Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T09:21:31.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Cross-language phonological activation of meaning: evidence from category verification*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2011

DEANNA C. FRIESEN
Affiliation:
University of Western Ontario
DEBRA JARED*
Affiliation:
University of Western Ontario
*
Address for correspondence: Debra Jared, Department of Psychology, Social Sciences Centre, University of Western Ontario, London ON, Canada, N6A 5C2djjared@uwo.ca

Abstract

The study investigated phonological processing in bilingual reading for meaning. English–French and French–English bilinguals performed a category verification task in either their first or second language. Interlingual homophones (words that share phonology across languages but not orthography or meaning) and single language control words served as critical stimuli. The interlingual homophones and their control words were not members of the categories, but their interlingual homophone mates were category members (e.g., A vegetable: shoe, where chou in French means “cabbage”). The bilinguals made more errors and had longer decision latencies on homophones than on their control words, providing evidence for cross-language phonological activation of meaning. Results are discussed with respect to the Bilingual Interactive Activation Model (BIA+).

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This research was supported by a grant from the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada to D. Jared. This work was part of D. Friesen's doctoral dissertation at the University of Western Ontario. We are grateful to Corinne Haigh, McGill University, for coordinating testing, to Marianne Smiley and Justin Rill for testing participants and to Debra Titone, McGill University, for the use of lab equipment. Deanna Friesen is now at the Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

References

Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania. Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M., van Dyck, G., & van de Poel, M. (1999). Visual word recognition in bilinguals: Evidence from masked phonological priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 137148.Google ScholarPubMed
Dijkstra, T. (2005). Bilingual visual word recognition and lexical access. In Kroll, J. F. & De Groot, A. M. B. (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism, pp. 179201. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 496518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 175197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duyck, W. (2005). Translation and associative priming with cross-lingual pseudohomophones: Evidence for nonselective phonological activation in bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 13401359.Google ScholarPubMed
Duyck, W., Diependaele, K., Drieghe, D., & Brysbaert, M. (2004). The size of the cross-lingual masked phonological priming effect does not depend on second language proficiency. Experimental Psychology, 51, 116124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friesen, D. C. (2009). Semantic activation in bilingual visual word recognition. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Western Ontario.Google Scholar
Haigh, C. A., & Jared, D. (2007). The activation of phonological representations by bilinguals while reading silently: Evidence from interlingual homophones. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 623644.Google ScholarPubMed
Jared, D., & Kroll, J. (2001). Do bilinguals activate phonological representations in one or both of their languages when naming words? Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jared, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1991). Does word identification proceed from spelling to sound to meaning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 358394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jared, D., & Szucs, C. (2002). Phonological activation in bilinguals: Evidence from interlingual homograph naming. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 225239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemhöfer, K., & Dijkstra, T. (2004). Recognizing cognates and interlingual homographs: Effects of code similarity in language-specific and language generalized lexical decision tasks. Memory and Cognition, 32, 533550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
New, B., Pallier, C., Ferrand, L., & Matos, R. (2001). Une base de données lexicales du français contemporain sur internet: LEXIQUE [A lexical database of contemporary French on the Internet: LEXIQUE], L'Année Psychologique, 101, 447462 <www.lexique.org>.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174215.Google ScholarPubMed
van Orden, G. C. (1987). A ROWS is a ROSE: Spelling, sound, and reading. Memory and Cognition, 15, 181198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Orden, G. C., Johnston, J. C., & Hale, B. L. (1988). Word identification in reading proceeds from spelling to sound to meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 371386.Google ScholarPubMed
van Wijnendaele, I., & Brysbaert, M. (2002). Visual word recognition in bilinguals: Phonological priming from the second to the first language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 616627.Google Scholar