On the time course of accessing meaning in a second language: An electrophysiological and behavioral investigation of translation recognition.

Abstract

In 2 experiments, relatively proficient Chinese–English bilinguals decided whether Chinese words were the correct translations of English words. Critical trials were those on which incorrect translations were related in lexical form or meaning to the correct translation. In Experiment 1, behavioral interference was revealed for both distractor types, but event-related potentials (ERPs) revealed a different time course for the 2 conditions. Semantic distractors elicited effects primarily on the N400 and late positive component (LPC), with a smaller N400 and a smaller LPC over the posterior scalp but a larger LPC over the anterior scalp relative to unrelated controls. In contrast, translation form distractors elicited a larger P200 and a larger LPC than did unrelated controls. To determine whether the translation form effects were enabled by the relatively long, 750-ms stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between words, a 2nd ERP experiment was conducted using a shorter, 300-ms, SOA. The behavioral results revealed interference for both types of distractors, but the ERPs again revealed different loci for the 2 effects. Taken together, the data suggest that proficient bilinguals activate 1st-language translations of words in the 2nd language after they have accessed the meaning of those words. The implications of this pattern for claims about the nature of cross-language activation when bilinguals read in 1 or both languages are discussed.

Determinants of translation ambiguity

“…The finding that meaning dominance in the L2 influences translation choices above and beyond these L1 factors implies that these bilinguals access L2 meaning directly. This pattern is consistent with models postulating direct access to meaning from L2 words (e.g., Brysbaert & Duyck, 2010; for recent evidence see Guo et al, 2012), and a common semantic/conceptual system subserving both languages (Kroll & Stewart, 1994; Van Hell & De Groot, 1998). Future research can track the development of meaning access through the L2 by examining the sensitivity of less proficient bilinguals to the meaning dominance structure when translating from L2 to L1.…”

“…In addition, for semantically ambiguous words, we examine if dominant meanings in the source language tend to be translated more often than subordinate meanings. If indeed source language semantic properties predict translation choices, this would provide evidence for semantic involvement in single-word translation processes (Brysbeart & Duyck, 2010; Guo, Misra, Tam, & Kroll, 2012; Kroll, van Hell, Tokowicz, & Green, 2010). In particular, assuming both direct lexical links between L2 and L1 words and conceptually mediated links between words in the two languages (e.g., The Revised Hierarchical Model, Kroll & Stewart, 1994), traces of source language semantic properties during translation would support reliance on conceptually mediated links.…”

Clitic pronouns reveal the time course of processing gender and number in a second language

“…For each time window, a series of repeated-measures ANOVAs was performed on mean amplitude values with Gender (Correct; Incorrect) and Number (Correct; Incorrect) as factors. Also, based on the topographical distribution of electrodes in the montage, and in line with previous studies performed in our labs in which the same ERP protocol was used (i.e., Guo, Misra, Tam, & Kroll, 2012; Misra, Guo, Bobb, & Kroll, 2012), separate repeated-measures analyses of variance were performed for the midline electrode sites and two lateral sites. For the midline sites, four levels of electrode site (Oz, Pz, Cz, Fz) were included as a variable.…”

The Influence of Cultural Context on Language Activation in Korean-English Bilinguals

“…This extra cost in integrating lexical information with semantic representations would account for the larger LPC, a finding present in other research as well (e.g. Guo et al, 2012). English bicultural items would activate English labels, and thus when hearing English, processing costs to make a decision are reduced as reflected in a smaller LPC.…”