Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-21T11:30:27.039Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of semantics in translation recognition: effects of number of translations, dominance of translations and semantic relatedness of multiple translations*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2009

JANNIKA LAXÉN  and
JEAN-MARC LAVAUR
JANNIKA LAXÉN*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Montpellier (3), France
JEAN-MARC LAVAUR*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Montpellier (3), France
*
Address for correspondence: Departement de psychology, University of Montpellier 3, Route de Mende, 34199 Montpellier Cedex 5, Francejannika.laxen@univ-montp3.fr or jean-marc.lavaur@univ-montp3.fr
Address for correspondence: Departement de psychology, University of Montpellier 3, Route de Mende, 34199 Montpellier Cedex 5, Francejannika.laxen@univ-montp3.fr or jean-marc.lavaur@univ-montp3.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study aims to examine the influence of multiple translations of a word on bilingual processing in three translation recognition experiments during which French–English bilinguals had to decide whether two words were translations of each other or not. In the first experiment, words with only one translation were recognized as translations faster than words with multiple translations. Furthermore, when words were presented with their dominant translation, the recognition process was faster than when words were presented with their non-dominant translation. In Experiment 2, these effects were replicated in both directions of translation (L1–L2 and L2–L1). In Experiment 3, we manipulated number-of-translations and the semantic relatedness between the different translations of a word. When the two translations of a word (i.e., bateau) were related in meaning (synonyms such as the English translations boat and ship), the translation recognition process was faster than when the two translations of a word (i.e., argent) were unrelated in meaning (the two translations money and silver). The consequences of translation ambiguities are discussed in the light of the distributed conceptual feature model of bilingual memory (De Groot, 1992b; Van Hell and De Groot, 1998b).

Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 157 - 183
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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

*

We would like to thank Natasha Tokowicz and an anonymous reviewer for constructive remarks and suggested improvements on earlier versions of this paper. We also thank Adriana Serban, Dominique Bairstow and Xavier Aparicio for corrections.

