Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T19:05:26.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Masked translation priming with semantic categorization: Testing the Sense Model*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2010

XIN WANG  and
KENNETH I. FORSTER
XIN WANG*
Affiliation:
National University of Singapore
KENNETH I. FORSTER
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
*
Address for correspondence: Xin Wang, Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, National University of Singapore, Singapore [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Four experiments are reported which were designed to test hypotheses concerning the asymmetry of masked translation priming. Experiment 1 confirmed the presence of L2–L1 priming with a semantic categorization task and demonstrated that this effect was restricted to exemplars. Experiment 2 showed that the translation priming effect was not due to response congruence. Experiment 3 replicated this finding, and demonstrated that the 150 ms backward mask that had been used in earlier translation priming experiments was not essential. Finally, it was demonstrated in Experiment 4 that L2–L1 priming was not obtained for an ad hoc category, indicating that priming was not obtained merely because the task required semantic interpretation. These results provide further support for the Sense Model proposed by Finkbeiner et al. (2004).

Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , July 2010 , pp. 327 - 340
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.)

Footnotes

*

The work was partially supported by the AAFSAA (2007) grant at the University of Arizona. Thanks to Matthew Finkbeiner and two anonymous BLC reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions.

References

Altarriba, J. (1992). The representation of translation equivalents in bilingual memory. In Harris, R. J. (ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals, pp. 157–174. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altarriba, J. & Mathis, K. M. (1997). Conceptual and lexical development in second language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 36 (4), 550–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R. & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database (release 2) [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania [Distributor].Google Scholar
Basnight-Brown, D. M. & Altarriba, J. (2007). Differences in semantic and translation priming across languages: The role of language direction and language dominance. Memory & Cognition, 35 (5), 953–965.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bastiaansen, M. C. M., Oostenveld, R., Jensen, O. & Hagoort, P. (2008). I see what you mean: Theta power increases are involved in the retrieval of lexical semantic information. Brain and Language, 106 (1), 15–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Battig, W. F. & Montague, W. E. (1969). Category norms of verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 80 (3), 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno, S. & Frenck-Mestre, C. (2002). Rapid activation of the lexicon: A further investigation with behavioral and computational results. Brain and Language, 81 (1), 120–130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, H. & Ng, M. (1989). Semantic facilitation and translation priming effects in Chinese–English bilinguals. Memory & Cognition, 17 (4), 454–462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Damian, M. F. (2001). Congruity effects evoked by subliminally presented primes: Automaticity rather than semantic processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27 (1), 154–165.Google ScholarPubMed
Davis, C., Kim, J. & Sánchez-Casas, R. (2003). In Kinoshita, S. & Lupker, S. J. (eds.), Masked priming across languages: An insight into bilingual lexical processing, pp. 309–322. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
de Groot, A. M. B. (2002). Lexical representation and lexical processing in the second language user. In Cook, V. (ed.), Portraits of the L2 user, pp. 32–64. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
de Groot, A. M. B. & Nas, G. L. (1991). Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates in compound bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 30 (1), 90–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehaene, S., Naccache, L., Le Clec'H, G., Koechlin, E., Mueller, M., Dehaene-Lambertz, G., et al. (1998). Imaging unconscious semantic priming. Nature, 395 (6702), 597–600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dudsic, J. A. (2000). Priming asymmetries in Chinese–English bilinguals: A series of single-subject studies. PhD dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Fellbaum, C. (1998). A semantic network of English: The mother of all WordNets. Computers and the Humanities, 32 (2–3), 209–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkbeiner, M. S. (2002) Bilingual lexical memory: Towards a psycholinguistic model of adult L2 lexical acquisition, representation, and processing. PhD dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, M. S., Forster, K., Nicol, J. & Nakamura, K. (2004). The role of polysemy in masked semantic and translation priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 51 (1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, K. I. (2004). Category size effects revisited: Frequency and masked priming effects in semantic categorization. Brain and Language, 90 (1), 276–286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forster, K. I. & Davis, C. (1984). Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 680–698.Google Scholar
Forster, K. I. & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 35 (1), 116–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forster, K. I. & Hector, J. (2002). Cascaded versus noncascaded models of lexical and semantic processing the turple effect. Memory & Cognition, 30 (7), 1106–1116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forster, K. I. & Jiang, N. (2001). The nature of the bilingual lexicon: Experiments with the masked priming paradigm. In Nicol, J. L. (ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing, pp. 72–83. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Forster, K. I., Mohan, K. & Hector, J. (2003). The mechanics of masked priming. In Kinoshita, S. & Lupker, S. (eds.), Masked priming: State of the art, pp. 3–37. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Francis, W. S. (1999). Cognitive integration of language and memory in bilinguals: Semantic representation. Psychological Bulletin, 125 (2), 193–222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Francis, W. S. (2005). Bilingual semantic and conceptual representation. In Kroll, J. F. & DeGroot, A. M. B. (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, pp. 251–267. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. & Bueno, S. (1999). Semantic features and semantic categories: Differences in rapid activation of the lexicon. Brain and Language, 68 (1), 199–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gollan, T. H., Forster, K. I. & Frost, R. (1997). Translation priming with different scripts: Masked priming with cognates and non-cognates in Hebrew–English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 23, 1122–1139.Google Scholar
