Visual word recognition by trilinguals ICP2008 Berlin

  • 189 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Education , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
189
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • le
  • Enlever les espaces, refaire l’animation
  • Rajouter que les effets peuvebt etre facilitateurs ou inhibiteurs en fction de la tache
  • Revoir les couleurs descendre le texte
  • Coller novel et novela
  • Changer couleurs
  • Effet de la L1, changer le titre
  • Faire les modifications dans le texte
  • Faire les modifications dans le texte
  • Enlever english fillers et non words et mettre mots spécifiques. Enlever les écarts types
  • Virer les fillers et les non words. Mettre mots spécifiques
  • Reformuler la présentation des résultats
  • Revoir les résultats en général

Transcript

  • 1. Jean-Marc LAVAUR, Xavier APARICIO, Lisa VANDEBERG & Ton DIJKSTRA International Congress of Psychology Berlin, Germany, July 2008
  • 2. How many multilinguals in Europe? 23 official languages in the European Union L1: dominant language (generally but not always the native language) L2: English for most countries and speakers (but English could also be found as a L3) L3: very diverse, depending on different factors (geographical, cultural, institutional, etc.)
  • 3. Multilingualism and Cognitive Psychology  Important number of researches concerning Bilingualism in Cognitive Psychology  A large part of the researches concern the study of the bilingual mental lexicon  Next step: focus on multilingual communication and lexical processing
  • 4. The Multilingual Lexicon The mental lexicon is a part of human memory (Dijkstra, 2005) It contains all kinds of information we know concerning languages and words: -orthography -phonology -semantics -syntax -additional information: languages (in multilinguals)
  • 5. How to access the multilingual lexicon? Language selective access: organized by language (Gerard & Scarborough, 1989) LIRE LIRE DIRE French lexicon FIRE HIRE English lexicon Language non-selective access: organized by features (Dijkstra, Van Jaarsveld & Ten Brinke, 1998) LIRE LIRE DIRE FIRE HIRE LIRA ARIA French/English/Spanish shared lexicon LIRA ARIA Spanish lexicon
  • 6. Model of the architecture of the multilingual lexicon Different units are involved in orthographic processing: BIA+ Model (Dijkstra & Van Heuven, 2002) L1/L2/ L3 Visual input
  • 7. Relations between words of different languages (Lavaur & Font, 1998) -Strong orthographic and phonological overlap between languages and words: Example: -Weak orthographic and phonological overlap between languages and words: Example: Amour Amor Meat Carne Love Viande
  • 8. Cognates Cognates are words for which the orthography, phonology and meaning are similar/identical in different languages (Bogaards, 1994) Facilitatory or inhibitory effects depending, in part, on the task context. CLASSE CLASS CLASE
  • 9. Noncognates Identical/Similar semantics in the three languages, different orthography and phonology in all the three languages.
  • 10. Double Cognates identical/similar semantics in the three languages, identical /similar orthography in only two languages
  • 11. Triple Cognates identical / similar semantics and orthography and phonology in all three languages
  • 12. Objectives  How does the memory of trilinguals work when the L1 is not explicitely solicited, or the influence is supposed to be limited to one of the two other languages ?  If the L1 has an influence, generalized to all the languages, what consequences on the working of trilingual memory?
  • 13. Hypothesis 1: Influence or no influence of the native language Lexical decision task: If L1 has an influence, cognate words with French in English and/or Spanish will be recognized faster than words with different forms in these languages (noncognates) Language decision task: If L1 has an influence, cognate words with French in English and/or Spanish will be processed more slowly than words with different forms in these languages (noncognates)  Cognate facilitation effect  Cognate inhibition effect
  • 14. Hypothesis 2: Additional cognate effect Lexical decision task: words that have the same form in all languages (triple cognates) will be recognized faster than words with (partially) different forms (double cognates/noncognates) Language decision task: words that have the same form in all languages (triple cognates) will be processed more slowly than words with (partially) different forms (double cognates/noncognates)  Additional facilitation effect  Additional inhibition effect
  • 15. *FALDA Spanish *SKIRT English The participant has to decide as quickly and accurately as possible to which language the word belongs.
  • 16. Population and material  Population: 24 undergraduate trilinguals, native speakers of French, with English as a second language and Spanish as a third language.  Material: 70 French-English-Spanish translation equivalents X 3 language decisions Specific words 14 Cognates L1-L2 14 Cognates L1-L3 14 Cognates L2-L3 14 Cognates L1-L2-L3 14  Procedure: each participant performs 3 language decision tasks, respectively L1-L2, L1-L3 et L2-L3.
  • 17. Results: interaction effects between language and category Specific words are globally processed faster -Specific words processed faster in L1L2 and L2L3 decisions -No effect in L1L3 decision due to specific patterns between L1 and L3
  • 18. Results: detailed interaction effects between language and category Additional cognate effect
  • 19. Discussion Experiment 1  Language specific words are generally processed better than cognates.  Cognates have an influence on visual word processing.  Native language has an influence on the processing of other languages.  Results supporting a non specific access to the mental lexicon.
  • 20. *nouse NO *money YES The participant has to decide as quickly and accurately as possible if the letterstring is an existing word or not.
  • 21. Method Experiment 2  Population: same participants as in experiment 1  Material: 72 French-English-Spanish translation equivalents:  Procedure: each participant performs the 2 lexical decision tasks, respectively L2 et L3. Specific words 24 Cognates L1-L2 24 Cognates L1-L2-L3 24
  • 22. English Lexical Decision - No standard cognate effect for L1-L2 cognates vs L2 control words - L1-L2-L3 cognates got a faster response
  • 23. Spanish Lexical Decision  Cognate effect for French-English-Spanish cognates relative to Spanish control words  Triple cognates were not recognized significantly faster than double cognates.
  • 24. Discussion Experiment 2a: English lexical decision  In English LD, Cognate effect for L1-L2-L3 cognates  Cognates in 3 languages were recognized faster than L1-L2 cognates  During recognition of words in a second language, even a third non-native language (L3) exerts an influence on recognition performance.
  • 25. Discussion Experiment 2b: Spanish lexical decision  Cognate effect for L1-L3 cognates  L1-L2-L3 cognate effect relative to Spanish specific words.  Triple cognates were not recognized significantly faster than double cognates.
  • 26. General Discussion  Results are supporting a non-selective access to the mental lexicon.  Specific words are processed faster than other kinds of words in Language Decision, and more slowly in Lexical Decision.  Shared patterns between languages have an influence on word visual processing.  Influence of native language on the two other languages’ processing.
  • 27. Thanks for your attention! « In varietate concordia »