Cross-language activation of morphological relatives in cognates: the role of orthographic overlap and task-related processing

We considered the role of orthography and task-related processing mechanisms in the activation of morphologically related complex words during bilingual word processing. So far, it has only been shown that such morphologically related words (i.e., morphological family members) are activated through the semantic and morphological overlap they share with the target word. In this study, we investigated family size effects in Dutch-English identical cognates (e.g., tent in both languages), non-identical cognates (e.g., pil and pill, in English and Dutch, respectively), and non-cognates (e.g., chicken in English). Because of their cross-linguistic overlap in orthography, reading a cognate can result in activation of family members both languages. Cognates are therefore well-suited for studying mechanisms underlying bilingual activation of morphologically complex words. We investigated family size effects in an English lexical decision task and a Dutch-English language decision task, both performed by Dutch-English bilinguals. English lexical decision showed a facilitatory effect of English and Dutch family size on the processing of English-Dutch cognates relative to English non-cognates. These family size effects were not dependent on cognate type. In contrast, for language decision, in which a bilingual context is created, Dutch and English family size effects were inhibitory. Here, the combined family size of both languages turned out to better predict reaction time than the separate family size in Dutch or English. Moreover, the combined family size interacted with cognate type: the response to identical cognates was slowed by morphological family members in both languages. We conclude that (1) family size effects are sensitive to the task performed on the lexical items, and (2) depend on both semantic and formal aspects of bilingual word processing. We discuss various mechanisms that can explain the observed family size effects in a spreading activation framework.

[1]  R. Baayen,et al.  Reading polymorphemic Dutch compounds: toward a multiple route model of lexical processing. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[2]  D. Balota,et al.  Moving beyond Coltheart’s N: A new measure of orthographic similarity , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[3]  ROCHELLE LIEBER,et al.  The morphological complexity of simplex nouns , 1997 .

[4]  Alan Y. Chiang,et al.  Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction With R , 2007, Technometrics.

[5]  Austin F. Frank,et al.  Analyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using R , 2010 .

[6]  T. Dijkstra,et al.  On being blinded by your other language: Effects of task demands on interlingual homograph recognition , 2000 .

[7]  Barbara J. Juhasz,et al.  Effects of morphological families on English compound word recognition: A multitask investigation , 2011 .

[8]  T. Dijkstra,et al.  The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision , 2002, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.

[9]  T. Dijkstra,et al.  Interlingual homograph recognition: Effects of task demands and language intermixing , 1998, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.

[10]  R. Baayen,et al.  Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items , 2008 .

[11]  Robert Schreuder,et al.  Effects of Family Size for Complex Words , 2000 .

[12]  W. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Productivity and priming: Morphemic decomposition in Arabic , 2011 .

[13]  R. Harald Baayen,et al.  Morphological dynamics in compound processing , 2008 .

[14]  L. Feldman.  Modeling Morphological Processing , 2013 .

[15]  Robert Schreuder,et al.  How Complex Simplex Words can be , 1997 .

[16]  L. Feldman,et al.  The role of component function in visual recognition of Chinese characters. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[17]  A. Dijkstra.  Bilingual Visual Word Recognition and Lexical Access. , 2005 .

[18]  Nivja H. de Jong,et al.  The morphological family size effect and morphology , 2000 .

[19]  Jon Andoni Duñabeitia,et al.  Orthographic and associative neighborhood density effects: what is shared, what is different? , 2010, Psychophysiology.

[20]  R. Harald Baayen,et al.  Analyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using R, 1st Edition , 2008 .

[21]  Robert Schreuder,et al.  Morphological resonance in the mental lexicon , 2003 .

[22]  R. Baayen,et al.  Morphological family size in a morphologically rich language: the case of Finnish compared with Dutch and Hebrew. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[23]  R. Baayen,et al.  Effects of primary and secondary morphological family size in monolingual and bilingual word processing , 2014 .

[24]  Robert Schreuder,et al.  The Processing and Representation of Dutch and English Compounds: Peripheral Morphological and Central Orthographic Effects , 2002, Brain and Language.

[25]  Robert Schreuder,et al.  Morphological family size in a morphologically rich language : The case of Finnish compared to Dutch and Hebrew . Morphological Family Size in Finnish Fermı́n , 2004 .

[26]  R. Baayen,et al.  How cross-language similarity and task demands affect cognate recognition , 2010 .

[27]  Marcus Taft,et al.  Orthographic Influences When Processing Spoken Pseudowords: Theoretical Implications , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[28]  R. H. Baayen,et al.  The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM) , 1996 .

[29]  Nivja H. de Jong,et al.  Changing places: A cross-language perspective on frequency and family size in Dutch and Hebrew , 2005 .

[30]  A.F.J. Dijkstra,et al.  The multilingual lexicon , 2007 .

[31]  J. Grainger,et al.  An Electrophysiological Study of the Effects of Orthographic Neighborhood Size on Printed Word Perception , 2002, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[32]  S. Wood.  Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R , 2006 .

[33]  Vladimir I. Levenshtein,et al.  Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals , 1965 .

[34]  De Jong,et al.  Morphological families in the mental lexicon , 2002 .

[35]  Noëlle Font,et al.  Rôle de la langue dans l'accès au lexique chez les bilingues : influence de la proximité orthographique et sémantique interlangue sur la reconnaissance visuelle de mots , 2001 .

[36]  J Grainger,et al.  Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: a multiple read-out model. , 1996, Psychological review.

[37]  Koenraad De Smedt,et al.  Markedness effects in Norwegian–English bilinguals: Task-dependent use of language-specific letters and bigrams , 2012, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[38]  R. Schreuder,et al.  A roommate in cream: Morphological family size effects on interlingual homograph recognition , 2005 .

[39]  R. Schreuder,et al.  Morphological Family Size effects in L1 and L2 processing: An electrophysiological study , 2013 .

[40]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English , 2009, Behavior research methods.

[41]  Rebecca Treiman,et al.  The English Lexicon Project , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[42]  Cristina Burani,et al.  Visual processing of Italian verbs and adjectives: The role of the inflectional family size , 2003 .

[43]  Jasone Cenoz,et al.  The multilingual lexicon , 2003 .