Task effects in masked cross-script translation and phonological priming

Kim, Jeesun; Davis, Chris

doi:10.1016/s0749-596x(03)00093-7

Cited by 147 publications

(156 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

139

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the lexical decision task, there was a small but significant masked L1→L2 translation priming effect with non-cognate translation equivalent pairs, thus replicating earlier research with fluent L2 readers (e.g., de Groot & Nas, 1991;Duñabeitia et al, 2010;Duyck & Warlop, 2009;Gollan et al, 1997;Jiang, 1999;Jiang & Forster, 2001;Kim & Davis, 2003;Voga & Grainger, 2007;Williams, 1994). In addition, there was an identity priming effect in the participants' L2.…”

Section: Identity Primingsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…In contrast, different-script bilinguals tend to show much more robust non-cognate translation priming effects in lexical decision (Gollan et al, 1997;Jiang, 1999;Jiang & Forster, 2001;Kim & Davis, 2003;Nakayama et al, 2013;Voga & Grainger, 2007). For example, Nakayama et al (2013, Experiment 1) reported a 71 ms priming effect for low-frequency English (L2) words and a 46 ms priming effect for high-frequency English words when primed by Japanese (L1) Kanji primes, effects that the authors attributed to the semantic relationship between the primes and targets.…”

Section: Experiments 3 (Masked Prime Lexical Decision Task Japanese-ementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Also contained in the first two experiments was an identity priming manipulation involving English (L2) words. This manipulation was included mainly as a manipulation check, given the fact that although L1-L2 non-cognate priming has often been reported in the literature (e.g., de Groot & Nas, 1991;Duñabeitia, Perea, & Carreiras, 2010;Duyck & Warlop, 2009;Gollan, Forster, & Frost, 1997;Jiang, 1999;Jiang & Forster, 2001;Kim & Davis, 2003;Voga & Grainger, 2007;Williams, 1994), it has sometimes been difficult to detect with same-script bilinguals (e.g., Davis et al, 2010;Sánchez-Casas & García-Albea, 2005). The expectation, however, is that our stimuli should produce translation, as well as identity, priming in Experiment 1 due to the assumed lexical and semantic relationship between the word pairs (see Duñabeitia et al, 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Non-cognate translation priming effects in the same–different task: evidence for the impact of “higher level” information

Lupker

Perea

Nakayama

2015

Language, Cognition and Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Norris and colleagues have proposed that priming effects observed in the masked prime same-different task are based solely on pre-lexical orthographic information. This proposal was evaluated by examining translation priming effects from non-cognate translation equivalents using both Spanish-English and Japanese-English bilinguals in the same-different task. Although no priming was observed for Spanish-English bilinguals, who also produced very little translation priming in a lexical decision task, significant priming was observed for Japanese-English bilinguals. These results indicate that, although most of the priming in the same-different task has an orthographic basis, other types of priming effects can emerge. Therefore, while the masked prime same-different task provides a good way of investigating the nature of orthographic coding, it, like the sandwich priming technique, can also be influenced by higher level information.

show abstract

Section: Identity Primingsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Experiments 3 (Masked Prime Lexical Decision Task Japanese-ementioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Non-cognate translation priming effects in the same–different task: evidence for the impact of “higher level” information

Lupker

Perea

Nakayama

2015

Language, Cognition and Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further, given the relative scarcity of bilingual word recognition studies on readers of different scripts (e.g., Gollan, Forster, & Frost 1997;Kim & Davis, 2003), it would be interesting in future work to consider cross-script priming effects in Hindi and Urdu readers, that is, where primes are in Hindi and targets in Urdu, or vice versa. Such studies would also help to illuminate the crucial question of whether Hindi and Urdu are indeed cognitively treated as separate languages by readers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Orthographic characteristics speed Hindi word naming but slow Urdu naming: evidence from Hindi/Urdu biliterates

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two primed naming experiments tested the orthographic depth hypothesis in skilled biliterate readers of Hindi and Urdu. These languages are very similar on the spoken level but differ greatly in script; Hindi is a highly transparent script, whereas Urdu is more opaque. It was accordingly hypothesized that formbased priming would be greater for Hindi than Urdu, reflecting greater reliance on a phonological assembly route in the more transparent Hindi script. Proficient Hindi/ Urdu biliterate readers were presented with primes either in Hindi or Urdu script (Exp. 1), or in Roman transcription (Exp. 2), while targets were always in blocks of Hindi or Urdu. Across both experiments, form-based priming was observed only in Hindi. Additionally, target words were named significantly faster and better in Hindi than in Urdu. The results are taken as support for the hypothesis of differential reliance on phonological assembly as a function of script transparency. Further, the greater graphemic complexity of Urdu script relative to Hindi appears to have contributed to slower and less accurate overall single word reading for Urdu than Hindi, despite the fact that Urdu was the first learned script.

show abstract

“…For instance, Wang, Koda, and Perfetti (2003; investigated the effects of different L1 writing systems on L2 reading and concluded that native speakers of a non-alphabetic language (Chinese) relied less on phonological information than native speakers of an alphabetic language (Korean) in reading an alphabetic L2 (English) (see, however, the criticisms raised by Yamada, 2004). Kim and Davis (2003), on the other hand, found no homophone priming in lexical decision or semantic categorization performed by Korean(L1)-English(L2) bilinguals. If the L1 and the L2 share a script, the grapheme-phoneme conversion (GPC) rules of the two languages also seem to affect each other.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is a FAN Always FUN? Phonological and Orthographic Effects in Bilingual Visual Word Recognition

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acknowledgements:This study was sponsored by a British Academy grant Homophones elicited more false positive errors and slower processing than spelling controls in all groups. The Japanese-English bilinguals, but not the Spanish-English bilinguals, also displayed 'near-homophone' effects (i.e., homophone-like effects from minimal pairs on nonnative contrasts). We conclude that second-language visual word recognition is influenced by first-language phonology, although the effect is conditioned by the first-language orthographic system. Near-homophone effects can occur even when the orthographic systems of the bilingual's two languages are different in type (e.g., alphabetic vs. nonalphabetic), but may be blocked if the languages use the same writing script (e.g., Roman alphabet).

show abstract

Task effects in masked cross-script translation and phonological priming

Cited by 147 publications

References 47 publications

Non-cognate translation priming effects in the same–different task: evidence for the impact of “higher level” information

Non-cognate translation priming effects in the same–different task: evidence for the impact of “higher level” information

Orthographic characteristics speed Hindi word naming but slow Urdu naming: evidence from Hindi/Urdu biliterates

Is a FAN Always FUN? Phonological and Orthographic Effects in Bilingual Visual Word Recognition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About