Grainger, J. & Beauvillain, C. (1988). Associative priming in bilinguals: Some limits of interlingual facilitation effects. Canadian Journal of Psychology Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, 42 (3), 261–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grainger, J. & Frenck-Mestre, C. (1998). Masked priming by translation equivalents in proficient bilinguals. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13 (6), 601–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1998). Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 131–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual's language modes. In Nicol, J. L. (ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing, pp. 1–22. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (1998) Understanding bilingual lexical organization: Evidence from masked cross-language priming in Chinese–English bilinguals. PhD dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (1999). Testing processing explanations for the asymmetry in masked cross-language priming. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2 (1), 59–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N. & Forster, K. I. (2001). Cross-language priming asymmetries in lexical decision and episodic recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 44 (1), 32–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jin, Y. (1990). Effects of concreteness on cross-language priming in lexical decisions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70 (3), 1139–1154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keatley, C. W., Spinks, J. A. & de Gelder, B. (1994). Asymmetrical cross-language priming effects. Memory & Cognition, 22 (1), 70–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirsner, K., Smith, M. C., Lockhart, R. S., King, M. L. & Jain, M. (1984). The bilingual lexicon: Language-specific effects in an integrated network.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 519–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F. & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connection between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33 (2), 149–174.CrossRefGoogle 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, pp. 49–71. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F. & Tokowicz, N. (2005). Models of bilingual representation and processing: Looking back and to the future. In Kroll, J. F. & DeGroot, A. M. B. (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, pp. 531–553. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, W. L., Wee, G., Tzeng, O. J. & Hung, D. L. (1992). A study of interlingual and intralingual Stroop effect in three different scripts: Logograph, syllable, and alphabet. In Harris, R. J. (ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals, pp. 427–442. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neely, J. H., Keefe, D. E. & Ross, K. L. (1989). Semantic priming in the lexical decision task: Roles of prospective prime-generated expectancies and retrospective semantic matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 15 (6), 1003–1019.Google ScholarPubMed
Perea, M., Dunabeitia, J. A. & Carreiras, M. (2008). Masked associative/semantic priming effects across languages with highly proficient bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 58 (4), 916–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pexman, P. M., Hargreaves, I. S., Siakaluk, P. D., Bodner, G. E. & Pope, J. (2008). There are many ways to be rich: Effects of three measures of semantic richness on visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15 (1), 161–167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pexman, P. M., Holyk, G. G. & Monfils, M.-H. (2003). Number-of-features effects and semantic processing. Memory & Cognition, 31, 842–855.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quinn, W. M. & Kinoshita, S. (2008). Congruence effect in semantic categorization with masked primes with narrow and broad categories. Journal of Memory and Language, 58 (2), 286–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., Marslen-Wilson, W. D. & Tyler, L. K. (2000). Morphological and semantic effects in visual word recognition: A time-course study. Language & Cognitive Processes, 15 (4–5), 507–537.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sánchez-Casas, R. M., Davis, C. W. & García-Albea, J. E. (1992). Bilingual lexical processing: Exploring the cognate/non-cognate distinction.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4 (4), 293–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwanenflugel, P. J. & Rey, M. (1986). Interlingual semantic facilitation: Evidence for a common representational system in the bilingual lexicon.Journal of Memory and Language, 25 (5), 605–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sereno, S. C. & Rayner, K. (2003). Measuring word recognition in reading: Eye movements and event-related potentials. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 489–493.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siakaluk, P. D., Buchanan, L. & Westbury, C. (2003). The effect of semantic distance in yes/no and go/no-go semantic categorization tasks. Memory & Cognition, 31 (1), 100–113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tzelgov, J., Henik, A. & Leiser, D. (1990). Controlling Stroop interference: Evidence from a bilingual task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 16 (5), 760–771.Google Scholar
Williams, J. N. (1994). The relationship between word meanings in the first and second language: Evidence for a common, but restricted, semantic code.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 6 (2), 195–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoon, C., Feinberg, F., Hu, P., Gutchess, A. H., Hedden, T., Chen, H. Y., Jing, Q., Cui, Y. & Park, D. C. (2004). Category norms as a function of culture and age: Comparisons of item responses to 105 categories by American and Chinese adults. Psychology and Aging, 19 (3), 379–393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zeelenberg, R. & Pecher, D. (2003). Evidence for long-term language repetition priming in conceptual implicit memory tasks. Journal of Memory and Language, 49 (1), 80–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar