The role of polysemy in masked semantic and translation prim(18)

18M.Finkbeineretal./JournalofMemoryandLanguage51(2004)1–22

stimulusduringthestudyphase,itisrelevanttoaskwhethertheepisodicrecordincludesallofthesensesassociatedwiththeto-be-remembered(TBR)word,orjustthedominantsense.Previousworkinvestigatinghowwordsareencodedintoepisodicmemoryhasindicatedsupportforanencodingspeci cityprinciple(Tulving&Thomson,1973),whichassumesthatonlyasinglesenseoftheTBRwordisencodedduringthestudyphase(thisbeingdeterminedbycontext).InanuncuedlearningconditionsuchastheoneusedbyJiangandForster(2001),itisreasonabletoassumethatparticipantswouldencodeonlythedominantsenseoftheTBRwordduringthestudyphase.SinceitisfrequentlythecasethatL1andL2translationequivalentssharethedominantsenseoftheL1word,thismeansthatthemaskedL2primecouldhavefacilitateddecisionlatenciesontheL1target.Inthetestphaseoftheexperiment,decisionspresumablyarenotmadeonthelexicalstatusofthetargets,but,rather,onwhetherornotthetargetcancuearecollectionofaTBRword.If,asTulvingandThomson(1973)haveargued,theTBRwordislimitedinitsmeaningtoaparticularsense,whichwehavearguedisfrequentlytheverysensethattheL2primeiscapableofactivating,thenweshouldnotbesurprisedtoobservepriminginthistask.Hence,theSenseModelisabletoprovideanex-planationfortheepisodicprimingresultsreportedbyJiangandForster(2001).

Therearetwofurtherissuesthatdeserveattentionbeforemovingontothe nalsection.The rstoftheseisthesubsetmodelproposedbyDufourandKroll(1995),whichispotentiallyatoddswiththeassumptionsoftheSenseModel.Theseresearchersfoundthatless uentbilingualswereabletocategorizeL2targetsfasterwhenthecategory(e.g.,COLOR)wasgiveninL2comparedtowhenitwasgiveninL1.DufourandKroll(1995)arguedthatduringtheearlieststagesofL2acquisition,L2wordsareassociateddirectlywithasmallbutwell-de nedsetofconceptualrepresentations,essentiallyasubsetofthecategoryknowledgeinL1.Followingfromthis,theysuggestedthatwhenbothcuesandtargetsweregiveninL2,onlyexemplarsbelongingtothissubsetofconceptualrepresentationswereactivated.Consequently,therewaslessinterferencefromrelatedconceptsrelativetowhenL1cueswereusedand,hence,facilitation.Accordingtotheirmodel,L1formsareas-sociatedwithawiderangeofcompetingconcepts,allofwhichbecomeactivewhenevertheL1formisencoun-tered.Theconsequenceofthiswidespreadactivation,accordingtotheirargument,isthatit‘‘...mayactuallyinhibittheretrievalofconceptsthatare(otherwise)ac-cessiblefromL2,becausealargenumberofconceptsthatareunknowninL2willalsobeactivated’’(p.176).The ndingsreportedinthepresentarticledirectlycontradictthisconclusion.Forexample,therobustL2–L1priminge ectsobservedinExperiment1demon-stratethatcategorycuespresentedinL1donotpreventsuccessfulprocessingoftheL2prime.Furthermore,byassumingthatL1cuesinterferewithL2processing,itisnotclearhowthesubsetmodelcouldaccountfortherobustpriminge ectsfrequentlyreportedintheL1–L2direction(seeIntroduction),whichindicatethatactiva-tioncausedbytheL1primefacilitatesL2processing.Howthencantheinterferencee ectsreportedbyDufourandKroll(1995)bereconciledwiththefacili-tatione ectsreportedhere?Wefeelthatthedi erencebetweenthetwo ndingsmaybeaccountedforbya‘‘switchcost’’presentintheDufourandKrollstudybutnotinours(cf.Meuter&Allport,1999).Inbothstudies,participantswerepresentedwithacategoryexemplar(e.g.,ANIMAL),which,importantly,mayalsoserveasalanguagecue.IntheDufourandKrollstudy,partic-ipantsmayhavebeenslowestoveralltocategorizeL2targetswhencategorycueswereinL1becausetheyhadtosuppresstheirjust-activatedL1inordertocategorizetheL2target.ThiswouldnothavebeennecessarywhenbothcategorycueandtargetweregiveninL2.Inourstudy,no‘‘switchcost’’wasobservedbecause(a)bothcategorycueandtargetwereinL1and(b)becauseparticipantswereunawareoftheL2prime.Crucially,though,the ndingsofthepresentstudy,whichcon rmthosereportedearlierbyGraingerandFrenck-Mestre(1998),makeitclearthatcategorycuespresentedinL1donotinterferewithprocessingoftheL2prime.

Onefurtherissuethatrequiressomediscussioncon-cernsthefactthatwehaveusedaninterpolatedmaskbetweentheprimeandtargetineachofthesemanticcategorizationexperiments(ashaveotherinvestigators,e.g.,Bueno&Frenck-Mestre,2002;Frenck-Mestre&Bueno,1999;Grainger&Frenck-Mestre,1998),whereasthisisnotnormallydoneinlexicaldecisionexperiments(e.g.,Experiments4aandb).Thisraisesthepossibilitythatitistheinterpolatedmaskthatproducessymmetryofpriming,notthetask.However,thisisnotthecase.InExperiment2,thetaskwaslexicaldecisionwithL2–L1translationpriming,andaninterpolatedmaskwasused(asinExperiment1),yetnoprimingwasobtained.Also,Jiang(1999)attemptedtoobtainL2–L1priminginalexicaldecisiontaskbyinterpolatingamask,butdidnotsucceed.

Nevertheless,itisworthconsideringwhysuchaprocedureisusedinthesemanticcategorizationtask(cf.Bueno&Frenck-Mestre,2002;Frenck-Mestre&Bueno,1999;Grainger&Frenck-Mestre,1998;andtheexperimentsreportedhere).Themostobviouspossi-bilityisthatreliablepriminginthistaskrequirestheinsertionofamask.SomesupportforthispossibilityisprovidedbythefactthatapilotversionofExperiment5accidentallyomittedthemask,andfailedtoproduceanypriming.Clearly,furtherworkisrequiredtoes-tablishwhetherthemaskisreallyrequired,butitisneverthelessofinteresttoconsiderwhyitmightberelevant.Theoriginalpurposeofincludingamaskwas