. In Experiment 1 (the cross-script experiment), L1 Hindi was presented in the standard Devanagari script, while L2 English was presented in the Roman alphabet. In Experiment 2 (the same-script experiment), both L1 Hindi and L2 English were presented in the Roman alphabet. Both experiments revealed translation priming in the L1-L2 direction. However, L2-L1 priming was obtained in the same-script experiment, but not in the cross-script experiment. These findings are discussed in relation to the orthographic cue hypothesis as well as hypotheses that hold that script differences influence the distance between the L1 and L2 in lexical space and/or cross-language lateral inhibition. We also provide alternative accounts for these results in terms of how orthographic cues provided by L1 targets might lead to the discontinuation or disruption of processing for L2 primes.
AnnamalaiE. (2004). Medium of power: The question of English in education in India. In TollefsonJ. W.TsuiA. B. M. (Eds.), Medium of instruction policies: Which agenda? Whose agenda? (pp. 177–194). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2.
BaayenR. H.PiepenbrockR.van RijnH. (1995). The CELEX database [CD-ROM]. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Center for Lexical Information, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
3.
BarmanU.DasA.WagnerJ.FosterJ. (2014). Code mixing: A challenge for language identification in the language of social media. In Proceedings of the first workshop on computational approaches to code switching (pp. 13–23). Doha, Qatar: Association for Computational Linguistics.
4.
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.
5.
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.
6.
BowersJ. S.MichitaY. (1998). An investigation into the structure and acquisition of orthographic knowledge: Evidence from cross-script Kanji-Hiragana priming. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 259–264.
7.
BowersJ. S.ViglioccoG.HaanR. (1998). Orthographic, phonological and articulatory contributions to masked letter and word priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1705–1709.
8.
BrightW. (1996). The Devanagari script. In DanielsP.BrightW. (Eds.), The world’s writing systems (pp. 384–390). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
9.
CasaponsaA.CarreirasM.DuñabeitiaJ. A. (2014). Discriminating languages in bilingual contexts: The impact of orthographic markedness. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 424.
10.
CasaponsaA.CarreirasM.DuñabeitiaJ. A. (2015). How do bilinguals identify the language of the words they read?Brain Research, 1624, 153–166.
11.
CasaponsaA.DuñabeitiaJ. A. (2016). Lexical organization of language-ambiguous and language-specific words in bilinguals. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 589–604.
12.
ChenB.LiangL.CuiP.DunlapS. (2014). The priming effect of translation equivalents across languages for concrete and abstract words. Acta Psychologica, 153, 147–152.
13.
ColtheartM.DavelaarE.JonassonJ. T.BesnerD. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. In DornicS. (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp. 535–555). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
CousineauD. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1, 42–45.
15.
DavisC. (2005). N-Watch: A program for deriving neighborhood size and other psycholinguistic statistics. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 65–70.
16.
DavisC.Sánchez-CasasR.García-AlbeaJ. E.GuaschM.MoleroM.FerréP. (2009). Masked translation priming: Varying language experience and word type with Spanish-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 137–155.
17.
DijkstraT.van HeuvenW. J. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 175–197.
DimitropoulouM.DuñabeitiaJ. A.CarreirasM. (2011b). Transliteration and transcription effects in biscriptal readers: The case of Greeklish. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 729–735.
20.
DimitropoulouM.DuñabeitiaJ. A.CarreirasM. (2011c). Two words, one meaning: Evidence of automatic co-activation of translation equivalents. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 188.
DuyckW.WarlopN. (2009). Translation priming between the native language and a second language: New evidence from Dutch-French bilinguals. Experimental Psychology, 56, 173–179.
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, 770–782.
25.
FinkbeinerM.ForsterK.NicolJ.NakamuraK. (2004). The role of polysemy in masked semantic and translation priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 1–22.
26.
ForsterK. I. (2009). The intervenor effect in masked priming: How does masked priming survive across an intervening word?Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 36–49.
27.
ForsterK. I. (2013). How many words can we read at once? More intervenor effects in masked priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 563–573.
28.
ForsterK. I.ForsterJ. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116–124.
29.
GellaS.BaliK.ChoudhuryM. (2014). “ye word kis lang ka hai bhai?” Testing the limits of word level language identification. In SharmaD. S.SangalR.PawarJ. D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on natural language processing (pp. 368–377). Goa, India: NLPAI.
30.
GollanT. H.ForsterK. I.FrostR. (1997). Translation priming with different scripts: Masked priming with cognates and noncognates in Hebrew-English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 1122–1139.
31.
GorK.ChrabaszczA.CookS. (2017). Processing of native and nonnative inflected words: Beyond affix stripping. Journal of Memory and Language, 93, 315–332.
32.
GraingerJ.BeauvillainC. (1987). Language blocking and lexical access in bilinguals. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 39, 295–319.
33.
GraingerJ.DijkstraT. (1992). On the representation and use of language information in bilinguals. In HarrisR. J. (Ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals (pp. 207–220). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
34.
GraingerJ.Frenck-MestreC. (1998). Masked priming by translation equivalents in proficient bilinguals. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 601–623.
35.
HinoY.LupkerS. J.OgawaT.SearsC. R. (2003). Masked repetition priming and word frequency effects across different types of Japanese scripts: An examination of the lexical activation account. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 33–66.
36.
HoshinoN.MidgleyK. J.HolcombP. J.GraingerJ. (2010). An ERP investigation of masked cross-script translation priming. Brain Research, 1344, 159–172.
37.
