Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T05:58:21.073Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of multiple translations and cognate status on translation recognition performance of balanced bilinguals*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2012

ROGER BOADA ,
ROSA SÁNCHEZ-CASAS ,
JOSÉ M. GAVILÁN ,
JOSÉ E. GARCÍA-ALBEA  and
NATASHA TOKOWICZ
ROGER BOADA*
Affiliation:
Research Center for Behavior Assessment (CRAMC), Department of Psychology, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Spain
ROSA SÁNCHEZ-CASAS
Affiliation:
Research Center for Behavior Assessment (CRAMC), Department of Psychology, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Spain
JOSÉ M. GAVILÁN
Affiliation:
Research Center for Behavior Assessment (CRAMC), Department of Psychology, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Spain
JOSÉ E. GARCÍA-ALBEA
Affiliation:
Research Center for Behavior Assessment (CRAMC), Department of Psychology, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Spain
NATASHA TOKOWICZ
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh, USA
*
Address for correspondence: Roger Boada, Departament de Psicologia, Facultat de Ciències de l'Educació i Psicologia, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Ctra de Valls s/n, 43007 Tarragona, Spain[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When participants are asked to translate an ambiguous word, they are slower and less accurate than in the case of single-translation words (e.g., Láxen & Lavour, 2010; Tokowicz & Kroll, 2007). We report an experiment to further examine this multiple-translation effect by investigating the influence of variables shown to be relevant in bilingual processing. The experiment included cognates and non-cognates with one translation or with multiple translations. The latter were presented with their dominant or subordinate translations. Highly-proficient balanced bilinguals responded to a translation recognition task in the two language directions (Catalan–Spanish and Spanish–Catalan). The results showed a significant multiple-translation effect in both cognates and non-cognates. Moreover, this effect was obtained regardless of language dominance and translation direction. Participants were faster and more accurate when performing translation recognition for the dominant than for the subordinate translations. The findings are interpreted adopting the Distributed Representation Model (de Groot, 1992b).

Keywords

translation ambiguitymultiple translationscognate statustranslation recognition
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , January 2013 , pp. 183 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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 has been supported by a grant from the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science (PSI2009-12616/Plan E), by a grant of Generalitat de Catalunya (2009-SGR-401), and by NSF BCS-0745372 awarded to the last author. We wish to thank the students from the Universitat Rovira i Virgili who participated in the study.

References

Costa, A., Caramazza, A., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2002). The cognate facilitation effect: Implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 26 (5), 1283–1296.Google Scholar
Costa, A., Santesteban, M., & Caño, A. (2005). On the facilitatory effects of cognate words in bilingual speech production. Brain and Language, 94, 94–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, C. J., & Perea, M. (2005). BuscaPalabras: A program for deriving orthographic and phonological neighborhood statistics and other psycholinguistic indices in Spanish. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 665–671.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, C., Sánchez-Casas, R., García-Albea, J. E., Ferré, P., Guasch, M., & Molero, M. (2010). Masked translation priming: Varying language experience and word type with Spanish–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 137–155.CrossRefGoogle 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, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Groot, A. M. B., Borgwaldt, S., Bos, M., & Van den Eijnden, E. (2002). Lexical decision and word naming in bilinguals: Language effects and task effects. Journal of Memory and Language, 47 (1), 91–124.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.CrossRefGoogle 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
Degani, T., & Tokowicz, N. (2010). Ambiguous words are harder to learn. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 299–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, A., 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 (4), 496–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, A., Miwa, K., Brummelhuis, B., Sappelli, M., & Baayen, H. (2010). How cross-language similarity and task demands affect cognate recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 284–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Timmermans, M., & Schriefers, H. (2000). On being blinded by your other language: Effects of task demands on interlingual homograph recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 42 (4), 445–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duñabeitia, J. A., Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. (2009). Masked translation priming effects with highly proficient simultaneous bilinguals. Experimental Psychology, 57 (2), 98–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, F. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 35, 116–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frenck-Mestre, C., & Prince, P. (1997). Second language autonomy. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 481–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García-Albea, J. E., Sánchez-Casas, R., & Igoa, J. M. (1998). The contribution of word form and meaning to language processing in Spanish: Some evidence from monolingual and bilingual studies. In Hilert, D. (ed.), Sentence processing: A cross-linguistic perspective, pp. 183–209. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grainger, J., & Frenck-Mestre, C. (1998). Masked priming by translation equivalents in proficient bilinguals. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 601–623.CrossRefGoogle 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
Laxén, J., & Lavaur, J. M. (2010). The role of semantics in translation recognition: Effects of number of translations, dominance of translations and semantic relatedness of multiple translations. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 157–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemhöfer, K., & Dijkstra, T. (2004). Recognizing cognates and interlingual homographs: Effects of code similarity in language-specific and generalized lexical decision. Memory & Cognition, 32 (4), 533–550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lozano, N., & Sánchez-Casas, R. (2010). Masked translation priming: Word type and concreteness effects in Spanish–English bilinguals’ language processing. MA dissertation, Universitat de Barcelona.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception, Part 1: An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88 (5), 375–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perea, M., Duñabeitia, J. A., & Carreiras, M. (2008). Masked associative/semantic priming effect across languages with highly proficient bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 916–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plaut, D. C. (1997). Structure and function in the lexical system: Insights from distributed models of word reading and lexical decision. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 767–808.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
Rafel, J. (1998) Diccionari de freqüències. Barcelona: Institut d'Estudis Catalans.Google Scholar
Sánchez-Casas, R., Davis, C. W., & García-Albea, J. E. (1992a). Bilingual lexical processing: Exploring the cognate/non-cognate distinction. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4 (4), 293–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sánchez-Casas, R., Suárez, B., & Igoa, J. M. (1992b). Are bilingual lexical representations interconnected? Communication presented at the Fifth Conference of the European Society for Cognitive Psychology, Paris.Google Scholar
Schoonbaert, S., Duyck, W., Brysbaert, M., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2009). Semantic and translation priming from a first language to a second and back: Making sense of the findings. Memory & Cognition, 37 (5), 569–586.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523–568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tokowicz, N., & Kroll, J. F. (2007). Number of meanings and concreteness: Consequences of ambiguity within and across languages. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22 (5), 727–779.CrossRefGoogle 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, & Computers, 34 (3), 435–451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Hell, J. G., & de Groot, A. M. B. (1998). Conceptual representation in bilingual memory: Effects of concreteness and cognate status in word association. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 193–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar