The role of polysemy in masked semantic and translation prim(2)

2M.Finkbeineretal./JournalofMemoryandLanguage51(2004)1–22

words(Gollanetal.,1997;Grainger&Frenck-Mestre,1998;Jiang,1999;Jiang&Forster,2001;Keatlyetal.,1994;Sanchez-Casas,Davis,&Garcia-Albea,1992).1Aswewillseebelow,mostaccountsofthetranslationprimingasymmetryhaveappealedtoa‘‘limitingfactor’’explanation,wherebyapropertyspeci ctotheL2lexi-conisthoughttolimitprimingintheL2–L1direction.OneobviouspossibilityisthatwordsinL2arenotprocessede ectivelywhentheyaremasked;however,thesamesubjectsexhibitrobustwithin-L2maskedrepetitionpriminge ects(Finkbeiner,inpress;Gollanetal.,1997;Jiang,1999;Jiang&Forster,2001).Thatis,bilingualsarefastertorespondtoatargetintheirL2(e.g.,‘‘HOUSE’’)whenitisprecededbyamaskedpresentationofthesamewordbutindi erentcase(e.g.,‘‘house’’)thantheyarewhenthetargetispre-cededbyacontrolprime(e.g.,‘‘truck’’).This ndingsuggeststhatalackofL2–L1translationprimingcannotbeduetoaninabilitytoe ectivelyprocessthemaskedprimes.

TheRevisedHierarchicalModel(Kroll&Stewart,1994;Kroll&Tokowicz,2001),adominantmodelinthe eld,accountsforthetranslationprimingasymmetrybysuggestingthat:(1)thelocusofthetranslationpriminge ectisatthelevelofmeaningandthat(2)relativetoL1representations,L2lexicalformsareonlyweaklycon-nectedtomeaning-levelrepresentations.Accordingtothisaccount,primingise ectiveintheL1–L2directionbecausethemaskedL1primeservestoactivateasharedconceptualnode,whichthenpreactivatestheL2trans-lation-equivalentlexicalform.However,primingisnote ectiveintheL2–L1directionbecauseL2primesdonotautomaticallyactivatetheirconceptualrepresenta-tions,resultinginnopreactivationoftheL1translation-equivalentformandthusnopriming.Accordingtothisaccount,theL2form–meaningconnectionstrengthisthelimitingfactorthatpreventsprimingintheL2–L1direction.

Thisaccountisappealing,butitsu ersfromamajorweaknessinthatitpredictsnowithin-L2priming.Ifthelocusofprimingisatthelevelofmeaning,andL2formscannotautomaticallyactivatetheirmeanings,thenhowdoesmaskedL2–L2primingoccur?Toexplaintheex-istenceofwithin-L2priming,asecondlocusofprimingwouldhavetobeposited:namely,itwouldhavetobearguedthatwithin-L2primingoccursatthelevelofform.Insupportofthisclaim,itcouldbepointedoutthatwithin-L2priminge ectshaveprimarilybeendemonstratedwithrepetitionpriming,notsemanticpriming(Gollanetal.,1997;Jiang,1999;althoughsee

1

Thetranslationprimingasymmetryiseliminatedwhenprimeandtargetwordsarecognatesfromsame-scriptlan-guages(e.g.,rico-RICH)(Sanchez-Casasetal.,1992).

Frenck-Mestre&Prince,1997),andconsequentlymaybeattributedtoprimingattheformlevelalone.How-ever,translationpriminge ectswithcognatestimuli(e.g.,rico-RICH)cannotbeattributedtoanoverlapinform-levelpropertiesalone,sincetheprimingismea-suredrelativetoabaselineinvolvingasimilardegreeofformoverlap(e.g.,rict-RICH).Thereforeitappearsthatcognateprimingmustbeattributedtoanoverlapofinformationatthelevelofmeaning.

ArelatedproblemfortheRHMisitsunderspeci -cationwithrespecttothenatureoftheL2form–meaningconnection.ThisispresentedmostclearlyintheawkwardproposalthattheL2form–meaningcon-nectioncansimultaneouslysupportrobustprimingintheL1–L2directionandlimitprimingintheL2–L1direction.Toexplainbothofthese ndings,itisas-sumedthatthemappingbetweenL2formandmeaningissu cientlystronginthemeaning-to-formdirection(therebypermittingL1–L2priming),butthatthesamemappingistooweakintheform-to-meaningdirection(therebylimitingL2–L1priming).

Recently,another ndingusingthemaskedtrans-lationprimingparadigmhasbeenreportedwhichpromisestoelucidatetherelationshipbetweenL1andL2lexicalrepresentations.Thisisthepossibilityofataskdi erenceinmaskedL2–L1repetitionpriming.Todate,therehavebeentworeportedinstancesofsuchataskdi erence.The rstwasreportedbyGraingerandFrenck-Mestre(1998),whoobservedmaskedtransla-tionpriminge ectsintheL2–L1directionfornon-cognateswhensemanticcategorizationwasused,but,inlinewithseveralotherresearchers,notwhenlexicaldecisionwasused.This ndingappearstobequiteinconsistentwiththenotionthatL2wordsareinca-pableofactivatingsemanticrepresentationswhenmasked,andhenceitiscriticaltoexaminethisissuefurther.ThisisespeciallytruesincetheGraingerandFrenck-Mestre(1998) ndingstandsinmarkedcon-trasttothatofSanchez-Casasetal.(1992),whoalsousedthesemanticcategorizationtask,butreportednomaskedL2–L1translationprimingunlessthetransla-tionpairswerecognates.

Thesecondexampleofataske ectwasreportedbyJiangandForster(2001),whoobservedmaskedL2–L1translationprimingwhenan‘‘old–new’’episodicrec-ognitiontaskwasused,but,again,notwhenlexicaldecisionwasused.Theirexplanationofthise ect,whichwerefertoasthe‘‘separatememorysystemsaccount,’’o ersaverydi erentinterpretationofbilinguallexicalprocessing.Intheirstudy,participantswereaskedtomemorizealistofL1wordsinthe rstphaseoftheexperiment.Inthesecondphase,participantsperformedaspeeded‘‘old–new’’task,inwhichL1wordshadtobeclassi edaccordingtowhethertheywereontheoriginallistornot.Unknowntotheparticipants,theL1targetwordwasprecededbyamaskedtranslationprimeinL2.