Masked Priming by Translation Equivalents in Pro cient Bilinguals
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
LANGUAGE AND COGNITIVE PROCESSES, 1998, 13 (6), 601–623
Masked Priming by Translation Equivalents in
Procient Bilinguals
Jonathan Grainger and Cheryl Frenck-Mestre
CNRS and Université de Provence, Aix-en-Provence, France
The responses of English–French bilinguals performing semantic categorisa-
tion and lexical decision tasks were facilitated by prime stimuli that were
non-cognate translation equivalents of the targets (e.g. arbre–tree) when
compared to unrelated primes (e.g. balle–tree). These translation priming
effects were observed with very brief prime exposures (29–43 msec) and
forward and backward masking of the prime. Using the same stimuli,
translation priming effects were signicantly stronger in the semantic
categorisation task then in the lexical decision task. This suggests that the
translation priming effect obtained in semantic categorisation is mediated by
semantic representations in memory and not the result of form-level
connections between translation equivalents, at least for the highly procient
bilinguals tested in the present experiment.
INTRODUCTION
Many contemporary theories of human language comprehension follow
the Saussurian principle of distinguishing between form and meaning (de
Saussure, 1972). At the level of individual words, this has led to the
development of process models that describe how semantic information is
retrieved via form (phonological and/or orthographic) representations (e.g.
Forster, 1976; McClelland & Rumelhart, 1981; Seidenberg & McClelland,
1989). This conception of lexical–semantic organisation has also greatly
inuenced theorising in the area of bilingual lexical representation. This is
particularly obvious when one examines existing accounts of how
translation equivalents are represented in bilingual memory.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Jonathan Grainger, CREPCO, Université de
Provence, 29 Avenue Robert Schuman, 13621 Aix-en-Provence, France.
E-mail: Grainger@newsup.univ-mrs.fr
The authors would like to thank Katy Lynch for help in preparing the stimulus materials
and Peter Prince for help in running this study. The running of the monolingual control
experiment was facilitated by a Franco-British cooperation grant ‘‘Alliance’’ No. 96063.
c 1998 Psychology Press Ltd602 GRAINGER AND FRENCK-MESTRE
Representation of Translation Equivalents
In a model of bilingual memory where a distinction is drawn between the
representation of form and meaning, translation equivalents can either be
directly connected via form–form connections (the ‘‘word association
hypothesis’’), or indirectly connected via a shared semantic representation
(the ‘‘concept mediation hypothesis’’: Potter, So, Von Eckardt, &
Feldman, 1984). This shared semantic representation could either be
localist (i.e. a single node corresponding to the shared concept) or
distributed across a set of semantic features or meaning units (cf. de Groot,
1992), or both. Recently, a ‘‘hierarchical’’ model of bilingual processing
has been forwarded by Kroll and her colleagues (Kroll & Sholl, 1992; Kroll
& Stewart, 1994), where level of L2 prociency determines the degree to
which bilinguals will rely upon form–form connections as opposed to
concept mediation.1 Kroll’s model has been challenged, however, by
studies which demonstrated L2 processing in non-procient learners that
was independent of translation links with L1 on the one hand (Frenck-
Mestre & Prince, 1997) and a signicant contribution of conceptual
mediation in tasks where the model would not predict such on the other
(Altarriba & Mathis, 1997; de Groot, Dannenberg, & Van Hell, 1994; La
Heij, Hooglander, Kerling, & Van der Velden, 1996).
Cross-language Priming in Bilinguals
Numerous bilingual priming studies have examined cross-language
semantic priming under conditions where the prime and target words
were semantic associates (e.g. perro–cat), or category name–exemplar
pairs (e.g. furniture–chaise). These studies have systematically found that,
given sufcient processing time, priming is found across languages (Frenck
& Pynte, 1987; Grainger & Beauvillain, 1988; Kirsner et al., 1984;
Schwanenugel & Rey, 1986). Recently, it has been suggested that priming
is asymmetrical, of smaller magnitude from L2 to L1 than from L1 to L2,
and at times even absent from L2 to L1 (Altarriba, 1992; Fox, 1996;
Keatley & de Gelder, 1992; Keatley, Spinks, & de Gelder, 1994; Kroll &
Sholl, 1992), although it should be noted that this asymmetry is not
systematic (Tzelgov & Eben-Ezra, 1992). One reason for the reported
asymmetry may lie in the generally slower identication times for L2
words (but see Keatley et al., 1994). To identify an L2 target, participants
may rely more upon contextual information than when identifying an L1
target, the latter being accessed rapidly and largely without the benet of
an L2 priming context.
1
Here we use L1 and L2 to refer to a bilingual’s dominant and subordinate language
respectively, as dened by the authors of the studies in question.MASKED TRANSLATION PRIMING 603 More directly related to the present study is research that has examined priming for translation equivalents (Altarriba, 1992; Chen & Ng, 1989; Cristoffanini, Kirsner, & Milech, 1986; de Groot & Nas, 1991; Gollan, Forster, & Frost, in press; Jin, 1990; Keatley & de Gelder, 1992; Kirsner et al., 1980; Sanchez-Casas, Davis, & Garcia-Albea, 1992; Williams, 1994). These studies have often compared the effect of priming for cognates (i.e. translations with similar spellings) and for non-cognates, in the aim of elucidating the organising principles of the bilingual lexicon at both the lexical and conceptual level. Studies using relatively long (supraliminal) prime exposures have shown signicant facilitatory effects of both types of translation primes, provided that the translation prime immediately precedes the target word. Studies using very short prime exposures and visual masking of the prime stimulus (de Groot & Nas, 1991; Gollan et al., in press; Sanchez-Casas et al, 1992; Williams, 1994) have shown systematic facilitation from cognate translation primes (e.g. ‘‘kalf’’–‘‘calf’’, for a Dutch–English bilingual). However, the results concerning non-cognate translation equivalents (e.g. ‘‘wife’’–‘‘vrouw’’) are somewhat mixed. In the study of de Groot and Nas, non-cognate translation primes gave system- atically smaller priming effects than cognate translations in the lexical decision task. In this task, non-cognate translation effects were only marginally signicant when primes were presented in lower as opposed to upper case. In the study of Sanchez-Casas et al., only cognate translations produced signicant facilitation in a semantic categorisation task. These authors also referred to an unpublished study in which the same stimuli gave the same pattern of results in a lexical decision task. On the basis of these results, de Groot and Nas and Sanchez-Casas et al. argued that cognate translations share common representations in memory (concep- tual representations for de Groot & Nas; lexical representations for Sanchez-Casas et al.), whereas non-cognate translation equivalents do not. It should be noted that de Groot (1992) later qualied her position with respect to this issue, suggesting that non-cognates may simply share fewer nodes at the conceptual level than do cognates. However, certain aspects of the design of the above studies render the interpretation of the observed effects rather delicate, particularly with respect to the existence or not of a translation priming effect for non- cognate translations. In the study of de Groot and Nas (1991), different target words were tested in the different priming conditions. Although these target words were matched for average reaction time in an unprimed preparatory study, this is no guarantee that they remained matched for a new group of participants under different test conditions. Thus, one main advantage of the priming paradigm (being able to test variations in response to the same target words) was unfortunately absent in the study of de Groot and Nas.
