Recent research has highlighted the role of word form in gender processing by integrating a dual-route mechanism for grammatical gender activation into the AUSTRAL (Activation Using Structurally Tiered Representations and Lemmas) model of lexical access previous models. However, prior research on this mechanism has mainly used explicit tasks with monolingual participants. Moreover, the contributions of semantic features to gender activation and retrieval in comprehension remain underexplored. This study investigated grammatical gender activation in French visual word recognition among Chinese-French bilinguals through two incremental masked priming experiments. Experiment 1 examined the sublexical route using phonologically transparent unfamiliar nouns, while Experiment 2 investigated lexical route and semantic influences, comparing gender-opaque simple nouns with semantic gender features to those with abstract gender features. Results revealed robust gender congruency effects for both gender-transparent and gender-opaque nouns at stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) from 80 ms onward, supporting sublexical and lexical routes in gender activation. Additionally, a semantic feedback mechanism was observed at longer SOAs, particularly for nouns with semantic gender features. These findings extend previous models by incorporating a semantic feedback mechanism for gender activation, offering a more comprehensive framework for understanding grammatical gender processing in language comprehension.
AfonsoO.DominguezA.ÁlvarezC. J.MoralesD. (2014). Sublexical and lexico-syntactic factors in gender access in Spanish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 43(1), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-012-9236-0.
2.
BatesD.MaechlerMBolkerB.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
3.
BatesE.DevescoviA.PizzamiglioL.D’amicoS.HernadezA. (1995). Gender and lexical access in Italian. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 847–862. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.5.1090
4.
BenderA.BellerS.KlauerK. C. (2016). Lady Liberty and Godfather Death as candidates for linguistic relativity? Scrutinizing the gender congruency effect on personified allegories with explicit and implicit measures. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(1), 48–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1021701
5.
BeyersmannE.IakimovaG.ZieglerJ. C.ColéP. (2014). Semantic processing during morphological priming: An ERP study. Brain Research, 1579, 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2014.07.010
6.
BordagD.OpitzA.PechmannT. (2006). Gender processing in first and second languages: The role of noun termination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 1090–1101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.5.1090
7.
BordagD.PechmannT. (2007). Factors influencing L2 gender processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(3), 299–314. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728907003082
BoudelaaS.Marslen-WilsonW. D. (2005). Discontinuous morphology in time: Incremental masked priming in Arabic. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20(1–2), 207–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960444000106
10.
CaramazzaA. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access?Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14(1), 177–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/026432997381664
11.
CasadoA.FerréP.PaolieriD. (2023). Gender congruency between languages influence second-language comprehension: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 68, 101156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2023.101156
12.
CasadoA.PalmaA.PaolieriD. (2018). The influence of sex information on gender word processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47(3), 557–583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-017-9546-3
13.
CaselliM. C.LeonardL. B.VolterraV.CampagnoliM. G. (1993). Toward mastery of Italian morphology: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Child Language, 20, 377–393. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900008333
14.
ChenJ.LinS. (2010). Effect of Chinese grammatical gender encoding tendency on French beginners’ grammatical gender recognition. Modern Foreign Languages (Quarterly), 33(4), 403–410.
15.
ClahsenH.FelserC.NeubauerK.SatoM.SilvaR. (2010). Morphological structure in native and nonnative language processing. Language Learning, 60(1), 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00550.x
16.
ColéP.PynteJ.AndriamamonjyP. (2003). Effect of grammatical gender on visual word recognition: Evidence from lexical decision and eye movement experiments. Perception & Psychophysics, 65(3), 407–419. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194572
17.
CorbettG. (1991). Gender. Cambridge University Press.
DankM.DeutschA. (2022). Phonological instantiation of grammatical gender in the course of production is sensitive to words’ internal structure. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76(8), 1760–1772. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218221125156
20.
de MartinoM.BraccoG.LaudannaA. (2011). The activation of grammatical gender information in processing Italian nouns. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(4–6), 745–776. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.491977
21.
de MartinoM.BraccoG.PostiglioneF.LaudannaA. (2017). The influence ofgrammatical gender and suffix transparency in processing Italian written nouns. The Mental Lexicon, 12, 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.12.1.05dem
22.
