We investigated lexical and sub-lexical orthographic coding in bilingual visual word recognition by examining interactions between orthographic neighbourhood and markedness. In three experiments, French/English bilinguals performed a masked lexical decision task in French (L1) in which orthographically related prime words could be either marked or unmarked English (L2) words, compared to unrelated primes (e.g., wrap, trap, gift—DRAP, meaning sheet). The results yielded an overall inhibition priming effect, which was unexpectedly more robust in the marked condition than in the unmarked one. This result highlights the need to integrate both lexical competition and orthographic markedness in bilingual models such as BIA/+ and determine how the latter may modulate lexical processing in bilinguals.
AndrewsS. (1997). The effect of orthographic similarity on lexical retrieval: Resolving neighborhood conflicts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 439–461. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214334
2.
AndrewsS.HerschJ. (2010). Lexical precision in skilled readers: Individual differences in masked neighbor priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(2), 299–318. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018366
3.
AndrewsS.LoS. (2012). Not all skilled readers have cracked the code: Individual differences in masked form priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(1), 152–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024953
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
Bijeljac-BabicR.BiardeauA.GraingerJ. (1997). Masked orthographic priming in bilingual word recognition. Memory and Cognition, 25(4), 447–454.
7.
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. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(3), 589–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1064977
10.
CasaponsaA.ThierryG.DuñabeitiaJ. A. (2020). The role of orthotactics in language switching: An ERP investigation using masked language priming. Brain Sciences, 10, Article 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10010022
11.
ChaunceyK.GraingerJ.HolcombP. J. (2008). Code- switching effects in bilingual word recognition: A masked priming study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 105(3), 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2007.11.006
12.
CommissaireE.AudusseauJ.CasalisS. (2019). Disentangling cross-language orthographic neighborhood from markedness effects in L2 visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(1), 353–359. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1518-6
13.
CommissaireE.DuncanL. G.CasalisS. (2014). Grapheme coding in L2: How do L2 learners process new graphemes?Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26(7), 725–739. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2014.951363
14.
DavisC. J.LupkerS. J. (2006). Masked inhibitory priming in English: Evidence for lexical inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(3), 668–687. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.668
15.
De MoorW.VergutsT. (2006). When are neighbours hostile ? Inhibitory neighbor effects in visual word recognition. Psychological Research, 70(5), 359–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-005-0225-x
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, 843–863. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.720994
17.
DijkstraT.Hilberink-SchulpenB.Van HeuvenW. J. B. (2010). Repetition and masked form priming within and between languages using word and nonword neighbors. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 341–357. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728909990575
18.
DijkstraT.Van HeuvenW. J. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 175–197. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728902003012
19.
DijkstraT.Van HeuvenW. J. B. (2018). Visual word recognition in multilinguals. In RueschemeyerS.-A.GaskellM. G. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 118–143). Oxford University Press.
20.
DijkstraT.WahlA.BuytenhuijsF.van HalemN.Al-JibouriZ.de KorteM.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
21.
DirixN.CopU.DriegheD.DuyckW. (2017). Cross-lingual neighborhood effects in generalized lexical decision and natural reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43, 887–915. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000352
22.
DubeyN.WitzelN.WitzelJ. (2018). Script differences and masked translation priming: Evidence from Hindi-English bilinguals. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 2421–2438.
23.
FerrandL.MéotA.SpinelliE.NewB.PallierC.BoninP.DufauS.MathôtS.GraingerJ. (2018). MEGALEX: A megastudy of visual and auditory word recognition. Behavior Research Methods, 50(3), 1285–1307. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0943-1
24.
GellerJ.StillM.-L.MorrisA.-L. (2016). Eyes wide open: Pupil size as a proxy for inhibition in the masked priming paradigm. Memory and Cognition, 44, 554–564. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-015-0577-4.
GomezP.MarcetA.PereaM. (2021). Are better young readers more likely to confuse their mother with their mother?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74, 1542–1552. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218211012960
27.
GomezP.PereaM. (2020). Masked identity priming reflects an encoding advantage in developing readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 199, Article 104911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2020.104911
28.
GraingerJ. (2018). Orthographic processing: A “mid-level” vision of reading: The 44th Sir Frederic Bartlett Lecture. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(2), 335–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1314515
29.
GraingerJ.JacobsA. M. (1996). Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model. Psychological Review, 103(3), 518–565. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.3.518
30.
GrossiG.SavillN.ThomasE.ThierryG. (2012). Electrophysiological cross-language neighborhood density effects in late and early Welsh-English bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, Article 408. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00408
31.
HoverstenL. J.BrothersT.SwaabT. Y.TraxlerM. J. (2017). Early processing of orthographic language membership information in bilingual visual word recognition: Evidence from ERPs. Neuropsychologia, 103, 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.07.026
32.
KeuleersE.LaceyP.RastleK.BrysbaertM. (2012). The British Lexicon Project: Lexicon decision data for 28,730 monosyllabic and disyllabic English words. Behavior Research Methods, 44(1), 287–304. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0118-4
33.
KrollJ. F.GulliferJ. W.ZirnsteinM. (2016). Literacy in adulthood: Reading in two languages. In MontanariS.NicoladisE. (Eds.), Lifespan perspectives on bilingualism (pp. 225–245). American Psychological Association.