JiangN. (1999). Testing processing explanations for the asymmetry in masked cross-language priming. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2, 59–75.
38.
JiangN.ForsterK. I. (2001). Cross-language priming asymmetries in lexical decision and episodic recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 32–51.
39.
KimJ.DavisC. (2003). Task effects in masked cross-script translation and phonological priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 484–499.
40.
KinoshitaS.KaplanL. (2008). Priming of abstract letter identities in the letter match task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1873–1885.
41.
KouiderS.DupouxE. (2001). A functional disconnection between spoken and visual word recognition: Evidence from unconscious priming. Cognition, 82, B35–B49.
42.
LeeJ. (2016). Plausibility and structural reanalysis in online L1 and L2 sentence processing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas at Arlington.
43.
LemhöferK.DijkstraT. (2004). Recognizing cognates and interlingual homographs: Effects of code similarity in language-specific and generalized lexical decision. Memory & Cognition, 32, 533–550.
NakamuraK.DehaeneS.JobertA.Le BihanD.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, 954–968.
46.
NakayamaM.IdaK.LupkerS. J. (2016). Cross-script L2–L1 noncognate translation priming in lexical decision depends on L2 proficiency: Evidence from Japanese-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19, 1001–1022.
47.
NakayamaM.LupkerS. J.ItaguchiY. (in press). An examination of L2–L1 noncognate translation priming in the lexical decision task: Insights from distributional and frequency-based analyses. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. doi:10.1017/S1366728917000013
48.
NakayamaM.SearsC. R.HinoY.LupkerS. J. (2013). Masked translation priming with Japanese-English bilinguals: Interactions between cognate status, target frequency and L2 proficiency. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 2, 949–981.
49.
OganianY.ConradM.AryaniA.HeekerenH. R.SpalekK. (2016). Interplay of bigram frequency and orthographic neighborhood statistics in language membership decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19, 578–596.
50.
OkanoK.GraingerJ.HolcombP. J. (2013). An ERP investigation of visual word recognition in syllabary scripts. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 13, 390–404.
51.
PauszekJ. R.SztybelP.GibsonB. S. (2017). Evaluating Amazon’s Mechanical Turk for psychological research on the symbolic control of attention. Behavior Research Methods. Advance online publication. doi:10.3758/s13428-016-0847-5
52.
PollatsekA.WellA. D. (1995). On the use of counterbalanced designs in cognitive research: A suggestion for a better and more powerful analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 785–794.
53.
PriceI. K.WitzelJ. (2017). Sources of relative clause processing difficulty: Evidence from Russian. Journal of Memory and Language, 97, 208–244.
54.
PriceI. K.WitzelN.WitzelJ. (2015). Orthographic and phonological form interference during silent reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 1628–1647.
55.
RaoC.MathurA.SinghN. C. (2013). ‘Cost in transliteration’: The neurocognitive processing of Romanized writing. Brain and Language, 124, 205–212.
56.
RastleK.HarringtonJ.ColtheartM. (2002). 358,534 nonwords: The ARC Nonword Database. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 55, 1339–1362.
57.
RomanovaN.GorK. (2017). Processing of gender and number agreement in Russian as a second language: The devil is in the details. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 97–128.
58.
SabourinL.BrienC.BurkholderM. (2014). The effect of age of L2 acquisition on the organization of the bilingual lexicon: Evidence from masked priming. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 542–555.
59.
Sánchez-CasasR. M.DavisC. W.García-AlbeaJ. E. (1992). Bilingual lexical processing: Exploring the cognate/non-cognate distinction. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4, 293–310.
60.
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, 569–586.
61.
ShafiullahM.MonsellS. (1999). The cost of switching between kanji and kana while reading Japanese. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 567–607.
62.
VaidJ.Frenck-MestreC. (2002). Do orthographic cues aid language recognition? A laterality study with French-English bilinguals. Brain and Language, 82, 47–53.
63.
VaidJ.GuptaA. (2002). Exploring word recognition in a semi-alphabetic script: The case of Devanagari. Brain and Language, 81, 679–690.
64.
van HeuvenW. J. B.DijkstraT.GraingerJ. (1998). Orthographic neighborhood effects in bilingual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 458–483.
65.
van HeuvenW. J. B.CoderreE. L. (2015). Orthographic processing in bilinguals. In SchwieterJ. W. (Ed.), Handbook of bilingual processing (pp. 308–326). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
66.
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.
67.
VogaM.GraingerJ. (2007). Cognate status and cross-script translation priming. Memory & Cognition, 35, 938–952.
68.
WangX. (2013). Language dominance in translation priming: Evidence from balanced and unbalanced Chinese-English bilinguals. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 727–743.
69.
WangX.ForsterK. I. (2010). Masked translation priming with semantic categorization: Testing the sense model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 327–340.
70.
WangX.ForsterK. I. (2015). Is translation priming asymmetry due to partial awareness of the prime?Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18, 657–669.
71.
WenY.van HeuvenW. J. B. (2017). Non-cognate translation priming in masked priming lexical decision experiments: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 879–886.
72.
WitzelJ.CorneliusS.WitzelN.ForsterK. I.ForsterJ. C. (2013). Testing the viability of webDMDX for masked priming experiments. The Mental Lexicon, 8, 421–449.
73.
WitzelN. O.ForsterK. I. (2012). How L2 words are stored: The episodic L2 hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 1608–1621.
74.
WoodsA. T.VelascoC.LevitanC. A.WanX.SpenceC. (2015). Conducting perception research over the internet: A tutorial review. PeerJ, 3, e1058.
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.
