Effects of Concreteness on Cross-Language Priming in Lexical Decisions

Young-Sun, Jin

doi:10.2466/pms.70.3.1139-1154

Cited by 24 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When the lexical decisions were primed with immediately preceding translation equivalents, more facilitation was observed than when they were primed with between-language associates (Chen & Ng, 1989;de Groot & Nas, 1991;Jin, 1990). These and additional studies also showed that translation-equivalent primes facilitated lexical decisions relative to unrelated primes under normal (Altarriba, 1992;Frenck-Mestre & Vaid, 1992;Gollan, Forster, & Frost, 1997;Keatley et al, 1994;Williams, 1994) or deadline (Keatley & de Gelder, 1992) testing procedures.…”

Section: Immediate Priming Of Lexical Decisionsmentioning

confidence: 49%

“…° Translation equivalents also yielded more priming than between-language associates. guage exhibited substantial facilitation across languages relative to unrelated primes at several SOAs ranging from 60 ms to 4.5 s (Chen & Ng, 1989;de Groot & Nas, 1991;Grainger & Beauvillain, 1988;Jin, 1990;Keatley & de Gelder, 1992, Experiment 1; Keatley, Spinks, & de Gelder, 1994 8 ; Kirsner et al, 1984 9 ; Schwanenflugel & Rey, 1986;Tzelgov & Eben-Ezra, 1992;Williams, 1994). Between-language facilitation was substantial relative to unprimed targets at an SOA of 500 ms (Frenck & Pynte, 1987).…”

Section: Immediate Priming Of Lexical Decisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cognitive integration of language and memory in bilinguals: Semantic representation.

Francis

1999

Psychological Bulletin

205

148

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding cognitive research on the integration of 2 languages in bilingual memory is difficult because of the different terminology, methodology, analysis, and interpretation strategies that scholars with different backgrounds bring to the research. These studies can be usefully categorized on 2 dimensions: memory for verbal experience versus linguistic knowledge, and systemwise versus pairwise issues. Experimental findings in this area converge on the conclusion that at the word meaning/ conceptual level, both episodic and linguistic memory can be characterized as shared at the systems level and at least partly shared at the pairwise translation-equivalent level. Interpretation problems that stem from weak hypothesis testing structure and from covert translation can be minimized by using appropriate design and analysis techniques.Simply put, bilingualism, or using two languages to communicate, is a tool that allows people with different languages to exchange information. A biblical account of the origin of the world's many languages is given in the Old Testament story of the Tower of Babel, where it is written that God divided the tower's builders by giving them different languages. Without a common language with which to communicate, the builders failed in their goal of constructing the tower. Ironically, a similar situation has arisen in research on bilingualism in that researchers may be lacking a common language. This division has come about not because of any divine intervention but because researchers talk about the phenomena differently or "speak different languages," thereby introducing confusion in the research community. A translator is needed to clarify the links between these different research languages to assist researchers in understanding one another and to facilitate the building of research in this field.Cognitive psychologists, especially those with an informationprocessing perspective, try to clarify the organization of the mental representations and processes involved in thought. These representations and processes are, of course, fundamental to the structure and processes of language as well. An important debate relating to bilingualism focuses on whether two languages access one common or two separate conceptual systems. A cursory reading of the literature would suggest that there is evidence for both views. In this review, however, we see that the preponderance of evidence favors a single conceptual system and that there is little if any evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, the data from many A preliminary version of this article formed part of my doctoral dissertation completed at the University of California, Los Angeles. I especially thank Nancy Henley for her comments, suggestions, and discussions through the early stages of this project. Thanks also to Tom Wickens, Ward O'Neill, and Allan Paivio for their helpful comments on previous versions of the manuscript and to John Gabrieli for making resources available for its completion.Correspondence concerning this article shoul...

show abstract

Section: Immediate Priming Of Lexical Decisionsmentioning

confidence: 49%

Section: Immediate Priming Of Lexical Decisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive integration of language and memory in bilinguals: Semantic representation.

Francis

1999

Psychological Bulletin

205

148

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Chen and Leung 1989;Jin 1990;Sánchez Casas et al 1992; de Groot and Nas 1991;de Groot 1992de Groot , 1993Kroll and Stewart 1994). These data suggest that phonological and semantic cognates are more closely associated than noncognate translation equivalents, but that purely phonological cognates (false cognates) appear to behave like noncognates on a number of psycholinguistic tasks, such as cued translation, word and picture naming, and priming using translation, repetition and semantic associates.…”

Section: The Role Of Cognates In Vocabulary Developmentmentioning

confidence: 83%

The automatic cognate form assumption: Evidence for the parasitic model of vocabulary development

Hall

2002

IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In general, bilingual speakers/readers, like monolinguals, show concreteness effects (more accurate or faster performance with concrete than abstract words) across a range of tasks, including word association, priming, free recall, lexical decision and bilingual translation, among others [38,48,49]. Moreover, cross language priming is reportedly greater for concrete than abstract word pairs [15]. In addition, the overlap in associates given in response to single words in both L1 and L2 is greater when the eliciting word refers to a manipulable, concrete object than when it refers to an abstract state or emotion [22,48].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Processing semantic anomalies in two languages: an electrophysiological exploration in both languages of Spanish–English bilinguals

Moreno

Kutas

2005

Cognitive Brain Research

155

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The latency of the brain response to semantic anomalies (N400 effect) has been found to be longer in a bilingual's second language (L2) than in their first language (L1) and/or to that seen in monolinguals. This has been explained in terms of late exposure to L2, although age of exposure and language proficiency are often highly correlated. We thus examined the relative contributions of these factors not only in L2 but also in L1 in a group of Spanish-English bilinguals for whom age of exposure and language proficiency were not highly correlated by recording event-related brain potentials (ERPs) to semantically congruous/incongruous words completing written sentences. We also divided our bilinguals into a Spanish-dominant subset who had late exposure and reduced vocabulary proficiency [as measured by Boston Naming Test (BNT) and Verbal Fluency Scores] in L2 (English) relative to L1 (Spanish) and an English-dominant group who had early exposure to both their languages although greater proficiency in English than in Spanish. In both groups, the N400 effect was significantly later in the nondominant than the dominant language. Although this slowing could be due to late exposure to English in the Spanish-dominant group, late exposure cannot explain the slowing in Spanish in the English-dominant group. Overall, we found that vocabulary proficiency and age of exposure are both important in determining the timing of semantic integration effects during written sentence processing-with vocabulary proficiency predicting the timing of semantic analysis in L1 and both age of exposure and language proficiency, although highly correlated, making additional small but uncorrelated contributions to the speed of semantic analysis/ integration in L2. D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.Theme: Neural basis of behavior Topic: Cognition

show abstract

Effects of Concreteness on Cross-Language Priming in Lexical Decisions

Cited by 24 publications

References 19 publications

Cognitive integration of language and memory in bilinguals: Semantic representation.

Cognitive integration of language and memory in bilinguals: Semantic representation.

The automatic cognate form assumption: Evidence for the parasitic model of vocabulary development

Processing semantic anomalies in two languages: an electrophysiological exploration in both languages of Spanish–English bilinguals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About