Cognate Processing Effects in Bilingual Lexical Access

Lijewska, Agnieszka

doi:10.1017/9781316535967.005

Cited by 12 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The cognate facilitation effect has been shown in word production (Colomé & Miozzo, 2010;Costa, Caramazza & Sebastián-Gallés, 2000;Hoshino & Kroll, 2008;Kroll, Dietz & Green, 2000;Sadat, Martin, Magnuson, Alario & Costa, 2016), as well as in visual and auditory word recognition, including lexical decision performance of bilingual adults who have similar first language (L1) and second language (L2) proficiency (Comesaña, Ferré, Romero, Guasch, Soares & García-Chico, 2015) and those with higher L1 proficiency compared to L2 (Dijkstra, Miwa, Brummelhuis, Sappelli & Baayen, 2010;Valente et al, 2018). These results also highlight how person-level factors like L2 proficiency, language dominance, and age of acquisition may moderate the size of observed cognate effects (Comesaña, Bertin, Oliveira, Soares, Hernández & Casalis, 2018;Lijewska, 2020;Soares, Oliveira, Ferreira, Comesaña, Macedo, Ferré & Fraga, 2019). For example, among bilinguals who varied in Welsh and English dominance, Broersma, Carter and Acheson (2016) report both facilitative and inhibitive cognate effects dependent on dominance and task demands.…”

Section: Range Of Cognate Effectsmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…Behavioral evidence suggests that linguistic knowledge from one language can be useful for acquiring and recalling word representations in another language (see Kaushanskaya & Marian, 2009;Poepsel & Weiss, 2016). For instance, the study of cross-linguistic activation during cognate processing indicates that bilinguals' language production and comprehension is language non-selective (see De Groot, 2011) and that cognates (i.e., words that are semantically, orthographically, and sometimes phonologically similar) are processed more quickly at the lexical level compared to non-cognates (see Lijewska, 2020). However, questions remain regarding the circumstances in which activation of sublexical units can facilitate or interfere with performance on tasks such as word recognition and spelling (Carrasco-Ortiz, Amengual & Gries, 2021;Martin & Nozari, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does Spanish knowledge contribute to accurate English word spelling in adult bilinguals?

Rigobon

Gutiérrez²,

Edwards³

et al. 2023

Bilingualism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Correctly spelling an English word requires a high-quality orthographic representation. When faced with spelling a complex word without a high-quality representation, spellers often rely on other knowledge sources (e.g., incomplete stored orthographic forms, phonological to orthographic relationships) to spell it. For bilinguals, another potentially facilitative source is knowledge of a word's lexical and sublexical representations in another language. In the current study we considered simultaneous effects of word-level (e.g., frequency, cognate status) and person-level (e.g., English spelling skill, prompting, bilingual status) predictors on college students’ complex English word spelling. Monolinguals (English; n = 42) significantly outperformed bilinguals (Spanish and English; n = 76) on non-cognate spelling; no group differences emerged for cognate spelling accuracy. Within bilinguals, significantly higher spelling performance on cognates compared to non-cognates suggests cognate facilitation, with no prompting effects. Findings expand an interdisciplinary framework of understanding bilinguals’ activation and use of cross-linguistic representations in spelling.

show abstract

Section: Range Of Cognate Effectsmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Spanish knowledge contribute to accurate English word spelling in adult bilinguals?

Rigobon

Gutiérrez²,

Edwards³

et al. 2023

Bilingualism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whereas production studies thus indicate that semantic reorganization is challenging and that L2 semantics may not be “target-like” even when L2 forms appear to be, it is less well known whether comprehension, and especially online comprehension processing, is affected in the same way. The vast literature on cognate processing in L2 users and bilinguals (using terms such as interlingual homographs, interlingual homophones, or cognates) largely shows facilitatory effects on processing for cognates (see Lijewska, 2020 for a recent overview). Although these effects are not typically construed as CLI but are rather discussed in terms of language-selectivity in lexical access (or a lack thereof), they indicate that similarity facilitates processing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

First Language Matters: Event-Related Potentials Show Crosslinguistic Influence on the Processing of Placement Verb Semantics

Andersson

Gullberg

2022

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Second language (L2) learners experience challenges when word meanings differ across L1 and L2, and often display crosslinguistic influence (CLI) in speech production. In contrast, studies of online comprehension show more mixed results. Therefore, this study explored how L2 learners process fine-grained L2 verb semantics in the domain of caused motion (placement) and specifically the impact of having similar vs. non-similar semantics in the L1 and L2. Specifically, we examined English (20) and German (21) L2 learners of Swedish and native Swedish speakers (16) and their online neurophysiological processing and offline appropriateness ratings of three Swedish placement verbs obligatory for placement supported from below: sätta “set,” ställa “stand,” and lägga “lay.” The learners’ L1s differed from Swedish in that their placement verbs either shared or did not share semantic characteristics with the target language. English has a general placement verb put, whereas German has specific verbs similar but not identical to Swedish, stellen “set/stand” and legen “lay.” Event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded while participants watched still frames (images) of objects being placed on a table and listened to sentences describing the event with verbs that either matched the image or not. Participants also performed an offline appropriateness rating task. Both tasks suggested CLI. English learners’ appropriateness ratings of atypical verb use differed from those of both native Swedish speakers’ and German learners, with no difference in the latter pair. Similarly, German learners’ ERP effects were more similar to those of the native Swedish speakers (increased lateral negativity to atypical verb use) than to those of the English learners (increased positivity to atypical verb use). The results of this explorative study thus suggest CLI both offline and online with similarity between L1 and L2 indicating more similar processing and judgments, in line with previous production findings, but in contrast to previous ERP work on semantic L2 processing.

show abstract

“…Therefore, one can think that, when an English native speaker learning Spanish encounters “importante” for the first time, she will understand and internalize it immediately without much effort. Thus, it is not surprising that cognates hold a special status in psycholinguistics and second language acquisition research, and therefore, have been extensively studied (for a review, see [ 5 , 6 ]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Better to Be Alone than in Bad Company: Cognate Synonyms Impair Word Learning

Antón

Duñabeitia

2020

Behavioral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of cognate synonymy in L2 word learning are explored. Participants learned the names of well-known concrete concepts in a new fictional language following a picture-word association paradigm. Half of the concepts (set A) had two possible translations in the new language (i.e., both words were synonyms): one was a cognate in participants’ L1 and the other one was not. The other half of the concepts (set B) had only one possible translation in the new language, a non-cognate word. After learning the new words, participants’ memory was tested in a picture-word matching task and a translation recognition task. In line with previous findings, our results clearly indicate that cognates are much easier to learn, as we found that the cognate translation was remembered much better than both its non-cognate synonym and the non-cognate from set B. Our results also seem to suggest that non-cognates without cognate synonyms (set B) are better learned than non-cognates with cognate synonyms (set A). This suggests that, at early stages of L2 acquisition, learning a cognate would produce a poorer acquisition of its non-cognate synonym, as compared to a solely learned non-cognate. These results are discussed in the light of different theories and models of bilingual mental lexicon.

show abstract

Cognate Processing Effects in Bilingual Lexical Access

Cited by 12 publications

References 66 publications

Does Spanish knowledge contribute to accurate English word spelling in adult bilinguals?

Does Spanish knowledge contribute to accurate English word spelling in adult bilinguals?

First Language Matters: Event-Related Potentials Show Crosslinguistic Influence on the Processing of Placement Verb Semantics

Better to Be Alone than in Bad Company: Cognate Synonyms Impair Word Learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About