Automatic phonological activation during visual word recognition in bilingual children: A cross-language masked priming study in grades 3 and 5

Sauval, Karinne; Perre, Laetitia; Duncan, Lynne G.; Marinus, Eva; Casalis, Séverine

doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2016.10.003

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results are in line with previous studies on cognate facilitation in bilingual children's vocabulary acquisition (Bosma et al, 2019;Comesaña et al, 2012Comesaña et al, , 2019Kelley & Kohnert, 2012;Malabonga et al, 2008;Méndez Pérez et al, 2010;Proctor & Mo, 2009;Schelletter, 2002;Tonzar et al, 2009;Valente et al, 2018), picture naming (Poarch & van Hell, 2012), lexical decision (Brenders et al, 2011;Sauval et al, 2017;Schröter & Schroeder, 2016;Valente et al, 2018), and translation recognition (Duñabeitia et al, 2016) as well as with previous research on cognate facilitation in bilingual adults' sentence reading (Bultena et al, 2014;Duyck et al, 2007;Van Assche et al, 2011. In addition, they support the observation that the degree of cross-language activation depends on children's (reading) proficiency in the non-target language (Brenders et al, 2011;Malabonga et al, 2008;Méndez Pérez et al, 2010).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…For children, but not adults, this effect was gradual: they performed better on cognate items with a larger degree of orthographic and phonological overlap between the L1 and the L2 (Valente et al, 2018). In addition, in a lexical decision task with cross-language phonological priming, French word recognition in 8-and 10-year-old early bilinguals was facilitated by the presentation of English phonological primes (Sauval, Perre, Duncan, Marinus, & Casalis, 2017). Furthermore, 8-year-old L1 English children who were enrolled in a French immersion program where they were learning to read simultaneously in English and French made fewer errors on cognate items than on non-cognate items in a French single-word reading-aloud task but not in an English one.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…More specifically, we investigated whether bilingual children make use of their dominant reading language (Dutch) while reading in their non-dominant reading language (Frisian) and vice versa. Because previous research has shown cognate facilitation in bilingual children's vocabulary acquisition (Bosma et al, 2019;Kelley & Kohnert, 2012;Malabonga et al, 2008), bilingual children's single-word reading (Brenders et al, 2011;Duñabeitia et al, 2016;Jared et al, 2011;Sauval et al, 2017;Schröter & Schroeder, 2016;Valente et al, 2018) and in bilingual adults' sentence reading (Bultena et al, 2014;Duyck et al, 2007;Van Assche et al, 2009, we also expected a cognate facilitation effect in bilingual children's sentence reading. We hypothesized that the effect would be larger in Frisian than in Dutch because Frisian is the children's non-dominant reading language.…”

Section: The Frisian-dutch Bilingual Contextmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Cognate facilitation in Frisian–Dutch bilingual children’s sentence reading: An eye-tracking study

Bosma

Nota

2020

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bilingual adults are faster in reading cognates than in reading noncognates in both their first language (L1) and second language (L2). This cognate effect has been shown to be gradual: recognition was facilitated when words had higher degrees of cross-linguistic similarity. The aim of the current study was to investigate whether cognate facilitation can also be observed in bilingual children's sentence reading. To answer this question, a group of Frisian-Dutch bilingual children (N = 37) aged 9-12 years completed a reading task in both their languages. All children had Dutch as their dominant reading language, but most of them spoke mainly Frisian at home. Identical cognates (e.g., Dutch-Frisian boek-boek 'book'), non-identical cognates (e.g., beam-boom 'tree'), and non-cognates (e.g., beppe-oma 'grandmother') were presented in sentence context, and eye movements were recorded. The results showed a non-gradual cognate facilitation effect in Frisian: identical cognates were read faster than non-identical cognates and noncognates. In Dutch, no cognate facilitation effect could be observed. This suggests that bilingual children use their dominant reading language while reading in their non-dominant one, but not vice versa.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: The Frisian-dutch Bilingual Contextmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cognate facilitation in Frisian–Dutch bilingual children’s sentence reading: An eye-tracking study

Bosma

Nota

2020

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a meta-analysis, Ehri and colleagues (2001) demonstrate the importance of early phonological training: children who received training before age seven showed the greatest corresponding benefit in word reading. Rapid, automatic phonological activation appears to be a characteristic of skilled reading, as measured by stronger pseudo-homophone (nonwords, sharing phonology of real words) priming effects among older readers and those with higher scores on standardized reading measures (Booth, Perfetti, & Macwhinney, 1999;Sauval, Perre, Duncan, Marinus, & Casalis, 2017). Skilled readers more rapidly and automatically activate phonological representations from written words .…”

Section: Behavioral Support For the Triangle Modelmentioning

confidence: 95%

Reading skill correlates in frontal cortex during semantic and phonological processing

Brozdowski¹,

Booth²

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies have generally shown that reading skill is related to a left hemisphere network involving temporal, parietal, or frontal components. A limitation of many of these studies, however, is the neuroimaging of a single reading task, so we know less about how skill modulates the engagement of reading network during various reading tasks. Within the connectionist model, reading engages both phonological and semantic processing regardless of whether it is for pronunciation or meaning. Both target [i.e., ortho-phonological (OP) or ortho-semantic (OS) ] and non-target [i.e., ortho-phono-semantic (OPS) or ortho-sem-phonological (OSP)] paths are likely simultaneously involved in reading. However, readers may vary in their division of labor across target and non-target paths as a function of task and reading skill. Therefore, the goal of the current study was to examine how skill modulates the neural mechanism of reading depending on the task. Children (aged 8 to 15) were given two reading tasks, namely, a rhyming judgment task tapping into orthographic-to-phonological mapping and a meaning judgment task tapping into orthographic-to-semantic mapping. Brain activation during these two reading tasks was then correlated with reading skill. Consistent with previous research showing functional separation of the dorsal versus ventral left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), we found that better readers showed greater engagement of the opercularis for the rhyming task, whereas they showed a trend for greater engagement of the triangularis for the meaning task. A novel component of the study was to determine whether these skill related regions identified during the reading tasks were also correlated with activation during parallel rhyming and meaning tasks in the auditory modality. We found that better readers only reliably showed greater engagement of opercularis during auditory phonological processing, but there were trends for overall greater engagement of frontal regions with increasing skill. We did not find evidence for compensatory mechanisms for lower skill readers, either in the left or right hemisphere. Taken together, our study suggests some specificity of the frontal cortex for phonological versus semantic processing during reading, but that more effective access to posterior representations by the frontal cortex seems to be a general characteristic of better readers

show abstract

“…Phonological processing is a fundamental step in lexical access, not only obligatory in oral communication but also involved more than it seems to be in visual word recognition. Although phonological activation in monolingual visual word recognition is well established (see Rastle & Brysbaert, 2006, for a review), and cross-language phonological activation has been obtained among bilinguals with alphabetic languages (e.g., Carrasco-Ortiz et al, 2012; Jouravlev et al, 2014; Sauval et al, 2017), it is less clear whether the activation of phonological representations is language-specific among bilinguals with cross-script language systems during visual word recognition. In particular, little is known about how early automatic phonological activation appears in these bilingual readers and whether this activation changes over time.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-script phonological activation in Chinese–English bilinguals: The effect of SOA from masked priming.

Xu¹,

Lin²,

Dong³

2021

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The issue of bilingual phonological access remains unclear for bilinguals with cross-script language systems, which is especially true when the time course of phonological activation is involved. To investigate the time course of cross-script phonological activation, the present study asked Chinese-English bilinguals to complete a word naming task that was conducted in a forward-masked phonological priming paradigm in three stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) conditions. By comparing the interlingual and intralingual phonological priming effects in a within-subjects design, we found that (a) target naming in Chinese and English was facilitated by a phonologically similar English or Chinese prime in the three SOA conditions (43 ms, 75 ms, and 150 ms) and the facilitation effect of the prime reached the peak when the pronunciation of the prime-target pair most resembled each other and (b) manipulation of the SOAs affected both the naming latencies of target words and the sizes of the phonological priming effect. In particular, naming latencies in each prime-target type displayed an increasing tendency as the SOA prolonged. Moreover, despite the varied sizes of the priming effect in the three SOA conditions, we found a consistent pattern that the priming effects in two interlingual conditions resembled their respective intralingual conditions along the time course. Taken together, these findings provide strong support for an integrated phonological representation of bilinguals and further extend the language nonselective access hypothesis to language pairs with very different orthographic systems. Implications for the manipulation of the SOAs in the masked priming paradigm are also discussed. Public Significance StatementThe present study found that even for Chinese-English cross-script bilinguals (with Chinese quite opaque in pronunciation), one language could prime another in visual word naming within a very short time (especially when primed by English). This shows that for people learning another language, their different languages are connected and integrated in the mind.

show abstract

Automatic phonological activation during visual word recognition in bilingual children: A cross-language masked priming study in grades 3 and 5

Cited by 10 publications

References 43 publications

Cognate facilitation in Frisian–Dutch bilingual children’s sentence reading: An eye-tracking study

Cognate facilitation in Frisian–Dutch bilingual children’s sentence reading: An eye-tracking study

Reading skill correlates in frontal cortex during semantic and phonological processing

Cross-script phonological activation in Chinese–English bilinguals: The effect of SOA from masked priming.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About