The influence of semantic constraints on bilingual word recognition during sentence reading

Assche, Eva Van; Drieghe, Denis; Duyck, Wouter; Welvaert, Marijke; Hartsuiker, Robert J.

doi:10.1016/j.jml.2010.08.006

Cited by 182 publications

(261 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

221

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

Making sense of the Sense Model

Allen

Conklin

Heuven

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

Making sense of the Sense Model

Allen

Conklin

Heuven

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, experiments using eye-tracking methods show that the cognate facilitation effect can be observed even when the task does not involve any decision component (e.g. Duyck et al, 2007;Libben & Titone, 2009;Van Assche et al, 2011). On the whole, it appears that the cognate facilitation effect is a true effect that is a consequence of how cognates are stored in the bilingual lexicon, but that this effect can be influenced by stimulus list composition and task demands.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, the size of the effect is greater for cognates that are identical compared to non-identical cognates (e.g. "meloen" in Dutch and "melon" in English; Comesaña et al, 2015;Dijkstra et al, 2010;Duyck et al, 2007;Van Assche, Drieghe, Duyck, Welvaert, & Hartsuiker, 2011) and for cognates that exist in three languages compared to cognates that exist in only two languages (Lemhöfer, Dijkstra, & Michel, 2004;Van Hell & Dijkstra, 2002). This wealth of research suggests that the cognate facilitation effect is very robust and universal.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Poort¹,

Rodd²

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TCognates share their form and meaning across languages: "winter" in English means the same as "winter" in Dutch. Research has shown that bilinguals process cognates more quickly than words that exist in one language only (e.g. "ant" in English). This finding is taken as strong evidence for the claim that bilinguals have one integrated lexicon and that lexical access is language non-selective. Two English lexical decision experiments with Dutch-English bilinguals investigated whether the cognate facilitation effect is influenced by stimulus list composition. In Experiment 1, the 'standard' version, which included only cognates, English control words and regular non-words, showed significant cognate facilitation (31 ms). In contrast, the 'mixed' version, which also included interlingual homographs, pseudohomophones (instead of regular non-words) and Dutch-only words, showed a significantly different profile: a non-significant disadvantage for the cognates (8 ms). Experiment 2 examined the specific impact of these three additional stimuli types and found that only the inclusion of Dutch words significantly reduced the cognate facilitation effect. Additional exploratory analyses revealed that, when the preceding trial was a Dutch word, cognates were recognised up to 50 ms more slowly than English controls. We suggest that when participants must respond 'no' to non-target language words, competition arises between the 'yes'-and 'no'-responses associated with the two interpretations of a cognate, which (partially) cancels out the facilitation that is a result of the cognate's shared form and meaning. We conclude that the cognate facilitation effect is a real effect that originates in the lexicon, but that cognates can be subject to competition effects outside the lexicon. PsychINFO classification code (Cognitive Processes)

show abstract

“…For instance, in the sentence "The handsome man in the white suit is the X" it is not so predictable what X is; but in "The best cabin of the ship belongs to the X", it is perfectly predictable that X is "captain" (examples taken from Van Hell & De Groot, 2008). In a sentence reading task in L2, Van Assche, Drieghe, Duyck, Welvaert, & Hartsuiker (2011) found that semantic predictability did not modulate cognate effects on reading measures. In contrast, other eye-tracking studies (Libben and Titone, 2009;Titone, Libben, Mercier, Whitford and Pivneva (2011) did find modulations of semantic contraint, and so Hartsuiker -visual cues for language in bilingualism 11 did studies using tasks like lexical decision or translation (Schwartz & Kroll, 2006;Van Hell & De Groot, 2008).…”

Section: Do Linguistic Cues Allow Bilinguals To Zoom Into the Right Lmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visual Cues for Language Selection in Bilinguals

Hartsuiker

2015

Attention and Vision in Language Processing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bilinguals need to select the right language for the particular context they are in, but how do they do this? One possibility is that they exploit visual cues from the context such as people's faces, so that recognition of the face increases the availability of the language associated with that face. This chapter first examines the degree to which bilinguals activate multiple languages and how this is constrained by linguistic cues and then discusses three new lines of research that investigate visual language cueing. Specifically, these new research lines suggest effects on language processing of (a) the language associated with familiar people's faces (e.g., German for Angela Merkel); (b) language that people associate with the race of unknown faces (e.g., Chinese for an Asian face, English for a white face); (c) language associated with cultural icons (e.g., Russian for a picture of the Kremlin).Hartsuiker -visual cues for language in bilingualism 3

show abstract

The influence of semantic constraints on bilingual word recognition during sentence reading

Cited by 182 publications

References 53 publications

Making sense of the Sense Model

Making sense of the Sense Model

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

Visual Cues for Language Selection in Bilinguals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About