Processing Hyponymy in L1 and L2

This study examined the processing of hyponymy in L1 and two levels of performance (overall and high proficiency) in L2 in a group of Persian-English bilinguals. In two experiments, the same participants detected semantic relation in hyponymy pairs (i.e., hyponym-superordinate vs. superordinate-hyponym) in L1 (experiment 1) and L2 (experiment 2). The variables of pair type, stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA), language, and language proficiency were manipulated. Overall, the results showed that participants' median RTs and SDs were significantly greater in L2. This suggests that L2 processing in unbalanced bilinguals is less automatic than L1 processing. The findings of experiment 2 with the higher proficiency group showed a trend toward performance in L1 and therefore confirmed the prediction of the hierarchical model of bilingual memory that lexical processes in more-fluent bilinguals approximate those of L1 speakers. The results of the two experiments also showed that participants were significantly faster when presented with superordinate-hyponym word pairs than with hyponym-superordinate word pairs at 100-ms SOA in both L1 and L2 conditions. The results at 200-ms SOA, however, showed an opposite trend, although the results with L2 did not reach significance. This trend of results points to a possibility of automatic vs. strategic processing in the sense that participants' processing of hyponymy relation was more strategic than automatic at 200-ms SOA.

[1]  J. Grainger,et al.  Associative priming in bilinguals: Some limits of interlingual facilitation effects. , 1988 .

[2]  R. Samani,et al.  Cross-language hierarchical spreading of activation , 1997 .

[3]  M. Potter,et al.  Lexical and conceptual representation in beginning and proficient bilinguals , 1984 .

[4]  Lance J. Rips,et al.  Structure and process in semantic memory: A featural model for semantic decisions. , 1974 .

[5]  F. Sharifian,et al.  Hierarchical spreading of activation , 1997 .

[6]  Alain Desrochers,et al.  A dual-coding approach to bilingual memory. , 1980 .

[7]  S. Kennepohl.  Toward a Cultural Neuropsychology: An Alternative View and a Preliminary Model , 1999, Brain and Cognition.

[8]  A. Paivio,et al.  Dual coding and bilingual memory , 1981 .

[9]  J. Lucy,et al.  Grammatical categories and cognition: References , 1992 .

[10]  J. Kroll,et al.  Category Interference in Translation and Picture Naming: Evidence for Asymmetric Connections Between Bilingual Memory Representations , 1994 .

[11]  J. Kroll,et al.  Matching words to concepts in two languages: A test of the concept mediation model of bilingual representation , 1995, Memory & cognition.

[12]  Janice Feagin Del Toro.  An examination of automatic versus strategic semantic priming effects in Broca's aphasia , 2000 .

[13]  Albert Costa,et al.  Lexical Selection in Bilinguals: Do Words in the Bilingual's Two Lexicons Compete for Selection? , 1999 .

[14]  David Crystal,et al.  A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics , 1997 .

[15]  W. Heij,et al.  Nonverbal Context Effects in Forward and Backward Word Translation: Evidence for Concept Mediation , 1996 .

[16]  Sidney J. Segalowitz,et al.  Skilled performance, practice, and the differentiation of speed-up from automatization effects: Evidence from second language word recognition , 1993, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[17]  Yu-huan Hu,et al.  Crossed aphasia in Chinese: A clinical survey , 1990, Brain and Language.

[18]  W. Beeman.  Language, Status, and Power in Iran , 1986 .

[19]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. , 1981 .

[20]  Cheryl Frenck-Mestre,et al.  Second Language Autonomy , 1997 .

[21]  Judith F. Kroll,et al.  Lexical and Conceptual Memory in Fluent and Nonfluent Bilinguals , 1992 .

[22]  A. Caramazza.  How many levels of processing are there in lexical access , 1997 .

[23]  R. Chaffin,et al.  A comparison of hyponym and synonym decisions , 1990 .