DesrochersA.BrabantM. (1995). Interaction entre facteurs phonologiques et sémantiques dans une épreuve de catégorisation lexicale [Interaction between phonological and semantic factors in a lexical categorization test]. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 49(2), 240–262. https://doi.org/10.1037/1196-1961.49.2.240
23.
DominguezA.SeguiJ.CuetosF. (2002). The time-course of inflexional morphological priming. Linguistics, 40, 395–419. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2002.011
24.
FeldmanL. B. (2000). Are morphological effects distinguishable from the effects of shared meaning and shared form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1431–1444. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.26.6.1431
25.
ForsterK. I.DavisC. (1984). Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 10, 680–698.
26.
Garrido-PozúJ. J. (2022). Predictive processing of grammatical gender: Using gender cues to facilitate processing in Spanish. Lingua, 278, 103416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2022.103416
27.
GollanT. H.FrostR. (2001). Two routes to grammatical gender: Evidence from Hebrew. Journal of Psycholinguist Research, 30(6), 627–651. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014235223566
28.
HarrisJ. (1991). The exponence of gender in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry, 22(1), 27–62.
29.
HernandezA. E.KotzS. A.HofmannJ.ValentinV. V.DaprettoM.BookheimerS. Y. (2004). The neural correlates of grammatical gender decision in Spanish. Neuroreport, 15(5), 863–866. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-200404090-00026
30.
HolcombP. J.GraingerJ. (2006). On the time course of visual word recognition: An event-related potential investigation using masked repetition priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(10), 1631–1643. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.10.1631.
31.
HolmesV. M.de la BâtieB. D. (1999). Assignment of grammatical gender by native speakers and foreign learners of French. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20(4), 479–506. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716499004026
32.
HolmesV. M.SeguiJ. (2004). Sublexical and lexical influences on gender assignment in French. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33(6), 425–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-004-2665-7
33.
HolmesV. M.SeguiJ. (2006). Assigning grammatical gender during word production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35(1), 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-005-9001-8
34.
KutasM.FedermeierK. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621–647. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123
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
37.
LauE.PhillipsC.PoeppelD. (2008). A cortical network for semantics: (De)constructing the N400. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 920–933. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2532
38.
LavricA.ElchleppH.RastleK. (2012). Tracking hierarchical processing in morphological decomposition with brain potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychologie: Human Perception Perform, 38, 811–816. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028960
39.
LemhöferK.SpalekK.SchriefersH. (2008). Cross-language effects of grammatical gender in bilingual word recognition and production. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(3), 312–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.06.005
40.
LeveltW. J. M.MeyerA. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x99001776
41.
LongtinC. M.SeguiJ.HalleP. (2003). Morphological priming without morphological relationship. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 313–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960244000036
Marslen-WilsonW. D.BozicM.RandallB. (2008). Early decomposition in visual word recognition: Dissociating morphology, form, and meaning. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(3), 394–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960701588004
44.
MatthewsC. (2010). On the nature of phonological cues in the acquisition of French gender categories: Evidence from instance-based learning models. Lingua, 120, 879–900. https://10.1016/j.lingua.2009.06.007
45.
MeunierF.LongtinC. M. (2007). Morphological decomposition and semantic integration in word processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 457–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.11.005
MorrisJ.GraingerJ.HolcombP. J. (2008). An electrophysiological investigation of early effects ofmasked morphological priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 1021–1056. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802299386
48.
MuellerJ. L. (2005). Electrophysiological correlates of second language processing. Second Language Research, 21(2), 152–174. https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658305sr256oa
49.
NewB.PallierC.BrysbaertM.FerrandL. (2004). Lexique 2: A new French lexical database. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 516–524. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195598
50.
PadovaniR.CacciariC. (2003). Il ruolo della trasparenza morfologica nel riconoscimento di parole in italiano. [The role of morphological transparency in word recognition in Italian] Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 30(4), 749–771.
