Native language influences on word recognition in a second language: A megastudy.

Abstract

Many studies have reported that word recognition in a second language (L2) is affected by the native language (L1). However, little is known about the role of the specific language combination of the bilinguals. To investigate this issue, the authors administered a word identification task (progressive demasking) on 1,025 monosyllabic English (L2) words to native speakers of French, German, and Dutch. A regression approach was adopted, including a large number of within- and between-language variables as predictors. A substantial overlap of reaction time patterns was found across the groups of bilinguals, showing that word recognition results obtained for one group of bilinguals generalize to bilinguals with different mother tongues. Moreover, among the set of significant predictors, only one between-language variable was present (cognate status); all others reflected characteristics of the target language. Thus, although influences across languages exist, word recognition in L2 by proficient bilinguals is primarily determined by within-language factors, whereas cross-language effects appear to be limited. An additional comparison of the bilingual data with a native control group showed that there are subtle but significant differences between L1 and L2 processing.

The cognate facilitation effect in bilingual lexical decision is influenced by stimulus list composition

“…In Experiment 1, cognates in the standard version of our English lexical decision task-which included only cognates, English controls and 'regular' non-words-were recognised 31 ms more quickly than English controls, consistent with previous findings (e.g. Cristoffanini et al, 1986;De Groot & Nas, 1991;Dijkstra et al, 1999;Dijkstra et al, 2010;Dijkstra et al, 1998;Font, 2001;Lemhöfer et al, 2008;Peeters et al, 2013;Sánchez-Casas et al, 1992;Van Hell & Dijkstra, 2002). In contrast, cognates in the mixed version-which included, in addition to the same cognates and English controls, interlingual homographs, pseudohomophones and Dutch words -were recognised 8 ms more slowly, although this difference was not significant.…”

“…Cristoffanini et al, 1986;De Groot & Nas, 1991;Dijkstra et al, 1999;Dijkstra et al, 2010;Dijkstra et al, 1998;Font, 2001;Lemhöfer et al, 2008;Peeters et al, 2013;Sánchez-Casas et al, 1992;Van Hell & Dijkstra, 2002), while the absence of a cognate advantage in the mixed version replicates Poort et al's (2016) findings. Also in agreement with previous findings demonstrating that an interlingual homograph inhibition effect should be observed in single-language lexical decision tasks when those include non-target language words that require a 'no'-response (e.g.…”

“…The cognate facilitation effect has most commonly been observed in visual lexical decision experiments when the target words are presented in isolation (Cristoffanini, Kirsner, & Milech, 1986;De Groot & Nas, 1991;Dijkstra, Grainger, & Van Heuven, 1999;Dijkstra, Miwa, Brummelhuis, Sappelli, & Baayen, 2010;Dijkstra, Van Jaarsveld, & Ten Brinke, 1998;Font, 2001;Lemhöfer, et al, 2008;Peeters, Dijkstra, & Grainger, 2013;Sánchez-Casas, García-Albea, & Davis, 1992;Van Hell & Dijkstra, 2002), but also when they are embedded in sentences, although in the latter case the effect is often smaller (Duyck, Van Assche, Drieghe, & Hartsuiker, 2007;Libben & Titone, 2009;Schwartz & Kroll, 2006;Van Assche, Duyck, Hartsuiker, & Diependaele, 2009;Van Hell & De Groot, 2008). In addition, the cognate facilitation effect has been observed in word production: bilinguals are faster to name pictures of cognates (e.g.…”

Making sense of the Sense Model

“…Research using cognates has repeatedly shown that overlap in both form and meaning leads to greater cross-linguistic activation than for noncognate translations, which share only meaning (see Dijkstra, 2007, for a review). This cognate facilitation effect has been found in multiple studies with languages that share script (e.g., Costa, Santesteban & Cano, 2005;Dunãbeitia, Perea & Carreiras, 2010;Lemhofer et al, 2008;Van Assche, Duyck, Hartsuiker & Diependaele, 2009;Van Assche, Drieghe, Duyck, Welvaert & Hartsuiker, 2011) and those that do not (e.g., Gollan, Forster, & Frost, 1997;Kim & Davis, 2002;Hoshino & Kroll, 2008;Voga & Grainger, 2007).…”

Another cup of TEE? The processing of second language near-cognates in first language reading

“…Cognates are words that share form and meaning between two languages, such as the word rose in French and English. Bilinguals process cognates faster, more accurately and with less difficulty than non-cognates in almost all language tasks we know of, both in language production (Costa, Santesteban, & Caño, 2005;Hoshino & Kroll, 2008;Pureza, Soares, & Comesaña, 2016;Strijkers, Costa, & Thierry, 2010) and in comprehension (Bultena, Dijkstra, & van Hell, 2013;Lemhöfer & Dijkstra, 2004;Lemhöfer, Dijkstra, et al, 2008;Midgley, Holcomb, & Grainger, 2011). The fact that even in a monolingual word processing task, words that also exist in the currently inactive language are processed differently from words that do not, has been taken as evidence for the so-called nonselective account of bilingual language processing, that is, the view that one language processing system does not normally function completely independently of the other.…”