The influences of shared orthography, semantics, and phonology on bilingual cognate processing have been investigated extensively. However, mixed results have been found regarding the effects of phonological similarity on L2 cognate processing. In addition, most existing studies examining the influence of phonological similarity on cognate processing have been conducted on alphabetic scripts, in which phonology and orthography are always associated. Hence, in this study, we recruited Cantonese–Japanese bilinguals who used two logographic scripts, traditional Chinese and Japanese Kanji, to examine the influence of phonological similarity on L2 cognate lexical decision. Importantly, these scripts allow the manipulation of phonological similarity using identical characters across both languages. In addition, we examined how word frequency and L2 proficiency modulate cognate processing. Results showed that although word frequency and L2 proficiency played important roles in cognate processing, there was minimal overall influence of phonological similarity on cognate lexical decision. The latter finding suggests that theoretical models of bilingual word recognition may need to be refined to enhance our understanding of cognate processing regarding the role of phonology among diverse bilingual populations.
AikenL. S.WestS. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.
2.
AllenD. B.ConklinK. (2013). Cross-linguistic similarity and task demands in Japanese-English bilingual processing. PLOS ONE, 8(8), Article e72631. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0072631
3.
AllenD. BConklinK.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
4.
AndrasF.RiveraM.BajoT.DussiasP. E.PaolieriD. (2022). Cognate facilitation effect during auditory comprehension of a second language: A visual world eye-tracking study. International Journal of Bilingualism, 26(4), 405–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069211033359
5.
Audacity Team. (2012). Audacity(R) version 2.0.0.
6.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. 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
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
9.
BerentI.PerfettiC. A. (1995). A rose is a REEZ: The two-cycles model of phonology assembly in reading English. Psychological Review, 102(1), 146–184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.146
10.
BrauerM.CurtinJ. J. (2018). Linear mixed-effects models and the analysis of nonindependent data: A unified framework to analyze categorical and continuous independent variables that vary within-subjects and/or within-items. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 389–411. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000159
11.
BrysbaertM.StevensM. (2018). Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A tutorial. Journal of Cognition, 1(1), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.10
12.
BrysbaertM.Van DyckG.Van de PoelM. (1999). Visual word recognition in bilinguals: Evidence from masked phonological priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(1), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.25.1.137
13.
BultenaS.DijkstraT.Van HellJ. G. (2014). Cognate effects in sentence context depend on word class, L2 proficiency, and task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(6), 1214–1241. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.853090
14.
Carrasco-OrtizH.AmengualM.GriesS. T. (2021). Cross-language effects of phonological and orthographic similarity in cognate recognition: The role of language dominance. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 11(3), 389–417. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.18095.car
15.
CasaponsaA.AntónE.PérezA.DuñabeitiaJ. A. (2015). Foreign language comprehension achievement: Insights from the cognate facilitation effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 588. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00588
16.
ChangL.-Y.ChenY.-C.PerfettiC. A. (2018). GraphCom: A multidimensional measure of graphic complexity applied to 131 written languages. Behavior Research Methods, 50(1), 427–449. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0881-y
17.
ChengC.-M. (1992). Lexical access in Chinese: Evidence from automatic activation of phonological information. Advances in Psychology, 90, 67–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0166-4115(08)61887-7
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
20.
de GrootA. M. B.DelmaarP.LupkerS. J. (1999). The processing of interlexical homographs in translation recognition and lexical decision: Support for non-selective access to bilingual memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53(2), 397–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/713755891
21.
DijkstraT.GraingerJ.Van HeuvenW. J. (1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(4), 496–518. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2654
22.
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
23.
DijkstraT.Van HeuvenW. (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
24.
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
25.
DongJ.LiA.ChenC.QuJ.JiangN.SunY.HuL.MeiL. (2021). Language distance in orthographic transparency affects cross-language pattern similarity between native and non-native languages. Human Brain Mapping, 42(4), 893–907. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25266
26.
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, Article 12812. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92259-z
27.
FrostR. (2005). Orthographic systems and skilled word recognition processes in reading. In SnowlingM. J.HulmeC. (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 272–295). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757642.ch15
28.
FunderD. C.OzerD. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847202
29.
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(5), 1122–1139. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.23.5.1122
30.
HaighC. A.JaredD. (2007). The activation of phonological representations by bilinguals while reading silently: Evidence from interlingual homophones. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(4), 623–644. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.4.623
31.
