Advertisement

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 780–789 | Cite as

Foreign language knowledge can influence native language performance in exclusively native contexts

  • Janet G. van Hell
  • Ton Dijkstra
Brief Reports

Abstract

In three experiments, we studied the influence of foreign language knowledge on native language performance in an exclusively native language context. Trilinguals with Dutch as their native and dominant language (L1), English as their second language (L2), and French as their third language (L3) performed a word association task (Experiment 1) or a lexical decision task (Experiments 2 and 3) in L1. The L1 stimulus words were cognates with their translations in English, cognates with their translations in French, or were noncognates. In Experiments 1 and 2 with trilinguals who were highly proficient in English and relatively low in proficiency in French, we observed shorter word association and lexical decision times to the L1 words that were cognates with English than to the noncognates. In these relatively low-proficiency French speakers, response times (RTs) for the L1 words that were cognates with French did not differ from those for the noncognates. In Experiment 3, we tested Dutch-English- French trilinguals with a higher level of fluency in French (i.e., equally fluent in English and in French). We now observed faster responses on the L1 words that were cognates with French than on the noncognates. Lexical decision times to the cognates with English were also shorter than those to the noncognates. The results indicate that words presented in the dominant language, to naive participants, activate information in the nontarget, and weaker, language in parallel, implying that the multilinguals’ processing system is profoundly nonselective with respect to language. A minimal level of nontarget language fluency seems to be required, however, before any weaker language effects become noticeable in L1 processing.

Keywords

Lexical Decision Proficiency Test Lexical Decision Task Dominant Language Lexical Decision Time 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Supplementary material

vanHell-PBR-2002.zip (13 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 340 KB.

References

  1. Altenberg, E. P., &Cairns, H. S. (1983). The effects of phonotactic constraints on lexical processing in bilingual and monolingual subjects.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,22, 174–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baayen, H., Piepenbrock, R., &VanRijn, H. (1993).The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
  3. Balota, D. A., Ferraro, F. R., &Connor, L. T. (1991). On the early influence of meaning in word recognition: A review of the literature. In P. J. Schwanenflugel (Ed.),The psychology of word meanings (pp. 187–222). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Beauvillain, C., &Grainger, J. (1987). Accessing interlexical homographs: Some limitations of a language-selective access.Journal of Memory & Language,26, 658–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bijeljac-Babic, R., Biardeau, A., &Grainger, J. (1997). Masked orthographic priming in bilingual word recognition.Memory & Cognition,25, 447–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brysbaert, M., Van Dyck, G., &Van de Poel, M. (1999). Visual word recognition in bilinguals: Evidence from masked phonological priming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,25, 137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caramazza, A., &Brones, I. (1979). Lexical access in bilinguals.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,13, 212–214.Google Scholar
  8. De Groot, A. M. B. (1989). Representational aspects of word imageability and word frequency as assessed through word association.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 824–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Groot, A. M. B., Delmaar, P., &Lupker, S. J. (2000). The processing of interlexical homographs in translation recognition and lexical decision: Support for nonselective access to bilingual memory.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,53A, 397–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Groot, A. M. B., &Nas, G. L. J. (1991). Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates in compound bilinguals.Journal of Memory & Language,30, 90–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dijkstra, A., Grainger, J., &Van Heuven, W. J. B. (1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology.Journal of Memory & Language,41, 496–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dijkstra, A., &Van Heuven, W. J. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision.Bilingualism: Language & Cognition,5, 175–197.Google Scholar
  13. Dijkstra, A., Van Jaarsveld, H., &Ten Brinke, S. (1998). Interlingual homograph recognition: Effects of task demands and language intermixing.Bilingualism: Language & Cognition,1, 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Font, N. (2001).Rôle de la langue dans l’accès au lexique chez les bilingues: Influence de la proximité orthographique et sémantique interlangue sur la reconnaissance visuelle de mots [The role of language in lexical access in bilinguals: Influence of interlingual orthographic and semantic proximity on visual word recognition]. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Université Paul Valery, Montpellier, France.Google Scholar
  15. Forster, K. I. (2000). The potential for experimenter bias effects in word recognition experiments.Memory & Cognition,28, 1109–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gerard, L. D., &Scarborough, D. L. (1989). Language-specific lexical access of homographs by bilinguals.Journal of Experimental Psychology,15, 305–315.Google Scholar
  17. Gollan, T. H., Forster, K. I., &Frost, R. (1997). Translation priming with different scripts: Masked priming with cognates and noncognates in Hebrew-English bilinguals.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 1122–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grainger, J., &Beauvillain, C. (1987). Language blocking and lexical access in bilinguals.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,39A, 295–319.Google Scholar
  19. Grainger, J., &Frenck-Mestre, C. (1998). Masked priming by translation equivalents in proficient bilinguals.Language & Cognitive Processes,13, 601–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system.Bilingualism: Language & Cognition,1, 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grosjean, F. (1997). Processing mixed language: Issues, findings, and models. In A. M. B. de Groot & J. F. Kroll (Eds.),Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 225–254). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual’s language modes. In J. L. Nicol (Ed.),One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing (pp. 1–22). Oxford, U.K.: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  23. Jared, D., &Kroll, J. F. (2001). Do bilinguals activate phonological representations in one or both of their languages when naming words?Journal of Memory & Language,44, 2–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jiang, N. (1999). Testing processing explanations for the asymmetry in masked cross-language priming.Bilingualism: Language & Cognition,2, 59–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kirsner, K., Smith, M. C., Lockhart, R. S., King, M. L., &Jain, M. (1984). The bilingual lexicon: Language-specific units in an integrated network.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,23, 519–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nas, G. (1983). Visual word recognition in bilinguals: Evidence for a cooperation between visual and sound based codes during access to a common lexical store.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,22, 526–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Postman, L., &Keppel, G. (1970).Norms of word association. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. Sánchez-Casas, R. M., Davis, C. W., &García-Albea, J. E. (1992). Bilingual lexical processing: Exploring the cognate/noncognate distinction.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,4, 293–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Scarborough, D. L., Gerard, L., &Cortese, C. (1984). Independence of lexical access in bilingual word recognition.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,23, 84–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Thomas, M. S. C. (1997).Connectionist networks and knowledge representation: The case of bilingual lexical representations. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  31. Thomas, M. S. C., &Allport, A. (2000). Language switching costs in bilingual visual word recognition.Journal of Memory & Language,43, 44–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Van Hell, J. G., &De Groot, A. M. B. (1998). Conceptual representation in bilingual memory: Effects of concreteness and cognate status in word association.Bilingualism: Language & Cognition,1, 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Van Heuven, W. J. B., Dijkstra, A., &Grainger, J. (1998). Orthographic neighborhood effects in bilingual word recognition.Journal of Memory & Language,39, 458–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ICIUniversity of NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Special EducationUniversity of NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations