Potapova Irina, Blumenfeld Henrike K, Pruitt-Lord Sonja
Joint Doctoral Program in Language and Communicative Disorders, San Diego State University & University of California, San Diego, USA.
San Diego State University, USA.
Int J Billing. 2016 Dec;20(6):714-731. doi: 10.1177/1367006915586586. Epub 2015 May 29.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether four different cognate identification methods resulted in notably different classifications of cognate status for test items and to investigate whether differences across criteria would impact findings of cognate effects in adult and preschool-aged Spanish-English bilingual speakers.
We compared four cognate identification methods: an objective criterion based on phonological overlap; two subjective criteria based on a translation elicitation task; and a hybrid criterion integrating objective and subjective standards. We then used each criterion to investigate cognate effects on the in 26 adult and 73 child Spanish-English bilinguals.
The test items identified as cognates by each criterion were compared (Experiment 1). Then, cognate advantage magnitudes, cognate accuracy rates, non-cognate accuracy rates, and number of individuals demonstrating the cognate advantage were investigated in both adult (Experiment 2) and child bilinguals (Experiment 3).
Objective and subjective cognate identification methods were found to select notably different subsets of test items as cognates. Further, the methods led to differences in cognate effects, as well as in cognate and non-cognate accuracy rates, for both child and adult bilinguals.
Although the cognate advantage has been widely studied in adult bilinguals, research on the cognate advantage in child bilinguals is limited and methods of identifying cognates are inconsistent across studies. The present study provides information about cognate effects in a young population and is the first comparison of objective and subjective approaches to cognate identification.
This study extends previous work on cognate word processing in both child and adult bilinguals. Further, results offer an evaluation of methodologies that are critical for investigating the cognate advantage. This both facilitates interpretation of previous findings and can be used to guide methodological decisions in future research.
本研究旨在确定四种不同的同源词识别方法是否会导致对测试项目的同源词状态分类有显著差异，并调查不同标准之间的差异是否会影响成年和学龄前西班牙-英语双语者同源词效应的研究结果。
我们比较了四种同源词识别方法：一种基于语音重叠的客观标准；两种基于翻译引出任务的主观标准；以及一种整合了客观和主观标准的混合标准。然后，我们使用每种标准来研究26名成年和73名儿童西班牙-英语双语者的同源词效应。
比较了每种标准识别为同源词的测试项目（实验1）。然后，在成年双语者（实验2）和儿童双语者（实验3）中，研究了同源词优势大小、同源词准确率、非同源词准确率以及表现出同源词优势的个体数量。
发现客观和主观同源词识别方法选择的测试项目作为同源词的子集有显著差异。此外，这些方法导致儿童和成年双语者在同源词效应以及同源词和非同源词准确率方面存在差异。
尽管同源词优势在成年双语者中已得到广泛研究，但关于儿童双语者同源词优势的研究有限，且不同研究中同源词的识别方法不一致。本研究提供了关于年轻人群体中同源词效应的信息，并且是首次对同源词识别的客观和主观方法进行比较。
本研究扩展了先前关于儿童和成年双语者同源词加工的研究。此外，研究结果对研究同源词优势至关重要的方法进行了评估。这既有助于解释先前的研究结果，也可用于指导未来研究中的方法学决策。
