Examining English-German translation ambiguity using primed translation recognition

Bilingualism

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 442-457

  Eddington, Chelsea M ^a   Tokowicz, Natasha ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

primed translation recognition; semantic similarity; translation ambiguity; translation dominance

Indexed keywords

EID: 84874857066     PISSN: 13667289     EISSN: 14691841     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1366728912000387     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Anderson, J. R. (1974). Retrieval of propositional Information from long-term memory. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 451-474.
2. Armstrong, B. C., & Plaut, D. C. (2008). Settling dynamics in distributed networks explain task differences in semantic ambiguity effects: Computational and behavioral evidence. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of theCognitive Science Society, pp. 273-278. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3. Azuma, T., & Van Orden, G. G. (1997). Why SAFE is better than FAST: The relatedness of a word's meanings affects lexical decision times. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 484-504. (Pubitemid 127168772)
4. Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., Neely, J. H., Nelson, D. L., Simpson, G. B., & Treiman, R. (2007). The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445-459.
5. Biographisches Institut GmbH. (2012). Duden online. http://www.duden.de/ rechtschreibung/Wort (retrieved September 14, 2009).
6. Boada, R., Sánchez-Casas, R., Gavilán, J. M., García-Albea, J. E., & Tokowicz, N. (in press). Effect of multiple translations and cognate status on translation recognition performance of balanced bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, doi:10.1017/ S1366728912000223. Published by Cambridge University Press, June 15, 2012.
7. Brysbaert, M.,Buchmeier, M.,Conrad,M., Jacobs,A.M., Bölte, J., & Böhl, A. (2011). The word frequency effect: A review of recent developments and implications for the choice of frequency estimates in German. Experimental Psychology, 58, 412-424.
8. Brysbaert, M., New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English, Behavior Research Methods, 41, 488-496.
9. de Groot, A. M. B. (1992). Determinants of word translation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1001-1018.
10. de Groot,A.M. B.,&Comijs,H. (1995). Translation recognition and translation production: Comparing a new and old tool in the study of bilingualism. Language Learning, 45, 467-509.
11. Degani, T., Prior, A., & Tokowicz, N. (2011). Bidirectional transfer: The effect of sharing a translation. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23, 18-28.
12. Degani, T.,&Tokowicz,N. (2010a)Ambiguouswords are harder to learn. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 299-314.
13. Degani, T., & Tokowicz, N. (2010b). Semantic ambiguity within and across languages: An integrative review. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1266-1303.
14. Dijkstra, A. F. J., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 175-197.
15. Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 429-446.
16. Eddington, C. M. (2009). Uneven or just strange? English-German translation ambiguity. Bachelor of Philosophy thesis, University of Pittsburgh.
17. Eddington, C. M., Degani, T., & Tokowicz, N. (2012a). English and German translation norms: The role of proficiency in translation ambiguity. Ms., University of Pittsburgh.
18. Eddington, C. M., Degani, T., & Tokowicz, N. (2012b). Translation Semantic Variability (TSV): A measure of semantic (dis)similarity for translation ambiguous words. Ms., University of Pittsburgh
19. Elston-Güttler, K. E., & Friederici, A. D. (2005). Native and L2 processing of homonyms in sentential context. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 256-283. (Pubitemid 40233699)
20. Elston-Güttler, K. E., Paulmann, S.,&Kotz, S. A. (2005).Who's in control? Proficiency and L1 influence on L2 processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 1593-1610. (Pubitemid 41510962)
21. Elston-Güttler, K. E., & Williams, J. N. (2008). First language polysemy affects second language meaning interpretation: Evidence for activation of first language concepts during second language reading. Second Language Research, 24, 167-187.
22. Frenck-Mestre, C., & Prince, P. (1997). Second language autonomy. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 481-501. (Pubitemid 127170025)
23. Hogaboam, T. W., & Perfetti, C. A. (1975). Lexical ambiguity and sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 265-274.
24. Jacquet, M.,&French, R.M. (2002). The BIA++: Extending the BIA+ to a dynamical distributed connectionist framework. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 202-205.
25. Klepousniotou, E., Titone, D., & Romero, C. (2008). Making sense of word senses: The comprehension of polysemy depends on sense overlap. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1534-1543.
26. 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.
27. Kroll, J. F., & Tokowicz, N. (2001). The development of conceptual representations for words in a second language. In J. Nicol (ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing, pp. 49-71. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
28. Laxén, J., & Lavaur, J.-M. (2010). The role of semantics in translation recognition: Effects of number of translations, dominance of translations and semantic relatedness of multiple translations. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 157-183.
29. LEO GmbH (2012). Leo.org. http://leo.org (retrievedAugust 10, 2009).
30. McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An Interactive Activation Model of Context Effects in Letter Perception. Part 1: An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375-407.
31. Neely, J. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In D. Besner & G. W. Humphreys (eds.), Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition, pp. 264-336. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32. Nievas, F., Justicia, F., Cañas, J. J., & Bajo, T. (2005). Lexical processing of ambiguous words: Dominance or associative strength? The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 8, 157-179. (Pubitemid 41501321)
33. Onifer, W., & Swinney, D. A. (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory and Cognition, 9, 225-236.
34. Prior, A., MacWhinney, B., & Kroll, J. F. (2007). Translation norms for English and Spanish: The role of lexical variables, word class, and L2 proficiency in negotiating translation ambiguity. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 1029-1038.
35. Prior, A., Wintner, S., MacWhinney, B., & Lavie, A. (2011). Translation in and out of context. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 93-111.
36. Rodd, J., Gaskell, G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 245-266.
37. Schepens, J., Dijkstra, T., & Grootjen, F. (2012). Distribution of cognates in Europe as based on Levenshtein distance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 157-166.
38. Schoonbaert, S., Duyck, W., Brysbaert, M., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2009). Semantic and translation priming form a first language to a second and back: Making sense of the findings. Memory and Cognition, 37, 569-586.
39. Schneider,W., Eschman A. Zuccolotto A(2010). E-prime, Version 2.0.8.90 [computer software]. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.
40. Setton, R. (2006). Context in simultaneous interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 374-389. (Pubitemid 43250456)
41. Simpson, G. B. (1981). Meaning dominance and semantic context in the processing of lexical ambiguity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 120-136.
42. Tokowicz, N., & Degani, T. (2010). Translation ambiguity: Consequences for learning and processing. In B. VanPatten & J. Jegerski (eds.), Research on second language processing and parsing, pp. 281-293. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
43. Tokowicz, N., & Kroll, J. F. (2007). Number of meanings and concreteness: Consequences of ambiguity within and across languages. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 727-779. (Pubitemid 47455077)
44. Tokowicz, N., Kroll, J. F., de Groot, A. M. B., & van Hell, J. G. (2002). Number-of-translation norms for Dutch-English translation pairs: A new tool for examining language production. Behavior Research Methods, 34, 435-451.
45. Tokowicz, N., Michael, E. B., & Kroll, J. F. (2004). The roles of study-abroad experience and working-memory capacity in the types of errors made during translation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 255-272.
46. Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 127-154.
47. van Hell, J. G., & de Groot, A. M. B. (1998). Conceptual representation in bilingualmemory: Effects of concreteness and cognate status in word association. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 193-211.