Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-h4f6x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-17T19:32:27.367Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mixing the stimulus list in bilingual lexical decision turns cognate facilitation effects into mirrored inhibition effects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 November 2019

Flora Vanlangendonck ,
David Peeters ,
Shirley-Ann Rueschemeyer  and
Ton Dijkstra
Flora Vanlangendonck
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Nijmegen
David Peeters
Affiliation:
Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands; Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Shirley-Ann Rueschemeyer
Affiliation:
University of York, United Kingdom
Ton Dijkstra*
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
*
Address for correspondence: Ton Dijkstra, E-mail: t.dijkstra@donders.ru.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To test the BIA+ and Multilink models’ accounts of how bilinguals process words with different degrees of cross-linguistic orthographic and semantic overlap, we conducted two experiments manipulating stimulus list composition. Dutch–English late bilinguals performed two English lexical decision tasks including the same set of cognates, interlingual homographs, English control words, and pseudowords. In one task, half of the pseudowords were replaced with Dutch words, requiring a ‘no’ response. This change from pure to mixed language list context was found to turn cognate facilitation effects into inhibition. Relative to control words, larger effects were found for cognate pairs with an increasing cross-linguistic form overlap. Identical cognates produced considerably larger effects than non-identical cognates, supporting their special status in the bilingual lexicon. Response patterns for different item types are accounted for in terms of the items’ lexical representation and their binding to ‘yes’ and ‘no’ responses in pure vs mixed lexical decision.

Keywords

cognateinterlingual homographlexical decisionstimulus list compositionbilingualism

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 23 , Special Issue 4: Interpreting: A window into bilingual processing , August 2020 , pp. 836 - 844
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abutalebi, J and Green, DW (2016) Neuroimaging of language control in bilinguals: neural adaptation and reserve. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(4), 689–698.10.1017/S1366728916000225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adelman, JS, Johnson, RL, McCormick, SF, McKague, M, Kinoshita, S, Bowers, JS, Perry, JR, Lupker, SJ, Forster, KI, Cortese, MJ, Scaltritti, M, Aschenbrenner, AJ, Coane, JH, White, L, Yap, MJ, Davis, C, Kim, J and Davis, CJ (2014) A behavioral database for masked form priming. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 1052–1067.10.3758/s13428-013-0442-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biloushchenko, IB (2017) How trilinguals process cognates and interlingual homographs: The effects of activation, decision, and cognitive control. Doctoral thesis, University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
Brenders, P, van Hell, JG and Dijkstra, T (2011) Word recognition in child second language learners: Evidence from cognates and false friends. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109(4), 383–396.10.1016/j.jecp.2011.03.012CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brysbaert, M and New, B (2009) Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977–990.10.3758/BRM.41.4.977CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cop, U, Dirix, N, van Assche, E, Drieghe, D and Duyck, W (2017) Reading a book in one or two languages? An eye movement study of cognate facilitation in L1 and L2 reading. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20, 747–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, A, Caramazza, A and Sebastian-Galles, N (2000) The cognate facilitation effect: Implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(5), 1283–1296.Google ScholarPubMed
Cristoffanini, P, Kirsner, K and Milech, D (1986) Bilingual lexical representation: The status of Spanish–English cognates. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 38(3), 367–393.10.1080/14640748608401604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B. and Nas, GLJ (1991) Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates in compound bilinguals, Journal of Memory and Language, 30(1), 90–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T (2005) Bilingual visual word recognition and lexical access. In Kroll, J.F. & De Groot, A. (Eds), Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches (pp. 178–201). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T, Grainger, J and van Heuven, WJ (1999) Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(4), 496–518.10.1006/jmla.1999.2654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T, Miwa, K, Brummelhuis, B, Sappelli, M and Baayen, H (2010) How cross-language similarity and task demands affect cognate recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(3), 284–301.10.1016/j.jml.2009.12.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T and Rekké, S (2010) Towards a localist-connectionist model for word translation. The Mental Lexicon, 5(3), 403–422.10.1075/ml.5.3.08dijCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T and van Heuven, WJ (2002) The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(03), 175–197.10.1017/S1366728902003012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T, Van Jaarsveld, H and Ten Brinke, S (1998) Interlingual homograph recognition: Effects of task demands and language intermixing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(01), 51–66.10.1017/S1366728998000121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T, Wahl, A, Buytenhuijs, F, Van Halem, N, Al-jibouri, Z, De Korte, M and Rekké, S (2019) Multilink: a computational model for bilingual word recognition and word translation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(4), 657–679. doi:10.1017/S1366728918000287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerard, LD and Scarborough, DL (1989) Language-specific lexical access of homographs by bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(2), 305–315.Google Scholar
Keuleers, E, Brysbaert, M and New, B (2010) SUBTLEX-NL: A new frequency measure for Dutch words based on film subtitles. Behavior Research Methods, 42(3), 643–650.10.3758/BRM.42.3.643CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kroll, JF and Stewart, E (1994) Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149–174.10.1006/jmla.1994.1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemhöfer, K and Dijkstra, T (2004) Recognizing cognates and interlingual homographs: Effects of code similarity in language-specific and generalized lexical decision. Memory & Cognition, 32(4), 533–550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lemhöfer, K, Dijkstra, T and Michel, M (2004) Three languages, one ECHO: Cognate effects in trilingual word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19(5), 585–611.10.1080/01690960444000007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marian, V and Spivey, M (2003) Competing activation in bilingual language processing: Within-and between-language competition. Bilingualism Language and Cognition, 6(2), 97–116.10.1017/S1366728903001068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peeters, D, Dijkstra, T and Grainger, J (2013) The representation and processing of identical cognates by late bilinguals: RT and ERP effects. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 315–332. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.12.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peeters, D, Vanlangendonck, F, Rueschemeyer, S and Dijkstra, T (2019) Activation of the language control network in bilingual visual word recognition. Cortex, 111, 63–73.10.1016/j.cortex.2018.10.012CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poort, ED and Rodd, JM (2017) The cognate facilitation effect in bilingual lexical decision is influenced by stimulus list composition. Acta Psychologica, 180, 52–63.10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.08.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scarborough, DL, Gerard, L and Cortese, C (1984) Independence of lexical access in bilingual word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23(1), 84–99.10.1016/S0022-5371(84)90519-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Assche, E, Drieghe, D, Duyck, W, Welvaert, M and Hartsuiker, RJ (2011) The influence of semantic constraints on bilingual word recognition during sentence reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 64(1), 88–107.10.1016/j.jml.2010.08.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Hell, JG and Dijkstra, T (2002) Foreign language knowledge can influence native language performance in exclusively native contexts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 780–789.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Heuven, WJ and Dijkstra, T (2010) Language comprehension in the bilingual brain: fMRI and ERP support for psycholinguistic models. Brain research reviews, 64(1), 104–122.10.1016/j.brainresrev.2010.03.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Heuven, WJ, Schriefers, H, Dijkstra, T and Hagoort, P (2008) Language Conflict in the Bilingual Brain. Cerebral Cortex, 18(11), 2706–2716.10.1093/cercor/bhn030CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanlangendonck, F (2012) Conflict in the bilingual brain: The case of cognates and false friends. Proceedings of the Master's programme Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 61–78.Google Scholar
Voga, M and Grainger, J (2007) Cognate status and cross-script translation priming. Memory & Cognition, 35(5), 938–952.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: PDF

Vanlangendonck et al. supplementary material

Appendix

Download Vanlangendonck et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 93.4 KB