Reaction times for a translation recognition study are reported where novice to expert English–ASL bilinguals rejected English translation distractors for ASL signs that were related to the correct translations through phonology, semantics, or both form and meaning (diagrammatic iconicity). Imageability ratings of concepts impacted performance in all conditions; when imageability was high, participants showed interference for phonologically related distractors, and when imageability was low participants showed interference for semantically related distractors, regardless of proficiency. For diagrammatically related distractors high imageability caused interference in experts, but low imageability caused interference in novices. These patterns suggest that imageability and diagrammaticity interact with proficiency – experts process diagrammatic related distractors phonologically, but novices process them semantically. This implies that motivated signs are dependent on the entrenchment of language systematicity; rather than decreasing their impact on language processing as proficiency grows, they build on the original benefit conferred by iconic mappings.

This study used ERPs to a) assess the neural correlates of cross-linguistic, cross-modal translation priming in hearing beginning learners of American Sign Language (ASL) and deaf highly proficient signers and b) examine whether sign iconicity modulates these priming effects. Hearing learners exhibited translation priming for ASL signs preceded by English words (greater negativity for unrelated than translation primes) later in the ERP waveform than deaf signers and exhibited earlier and greater priming for iconic than non-iconic signs. Iconicity did not modulate translation priming effects either behaviorally or in the ERPs for deaf signers (except in a 800–1000 ms time window). Because deaf signers showed early translation priming effects (beginning at 400ms-600ms), we suggest that iconicity did not facilitate lexical access, but deaf signers may have recognized sign iconicity later in processing. Overall, the results indicate that iconicity speeds lexical access for L2 sign language learners, but not for proficient signers.

Translations often do not align directly across languages, and indirect mappings reduce the accuracy of language learning. To facilitate examination of this issue, we developed a new continuous measure for quantifying the semantic relatedness of words with more than one translation (hereafter translation-ambiguous words). Participants rated the similarity of each translation to every other translation, yielding a Translation Semantic Variability (TSV) score, ranging from 1.00 (unrelated) to 7.00 (related). Then, we determined how relatedness between translations affects translation-ambiguous word learning from German to English. German words with low TSV scores were recognized as translations more slowly and less accurately than German words with high TSV scores. TSV explains unique variance beyond the previously-used dichotomous classification of words as form vs. meaning ambiguous. We propose that the relatedness of the translation alternatives influences learning because it affects the ease with which a one-to-one mapping can be established between form and meaning.

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).