Cross-lingual priming of cognates and interlingual homographs from L2 to L1

Many word forms exist in multiple languages, and can have either the same meaning (cognates) or a different meaning (interlingual homographs). Previous experiments have shown that processing of interlingual homographs in a bilingual’s second language is slowed down by recent experience with these words in the bilingual’s native language, while processing of cognates can be speeded up (Poort et al., 2016; Poort & Rodd, 2019a). The current experiment replicated Poort and Rodd’s (2019a) Experiment 2 but switched the direction of priming: Dutch-English bilinguals (N = 106) made Dutch semantic relatedness judgements to probes related to cognates (n = 50), interlingual homographs (n = 50) and translation equivalents (n = 50) they had seen 15 minutes previously embedded in English sentences. The current experiment is the first to show that a single encounter with an interlingual homograph in one’s second language can also affect subsequent processing in one’s native language. Cross-lingual priming did not affect the cognates. The experiment also extended Poort and Rodd (2019a)’s finding of a large interlingual homograph inhibition effect in a semantic relatedness task in the participants’ L2 to their L1, but again found no evidence for a cognate facilitation effect in a semantic relatedness task. These findings extend the growing literature that emphasises the high level of interaction in a bilingual’s mental lexicon, by demonstrating the influence of L2 experience on the processing of L1 words. Data, scripts, materials and pre-registration available via https://osf.io/2swyg/?view_only=b2ba2e627f6f4eaeac87edab2b59b236.

Cross-language semantic parafoveal preview benefits in bilinguals

The aim of this project was to identify factors contributing to cross-language semantic preview benefits. In Experiment 1, Russian-English bilinguals read English sentences with Russian words presented as parafoveal previews. The gaze-contingent boundary paradigm was used to present sentences. Critical previews were cognate translations of the target word (CTAPT - START), noncognate translations (CPOK - TERM), or interlingual homograph translations (MOPE - SEA). A semantic preview benefit (i.e., shorter fixation durations) was observed for cognate and interlingual homograph translations, but not for noncognate translations. In Experiment 2, English-French bilinguals read English sentences with French words used as parafoveal previews. Critical previews were interlingual homograph translations of the target word (PAIN - BREAD) or interlingual homograph translations with a diacritic added (PÁIN - BREAD). A robust semantic preview benefit was found only for interlingual homographs without diacritics, although both preview types produced a semantic preview benefit in the total fixation duration. Our findings suggest that semantically-related previews need to have substantial orthographic overlap with words in the target language to produce cross-language semantic preview benefits in early eye fixation measures. In terms of the Bilingual Interactive Activation + model, the preview word may need to activate the language node for the target language before its meaning is integrated with that of the target word.

The eye or the ear?

In the current study we set out to investigate source language interference in the visual modality (in sight translation – ST) and in the auditory modality (in simultaneous interpreting – SI). We probed interpretations of cognates, interlingual homographs and passive structures in single sentence contexts as performed from English to Polish by 47 advanced interpreting trainees. We also analysed temporal measures: ear-voice span (in SI) or eye-voice span (in ST) as well as total translation time. The results showed a higher level of interference in ST in the case of homographs and a mixed pattern of results for the remaining measures. We also obtained interesting task-independent results, namely an 80% rate of global passive retention testifying to a high level of syntactic priming in both modes of interpreting. We discuss these results in the context of different types of interference occurring in interpreting and conclude that there might be a similar global level of interference in the two tasks, however with differing underlying patterns. This is the first study to date to directly compare interference levels between ST and SI in such controlled conditions. Our results contribute to the understanding of complex linguistic processes occurring across modalities in interpreting tasks.

“The Big Book of Errors” (New Collected Works of Vladimir Narbut)

This review of the newly published book “Vladimir Narbut. Poetry. Translations. Prose” (Roman Kozhukharov, ed., Moscow, 2018) evaluates the textual criticism methods applied to this collection, reflects on the quality of the commentaries and the preface essay, and reveals a remarkable number of flaws the new edition has: the altered structure of the poetic cycles, chronological and bibliographical errors, and issues with text variants. The editor demonstrates little regard for the textual accuracy, and employs a self-contradictory strategy for the versions and drafts of the poetic texts. The commentaries that supply the book lack merely a professional approach: some are too detailed (or too telegraphic), others disconnect from the context, and some are irrelevant or misguided. The latter is particularly true for the Russian-Ukrainian interlingual homographs and homonyms, and ethnographic realia. The long-winded preface essay provides a detailed overview of the poet’s life, and is full of debatable esoteric assumptions and preposterous conclusions.