51.
PaolieriD.JosepD.GuaschM.TeresaB.FerréP. (2020). The gender congruency effect in Catalan–Spanish bilinguals: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23, 1045–1055. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728920000073
52.
PaolieriD.PadillaF.KorenevaO.MoralesL.MacizoP. (2019). Gender congruency effects in Russian-Spanish and Italian-Spanish bilinguals: The role of language proximity and concreteness of words. Bilingualism, 22(1), 112–129. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728917000591
53.
PeeremanR.DufourS.BurtJ. S. (2009). Orthographic influences in spoken word recognition: The consistency effect in semantic and gender-categorization tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(2), 363–368. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.2.363
54.
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
55.
RastleK.DavisM. H.Marslen-WilsonW. D.TylerL. K. (2000). Morphological and semantic effects in visual word recognition: A time-course study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(4–5), 507–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960050119689
56.
RaynerK. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372
57.
Sá-LeiteA. R.LagoS. (2024). The role of word form in gender processing during lexical access: A theoretical review and novel proposal in language comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 31, 1934–1953. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02426-8
58.
Sá-LeiteA. R.LunaK.TomazÂ.FragaI.ComesañaM. (2022). The mechanisms underlying grammatical gender selection in language production: A meta-analysis of the gender congruency effect. Cognition, 224, 105060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105060
59.
SabourinL.StoweL. A.De HaanG. J. (2006). Transfer effects in learning a second language grammatical gender system. Second Language Research, 22(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658306sr259oa
60.
SalamouraA.WilliamsJ. N. (2007). The representation of grammatical gender in the bilingual lexicon: Evidence from Greek and German. Bilingualism, 10(3), 257–275. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728907003069
61.
SchillerN. O.CaramazzaA. (2003). Grammatical feature selection in noun phrase production: Evidence from German and Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 169–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00508-9
62.
SchreuderR.BaayenH. (1995). Modeling morphological processing. In FeldmanL. B. (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 131–154). Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates Inc.
63.
SerenoS. C.RaynerK. (2003). Measuring word recognition in reading: Eye movements and event-related potentials. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(11), 489–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.09.010
64.
SpalekK.FranckJ.SchriefersH.FrauenfelderU. H. (2008). Phonological regularities and grammatical gender retrieval in spoken word recognition and word production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 37, 419–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-008-9074-2
65.
TaftM. (1991). Reading and the mental lexicon. Erlbaum.
66.
TaftM. (1994). Interactive activation as a framework for understanding morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 271–294.
67.
TaftM. (2003). Morphological representation as a correlation between form and meaning. In AssinkE.SandraD. (Eds.), Reading complex words (pp. 113–137). Kluwer.
68.
TaftM. (2006). A localist-cum-distributed (LCD) framework for lexical processing. In AndrewsS. M. (Ed.), From ink-marks to ideas: Current issues in lexical processing (pp. 76–94). Psychology Press.
69.
TaftM. (2015). The nature of lexical representation in visual word recognition. In PollatsekA.TreimanR. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of reading (pp. 99–113). Oxford University Press.
70.
TaftM.MeunierF. (1998). Lexical representation of gender: A quasiregular domain. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27(1), 23–45. https://doi.org/10.1023/A
71.
TaftM.Nguyen-HoanM. (2010). A sticky stick? The locus of morphological representation in the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 277–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960903043261
72.
TantosA.NikolaosA.KonstantinosA.KosmasK. (2023). Exploring grammatical gender agreement in Russian learners of Greek: An eye-tracking study. Languages, 8(4), 265. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8040265
73.
UrrutiaM.DomínguezA.ÁlvarezC. J. (2009). Gender activation in transparent and opaque words. Psicothema, 21(1), 1–8.
74.
ViglioccoG.VinsonD. P.PaganelliF.DworzynskiK. (2005). Grammatical gender effects on cognition: Implications for learning and language use. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134(4), 501–520. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.134.4.501
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.