604 GRAINGER AND FRENCK-MESTRE
In the study of Sanchez-Casas et al. (1992), the effect of translation
primes was measured relative to a nonword prime (e.g. duck–PATO vs
wuck–PATO). This is not the optimal comparison, as the lexical status of
the prime may inuence target processing (independently of the relation-
ship between the prime and the target). The appropriate control for a word
prime is indeed another word prime. This is all the more relevant in the
translation priming situation, since word primes from the non-target
language have been shown to interfere with target processing in the
masked prime paradigm (Grainger & O’Regan, 1992). At the shortest
prime exposures, these interfering effects of non-target language primes
were strongest when the prime words had language-specic spellings
(which will tend to be the case with non-cognate translations). In other
words, the non-cognate translation primes may have been generating
cross-language interference, not present in the control prime condition.
This would therefore cancel out any translation priming facilitation effect
measured relative to the control condition.
Our concern regarding the conclusions of the above studies is further
motivated by the fact that two more recent studies have obtained
signicant effects of non-cognate translation primes using the masked
prime paradigm and the lexical decision task (Gollan et al. 1997; Williams,
1994). Gollan et al. suggested that it was their use of languages with
different scripts (i.e. Hebrew and English) that allowed signicant effects
of non-cognate translation primes to emerge. However, Williams indicated
that this is not a necessary condition, as he obtained signicant non-
cognate translation priming with Italian–English, French–English and
German–English bilinguals. Clearly, further research is required to clarify
this critical issue.
BILINGUAL EXPERIMENT
The present experiment provides a further test of masked translation
priming effects for non-cognate translation equivalents. Due to the null
effects reported in several previous studies, the present experiment
maximises the probability of observing an effect by testing highly skilled
bilinguals on the one hand, and using a task that necessarily requires
semantic processing on the other. In light of the rst factor, we engaged
English–French bilinguals who had lived for an extended period in the
country of their second language which they used daily in their
professional and personal interactions. In view of the second factor, both
a lexical decision task and a semantic categorisation task were used,
combined with the novel incremental priming technique (Jacobs, Grainger,
& Ferrand, 1995). The lexical decision and semantic categorisation tasks
were specically selected with respect to their relative sensitivity toMASKED TRANSLATION PRIMING 605 semantic variables. The semantic categorisation task necessarily requires retrieval of semantic information to be successfully performed, whereas the lexical decision task does not (Balota & Chumbley, 1984; Shelton & Martin, 1992). If it is observed that translation priming effects are stronger and develop earlier in the semantic categorisation task compared with the lexical decision task, then we can conclude that such effects are indeed mediated by shared semantic representations. However, if priming effects are stronger and develop earlier in the lexical decision task, this could be taken as evidence that translation priming is primarily driven by form-level connections. The use of the incremental priming technique provides critical data with respect to the time-course of priming effects. Furthermore, this technique allows one to measure priming effects not only with respect to the standard neutral or unrelated condition (across- condition priming), but also with respect to a minimum prime intensity or prime duration condition (within-condition priming). Methods Participants. Twelve native speakers of English, including men and women, living in France at the time of the experiment (the number of years spent in France ranged from 10 to 25) and all highly skilled in French (able to read, write and speak the language uently) participated voluntarily. Each person took part in all experimental conditions and in both experimental tasks. Two of the participants were the authors. Design and Material. A total of 60 non-cognate translation equivalents in English and French were selected to serve as prime and target in the translation prime condition. Prime words were always presented in French and target words in English. Prime words were either the French translation of the target, or a French word matched in length and frequency to the translation prime which bore no relationship to the target (see Appendix). The target words were common nouns taken from nine semantic categories (body parts, kitchen utensils, clothing, colours, animals, carpenter’s tools, parts of a building, fruits, vegetables) and were chosen according to the following criteria: they were among the rst 10 exemplars of the category in both languages (Battig & Montague, 1969; Tourette, 1979; Ueda & Mandler, 1980); they had a single translation in the other language (i.e. apple–pomme); they had very different spellings in English and French (i.e. were non-cognates); they ranged in length between three and 10 letters inclusive. At least four exemplars were taken from each semantic category. In the lexical decision task, each English target word was presented in two different lists, preceded by its French translation prime in one and by an unrelated French prime word in the
606 GRAINGER AND FRENCK-MESTRE other. In addition to the 60 primed word trials per list, there were 60 primed nonword trials in the lexical decision task. The nonwords were preceded by frequent French common nouns and were created in the usual manner by changing one or two letters of an English word to make strings of letters that are orthographically legal and pronounceable in English. In the semantic categorisation task, each target word was presented in four different lists dened by the factorial combination of the factors ‘‘prime relatedness’’ (translation of target vs unrelated) and ‘‘category member- ship’’ of the target (exemplar vs non-exemplar). For example, the target apple was presented both preceded by its translation and by an unrelated prime, and both in the appropriate category ‘‘fruit’’ and in a different category, such as ‘‘utensils’’. The target words were blocked by category within the list, and a certain number of ller words were presented in each category such that there were 24 items per category (12 exemplars and 12 non-exemplars). This gave a total of 216 trials (9 24) per list, 60 of which were experimental prime–target pairs. The words used for ller trials met the criteria for experimental targets with the exception that they were not always among the top 10 exemplars of the category and were taken from a wider range of semantic categories on non-exemplar trials. For ller trials, the prime was also a French word and the target an English word; the two never bore any relationship to each other. The participants were tested on all lists (two for lexical decision and four for semantic categorisation) at each of the four prime exposure durations tested. The participants thus saw each of the experimental target words a total of 24 times, 8 in lexical decision and 16 in semantic categorisation. Apparatus and Procedure. Presentation of the stimuli was controlled by a 486 IBM-compatible personal computer linked to a CRT screen. In both the lexical decision and semantic categorisation tasks, the following basic sequence of events occurred on each trial. First, a forward mask composed of 13 hash marks (#) was presented with a vertical bar situated above and below the centre of the string to indicate xation position. This remained on the screen for approximately 500 msec and was replaced by the prime stimulus. Four prime exposure durations were used: 0 msec, one screen refresh cycle (approximately 14 msec), two refresh cycles (29 msec) and three refresh cycles (43 msec). Prime presentation was immediately followed by a 13-hash backward mask for one refresh cycle, and targets were presented immediately after this. Targets remained on the screen until participants responded by pressing one of two response keys to indicate a positive or negative response. Both prime and target stimuli were presented in lower-case letters. The four prime exposures dened four experimental seasons for each task that were run on separate days. In each session, the participants saw all stimulus lists (two in lexical decision
MASKED TRANSLATION PRIMING 607 and four in semantic categorisation) at one of the four prime exposure durations for a given task. In the lexical decision task, the order of the two stimulus lists was counterbalanced; in the semantic categorisation task, the four lists were presented according to a Latin square. A given participant was always tested with the same list order at the different prime exposure durations. Four of the participants received the four prime exposure durations in ascending order, four in descending order, and the remaining four with one of the two following orders (29, 0, 43, 14 msec or 14, 43, 0, 29 msec). Half of the participants were rst tested with the lexical decision task and the other half were rst tested with the semantic categorisation task. In the lexical decision task, participants were instructed to indicate whether the string of letters was or was not an English word that they knew. In the semantic categorisation task, participants were told they would see a semantic category name presented in upper-case on the CRT screen, followed by a list of words, and that they should indicate whether or not each word was a member of the designated category. Each of the four lists (dened by prime exposure) or 216 items was presented in nine blocks of 24 items in accordance with the nine semantic categories. The categories themselves were presented in a xed order. Within a given category, the items were presented in random order, with the constraint that the rst ve trials were always ller items. In both tasks, participants indicated their responses manually by means of two designated response keys on the keyboard. Participants were requested to respond as rapidly and as accurately as possible, and were allowed to pause between blocks within a list as well as between the different lists. They responded positively in each task with the forenger of their preferred hand, and negatively with the forenger of the other hand. The participants were not informed of the presence of a prime stimulus, and were simply instructed to focus their attention at the centre of the hash marks and respond to the target that followed. The inter-trial interval was approximately 1 sec. Results Mean reaction times (RT) for correct responses per experimental condition and participant were calculated after removing outliers (300 msec . RT . 1000 msec; less than 1% of the data). The RT means and percent errors averaged over participants are given in Table 1. These data were submitted to an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with both participants (F1) and items (F2 ) as random variables. An initial analysis including ‘‘task’’ as a within-participant factor examined only the positive response trials in each task (since the negative semantic categorisation trials are not comparable to the nonword trials in lexical decision).
608 GRAINGER AND FRENCK-MESTRE
TABLE 1
Mean Correct Response Latencies (msec) and Percent Errors (in Parentheses) on
Positive and Negative Trials in the Semantic Categorisation Task, and on Word Trials
in the Lexical Decision Task, as a Function of Prime Type (Translation or Unrelated)
and Prime Exposure Duration
Prime Exposure (msec)
0 14 29 43
Semantic categorisation
Positive trials
Translation 574 (3.1) 571 (4.7) 558 (2.6) 563 (2.9)
Unrelated 570 (2.8) 569 (3.8) 571 (2.9) 588 (2.8)
Negative trials
Translation 639 (9.4) 627 (11.1) 626 (9.4) 650 (11.4)
Unrelated 635 (9.7) 624 (8.5) 627 (9.3) 639 (9.6)
Lexical decision
Translation 572 (1.9) 557 (1.7) 554 (2.5) 563 (1.4)
Unrelated 568 (1.1) 554 (1.1) 556 (2.2) 573 (1.4)
Reaction times in the semantic categorisation and lexical decision tasks
did not differ signicantly [F1 , 1; F 2(1,59) = 2.62]. Translation primes
signicantly facilitated responses compared to unrelated primes
[F1(1,11) = 8.08, P , 0.05; F 2(1,59) = 5.21, P , 0.05], and there was a
signicant interaction between task and priming [F 1(1,11) = 6.82, P ,
0.05; F2(1,59) = 4.50, P , 0.05]. This interaction reects the fact that
robust translation priming effects were obtained in the semantic
categorisation task [F 1(1,11) = 15.55, P , 0.01; F 2(1,57) = 8.76, P , 0.01]
but not in the lexical decision task (both F , 1). There was a signicant
effect of prime exposure duration in the by-item analysis [F1(3,33) = 1.59;
F2(3,177) = 11.14, P , 0.001], and translation priming effects interacted
with prime exposure duration [F1(3,33) = 11.92, P , 0.001;
F2(3,177) = 10.91, P , 0.001]. Signicant effects of translation priming
started to appear at 29 msec prime exposures [F1(1,11) = 6.42, P , 0.05;
F2(1,59) = 8.40, P , 0.01] and were even more robust at 43 msec
exposures F 1(1,11) = 26.26, P , 0.001; F2(1,59) = 28.35, P , 0.001]. The
three-way interaction was not signicant (both F , 1). Following the
signicant task priming interaction, we will now examine the pattern of
effects obtained in each task in more detail.
Semantic Categorisation. An analysis introducing type of response
(positive vs negative) as a within-participants and within-items factor
showed a main effect of this factor [F 1(1,11) = 152.84, P , 0.001;
F2(1,59) = 178.94, P , 0.001], indicating that negative categorisationMASKED TRANSLATION PRIMING 609 responses were slower than positive categorisation responses. Neither the main effect of priming (both F , 1), nor the main effect of prime exposure duration (both F , 1), was signicant. There was a signicant two-way interaction between response type and priming [F 1(1,11) = 12.29, P , 0.01; F 2(1,59) = 11.88, P , 0.01]. This reects the signicant effects of priming obtained on positive response trials (see above), but no effect on negative response trials (both F , 1). Furthermore, there was a signicant three-way interaction between all factors [F1(3,33) = 5.03, P , 0.01; F2(3,177) = 3.38, P , 0.05]. This reects the signicant two- way interaction between priming effects and prime exposure duration obtained on positive response trials [F1(3,33) = 7.58, P , 0.001; F2(3,177) = 6.73, P , 0.001], but not on negative trials (both F , 1). On positive response trials, planned comparisons for priming effects at each prime exposure duration showed signicant effects by participants and items at both the 29 and 43 msec exposures [0 msec: both F , 1; 14 msec: both F , 1; 29 msec: F1(1,11) = 7.12, P , 0.05; F 2(1,59) = 10.27, P , 0.01; 43 msec: F1(1,11) = 67.51, P , 0.001; F2(1,59) = 32.08, P , 0.001]. On negative response trials, priming effects were absent at the rst three exposure durations (all F , 1), while a trend to an inhibitory effect was observed at the longest duration [F1(1,11) = 5.05, P , 0.05; F2(1,59) = 1.87]. An ANOVA on the percent error data revealed that more errors were made on negative response trials than on positive response trials [F1(1,11) = 10.71, P , 0.01; F2(1,59) = 8.43, P , 0.01]. Moreover, targets preceded by translation primes tended to produce more errors than the unrelated prime condition [F 1(1,11) = 4.47, P , 0.10; F2(1,59) = 1.35]. However, this trend to an inhibitory effect of translation priming, obtained when positive and negative trials were grouped together, totally disappeared in an analysis of the positive trial data alone (both F , 1). None of the other main effects or interactions were signicant (all F , 1). Lexical Decision. An ANOVA was performed on the RTs to correct word responses in the lexical decision task. There was a main effect of prime exposure duration [F1(3,33) = 3.63, P , 0.05; F 2(3,177) = 8.86, P , 0.001]. As noted above, the main effect of translation priming was not signicant, and the interaction was not signicant in the by-participant analysis [F 1(3,23) = 2.31; F2(3,177) = 2.94, P , 0.05]. Planned comparisons for priming effects at each prime exposure duration showed a trend to a facilitatory effect at the 43 msec prime exposure only. All F , 1 except at 43 msec [F 1(1,11) = 4.05, P , 0.10; F 2(1,59) = 4.13, P , 0.05]. Neither the main effects nor the interaction were signicant in an ANOVA on the percent errors (all F , 1).
610 GRAINGER AND FRENCK-MESTRE Within-condition Priming Analysis. In addition to the traditionally performed analyses, reported above, within-condition priming (Jacobs et al., 1995) was also examined. Since no signicant translation priming effects were observed with 14 msec prime exposures (all F , 1), within- condition priming can be analysed by comparing performance in the 0 and 14 msec prime exposure durations to performance in the 29 and 47 msec durations. Due to the different orders in which each participant received the different prime exposures, a by-participant analysis cannot be applied here (participants who received an ascending order show overall faster RTs in the long exposure durations, whereas participants who received a descending order show faster RTs with the shortest prime exposures). Only a by-item analysis allows one to remove the interfering effects of order. Note that the aim of a within-condition analysis is to examine changes in performance in each priming condition as a function of prime exposure duration (or intensity). The results of this grouped analysis for the RT data are presented in Fig. 1. It is immediately obvious from this gure that the only situation where clear facilitatory within-condition (i.e. prime exposure dependent) priming effects appear are in the positive semantic categorisation trials. The analysis of variance conrms this picture. In an analysis of positive trials in semantic categorisation, the main effect of prime exposure duration was not signicant but interacted with the main effect of priming [F(1,59) = 16.55, P , 0.001]. In the translation prime condition, RTs decreased as prime exposure duration was increased [F(1,59) = 13.17, P , 0.001], while RTs signicantly increased as a function of prime exposure duration in the unrelated prime condition [F(1,59) = 7.57, P , 0.01]. On negative semantic categorisation trials, none of these effects reached statistical signicance. In the lexical decision task, there was also a signicant interaction between prime exposure duration and priming effects [F(1,59) = 6.95, P , 0.05]. However, prime exposure duration did not inuence RTs signicantly in either the translation prime condition [F(1,59) = 3.35, P , 0.10] or the unrelated prime condition [F(1,59) = 2.56]. Thus, the results of the within-condition priming analysis conrm the between-condition analysis. Robust within-condition facilita- tion effects of translation primes are obtained on positive semantic categorisation trials. No within-condition priming was observed on negative semantic categorisation trials, and a non-signicant facilitatory trend was observed in correct positive lexical decision responses. Control Monolingual Experiment As with any experiment demonstrating cross-language effects in bilingual participants, testing the same stimuli with near monolingual participants
MASKED TRANSLATION PRIMING 611
FIG. 1 Average RTs in the translation and unrelated priming conditions regrouping the data
for the two shortest (0 and 14 msec) and the two longest (29 and 43 msec) prime exposure
durations. The separate graphs are for positive trials in semantic categorisation (SCT
positive), negative trials in semantic categorisation (SCT negative) and positive lexical
decision trials (LDT).
N, translation; , unrelated.
allows one to control for low-level factors that might affect masked
priming (cf. Davis & Forster, 1994). Eight native English speakers
(students in psychology at the University of Glasgow, Scotland2) with, at
most, ‘‘high-school’’ knowledge of French were tested in the semantic
categorisation task at 29 msec prime exposures using exactly the same
stimuli and procedure as in the bilingual experiment. The mean RTs and
percent errors (in parentheses) for the translation prime and unrelated
prime conditions were 560 msec (4.4%) and 562 msec (4.2%) in the
positive response condition, and 617 msec (8.8%) and 625 msec (10.0%) in
2
We thank Kerry Kilborn of the University of Glasgow for his help in arranging this control
experiment.612 GRAINGER AND FRENCK-MESTRE the negative response condition. As expected, an analysis of variance (by participant) on RTs and percent errors revealed no sign of translation priming in either the positive response trials or the negative response trials (all F , 1). Responses on positive trials were signicantly faster [F(1,7) = 86.02, P , 0.001] and more accurate [F(1,7) = 16.68, P , 0.01] than on negative trials. It should be noted that the average RTs and error rate were similar to those obtained with the bilingual group. The results of the control monolingual experiment therefore indicate that the signicant differences between translation primes and unrelated primes obtained with the bilingual participants were not due to uncontrolled differences in these two sets of prime stimuli, which, for example, might have inuenced their capacity to interfere with target processing in the masked prime paradigm. Estimate of Prime Visibility This is perhaps one of the most delicate points in masked (‘‘subliminal’’) priming research and has been the centre of heated debate for many years (see, e.g. Holender, 1986). Recently, a number of authors have suggested that prime visibility must be measured during the experiment and therefore with the same participants and in the same conditions as used to test the priming effects. For example, Hirshman and Durante (1992) used an interleaving procedure whereby, on any given trial, their participants were either asked to report the prime or respond to the target. However, one major problem with testing participants in exactly the same conditions as those used to test for priming effects, is the possibility of backward (retrospective) priming effects (Dark, 1988). This is all the more likely in the present experiment where prime and targets were uniquely related (i.e. there was only one possible translation equivalent for each prime/target). This is not the case in associative priming, where a given target may have more than one strong associate (e.g. doctor– hospital–nurse). On the other side of the coin are the defenders of unconscious semantic activation, who claim that traditional ‘‘direct’’ measures of conscious processing of prime stimuli in a semantic priming experiment typically overestimate prime visibility (e.g. Debner & Jacoby, 1994). Here, we demonstrate that one of the conditions that gave robust translation priming effects (the 29 msec exposure duration) shows close to null sensitivity using a traditional direct measure of prime reportability. Using native French speakers provides a very conservative estimate of prime visibility in conditions very similar to those tested in the main experiment, while minimising the problem of backward priming exaggerating the estimate (the reduced knowledge of English of the French participants should ensure this). The estimate should nevertheless be slightly
MASKED TRANSLATION PRIMING 613
exaggerated in that the native French speakers will be processing the
prime stimuli in their mother tongue and will be focusing their attention
entirely on the prime stimulus.
Ten native French speakers were tested in the lexical decision task using
exactly the same word stimuli (no nonwords were presented) and
presentation conditions as for the bilingual group. They were told to
ignore the English target words and were informed of the presence of
French words presented very briey just before the English target word.
They had to report any French word they recognised. These participants
were tested for prime report on 60 trials at two different prime exposure
durations. They were rst tested with the 29 msec prime exposure and then
at the 43 msec duration (these were the only exposures to show priming
effects). At the 29 msec prime exposure, two participants correctly
reported seeing one prime word, and one participant correctly reported
four prime words out of the 60. The average correct report over all 10
participants was 1.0%. At the 43 msec prime exposure, most participants
were able to report a small number of the French primes, the average
correct prime report being 29.3%.
The results of our prime visibility estimation correspond very well with
those provided by Hirshman and Durante (1992) using their interleaving
procedure. Prime reportability was 5% at 33 msec prime exposures and
43% at 50 msec exposures in their experiment. The slightly higher values
they observe are probably due to their use of a longer inter-stimulus
interval between prime and target.
DISCUSSION
The present experiment provides clear evidence for translation priming
effects at very brief prime exposures in the semantic categorisation task,
when only trends to such effects occurred in the lexical decision task.
Indeed, a combined analysis of positive response trials to the same stimuli
tested in lexical decision and semantic categorisation revealed a signicant
interaction between task and translation priming effects. A within-
condition priming analysis (Jacobs et al., 1995) conrmed the classical
across-condition analysis. Increasing prime exposure duration caused a
signicant decrease in RTs to targets following translation primes on
positive semantic categorisation trials, and a trend to an effect in lexical
decision. These data clearly demonstrate that translation priming effects
can be obtained with non-cognate translations across languages sharing the
same script at very brief prime exposure durations (29–43 msec).
The lexical decision results at the longest prime exposures are a
borderline case (with priming effects reaching signicance at the 10%
level). This is consistent with the fact that one previous study (Williams,614 GRAINGER AND FRENCK-MESTRE 1994) did observe signicant effects (at the 5% level of signicance) in very similar conditions to those tested at the longest prime exposures in the present study, while another study failed to observe signicant translation priming effects with non-cognates in the lexical decision task (de Groot & Nas, 1991). In a series of experiments examining such effects across languages with different scripts, Gollan et al. (1997) found stronger effects when the prime was in L1 and the target in L2, than vice versa. This might explain why Williams (1994) obtained robust effects (he tested primes in L1 and targets in L2), whereas our effects failed to reach the conventional level of signicance. The main result of the present study is the demonstration that semantic categorisation is more sensitive than the lexical decision task to translation priming effects. The hypothesised extra sensitivity of the semantic categorisation task to translation primes is critical for our proposed interpretation of the present results. In the following discussion, we argue that the translation priming effects observed with the highly procient bilinguals tested in the present experiment are mediated by semantic representations shared by translation equivalents and not by excitatory connections between distinct form representations (e.g. whole-word orthographic representations) in memory. The more robust effects of translation primes in semantic categorisation compared with lexical decision follows logically from the fact that the former task requires access to semantic information whereas the latter task does not (Balota & Chumbley, 1984; Lupker, 1984; Shelton & Martin, 1992). As argued recently by Grainger and Jacobs (1996), the lexical decision task can be successfully performed by monitoring activity in whole-word orthographic representations. The fact that masked translation primes have been shown to have a signicant inuence on performance in a lexical decision task (Gollan et al., 1997; Williams, 1994; plus the trend to an effect in the present experiment) can be explained by positive feedback from semantic to whole-word orthographic representations (see also Williams, 1996). The hypothesised role of top-down semantic feedback can explain why translation priming effects take longer to emerge in lexical decision (effects were robust at 29 msec prime exposures in semantic categorisation, and only started to appear at 43 msec exposures in lexical decision). Meaning and Form in Cross-language Masked Priming To our knowledge, this is the only study to date to have examined masked translation priming across tasks, namely lexical decision and semantic categorisation, using the same materials and the same subject pool. Previous studies of masked translation priming have focused on the effect
MASKED TRANSLATION PRIMING 615 of the type of translation (i.e. whether a cognate or a non-cognate translation) in either lexical decision (de Groot & Nas, 1991; Gollan et al., in press) or semantic categorisation (Sanchez-Casas et al., 1992). The results of these studies have systematically revealed translation priming, in both tasks, for cognate translations. For non-cognates, the effect of translation priming is either absent in lexical decision (de Groot & Nas, 1991) and semantic categorisation (Sanchez-Casas et al., 1992) or, at least for certain bilinguals, of lesser magnitude than for cognate translations in lexical decision (Gollan et al., 1997). These results deviate from ours in that we found robust facilitatory effects of non-cognate translation primes in the semantic categorisation task, and a healthy trend for the effect at the longest prime exposure in lexical decision. As concerns semantic categorisation, the reason for the prior failure (Sanchez-Casas et al., 1992) to obtain facilitation from non-cognate translations is not immediately clear. In the Introduction we discussed one possible reason for the null result of Sanchez-Casas et al.—that is, the fact that nonword rather than word primes were used as the across-condition control. For reasons outlined in the Introduction, the comparison of word primes to nonword primes would be least optimal in the non-cognate conditions, given the language-specic orthographies of non-cognates (Dijkstra & Van Heuven, 1998; Grainger & Dijkstra, 1992; see Grainger & O’Regan, 1992, for a discussion of global cross-language inhibition). In our study, the same set of target stimuli was tested in all conditions, and the targets themselves were always highly typical members of the semantic category. The meagre description provided by Sanchez-Casas et al. of their stimuli in the categorisation task does not allow one to establish whether or not the typicality of category exemplars was taken into account, nor whether this was controlled for across translation conditions. Furthermore, category names were provided on each trial in the study of Sanchez-Casas et al., a procedure that may reduce the size of priming effects. Any of these factors may account for the failure to obtain non-cognate translation priming in the study of Sanchez-Casas et al. The stronger effects of cognate translations compared to non-cognate translations, as observed by de Groot and Nas (1991), Gollan et al. (1997) and Sanchez-Casas et al. (1992), can be interpreted as a combination of meaning and form priming effects. The fact that Gollan et al. (1997) obtained a cognate advantage for languages with different scripts (Hebrew and English) implies that shared phonology in the absence of shared orthography also leads to greater translation priming effects. Primes sharing orthography and/or phonology with the target word can facilitate target processing via the partial activation of the target word’s form representation during prime processing, as well as via activation of sublexical representations (e.g. letters or phonemes) shared by prime and
616 GRAINGER AND FRENCK-MESTRE
target. In the lexical decision task, this form-based facilitation can add to
top-down semantic facilitation to increase translation priming effects with
cognates.
Previously, it has been argued on the basis of masked translation and
associative priming results that only cognate translations (e.g. bakker–
baker, for a Dutch–English bilingual) have completely overlapping
semantic (conceptual) representations in memory in bilinguals (de Groot,
1992; de Groot & Nas, 1991). The same authors hypothesised that non-
cognate translations, such as those employed herein, have only partially
overlapping semantic representations. This would account for the absence
of cross-language associative priming with such stimuli (e.g. vrouw–
husband), as the likelihood of semantically associated words from different
languages sharing semantic features is smaller in the case of non-cognate
translations than cognates. However, recent data from a study comparing
priming for various types of non-cognate cross-language pairs, allows quite
a different hypothesis to be forwarded. Using the masked prime paradigm,
Williams (1994) obtained signicant effects of cross-language priming with
non-cognates when these pairs shared semantic features [e.g. fence–haie
(hedge)] but not when they were associatively related [e.g. shoe–pied
(foot)]. These results are easily explained if one assumes that associative
priming arises not, or at least not principally, through shared modal
semantic representations but via language-specic knowledge of familiar
word combinations. In view of these results, it is not surprising that
associative priming has not been found for non-cognate cross-language
pairs in the lexical decision task under masking conditions. Associative
priming with very short prime exposures and visual masking of the prime
would be restricted to conditions where that associative link has been
established (i.e. within a language; see also Grainger & Beauvillain, 1988).
This further suggests that the assumed cross-language facilitation obtained
for cognate pairs (e.g. bakker–bread) under masking conditions may in fact
be the result of within-language associative priming, due to the
orthographic similarity between cognate translations. More precisely,
‘‘bakker’’ could prime ‘‘baker’’ on the basis of their orthographic overlap
(in the same way as a nonword ‘‘boker’’ could prime ‘‘baker’’),3 which
could then prime the target word ‘‘bread’’ via the within-language
association.
3
Studies of masked orthographic priming demonstrate that this is indeed possible (e.g.
Ferrand & Grainger, 1994).MASKED TRANSLATION PRIMING 617 Selective Versus Non-selective Access A continuing debate in the bilingual language comprehension literature concerns the ability of bilinguals to use contextual cues to limit interference from the non-target language (i.e. the irrelevant language). According to the selective access hypothesis, incoming sensory informa- tion could be guided to the appropriate lexical system (assuming separate lexicons for each language) such that non-target language representations are never contacted (e.g. Gerard & Scarborough, 1989; Macnamara & Kushnir, 1971; Soares & Grosjean, 1984). However, the present results add to the increasing evidence that bilingual lexical access is initially non- selective (Beauvillain & Grainger, 1987; Bijeljac-Babic, Biardeau & Grainger, 1997; Van Heuven, Dijkstra, & Grainger, in press). In the present experiment, our bilingual participants never reported being aware of the presence of French prime stimuli and continued to perform strictly monolingual tasks. According to the selective access hypothesis, to improve performance in these tasks (as requested by the experimenter), participants could block access to non-target language representations (by maintaining an input switch on the target language, for example). The very fact that French prime words inuenced performance to English target words implies that English language representations were not being selectively accessed. One could argue that the experimental setting was not strictly monolingual and that the participants may have suspected that their bilingual capacities were being tested. Nevertheless, the highly repetitive nature of the experiment (each participant was tested in a total of 24 blocks) and the fact that participants never reported being aware of the prime stimuli, would probably encourage participants to abandon any attempt at ‘‘keeping the non-target language open’’. Rapid Semantic Activation from Printed Words The present results provide evidence that semantic information can be extracted from a visual stimulus in conditions where prime visibility was kept to a minimum (29 msec prime exposures with forward and backward masking of the prime). In these conditions, we observed signicant facilitation of semantic categorisation responses to target words that were the translation equivalent of the prime. Moreover, this semantic facilitation was robust with respect to both within-condition and across- condition measures (Jacobs et al., 1995). None of the bilingual participants ever reported being aware of the prime stimuli in these conditions (29 msec prime exposures), and an independent group of French monolinguals showed an average report of 1% of the French prime words while specically asked to attend to the prime stimuli and ignore the English target words. We argue that there are two main reasons why such robust
618 GRAINGER AND FRENCK-MESTRE semantic priming was obtained in the present experiment in conditions that have often failed to produce robust effects: (a) semantic overlap is greater with translation equivalents than any other type of semantic relation; and (b) the semantic categorisation task is maximally sensitive to semantic variables (compared to such tasks as lexical decision and naming that have been the preferred tasks in previous research). We therefore consider the translation priming effects obtained in the present experiment to be an extreme example of the semantic similarity priming reported in the monolingual literature (e.g. McRae & Boisvert, 1998; Perea & Gotor, 1997). Concerning recent theoretical work on semantic representation and the distinction between ‘‘co-occurrence’’ models (e.g. Burgess & Lund, 1997) and ‘‘feature-based’’ models (e.g. Masson, 1995), it will be interesting in future work on masked translation priming effects to compare the performance of expert translators (where translations do indeed co-occur) with highly procient bilinguals who rarely translate. Finally, the fact that translation priming effects were obtained at 29 msec prime exposures in the present experiment is relevant to the phonological mediation debate. Indeed, the debate has recently been resurrected by Van Orden, Lukatela and their colleagues, who claim that access to meaning from a printed word occurs predominantly via phonological codes (e.g. Lukatela & Turvey, 1994; Van Orden, Penning- ton, & Stone, 1990). In favour of this, Lukatela and Turvey (1994) claim that associative priming obtained with brief prime exposures in the word naming task is insensitive to whether the prime is the true associate (e.g. toad–frog), a homophone (e.g. towed–frog) or a pseudohomophone (e.g. tode–frog) of the associated prime. However, in conditions comparable to those used in the present experiment, several studies have reported phonological priming effects (the primes were pseudohomophones of target words) that only started to emerge at around 43 msec prime exposures (Ferrand & Grainger, 1992, 1993, 1994; see also Perfetti & Bell, 1991). If one adopts stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) rather than prime exposure as the critical variable, then the 14 msec post-mask in the present experiment gives an SOA of 43 msec. Thus, the only conclusion one can legitimately draw at present is that phonological priming effects do not appear before translation priming effects. One might therefore wonder how phonological codes could mediate semantic activation when there is no evidence for phonological code activation before semantic activation. It is possible, however, that semantic activation follows phonological activation too closely in time to be experimentally separable. One therefore needs to demonstrate semantic priming effects at prime exposures where no phonological priming is observed. This is clearly an issue that requires further experimentation, and applications of the incremental priming paradigm (Jacobs et al., 1995) should prove
MASKED TRANSLATION PRIMING 619
particularly useful here. Furthermore, the pseudohomophone priming
versus translation priming comparison is particularly interesting in that
these both reect maximum overlap on their respective dimensions
(phonological and semantic). We are currently pursuing our masked
priming work with bilinguals in this direction.
Manuscript received August 1996
Revised manuscript received May 1998
REFERENCES
Altarriba, J. (1992). The representation of translation equivalents in bilingual memory. In
R.J. Harris (Ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals, pp. 157–174. Amsterdam: North-
Holland.
Altarriba, J., & Mathis, K.A. (1997). Conceptual and lexical development in second
language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 550–568.
Balota, D.A., & Chumbley, J.I. (1984). Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical
access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 340–357.
Battig, W.S., & Montague, W.I. (1969). Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 261–295.
Beauvillain, C., & Grainger, J. (1987). Accessing interlexical homographs: Some limitations
of a language selective access. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 658–672.
Bijelkac-Babic, R., Biardeau, A., & Grainger, J. (1997). Masked orthographic priming in
bilingual word recognition. Memory and Cognition, 25, 447–457.
Burgess, C., & Lund, K. (1997). Modelling parsing constraints with high-dimensional context
space. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 177–210.
Chen, H.-C., & Ng, M.-L. (1989). Semantic facilitation and translation priming effects in
Chinese–English bilinguals. Memory and Cognition, 17, 454–462.
Cristoffanini, P., Kirsner, K., & Milech, D. (1986). Bilingual lexical representation: The
status of Spanish–English cognates. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38A,
367–393.
Dark, V. (1988). Semantic priming, prime reportability and retroactive priming are
interdependent. Memory and Cognition, 16, 299–308.
Davis, C., & Forster, K.I. (1994). Masked orthographic priming: The effect of prime–target
legibility. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 673–698.
Debner, J.A., & Jacoby, L.L. (1994). Unconscious perception: Attention, awareness, and
control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20, 304–
317.
Dijkstra, T., & Van Heuven, W.J.B. (1998). The BIA-model and bilingual word recognition.
In J. Grainger & A.M. Jacobs (Eds), Localist connectionist approaches to human cognition,
pp. 189–225. Manwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Ferrand, L., & Grainger, J. (1992). Phonology and orthography in visual word recognition:
Evidence from masked nonword priming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
42A, 353–372.
Ferrand, L., & Grainger, J. (1993). The time-course of orthographic and phonological code
activation in the early phases of visual word recognition. Bulletin of the Psychonomic
Society, 31, 119–122.620 GRAINGER AND FRENCK-MESTRE
Ferrand, L., & Grainger, J. (1994). Effects of orthography are independent of phonology
in masked form priming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A, 365–
382.
Forster, K.I. (1976). Accessing the mental lexicon. In R.J. Wales & E.W. Walker (Eds), New
approaches to language mechanism, pp. 257–287. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Fox, E. (1996). Cross-language priming from ignored words: Evidence for a common
representational system in bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 353–370.
Frenck, C., & Pynte, J. (1987). Semantic representation and surface forms: A look at across-
language priming in bilinguals. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 16, 383–396.
Frenck-Mestre, C., & Prince, P. (1997). Second language autonomy. Journal of Memory and
Language, 37, 481–501.
Gerard, L.D., & Scarborough, D.L. (1989). Language-specic lexical access of homographs
by bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 15,
305–313.
Gollan, T.H., Forster, K.I., & Frost, R. (1997). Translation priming with different scripts:
masked priming with cognates and non-cognates in Hebrew–English bilinguals. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 23, 1122–1139.
Grainger, J., & Beauvillain, C. (1988). Associative priming in bilinguals: Some limitations of
interlingual facilitation effects. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 42, 261–273.
Grainger, J., & Dijkstra, T. (1992). On the representation and use of language information in
bilinguals. In R.J. Harris (Ed.) Cognitive processing in bilinguals, pp. 207–220. Amsterdam:
North Holland.
Grainger, J., & Jacobs, A.M. (1996). Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A
multiple read-out model. Psychological Review, 103, 518–565.
Grainger, J., & O’Regan, J.K. (1992). A psychophysical investigation of language priming
effects in two English–French bilinguals. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4,
323–339.
Groot, A.M.B. de (1992). Determinants of word translation. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18, 1001–1018.
Groot, A.M.B. de, Dannenburg, L., & Van Hell, J.G. (1994). Forward and backward
translation by bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 600–629.
Groot, A.M.B. de & Nas, G.L. (1991). Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates
in compound bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 90–123.
Hirshman, E., & Durante, R. (1992). Prime identication and semantic priming. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18, 255–265.
Holender, D. (1986). Semantic activation without conscious identication in dichotic
listening, parafoveal vision and visual masking: A survey and appraisal. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 9, 1–23.
Jacobs, A.M., Grainger, J., & Ferrand, L. (1995). The incremental priming technique: A
method for determining within-condition priming effects. Perception and Psychophysics,
57, 1101–1110.
Jin, Y.S. (1990). Effects of concreteness on cross-language priming of lexical decision.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70, 1139–1154.
Keatley, C.W., & de Gelder, B. (1992). The bilingual primed lexical decision task: Cross-
language priming disappears with speeded responses. European Journal of Cognitive
Psychology, 4, 273–292.
Keatley, C.W., Spinks, J.A., & de Gelder, B. (1994). Asymmetrical cross-language priming
effects. Memory and Cognition, 22, 70–84.
Kirsner, K., Brown, H.L., Abrol, H.L., Chadna, N.N., & Sharma, N.K. (1980). Bilingualism
and lexical representation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4, 585–
594.MASKED TRANSLATION PRIMING 621 Kirsner, K., Smith, M., Lockhart, R., King, M., & Jain, M. (1984). The bilingual lexicon: Language-specic units in an integrated network. Journal of Verbal Learning and Learning Behavior, 23, 519–539. Kroll, J.F., & Sholl, A. (1992). Lexical and conceptual memory in uent and non-fuent bilinguals. In R.J. Harris (Ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals, pp. 191–204. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Kroll, J.F., & 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. La Heij, W., Hooglander, A., Kerling, R., & Van der Velden, E. (1996). Nonverbal context effects in forward and backward word translation: Evidence for concept mediation. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 648–665. Lukatela, G., & Turvey, M.T. (1994). Visual lexical access is initially phonological: 1. Evidence from associative priming by words, homophones, and pseudohomophones. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 107–128. Lupker, S. (1984). Semantic priming without association: A second look. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 709–733. Macnamara, J., & Kushnir, S. (1971). Linguistic independence of bilinguals: The input switch. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 480–487. Masson, M.E.J. (1995). A distributed memory model of semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, 3–23. McClelland, J.L., & Rumelhart, D.E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic ndings. Psychological Review, 88, 375–407. McRae, K., & Boisvert, S. (1998). Automatic semantic similarity priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 24, 558–572. Perea, M., & Gotor, A. (1997). Associative and semantic priming effects occur at very short stimulus-onset asynchronies in lexical decision and naming. Cognition, 62, 223–240. Perfetti, C.A., & Bell, L. (1991). Phonemic activation during the rst 40 ms of word identication: Evidence from backward masking and priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 473–485. Potter, M.C., So, K.-F., Von Eckardt, B., & Feldman, L.B. (1984). Lexical and conceptual representations in beginning and more procient bilinguals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 23–38. Sanchez-Casas, R.M., Davis, C.D., & Garcia-Albea, J.E. (1992). Bilingual lexical processing: Exploring the cognate/noncognate distinction. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4, 293–310. Saussure, F. de (1972). Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot. Schwanenugel, P., & Rey, M. (1986). Interlingual semantic facilitation: Evidence for a common representational system in the bilingual lexicon. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 605–618. Seidenberg, M.S., & McClelland, J.L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review. 96, 523–568. Shelton, J.R., & Martin, R.C. (1992). How semantic is automatic semantic priming? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18, 1191–1210. Soares, C., & Grosjean, F. (1984). Bilinguals in a monolingual and bilingual speech mode: The effect on lexical access. Memory and Cognition, 12, 380–386. Tourette, G. (1979). Tables categorielles: Normes de production dans 30 catégories sémantiques. Unpublished technical report of the University of Poitiers, France. Tzelgov, J., & Eben-Ezra, S. (1992). Components of the between-language semantic priming effect. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4, 253–272.
You can also read
