Shared core meanings and shared associations in bilingual semantic memory: Evidence from research on implicit memory

Abstract

Aims and objectives/purpose/research questions: The degree of overlap across languages in bilingual semantic memory has been debated in the cognitive bilingual literature for decades. This paper focuses on theory and recent evidence addressing the questions of whether translation-equivalent words in a bilingual person’s two languages access common core-meaning representations and whether long-standing semantic/conceptual associations among words are language-general or language-specific. Design/methodology/approach: We explain a theoretical approach to this problem and review recent evidence that addresses it. The empirical work cited used primarily memory tasks in which the languages of the word stimuli or responses changed from encoding to test. Data and analysis: Several studies are reviewed. In most cases, data were analyzed using an analysis of variance. Findings/conclusions: Robust between-language priming was observed for concrete nouns, abstract nouns, verbs, and adjectives using a variety of specific tasks, indicating that the semantic representations of translation equivalents overlap. The reduction in priming relative to within-language conditions could be explained in some cases by repetition of language-specific processes in the within-language conditions. Results of repetition-priming and false-memory experiments that involved semantic associations showed that category–exemplar, noun–verb, antonym, and other semantic relationships are shared across languages in a common semantic system. Originality: Many of the results are interpreted with respect to questions that have not been addressed in previous work. Significance/implications: The nature of semantic system integration is important for understanding bilingual cognition. Episodic memory tasks can be a useful way to study the organization of core-meaning representations in bilinguals, and indicate that these representations are shared across languages. However, these procedures do not capture other aspects of semantic representation that may differ across languages.

The Role of Language Proficiency in False Memory: A Mini Review

“…Various models have been developed to seek an answer (e.g., bilingual interactive activation model, Dijkstra and Van Heuven, 2002; inhibitory control model, Green, 1998;distributed feature model, Van Hell and De Groot, 1998;revised hierarchical model, Kroll and Stewart, 1994) and, despite differing in the exact nature of L1 and L2 representations, these models share a consensual view about two assumptions relevant for the present review. First, both languages access a shared conceptual system (Francis, 1999(Francis, , 2020Francis et al, 2019) and, second, associations between word forms and their concepts are stronger in L1 than in L2 (e.g., Gollan et al, 2008). To further elaborate on these ideas, the revised hierarchical model (RHM) 1 , referred above, will be considered.…”

Evaluating the distinction between semantic knowledge and semantic access: Evidence from semantic dementia and comprehension-impaired stroke aphasia

“…was a Norwegian-English bilingual patient, but she had emigrated to the United States when she was five years old and has since predominately spoken English, so her bilingualism is unlikely to have strongly affected her performance. Given the evidence favoring a shared conceptual store across languages in bilinguals (see Francis, 2018), a semantic deficit should have been detectable in S.E.…”

Neural Correlates of Repetition Priming: A Coordinate-Based Meta-Analysis of fMRI Studies

“…Picture naming was included as an example of perceptual processing in early studies (Wiggs and Martin, 1998). Subsequent research however, particularly using bilingual participants, suggests that picture naming can be decomposed into object identification and word production: object identification is assumed to be a perceptual process, whereas word production requires conceptual access (Francis and Sáenz, 2007;Francis et al, 2008; for review, see Francis, 2020). Factor analysis has also suggested that picture naming taps both perceptual and conceptual factors (Bruss and Mitchell, 2009).…”