Poort Eva D, Rodd Jennifer M
Department of Experimental Psychology, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0AP, United Kingdom.
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2017 Oct;180:52-63. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.08.008. Epub 2017 Sep 1.
Cognates share their form and meaning across languages: "winter" in English means the same as "winter" in Dutch. Research has shown that bilinguals process cognates more quickly than words that exist in one language only (e.g. "ant" in English). This finding is taken as strong evidence for the claim that bilinguals have one integrated lexicon and that lexical access is language non-selective. Two English lexical decision experiments with Dutch-English bilinguals investigated whether the cognate facilitation effect is influenced by stimulus list composition. In Experiment 1, the 'standard' version, which included only cognates, English control words and regular non-words, showed significant cognate facilitation (31ms). In contrast, the 'mixed' version, which also included interlingual homographs, pseudohomophones (instead of regular non-words) and Dutch-only words, showed a significantly different profile: a non-significant disadvantage for the cognates (8ms). Experiment 2 examined the specific impact of these three additional stimuli types and found that only the inclusion of Dutch words significantly reduced the cognate facilitation effect. Additional exploratory analyses revealed that, when the preceding trial was a Dutch word, cognates were recognised up to 50ms more slowly than English controls. We suggest that when participants must respond 'no' to non-target language words, competition arises between the 'yes'- and 'no'-responses associated with the two interpretations of a cognate, which (partially) cancels out the facilitation that is a result of the cognate's shared form and meaning. We conclude that the cognate facilitation effect is a real effect that originates in the lexicon, but that cognates can be subject to competition effects outside the lexicon.
英语中的“winter”与荷兰语中的“winter”意思相同。研究表明,双语者处理同源词的速度比只存在于一种语言中的词(如英语中的“ant”)更快。这一发现被视为有力证据,支持双语者拥有一个整合的词汇库且词汇提取不受语言限制的观点。两项针对荷兰语 - 英语双语者的英语词汇判断实验,研究了同源词促进效应是否受刺激列表构成的影响。在实验1的“标准”版本中,只包含同源词、英语对照词和常规非词,显示出显著的同源词促进效应(31毫秒)。相比之下,“混合”版本还包括跨语言同形异义词、假同音字(而非常规非词)和仅荷兰语的词,呈现出显著不同的情况:同源词有不显著的劣势(8毫秒)。实验2考察了这三种额外刺激类型的具体影响,发现只有加入荷兰语单词会显著降低同源词促进效应。额外的探索性分析表明,当前一个试次是荷兰语单词时,同源词的识别比英语对照词慢多达50毫秒。我们认为,当参与者必须对非目标语言的单词回答“否”时,与同源词两种解释相关的“是”和“否”反应之间会产生竞争,这(部分地)抵消了同源词共享形式和意义所带来的促进作用。我们得出结论,同源词促进效应是源于词汇库的真实效应,但同源词在词汇库之外可能会受到竞争效应的影响。