SEMANTIC AMBIGUITY IN THE LEXICAL ACCESS OF VERBS:
HOW DATA FROM MONOLINGUALS AND BILINGUALS
INFORM A GENERAL MODEL OF THE MENTAL LEXICON
BY
AMY PHYLLIS SWANSON
DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial fulfillment for the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Spanish
in the Graduate College of the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2010
Urbana, Illinois
Doctoral Committee:
Associate Professor Paola E. Dussias, Chair
Associate Professor Susan M. Garnsey
Associate Professor Anna María Escobar
Associate Professor Diane Musumeci
Assistant Professor Gretchen Sunderman, Florida State University
ABSTRACT
This thesis describes an extensive norming study of Spanish verbs and an online language
processing study investigating whether bilingual lexical processing is nonselective (both
languages are activated) when only one language is required for use. To study bilingual lexical
processing, researchers have relied upon words of shared orthography and semantics between
languages in order to determine how word form and meaning impact bilingual word recognition.
However, because these words have been of exact form overlap through cognates (words sharing
form and meaning between languages: banana in Spanish and English) and homographs (words
sharing form yet differing in meaning: the English adjective red meaning net in Spanish), it has
been difficult to distinguish which language(s) participants engage during processing tasks. The
present research addresses this issue by investigating cognate and homographic verbs between
languages. Because differences in verb morphology between Spanish and English never result in
exact form overlap between languages (e.g., assist and asistir), interlingual cognate and
homographic verbs between Spanish and English should ensure that participants operate in one
specific language. Hence, utilizing verbs provides an original testing ground to determine if the
bilingual language processor is nonselective when operating in one language and to what degree
the access depends on form and meaning overlap between languages. An extensive norming
study of Spanish verbs produced a reliable list of cognates and homographs with English. The
online research indicated that bilingual lexical access is guided not only by form and meaning,
but also by how the frequency of a word’s meanings from both languages attach to a single form.
These results mirror recent discoveries in ambiguity research in monolinguals (e.g., Rodd,
ii
Gaskell and Marslen-Wilson, 2002), the implications of which suggest an overriding mechanism
of language processing—not just a theory of bilingual lexical processing.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I thank many kind people for their guidance to me in this journey. First and foremost, I
thank my advisor who worked with me long-distance for the entire ride—Prof. Paola (Giuli) E.
Dussias. Thank you for your patience, continued encouragement, generosity, hospitality,
companionship in research trips and conferences, and mostly for being such a kind and decent
person always. I value you as an educator and researcher and as my dear friend. I really
couldn’t have done this without you! Thank you to my committee of amazing women for your
patience, time, and energy in reading and guiding: Prof. Susan M. Garnsey, Prof. Anna María
Escobar, Prof. Diane Musumeci, and Prof. Gretchen Sunderman. An additional thank you goes
to Prof. Susan Garnsey for letting me participate in her SMG lab at the Beckman Institute. The
guidance, encouragement, and training you give to your students serve as a model for all
educators. I thank Prof. M. Teresa Bajo at the University of Granada, Granada, Spain, for
allowing me to conduct research in her lab and appreciate her and all her students for their
friendship, hospitality, and collegiality to me during my stays in Granada. I send the same
appreciation to Prof. Judy Kroll at Penn State for her excellent feedback and to the Center of
Language Science (and the Purple Lab) for allowing me to interact with them during visits.
Crossing half the country to meet with one’s advisor and gathering research data abroad do not
come cheaply. I thank the Graduate College for funding me with off-campus and on-campus
dissertation grants, as well as my department, Spanish, Italian, & Portuguese (SIP), for awarding
me the prestigious Darlene F. Wolf Fellowship. Additionally, I thank the Graduate College, SIP,
and the University of Trento, Italy, for various conference travel grants. Finally, I thank the
people closest to me in my personal life. You all know that you share in this with me—many of
iv
you have told me as much, so yes, you have earned your degrees too! I have the most incredible
family and I thank each one, starting of course with my parents, Emil and Joan Swanson. Of you
both, I stand in awe. I thank my siblings, their spouses, and my nieces and nephews. Your love
and support are unparalleled. Finally, I thank my husband, Ronald C. Sylvester, for his patience.
You never gave up on me and that has made a lot of difference.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................21
CHAPTER 3: IDENTIFYING SPANISH VERBS AS COGNATES AND HOMOGRAPHS
WITH ENGLISH ...........................................................................................................................53
CHAPTER 4: INVESTIGATING ONLINE INTERLINGUAL LEXICAL AND
SEMANTIC ACTIVATION THROUGH SPANISH-ENGLISH COGNATE AND
HOMOGRAPHIC VERBS ............................................................................................................84
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .................................................................105
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................120
APPENDIX A: PHASE I DATA: HOMOGRAPH SELECTION. DICTIONARY
DEFINITIONS, FREQUENCY. ..................................................................................................131
APPENDIX B: PHASE I DATA: COGNATE SELECTION. DICTIONARY
DEFINITIONS, FREQUENCY ..................................................................................................137
APPENDIX C: PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM IN SPANISH ..........................................142
APPENDIX D: PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM TRANSLATED TO ENGLISH .............144
APPENDIX E: LANGUAGE BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE IN SPANISH ................146
APPENDIX F: LANGUAGE BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE IN ENGLISH ...............148
APPENDIX G: SYNONYM-SOLICITATION TASK FOR HOMOGRAPHS ........................151
APPENDIX H: SYNONYM-SOLICITATION TASK FOR COGNATES ...............................153
APPENDIX I: SYNONYM-CLARIFICATION TASK.............................................................155
APPENDIX J: SYNONYM-RATING TASK FOR HOMOGRAPHS, SPANISH....................158
APPENDIX K: SYNONYM-RATING TASK FOR COGNATES, SPANISH .........................164
APPENDIX L: SYNONYM-RATING TASK FOR HOMOGRAPHS, ENGLISH ..................167
APPENDIX M: SYNONYM-RATING TASK FOR COGNATES, ENGLISH ........................172
APPENDIX N: FORM-SIMILARITY RATING TASK ...........................................................185
vi
APPENDIX O: HOMOGRAPH DATA, SYNONYM-SOLICITATION TASK ......................192
APPENDIX P: COGNATE DATA, SYNONYM-SOLICITATION TASK .............................193
APPENDIX Q: HOMOGRAPH DATA, SYNONYM-CLARIFICATION TASK ...................201
APPENDIX R: COGNATE DATA, SYNONYM-CLARIFICATION TASK ..........................217
APPENDIX S: SUMMARY OF HOMOGRAPH DATA, SYNONYM-CLARIFICATION
TASK ...........................................................................................................................................233
APPENDIX T: SUMMARY OF COGNATE DATA, SYNONYM-CLARIFICATION
TASK ...........................................................................................................................................244
APPENDIX U: HOMOGRAPH DATA, SYNONYM-RATING TASK ...................................251
APPENDIX V: COGNATE DATA, SYNONYM-RATING TASK .........................................259
APPENDIX W: FORM SIMILARITY DATA ..........................................................................267
APPENDIX X: PICTURE BANK ..............................................................................................270
APPENDIX Y: SPANISH PROFICIENCY TEST ....................................................................271
APPENDIX Z: ENGLISH PROFICIENCY TEST ....................................................................274
APPENDIX AA: TARGET VERB LIST ...................................................................................276
APPENDIX BB: CONTROL VERB LIST ................................................................................280
APPENDIX CC: PSEUDOWORD LIST ...................................................................................281
APPENDIX DD: VERB FAMILIARITY TASK .......................................................................282
vii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Research on bilingual lexical processing originally focused on the question of whether
bilinguals automatically (subconsciously) activate one or both languages in the mind when
encountering words of either language (e.g., Chen, 1990; Chen and Leung, 1989; De Groot and
Nas, 1991; Dufour and Kroll, 1995; Kroll, 1993; Kroll and Stewart, 1994; Potter, So, von
Eckhart and Feldman, 1984; Weinreich, 1953—reprinted in 1963). Lexical access or lexical
processing is the process of entering the mental lexicon to retrieve words and information for
their use. The bilingual mental lexicon refers to the storage of all words and their lexical
information. A broad view of the lexicon says that lexical representations include not only the
grammatical, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic properties of words themselves, as in
phonological (sound), orthographic (form-spelling), semantic (specific meaning and notions
about that meaning—e.g., concreteness or abstractness), and morpho-syntactic (grammatical
class—e.g., noun or verb) properties, but also information on the co-occurring items related to a
word, as in directions for use of the lexical item within sentence structure and collocational
properties (rules of constraint of a lexical item within phrases and context– e.g., you can launch
an idea or a rocket, but you cannot launch an exam) (See recent research on the mental storage of
words by Li, Shu, Liu, & Li, 2006). A selective view of bilingual lexical access posits that
language input is processed only by the context-appropriate lexicon. A nonselective view holds
that both language systems respond to language input in a parallel manner.
In the last decade, however, empirical findings have moved researchers away from the
‘either or’ question of whether one or both languages are activated automatically, even when a
1
bilingual intends the use of only one of his or her languages. Instead, the data overwhelmingly
support a generally nonselective bilingual lexical access view (Christoffels, Firk, and Schiller,
2007; Costa, Caramazza, and Sebastian-Galllés, 2000; Dijkstra and VanHeuven, 2002; Schwartz
and Kroll, 2006) and an organization of the bilingual mental lexicon that connects multiple
languages at both semantic and lexical levels (Kroll and Stewart, 1994; Potter, So, von Eckhart
and Feldman, 1984). What remains to be revealed, however, is an understanding of the
mechanisms and constraints that guide nonselective bilingual lexical activation to allow a
bilingual ultimately to choose the appropriate language when retrieving words.
In this introduction, a brief overview is provided to explain what it means to be bilingual,
how research findings over the past three decades have shaped the models of bilingual lexical
organization and access, how lexical ambiguity has been used in studying bilingualism, how the
current study manipulates lexical ambiguity in innovative ways in order to understand further the
mechanisms and constraints that guide nonselective bilingual lexical processing, and how
monolingual and bilingual lexical processing might be considered jointly to describe a general
view of language processing.
THE BILINGUAL
At one time, the term bilingual was perceived to mean balanced bilingual—a highly
proficient, near-native or native speaker of two languages. While there are more bilingual and
multilingual speakers than monolinguals in the world today, very few bilinguals of the balanced
type actually exist. In order to reflect the type of bilingual that readily is found, bilingualism is
viewed along a continuum. A bilingual may have achieved low or high proficiency in a second
language (L2). Nearly always, a bilingual has one dominant language. Depending upon
2
individual circumstances, this dominant language does not have to be the bilingual’s first
language (L1). The term bilingual, then, has a very broad connotation in the bilingualism
literature, and refers to a person who actively uses two languages at some level of proficiency—a
native language and a second language (L2). The term is sometimes interchangeable with "L2
learner", and levels of proficiency, age of language acquisition/learning, length of immersion
time, manner of language study, amount of daily language usage, and other relevant descriptors
are considered and included in the research on bilingual language processing (Kroll and Dussias,
2004).
THE BILINGUAL LEXICON
The original research question regarding the nature of the bilingual lexicon asked whether
or not two languages are stored separately or are integrated in some way into a single-language
store within bilingual memory. In 1953, Weinreich (reprinted in 1963) put forth three types of
possible organizations for the bilingual lexicon: Type A: “compound”, Type B: “coordinate”,
and Type C: “subordinate”. These organizational types describe two languages as stored
separately within the bilingual mind (compound), or connected either by shared conceptual
stores (coordinate) or via lexical links (subordinate). The conceptual level holds all real world
knowledge and meanings or events to which words refer. The lexical level of the lexicon refers
to word-level representations within the mind. Only aspects of word form, such as the
orthography of words, are stored at this level.
During L2 learning, compound bilinguals gain one lexical representation for each
conceptual representation. That is, in this type of bilingual, languages are stored separately in
the bilingual mind and connections between the two languages are not developed. Coordinate
3
bilinguals develop two separate lexical representations for each concept. In this case, while
concepts may be shared between languages in the bilingual, word-level representations for
concepts are stored separately. The subordinate view describes a process in which a second
language is learned via an existing L1. A second language learner at first does not create a direct
link between an L2 word and its conceptual representation, rather s/he creates a connection
between the newly-learned L2 word form and the L1 word form equivalent.
Potter, So, von Eckhart and Feldman (1984) carried out the first explicit test regarding the
association between word organizations of two languages. Potter et al. (1984) assumed, as did
Weinreich, that some type of connection between the L1 and L2 must be made during the
learning of new L2 words, and put forth the Word Association Hypothesis and the Concept
Mediation Hypothesis (See Figure 1.1) as possible theories that could explain how those
connections are made. The Word Association Hypothesis suggests that the L1 and the L2 are
connected at the lexical level and that only the L1 has access to conceptual representation. The
Concept Mediation Hypothesis suggests that the L1 and L2 are connected conceptually. That is,
each language has independent access to a common conceptual representation. Potter et al.
(1984) also proposed a third hypothesis that mirrors the subordinate bilingualism distinction that
eventually leads to coordinate bilingualism in many bilinguals, as put forth by Weinreich (1953,
1963). The Intermediate Hypothesis suggests that L2 learners first acquire lexical associations to
their L1 while learning new L2 vocabulary, thus performing under the Word Association
Hypothesis. Gradually, direct links are developed between the L2 words and their conceptual
representations, as in the Concept Mediation Hypothesis. While the Potter et al. (1984) data
supported only the Concept Mediation Hypothesis, other empirical data have found support for
the Intermediate Hypothesis (e.g., Chen and Leung 1989 and Chen, 1990).
4
Figure 1.1 Concept Mediation and Word Association Models (from Potter et al., 1984).
Images
Images
L2
L2
L1
L1
Concepts
Concepts
Concept Mediation Model
Word Association Model
The fact that L2 vocabulary acquisition sometimes shifts from its reliance upon L1
connections for meaning to direct conceptual connections suggested to researchers that an
asymmetry may exist in the strength of lexical-conceptual connections between languages in the
bilingual (Kroll and De Groot, 1997). To account for this possible asymmetry—a proficiency
based asymmetry, Kroll (1993) and Kroll and Stewart (1994) proposed the Revised Hierarchical
Model for the bilingual lexicon (See Figure 1.2). This model suggests that when a bilingual
learns an L2, lexical connections are formed between the two languages. As a bilingual becomes
more fluent in the L2, stronger direct links are established between the L2 and the conceptual
store, although these links will not cause the already existing strong lexical links from the L1 to
the L2 to disappear. The lexical store for the L2 is purposefully smaller than the lexical store for
the L1 because even for highly proficient bilinguals, it is assumed that more words are known in
the L1 than in the L2. While data exist in support of the Revised Hierarchical Model (Dufour
and Kroll, 1995; Keatley, Spinks, and De Gelder, 1994; Kroll, 1993; Kroll and Stewart, 1994;
Sholl, Sankaranarayanan, and Kroll, 1995), there are data against the hypothesis (e.g., Altarriba
and Mathis, 1997; De Groot and Nas, 1991).
5
Figure 1..2 Hierarchical Bilinguaal Model (from Kroll & Stewart, 19994).
RS THAT SHAPE
S
A MODEL
M
OF
F BILINGU
UAL ORGAN
NIZATION
N AND ACC
CESS
FACTOR
Such conflictting researchh data indicatte that the orrganization of
o the bilinguual lexicon is
i
much moore than just a question of
o whether or not two lannguages in thhe bilingual mind are
“separatee” or “integrated”. Manyy lexicon-exxternal variabbles, such ass the mannerr in which
bilingualls learn an L2
2 (in a classrroom or in an
a immersionn setting), thhe levels of proficiency
p
o
of
bilingualls, age of acq
quisition, andd the types of
o experimenntal tasks em
mployed in reesearch (e.g..,
lexical deecision or word
w
naming—
—defined att the end of this
t chapter in
i the sectionn on terms) all
play a role in determining whether two languuages are connnected in thhe bilingual mind (Greenn,
1993). While
W
a modeel on bilinguual lexical orrganization and
a access must
m accountt for lexiconexternal notions
n
such
h as whether a bilingual is balanced or
o dominantt in one languuage, a moddel
must first describe ho
ow orthograpphy, phonoloogy, semanttics, and otheer lexical prooperties interact
between languages.
Inndeed, much
h attention inn research haas been givenn to words thhat are orthoographically
similar between lang
guages (e.g., De Groot annd Nas, 19911; De Groot,, Delmar, and Lupker, 20000;
Dijkstra, Van Jaarsveeld, and Brinnke, 1998; Scarborough,, Gerard, andd Cortese, 19984; Gerard and
6
Scarborough, 1989). Cognates are words that share the same or similar lexical form and meaning
but usually differing phonological properties between languages (e.g., hotel in Spanish and
English). Because of the interlingual orthographic form overlap of cognates, they are utilized in
research and are compared to noncognates in order to determine if words are connected between
languages via orthographic form. Noncognates are direct semantic translations between two
languages that do not share lexical orthographic form (e.g., perro in Spanish means dog in
English). In research, noncognates are activated quickly when their translations are presented
together, thus suggesting that their concepts are connected in some way (e.g., De Groot and Nas,
1991). Cognates are shown to be recognized quickly as compared to noncognates, thus
suggesting interlingual connections at both lexical and conceptual levels (e.g., Gerard and
Scarborough, 1989; De Groot and Nas, 1991). In addition, De Groot and Keijzer (2000) carried
out research involving the learning of L2 concrete words, abstract words, cognates, and
noncognates, and found that cognates and concrete words were remembered more successfully
than noncognates and abstract words from the beginning of foreign language learning.
These types of empirical results have led recent researchers away from the either-or
question of a separate or shared bilingual lexicon, and toward investigating the varying
circumstances under which two languages work together in the bilingual mind at lexical (word)
and/or conceptual (semantic) levels within the lexicon. De Groot (1992, 1993) proposes that the
bilingual lexicon is organized by distributed features, an idea fashioned after distributed models
of speech production (e.g., Dell and O’Seaghdha, 1992). By focusing on the aspects of words
that appear to be associated with lexical or conceptual processing, De Groot (1992, 1993; Kroll
and De Groot, 1997) put forth a theory of the bilingual lexicon that relies on three levels of
representation: a lexical level that includes only aspects of word form, a conceptual level that
7
includes real world knowledge and the meanings of the objects and events to which words refer,
and a lemma-level that is sensitive to syntactic constructions and mappings between lexical and
conceptual features. This model, referred to as the Distributed Lexical/Conceptual Feature
Model (See Figure 1.3), permits shared aspects of word form (lexical features) and meaning
(conceptual features) between two languages that are interconnected via language-specific
lemmas, thus allowing two languages in bilingual memory to function either autonomously or in
an integrated fashion.
Figure 1.3 Distributed Lexical/Conceptual Feature Model. Adapted from Kroll and De Groot,
1997.
Lexical Features
L1
Lemmas
L2
Conceptual Features
Dong, Gui and MacWhinney (2005) combined notions from all the aforementioned
models to create The shared (distributed) asymmetrical model (See Figure 1.4). This model and
similar versions (e.g., the Unified Model, MacWhinney, 2005 and 2007) are extensions of
MacWhinney’s monolingual language processing model, the Competition Model (Bates and
MacWhinney, 1982; MacWhinney, 1987), modified to include bilingual language processing. In
this model, shared conceptual features between languages are represented by a storage area of
common elements, while language-specific conceptual aspects remain in smaller languagespecific storage areas. Both lexicons have access to all three conceptual areas, yet proficiency
8
asymmetry and early routing of the L2 through the L1 lexicon are accounted for in the same way
as in the Revised Hierarchical Model. Dong et al. (2005) suggest that as the L2 is learned, both
common and L1-specific semantic notions are linked to the L2, yet this link between the L1 and
L2 weakens as the L2 learner becomes more proficient and an L2-specific conceptual store is
created. As strong as the ‘L2-L2’ link might become, however, it can never be as strong as the
‘L1-L1’ link. For advanced bilinguals, the language-specific links (L1-L1 specific/common
stores; L2-L2 specific/common stores) will strengthen as the cross-linguistic connections
weaken.
Figure 1.4 The Shared (Distributed) Asymmetrical Model. Dong, Gui, & MacWhinney, 2005.
(lexical form)
L1 elements
L2
L1
Common elements
L2 elements
(semantic elements)
While all of these models give a valuable general description of how bilingual lexical
organization and access might be conceived, they do not provide a detailed account of how
lexical access actually occurs in the bilingual mind. One of the only models to date to detail
bilingual lexical access is the Bilingual Interactive Activation + Model (BIA+), proposed by
Dijkstra and Van Heuven, 2002, as a revised version of their 1998 Bilingual Interactive
9
Activation Model (BIA). The BIA+ model is a localist computational model in the connectionist
tradition. For more than 20 years, connectionist models have been generated to describe
unilingual language comprehension (and production) that encompass both the developing and the
adult final state language system. Bilingual lexical modeling is just beginning to emerge and
only to describe lexical organization and activation for a static bilingual state. While it can
account for variances in proficiency between languages (e.g., one language is more dominant
than the other in a bilingual) through notions of frequency, like many localist models, it does not
address how the model would change through the L2 learning and acquisition process.
The BIA+ model is fashioned after the monolingual Interactive Activation (IA) model of
word recognition (McClelland and Rumelhart, 1981) and consists of orthographic, phonological,
and semantic representations which are connected both within and between languages. As a
letter string is fed into the model, orthographic and phonological features of a word interact with
and activate words of similar orthography and phonology in parallel, which in turn interact with
word semantics. For example, rosa in Spanish can activate its translation rose, which in turn can
activate hose or other feature-similar words. Information is fed in a bidirectional manner
through the system; so as orthography > phonology > semantics activate potential word
candidates in a feed forward process, semantics > phonology > orthography provide feedback
activation until all lexical and semantic matches take place and the appropriate lexical candidate
is selected. A final language identification node contributes to the activation process by
interpreting language-specific cues and identifying the language to which a word belongs. An
extra component controls how task and decision demands can affect the word identification
process (See Figure 1.5).
10
Figure 1..5 The BIA+ model for bilingual
b
worrd recognitioon (Dijkstra & VanHeuvven, 2002).
T BIA+ mo
The
odel for bilinngual word recognition
r
i able to expplain why words
is
w
that shaare
form andd/or meaning
g between lannguages are recognized quickly by the
t system (ii.e., as in
cognates and translattions mentioned previouusly). Yet ann interesting ambiguity phenomenon
p
n
nd between-language in which wordds share simiilar lexical feeatures
exists both within- an
p
, yet differ inn semantics (e.g., bug in English cann mean spy
(orthograaphy and/or phonology),
device orr insect). Th
hese words, called
c
homoggraphs havee been of inteerest to reseaarchers
investigaating lexical processing because
b
theyy allow orthoography, phoonology, andd semantics to
t be
manipulaated and teassed apart tow
ward a betterr understandiing of how each
e
componnent contribuutes
to the woord recognitiion process and
a in particcular, how eaach interacts to resolve leexical ambigguity.
11
Within-language ambiguity: intralingual homographs
Researchers from a monolingual language processing perspective have exploited the
within-language phenomenon of homographs (e.g., bug meaning spy device or insect or even the
verb to bother) to understand how meaning is activated during lexical parsing. At issue are the
same types of questions as posed for bilinguals: are multiple word meanings (within- rather than
between-language) of ambiguous intralingual homographs automatically activated and available
for use in language comprehension? What are the constraints for such activation that would
resolve activation in favor of only one meaning?
In general, this body of research has shown that the lexical processor activates all of the
meanings of an ambiguous word, but resolves the ambiguity quickly, keeping active only the
relevant meaning as required by context (e.g., Simpson and Burgess, 1985; Swinney, 1979).
However, additional research on monolingual lexical ambiguity has found that we must
differentiate between types of ambiguity. While many researchers have found facilitation in the
activation for words with multiple meanings in one language (English) (e.g., strongest effects
found in the following: Azuma and Van Orden, 1997; Borowsky and Masson, 1996; Millis and
Button, 1989), Rodd, Gaskell and Marslen-Wilson (2002) distinguish between lexical items that
truly are ambiguous (having multiple, unrelated meanings, as in bark) and those that are
polysemous (having multiple meanings of a similar sense, as in twist). By drawing this
distinction, Rodd et al. were able to show that while facilitation in activation for polysemous
words readily occurs, there is actually an ambiguity disadvantage for words when the meanings
are clearly different. Klepousniotou (2002) reported similar findings. These results suggest that
accessing homographs of multiple yet unrelated meanings creates competition in the lexical
12
processor at a semantic level, whereas processing words with moderately related meanings
facilitates the activation of such words.
Clearly such research findings from intralingual homographs/monolingual lexical
ambiguity research cannot be ignored when considering questions of between-language
ambiguity. Often, researchers in bilingual lexical access argue that a model of lexical
organization and activation must accommodate speakers of multiple languages, largely arguing
that being bilingual is more common than not in the world of language speakers. Likewise,
researchers investigating the bilingual lexicon must utilize within-language lexical (form) and
semantic relationship findings when considering between-language ambiguity resolution.
Between-language ambiguity: interlingual homographs
Like monolingual research, bilingual lexical processing research utilizes words that
provide cross-language ambiguity in order to investigate whether multiple languages are
activated automatically. Interlingual homographs are words of the same or similar orthography
yet differing meanings between languages (e.g., the color adjective red means net or web in
Spanish). As with cognates, because of the orthographic form overlap of interlingual
homographs, researchers can manipulate the items in research to determine if lexical items are
connected between languages via form overlap and if language-specific meanings automatically
are activated.
Unlike monolingual research findings, some research utilizing interlingual
homographs between languages found neither slowed nor facilitated activation for
orthographically identical or similar words, suggesting that only the appropriate language
meaning is activated (e.g., Gerard and Scarborough, 1989). Most data from interlingual
homographs, however, support monolingual findings for a nonselective access view in which
13
both language meanings are automatically and simultaneously activated, as long as research
tasks include both languages (e.g., Altenberg and Cairns, 1983; Beauvillain and Grainger, 1987;
De Groot, Delmar, and Lupker, 2000; Dijkstra and Van Heuven, 1998; Dijkstra, Van Jaarsveld,
and Ten Brinke, 1998; Grosjean, 1997, 1998, 2000). As Grosjean (1997) points out, the mere
presence of multiple languages in research design can and probably does encourage the bilingual
lexical parser to keep all languages activated and ready for use in language processing. Wordlevel research tasks that present two languages at a time do not really reflect the way that
language is used by bilinguals. Although much evidence exists that bilinguals code-switch or
change back and forth between languages under many circumstances, bilinguals also consciously
make use of one language at a time. The few times that experimental items have been presented
in a language-specific manner, results have been much less clear as to whether the bilingual
processor automatically activates both languages (selective activation in Dijkstra, Van Jaarsveld,
& Ten Brinke (1998) but nonselective results in De Groot, Delmar, & Lupker (2000). What is
interesting to know, then, is if while operating in one language, bilinguals automatically activate
elements of the lexicon of their other language. More research of this type is crucial toward
obtaining a broader understanding of how the bilingual lexical processor works.
In existing bilingual lexical research, a specific type of cognate and homograph has been
exploited: one in which exact orthography is shared between languages (e.g., hotel as a SpanishEnglish cognate; red as a Spanish-English homograph). De Groot, Delmar, & Lupker (2000)
suggest that when such words are presented in a language-specific study, conflicting results may
be a consequence of lexical parsing strategies. That is, when participants are asked to identify
words of exact orthographic overlap in a particular language (e.g., Is red a word of Spanish?), the
processor simply responds the moment it finds any lexical match in the mind, regardless of
14
language ownership, telling us nothing about whether meaning ambiguity between languages has
been tapped. In addition, cognates and homographs in bilingual lexical research have been
limited to nouns and/or words that cross-categorize between languages (the English adjective red
translates to the noun web/net in Spanish). As a consequence, bilingual lexical modeling (e.g.,
the BIA+ model) is based only on how very short words (the BIA+ model can only simulate the
processing of 4-letter words), predominantly nouns, are processed. Van Hell (2002, see also
Sunderman and Kroll, 2006) suggests that grammatical class may constrain existing models of
word recognition and ultimately affect theories of word recognition both at the word level and in
sentence processing. Research suggests that the processing of nouns and verbs may be very
different since verbs are believed to be more abstract in meaning and to have a greater breadth of
meaning than concrete nouns (Van Hell and de Groot, 1998). Bilingual lexical processing
research has more or less ignored this notion by focusing on ‘all or nothing’ overlaps in all
lexical aspects between languages. Yet, if one explores cognate and homograph meanings
between languages, one finds a continuum of form and meaning overlap (see Van Hell and de
Groot, 1998). More word-level research is needed that looks at the interaction of specific
grammatical classes, such as verbs, between languages, and that exploits the notion of degrees of
form and meaning overlap between languages. At the same time, research in bilingual lexical
activation must consider how findings that ambiguous and polysemous words act differently in
monolingual lexical processing might impact bilingual lexical access.
15
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The present research study addresses the aforementioned gaps in the bilingual lexical
processing literature in the following ways. The research design moves research from a mix of
word classes in the experimental design to a single grammatical class by investigating cognate
and homographic verbs between languages. Because differences in verb morphology between
Spanish and English never result in exact form overlap between languages (e.g., assist and
asistir), interlingual cognate and homographic verbs between Spanish and English should ensure
that participants are operating in one language, thus removing potential results that could arise
from strategic processing mechanisms (as suggested in De Groot et al., 2000). Because verbs are
more abstract in meaning, degrees of semantic overlap between languages can more easily be
teased apart and notions of meaning dominance and whether meanings are very different in
nature or simply polysemous can be studied. Hence, utilizing verbs provides an original testing
ground to determine if the lexical information of two languages as expressed by verbs is
automatically accessed during bilingual language processing, to what degree the access depends
on form and meaning overlap between languages, and whether bilingual and monolingual lexical
processing mechanisms of ambiguous and polysemous words mirror each other.
16
DEFINITION OF TERMS
bilingual—active speaker of two languages, regardless of level of proficiency.
cognates -- words in two languages that share similar or exact orthographic features and word
meaning, but different phonetic features. An example is hotel in Spanish and English (in
Spanish, pronounced /otel/).
early bilinguals—speakers of two languages who acquired each language simultaneously at an
early age (e.g., on average age 6).
grammaticality judgment task—a task in which participants decide whether a sentence is
grammatically correct in a language. Often participants rate their decisions on a scale of options,
from very certain to not certain of the grammaticality of the sentence. This task is usually a
paper and pen task and is considered an "off-line" task, meaning that participants can have as
long as needed consider the grammaticality of the sentences.
homographic or false cognate verbs—words between languages that share similar lexical form,
but different meanings. An example is asistir in Spanish, which could (mistakenly) appear to
mean assist in English, but instead means to attend.
interlingual homographs—words between languages that share the same lexical form, but
different meanings. An example is red in English, which means net in Spanish.
intralingual homographs—ambiguous words within one language that have multiple meanings.
An example is bug, which could refer to a listening device for spying or an insect.
lexical decision task—an experimental task in which a letter string appears on a computer
screen and participants indicate whether the letter string is a legal word in a particular language.
17
The letter strings that form non-words are created by changing only one letter of a legitimate
word, while ensuring that the new letter combinations are legal to whatever language is being
tested (e.g., computer might be changed by one letter to camputer, with the cam combination
being one that is acceptable in English (campaign, camping). Response times (RTs) and Error
Rates (ERs) are collected and these measurements are interpreted to explain lexical connections
in the mind.
lexicon—a generative linguistics definition posits it as the storage in the mind of all idiosyncratic
meanings of words, as well as instructions for their use within language (e.g., a noun phrase
normally follow the verb to eat, and that noun phrase must be an edible object). Cognitive
science views of the lexicon describe the lexicon in terms of feature/form
(orthographical/phonological features) and semantic levels and seek to understand how such
levels interact in word identification, and how form and semantic features are connected across
lexical items.
lexical access (lexical activation, word identification process)—the process of searching the
lexicon to retrieve information about words.
masked priming—a technique in which a target word in a task is preceded by a prime of a
particular type (e.g., a semantically related word, an orthographically related word, etc.). The
prime is preceded by a masking figure, often in the form of ‘#########’. The mask disappears,
followed by the prime, which also disappears before being followed by a target (e.g., ##### car
CAT). Participants in research are asked to respond to the primed paradigm in some way,
perhaps with a lexical decision task (e.g., responding whether the target is a word of English).
See also primed lexical decision task.
18
monolingual—speaker of one language without ability to use an additional language actively.
neighborhood effects—a lexical item stored in memory shares orthographical (spelling) features
with other lexical items. When words differ by only one letter (e.g., clue/club), they are
considered to be neighbors in the lexicon. A word may have a large or small lexical
neighborhood in terms of size, depending upon the number of orthographically similar neighbors
a word has. For example, a word like clue has a small lexical neighborhood because only glue
and club differ from it by one letter. A word with a large lexical neighborhood is sand because
many words differ from it by one letter: band, send, said, sank. The effects of neighborhood
size on word recognition have been tested across a variety of experimental tasks. In addition,
neighborhood frequency has been tested. Neighborhood frequency refers to the presence or
absence of high frequency words in a word's orthographic neighborhood. For example,
neighborhood frequency measures the frequency of each of the neighbors for sand above (band,
send, said, sank). Researchers have tested the effects of neighborhood frequency on word
recognition using a variety of experimental tasks (e.g., naming, lexical decision) in order to
determine if a word is recognized more quickly when its neighbors are of high frequency.
noncognates—words between two languages that share meaning, but not lexical features.
Examples are perro in Spanish meaning dog in English.
primed lexical decision task—the same as the lexical decision task with an added component.
Before deciding if a letter string seen on a computer screen is a legal word of a particular
language, the participant first sees (or hears in a cross-modal version) an individual word, partial
sentence, or sentence. The task enables the researcher to determine whether the first item seen
(the prime) affects how quickly a subsequent lexical item is responded to. Inferences are made
19
according to response times and accuracy rates as to the nature of connections and activation of
items in the mental lexicon.
priming effect—a priming effect is said to occur if a target preceded by a prime is responded to
more quickly than a comparable control. This facilitation suggests that the particular primetarget relationship being tested reflects lexical connections in the mind.
pseudowords—letter strings created for the purpose of lexical decision tasks in which a
legitimate word of a language (e.g., computer) is changed by one letter to create a phonologically
legal but nonexistent word in the language (e.g., camputer).
second language (L2) learners—people who are in the process of learning another language.
Levels of proficiency vary among L2 learners, from non-proficient and in the early stages of
learning to very-proficient, having reached a stable and competent level in the L2.
translation recognition task—task in which participants determine whether two words
presented at the same time are accurate translation equivalents between two languages.
20
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
INTRODUCTION
In the previous chapter, an overview of the research on bilingual lexical organization and
access was given. The BIA+ model of bilingual word recognition has been constructed to
explain the empirical findings that lexical (orthographic and phonological) and semantic levels
interact both within- and between-languages. These findings, however, are based predominantly
on the following: experiments utilizing short cognate and homographic nouns of exact
orthographic overlap between languages, experiments presenting materials in both languages of
the bilinguals being tested, experiments testing semantic connections through translations as
opposed to through within-language synonyms, and experiments that conceive of semantic
overlap between languages as ‘all or nothing’, rather than as a continuum of shared semantic
overlap.
The lexical decision task (unprimed or primed, masked or unmasked—defined in the
previous chapter) readily is used to probe lexical and semantic relationships in the lexicon, since
judgments on word legality are believed to tap both lexical and semantic levels of the lexicon.
This chapter reviews the empirical data, predominantly from lexical decision tasks, that shape a
current understanding of lexical and semantic connections both within- and between-languages
in order to point out how the aforementioned gaps in the research on bilingual lexical
organization and activation are accommodated by the current research design.
21
LEXICAL CONNECTIONS: ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONOLOGY
Monolingual, orthographic, and phonological connections
Connectionist word recognition models in the literature on monolingual word processing
propose that all orthographically similar lexical items are activated as potential word candidates
before the lexical processor chooses the appropriate lexical item. This modeling notion comes
out of empirical research that tested the effects of orthographic neighborhoods on lexical access.
Lexical neighbors are defined by a metric called "N", first used by Coltheart, Davellar, Jonasson,
and Besner in 1977 (reviewed in Andrews, 1997). This metric refers to the number of words that
can be created from a word by changing just one letter of that word. For example, sand can be
said to have many lexical neighbors: band, sang, sank, send, or said whereas a word like club
only has one potential neighbor, clue. Activation of lexical neighbors is said to be modulated by
a word’s frequency, so that a word that is more frequent in the corpora or more subjectively
frequent to an individual receives more activation than words with low frequency.
Sears, Hino, and Lupker (1995) tested the effects of a word's frequency, orthographic
neighborhood size, and neighborhood frequency on English lexical decision Response Times
(RTs). Neighborhood frequency refers to the presence or absence of high frequency words in a
word's orthographic neighborhood. Various groups of high- and low-frequency words were
tested in the lexical decision task: words with no neighbors, words with a large neighborhood,
and words with a small neighborhood. Large and small neighborhood words were broken down
into three other categories: words having at least one high frequency neighbor, words having
many high frequency members, and words having no neighbors of high frequency. Results
indicated that word recognition was facilitated for words having large neighborhoods.
22
Neighborhood frequency did not speed up RTs when high- or low-frequency words had small
neighborhoods. However, low-frequency words were recognized more quickly when they had
large neighborhoods containing higher frequency neighbors. This suggests that in general, for
monolingual English speakers, having many orthographically similar neighbors can feed the
activation of a particular word and make it easier to identify. In addition, low-frequency words
that normally are slower to identify receive an activation boost from the high frequency of their
neighbors. Such effects can only be found in a lexical model in which interactive connections
exist among words at the orthographic level.
In order to see if similar orthographic effects are found in Spanish, Carreiras, Perea, and
Grainger (1997) tested the effects of orthographic neighborhood size and frequency in a Spanish
monolingual lexical decision task. Words with large or small neighborhoods were tested, as
were words with neighborhoods containing high or low frequency words. Like the Sears et al.
data, results showed that participants responded more quickly to words with more neighbors.
However, contrary to the Sears, et al. data, an inhibitory effect was found for neighborhood
frequency. Words with high-frequency neighbors were responded to more slowly than those
with low-frequency neighbors. Carreiras et al. suggested that the difference may be explained in
part by how each language maps orthography and phonetics, with Spanish having a much more
consistent mapping relationship between the two. In a language like Spanish with fairly regular
spelling-to-sound correspondences, the orthographic neighbors are also phonetic neighbors (e.g.,
alba has as a neighbor alta and both words have the same vowel pronunciation) and this may
provide more controlled phonological neighbors by which to test neighborhood frequency effects
on lexical activation. In a language like English, orthography and phonetics do not necessarily
correspond. A word like deaf in English has at least two neighbors that are pronounced
23
differently—dear and leaf. Carreiras et al. argue that this type of mismatch in phonology may in
fact confound results in the Sears et al. data since such phonological inconsistency may affect
purely orthographic neighborhood research effects. At the very least, Carreiras et al. propose
that this type of phonological discrepancy must be controlled for.
Additional research in English, utilizing a masked lexical decision task, has shown that a
lack of consistency in orthographic mapping to identical phonology can slow the parser in low
frequency word identification. One such study by Stone, Vanhoy, and Van Orden (1997) utilized
an un\primed lexical decision task to investigate how monolingual English speakers responded to
words containing a phonological sound group that can be spelled more than one way (e.g., /_ip/
as in heap and deep) versus words containing a sound pattern that can only be represented with
one spelling in English (e.g., /_Ob/ as in probe and globe). They found that words with
inconsistent sound-orthography mappings took longer to respond to than did words with just one
sound-spelling correspondence in English. This can be interpreted like the Carreiras et al. (1997)
data in which words that are of similar orthography and phonology (e.g., alta/alba and heap/deep
force the processor to search discrete mappings more closely in order to tease out an appropriate
word.
Taken together, monolingual research on the effects of orthography and phonology in
lexical processing make it clear that these properties interact with word frequency to affect the
word identification process. It seems that the lexical processor activates potential lexical
candidates based on similarity in orthography and phonology before landing on the appropriate
match. Sometimes, this interaction can boost the availability of certain words, as in the case of
low frequency words that have neighborhoods with high frequency words in them. However,
24
when lexical candidates get activated that require more attention to discrete orthographyphonology mappings, the parser is slowed.
Because orthography and phonology interact in monolingual lexical processing, it is
logical to wonder if orthography and phonology interact between languages in the bilingual
lexical activation process. If so, then a model of nonselective bilingual access would emerge at
the lexical level, strengthening monolingual research findings and suggesting properties of a
general lexical activation model.
Between-language orthographic and phonological effects in mixed-language tasks
Van Heuven, Dijkstra and Grainger (1998) set out to investigate whether interlexical
orthographic connections occur by manipulating neighborhood effects on the recognition of
Dutch and English words in a mixed-language lexical decision task. If words activate similar
orthography across languages, then a Dutch word bons would activate not only lexical candidates
from Dutch, but also lexical candidates from English, such as bond or bins. Words were tested
with varying numbers of neighbors: many neighbors in both English and Dutch, many neighbors
in Dutch with few neighbors in English, many neighbors in English and few in Dutch, or few
neighbors in either Dutch or English. L1 Dutch-L2 English participants saw blocks of letter
strings containing only English words and pseudowords or only Dutch words and pseudowords.
Participants were to decide if each letter string was a word of English for the English block, and
a word of Dutch for the Dutch block. Results showed that bilingual participants responded more
slowly to L2 English words when they had many Dutch neighbors. The RTs were not affected,
however, for L1 Dutch words with many English neighbors. This suggests that in a mixedlanguage task, the dominant L1 language (Dutch) failed to be influenced by the neighborhood
25
size of English words, whereas the less dominant L2 English was influenced by the orthography
of Dutch. These results mirror those of Carreiras et al. (1997) in which words with high
frequency neighbors were responded to more slowly than words with low frequency neighbors.
If we consider the less dominant L2 English as being subjectively “less frequent” for
participants, then the less frequent language is slowed by the more frequent Dutch neighborhood.
In the VanHeuven et al. (1998) study, participants saw words from both languages
presented in isolation, albeit separated by blocks, and found no effects of L2 orthography on L1
word recognition. Other research has found, however, that when words from two languages are
presented in a priming situation, orthographic similarity from the L2 can affect word recognition
in the L1. Bijeljac-Babic, Biardeau, and Grainger (1997, Experiment 2) tested proficient FrenchEnglish bilinguals in a masked lexical decision task to see how English L2 neighborhood primes
affected the processing of L1 French targets. Prime-target pairs were of two types: a French
target preceded by a French orthographic neighbor (e.g., mien – miel meaning mine - honey)
compared to a control (e.g., hier - miel meaning yesterday - honey) and a French target preceded
by an English orthographic neighbor (mile - miel) versus a control (meet - miel). While French
monolinguals showed an inhibition effect only for French words preceded by an orthographic
French neighbor, French-English bilinguals had slower RTs for both French and English
orthographic neighbors. This suggests again that similar orthography is activated across
languages.
Just as monolingual research has shown phonological influences in lexical processing,
evidence from an earlier study indicates that cross-linguistic phonological overlap affects
bilingual lexical access. Nas (1983) presented Dutch-English bilinguals with an English lexical
decision experiment in which nonwords were manipulated. Half were pseudo-homophones that
26
were formed by changing Dutch words so that they were orthographically similar to English
words (e.g., snay) yet phonetically similar to Dutch words (e.g. snee in Dutch, which is
pronounced like the English snay). That is, these words did not look like Dutch words to
participants, but their pronunciation was the same as an existing Dutch word. The remaining
nonwords were existing Dutch words changed by one letter that followed legal spelling-sound
mapping in Dutch (prusk). These words did not sound like existing Dutch or English words, but
rather looked like a possible Dutch word. The Dutch-English bilinguals rejected the crosslinguistic phonologically manipulated words (snay) more slowly than the traditional nonwords,
which led to the conclusion that the phonology of the L1 is activated during L2 lexical
processing.
Taken together, orthographic and phonological interactions occur between words in two
languages for bilinguals, just as they do between words in one language for monolinguals,
suggesting general interactive activation principles at the lexical level in the word identification
process. Some research suggests that the less dominant L2 is affected by the more dominant L1
but not vice-versa (e.g., neighborhood frequency in Van Heuven et al., 1998; L1 phonology on
L2 phonology in Nas, 1983). Other research shows that when two languages are presented, both
languages impact the activation of the other (Bijeljac-Babic et al., 1997). The question arises,
then, as to whether the same principles are at work at the lexical level when bilinguals are asked
to operate in a language-specific mode.
Between-language orthographic and phonological effects in language-specific tasks
Van Heuven, Dijkstra and Grainger (1998) conducted an additional study in which L1
Dutch-L2 English participants carried out a lexical decision task again testing Dutch-English
27
neighborhood effects, but this time researchers removed the Dutch block of words from the
experiment and presented words only in one language—English. Results replicated results of the
Dutch-English block experiment: between-language neighborhood size of the L1 affected RTs
of L2 English targets. English words were responded to more slowly when they had many Dutch
neighbors. While these data confirm that interlingual lexical properties do interact even when
materials are language-specific for bilinguals, the researchers acknowledged that orthographic
manipulations alone cannot explain how lexical properties interact between languages because
monolingual research has shown that orthography, phonology, and word frequency all interact
during word identification.
In order to tease apart the roles of orthography and phonology, and at the same time
consider how these features interact with semantics in bilingual lexical activation, Dijkstra,
Grainger, and Van Heuven (1999) tested L1 Dutch-L2 English bilinguals with L2 English words
that varied in degrees of orthographic, phonological, and semantic overlap with Dutch in a
lexical decision task (Experiment 2). Items either overlapped completely in semantics,
orthography, and phonology (SOP) with English (hotel), in semantics and orthography (SO:
type), in semantics and phonology (SP: news—nieuws), in orthography and phonology (OP:
step), in orthography (O: stage), or in phonology (P: note). Dijkstra et al. found that when
English words overlapped with Dutch in SOP, SO, and O conditions, the lexical decision
responses were facilitated as compared to matched English control words. Words overlapping in
the P condition produced inhibition in RTs when compared to controls. Words that matched in
SP and OP conditions did not vary significantly from their controls. When errors were
considered, participants showed significantly fewer errors in the SOP, SO, and O conditions as
compared to their controls, but OP and P conditions produced more errors than did controls. No
28
difference in errors was found for the SP condition and controls. English monolinguals were
tested on the same materials in an additional experiment, but did not show any effects of
interlingual conditions on lexical decisions. It appears, then, that interlingual orthographic
overlap facilitates word recognition, while phonological overlap slows word recognition. Likely
a null result in the SP and OP conditions are observed because the facilitatory effects of
orthography (and probably semantics) cancel out the inhibitory effects of phonology.
Yet other research investigating cross-language phonological activation has found that
overlapping phonology between languages facilitates lexical activation. Haigh and Jared (2004,
2007) tested the activation of phonological representations for French-English bilinguals. In
Experiment 1, bilinguals performed an English lexical decision task (L2 of the bilinguals) in
which English-French interlingual homophones (e.g., mow in English which sounds like mot
meaning word in French) were compared with English controls (mop), matched in frequency,
initial letter, and English neighborhood size to the homophones. Bilinguals responded more
quickly and more accurately to homophones than to controls. Monolinguals in a separate
experiment showed no difference in RTs between conditions. Additionally, in Experiment 3,
English-French bilinguals dominant in English performed the same task. This was the first
experiment to test L2 homophone effects in L1 reading, and results showed no difference in RTs
between conditions. Finally, in Experiment 6, interlingual homographs and cognates were added
to the item list (e.g., coin meaning corner in French and train, a French-English cognate). This
time, French phonology was activated: English-French bilinguals responded to interlingual
homophones more quickly than control words. For these bilinguals, L2 phonology did not
influence L1 lexical activation unless French was made more salient in the item list.
29
An additional study on interlingual phonological overlap, this time by Menenti and
Indefrey (2006), is important to discuss here because it tested the effects of L2 phonology on L1
lexical activation in a unique way. In a primed lexical decision task, L1 German-L2 Dutch
bilinguals, whose L2 proficiency scores placed them into Dutch native speaker range, were
presented with primes in the L2 Dutch (e.g., trein) that when translated to German, (zug—
pronounced tsu:k) rhymed with the L2 Dutch target (boek). Researchers wanted to know whether
the L2 prime ostensibly activates its L1 translation equivalent so that L1 phonology affects L2
target lexical activation. Participants responded to both the prime and the target in separate
lexical decision tasks immediately following each other (500 ms between prime lexical decision
and subsequent target lexical decision). Both primes and targets were recombined to create
control conditions. Results showed that for pairs in which the Dutch prime’s translation to the L1
German rhymed with the L2 target, RTs were faster than control conditions. Dutch monolingual
speakers were also tested on the materials and showed no such effects. This is one of the first
studies to depart from a cross-language priming task in order to test L1 effects in a purely L2
context, a crucial next step in the understanding of how languages interact in the bilingual lexical
activation process. The logic that motivated the Menenti and Indefrey research question (to see
if the L1 is activated ostensibly through the L2, in this case via phonology) is important to the
current project because a similar motivation guides the research questions found at the end of
this chapter. The fact that this research successfully showed an activation of the L1 in a purely
L2 context give strength to the research design and findings of the current project.
The bilingual lexical activation research conducted within the context of one language
consistently shows effects of the L1 on the activation of the L2 (e.g., neighborhood effects of L1
on L2 in Van Heuven et al., 1998; phonology effects of L1 on L2 in Haigh & Jared, 2004, 2007).
30
Phonological effects of the L2 on the activation of the L1 were found in Haigh and Jared (2004,
2007) if the L1 was made salient. However, Menenti and Indefrey (2006) found effects of L2
phonology on the activation of the L1 even when the L1 had to be activated ostensibly through
the L2. Research by Dijkstra et al. (1999) sought to tease apart bilingual orthographic,
phonological and semantic properties on lexical activation and found that when words of two
languages overlapped in orthography, facilitation in word recognition occurred. When the
overlap was with phonology, inhibition occurred, but when orthography and phonology both
overlapped, null results were obtained. One logical explanation is that the facilitation effects of
overlapping orthography combined with the inhibition effects of overlapping phonology cancel
each other out.
General conclusion on lexical connections
In sum, it is clear that lexical levels (orthography and phonology) interact within and
across languages during lexical access. Exactly how and when this interaction occurs is not
always consistent in the research findings. Monolingual research results suggest that the lexical
processor activates potential lexical candidates based on similarity in orthography and phonology
before landing on the appropriate word. The research by Sears, Hino, and Lupker (1995) found
that the identification of low frequency words with neighborhoods containing high frequency
words was facilitated by that connection to high frequency words. Research by Carreiras, Perea,
and Grainger (1997), however, found just the opposite: that the identification of a low frequency
word that shares a neighborhood of high frequency words is inhibited by such a connection. If
both sets of results hold true, one explanation put forth by Carreiras et al. might be that when
lexical candidates’ orthographic-phonological mappings require discrete identification (e.g.,
distinguishing between nearly identical lexical items: alba (soul) and alta (tall) or processing an
31
orthographic combination that varies in pronunciation—deaf vs. dear or leaf), additional
processing time is required.
Bilingual research findings also have provided mixed results as to how orthographic and
phonological properties across languages affect targeted lexical activation. Van Heuven,
Dijkstra and Grainger (1998) found that the identification of L2 words mirrored the results of
Carreiras, et al. (1997). The recognition of L2 words (less frequent by nature of being the L2)
with many L1 orthographic neighbors (higher frequency words by nature of being the L1) was
inhibited by the presence of the L1 neighbors. Word recognition was not slowed by the reverse.
That is, the identification of L1 words was not affected by L2 neighbors. Dijkstra, Grainger, and
Van Heuven (1999) sought to tease out additional cross-language lexical properties and their
influence on bilingual word recognition by breaking words into varying degrees of overlap
among orthography, phonology, and semantics. They found that when orthography overlapped
on its own between languages, or in combination with phonology or semantics, facilitation in
identifying L2 words occurred. When phonology alone was the overlapping factor, inhibition
occurred. When semantics or orthography overlapped with phonology, a null effect emerged,
probably as a result of facilitative orthographic (and semantic) effects cancelling out inhibitory
effects of phonology. Unique work by Menenti and Indefrey (2006), which extended the
research on bilingual lexical activation to a purely within-language context, found that L1
phonology not only is activated during lexical processing of the L2, but that it occurs ostensibly.
Participants were presented with primes in the L2 that if translated to the L1, would rhyme with
the L2 target. Even though participants were not asked to engage in such translation or to
consult the L1 at all in identifying the L2 primes and targets, the identification of those primetarget pairs that shared rhyming with the L1 was facilitated.
32
Given the body of research described in this section, within- and between-language
lexical activation occurs for both orthography and phonology. The following sections consider
research on semantic activation in both the monolingual and bilingual domains.
SEMANTIC CONNECTIONS
Monolingual ambiguity resolution: the role of meaning dominance
When semantics is considered in the monolingual literature, it is researched in terms of
ambiguity and how it is that the lexical system responds to cases in which words of similar or
exact orthography (homographs: bug meaning insect or spy device) and phonology
(homophones: to, too, two) map to different meanings. In the case of homographs, Simpson
(1981) conducted word-level research to determine whether all meanings or only the most
dominant meaning of an identical orthographic form are automatically activated. In a primed
lexical decision task, monolingual English participants first responded whether a string
homograph prime was a word of English. Immediately after, participants responded to a letter
string target that reflected different meanings of the prime. The prime was one of three types:
an ambiguous homograph (bank), an unrelated word (calf), or a pseudoword. The prime was
followed by one of three options: the homograph's dominant meaning (money), the homograph's
subordinate meaning (river), or a pseudoword. Both of the targets related in meaning to the
homograph prime (bank) were unrelated in meaning to the other prime (calf).
Simpson predicted that if all meanings of an ambiguous word are activated when that
word is encountered, then both the dominant and subordinate meanings of the homograph should
be responded to equally as fast in the second lexical decision task when preceded by the
homograph. If only the dominant meaning of a homograph is activated, then the target reflecting
33
the dominant meaning of the homograph would be responded to more quickly than the target of
the subordinate meaning. Results showed that participants responded significantly more quickly
to both targets when targets followed the homograph as compared to the unrelated word.
However, participants responded more quickly to the dominant meaning target of a homograph
than to the subordinate meaning target when either target followed the homograph. Simpson
summarized that an ambiguous word activates both meanings, but its dominant meaning is
available more quickly than its subordinate meaning.
In order to tease out the time course of dominant and subordinate meaning activation,
Simpson and Burgess (1985) carried out additional word-level research on homographs.
Monolingual English participants carried out a primed, lexical decision task in which the timing
of the presentation of meaning-related targets was progressively delayed after the presentation of
an ambiguous prime. Participants saw an ambiguous word prime on a computer screen. The
prime disappeared and then was followed by a letter string for a lexical decision. Simpson and
Burgess manipulated the stimulus onset asynchrony (the time from which the prime is presented
until the target is presented) between the prime and the target. Results indicated that dominant
word meanings for homographs were facilitated as early as 16 ms and stayed active through the
longest time tested—750 ms. Subordinate meanings were facilitated only as time onset
increased, from no facilitation at 16 ms to near equal to dominant facilitation by 300 ms. This
activation declined, however, and by 750 ms, the subordinate meaning was no longer activated.
Simpson and Burgess concluded that lexical access for ambiguous words is exhaustive—that is,
within a single word context, all meanings of an ambiguous word are activated. The rate of that
activation, however, is determined by meaning dominance.
34
In more recent word-level research on homographs, researchers began to think about meaning
ambiguity in terms of meaning relatedness in order to see how this notion affects lexical access.
Azuma and Van Orden (1997) tested word meaning relatedness for homographs in a lexical
decision task. Meaning relatedness was determined by having English native speakers provide
meanings for various ambiguous words, such as bank. The meaning reported most often was
determined to be the dominant meaning for the ambiguous word, with all other meanings
considered subordinate. Reported meanings were then given to English native speakers in pairs
to rate for relatedness on a 7-point scale. Words were then divided into categories of words with
many meanings (low-related or high-related) or words with few meanings (low-related or highrelated). In a lexical decision task, words with few, low-related meanings were responded to
more slowly than any other word type (e.g., words with many meanings, low-or high-related, or
words with few meanings, high-related). However, the authors acknowledge that the norming
procedure to produce words with multiple meanings took all meanings and then set each
dominant meaning against a subordinate one for a relatedness rating. It did not consider the
relatedness among all meanings all together for a given word. In other words, it could be that
ambiguous words had many or few truly ambiguous meanings (e.g., bank as in money or river),
or simply many or few polysemous meanings—one meaning with multiple senses of that
meaning (e.g., hook with all meanings reflecting the notion of two connecting items). Hence,
Rodd, Gaskell and Marslen-Wilson (2002) teased out ambiguity effects in terms of true
ambiguity and polysemy and found that in a lexical decision task, words that truly are ambiguous
are responded to more slowly than words with many senses. These findings suggest that
polysemous words may share one core meaning, thus providing no competition among meanings
in terms of lexical access. Distinct meanings of ambiguous words, however, may compete for
35
activation, thus lexical access is slowed for these words. The Rodd et al. findings are new in the
monolingual literature involving word ambiguity/intralingual homographs, as previous research
on ambiguity consistently resulted in facilitation in the lexical access of ambiguous words , even
advancing the notion of the ‘ambiguity (facilitation) effect’ (e.g., Borowsky & Masson, 1996;
Hino & Lupker, 1996). Klepousniotou (2002) also teased apart ambiguity from polysemy and
the results mirror those of Rodd et al. The ‘ambiguity (facilitation) effect’ of two decades of
research likely seems due to the failure of researchers to tease apart words with truly ambiguous
meanings versus polysemous words with one core meaning and many senses. While polysemous
words do enjoy facilitated recognition in the word recognition process, the ‘ambiguity effect’ is
one of inhibition, not facilitation.
Following the lead from research on homographs, Berent and Van Orden (2000)
suspected that the role of phonology in homophone recognition might interact with whether the
dominant or subordinate meaning of a homophone is intended. In a masked prime recognition
task, participants saw either a dominant meaning homophone target (board), or the subordinate
meaning (bored), followed by three possible masks: a pseudo-homophone of the target that was
identical in pronunciation but not in spelling to the target (BORD), a graphemic mask matched in
spelling similarity to the target, but not in pronunciation (BORK), and a control mask (PRIK)
sharing no letters or phonemes with the target. For each trial, participants saw the target (board
or bored) presented for 28 ms, immediately followed by the pseudoword mask (BORD, BORK,
or PRIK), also presented for 28 ms. A masking pattern (XXXXXX) followed each trial.
Participants then wrote down the target and mask that they perceived. Results were measured in
correct responses for targets (pseudowords were never reported accurately) and indicated that
when the dominant meaning of the homophone (board) was followed by a phonological match
36
(BORD), there were significantly fewer reporting errors than if the subordinate meaning of the
homophone (bored) was followed by the phonological match (BORD). An error meant, for
example, that participants reported having observed the dominant meaning homophone form
(board) when in fact the subordinate meaning (bored) had been presented. In other words, when
the lexical processor encounters the orthographic form of the dominant meaning of a
homophone, it benefits from the presence of its repeated phonology, probably because its
spelling is more strongly linked to the phonology than is the spelling from any competitors.
Conversely, for subordinate meanings, the repetition of phonological form adds more
competition to an already less frequent spelling-sound match. This research strengthens the
notion that dominant word meanings and their orthographic mappings are activated particularly
quickly in monolingual word recognition.
To summarize, for monolinguals, research on homophones and homographs suggests that
dominant meanings get activated before subordinate ones. The time course for meaning
activation with homographs shows that the dominant meaning is activated first (by 16 ms),
followed by both meanings (equally activated at 300 ms), with the activation of the subordinate
meaning fading rather quickly thereafter (by 750 ms). In single word lexical decision tasks, truly
ambiguous words take longer to activate, presumably because distinct, multiple meanings are
being accessed, while polysemous words are responded to more quickly in comparison,
suggesting a single core representational meaning for access.
Research investigating bilingual lexical access also has relied upon lexically ambiguous
words across languages in the form of interlingual homographs to determine if both meanings—
in this case language-specific meanings—are activated simultaneously and automatically during
lexical processing. Interlingual homographs are often compared to cognates and noncognates in
37
such research in order to tease apart lexical processing effects due to multiple meaning access
from any effects due to interlingual form similarity. In the next sections, the literature is
reviewed for interlingual ambiguity resolution when homographs are presented in mixedlanguage and language-specific tasks.
Bilingual ambiguity resolution in mixed-language tasks
One of the first studies to investigate interlingual form ambiguity in bilingual lexical
access was conducted by Gerard and Scarborough (1989). These researchers asked whether dual
meanings of interlingual homographs are activated by investigating repetition priming effects
within English and between Spanish and English for cognates (actual), noncognates (perro
meaning dog), and interlingual homographs (red meaning net; fin meaning end) in a classical
priming task (Experiment 2). In this task, a block of items (the prime) is mixed with
pseudowords and presented for lexical decision. Many minutes later, a second block of the same
items (hence repetition priming) is responded to in the same way. English monolinguals and two
groups of mostly L1 Spanish-L2 English (2 participants were L1 English) bilinguals were tested.
The English group saw English only items (e.g., actual-actual, dog-dog, red-red), while one
bilingual group saw English primes-Spanish targets (e.g., actual-actual, dog-perro, red-red) and
the other group saw Spanish primes-English targets (e.g., actual-actual, perro-dog, red-red).
Interlingual homographs also were divided by language frequency, so that red in English is more
frequent than fin in English. Results showed a priming effect in the monolingual and bilingual
conditions for cognates and homographs, but not for noncognates. That is, identical form
priming occurred, but translation priming did not occur. Additionally, monolinguals and
bilinguals who saw English targets were faster to recognize high frequency words in English
(red) than low frequency words in English (fin). When bilinguals saw targets in Spanish, the
38
opposite pattern emerged. Now words with high frequency in Spanish, such as fin, were
responded to more quickly than homographs with less frequent Spanish readings (red). Only
frequency effects of homographs in the target language slowed RTs for bilinguals. Non-target
frequency of word forms did not affect RTs. Gerard and Scarborough interpreted the results in
support of a selective bilingual processing view in which only one language meaning is
activated. They argued that interlingual homographs should have caused interference for
bilinguals in deciding their legality as words because of the disparity in meaning of these words.
Researchers criticized many aspects of the Gerard and Scarborough study. First, the
priming technique allows primes and targets to be viewed consciously by participants. When
primes and targets are consciously available, it is unclear whether resulting effects are due to
automatic processing mechanisms, or if they are due to post-lexical processing. Participants may
integrate prime and target meanings together before responding to the target or may recall a
prime from an episodic memory trace. The viewing of a target could reactivate the trace, thus
showing an episodic memory effect, but not an effect of automatic lexical processing. Second,
because the homographs were of exact orthography between languages, it would be unclear
which language was being activated. What was meant to be cross-language repetition priming
was indistinguishable from within-language repetition priming.
De Groot and Nas (1991) tackled both problems by comparing unmasked priming and
masked priming techniques on L1 Dutch-L2 English bilinguals for items of similar orthography
between languages. Cognates and noncognates were manipulated with repeated, associative and
unrelated priming between Dutch and English in four conditions: English-English (EE), EnglishDutch (ED), Dutch-English (DE), and Dutch-Dutch (DD) (e.g., EE repeated: ground-ground,
associated: calf-cow, unrelated: bride-task; ED or DE repeated: grond-ground, associated:
39
kalf/calf-cow/koe, unrelated bruid/bride-task/taak; and DD repeated: grond-grond, associated:
kalf-koe, unrelated: bruid-taak). Experiment 1 presented the prime-targets in a primed lexical
decision task, but shortened the prime duration in order to try to avoid post-lexical strategies that
previous research techniques may have encouraged. Participants saw a fixation mark (*) for
1000 ms, followed by the prime for 200 ms, then a blank inter-stimulus interval (ISI) for 40 ms,
before the target appeared. The prime-target SOA was 240 ms, presumably too short for
strategic processing to occur. Results showed that responses were significantly faster overall for
targets in the L1 Dutch (DD: 515 ms, ED: 521 ms) than in the L2 English target conditions (EE:
552 ms or DE: 584 ms). Repeated targets (a 98 ms effect) were responded to more quickly than
associated targets (a 55 ms effect) in comparison to unrelated targets. Associative-priming both
within-and between-languages was equally significant, but repetition priming within language
was stronger than between language priming.
De Groot and Nas’s Experiment 2 tested the same materials in a masked prime lexical
decision task. In general, the masked priming paradigm (the current technique made popular by
Forster and Davis, 1984) presents a very brief prime (usually for 40 to 60 ms) surrounded by a
forward mask (######) and target, both of which are presented for longer amounts of time
(about 500 ms) (e.g., ###### nurse DOCTOR). Usually, the prime is presented in lower case
script while the target is in uppercase so that the orthography of the prime and target do not spill
into each other. Results showed that while the order of means was the same as Experiment 1,
only the fastest DD condition (506 ms) was significantly different from the slowest DE condition
(565 ms). Repeated targets (a 63 ms effect) again were responded to more quickly than
associated targets (a 37 ms effect) in comparison to unrelated targets. Repetition priming within
language was stronger than between language priming, and this time, associative priming effects
40
were larger when the target language was the L1 Dutch (DD and ED) than when it was the L2
English (EE and DE).
In additional experiments, De Groot and Nas (1991) compared cognates from conditions
DE and EE only with noncognates and found that overall in the unmasked experiment,
responding in the EE condition was faster than the DE condition. Responding to cognates was
faster than to noncognates. A repetition effect between languages was larger within than
between languages, but was smaller for cognates (68 ms) than for noncognates (113 ms). The
masked prime data showed that EE condition responses were faster than DE responses and
responses were slightly faster for cognates than for noncognates, but not significantly so in either
case. Associative priming effects were equally as large for cognates and noncognates, but
repetition effects were faster now for cognates than for noncognates, with both cognate and
noncognate effects reaching significance. The important finding in this research is that
associative and repetition priming is found in the masked priming task for cognates and
noncognates between languages, whereas they were not found for noncognates in previous
research utilizing classical priming (e.g., Gerard and Scarborough, 1989).
These experiments and many others (e.g., De Groot, Delmar, and Lupker, 2000; Dijkstra,
De Bruijn, Schriefers and Ten Brinke, 2000; Dijkstra, Van Jaarsveld, and Ten Brinke, 1998;
Gollan, Forster, and Frost, 1997) suggest that the semantics from both languages are tapped
when two languages are presented in a task, as long as materials are presented in such a way as
to eliminate post-lexical activation processes. The question again returns to language-specific
tasks and whether semantics in both languages are activated when a task is language-specific.
41
Bilingual ambiguity resolution in language-specific tasks
Dijkstra, Van Jaarsveld, and Ten Brinke (1998, Experiment 1) argued, among other
things, that language intermixing in tasks may affect bilingual lexical access. Hence, Dijkstra et
al. asked L1 Dutch-L2 English bilinguals to perform an English only lexical decision task on
interlingual homographs (e.g., list meaning trick or guile in Dutch), cognates (e.g., hotel) and on
English control words. Cognates were divided into two frequency groups: high frequency
English-high frequency Dutch (HFE-HFD) and low frequency English-low frequency Dutch
(LFE-LFD). Homographs were broken down into four groups: HFE-HFD, HFE-LFD, LFEHFD, LFE-LFD. Overall, the RTs for interlingual homographs relative to English control words
were not statistically different, a finding reminiscent of the Gerard and Scarborough (1989)
research. However, for cognates, a facilitation effect was observed when compared to English
control words. Dijkstra et al. interpreted the cognate findings in support of nonselective
bilingual access with the logic that because a cognate represents readings from two languages,
faster responses for cognates over control items indicate that both languages contributed to the
activation of the cognate, therefore facilitating its activation. The null-effect for interlingual
homographs was in fact puzzling for the authors, who tried to explain the data in many ways
other than evidence for language selective access for homographs.
In additional language-specific research by De Groot et al. (2000, Experiment 2), highly
proficient L1 Dutch-L2 English bilinguals completed a lexical decision task in which they
responded to an all-English or an all-Dutch letter string list of homographs, controls, and
language-appropriate legal nonwords. Homographs were divided into high frequency Dutch/low
frequency English and low frequency English/high frequency Dutch. Participants were not
aware that interlingual homographs were mixed into the lists. Results indicated that when Dutch
42
lists (the L1 of participants) were responded to, low-frequency homographs with a higher
frequency reading in L2 English were responded to more slowly and less accurately than highfrequency homographs in L1 Dutch (low frequency homographs in L2 English). In the L2
English condition, word type and frequency were never statistically significant showing a null
effect for homographic words, although low frequency English words (with high frequency
Dutch reading) had a 22 ms tendency toward facilitation as compared to the control. The authors
explain their results by suggesting that the bilingual processing system can either be selective or
nonselective, depending on the target language of the task. De Groot et al. point out that their
own data is opposite of what they would have expected. That is, an inhibitory effect was found
for homographs in condition Dutch, the L1 and presumably stronger and more highly activated
language of these participants. The effect was not found in the English-only condition where it
would have been expected. De Groot et al. posture that it should be easier to block out the
English readings of the homographs (the weaker language) in the Dutch-only condition and not
as easy to block out the Dutch readings (the stronger language) during the English-only
condition. De Groot et al. offer the explanation that participants perhaps treated the experiment
not as a language-specific task, but as a language-neutral task. If participants performed the task
in a language-neutral fashion (meaning that the processor would identify a word as belonging to
any language), the availability of any meaning of the homograph (from either Dutch or English)
would cause an affirmative and quicker response. De Groot et al. predict that these effects would
cancel out any inhibitory effects that some homographs may have caused if participants
performed the task as instructed, as a language-specific task. Their conclusion is that bilingual
language processing is nonselective, but this can fail to emerge when a combination of
processing modes are adopted by participants.
43
Both the Dijkstra et al. (1998) and the De Groot et al. (2000) studies frame their results as
evidence that homographic meanings for the nontarget language were not accessed when
presented in a language-specific task. However, the monolingual literature shows that dominant
meanings both for homographs and homophones enjoy stronger lexical connections and quicker
activation than subordinate meanings, and that the activation of a homographic form with two
very different meanings is inhibited due to the competition between meanings (Rodd et al., 2002;
Klepousniotou, 2002). If we apply this knowledge to the De Groot et al. data and suggest that
the bilingual lexical parser uses the same information in a ‘language blind’ manner, a different
explanation suggests itself regarding whether both languages were activated in the De Groot et
al. data. L1 Dutch-L2 English bilinguals responded in Dutch only and English only tasks. In
the L1 Dutch task, low-frequency homographs (with a high frequency reading in L2 English)
were responded to more slowly and less accurately than high-frequency homographs in L1 Dutch
(low frequency homographs in L2 English). The strength of a high-frequency L2 English
meaning attached to the interlingual homographic form makes this meaning emerge to a level
that it can compete with the L1 low-frequency meaning. This causes inhibition, just as in the
case of the monolingual data. Likewise, a low-frequency meaning coming from a second and
often less dominant language may not be strong enough to compete with a dominant L1 Dutch
meaning when Dutch is called upon for a task.
In the L2 English condition, De Groot et al. found that low frequency L2 English words
(with high frequency L1 Dutch readings) had a 22 ms tendency toward facilitation as compared
to the control. In this case, one could speculate that the strength of the L1 meaning would make
it the dominant meaning for the homograph, not only because it is of high frequency, but also
because it comes from the often stronger L1. This type of ‘double dominance’ per se would
44
ensure that the dominant meaning of the homograph would be activated. This meaning
dominance could boost the activation of the less dominant L2 meaning, thus creating facilitation
in the activation of the homographic form, even though research shows that two different
meanings create inhibited activation of a lexical form. Perhaps in this case, the frequency of a
dominant form from the dominant L1 is strong enough or dominant enough that it works against
any inhibition that would emerge from competing meanings. This activation could be enough to
push the recognition of the homographic form toward facilitation. Of course, what is not known
from these data and materials is how the homographs break down into truly ambiguous
homographs or partial homographs, or how bilinguals subjectively interpret the dominance of the
meanings in their own lexical system, or even how proficient and strong the L2 is in these
bilinguals.
Can the same logic be applied to the Dijkstra et al. (1998) data where the L2 English was
presented to L1 Dutch speakers? If so, one might expect null effects to emerge in a number of
the cases (i.e., LFE-LFD; HFE-HFD; HFE-LFD) due to the fact that any boost in activation from
meanings attached to the dominant L1 may be cancelled out by the competition of a different
meaning in the L2, the language of the task. Data for these conditions had null results: HFEHFD 548 ms/Control 554 ms; LFE-LFD 620 ms/Control 627 ms; HFE-LFD 548 ms/Control 556
ms. Where a result may be visible is in the case of LFE-HFD words, as was seen in the De
Groot et al. data in the form of slight facilitation, albeit not statistically significant. In the
Dijkstra et al. study, however, the LFE-HFD condition showed inhibition: LFE-HFD 609
ms/Control 558 ms. Perhaps the relative frequency and dominance between what is a low
frequency English meaning and a high frequency Dutch meaning in the Dijkstra et al. study is
45
different from the De Groot et al. study such that in the former case, the Dutch L1 meaning
activates only to the threshold of causing competition between L2-L1 meanings.
A picture that seems to emerge when all data are considered from both monolingual and
bilingual literature, is that the bilingual lexical system is not one in which items can be grouped
together in order to binarily decide if a nontarget language has been activated. Most likely, as an
L2 is learned, new meanings are added to existing forms, dominant and subordinate meanings
are created, meanings are fully or partially shared or truly ambiguous, and the L1 varies in terms
of how dominant it is over the L2. Through an inter-connected lexical system with the L1, the
bilingual lexical processing system makes use of all of this information. Yet, because the
interactions become more complex with the addition of an L2, the empirical support for such a
system can be difficult to tease out.
A very early study in which homographs were investigated may actually support this
notion. Beauvillain and Grainger (1987, Experiment 2) tested how the frequency of languagespecific readings of homographs affects bilingual lexical access. Homographs were divided into
high or low frequency French (HFF/LFF) readings and high or low frequency English
(HFE/LFE) readings, each followed by a target to reflect the respective homograph reading (e.g.,
HFE four (=oven) followed by five, HFF pain (=bread) followed by beurre (butter), LFE pain
followed by ache, LFF four followed by cuisine (=kitchen). One group of L1 English-L2 French
bilinguals was told that the primes were in French, while another group was told that the primes
were in English. An SOA presentation of 150 ms was tested. Results showed no effect for
language mode (whether participants had been told to read the primes in French or English), but
an effect for frequency was found. High frequency homograph prime readings produced a
facilitatory response whether the target was contextually appropriate or inappropriate, whereas a
46
low frequency reading of the homograph prime did not affect lexical access in either case. This
finding is very much like that found in the monolingual research where primed dominant
meanings of homographs are responded to more quickly than subordinate primed meanings.
Taken together, findings from the monolingual and bilingual semantic ambiguity
literature might allow a slightly different interpretation of bilingual data—not in an ‘either-or’
way by asking whether the nontarget language was activated, but by utilizing monolingual
research findings on meaning dominance, true ambiguity, and polysemy to show that not only
are both languages activated, their lexicons are intertwined at all levels.
Obviously, the strongest evidence for dual language activation comes from experiments
in which both languages are presented. However, as Grosjean (1997) aptly pointed out, many
methodological issues may shade experimental results. While material presentation in two
languages strongly supports a nonselective view of language access for bilinguals, many
researchers have had to explain null-results from language-specific materials in creative ways.
More research is needed in which language-specific materials are manipulated. De Groot et al.
(2000) suggested that a language neutral strategy might be responsible for mixed results in a
language specific context because homographs in their study and in Dijkstra et al. (1998) were
chosen with exact orthography between languages (e.g., red, fin), potentially allowing a lexical
reading in whichever language first becomes available to bilinguals. It has been shown that
bilingual lexical items exist on a continuum of meaning (and form) overlap—from no meaning
overlap to partial meaning overlap to nearly complete semantic overlap (Van Hell and De Groot,
1998). Yet research continues to base notions of the bilingual lexicon on short, 4-letter nouns,
presented binarily as ‘all or nothing’ in terms of meaning-overlap. Van Hell (2002) indicated
47
that research needs to be extended to other grammatical classes, away from 4-letter word nouns.
By extending bilingual lexical research to verbs, some of these issues can be addressed.
CONCLUSION, RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND PREDICTIONS
Filling in the gaps: testing bilingual lexical activation with verbs
This chapter reviewed the following important points relevant to the current research
design. In monolingual research, lexical decision tasks have been utilized to demonstrate that
multiple meanings for ambiguous words are activated. In a priming paradigm where a one word
context biases meaning, this activation is exhaustive. That is, dominant meanings are activated
quickly (by 16 ms), followed by the activation of multiple meanings (by 100 ms), with a return
to the sole activation of a dominant meaning (by 750 ms). If words are truly ambiguous (their
meanings are very different), activation is slowed due to the competition of two very different
meanings mapped onto the same form. If words are polysemous so that they have one central
core meaning used in a variety of senses, lexical access is speeded, presumably because multiple
senses of the same core meaning boost activation of the lexical form.
In the bilingual literature, when two languages are presented at once, the bilingual parser
automatically activates multiple meanings of words that are ambiguous across languages, a
phenomenon referred to as nonselective bilingual lexical processing. Both cross-language
repetition (translation) priming and associative priming have been found when a paradigm is
used that does not allow the conscious recognition of primes. Frequency between languages is
believed to play a role in bilingual lexical access, as does form overlap in orthography and
phonology.
48
What is not as clear from research data, however, is how the bilingual parser operates
under language-specific conditions in terms of nonselective language activation. Research has
shown that words overlapping in form and meaning between languages (cognates) tend to
produce a facilitation effect in lexical access when participants perform lexical decision tasks in
the L2, presumably because the shared features of these words in the lexicon speed up lexical
activation. VanHell and Dijkstra (2002) tested the cognate effect of the L2 during processing of
the L1. The study utilized Dutch-English-French trilinguals to see if cognate nouns between
English and Dutch and French and Dutch were recognized more quickly by Dutch speakers
conducting a lexical decision task in their native language. In response to avoiding a ‘language
neutral’ processing strategy, a point raised by De Groot (2000), researchers tried to avoid
utilizing nouns of exact orthography between languages. VanHell and Dijkstra found a
facilitation effect for cognates as compared to noncognates of both the L2 (English) and the L3
(French) on the L1 (Dutch) of the trilinguals but only if participants were of higher proficiency in
the second and third languages. However, 6 out of 20 of the Dutch-French cognates (e.g.,
gazon/lawn) and 3 out of the 20 Dutch-English cognates (e.g., ring) still shared exact
orthography, thus not eliminating completely the potential for a language neutral processing
strategy. Naming data also have shown that cognate naming in the L1 or the L2 produces a
facilitative cognate effect, but the effect is much greater when participants name in the L2 (the
less dominant language) (e.g., Costa, Caramazza, and Sebastian-Galles, 2000). Words that
overlap in form but not meaning (interlingual homographs) have produced mixed results when
framed in terms of whether the nontarget language has been activated as a whole. While some
research has shown inhibition for such words when homographs are presented in an L1 context
(albeit surprising to researchers), a null effect has been found when homographs are presented in
49
the L2. Researchers have tried to explain creatively why nonselectivity can be found sometimes
for homographs (multiple meanings creating inhibition in lexical access), but not other times.
Again, DeGroot (2000) suggests that because homographs in these studies are of exact
orthography between languages, a neutral language strategy may be driving lexical decisions.
That is, participants may simply see a form like red and respond that it is a word—in any lexicon
available. While this may be true, an additional suggestion by this author is that results are being
interpreted incorrectly.
These unknowns as to how language-specific factors influence cross-language
nonselectivity can be addressed if the following is considered: 1) research continues to
investigate bilingual lexical activation in a language-specific context, 2) homographs are utilized
that are not of exact lexical representation between languages, but that provide cues of language
specificity, 3) words can be found that show a continuum of meaning overlap between
languages, 4) research can be extended beyond 4-letter nouns to other grammatical classes, and
5) bilingual lexical access is investigated in terms of meaning dominance and subordinance.
