Limitations of translation activation in masked priming: Behavioural evidence from Chinese-English bilinguals and computational modelling

Abstract

Electrophysiological and behavioural evidence suggests that Chinese translations of English words are automatically activated when Chinese-English bilinguals read English words (e.g.,

Literacy in Contact and in Context

“…However, it is not clear if models extend to monolingual speakers learning non-alphabetic scripts (GUAN & WEEKES, 2019) and losing literacy through brain damage or even healthy aging (LEUNG, et al, 2012;WEEKES, 2000WEEKES, , 2005WEEKES, , 2012CHEN;YIN, 1997;WE-EKES;CHEN;LIN, 1998;WEEKES e CHEN, 1999;WEEKES et al, 2006a;WEEKES et al, 2006b;YIN e WEEKES, 2003;HE;WEEKES, 2005). Equally, such models are not well equipped to explain the acquisition and loss of literacy in bilingual mono-scriptal speakers (VAN HEUVEN et al, 2018;WEEKES et al, 2013;RAMAN e WEEKES, 2003;2005a;2005b;WILSON et al, 2007) or bi-scriptal, (BÉLAND e MIMOUNI, 2001;BYNG et al, 1984;DRUKS et al, 2012;ENG e OBLER, 2002;RAMAN e WEEKES, 2003, 2005a2005b;WEEKES, 2007;WILSON et al 2012). Sasanuma and Park 1995…”

The need for a universal computational model of bilingual word recognition and word translation

“…Based on the RHM's assumption of stronger lexical links from the second language (L2) to the first language (L1) than from L1 to L2, stronger masked translation priming effects from L2 to L1 are predicted than vice versa (Brysbaert & Duyck, 2010), which is inconsistent with the findings in the literature that revealed stronger L1 to L2 than L2 to L1 translation priming effects (for a recent meta-analysis, see Wen & van Heuven, 2017). Masked translation priming effects have already been successfully simulated with computational models (Wen & van Heuven, 2018; Zhao & Li, 2013). Thus, to capture the masked translation priming asymmetry is a crucial test of the model.…”

“…An important advantage of computational modelling is the ability to compare model variants (e.g., with or without crucial connections or by varying parameters, see for example, Wen & van Heuven, 2018) in order to understand the mechanisms that allow the model to account for empirical findings. The model-to-model comparisons in Dijkstra et al (2018) are limited to comparing Multilink to other models.…”

Modelling bilingual lexical processing: A research agenda and desiderabilia

“…There is also evidence that even for reading bilinguals with non-overlapping scripts, phonological and semantic representations of both associated languages can still be co-activated at some time during lexical access (e.g., Gollan, Forster & Frost, 1997, for Hebrew–English; Kim & Davis, 2003, for Korean–English; Nakayama, Sears, Hino & Lupker, 2012, for Japanese–English; Wen & van Heuven, 2018, for Chinese–English). For instance, in line with the study by Kim (2017) that Jiang (2018) refers to, Miwa, Dijkstra, Bolger, and Baayen (2014) discussed an extension of the BIA+ model that explains cognate effects in Japanese–English bilinguals processing English words.…”

“…In this way, the English word coffee /khɔfi/ can sublexically activate part of its Japanese equivalent /koohii/ (with the double vowels representing a moraic long vowel). In other words, cognate effects still arise, but their locus may be different from that in alphabetic scripts (see Wen & van Heuven, 2018, for a symbolic implementation of repetition priming effects between Chinese and English). Thus, in contrast to Mishra (2018), we argue that Multilink (as well as BIA+) is clearly relevant “for those researchers who are trying to understand the psycholinguistics and cognitive processes of bilinguals whose languages often belong to different language families.”…”