References

Azuma, T. & Van Orden, G. C. (1997). Why safe is better than fast: The relatedness of a word's meanings affects lexical decision times. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 484–504.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R. & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database [CD-ROM]. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Brown, W. P. & Ure, D. M. J. (1969). Five rated characteristics of 650 word association stimuli. British Journal of Psychology, 60 (2), 233–249.Google Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B. (1989). Representational aspects of word imageability and word frequency as assessed through word association. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 15 (5), 824–845.Google Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B. (1992a). Determinants of word translation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18 (5), 1001–1018.Google Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B. (1992b). Bilingual lexical representation: A closer look at conceptual representations. In Frost, R. & Katz, L. (eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning, pp. 389–412. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B. (1993). Word-type effects in bilingual processing tasks: Support for a mixed-representational system. In Schreuder, R. & Weltens, B. (eds.), The bilingual lexicon, pp. 27–51. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin's.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B. & Comijs, H. (1995). Translation recognition and translation production: Comparing a new and an old tool in the study of bilingualism. Language Learning, 45, 467–510.Google Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B., Dannenburg, L. & Van Hell, J. G. (1994). Forward and backward word translation by bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 600–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B. & Poot, R. (1997). Word translation at three levels of proficiency in a second language: The ubiquitous involvement of conceptual memory. Language Learning, 47, 215–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B. & Van Hell, J. (2005). The learning of foreign language vocabulary. In Kroll, J. F. & De Groot, A. M. B. (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, pp. 9–29. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Desrochers, A. & Bergeron, M. (2000). Valeurs de fréquence subjective et d'imagerie pour une échantillon de 1916 substantifs de la langue française. Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 54 (4), 274–325.Google Scholar
Duyck, W. & Brysbaert, M. (2004). Forward and backward translation in balanced and unbalanced bilinguals requires conceptual mediation: The magnitude effect in number translation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30 (5), 889–906.Google ScholarPubMed
Finkbeiner, M. (2002). Bilingual lexical memory: Towards a psycholinguistic model of adult L2 lexical acquisition, representation, and processing. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Arizona. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63 (12), 6114B (UMI No. AAT 3073282).Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, M., Forster, K., Nicol, J. & Nakamura, K. (2004). The role of polysemy in masked semantic translation priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flieller, A. & Tournois, J. (1994). Imagery value, subjective and objective frequency, date of entry into the language, and degree of polysemy in a sample of 998 French words.International Journal of Psychology, 29 (4), 471–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friendly, M., Franklin, P. E., Hoffman, D. & Rubin, D. C. (1982). The Toronto word pool: Norms for imagery, concreteness, orthographic variables, and grammatical usage for 1080 words. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 14 (4), 375–399.Google Scholar
Guasch, M., Sánchez-Casas, R., Ferré, P. & García-Albea, J. E. (2008). Translation performance of beginning, intermediate and proficient Spanish–Catalan bilinguals: Effects of form and semantic relations. The Mental Lexicon 3 (3), 289–308.Google Scholar
James, C. T. (1975). The role of semantic information in lexical decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 104 (2), 130–136.Google Scholar
Jastrzembski, J. E. (1981). Multiple meanings, number of related meanings, frequency of occurrence, and the lexicon. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 278–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, D. E. & Murphy, G. L. (2001). The representation of polysemous words. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 259–282.Google Scholar
Kolers, P. A. & Gonzalez, E. (1980). Memory for words, synonyms, and translations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6 (1), 53–65.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F. & De Groot, A. M. B. (1997). Lexical and conceptual memory in the bilingual: Mapping form to meaning in two languages. In de Groot, A. M. B. & Kroll, J. F. (eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives, pp.169–199. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F. & Merves, J. S. (1986). Lexical access for concrete and abstract words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, (1), 92–107.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F. & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149–174.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F. & Tokowicz, N. (2001). The development of conceptual representation for words in a second language. In Nicol, J. L. (ed.), One mind two languages: Bilingual language processing. Explaining linguistics, pp. 49–71. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Laxén, J. (2007). La mémoire sémantique bilingue: étude des liens entre équivalents de traduction. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Montpellier, France.Google Scholar
Masson, M. E. J. (1991). A distributed memory model of context effects in word identification. In Besner, D. & Humphreys, G. W. (eds.), Basic process in reading: Visual word recognition, pp. 233–263. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
New, B., Pallier, C., Brysbaert, M. & Ferrand, L. (2004). Lexique 2: A new French lexical database. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36 (3), 516–524.Google Scholar
Païvio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Païvio, A., Clark, M. & Lambert, W. E. (1988). Bilingual dual coding theory and semantic repetition effects on recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 14 (1), 163–172.Google Scholar
Païvio, A., Yuille, J. C. & Madigan, S. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76 (1), monograph supplement.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (1999). New approaches to concepts in bilingual memory. Keynote article. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2 (3), 209–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, M. C., So, K.-F., Von Eckhardt, B. & Feldman, L. B. (1984). Lexical and conceptual representation in beginning and more proficient bilinguals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, A., MacWhinney, B. & Kroll, J. F. (2007). Translation norms for English and Spanish: The role of lexical variables, word class, and L2 proficiency in negotiating translation ambiguity. Behavior Research Methods, 39 (4), 1029–1038.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodd, J., Gaskell, G. & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46 (2), 245–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schönpflug, U. (1997). Bilingualism and memory. Paper presented at the First International Symposium on Bilingualism, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK.Google Scholar
Schwanenflugel, P. J., Harnishfeger, K. K. & Stowe, R. W. (1988). Context availability and lexical decisions for abstract and concrete words. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 499–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwanenflugel, P. J. & Shoben, E. J. (1983). Differential context effects in the comprehension of abstract and concrete verbal materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 82–102.Google Scholar
Sunderman, G. & Kroll, J. F. (2006). First language activation during second language lexical processing: An investigation of lexical form, meaning, and grammatical class. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 387–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talamas, A., Kroll, J. F. & Dufour, R. (1999). From form to meaning: Stages in the acquisition of second-language vocabulary. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2 (1), 45–58.Google Scholar
Tokowicz, N. & Kroll, J. F. (2007). Number of meanings and concreteness: Consequences of ambiguity within and across languages. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 727–779.Google Scholar
Tokowicz, N., Kroll, J. F., De Groot, A. M. B. & Van Hell, J. G. (2002). Number of translation norms for Dutch–English translation pairs: A new tool for examining language production. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 34, 435–451.Google Scholar
Tokowicz, N., Prior, A. & Kroll, J. F. (2009). Bilingual speech production depends on translation ambiguity. In revision.Google Scholar
Van Hell, J. G. & De Groot, A. M. B. (1998a). Disentangling context availability and concreteness in lexical decision and word translation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51A (1), 41–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Hell, J. G. & De Groot, A. M. B. (1998b). Conceptual representation in bilingual memory: Effects of concreteness and cognate status in word association. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1 (3), 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar