Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T17:44:29.913Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is there cross-language modulation when bilinguals process number words?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2010

PEDRO MACIZO ,
AMPARO HERRERA ,
DANIELA PAOLIERI  and
PATRICIA ROMÁN
PEDRO MACIZO*
Affiliation:
University of Granada
AMPARO HERRERA
Affiliation:
University of Murcia
DANIELA PAOLIERI
Affiliation:
University of Granada and University of Trento
PATRICIA ROMÁN
Affiliation:
University of Granada
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Pedro Macizo, Department of Experimental Psychology, Facultad de Psicología, University of Granada, Campus Cartuja s/n 18071, Granada 18071, Spain. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study explores the possibility of cross-language activation when bilinguals process number words in their first language (Italian) and their second language (German). Italian monolinguals (Experiment 1), German monolinguals (Experiment 2), and Italian/German bilinguals (Experiment 3) were required to decide the larger of two number words while the unit–decade compatibility effect was examined. For compatible trials the decade and unit comparisons lead to the same response (e.g., 24–67), whereas for incompatible trials the decade and unit comparisons lead to different responses (e.g., 27–64). The regular unit–decade compatibility effect was significant when bilinguals and monolinguals performed the comparison in German. However, this effect was not found when bilinguals and monolinguals performed the task in Italian. In addition, the decade distance played a major role when bilinguals processed in their first language, whereas the unit distance was more important when they worked in their second language. These results indicate that the processing of number words in one language is not modulated by the way bilinguals process number words in their alternative language.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , October 2010 , pp. 651 - 669
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Beauvillain, C., & Grainger, J. (1987). Accessing interlexical homographs: Some limitations of a language-selective access. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 658–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, A. (2005). Lexical access in bilingual production. In Kroll, J. F. & de Groot, A. M. B. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 308–325). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Costa, A., & Caramazza, A. (1999). Is lexical selection in bilingual speech production language-specific? Further evidence from Spanish–English and English–Spanish bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2, 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, A., Miozzo, M., & Caramazza, A. (1999). Lexical selection in bilinguals: Do words in the bilingual's two lexicons compete for selection? Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 365–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T. (2005). Bilingual visual word recognition and lexical access. In Kroll, J. F. & de Groot, A. M. B. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 179–201). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Van Jaarsveld, H., & Ten Brinke, S. (1998). Interlingual homograph recognition: Effects of task demands and language intermixing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C., & Vaid, J. (1993). Activation of number facts in bilinguals. Memory & Cognition, 21, 809–818.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grosjean, F. (2000). The bilingual's language modes. In Nicol, J. L. (Ed.), One mind, two languages: bilingual language processing (pp. 1–22). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hermans, D., Bongaerts, T., De Bot, K., & Schreuder, R. (1998). Producing words in a foreign language: Can speakers prevent interference from their first language? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 213–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, L. L., & Muller, K. E. (1988). Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods. Boston: PWS–Kent.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S. C., & Wodniecka, Z. (2006). Language selectivity is the exception, not the rule: Arguments against a fixed locus of language selection in bilingual speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macizo, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2006). Reading for understanding and reading for translation: Do they involve the same processes? Cognition, 99, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macizo, P., & Herrera, A. (2008). The effect of number codes in the comparison task of two-digit numbers. Psicológica, 29, 1–34.Google Scholar
Moyer, R. S., & Landauer, T. K. (1967). Time required for judgments of numerical inequality. Nature, 215, 1519–1520.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nuerk, H. C., Weger, U., & Willmes, K. (2001). Decade breaks in the mental number line? Putting the tens and units back in different bins. Cognition, 82, B25–B33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuerk, H. C., Weger, U., & Willmes, K. (2002). A unit–decade compatibility effect in German number words. Current Psychology Letters: Behaviour, Brain and Cognition, 2, 19–38.Google Scholar
Nuerk, H. C., Weger, U., & Willmes, K. (2004). On the perceptual generality of the unit-decade compatibility effect. Experimental Psychology, 51, 72–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nuerk, H. C., Weger, U., & Willmes, K. (2005). Language effects in magnitude comparison: Small but not irrelevant. Brain and Language, 92, 262–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz, C., Paredes, N., Macizo, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2008). Activation of lexical and syntactic target language properties in translation. Acta Psychologica, 128, 490–500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime user's guide (version 1.1). Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.Google Scholar
Sholl, A., Sankaranarayanan, A., & Kroll, J. F. (1995). Transfer between picture naming and translation: A test of asymmetries in bilingual memory. Psychological Science, 6, 45–49.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, 45–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar