![]() ( 2017), albeit in a generalized lexical decision task that requires deciding the language membership of a word, and in natural sentence reading (yet leading to facilitatory effects). This result was recently replicated by Dirix et al. ( 1998 see also ERP study by Midgley et al., 2008) showed that Dutch words with a large number of within- and cross-language (English) neighbors were recognized more slowly than words with a small neighborhood. Using lexical decision and perceptual identification tasks in a pure monolingual mode, van Heuven et al. This effect, which was found both from L1-to-L2 and L2-to-L1, was thought to reflect inhibitory links among lexical representations from the two languages (see also Dijkstra et al., 2010). ( 1997) firstly uncovered a cross-language orthographic neighborhood frequency effect: French/English bilinguals took longer to recognize target words when preceded by highly frequent orthographically related prime words from the non-target language (e.g., game- GAGE, forfeit) compared with unrelated words (e.g., bird- GAGE). Using the masked priming paradigm, Bijeljac-Babic et al. Yet, despite strong theoretical significance of these effects for testing bilingual models’ predictions, only a few studies have directly addressed this issue (Bijeljac-Babic, Biardeau, & Grainger, 1997 Dijkstra, Hilberinck-Schulpen, & van Heuven, 2010 Dirix, Cop, Drieghe, & Duyck, 2017 Midgley, Holcomb, van Heuven, & Grainger, 2008 van Heuven et al., 1998). ![]() Orthographic substitution neighbors are all words that share all letters but one with a target word, at the same position these neighbors are within or across languages (e.g., fire has neighbors such as hire in English and dire, say in French). Hence, examination of orthographic neighborhood effects across languages are of particular interest. ( 1998), this hypothesis needs to be tested in a pure ‘monolingual mode’ that is in the absence of words from the non-target language. It predicts that lexical representations from both languages of a bilingual individual are connected through inhibitory connections as a consequence, when a visual input is presented, both within- and cross-language interference can arise from lexical candidates that are orthographically close to the target input.Īs pointed out by van Heuven et al. This mechanism has been integrated into the Bilingual Interactive Activation theoretical framework (BIA/+, Dijkstra & van Heuven, 2002 van Heuven, Dijkstra, & Grainger, 1998) both derived from the McClelland and Rumelhart ( 1981) monolingual IA model. In the bilingual visual word recognition field, the language non-selectivity lexical access hypothesis assumes that all lexical representations that share some form (e.g., orthographic) overlap with a visual input are automatically co-activated, whatever the language they belong to. ![]() Thus, the results emphasize the need to integrate orthographic markedness as a relevant psycholinguistic variable in bilingual models of visual word recognition such as BIA/+ and to take it into account when investigating cross- language effects and the issue of language non-selectivity during visual word recognition. No evidence emerged for the influence of first language (L1) neighborhood on L2 word or non-word processing. The pattern of results was comparable in both proficiency groups. Evidence was found for orthographic markedness effects, albeit with a different pattern for word and non-word processing: while marked words were facilitated (responded to faster and more accurately) compared to unmarked words, the opposite pattern emerged for non-words. Two proficiency groups of French/English bilinguals performed an English (L2) lexical decision task with three word and non-word conditions: (1) English words with large French N-size/unmarked orthography ( price), (2) small French N-size/unmarked orthography ( drive), and (3) small French N-size/marked orthography ( write). In the present study, we explored the extent to which cross-language orthographic neighborhood size (N-size) effects, an index of language non-selectivity, should be dissociated from markedness effects, a sub-lexical orthographic variable referring to the degree of language- shared (unmarked) versus specific (marked) orthography. Previous research has reported that lexical access in bilinguals is language non-selective.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |