Does sentence constraint influence word recognition in bilinguals? Evidence from Event-Related...

Does sentence constraint influence word Does sentence constraint influence word recognition in bilinguals?recognition in bilinguals?

Evidence from Event-Related Potentials and RTsEvidence from Event-Related Potentials and RTs

Pascal E. A. Brenders, Janet G. van Hell, & Ton Dijkstra

NICI / BSINICI / BSI

Does sentence context influence word Does sentence context influence word recognition in bilinguals?recognition in bilinguals?

Consider these sentences:Consider these sentences:

““The father brought his sick daughter to the DOCTOR.”The father brought his sick daughter to the DOCTOR.”

““De vader bracht zijn zieke dochter naar de DOCTOR.”De vader bracht zijn zieke dochter naar de DOCTOR.”

Three factors could influence the recognition of the word DOCTOR:Three factors could influence the recognition of the word DOCTOR:

• semantic constraint (high vs. low)semantic constraint (high vs. low)

• lexical aspects of DOCTOR (cognates vs. noncognates)lexical aspects of DOCTOR (cognates vs. noncognates)

• language of sentence context (Dutch vs. English)language of sentence context (Dutch vs. English)

We will investigate these factors in an English lexical decision taskWe will investigate these factors in an English lexical decision task

Van Hell (1998) 1Van Hell (1998) 1

Does sentence context influence word recognition in bilinguals?Does sentence context influence word recognition in bilinguals?

Task: English lexical decisionTask: English lexical decision

Participants: Dutch-English bilingualsParticipants: Dutch-English bilinguals

Manipulations:Manipulations:

• Semantic constraint:Semantic constraint: high vs. lowhigh vs. low

• Cognate status:Cognate status: cognates vs. noncognatescognates vs. noncognates

Language of sentence and target was always English (L2)Language of sentence and target was always English (L2)

Van Hell (1998) 2Van Hell (1998) 2

Stimuli:Stimuli:

• CognatesCognates doctordoctor (L1:dokter)(L1:dokter)

• Non-cognatesNon-cognates flowerflower (L1:bloem)(L1:bloem)

CognatesCognates: : similar meaning, orthography, and phonologysimilar meaning, orthography, and phonologybetween L1: Dutch, and L2: Englishbetween L1: Dutch, and L2: English

Van Hell (1998) Van Hell (1998) ResultsResults

Lexical decision in L2

703

675

804

637653

757

600

650

700

750

800

850

isolation highconstraint

lowconstraint

Semantic constraint

RT

s (i

n m

s)

Noncognates Cognates

Van Hell (1998)Van Hell (1998)ConclusionsConclusions

ConclusionsConclusions

• Cognate effect in L2 remains in low constraint sentencesCognate effect in L2 remains in low constraint sentences

• Cognate effect in L2 remains in isolationCognate effect in L2 remains in isolation

• In high constraint sentences cognate effect in the right direction,In high constraint sentences cognate effect in the right direction, but not significantbut not significant

Current studyCurrent study

Extending van Hell (1998) by introducing the following factors:Extending van Hell (1998) by introducing the following factors:

• semantic constraint:semantic constraint: isolationisolationhighhighlowlow

• cognate status:cognate status: cognatescognatesnoncognatesnoncognates

• language of sentence context:language of sentence context: L1 L1 L2 L2L2 L2 L2 L2

• measuring RTs and measuring RTs and Event-Related PotentialsEvent-Related Potentials

MethodMethodBehavioral Behavioral / ERP / ERP study

BehavioralBehavioral

experimentexperiment

ERPERP


TaskTask English lexical decision English lexical decision (L2)(L2)

Silent readingSilent reading

ParticipantsParticipants N = 22N = 22

Dutch-English bilingualsDutch-English bilinguals

N = 26N = 26


MeasurementsMeasurements RTsRTs ERPsERPs

StimuliStimuli

Word stimuli: 56 English words and 56 matched pseudowords. All words were matched on length and log frequency

CognatesCognates NoncognatesNoncognates

doctordoctor

appleapple

fingerfinger

(n=28) (n=28)

flower flower

bikebike

mirrormirror

(n=28)(n=28)

Sentence contextsSentence contexts

English languageEnglish language Dutch languageDutch language

High High constraintconstraint

The father took the ill child The father took the ill child to the to the doctordoctor

De vader ging met het De vader ging met het zieke kind naar de zieke kind naar de doctordoctor

Low Low constraintconstraint

The mother made an The mother made an appointment with the appointment with the doctordoctor

De moeder maakte een De moeder maakte een afspraak met de afspraak met de doctordoctor

Four sentence contexts were constructed for all 112 word stimuli:

Rapid Serial Visual Presentation mode Rapid Serial Visual Presentation mode (RSVP mode)(RSVP mode)

Each word wasEach word waspresented for 345 ms,presented for 345 ms,followed by a 300 msfollowed by a 300 msblank (SOA = 645 ms).blank (SOA = 645 ms).

