Masked translation priming with Japanese–English bilinguals: Interactions between cognate status, target frequency and L2 proficiency

Non-cognate translation priming effects in the same–different task: evidence for the impact of “higher level” information

“…In contrast, different-script bilinguals tend to show much more robust non-cognate translation priming effects in lexical decision (Gollan et al, 1997;Jiang, 1999;Jiang & Forster, 2001;Kim & Davis, 2003;Nakayama et al, 2013;Voga & Grainger, 2007). For example, Nakayama et al (2013, Experiment 1) reported a 71 ms priming effect for low-frequency English (L2) words and a 46 ms priming effect for high-frequency English words when primed by Japanese (L1) Kanji primes, effects that the authors attributed to the semantic relationship between the primes and targets.…”

Making sense of the Sense Model

“…A recent study (Nakayama et al, 2013) did reveal cognate priming in the L2 to L1 direction with a lexical decision task and with Japanese-English bilinguals. In their study, both high and low proficiency bilinguals demonstrated significant priming effects (30ms and 15 ms, respectively).…”

“…In their study, both high and low proficiency bilinguals demonstrated significant priming effects (30ms and 15 ms, respectively). In Nakayama et al (2013), an L2 proficiency measure derived from a formal language test (TOEIC test of English proficiency) was used while in the present study we used self-ratings, meaning the proficiency measures are not directly comparable. However, judging from the mean RTs in the L1 to L2 task (regardless of priming condition), it appears that their bilinguals had higher L2 proficiency than those in the present study (Nakayama et al, mean RT for all participants = 634 ms; low proficiency= 644 ms; high proficiency = 623 ms; present study = 736 ms).…”

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

“…Typically, responses are significantly faster and more accurate when the targets are primed by translation equivalents than by unrelated words. Moreover, this facilitation effect is significantly larger for CTEs than for NCTEs (e.g., Davis et al, 2010;Duñabeitia et al, 2010;Gollan et al, 1997;Nakayama et al, 2013), a finding referred to as the cognate priming advantage. Worth noting, however, is that most of this research employed same-script bilinguals, and therefore CTEs were always orthographically, phonologically and conceptually similar (e.g., the Spanish-English words, limón-lemon) whereas NCTEs were only conceptually similar (e.g., manzana-apple).…”

“…For these bilinguals, CTEs are only phonologically and conceptually similar. Despite the lack of orthographic similarity between CTEs for differentscript bilinguals, there is ample evidence that these individuals also show a cognate priming advantage (e.g., Gollan et al, 1997;Nakayama et al, 2013;Voga & Grainger, 2007; but see Kim & Davis, 2003). 1 One theoretical framework proposed to explain the cognate priming advantage is Voga and Grainger's (2007) phonological account.…”