HayakawaK.YuS.ChuX.TamaokaK. (2017). Nitityuu niji Kanjigo niokeru kyakkanteki onin ruijisei sihyoo: Syukanteki onin ruijisei sihyoo to no hikaku [Objective indexes of phonological similarity between Japanese and Chinese two-Kanji compound words: A comparative study on objective and subjective indexes]. Kwanseigakuindaigaku Nihongo Kyooiku Senta Kiyoo [Bulletin of the Center for Japanese Language Education Kwansei Gakuin University], 6, 21–34. http://hdl.handle.net/10236/00025910
32.
HinoY.KusunoseY.LupkerS. J.JaredD. (2013). The processing advantage and disadvantage for homophones in lexical decision tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(2), 529–551. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029122
33.
HsiehM.-C.JeongH.KawataK. H. D. S.SasakiY.LeeH.-C.YokoyamaS.SugiuraM.KawashimaR. (2017). Neural correlates of bilingual language control during interlingual homograph processing in a logogram writing system. Brain and Language, 174, 72–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2017.06.006
34.
HsiehM.-C.JeongH.SugiuraM.KawashimaR. (2021). Neural evidence of language membership control in bilingual word recognition: An fMRI study of cognate processing in Chinese–Japanese bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 643211. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.643211
35.
InoueT.ZhengM.LuiK. F. H.McBrideC.HoC. S.-H. (2023). Early literacy acquisition in logographic orthographies: Evidence from Chinese and Japanese. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 63, 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.11.009
KassR. E.RaffertyA. E. (1995). Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(430), 773–795.
38.
KatzL.FrostR. (1992). The reading process is different for different orthographies: The orthographic depth hypothesis. In FrostR.KatzL. (Eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning (pp. 67–84). North-Holland. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62789-2
39.
KimJ.DavisC. (2003). Task effects in masked cross-script translation and phonological priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(4), 484–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-596x(03)00093-7
40.
KodaK. (2017). Learning to read Japanese. In VerhoevenL.PerfettiC. (Eds.), Learning to read across languages and writing systems (pp. 31–56). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316155752.003
41.
KroghS. M. (2022). Danish-English bilinguals’ cognate processing in L1 and L2 visual lexical decision tasks. Languages, 7(3), 228. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7030228
42.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. (2017). LmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
43.
LaiR.WintersteinG. (2020, May). Cifu: A frequency lexicon of Hong Kong Cantonese. In Proceedings of the 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (pp. 3069–3077). European Language Resources Association.
44.
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
45.
LiuC.LupkerS. J.NakayamaM. (2022). Masked cognate priming effects with Chinese–Japanese bilinguals: Still no phonological facilitation for cognates with different scripts. Studies in Language Sciences, 20(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.34609/sls.20.1_1
46.
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
47.
LorahJ. (2018). Effect size measures for multilevel models: Definition, interpretation, and TIMSS example. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 6(1), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-018-0061-2
48.
LupkerS. J.NakayamaM.PereaM. (2015). Is there phonologically based priming in the same−different task? Evidence from Japanese−English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(5), 1281–1299. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000087
49.
MatuschekH.KlieglR.VasishthS.BaayenH.BatesD. (2017). Balancing Type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.001
50.
McBride-ChangC.ShuH.ZhouA.WatC. P.WagnerR. K. (2003). Morphological awareness uniquely predicts young children’s Chinese character recognition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 743–751. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.743
51.
MidgleyK. J.HolcombP. J.GraingerJ. (2011). Effects of cognate status on word comprehension in second language learners: An ERP investigation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(7), 1634–1647. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21463
MiwaK.DijkstraT.BolgerP.BaayenR. H. (2014). Reading English with Japanese in mind: Effects of frequency, phonology, and meaning in different-script bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(3), 445–463. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728913000576
54.
MoritaA.TamaokaK. (2002). Phonological involvement in the processing of Japanese at the lexical and sentence levels. Reading and Writing, 15(7–8), 633–651. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1020912217035
55.
NakagawaS.SchielzethH. (2013). A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4(2), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x
56.
NakayamaM. (2002). The cognate status effect in lexical processing by Chinese-Japanese bilinguals. Psychologia, 45(3), 184–192. https://doi.org/10.2117/psysoc.2002.184
57.
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
58.
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, 25(8), 949–981. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.839560
59.
NakayamaM.VerdonschotR. G.SearsC. R.LupkerS. J. (2014). The masked cognate translation priming effect for different-script bilinguals is modulated by the phonological similarity of cognate words: Further support for the phonological account. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26(7), 714–724. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2014.953167
60.
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
61.
PerfettiC. A.BellL. (1991). Phonemic activation during the first 40 ms of word identification: Evidence from backward masking and priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(4), 473–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(91)90017-E
62.
PerfettiC. A.DunlapS. (2008). Learning to read: General principles and writing system variations. In KodaK.ZehlerA. M. (Eds.), Learning to read across languages: Crosslinguistic relationships in first- and second-language literacy development (pp. 13–38). Lawrence Erlbaum.
63.
PerfettiC. A.ZhangS. (1995). Very early phonological activation in Chinese reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(1), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.1.24
64.
PexmanP. M.LupkerS. J.JaredD. (2001). Homophone effects in lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(1), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.27.1.139
R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
67.
RosselliM.ArdilaA.JuradoM. B.SalvatierraJ. L. (2014). Cognate facilitation effect in balanced and non-balanced Spanish–English bilinguals using the Boston Naming Test. International Journal of Bilingualism, 18(6), 649–662. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006912466313
68.
SchepensJ.DijkstraT.GrootjenF. (2012). Distributions of cognates in Europe as based on Levenshtein distance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(1), 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728910000623
69.
ShuH.AndersonR. C. (1997). Role of radical awareness in the character and word acquisition of Chinese children. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(1), 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.32.1.5
70.
SullivanG. M.FeinnR. (2012). Using effect size—Or why the P value is not enough. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4(3), 279–282. https://doi.org/10.4300/jgme-d-12-00156.1
71.
TamaokaK.MakiokaS.SandersS.VerdonschotR. G. (2017). www.Kanjidatabase.com: A new interactive online database for psychological and linguistic research on Japanese Kanji and their compound words. Psychological Research, 81(3), 696–708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0764-3
72.
TaylorI.TaylorM. M. (2014). Writing and literacy in Chinese, Korean and Japanese: Revised edition (Vol. 14). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.3
73.
TimmerK.GanushchakL. Y.MitlinaY.SchillerN. O. (2014). Trial by trial: Selecting first or second language phonology of a visually masked word. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(9), 1059–1069. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.824994
74.
Van HellJ. G.DijkstraT. (2002). Foreign language knowledge can influence native language performance in exclusively native contexts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 780–789. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196335
75.
VerdonschotR. G.La HeijW.TamaokaK.KiyamaS.YouW. P.SchillerN. O. (2013). The multiple pronunciations of Japanese Kanji: A masked priming investigation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(10), 2023–2038. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.773050
76.
VerhoevenL.PerfettiC. (2022). Universals in learning to read across languages and writing systems. Scientific Studies of Reading, 26(2), 150–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2021.1938575
77.
VogaM.GraingerJ. (2007). Cognate status and cross-script translation priming. Memory & Cognition, 35(5), 938–952. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193467
78.
WagenmakersE.-J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(5), 779–804. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194105
79.
WassersteinR. L.LazarN. A. (2016). The ASA statement on p -values: Context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician, 70(2), 129–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108
80.
WielingM.MargarethaE.NerbonneJ. (2012). Inducing a measure of phonetic similarity from pronunciation variation. Journal of Phonetics, 40(2), 307–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2011.12.004
WydellT. N.PattersonK. E.HumphreysG. W. (1993). Phonologically mediated access to meaning for Kanji: Is a rows still a rose in Japanese Kanji?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(3), 491–514. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.19.3.491
83.
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, Article 100911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2020.100911
84.
YuS.KimJ.TamaokaK. (2018, May). Nizi kanzigo no onin ruizisei oninteki kyori ni kansuru nikkantyuuetu deetabeesu no onrain kensaku enzin no kootiku [Constructing a web-accessible search engine for the database of phonological similarity and phonological distances for orthographically—similar two-Kanji compound words among Japanese, Korean, Chinese and Vietnamese] [Paper presentation]. Nihongo Kyooiku Gakkai Syunki Taikai [The Conference in Spring 2018 on Teaching Japanese as a Foreign Language], Tokyo, Japan.
85.
ZhangJ.WuC.ZhouT.MengY. (2019). Cognate facilitation priming effect is modulated by writing system: Evidence from Chinese-English bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism, 23(2), 553–566. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006917749062
86.
ZhouH.ChenB.YangM.DunlapS. (2010). Language nonselective access to phonological representations: Evidence from Chinese–English bilinguals. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(10), 2051–2066. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470211003718705
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.
