Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:03:58.892Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

L2 word recognition in French–English late bilinguals: Does modality matter?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 August 2021

Camille Cornut ,
Gwendoline Mahé  and
Séverine Casalis Open the ORCID record for Séverine Casalis [Opens in a new window]
Camille Cornut
Affiliation:
Univ. Lille, CNRS, UMR 9193 – SCALab – Sciences Cognitives et Sciences Affectives, F-59000 Lille, France
Gwendoline Mahé
Affiliation:
Univ. Lille, CNRS, UMR 9193 – SCALab – Sciences Cognitives et Sciences Affectives, F-59000 Lille, France
Séverine Casalis*
Affiliation:
Univ. Lille, CNRS, UMR 9193 – SCALab – Sciences Cognitives et Sciences Affectives, F-59000 Lille, France
*
Address for correspondence: Séverine Casalis, E-mail: [email protected] Université de Lille Laboratoire SCALab Domaine Universitaire Pont de Bois Rue du Barreau BP60149 59653 Villeneuve d'Ascq France
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research in second language (L2) learning often considers one modality only during task completion. It is unclear if L2 performance is as accurate whatever the modality. L2 learning at school is characterized by a predominance of written materials. One might expect written L2 word recognition to be more accurate than spoken one. This modality effect could also depend on L2 proficiency and the presence of cognate items, closer orthographically than phonologically for most language pairs. Two experiments were conducted with 50 intermediate proficiency French–English bilinguals. Experiment 1 highlighted this modality effect on accuracy and a session effect reflecting a benefit from oral to written modality on latency. In Experiment 2, which included both cognate and non-cognate words, modality effect was even stronger for cognate words and cognate effect depended on modality. In both experiments, these effects depend on L2 proficiency. These findings are discussed according to bilingual word recognition models.

Keywords

bilingualismword recognitionmodality effectlexical representations
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , January 2022 , pp. 121 - 136
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Audacity (n.d.) Copyright 1989, 1991.Google Scholar
Baayen, RH, Davidson, DJ and Bates, DM (2008) Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59, 390–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balota, DA, Watson, JM, Duchek, JM and Ferraro, FR (1999) Cross-modal semantic and homograph priming in healthy young, healthy old, and in Alzheimer's disease individuals. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 5, 626–640. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617799577060CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barr, DJ, Levy, R, Scheepers, C and Tily, HJ (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of memory and language 68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, D, Mächler, M, Bolker, BM and Walker, SC (2014) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.5823. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.5823.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bürkner, P.-C (2017) brms: An R Package for Bayesian Multilevel Models Using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software 80, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v080.i01CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bürkner, P.-C (2018) Advanced Bayesian Multilevel Modeling with the R Package brms. The R Journal 10, 395–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, B, Gelman, A, Hoffman, MD, Lee, D, Goodrich, B, Betancourt, M, Brubaker, M, Guo, J, Li, P and Riddell, A (2017) Stan: A Probabilistic Programming Language. Journal of Statistical Software 76, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v076.i01CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coltheart, M, Rastle, K, Perry, C, Langdon, R and Ziegler, J (2001) DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review 108, 204–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.1.204CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Commissaire, E, Duncan, LG and Casalis, S (2019) Investigating pseudohomophone interference effects in young second-language learners. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 180, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2018.11.010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cook, SV, Pandza, NB, Lancaster, AK and Gor, K (2016) Frontiers | Fuzzy Nonnative Phonolexical Representations Lead to Fuzzy Form-to-Meaning Mappings | Psychology. Frontiers in psychology 7, 1345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Darcy, I, Daidone, D and Kojima, C (2013) Asymmetric lexical access and fuzzy lexical representations in second language learners | John Benjamins. The Mental Lexicon 8, 372–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dialang. (2021) https://dialangweb.lancaster.ac.uk/Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T, Van Heuven, W and Grainger, J (1998) Simulating cross-language competition with the bilingual interactive activation model. Psychologica Belgica 38, 177–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T and van Heuven, WJB (2002) The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 5, 175–197. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728902003012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T, Wahl, A, Buytenhuijs, F, Van Halem, N, Al-Jibouri, Z, De Korte, M and Rekké, S (2019) Multilink: A computational model for bilingual word recognition and word translation | Bilingualism: Language and Cognition | Cambridge Core. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 22, 657–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrand, L, Méot, A, Spinelli, E, New, B, Pallier, C, Bonin, P, Dufau, S, Mathôt, S and Grainger, J (2018) MEGALEX: A megastudy of visual and auditory word recognition. Behavior Research Methods 50, 1285–1307. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0943-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferrand, L, New, B, Brysbaert, M, Keuleers, E, Bonin, P, Méot, A, Augustinova, M and Pallier, C (2010) The French Lexicon Project: Lexical decision data for 38,840 French words and 38,840 pseudowords. Behavior Research Methods 42, 488–496. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.2.488CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forrin, ND, Groot, B and MacLeod, CM (2016) The d-Prime directive: Assessing costs and benefits in recognition by dissociating mixed-list false alarm rates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 42, 1090–1111. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000214Google ScholarPubMed
Forster, KI and Forster, JC (2003) DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior research methods, instruments & computers 35, 116–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, A, Goodrich, B, Gabry, J and Vehtari, A (2019) R-squared for Bayesian Regression Models. The American Statistician 73, 307–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2018.1549100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gola-Asmussen, C, Lequette, C, Pouget, G, Rouyer, C and Zorman, M (2011) ECLA-16+: Évaluation des compétences de lecture chez l'adulte de plus de 16 ans. https://scholar.google.fr/scholar?hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Gola-Asmussen%2C+Lequette%2C+Pouget%2C+Rouyer%2C+%26+Zorman%2C+2011&btnG=Google Scholar
Grainger, J, Midgley, K and Holcomb, PJ (2010) Chapter 14. Re-thinking the bilingual interactive-activation model from a developmental perspective (BIA-d). In Kail, M and Hickmann, M (Éds.), Language Acquisition and Language Disorders. John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.52.18graGoogle Scholar
Green, DM and Swets, JA (1966) SDT and Psychophysics.pdf. http://andrei.gorea.free.fr/Teaching_fichiers/SDT%20and%20Psytchophysics.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hayes-Harb, R, Nicol, J and Barker, J (2010) Learning the Phonological Forms of New Words: Effects of Orthographic and Auditory Input. Language and Speech 53, 367–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830910371460CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keuleers, E and Brysbaert, M (2010) Wuggy: A multilingual pseudoword generator. Behavior Research Methods 42, 627–633. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.3.627CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lauro, J and Schwartz, AI (2017) Bilingual non-selective lexical access in sentence contexts: A meta-analytic review – ScienceDirect. Journal of Memory and Language 92, 217–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macmillan, NA and Creelman, CD (1991) Detection theory: A user's guide.Google Scholar
Marian, V, Spivey, M and Hirsch, J (2003) Shared and separate systems in bilingual language processing: Converging evidence from eyetracking and brain imaging. Brain and Language 86, 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00535-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, JR, Balass, M and Perfetti, CA (2005) Differences between written and spoken input in learning new words. Written Language & Literacy 8, 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.8.2.04nelCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pivneva, I, Mercier, J and Titone, D (2014) Executive control modulates cross-language lexical activation during L2 reading: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 40, 787–796. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035583Google ScholarPubMed
Raven, J and Raven, JC (1998) Manual for Raven's progressive matrices and vocabulary scales.Google Scholar
Ryalls, J, Provost, H and Arsenault, N (1995) Voice Onset Time production in French-speaking aphasics – ScienceDirect. Journal of Communication Disorders 28, 205–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauval, K, Perre, L and Casalis, S (2018) Phonemic feature involvement in lexical access in grades 3 and 5: Evidence from visual and auditory lexical decision tasks. Acta Psychologica 182, 212–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.12.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shimizu, H (2002) Measuring keyboard response delays by comparing keyboard and joystick inputs. Behavior research methods, instruments & computers 34, 250–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shook, A and Marian, V (2013) The Bilingual Language Interaction Network for Comprehension of Speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16, 304–324. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728912000466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprenger-Charolles, L, Colé, P, Béchennec, D and Kipffer-Piquard, A (2005) French normative data on reading and related skills: From 7 to 10 year-olds. European Review of Applied Psychology 55, 157–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valente, D, Ferré, P, Soares, A, Rato, A and Comesaña, M (2018) Does phonological overlap of cognate words modulate cognate acquisition and processing in developing and skilled readers? Language Acquisition 25, 438–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2017.1395029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Heuven, WJB, Mandera, P, Keuleers, E and Brysbaert, M (2014) SUBTLEX-UK: A new and improved word frequency database for British English: The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Vol 67, No 6. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 67, 1176–1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veivo, O, Suomela-Salmi, E and Järvikivi, J (2015) Orthographic bias in L3 lexical knowledge: Learner-related and lexical factors | John Benjamins. Language, Interaction and Acquisition 6, 270–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, J, Chen, Y, van Heuven, VJ and Schiller, NO (2019) Dynamic effect of tonal similarity in bilingual auditory lexical processing. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 34, 580–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2018.1550206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yarkoni, T, Balota, D and Yap, M (2008) Moving beyond Coltheart's N: A new measure of orthographic similarity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 15, 971–979. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.5.971CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yudes, C, Macizo, P and Bajo, T (2010) Cognate effects in bilingual language comprehension tasks: NeuroReport. NeuroReport 21, 507–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, JC and Goswami, U (2005) Reading Acquisition, Developmental Dyslexia, and Skilled Reading Across Languages: A Psycholinguistic Grain Size Theory. Psychological Bulletin 131, 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Cornut et al. supplementary material

Cornut et al. supplementary material

Download Cornut et al. supplementary material(File)
File 71.4 KB