Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T15:51:33.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bilingual access of homonym meanings: Individual differences in bilingual access of homonym meanings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 November 2014

ANA BEATRIZ ARÊAS DA LUZ FONTES  and
ANA ISABEL SCHWARTZ
ANA BEATRIZ ARÊAS DA LUZ FONTES*
Affiliation:
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
ANA ISABEL SCHWARTZ
Affiliation:
The University of Texas at El Paso
*
Address for correspondence: Ana Beatriz Arêas da Luz Fontes, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS – Brazil[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The goal of the present study was to identify the cognitive processes that underlie lexical ambiguity resolution in a second language (L2). We examined which cognitive factors predict the efficiency in accessing subordinate meanings of L2 homonyms in a sample of highly-proficient, Spanish–English bilinguals. The predictive ability of individual differences in (1) homonym processing in the L1, (2) working memory capacity and (3) sensitivity to cross-language form overlap were examined. In two experiments, participants were presented with cognate and noncognate homonyms as either a prime in a lexical decision task (Experiment 1) or embedded in a sentence (Experiment 2). In both experiments speed and accuracy in accessing subordinate meanings in the L1 was the strongest predictor of speed and accuracy in accessing subordinate meanings in the L2. Sensitivity to cross-language form overlap predicted performance in lexical decision while working memory capacity predicted processing in sentence comprehension.

Keywords

bilingualismambiguity resolutioncross-language activationtransfer of skills
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , October 2015 , pp. 639 - 656
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

