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

Abstract

In their paper "Do Bilinguals Automatically Activate Their Native Language When They Are Not Using it?", Costa, Pannunzi, Deco, and Pickering (Cognitive Science, 2017) proposed a reinterpretation of Thierry and Wu's (2004, 2007) finding of native language-based (Chinese, L1) ERP effects when they tested Chinese-English late bilinguals exclusively in their second language (English, L2). Using simulations in a six-node Hebbian learning model (three L1 nodes, three L2 nodes), Costa et al. suggested that form overlaps in L1 between otherwise unrelated words create a persistent relationship between their L2 translations. In this scenario, words in the nascent L2 lexicon overlapping in their L1 translations would become linked during learning because of the form overlap in L1; once the L2 words are learned, the direct link between them would be sufficient to generate robust, apparently "L1-mediated" priming without requiring any activation of L1 translations. Costa et al. contend that links between L2 words remain beyond the learning phase, even after links to L1 representations have been severed, and thus that their model affords an alternative account to (but not a rebuttal of) Thierry and Wu's claim of language non-selective activation-or automatic activation of translation equivalents-in late bilinguals. In this response, we build on Costa et al.'s original simulation code, showing that it can only reproduce L1-independent priming when implementing the L1 disconnection in their particular way. By contrast, when severing inter-language connections bidirectionally, their model fails to retain any sizeable influence of L1 form overlap on L2 activations. The model is not the theory, however, and we discuss several issues that would need to be addressed in further attempts to model language non-selective activation in late bilinguals.

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

“…In Costa et al (2017), we argued that the experimental results used to support such a claim do not require translation, and that the effects reported by Thierry and Wu (2007) could be due to activation within L2. Oppenheim et al (2018) responded to both our theoretical account and our implementation. Here, we discuss some of the issues raised in that response, and we focus on the main theoretical thesis developed in our original article, namely that the crosstalk between two languages may affect the way the lexica are structured.…”

“…In their discussion, Oppenheim et al (2018) criticize aspects of our theory (independent of their well-taken modeling concerns). Our primary claim is that Thierry and Wu's (2007) data can be explained without on-line activation (i.e., during the time window of the N400).…”

“…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.…”

“…When discussing semantics, Oppenheim et al (2018) assume their conclusion is correct at the outset. They say that Chinese L1 speakers will learn to associate ham with cheese more than with train, because the semantic relationship between ham and cheese is relevant to English.…”

“…If this account is correct, then Thierry and Wu's finding of a reduced N400 when assessing train and ham is a consequence of the bilinguals' representation of English and would not demonstrate any cross-language activation. We provided an implementation of this proposal, and Oppenheim et al (2018) provided an interesting critique of our implementation. However, the critique does not affect our theoretical claim.…”