2018 Sat Poster 6458

Saturday, November 3, 2018 | Poster Session II, Metcalf Small | 3:15pm

Exploring the L1-L2 versus L2-L1 (Masked) Priming Asymmetry Effect
A. Chaouch Orozco, J. González Alonso, J. Rothman

Research in non-cognates (unbalanced) bilingual lexical processing under masked priming conditions shows an asymmetry in lexical decision tasks (LDT) (e.g. Wen and Van Heuven, 2016). Responses to L2 words preceded by L1 translation equivalent primes are faster than when the L1 primes are unrelated. In the opposite direction (i.e. L2 primes– L1 targets), the effects are minimal or, at least, significantly smaller. This asymmetry, however, disappears (priming is equal in both directions) in Semantic Categorization Tasks (SCT), where participants judge whether or not targets belong to a specific semantic category.

The Bilingual Interactive Activation + (BIA+) model (Dijkstra and Van Heuven, 2002) claims slower L2-word processing prevents them from activating their L1 counterparts under masked priming conditions. Factors like word frequency or L2 proficiency can, according to the BIA+ speed processing up. The Sense Model (SM, Finkbeiner et al., 2004) claims that a representational asymmetry in the L1/L2 senses (word meanings) causes the priming asymmetry. For a target to be primed, all its senses must be activated. The many meanings attributable to the same apparent morphophonological form, context depending, (e.g. ‘head’ can mean many things) of an L1 prime are claimed to activate the few meanings known of an L2 target, but not the other way around. The Revised Hierarchical Model (RHM), which claims that L2 proficiency should be a key factor to explain the above is also consider (Kroll and Stewart, 2010).

To investigate these theoretical accounts, we tested 29 adult Spanish-L2 English learners living in an L2-dominant environment in two masked translation priming tasks (i.e. Experiment 1, an LDT, and Experiment 2, an Semantic Categorization Task (SCT)). The presentation procedure in both tasks consisted of a 500 ms mask, followed by a 60 ms prime, immediately followed by the target (Figure 1; see Figure 2 and 3 for stimuli examples). The participants’ L2 proficiency, which ranged from Upper Intermediate to Upper Advanced, was considered as a continuous variable in linear mixed effects models (Baayen et al., 2008).

The results showed a priming asymmetry in Experiment 1 (Figure 4). Responses to L2 targets preceded by their L1 translation equivalents were 38 ms (significantly) faster than when an unrelated L1 prime preceded the targets. In the L2-L1 direction, the 17 ms priming effect was not significant, but, crucially, word frequency did modulate the effect (i.e. only the most frequent L2 primes elicited priming effects) (Figure 5). In Experiment 2, L2-L1 priming was not attested, suggesting that 60 ms were not enough for the L2 primes to activate the L1 targets in a SCT. Contrary to what was expected, against the RHM’s predictions, L2 proficiency did not modulate the priming effects in any task. The results challenge the SM, which is unable to account for the role of word frequency in Experiment 1, a finding that can be accommodated by the BIA+ since more frequent L2 words would be processed faster, allowing them to activate the L1 targets under masked priming conditions. In summary, the data overall support the BIA+ approach.

References

Dijkstra, T., & Van Heuven, W. J. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 175–197.

Finkbeiner, M., Forster, K., Nicol, J., & Nakamura, K. (2004). The role of polysemy in masked semantic and translation priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(1), 1–22.

Kroll, J. F., Van Hell, J. G., Tokowicz, N., & Green, D. W. (2010). The Revised Hierarchical Model: A critical review and assessment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 373–381.

Wen, Y., & Van Heuven, W. J. B. (2016). Non-cognate translation priming in masked priming lexical decision experiments: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(3), 879-886.