Word–context associations in episodic memory are learned at the conceptual level: Word frequency, bilingual proficiency, and bilingual status effects on source memory.

Abstract

Three source-memory experiments were conducted with Spanish–English bilinguals and monolingual English speakers matched on age, education, nonverbal cognitive ability and socioeconomic status. Bilingual language proficiency and dominance were assessed using standardized objective measures. In Experiment 1, source was manipulated visuo-spatially, in Experiment 2, source was manipulated temporally, and in Experiment 3, source was manipulated by presenting stimuli in different modalities. Bilingual source discrimination was more accurate for low-frequency words than for high-frequency words, but it did not differ for the more fluent and less fluent languages (L1 and L2, respectively). These results contrast with the L2 advantage observed in item recognition (Francis & Gutiérrez, 2012; Francis & Strobach, 2013), adding to evidence that the bases of performance for item and source memory differ. The dissociation of word frequency and language effects indicates that word–context associations are made at the conceptual level rather than the word-form level. Bilinguals exhibited more accurate source discrimination than monolinguals, both under intentional and incidental encoding conditions, indicating that this effect cannot be explained entirely by differences in encoding strategies. We reason that relative to monolinguals, bilinguals more efficiently encode associations between word concepts and contexts or other types of information that do not convey meaning preexperimentally.

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.…”

Temporal dynamics of free recall: The role of rehearsal efficiency in word frequency and bilingual language proficiency effects.

“…Nevertheless, conceptualizations of language proficiency effects by analogy to word frequency effects are inadequate to explain a growing body of bilingual episodic memory research. Although language proficiency and word frequency effects exhibit striking parallels in recognition memory (Francis & Gutiérrez, 2012; Francis & Strobach, 2013) and repetition priming (Francis, Augustini, & Sáenz, 2003; Francis et al, 2008), they do not always follow the same patterns (e.g., Francis & Baca, 2014; Francis et al, 2019).…”

“…We propose an approach to bilingual memory that is similar to the associative deficit hypothesis of memory and aging (Naveh-Benjamin, 2000), in which older adults have difficulty learning new semantic, source-context, and temporal-context associations. In our associative strength theory (Francis et al, 2019), bilingualism and bilingual proficiency impact encoding or retrieval of associations, but the impact varies across different types of associations.…”

“…Indeed, the strengths of new source context associations do not appear to vary with language proficiency. Although bilingual source discrimination was more accurate for low-frequency than high-frequency words, language proficiency had no effect (Francis et al, 2019). The three experiments showed consistent results across perceptual (spatial location and color; auditory/visual presentation modality) and temporal (first or second list membership) source context manipulations.…”

“…memory (Francis & Gutiérrez, 2012;Francis & Strobach, 2013) and repetition priming (Francis, Augustini, & Sáenz, 2003;Francis et al, 2008), they do not always follow the same patterns (e.g., Francis & Baca, 2014;Francis et al, 2019).…”