34.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
35.
LamK. J. Y.DijkstraT. (2010). Word repetition, masked orthographic priming, and language switching: Bilingual studies and BIA+ simulations. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13(5), 487–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2010.488283
36.
LázaroM.GarcíaL.IlleraV. (2021). Morpho-orthographic segmentation of opaque and transparent derived words: New evidence for Spanish. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74(5), 944–954. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021820977038
37.
LemhöferK.BroersmaM. (2012). Introducting LexTALE: A quick and valid Lexical test for Advanced Learners of English. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 325–343. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0146-0
38.
LupkerS. J.SpinelliG.DavisC. J. (2020). Masked form priming as a function of letter position: An evaluation of current orthographic coding models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46(12), 2349–2366. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000799
39.
MarianV.BartolottiJ.ChabalSShookA. (2012). CLEARPOND: Cross-Linguistic Easy-Access Resource for Phonological and Orthographic Neighborhood Densities. PLoS ONE, 7(8), e43230. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043230
40.
MassolS.GraingerJ.DufauS.HolcombP. (2010). Masked priming from orthographic neighbors: An ERP investigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(1), 162–174. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017614
41.
MatheyS. (2001). L’influence du voisinage orthographique lors de la reconnaissance des mots écrits [The influence of orthographic neighborhood on visual word recognition]. Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale / Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 1–23. https://doi.org/:10.1037/h0087349
42.
McClellandJ. L.RumelhartD. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88(5), 375–407.
43.
MeadeG.GraingerJ.MidgleyK. J.EmmoreyK.HolcombP. J. (2018). From sublexical facilitation to lexical competition: ERP effects of masked neighbor priming. Brain Research, 1685, 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2018.01.029
44.
MedeirosJ.DuñabeitiaJ. A. (2016). Not everybody sees the ness in the darkness: Individual differences in masked suffix priming. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 1585. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01585
45.
MidgleyK. J.HolcombP. J.Van HeuvenW. J. B.GraingerJ. (2008). An electrophysiological investigation of cross-language effects of orthographic neighborhood. Brain Research, 1246, 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2008.09.078
46.
MulderK.Van HeuvenW. J. B.DijkstraT. (2018). Revisiting the neighborhood: How L2 proficiency and neighborhood manipulation affect bilingual processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1860. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01860
NakayamaM.SearsC. R.LupkerS. J. (2008). Masked priming with orthographic neighbors: A test of the lexical competition assumption. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1236–1260. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.34.5.1236
49.
NewB.PallierC.FerrandL.MatosR. (2001). Une base de données lexicales du français contemporain sur internet: Lexique. L’année Psychologique [A lexical database for contemporary french : LEXIQUE], 101, 447–462. https://doi.org/10.3406/psy.2001.1341
50.
OganianY.ConradM.AryaniA.HeekerenH. R.SpalekK. (2016). Interplay of bigram frequency and orthographic neighborhood statistics in language membership decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(3), 578–596. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728915000292
51.
OrfanidouE.SumnerP. (2005). Language switching and the effects of orthographic specificity and response repetition. Memory and Cognition, 33(2), 355–369. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195323
52.
ParkJ.CardwellR.YuH.-T. (2020). Specifying the random effect structure in linear mixed effect models for analyzing psycholinguistic data. Methodology, 16(2), 92–111. https://doi.org/10.5964/meth.2809
53.
PereaM. (2015). Neighborhood effects in visual-word recognition and reading. In PollatsekA.TreimanR. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook on reading (pp. 76–87). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199324576.013.7
54.
PereaM.JiménezM.GómezP. (2014). A challenging dissociation in masked identity priming with the lexical decision task. Acta Psychologica, 148, 130–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.01.014
55.
PereaM.MarcetA.Vergara-MartínezP.GomezP. (2020). On the limits of familiarity accounts in lexical decision: The case of repetition effects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(3), 375–383.
56.
RatcliffR.GomezP.McKoonG. (2004). A diffusion model account of the Lexical Decision Task. Psychological Review, 111(1), 159–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.1.159
57.
SeguiJ.GraingerJ. (1990). Priming word recognition with orthographic neighbors: Effects of relative prime-target frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16(1), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.16.1.65
58.
VaidJ.Frenck-MestreC. (2002). Do orthographic cues aid language recognition? A laterality study with French- English bilinguals. Brain and Language, 82, 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00008-1
59.
Van HeuvenW. J. B.DijkstraT.GraingerJ. (1998). Orthographic neighborhood effects in bilingual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 458–483. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2584
60.
Van KesterenR.DijkstraT.de SmedtK. (2012). Markedness effects in Norwegian–English bilinguals: Task-dependent use of language-specific letters and bigrams. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 2129–2154. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.679946
61.
WestburyC.BuchananL. (2002). The probability of the least likely non-length- controlled bigram affects lexical decision reaction times. Brain and Language, 81(1–3), 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2001.2507
62.
WhitfordV.TitoneD. (2019). Lexical entrenchment and cross-language activation: Two sides of the same coin for bilingual reading across the adult lifespan. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22, 58–77. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891700054
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.
