Bilingual access of homonym meanings: Individual differences in bilingual access of homonym meanings

Abstract

The goal of the present study was to identify the cognitive processes that underlie lexical ambiguity resolution in a second language (L2). We examined which cognitive factors predict the efficiency in accessing subordinate meanings of L2 homonyms in a sample of highly-proficient, Spanish–English bilinguals. The predictive ability of individual differences in (1) homonym processing in the L1, (2) working memory capacity and (3) sensitivity to cross-language form overlap were examined. In two experiments, participants were presented with cognate and noncognate homonyms as either a prime in a lexical decision task (Experiment 1) or embedded in a sentence (Experiment 2). In both experiments speed and accuracy in accessing subordinate meanings in the L1 was the strongest predictor of speed and accuracy in accessing subordinate meanings in the L2. Sensitivity to cross-language form overlap predicted performance in lexical decision while working memory capacity predicted processing in sentence comprehension.

Cross-language activation and executive control modulate within-language ambiguity resolution: Evidence from eye movements.

“…However, it is a cognate with French if one considers its subordinate meaning in English (“wise man”). The study of such words, coined “cognate homonyms,” was pioneered by Schwartz and colleagues (e.g., Arêas da Luz Fontes & Schwartz, 2010, 2011, 2015; Schwartz, Yeh, & Shaw, 2008).…”

“…Two important points about cognate homonyms must be made here. First, cognate homonyms vary in terms of orthographic overlap across languages, including cognate homonyms with identical (e.g., sage ) or high (e.g., novel / novela ) orthographic overlap across languages (e.g., Arêas da Luz Fontes & Schwartz, 2010, 2011, 2015; Schwartz et al, 2008). The present study primarily included orthographically identical cognate homonyms; a few had high orthographic overlap.…”

“…Another study by Schwartz and colleagues focused on subordinate cognate homonyms, which share a subordinate meaning only. For example, the subordinate meaning “group of advisors” of English cabinet is the dominant meaning of Spanish gabinete , but the English dominant meaning “kitchen cupboard” is not shared with Spanish gabinete (e.g., Arêas da Luz Fontes & Schwartz, 2015). Like Arêas da Luz Fontes and Schwartz (2015), the present study focuses on subordinate cognate homonyms.…”

“…For example, the subordinate meaning “group of advisors” of English cabinet is the dominant meaning of Spanish gabinete , but the English dominant meaning “kitchen cupboard” is not shared with Spanish gabinete (e.g., Arêas da Luz Fontes & Schwartz, 2015). Like Arêas da Luz Fontes and Schwartz (2015), the present study focuses on subordinate cognate homonyms. These studies are briefly presented below; however, more details can be found in the Discussion.…”

“…Schwartz and colleagues investigated the comprehension processes involved in cognate homonym processing across three studies involving Spanish–English bilingual adults (Arêas da Luz Fontes & Schwartz, 2011, 2015; Schwartz et al, 2008; see also Arêas da Luz Fontes & Schwartz, 2010, for a similar pattern in written language production). In both Schwartz et al (2008) and Arêas da Luz Fontes and Schwartz (2011), access to the subordinate meaning of dominant cognate homonyms (e.g., novel/novela ) was examined using semantic-verification tasks.…”