English lexical decision onEnglish lexical decision onsentence final words thatsentence final words thatwere followed by a dot.were followed by a dot.

Behavioral resultsBehavioral resultsIsolated targetsIsolated targets


539

512

495

500

505

510

515

520

525

530

535

540

545

noncognates cognates

Cognate status

RT

s (i

n m

s)

Cognate status effect in isolation (third presentation)Cognate status effect in isolation (third presentation)

Behavioral resultsBehavioral resultsSentence context 1Sentence context 1


719

730

680

690

700

710

720

730

740

750

760

770

780

English Dutch

Language of the sentence

RT

s (i

n m

s)


691

757

680

690

700

710

720

730

740

750

760

770

high constraint low constraint

Semantic constraint

RT

s (i

n m

s)


741

707

680

690

700

710

720

730

740

750

760

770

780


Cognate status

RT

s (i

n m

s)

• No main effects of language of sentence contextNo main effects of language of sentence context

• Semantic constraint effectSemantic constraint effect

• Cognate status effectCognate status effect

Behavioral resultsBehavioral resultsSentence context 2Sentence context 2


705

781

685

747

600

650

700

750

800


Semantic constraint of Dutch sentences

RT

s (i

n m

s)



716

761

661

737

600

650

700

750

800


Semantic constraint of English sentences

RT

s (i

n m

s)



• Cognate status effectCognate status effect

Conclusions behavioral experimentConclusions behavioral experiment

• For isolated words, we found cognate facilitation,For isolated words, we found cognate facilitation, replicating the well known cognate effect from the literaturereplicating the well known cognate effect from the literature

• Cognate effects also in sentence contextsCognate effects also in sentence contexts

• No main effects of language of sentence contextNo main effects of language of sentence context

• Faster RTs for targets at the end of high constraint sentences thanFaster RTs for targets at the end of high constraint sentences than for low constraint sentencesfor low constraint sentences

• Semantic constraint and language of context have no impact onSemantic constraint and language of context have no impact on cognate effectscognate effects

MethodMethodBehavioral /Behavioral / ERP study ERP study

BehavioralBehavioral


ERPERP


TaskTask English lexical decision English lexical decision (L2)(L2)


ParticipantsParticipants N = 22N = 22


N = 26N = 26


MeasurementsMeasurements RTsRTs ERPsERPs

Method ERP experiment:Method ERP experiment:Electrode placement on the scalpElectrode placement on the scalp

Recording parametersof the ERP study:EEG was recorded from27 electrodes,Referenced to the leftmastoid and digitizedon-line with a samplingfrequency of 200 Hzusing a 12 bit A/Dconverter.

ComponentComponent

• N400N400 Index of Index of semanticsemantic integration integration

Between 300 and 500 ms after word onsetBetween 300 and 500 ms after word onset

Peaking at around 400 ms (negative amplitude)Peaking at around 400 ms (negative amplitude)

Results ERP experiment:Results ERP experiment:Main effect: semantic constraintMain effect: semantic constraint

Semantic constraint effectSemantic constraint effect

Results ERP experiment:Results ERP experiment:Cognates and noncognates in high and low constraint sentence contextsCognates and noncognates in high and low constraint sentence contexts


• Independent of lexical characteristics of the targets:Independent of lexical characteristics of the targets:cognates or noncognatescognates or noncognates

Results ERP experiment:Results ERP experiment:Main effect: cognate status collapsedMain effect: cognate status collapsed

No cognate status effectNo cognate status effect

Results ERP experiment:Results ERP experiment:Cognates and noncognates in high or low constraint sentence contextsCognates and noncognates in high or low constraint sentence contexts

• No cognate status effectNo cognate status effect

• Independent of semantic constraint:Independent of semantic constraint:high constraint vs. low constrainthigh constraint vs. low constraint

Results ERP experiment:Results ERP experiment:Cognates and noncognates in English or Dutch sentencesCognates and noncognates in English or Dutch sentences