Mixing the stimulus list in bilingual lexical decision turns cognate facilitation effects into mirrored inhibition effects

To test the BIA+ and Multilink models’ accounts of how bilinguals process words with different degrees of cross-linguistic orthographic and semantic overlap, we conducted two experiments manipulating stimulus list composition. Dutch–English late bilinguals performed two English lexical decision tasks including the same set of cognates, interlingual homographs, English control words, and pseudowords. In one task, half of the pseudowords were replaced with Dutch words, requiring a ‘no’ response. This change from pure to mixed language list context was found to turn cognate facilitation effects into inhibition. Relative to control words, larger effects were found for cognate pairs with an increasing cross-linguistic form overlap. Identical cognates produced considerably larger effects than non-identical cognates, supporting their special status in the bilingual lexicon. Response patterns for different item types are accounted for in terms of the items’ lexical representation and their binding to ‘yes’ and ‘no’ responses in pure vs mixed lexical decision.

Towards a distributed connectionist account of cognates and interlingual homographs: evidence from semantic relatedness tasks

Background Current models of how bilinguals process cognates (e.g., “wolf”, which has the same meaning in Dutch and English) and interlingual homographs (e.g., “angel”, meaning “insect’s sting” in Dutch) are based primarily on data from lexical decision tasks. A major drawback of such tasks is that it is difficult—if not impossible—to separate processes that occur during decision making (e.g., response competition) from processes that take place in the lexicon (e.g., lateral inhibition). Instead, we conducted two English semantic relatedness judgement experiments. Methods In Experiment 1, highly proficient Dutch–English bilinguals (N = 29) and English monolinguals (N = 30) judged the semantic relatedness of word pairs that included a cognate (e.g., “wolf”–“howl”; n = 50), an interlingual homograph (e.g., “angel”–“heaven”; n = 50) or an English control word (e.g., “carrot”–“vegetable”; n = 50). In Experiment 2, another group of highly proficient Dutch–English bilinguals (N = 101) read sentences in Dutch that contained one of those cognates, interlingual homographs or the Dutch translation of one of the English control words (e.g., “wortel” for “carrot”) approximately 15 minutes prior to completing the English semantic relatedness task. Results In Experiment 1, there was an interlingual homograph inhibition effect of 39 ms only for the bilinguals, but no evidence for a cognate facilitation effect. Experiment 2 replicated these findings and also revealed that cross-lingual long-term priming had an opposite effect on the cognates and interlingual homographs: recent experience with a cognate in Dutch speeded processing of those items 15 minutes later in English but slowed processing of interlingual homographs. However, these priming effects were smaller than previously observed using a lexical decision task. Conclusion After comparing our results to studies in both the bilingual and monolingual domain, we argue that bilinguals appear to process cognates and interlingual homographs as monolinguals process polysemes and homonyms, respectively. In the monolingual domain, processing of such words is best modelled using distributed connectionist frameworks. We conclude that it is necessary to explore the viability of such a model for the bilingual case. Data, scripts, materials and pre-registrations. Experiment 1: http://www.osf.io/ndb7p; Experiment 2: http://www.osf.io/2at49.

A Database of Dutch–English Cognates, Interlingual Homographs and Translation Equivalents

This article has been published in Journal of Cognition. To investigate the structure of the bilingual mental lexicon, researchers in the field of bilingualism often use words that exist in multiple languages: cognates (which have the same meaning) and interlingual homographs (which have a different meaning). A high proportion of these studies have investigated language processing in Dutch–English bilinguals. Despite the abundance of research using such materials, few studies exist that have validated such materials. We conducted two rating experiments in which Dutch–English bilinguals rated the meaning, spelling and pronunciation similarity of pairs of Dutch and English words. On the basis of these results, we present a new database of Dutch–English identical cognates (e.g. “wolf”–“wolf”; n = 58), non-identical cognates (e.g. “kat”–“cat”; n = 74), interlingual homographs (e.g. “angel”–“angel”; n = 72) and translation equivalents (e.g. “wortel”–“carrot”; n = 78). The database can be accessed at http://osf.io/tcdxb/.