Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 49–73

Bilingual Reading of Compound Words

Article

Abstract

The present study investigated whether bilingual readers activate constituents of compound words in one language while processing compound words in the other language via decomposition. Two experiments using a lexical decision task were conducted with adult Korean-English bilingual readers. In Experiment 1, the lexical decision of real English compound words was more accurate when the translated compounds (the combination of the translation equivalents of the constituents) in Korean (the nontarget language) were real words than when they were nonwords. In Experiment 2, when the frequency of the second constituents of compound words in English (the target language) was manipulated, the effect of lexical status of the translated compounds was greater on the compounds with high-frequency second constituents than on those with low-frequency second constituents in the target language. Together, these results provided evidence for morphological decomposition and cross-language activation in bilingual reading of compound words.

Keywords

Compound words Korean-English bilinguals Decomposition Cross-language activation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrews, S., Miller, B., & Rayner, K. (2004). Eye movements and morphological segmentation of compound words: There is a mouse in mousetrap. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 285–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  3. Basnight-Brown, D. M., & Altarriba, J. (2007). Differences in semantic and translation priming across languages: The role of language direction, age of acquisition, and language dominance. Memory and Cognition, 35, 953–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Butterworth, B. (1983). Lexical representation. In B. Butterworth (Ed.), Language production, Vol. II: Development, writing, and other language processes (pp. 257–294). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Caramazza, A., Laudanna, A., & Romani, C. (1988). Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition, 28, 287–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dressler, W. U. (2006). Compound types. In G. Libben & G. Jarema (Eds.), The representation and processing of compound words (pp. 23–44). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Duñabeitia, J., Manuel, P., & Carreiras, C. (2007). The role of the frequency of constituents in compound words: Evidence from Basque and Spanish. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(6), 1171–1176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gagné, C., & Spalding, A. (2006). Conceptual combination: Implications for the mental lexicon. In G. Libben & G. Jarema (Eds.), The representation and processing of compound words (pp. 145–168). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gollan, T. H., Forster, K. I., & Frost, R. (1997). Translation priming with different script: Masked priming with cognates and noncognates in Hebrew–English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 1122–1139.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Jiang, N. (1999). Testing processing explanations for the asymmetry in masked cross-language priming. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2, 59–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jiang, N., & Forster, K. I. (2001). Cross-language priming asymmetries in lexical decision and episodic recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 32–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Juhasz, B., Starr, M., Inhoff, A. W., & Placke, L. (2003). The effects of morphology on the processing of compound words: Evidence from naming, lexical decisions, and eye fixations. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 223–244.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kroll, J., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Levy, E. S., Goral, M., & Obler, L. K. (2006). Doghouse/Chien-maison/Niche: Approaches to the understanding of compound processing in bilinguals. In G. Libben & G. Jarema (Eds.), The representation and processing of compound words (pp. 125–144). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Libben, G. (1998). Semantic transparency in the processing of compounds: Consequences for representation, processing, and impairment. Brain and Language, 61, 30–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Libben, G., Gibson, M., Yoon, Y. B., & Sandra, D. (2003). Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language, 84, 50–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The language experience and proficiency questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 50(4), 940–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nefs, H., Assink, E., & Knuijt, P. (2003). Effects of sublexical frequency and meaning in prefixed words. In E. Assink & D. Sandra (Eds.), Reading complex words: Cross-language studies (pp. 113–137). Amsterdam: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  20. Nicoladis, E. (2002). What’s the difference between ‘toilet paper’ and ‘paper toilet’? French–English bilingual children’s crosslinguistic transfer in compound nouns. Journal of child language, 29, 843–863.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Niswander, E., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (2000). The processing of derived and inflected suffixed words during reading. Language & Cognitive Processes, 15, 389–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pollastek, A., & Hyönä, J. (2005). The role of semantic transparency in the processing of Finnish compound words. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 261–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pollatsek, A., Hyönä, J., & Bertram, R. (2000). The role of morphological constituents in reading Finnish compound words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 820–833.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Raaijmakers, J. G. W., Schrijnemakers, J. M. C., & Gremmen, F. (1999). How to deal with “the language-asfixed-effect fallacy”: Common misconceptions and alternative solutions. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 416–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sanchez-Casas, R. M., Davis, C. W., & Garcia-Albea, J. E. (1992). Bilingual lexical processing: Exploring the cognate/non-cognate distinction. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology Special Issue: Multilingual community, 4(4), 293–310.Google Scholar
  26. Sandra, D. (1990). On the representation and processing of compound words: Automatic access to constituent morphemes does not occur. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42A, 529–567.Google Scholar
  27. Sholl, A., Sankaranarayanan, A., & Kroll, J. F. (1995). Transfer between picture naming and translation: A test of asymmetries in bilingual memory. Psychological Science, 6, 45–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sohn, H.-M. (1999). The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Taft, M. (1994). Interactive-activation as a framework for understanding morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 271–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Taft, M., & Forster, K. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 638–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Talamas, A., Kroll, J. F., & Dufour, R. (1999). Form related errors in second language learning: A preliminary stage in the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2, 45–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Van Jaarsveld, H. J., & Rattink, G. E. (1988). Frequency effects in the processing of lexicalized and novel nominal compounds. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 17, 447–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Woo, H. (1999). The principles of Morphs-Writing methods and range of application. Korean Language, 25, 261–291.Google Scholar
  34. Zwitserlood, P. (1994). The role of semantic transparency in the processing and representation of Dutch compounds. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 341–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Human DevelopmentUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations