Processing hyponymy in L1 and L2

被引:3
作者
Sharifian, F [1 ]
机构
[1] Edith Cowan Univ, Mt Lawley, WA 6050, Australia
关键词
bilingual processing; hyponymy; Persian;
D O I
10.1023/A:1019526009927
中图分类号
H0 [语言学];
学科分类号
030303 ; 0501 ; 050102 ;
摘要
This study examined the processing of hyponymy in L1 and two levels of performance (overall and high proficiency) in L2 in a group of Persian-English bilinguals. In two experiments, the same participants detected semantic relation in hyponymy pairs (i.e., hyponym-superordinate vs. superordinate-hyponym) in L1 (experiment 1) and L2 (experiment 2). The variables of pair type, stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA), language, and language proficiency were manipulated. Overall, the results showed that participants' median RTs and SDs were significantly greater in L2. This suggests that L2 processing in unbalanced bilinguals is less automatic than L1 processing. The findings of experiment 2 with the higher proficiency group showed a trend toward performance in L1 and therefore confirmed the prediction of the hierarchical model of bilingual memory that lexical processes in more-fluent bilinguals approximate those of L1 speakers. The results of the two experiments also showed that participants were significantly faster when presented with superordinate-hyponym word pairs than with hyponym-superordinate word pairs at 100-ms SOA in both L1 and L2 conditions. The results at 200-ms SOA, however, showed an opposite trend, although the results with L2 did not reach significance. This trend of results points to a possibility of automatic vs. strategic processing in the sense that participants' processing of hyponymy relation was more strategic than automatic at 200-ms SOA.
引用
收藏
页码:421 / 436
页数:16
相关论文
共 27 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1992, Cognitive processing in bilinguals, DOI DOI 10.1016/S0166-4115(08)61495-8
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1996, ETHNOLOGUE LANGUAGES
[3]  
Beeman WilliamO., 1986, LANGUAGE STATUS POWE
[4]   How many levels of processing are there in lexical access? [J].
Caramazza, A .
COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 1997, 14 (01) :177-208
[5]   A COMPARISON OF HYPONYM AND SYNONYM DECISIONS [J].
CHAFFIN, R ;
GLASS, A .
JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLINGUISTIC RESEARCH, 1990, 19 (04) :265-280
[6]  
Corrigan A., 1979, MICHIGAN TEST ENGLIS
[7]   Lexical selection in bilinguals: Do words in the bilingual's two lexicons compete for selection? [J].
Costa, A ;
Miozzo, M ;
Caramazza, A .
JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE, 1999, 41 (03) :365-397
[8]  
Crystal David., 1991, DICT LINGUISTICS PHO, V3rd
[9]  
DELTORO JF, 1999, DISS ABSTR INT B, V60, P1322
[10]   MATCHING WORDS TO CONCEPTS IN 2 LANGUAGES - A TEST OF THE CONCEPT MEDIATION MODEL OF BILINGUAL REPRESENTATION [J].
DUFOUR, R ;
KROLL, JF .
MEMORY & COGNITION, 1995, 23 (02) :166-180