Andrews, S. (2012). Individual differences in skilled visual word recognition and reading: The role of lexical quality. In Adelman S., J. (Ed.), Visual word recognition. meaning and context, individuals and development. (2nd ed., pp. 151–172). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Andrews, S., & Bond, R. (2009). Lexical expertise and reading skill: Bottom-up and top-down processing of lexical ambiguity. Reading and Writing, 22 (6), 687–711. doi: 10.1007/s11145-008-9137-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, S., & Lo, S. (2012). Not all skilled readers have cracked the code: Individual differences in masked form priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38 (1), 152–163. doi: 10.1037/a0024953 Google Scholar
Arêas da Luz Fontes, A.B. & Schwartz, A.I. (2011). The effects of working memory capacity on cross-language activation during lexical disambiguation. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition, 14 (3), 360–370.Google Scholar
Bell, L. C., & Perfetti, C. A. (1994). Reading skill: Some adult comparisons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86 (2), 244–255.Google Scholar
Beretta, A., Fiorentino, R., & Poeppel, D. (2005). The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: An MEG study. Cognitive Brain Research, 24 (1), 57–65.Google Scholar
Bultena, S., Dijkstra, T., & Van Hell, J. G. (in press). Cognate and word class ambiguity effects in noun and verb processing. Language and Cognitive Processes. Google Scholar
Chwilla, D. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (2003). Event-related potential and reaction time evidence for inhibition between alternative meanings of ambiguous words. Brain and Language, 86 (2), 167–192.Google Scholar
Daneman, M. & Carpenter, P. A, (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.Google Scholar
Degani, T., & Tokowicz, N. (2010). Ambiguous words are harder to learn. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 299–314.Google Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B. & Keijzer, R. (2000), What Is Hard to Learn Is Easy to Forget: The Roles of Word Concreteness, Cognate Status, and Word Frequency in Foreign-Language Vocabulary Learning and Forgetting. Language Learning, 50, 1–56 Google Scholar
Dijkstra, A. F. J., 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 Google Scholar
Dijkstra, A., & Van Hell, J. (2003). Testing the Language Mode hypothesis using trilinguals. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 6, 2–16.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., 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 (3), 284–301. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.12.003 Google Scholar
Dixon, P., & Twilley, L. C. (1999). Context and homograph meaning resolution. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53 (4), 335–346.Google Scholar
Duffy, S, Morris, R.K. & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 429–446.Google Scholar
Duyck, W., Van Assche, E., Drieghe, D., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2007). Visual word recognition by bilinguals in a sentence context: Evidence for nonselective lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33 (4), 663–679.Google Scholar
Elston-Güttler, K. E. (2000). An enquiry into cross-language lexical-conceptual relationships and their effect on L2 lexical processing. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Elston-Güttler, K. E., Gunter, T. C., & Kotz, S. A. (2005). Zooming into L2: Global language context and adjustment affect processing of interlingual homographs in sentences. Cognitive Brain Research, 25 (1), 57–70.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. & Prince, P. (1997). Second language autonomy. Journal of Memory and Language, 37 (4), 481–501.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A., Varner, K. R., & Faust, M. (1990). Investigating differences in general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 430–445.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1991). Cognitive processes and mechanisms in language comprehension: The structure building framework. In Bower, G. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory, vol. 27. (pp. 217–263). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A., & Faust, M. (1995). Skilled suppression. In Dempster, F. N. (Ed.): Interference and inhibition in cognition (pp. 295–327). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1997a). Attenuating interference during comprehension: The role of suppression. In Medin, D. L. (Ed.), (1997). The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory, vol. 37 (pp. 85–104). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1997b). Two decades of structure building. Discourse Processes, 23 (3), 265–304.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A., Robertson, R. R. W., & Werner, N. K. (2000). The costs and benefits of meaning. In Gorfein's, D. S. (Ed.) On the consequences of meaning selection. APA Books, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A., & St. John, M.F. (2001). Modeling suppression in lexical access. In: Gorfein, D.S. (Ed.), On the Consequences of Meaning Selection: Perspectives on Resolving Lexical Ambiguity. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 47–65.Google Scholar
Gollan, T. H., Forster, K. I., & Frost, R. (1997). Translation priming with different scripts: Masked priming with cognates and noncognates in Hebrew English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 1122–1139.Google Scholar
Gottlob, L. R., Goldinger, S. D., Stone, G. O., & Van Orden, G. C. (1999). Reading homographs: Orthographic, phonologic, and semantic dynamics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 561–574.Google Scholar
Gunter, T. C., Wagner, S. & Friederici, A. D. (2003). Working memory and lexical ambiguity resolution as revealed by ERP's: a difficult case for activation theories. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 643–657.Google Scholar
Hino, Y., Lupker, S. J., & Pexman, P. M. (2002). Ambiguity and synonymy effects in lexical decision, naming, and semantic categorization tasks: Interactions between orthography, phonology, and semantics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28 (4), 686–713.Google Scholar
Hoshino, N., & Kroll, J. F. (2008). Cognate effects in picture naming: Does cross-language activation survive a change of script? Cognition, 106 (1), 501–511. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.02.001 Google Scholar
Klepousniotou, E. (2002). The processing of lexical ambiguity: Homonymy and polysemy in the mental lexicon. Brain and Language, 81 (1–3), 205–223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kroll, J. P., & 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
Lemhöfer, K., & Dijkstra, T. (2004). Recognizing cognates and interlingual homographs: Effects of code similarity in language-specific and generalized lexical decision. Memory and Cognition, 32 (4), 533–550.Google Scholar
Lemhöfer, K., Dijkstra, T., & Michel, M. C. (2004). Three languages, one ECHO: Cognate effects in trilingual word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19 (5), 585–611.Google Scholar
Libben, M. R. & Titone, D. A. (2009). Bilingual lexical access in context: Evidence from eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35 (2), 381–390.Google Scholar
Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Kaushanskaya, (2007). The Language Experience And Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 50, 940–967.Google Scholar
Miyake, A., Just, A. M. & Carpenter, P. A. (1994) Working memory constraints on the resolution of lexical ambiguity: Maintaining multiple representations in neutral contexts. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 175–202.Google Scholar
Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (1998). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. http://www.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/.Google Scholar
Nievas, F., & Mari Beffa, P. (2002). Negative priming from the non-selected meaning of the homograph. British Journal of Psychology, 93 (1), 47–66.Google Scholar
Pexman, P. M. & Lupker, S. J. (1999). Ambiguity and visual word recognition: Can feedback explain both homophone and polysemy effects? Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 323–334.Google Scholar
Pivneva, I., Mercier, J. & Titone, D. (in press). Executive control modulates cross-language lexical activation during L2 Reading: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition.Google Scholar
Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2006). Eye-movement control in reading. In Traxler, M. J., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 613–658) Academic Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Schwartz, A. I., Kroll, J. F., & Diaz, M. (2007). Reading words in Spanish and English: Mapping orthography to phonology in two languages. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22 (1), 106—29.Google Scholar
Schwartz, A. I. & Kroll, J. (2006) Bilingual lexical activation in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 55 (2), 197–212.Google Scholar
Schwartz, A. I., Yeh, L. & Shaw, M. (2008). Lexical representation of second language words: Implications for second language vocabulary acquisition and use. The Mental Lexicon, 3 (3), 309–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N., & Hulstijn, J. (2005). Automaticity in bilingualism and second language learning. In de Groot, A. M. B. (Ed.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. (pp. 371–388). New York, NY US: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., de Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., & Stevenson, M. (2004). Linguistic knowledge, processing speed, and metacognitive knowledge in first- and second-language reading comprehension: A componential analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96 (1), 19–30.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., Stoel, R. D., de Glopper, K., & Hulstijn, J. (2007). Development of adolescent reading comprehension in language 1 and language 2: A longitudinal analysis of constituent components. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99 (3), 477–491.Google Scholar
van Hell, J. G., & de Groot, Annette M. B. (2008). Sentence context modulates visual word recognition and translation in bilinguals. Acta Psychologica, 128 (3), 431–451.Google Scholar
Van Orden, G.C. (1987). A rows is a rose: Spelling, sound and reading. Memory and Cognition, 15 (3), 181–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walter, C. (2007). First- to second-language reading comprehension: not transfer, but access. International Journal of Applied linguistics, 17, 14–37.Google Scholar
Yap, M. J., Balota, D. A., Sibley, D. E., & Ratcliff, R. (2012). Individual differences in visual word recognition: Insights from the english lexicon project. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38 (1), 53–79. doi:10.1037/a0024177 Google Scholar