• No cognate effect in English sentencesNo cognate effect in English sentences

• Cognate status effect in Dutch sentencesCognate status effect in Dutch sentences

Results ERP experiment:Results ERP experiment:Cognates and noncognates in isolationCognates and noncognates in isolation

Cognate status effect in isolationCognate status effect in isolation

Results ERP experiment:Results ERP experiment:Cognates and noncognates in English, high and low constraint sentence contextsCognates and noncognates in English, high and low constraint sentence contexts

• Cognate status effect in English,Cognate status effect in English, high constraint sentence contextshigh constraint sentence contexts

• Cognates are integrated more easilyCognates are integrated more easily than noncognatesthan noncognates (facilitation by Dutch reading)(facilitation by Dutch reading)

• No cognate status effect in English,No cognate status effect in English, low constraint sentence contextslow constraint sentence contexts

Results ERP experiment:Results ERP experiment:Cognates and noncognates in Dutch, high and low constraint sentence contextsCognates and noncognates in Dutch, high and low constraint sentence contexts

• Cognate status effect in Dutch,Cognate status effect in Dutch, high constraint sentence contextshigh constraint sentence contexts

• Cognates are integrated more difficultCognates are integrated more difficult than noncognatesthan noncognates (inhibition by English reading)(inhibition by English reading)

• Cognate status effect in Dutch,Cognate status effect in Dutch, low constraint sentence contextslow constraint sentence contexts

• Cognates are integrated more difficultCognates are integrated more difficult than noncognatesthan noncognates (inhibition by English reading)(inhibition by English reading)

Conclusions ERP experimentConclusions ERP experiment

Although not all analysis have been done we may draw theAlthough not all analysis have been done we may draw thefollowing conclusions:following conclusions:

• Semantic constraint effect (N400)Semantic constraint effect (N400)independent of lexical characteristics of target items:independent of lexical characteristics of target items:cognates vs. noncognatescognates vs. noncognates

• There are cognate status effects, but they depend on both theThere are cognate status effects, but they depend on both the language and the constraint of the sentence language and the constraint of the sentence

• Cognate status effect in isolated contexts (third presentation)Cognate status effect in isolated contexts (third presentation)

Overall conclusions 1Overall conclusions 1

RTs:RTs:

Semantic constraint and language of context have no impact onSemantic constraint and language of context have no impact oncognate status effects.cognate status effects.

ERPs:ERPs:

The three-way interaction of language of the sentence context,The three-way interaction of language of the sentence context,semantic constraint, and cognate status indicates thatsemantic constraint, and cognate status indicates thatcognate status effects are affected by semantic constraint cognate status effects are affected by semantic constraint and language of the sentence context after all.and language of the sentence context after all.

Overall conclusions 2Overall conclusions 2

Behavioral Behavioral


ERPERP


Different Different

tasktask

English lexical decision English lexical decision (L2)(L2)


Different Different measurementsmeasurements

End-process of lexical End-process of lexical decision taskdecision task

On-line recordingsOn-line recordings

Dissociation of RT and ERP results:Dissociation of RT and ERP results:

Results ERP experimentResults ERP experiment

* p < 0.05* p < 0.05** p < 0.01** p < 0.01

Midline

Window Language Context Cognate status

F(1,25) F(1,25) F(1,25)

300-500 36.05 ** 31.01 ** 0.21

300-400 17.51 ** 18.57 ** 0.53

400-500 41.66 ** 35.33 ** 2.32

300-350 7.85 * 12.79 ** 2.46

350-400 22.50 ** 20.80 ** 0.03

400-450 22.62 ** 35.45 ** 2.01

450-500 55.89 ** 29.03 ** 1.82

Results ERP experiment:Results ERP experiment:Main effect: language of the sentence collapsedMain effect: language of the sentence collapsed

? Language switching effect ?? Language switching effect ?

Results ERP experiment:Results ERP experiment:Cognates or noncognates in Dutch or English sentencesCognates or noncognates in Dutch or English sentences

• Language switching effectLanguage switching effect

• Independent of lexical characteristics of the targets: cognates vs.Independent of lexical characteristics of the targets: cognates vs. noncognates, but language effect is smaller for cognatesnoncognates, but language effect is smaller for cognates

Does sentence constraint influence word recognition in bilinguals? Evidence from Event-Related...

Documents

Transcript of Does sentence constraint influence word recognition in bilinguals? Evidence from Event-Related...