Cross-lingual neighborhood effects in generalized lexical decision and natural reading.

Abstract

The present study assessed intra- and cross-lingual neighborhood effects, using both a generalized lexical decision task and an analysis of a large-scale bilingual eye-tracking corpus (Cop, Dirix, Drieghe, & Duyck, 2016). Using new neighborhood density and frequency measures, the general lexical decision task yielded an inhibitory cross-lingual neighborhood density effect on reading times of second language words, replicating van Heuven, Dijkstra, and Grainger (1998). Reaction times for native language words were not influenced by neighborhood density or frequency but error rates showed cross-lingual neighborhood effects depending on target word frequency. The large-scale eye movement corpus confirmed effects of cross-lingual neighborhood on natural reading, even though participants were reading a novel in a unilingual context. Especially second language reading and to a lesser extent native language reading were influenced by lexical candidates from the nontarget language, although these effects in natural reading were largely facilitatory. These results offer strong and direct support for bilingual word recognition models that assume language-independent lexical access. (PsycINFO Database Record

Cross-language Neighborhood Effects in Learners Indicative of an Integrated Lexicon

“…Though this window extends beyond the N400 component itself, and appears to affect the subsequent positivity, the difference waves suggest that it is one continuous effect. These results are consistent with cross-language effects reported in similar tasks in proficient bilinguals and interpreted to reflect an integrated lexicon (e.g., Dirix et al, 2017; Grossi et al, 2012; Midgley et al, 2008; Van Heuven et al, 1998). The greater negativity indexes the lexicosemantic processing of an increased number of L1 orthographic neighbors; the slower and less accurate language decisions reflect interference at the response level of these co-activated L1 representations.…”

“…The number of orthographic and phonological neighbors in the non-target language appears to influence recognition of both words and pseudowords (e.g., Dirix et al, 2017; Grossi et al, 2012; Midgley et al, 2008; Spivey & Marian, 1999; Van Heuven et al, 1998). For example, Van Heuven et al reported a series of studies with proficient Dutch-English bilinguals in which the number of orthographic neighbors in the non-target language was manipulated.…”

“…Eventually, at high levels of proficiency, words from both languages are thought to form part of an integrated lexicon that is organized according to form similarity (e.g., Dijkstra & Van Heuven, 2002). Perhaps the most convincing evidence to this effect comes from studies of cross-language neighborhoods, which demonstrate that orthographic and phonological neighbors from both languages influence recognition of a word in proficient bilinguals (e.g., Dirix, Cop, Drieghe, & Duyck, 2017; Grossi, Savill, Thomas, & Thierry, 2012; Midgley, Holcomb, Van Heuven, & Grainger, 2008; Spivey & Marian, 1999; Van Heuven, Dijkstra, & Grainger, 1998). At the same time, however, leading models of L2 processing in non-proficient adult learners posit that words from each language are stored in separate lexicons, with cross-language lexical connections limited to translation equivalents (e.g., Grainger, Midgley, & Holcomb, 2010; Kroll & Stewart, 1994; Kroll, Van Hell, Tokowicz, & Green, 2010).…”

Found in Translation: Late Bilinguals Do Automatically Activate Their Native Language When They Are Not Using It

“…Furthermore, a fully disconnected implementation of Costa et al's model also implies either (c) two separate lexica, or (d) one integrated lexicon with entirely languageselective lexical access. However, neither of these options can account for the classic crosslanguage orthographic/phonological neighborhood effect (see, e.g., Dirix, Cop, Drieghe, & Duyck, 2017). Although L2 words with several orthographic neighbors in L1 may end up linked in L2 through learning, under the fully disconnected model they should not compete for selection because their word forms do not overlap in L2.…”

Does Bilingualism Alter Lexical Structure? Response to Oppenheim, Wu, and Thierry (2018)

“…As Oppenheim et al (2018) note (p. 1710), many studies demonstrate that comprehenders using one language show cross-language neighborhood effects in lexical access (e.g., Dirix et al, 2017), thereby indicating that comprehenders draw on information from both languages during lexical access. Importantly, Costa et al (2017) did not claim that bilinguals can ignore one of their languages during access.…”