Because of the nature of language-specific verb infinitives and conjugations, exact
orthographic homographs will not be found between languages (e.g., decidir/decide). Previous
research indicates that bilingual lexical access is affected by orthographic neighborhoods, so
there is justification that similar form representation between languages can be used to test
bilingual lexical access. In addition, verbs can restrict and extend research to a new grammatical
class. There is some indication that verbs may be processed differently than nouns. Nouns often
express a concrete notion, an object that is quickly envisioned or drawn in pictures. Verbs,
however, are more abstract in their meanings, often difficult to depict visually, and are likely to
show a continuum of meaning overlap between languages.
50
The current research project utilizes Spanish verbs in an original study to provide clues as
to how language-specificity affects cross-language activation. First, is nonselectivity replicated
in the processing of interlingually ambiguous verbs between Spanish and English? If so, do
monolingual research findings related to the role of meaning dominance and ambiguity help to
explain the nature of cross-language activation? That is, does interlingual meaning dominance
play a role in how the bilingual parser is nonselective?
The project is divided into two experiment design groups. First, a series of extensive
studies identifies a set of interlingual cognate, homographic, and noncognate verbs between
Spanish and English. Second, these items are manipulated in an online lexical decision task to
answer the following questions:
1. Is there evidence of interlingual lexical and semantic activation when L1 Spanish –L2
English bilinguals process interlingually ambiguous verbs in an L1 Spanish languagespecific task?
2. Is there a convergence of findings between L1 Spanish bilinguals and Spanish
monolinguals in the processing of ambiguity?
3. Is there evidence of interlingual lexical and semantic activation when L1 English –L2
Spanish bilinguals process ambiguous verbs in an L2 Spanish language-specific task?
Predictions
Homographs: For homonyms to show nonselectivity, form overlap may facilitate RTs
while semantic incongruency between languages should slow RTs. These two effects may
cancel each other out so that no effect is found for homographs as compared to controls. For
51
ambiguous homographs, nonselectivity may emerge as a null result due to facilitation from form
versus inhibition from semantic incongruency. However, when ambiguous homographs are
broken down based on whether the dominant or subordinate Spanish verb meaning overlaps with
English, different results may emerge. Following the same logic that produces a cognate effect,
a dominant meaning overlapped with English may produce a facilitation effect for bilinguals:
the form and semantic overlap of the dominant meaning with the English meaning could boost
activation of the word to the point of a facilitation effect. When the subordinate Spanish
meaning overlaps with the English meaning, a null result could emerge. The dominant Spanish
meaning could now compete with the boosted English/subordinate Spanish meaning to the point
of competition. While this competition may not be enough to produce inhibition, it should be
enough to reduce facilitation of form overlap.
Cognates: Cognates are included in this research to see if a cognate facilitation effect is
found in verb processing. Prior research has shown a strong cognate facilitation effect in
bilingual processing of the L1 onto the L2, but a weaker or perhaps questionable cognate
facilitation effect of the L2 (or L3) onto the L1 (e.g., Costa et. al., 2000; VanHell & Dijkstra,
2002). The L2 participant data are expected to show a cognate facilitation effect in the current
research due to form and semantic overlap. It is less clear if the L1 participant data will show an
equally strong effect, a weaker effect (as with the naming data) or perhaps even no effect (if the
VanHell and Dijkstra materials jaundiced findings due to the fact that some items still were of
exact orthography between languages).
In order to show that materials are reliable, monolinguals should show no difference in
RTs for cognates, homographs, and controls or noncognates. Based on monolingual research, if
ambiguous partial homographs are of very different meanings, an inhibition effect may emerge.
52
CHAPTER 3: IDENTIFYING SPANISH VERBS AS
COGNATES AND HOMOGRAPHS WITH ENGLISH
OVERVIEW OF THE NORMING STUDY
The field of bilingualism takes an interest in interlingual cognates and homographs for
pedagogical and research reasons. Cognates are words that overlap in orthography and meaning,
with varying degrees of difference in pronunciation, between two languages (e.g., piano or train
in Spanish and English). Interlingual homographs, on the other hand, are words that share form
but not meaning (e.g., the word red in English means net or web in Spanish). Scholars have
given interlingual homographs a variety of labels such as interlexical homographs (De Groot,
Delmar, and Lupker, 2000), false cognates (Brysbaert, 1998; Gerard and Scarborough, 1989;
Grainger, 1993), and false friends (Meara, 1993). Second and foreign language textbooks make
early use of cognates between languages to build L2 vocabulary in a short period of time. While
research shows that L2 learners acquire cognates more easily than other types of words (e.g.,
DeGroot and Keijzer, 2000), learners can be fooled by the disparate meanings of homographs
and misguided in the pronunciation of cognates due to interference from differing L1
pronunciation (Jacobs, 2007).
Psycholinguistic research in bilingualism employs cognates and interlingual homographs
to ask primarily two questions: (1) Whether bilingual lexical access is nonselective—that is,
whether both languages are automatically activated during lexical selection in one language
alone— and (2) What factors constrain lexical activation when bilinguals intend to use only one
language. The logic behind manipulating the cognate status of words is that if the language
53
processor activates both languages at once, then words sharing form and meaning (cognates—
piano) should be processed more quickly than words that do not share form (noncognates—silla
meaning chair), either because such words are stored together in memory or because the
form/meaning overlap allows for stronger and faster lexical activation. Conversely, the meaning
disparity of homographs (red meaning net) should slow the processor due to momentary
confusion through activation of similar forms yet incongruent meanings. In fact, researchers
overwhelmingly have found a time difference in the recognition of interlingual cognates
(facilitation) and homographs (inhibition) as compared to noncognates, which has led them to
conclude that the bilingual lexical processor is nonselective (e.g., Christoffels, Firk, and Schiller,
2007; Costa, Caramazza, and Sebastian-Gallés, 2000; Dijkstra and VanHeuven, 2002)—even in
cases where context strongly biases a particular language (e.g., Elston-Güttler, 2000; Schwartz
and Kroll, 2006; Duyck; Van Assche, and Drieghe, Hartsiuker, 2007; Van Assche, 2009; Van
Assche, Duyck, Hartsuiker, and Diependaele, 2009).
Additionally, cognates and homographs can be utilized in research to inform of the
general mechanisms of language processing. Much psycholinguistic research conducted with
monolinguals has sought to explain whether words are accessed in the mind via bottom-up
(form) or top-down (meaning) processing strategies. However, the majority of the world’s
speakers are bilingual (Romaine, 1995) and therefore any theory about how language works in
the mind must also account for how bilinguals activate and process multiple languages. By
manipulating words that overlap in form and meaning between languages, researchers are able to
inform general theories on language processing. For example, many researchers have
investigated how ambiguity is processed within English—that is, whether we access
simultaneously all meanings of a word like bug (i.e., an insect, a listening device, to bother) or if
54
we activate only the meaning necessary for the immediate context (e.g., Azuma and Van Orden,
1997; Borowsky and Masson, 1996; Klepousniotou, 2002; Millis and Button, 1989; Rodd,
Gaskell and Marslen-Wilson, 2002; Simpson and Burgess, 1985). By extending the same
curiosity to how bilinguals handle words that are ambiguous between languages (homographs),
researchers can focus on broader language processing questions: not whether monolinguals
activate multiple meanings of ambiguous words like bug or whether bilinguals activate the
meanings in both languages of a homograph such as red but rather, how the language processor
in general handles ambiguity.
Ultimately, then, there are many reasons for focusing on cognates and interlingual
homographs in research and yet the existing body of research relying on such words is limited to
predominantly noun-noun translations between languages or mixed word-class translations, such
as with the example of red (the color adjective in English vs. the noun web or net in Spanish).
There is reason to believe that by expanding research to cognate and homographic verbs,
researchers may be able to gain additional insight into the nuances of bilingual and general
language processing. In research relying on homographs to test whether the bilingual processor
is nonselective in a monolingual context (DeGroot et al., 2000; Dijkstra et al., 1998), the findings
have been mixed. DeGroot (2000) suggested that because homographs in these studies were of
exact orthography between languages, a neutral language strategy may have driven lexical
decisions. That is, participants may simply have seen a form like red and responded that it is a
word—in any lexicon available. The norming of homographic and cognate verbs builds a bank
of testing items that eliminates this possible processing strategy. Due to the morphological
nature of verb endings (in this case between Spanish and English), verbs will never overlap
exactly in form (dividir—to divide), thus eliminating a language-neutral processing strategy due
55
to exact form overlap. In addition, verbs are more complex than the short, one-syllable nouns
that have dominated language processing research in terms of word length, abstract meaning, and
the role that verbs play in sentence construction. Since many of the computational models of
language processing (e.g., the Bilingual Interactive Activation Model (BIA) and BIA+, Dijkstra
and VanHeuven, 1998, 2002) are built to accommodate empirical findings based on short, onesyllable words, the opportunity exists to broaden such modeling to include less concise data:
normed verbs that vary in length and number of syllables. In addition, verbs are often more
abstract in meaning than nouns, thus providing testing items with degrees of overlap in meaning
and ultimately, insight into the general nature of processing abstract meaning. Finally, through
extensive norming of verb meanings, a set of items becomes available for use in future research
that extends to the sentence and discourse level, relevant because of linguistic theory that
suggests that verbs drive the construct of both syntax and meaning in sentences (Levin, 1993;
Levin and Rappaport, 1994, 1995).
How researchers derive their lists of cognates and homographs, however, has not been
consistent (Grosjean 1997, 1998; Friel and Kennison, 2001). In the case of cognates, some
researchers have defined them to have the same original word root (e.g., Sánchez-Casas, 1992)
while others have relied upon empirical testing to determine cognate status (De Groot and Nas,
1991; Friel and Kennison, 2001; Kroll and Stewart, 1994). In their extensive work with
interlingual homographs, Dijkstra and colleagues defined homographs simply as words identical
in orthography but not meaning between two languages (Dijkstra, 2005). Conversely, Friel and
Kennison (2001) normed German-English cognates and homographs by comparing versions of
two empirical approaches used previously by researchers. One approach asked bilinguals to rate
provided translations on a scale of one to seven (De Groot and Nas, 1991) while another (Kroll
56
and Stewart, 1994) relied upon native English speakers with no knowledge of Dutch or German
to translate a list of Dutch words into English. Friel and Kennison found no significant
differences in the two norming approaches.
In the current study, in order to define verbs in Spanish that are cognates or homographs
to English, an empirical approach was used. Tasks were devised first to compare dictionary
definitions with actual language use. Both native speakers of English and Spanish contributed
toward determining the degree to which form and meaning overlapped and diverged in Spanish
verbs and which synonyms best convey those meanings. The norming resulted in three
categories of verbs defined in the following ways. Cognates are words of near complete form
and complete meaning overlap between Spanish and English (calmar—to calm). In
homographs, form overlaps between languages, but meaning does not (e.g., estrechar looks like
to stretch but means to make narrow, to tighten). Partial homographs are verbs that are
ambiguous (with two distinct meanings) in Spanish, only one of which is shared with English
(e.g., experimentar-experiment shares the meaning of to experiment, while Spanish has the
additional meanings of to experience or to feel). The phonology differs between Spanish and
English for all three verb types.
SELECTION AND NORMING PROCESS OF VERBS
Method
The goal of the norming research was twofold: 1) to generate a list of verbs in Spanish
to be classified as cognates or homographs with English and 2) to identify the verb synonyms in
Spanish that most accurately convey the meaning(s) of the cognates and homographs. To this
end, two characteristics of the verbs needed to be assessed: form similarity and meaning
57
similarity. The norming study was carried out in three phases, explained in detail in the
Materials and Procedures section. Phase I involved the dictionary selection of potential
Spanish-English verb cognates and homographs to be used in the collection of norming data of
Phases II and III. In Phase II, the meanings of the target verbs were determined by functionally
monolingual Spanish speakers via three tasks: a synonym-solicitation task for cognates, a
synonym-solicitation task for homographs, and a synonym-clarification task. Finally, the
norming data from Phase II were used to create five total tasks for Phase III. To measure the
strength of synonyms in each language, two Spanish synonym-rating tasks for cognates and
homographs were completed by the Spanish speakers and two English synonym-rating tasks
for cognates and homographs were completed by the English speakers. To measure the
degree of form overlap between Spanish and English for the target verbs, the English speakers
also completed one form similarity rating task.
Participants
A total of 186 participants—163 functionally monolingual Spanish speakers and 19
functionally monolingual English speakers completed the eight norming tasks. The 163 Spanish
participants were undergraduate psychology students from the University of Granada, Granada,
Spain. Their average age was 21 years and they reported having spent 9 years on average
studying English in school, with fewer than 6% of participants having spent any time abroad
studying English, and only for an average of two months.1 These participants completed the five
1
Even though the UG students show some exposure to English, they were interviewed briefly in English and could
not engage in conversation. This participant population readily participates as Spanish monolinguals in research
carried out in the psychology department at the University of Granada. Given the nature of the Spanish educational
system and the infiltration of English in world music and other cultural interests, it is impossible to find a population
that has not been exposed to English. For the purposes of this study, then, the Spanish participants shall be called
functionally monolingual. At best, they are Spanish monolinguals with exposure to English that does not translate
into English proficiency.
58
norming tasks conducted in Spanish from Phases II and III (approximately 32 participants per
task). The participants received course credit for their participation. The 19 functionally
monolingual speakers of English were undergraduate students from the University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign. They volunteered participation in the three norming tasks in English that
were carried out in Phase III. The average age of this group of participants was 19 years. All
English monolinguals were students in a Spanish 101 course at UIUC, a course for students who
have never studied Spanish.
Materials and Procedure
Phase I: Selection of potential cognate and homographic verbs
In order to identify cognate and homographic verbs between Spanish and English, verb
lists were generated from false cognate (homograph)2 and cognate dictionaries.3 Each verb was
then searched in an unabridged Spanish-English dictionary4, in monolingual synonym/antonym
dictionaries for Spanish and English5, and in a monolingual English dictionary6 to gather
information about the meanings of each verb and whether meanings overlapped with the
translation of the target verb to an English verb similar in form. This procedure generated a list
of 76 potential homographic verbs and 76 potential cognates. Homograph candidates were
chosen first, followed by cognate candidates that matched homographs in frequency (based on
the frequency of the infinitival form only) as found in the Alameda and Cuetos frequency
2
Hamel, B. (1998). Comprehensive Bilingual Dictionary of Spanish False Cognates. Bilingual Book Press, Los
Angeles, CA.
Prado, M. (1993). NTC's Dictionary of Spanish False Cognates. NTC Publishing Group, Chicago, IL.
3
Nash, R. (1997). NTC's Dictionary of Spanish Cognates. NTC Publishing Group, Chicago, IL.
4
Harper Collins Spanish Unabridged Dictionary, Sixth Edition. (2000). Harper Collins, NY, NY.
5
Diccionario Práctico Larousse Sinónimos/Antónimos. (1986). Ediciones Larousse, Marsella, México.
The Double Day Roget's Thesaurus in Dictionary Form. (1987). Doubleday, NY, NY.
6
Miriam-Webster Online Dictionary. http://www.m-w.com/
59
dictionary7, which bases frequency numbers on 2,000,000 words. The lists of potential
homographic and cognate target verbs, their definitions, frequencies, translations to an English
verb most similar in form to Spanish, and the English verb form meanings are provided in
Appendices A and B.
Phase II: Solicitation and clarification of verb meaning
Two synonym-solicitation and one meaning clarification tasks were created to allow
for a comparison between dictionary definitions of potential target verbs obtained during
materials selection and actual Spanish monolingual usage of these verbs. The focus on synonym
solicitation to express meaning was desired for two reasons. First, single verb synonyms as the
expression of meanings for target verbs would be the most efficient way to express meaning in
an eventual off-line task to accompany the online research. Second, the establishment of strong
synonyms for target verbs allows for planned future research with the target verbs.
Synonym-solicitation task for homographs and cognates
For the synonym-solicitation task for homographs, 30 functionally monolingual
Spanish speakers were asked to generate verb synonyms in Spanish for 63 of the 76
homographic verbs identified in Phase I8. Similarly, in the synonym-solicitation task for
cognates, 39 functionally monolingual Spanish speakers were asked to generate synonyms for
63 of the 76 cognate verbs identified in Phase I. Both tasks were carried out in a classroom
setting during an hour-long experimental session in which participants signed a research consent
7
Alamedo, J.R. and Cuetos, F. (1995). Diccionario de frecuencias de las unidades linguísticas de castellano.
Oviedo. Servicio de Publicaciones. Oviedo.
8
Norming tasks in Phases II and III do not utilize all items from Phase I. This is due in part to inadvertent error in
leaving out some potential verb candidates and/or due to the fact that as each norming phase progressed, it became
clear that some verbs were not viable experimental candidates.
60
form, filled out a language background questionnaire, and completed one of the norming tasks.
Participants were instructed to provide up to three possible verb synonyms in infinitival form for
each verb and to rate each of those synonyms as to how easy or difficult it was to think of them.
Figure 3.1 provides an example of the questionnaires translated into English. All Phase II tasks
are found in Appendices C-I. The participant consent form is found in Appendix C with the
translation in Appendix D, the language background questionnaire in Appendix E (translation in
F), the synonym-solicitation task for homographs in Appendix G, and the synonym-solicitation
task for cognates in Appendix H.
Figure 3.1 Example of the synonym-solicitation task, instructions and verbs translated into
English.
Instructions: Please indicate if you are familiar with the following verbs (yes/no).
For each verb that you are familiar with, write down all the meanings that you can think of for that verb. Please
write the meanings in verb infinitive form. Then, mark the degree to how difficult it was to think of each verb
infinitive meaning.
Ex. The verb ‘andar’ has as synonyms: to walk (the physical action), to take a walk (as in a special event), ‘to
function’, as in ‘The car doesn’t andar/function’. So you choose according to the example below: caminar, pasear,
funcionar.
Verb
Are you
familiar
with this
verb?
Meaning 1
Ex. andar
(to walk)
yes/no
caminar
abortar
yes/no
Scale of
difficulty;
4=easy,
1=difficult
Meaning 2
1234
pasear
Scale of
difficulty;
Meaning
3
4=easy,
1=difficult
(to walk)
1234
(to take a
walk)
1234
61
4=easy,
1=difficult
funcionar
1234
(to work
or
function)
1234
(to abort)
Scale of
difficulty;
1234
Synonym-clarification task
The meanings for target verbs established by Spanish monolinguals through the
synonym-solicitation task were compared to and combined with dictionary definitions to create
the synonym-clarification task. The clarification task was necessary to resolve two issues.
First, some discrepancy existed between the dictionary and usage definitions so it was necessary
to see whether, if given a list of choices, participants would repeat the usage results of the
synonym-solicitation task. Second, synonym foils were added to the norming task in order to
reflect meanings that could be linked to the similar English form of the target verb. This was to
ensure that Spanish monolinguals would indeed reject these meanings. For example, the verb
restar looks like to rest in English, but does not mean such. A synonym candidate was added to
the questionnaire for this verb: descansar (to rest). Spanish monolinguals were not expected to
treat foils as synonyms to target verbs.
In the synonym-clarification task, 122 experimental item candidates9 consisting of 60 of
the original 76 potential homographs and 62 of the original 76 potential cognates were followed
by a series of 5 possible synonyms, some of which were viable synonym candidates and some of
which were not. The questionnaire was given to a new group of 40 Spanish monolinguals from
the University of Granada, Granada, Spain, who completed it in a classroom setting during a 30minute experimental session. Participants signed a research consent form (Appendix C), filled
out a language background questionnaire (Appendix E), and completed the norming
questionnaire (Appendix I).
9
The questionnaire is numbered to 124; two numbers are missing in the numbering (51 and 79), making for 122
items.
62
A sample of the questionnaire is provided in Figure 3.2 Participants were instructed to
indicate whether they were familiar with the target verbs by marking ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Participants
then reviewed all possible synonyms for each verb from the set provided and circled any
synonym candidates that reflected the meaning of the target verb. Finally, participants were
asked to rank each synonym preference by placing a ‘1’ next to the most preferred synonym, a
‘2’ next to a second chosen, and so forth. The data were hand-coded and out of this data, a list of
experimental verbs and their synonyms was established in order to create the norming
questionnaires of Phase III.
Figure 3.2 Example of the synonym-clarification task, instructions and verbs translated into
English.
Instructions: Please indicate if you are familiar with the following verbs (yes/no). For each verb that you are
familiar with, choose all the related meanings. Then, number according to your preference, each one of the chosen
verbs.
Ex. The verb ‘andar’ has as synonyms: to walk (the physical action), to take a walk (as in a special event), ‘to
function’, as in ‘The car doesn’t andar/function’. So you choose according to the example below, funcionar-3,
pasear-2, caminar-1.
Verb
Are you
familiar
with this
verb?
Ex. andar
(to walk)
yes/no
Admirar
yes/no
(to admire)
Meaning
Meaning
Meaning
Meaning
Meaning
funcionar3
pasear2
saltar
caminar1
dedicar
(to function)
(to take a
walk)
(to jump)
(to walk)
(to dedicate)
adorar
suponer
asombrar
discutir
necesitar
(to adore)
(to suppose)
(to
shock/surprise)
(to discuss)
(to need)
63
Phase III: Rating the strength of synonyms and norming form
For the final series of norming questionnaires, four synonym-rating tasks were
developed to yield ratings of synonym strength for cognate and homographic target items.
Spanish speakers completed two Spanish synonym-rating tasks—one for cognates and one for
homographs. English speakers completed the same synonym-rating tasks for cognates and
homographs as Spanish speakers except that they were translated to English. The English
speakers also completed a form similarity rating task indicating the degree to which the
Spanish target verbs are similar in form to their English homograph counterparts. All tasks are
found in Appendices J-N.
Spanish synonym-rating tasks for cognates and homographs
Functionally monolingual speakers of Spanish from Granada, Spain, completed both of
the synonym-rating tasks in Spanish. Twenty-five participants rated 65 out of the original 76
homographs from Phase I while 29 participants rated 75 out of the original 76 cognates from
Phase I.10 For both tasks, participants signed the research consent form found in Appendix C,
filled out the language background questionnaire (Appendix E), and completed one of the
norming tasks (Appendix J, Homographs and Appendix K, Cognates). To complete the tasks,
participants were instructed to rate the degree to which each verb pair was synonymous by using
a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 indicating no synonymous relationship and 7 indicating the strongest of
synonymous relationships. A blank space was provided for each verb and participants were told
that if a better, stronger synonym occurred to them, they were to write it in the blank and rate it.
Figure 3.3 provides an example of the format for both Spanish synonym-rating tasks.
10
The syonym-rating tasks for cognates in both Spanish and English show 79 items. Four items were inadvertently
listed twice on the cognate rating task: calcular, coordinar, decidir, identificar. Hence 75 items were tested.
64
Figure 3.3 Example of Spanish synonym-rating task, instructions translated into English.
For each verb in bold below, indicate 1) the most common meanings of each for you and 2) to what degree each
meaning is a synonym of the verb in bold, assigning a value between 1 and 7 (1 = not a synonym, 7 = a strong
synonym).
Note: If you find that a meaning you use is not presented, write it in the blank and include it in the values you
assign.
A. If for you, ‘to make notes’ is the only meaning or synonym you can choose for ‘to write’ and it is a strong
synonym, then you give it a high number. If you don’t see any relationship of synonym between ‘to think’ and ‘to
write’, then you assign a ‘1’ to ‘to think’.
escribir
(to write)
apuntar (to make notes) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
pensar (to think)
1234567
________
1234567
B. If for ‘to embrace’, you use the meaning ‘to hug’, but also the meaning ‘to adopt’ as in ‘to adopt or embrace an
idea’, then you write it in the blank. Then you indicate to what degree the meanings are synonyms.
abrazar
(to embrace)
1
2
1234567
1234567
1234567
acortar (to shorten)
enlazar (to hug)
adoptar (una idea)
(to adopt (an idea))
VERB
MEANING
POINTS
acostar
dormir
1234567
atacar
1234567
_____________
1234567
repetir
1234567
contestar
1234567
_____________
1234567
replica
English synonym-rating tasks for cognates and homographs
The English synonym-rating task for homographs and the English synonym-rating
task for cognates were rated by 19 students of Spanish 101 at the University of Illinois on their
first day of classes. Participants signed the research consent form (Appendix D), filled out the
language background questionnaire (found in Appendix F), and completed the norming tasks
65
(Appendix L, Homographs and Appendix M, Cognates). Participants rated the degree to which
each verb pair was synonymous by using a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 indicating no synonymous
relationship and 7 indicating the strongest of synonymous relationships. A blank space was
provided for each verb and participants were told that if a better, stronger synonym occurred to
them, they were to write it in the blank and rate it. Figure 3.4 provides an example of the format
for both English synonym-rating tasks
Figure 3.4 Example of English version of synonym-rating task.
For each verb in bold below, indicate 1) the most common meanings of each for you and 2) to what degree each
meaning is a synonym of the verb in bold, assigning a value between 1 and 7 (1 = not a synonym, 7 = a strong
synonym). Note: If you find that a meaning you use is not presented, write it in the blank and include it in the
values you assign.
Examples:
A. If for you, ‘to make notes’ is the only meaning or synonym you can choose for ‘to write’ and it is a strong
synonym, then you give it a high number. If you don’t see any relationship of synonym between ‘to think’ and ‘to
write’, then you assign a ‘1’ to ‘to think’.
to write
to make notes
to think
________
1234567
1234567
1234567
B. If for ‘to embrace’, you use the meaning ‘to hug’, but also the meaning ‘to adopt’ as in ‘to adopt or embrace an
idea’, then you write it in the blank. Then you indicate to what degree the meanings are synonyms.
to embrace
1
2
1234567
1234567
1234567
to shorten
to hug
to adopt
VERB
MEANING
POINTS
to accost
to sleep
1234567
to attack
1234567
_____________
1234567
to repeat
1234567
to answer
1234567
_____________
1234567
to replicate
66
Form-similarity rating task
The same 19 monolingual speakers of English who completed the synonym-similarity
rating tasks also rated the degree to which target Spanish verbs are similar in form with English
during the same testing session. The form-similarity rating task (Appendix N) consisted of a
total of 139 verbs: 65 of the original 76 homograph candidates and 74 of the original 76 cognate
candidates. For this task, participants were asked to follow the examples in the instructions of
the task for rating the degree to which Spanish and English target verbs resembled each other. In
the examples, if the complete English verb was found in the Spanish verb form, a ‘7’ rating was
chosen. If little to no similarity was found between the verbs, a ‘1’ rating was selected. An
example of the instructions and format of the form-similarity rating task can be found in Figure
3.5.
Figure 3.5 Form-similarity rating task
Please use the scale below to rate the degree to which you think the Spanish and English verbs look alike in each
verb pair below. Keep in mind that the verbs will never look exactly alike because Spanish verbs have verb endings
(-ar, -ir, -er) that are different from English. You can, however, make a form similarity judgment based on the rest
of the verb.
Examples for using the scale
5: You see the complete English verb form in the Spanish verb:
conform
conformar
1234567
1: You see very little to no similarity between the two verbs in the pair.
suspect
sospechar
1234567
VERB
VERBO
SCALE
1
accost
Acostar
1234567
2
replicate
Replicar
1234567
67
Results and discussion
The data summaries and discussion are divided into two sections: Phase I/II data and
Phase III data.
Phase I/II data: Solicitation and clarification
Dictionary and synonym-solicitation task
The data from Phase II came from 69 functionally monolingual speakers of Spanish, 30
participants completing the synonym-solicitation task for homographs and 39 participants
completing the synonym-solicitation task for cognates. The data were hand-coded and reviewed
to find (a) the primary, secondary, and tertiary meanings for each verb, (b) the synonyms utilized
by native speakers to express those meanings, and (c) the overall degree of familiarity
participants had with each verb. In order to best organize the abundance and variety of
synonyms provided by participants, the data were coded in the following way. The largest
number of synonym tokens for a given meaning was considered to represent the strongest
meaning of the verb (Meaning 1). The meaning with the next largest number of synonyms was
considered to be the second meaning for the verb (Meaning 2). The third meaning of a given
verb usually had a small number of tokens, thus if multiple third meanings with very few tokens
were provided for a particular target verb, they were grouped together into the ‘Meaning 3’
category.11
The raw data for homographs is found in Appendix O., and for cognates, Appendix P.
The data charts include the following information: Spanish target verbs; dictionary definitions of
11
In cases where multiple synonyms were given to express the same meaning of a verb, those synonyms were
lumped together to form one general meaning with multiple examples for expressing that meaning. For example,
the verb adorar means to adore, to worship. Participants gave that definition through a variety of synonyms:
querer (to love), venerar (to worship), idolatrar (to idolize), amar (to love).
68
each Spanish verb; the number of meanings for each verb as indicated by the dictionary along
with the total number of meanings provided by participants; Meanings 1, 2, and 3; the frequency
with which each meaning was expressed by participants; the percentage of all responses that
each meaning represents; and the best examples of synonyms to express separate meanings,
along with their translations.
Some errors were found on the norming tasks. The verbs estampar and consentir were
included in the cognate norming task rather than the homograph norming task. This, however,
was irrelevant to the data since the categories of ‘cognate’ and ‘homograph’ are arbitrary for
monolingual speakers of Spanish and only are used here for the organization of potential
experimental items. The verb alternar appeared on both tasks, so data were considered from the
homograph task only. The verb enrollar was spelled incorrectly on the homograph task as
enroller. The data still were included for this verb as participants corrected the spelling and
treated the verb as enrollar in their answers. In all, the synonym-solicitation tasks produced 65
potential homographs and 60 potential cognates.
Correlations were run separately on the homographs and on the cognates to compare the
results of dictionary findings from Phase I with participant meanings provided in Phase II. For
homographs, there was a significant correlation between the number and order of dictionary
meanings and the number and order of definitions that participants provided (r=+.72, n=65,
p<.005, one-tailed).12 For cognates, there also was a significant correlation between the number
and order of dictionary and participant verb meanings (r=+.83, n=61, p<.005, one-tailed).
12
The ‘number and order of meanings’ reflects the fact that when the number of meanings are equal between
dictionary and participants, those meanings were also provided in the same order. For example, if the dictionary
gave the order of meanings for ‘admirar’ as ‘to admire, to contemplate, to astonish’ then so did participants. Hence,
69
Appendix O summarizes the homograph data and is ranked not in alphabetical order, but
rather by the degree to which a first meaning (Meaning 1) was provided by participants, so that a
verb followed by a meaning with a 100% ranking indicates that only one meaning was provided
for that verb. For example, in the case of acostar, the sole meaning was: to put to bed. This
meaning, however, was expressed by a variety of synonyms: tumbar—to put to bed, dormir—to
sleep, descansar—to rest. Ambiguous verbs in Spanish are identified when multiple meanings
are provided for a target verb. For example, participants gave the meaning of to repeat/duplicate
for replicar 40% of the time, while they give the meanings of to answer 35% of the time and to
argue 25% of the time.
In Appendix O, each target verb is presented along with the English verb in parentheses
that is most similar in form to the Spanish verb. This is to remind the reader of the SpanishEnglish verb forms in question. The first column of the summary table indicates whether the data
suggest a homograph (H) or partial homograph (P) with English. That is, for acostar, because
Spanish monolinguals gave the meaning of to put to bed 100% of the time, it is clear that this
meaning is not the same as the dictionary meaning of to accost as seen in Appendix A.1.
Because of the form relationship between acostar-to accost yet the difference in meaning (to go
to bed-to attack), the verb was labeled as a homograph (H) in the summary table. Likewise,
when multiple meanings were established by Spanish monolinguals for a verb and one of those
meanings overlapped with the meaning of a similar English form, the verb was labeled as a
partial homograph (P). For example, in the case of inscribir, Spanish monolinguals gave the
meanings to enroll and to etch, to write. The similar English form, to inscribe, shares the
meaning of to etch or to write. Therefore, inscribir was marked with a ‘P’. Any verb that
inherent in the comparison of the number of dictionary and participant meanings for each verb is the order (and
supposed strength) of the meanings.
70
resulted in unexpected or confusing data was marked with an “*”. A short explanation follows
directly under each verb of this type as to why the results are unexpected. Of the 65 verbs tested
as homographs, 10 (15% of the items) were marked with an “*”, often because the synonyms
provided made a verb seem as if it were a cognate with English. The data yielded 30 homographs
(53% of the items) and 25 partial homographs (47% of the items).
Appendix P provides the same summarized information for potential cognates as
presented for homographs in Appendix O. Of the 60 potential cognates, one verb proved odd
(aprehender) and it is marked with an “*” with an explanation as to why found directly below
the verb (1% of the items).
Synonym-clarification task
Forty functionally monolingual speakers of Spanish provided the raw data for the
synonym-clarification tasks, found in Appendix Q for potential homographs and Appendix R for
potential cognates. One synonym candidate for the verb anticipar was spelled incorrectly:
prever (to foresee) was spelled as preveer. Participants corrected the spelling of this synonym
candidate and considered it a viable candidate, so it was kept in the data analysis. The verb
alternar was inadvertently included on both questionnaires. Only the data for this verb from the
homograph questionnaire were considered. Three participants did not complete the task
correctly, hence their data were eliminated.
A summary of the homograph data is found in Appendix S. Verbs are arranged by
strength of synonyms rather than alphabetically. Synonym verbs that reflect false English
meanings are included in the summary tables in order to show that Spanish monolinguals did not
consider them to be legitimate meanings for target verbs. The synonyms that correspond to
71
English are marked with an (E). Appendix S reveals 60 verbs divided into 23 homographs (H)
(38% of the items), 29 partial homographs (P—48% of the items), and 8 unlabeled items (*—
13% of the items). An additional 8 of the labeled verbs (H or P) were marked with * to indicate
irregularity. In total, 16 verbs received the * marking. For three of these verbs (consentir,
desvestir, pasar), a synonym target to reflect the false English meaning was inadvertently left off
the questionnaire. Five of the 16 verbs seemed not to have synonyms that were subtle enough to
distinguish between the differing Spanish/English meanings (aplicar, experimentar, introducir,
recordar, solicitar). The second meaning of two verbs (intentar, pretender) was deemed not
strong enough to make them partial homographs. Two of the 16 verbs resulted in what seem to
be cognates with English (asumir, atender). Two of the 16 verbs were expected to result in
homographs, but the data make them seem to be partial homographs (esposar, revolver). Finally,
two verbs are labeled as partial homographs in the sense that their primary meanings vary
between languages (avisar, discutir). For example, avisar means to recommend and to warn in
both Spanish and English but to recommend is the primary meaning in Spanish and to warn is
the primary meaning in English.
Appendix T provides a summary of the cognate data from the synonym-clarification task.
A total of 61 cognates was established. None of the data was found to be irregular.
Phase III data: synonym-rating tasks
The data from the synonym-rating tasks established the strength of cognate and
homographic verb synonyms and confirmed the dominant and subordinate meanings for
ambiguous Spanish verbs. Twenty-five functionally monolingual Spanish speakers provided the
data for homographs, found in Appendix U. The data from the synonym-rating task for cognates,
72
completed by 29 functionally monolingual Spanish speakers, is found in Appendix V. Both
appendices provide the Spanish synonym rating data for potential target verbs compared to the
translated English synonym rating data from 19 functionally monolingual English speakers.
Ratings were made on a scale of 1 to 7, with ‘1’ indicating no synonym relationship and ‘7’
indicating the strongest of synonym relationships. The verb consentir was included in both the
homograph and cognate synonym-rating tasks. Only the data for this verb from the homograph
task were considered.
Appendix U shows 38 partial homographs (P—58% of homographic candidates) between
languages and 22 homographs (H—34% of homographic candidates). Five items (8% of the
homographic candidates) are marked solely with ‘*’, indicating that they are neither homographs
nor partial homographs according to participant ratings. Of the 38 partial homographs, 9 are
marked with ‘P*’ to indicate irregular data (23% of all items marked as partial homographs).
Explanations for each verb marked with ‘P*’ or ‘*’ are found directly below each verb.
Important to consider are the verbs categorized as ‘P*’. These verbs may seem to be SpanishEnglish cognates whose dominant meanings are switched as in the example of discutir seen in
Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Sample from synonym-rating task data for homographs.
P*
discutir
dialogar
3.4
6.3
to dialogue
disputar
6.3
3.9
to argue
to discuss
*Partial homograph in that dominant meanings are switched between languages.
Nonetheless, in this research, these words are categorized as partial homographs due to the fact
that the Spanish verb form closely aligns with the less dominant meaning in English, thus
73
lending itself to a “false” translation at first glance (e.g., discutir looks like to discuss not to
dispute).
Appendix V provides the Spanish-English rating data for 69 cognate verbs. Four items
were inadvertently listed twice on the cognate rating task: calcular, coordinar, decidir,
identificar. The data for only one of the listings for each verb were considered. One verb (1% of
the data) was found to be irregular (* formar), explained below the verb in the appendix.
Appendix W shows the form-similarity rating data from 19 functionally monolingual
English speakers. The data are ordered by strongest to weakest form similarity.
Table 3.2 provides the resulting list of 23 homographs (H—31% of the homographic
candidates), 25 partial homographs, ambiguous within Spanish (P—33% of he homographic
candidates), 15 unique partial homographs (marked with ‘P*, P**, P***, or P****’—20% of the
homographic candidates), and 12 verbs that were discarded and are labeled as such (16% of the
homographic candidates). To arrive at the final categorization of the target verbs, the results
from each of the norming procedures were compared. For the most part, when a verb had two or
more of the same categorization across tasks, that categorization was used as the final
categorization for the verb. For example, the verb desvestir indicated two ‘H’ ratings and one
‘*’, and therefore was given a final categorization of ‘H’. However, each rating also was
considered within the context of the task and one case was re-categorized. The verb suceder was
categorized as a homograph (H) in the synonym-solicitation task due to the fact that participants
only provided one meaning for the verb. Hence, in the other norming tasks, a potential second
meaning for the verb was not included (seguir: to follow as in succession). This meaning
pertains to both Spanish and English, so the verb was recategorized as a partial homograph
74
(P****). The one verb marked as H* (enviar) and the five verbs that were marked ‘P*’
(entretener, exponer, gratificar, importar, invertir, relatar, marchar) are marked as such because
they were added only to the final norming procedure (the synonym-rating task). The ‘*’
indicates that the categorization is based only on one task, the synonym-rating task. Six verbs
are marked with P** (introducir, recordar, atender, avisar, discutir, fabricar). They are marked
this way to indicate that the verbs seem to share the same meanings between languages, but the
dominant meaning is clearly the opposite in each language. For example, avisar (to advise)
means to warn and to inform in both languages, however, the dominant meaning in Spanish is to
warn while the dominant meaning in English is to inform. Two verbs are marked as ‘P***’,
indicating that the verbs are ambiguous in English rather than Spanish and share one meaning
with Spanish. For example, realizar (to realize) means to understand and to make happen in
English, but only means to make happen in Spanish. The verbs to be discarded were designated
as such because either they were not included in enough of the norming procedures or their data
proved too problematic to decipher.
Table 3.2 Final categorization of homographs and partial homographs across all norming tasks.
Verb
Synonymsolicitation
task result
Synonymclarification
task result
Synonymrating task
result
H
acostar (accost)
H
H
H
H
blindar (blind)
H
H
H
H
chocar (choke)
H
H
H
H
desvestir (divest)
H
*
H
H
divertir (divert)
H
H
H
H
divisar (devise)
H
H
H
Final categorization
75
Table 3.2 (cont.)
H
editar (edit)
H*
H
H
H
enrollar (enroll)
H
H
H
H
estrechar
(stretch)
H
H
H
H
fabricar
(fabricate)
H
H
P*
H
fumar (fume)
H
H
H
H
grabar (grab)
not included
not included
H
H
intentar (intend)
H
H
P*
H
mimar (mime)
H
H
H
H
molestar (molest)
P*
H
H
H
pretender
(pretend)
H
H*
H
H
quitar (quit)
H
H
H
H
remover
(remove)
P
H
H
H
restar (rest)
H
H
H
H
resumir (resume)
H
H
H
H
revolver
(revolve)
H
P*
H
H
tirar (tire)
H
H
H
H*
enviar (envy)
not included
not included
H
P
acusar (accuse)
P*
P
not included
P
admirar (admire)
P
P
P
P
alterar (alter)
P
P
not included
P
alternar
(alternate)
P
P
not included
P
amasar (amass)
P
H
P
P
aprobar
(approve)
P
P
P
P
armar (arm)
P
P
P
76
Table 3.2 (cont).
P
asistir (assist)
P
P
P
P
conducir
(conduct)
P
P
P
consentir
P
(consent)
P
*
P
P
contar (count)
P
P
P
P
contestar
(contest)
P
P
P
P
datar (date)
H
H
P
P
doblar (double)
P
P
P*
P
embarazar
(embarrass)
P*
P
P
P
esposar (espouse)
P*
P*
P
P
estampar (stamp)
P
P
P
P
experimentar
(experiment)
P
P
P
P
guardar (guard)
P
P
P*
P
inscribir
(inscribe)
P
P
P
P
reflejar (reflect)
P*
P
P*
P
registrar
(register)
P*
P
not included
P
replicar (reply)
P
P
P
P
soportar
(support)
P
P
P
P
suspender
(suspend)
P
P
P
P*
entretener
(entertain)
not included
not included
P
P*
exponer (expose)
not included
not included
P
77
Table 3.2 (cont.)
P*
gratificar
(gratify)
not included
not included
P
P*
importar
not included
not included
P
P*
invertir (invert)
not included
not included
P
P*
marchar (march)
not included
not included
P
P*
relatar (relate)
not included
not included
P
P**
introducir
(introduce)
H
H*
P*
P**
recordar (record)
H
*
P*
P**
atender (attend)
P
*
P*
P**
avisar (advise)
*
P*
P*
P**
discutir (discuss)
P
P*
P*
P***
realizar (realize)
H
P
P*
P***
salvar (save)
H
P
P
P****
suceder (succeed)
H
H
H
discard
aplicar (apply)
P
*
*
discard
asumir (assume)
*
*
not included
discard
cancelar
*
P
not included
discard
concurrir
(concur)
P
not included
not included
discard
demandar
(demand)
not included
not included
*
discard
faltar (fault)
H
not included
not included
discard
pasar (pass)
P
*
*
discard
probar (probe)
P
not included
not included
discard
regresar (regress)
H
not included
not included
discard
retirar (retire)
H
P
*
discard
sacar (sack)
H
not included
not included
discard
solicitar (solicit)
H
*
not included
78
Table 3.3 gives the final categorization of cognates across all norming tasks. Fifteen of
the 69 cognate items were marked with C*’ (22% of the items). The ‘*’ indicates that the rating
is based on one norming task only. One verb was marked to discard: ‘aprehender’ (1 % of the
items).
Table 3.3 Final categorization of cognates across all norming tasks.
Final
categorization
Spanish verb
Synonymsolicitation task
result
Synonymclarification
task result
Synonym-rating
task result
C
activar
C
C
C
C
adaptar
C
C
C
C
adoptar
not included
C
C
C
adornar
not included
C
C
C
afirmar
C
C
C
C
analizar
C
C
C
C
aplaudir
not included
C
C
C
asignar
C
C
C
C
beneficiar
C
C
C
C
calmar
C
C
C
C
celebrar
C
C
C
C
clasificar
C
C
C
C
coleccionar
C
C
C
C
comunicar
C
C
C
C
comparar
C
C
C
C
confesar
C
C
C
C
cooperar
C
C
not included
C
coordinar
C
C
C
C
depender
C
C
C
C
desertar
C
C
C
79
Table 3.3 (cont.)
C
detectar
C
C
not included
C
detestar
not included
C
C
C
divorciar
C
C
C
C
documentar
C
C
C
C
insultar
C
C
C
C
memorizar
C
C
C
C
mencionar
C
C
C
C
ocurrir
C
C
C
C
ofender
C
C
C
C
percibir
C
C
C
C
abortar
C
C
C
C
acompañar
C
C
not included
C
adorar
C
C
C
C
adquirir
C
C
C
C
afectar
C
not included
C
C
anticipar
C
C
C
C
ascender
C
C
C
C
asociar
C
C
C
C
calcular
C
C
C
C
considerar
C
C
C
C
consumir
C
C
C
C
continuar
C
C
C
C
controlar
not included
C
C
C
copiar
C
C
C*
C
decidir
C
C
C
C
declarar
C
C
C
C
eliminar
C
C
C
C
funcionar
C
C
C
80
Table 3.3 (cont.)
C
identificar
C
C
C
C
imitar
C
C
C
C
inventar
C
C
C
C
investigar
C
C
C
C
invitar
C
C
C
C
limitar
C
C
C
C
observar
C
C
C
C
ocupar
C
C
C
C
permitir
C
C
C
C
persistir
not included
C
C
C
practicar
C
C
C
C
preparar
C
not included
C
C*
abandonar
not included
not included
C
C*
existir
not included
not included
C
C*
informar
not included
not included
C
C*
perdonar
not included
not included
C
C*
planear
not included
not included
C
C*
criticar
C
not included
not included
C*
dictar
not included
not included
C
C*
explorar
not included
not included
C
C*
formar
not included
not included
C*
C*
producir
C
not included
not included
C*
protestar
not included
not included
C
C*
respetar
not included
not included
C
C*
revelar
not included
not included
C
C*
satisfacer
C
not included
not included
C*
visitar
not included
not included
C
*
*
not included
discard
aprehender
81
General discussion
The research described here assessed Spanish verbs in their meaning and form
similarities with English in order to 1) generate a list of verbs to be classified as cognates or
homographs with English and 2) to identify the verb synonyms in Spanish that most accurately
convey the meaning(s) of these cognates and homographs. Ultimately, three types of Spanish
verbs as compared to English were labeled: Cognates (near complete form and complete
meaning overlap: calmar—to calm), homographs (near complete form but not meaning overlap:
estrechar looks like to stretch but means to make narrow, to tighten), and partial homographs
(ambiguous in Spanish with some meaning shared: experimentar-experiment shares the meaning
of to experiment, while Spanish has the additional meanings of to experience or to feel).
Based on previous research affirming that both participation elicitation and similarityrating tasks are valid and useful approaches for data collection in norming (Friel & Kennison,
2001), tasks of both types were systematically presented to functionally monolingual speakers of
English and Spanish. This process generated a final database of 75 homographic/partial
homographic and 69 cognate verbs between Spanish and English. Dictionary consultation
(Phase I) followed by meaning elicitation of the Spanish speakers (Phase II) resulted in positive
albeit not perfect correlations for both homographs and cognates in the number and order of
dictionary meanings as compared to the number and order of definitions that participants
provided (homographs: r=+.72, n=65, p<.005, one-tailed, and cognates: r=+.83, n=61, p<.005,
one-tailed). This indicates that while the dictionary is very useful in establishing materials for
research, it is necessary norming effort to tease out the most current language use patterns from
native speakers.
82
In the process of identifying verb homographs and cognates between Spanish and
English, a category not normally found in norming research was established: that of partial
homographs. By establishing such a category, the opportunity to tease apart form and meaning
overlap/disparity between languages aids in the nuancing of testing items for online bilingual
language processing research. Rather than operate on an ‘either/or’ basis when asking how
interlingual form and meaning overlap charge bilingual lexical activation, researchers can utilize
partial overlap of meaning and form in the continuum of factors. This has many implications for
research, not the least of which is the overall question of language ambiguity—both within and
between languages.
In order to carry out the second goal of providing synonyms for target verbs, the
synonym-clarification task (Phase II) and synonym- and form-rating tasks (Phase III) were
carried out. Each task systematically helped to hone the accuracy and strength of solicited
synonyms. The entire process not only aided in the final categorization of verbs as homographs,
partial homographs, or cognates between Spanish and English but also yielded the best verb
infinitive synonym candidates for each target verb. The result is a list of highly reliable
materials for online bilingual language processing research.
83
CHAPTER 4: INVESTIGATING ONLINE INTERLINGUAL LEXICAL AND
SEMANTIC ACTIVATION THROUGH SPANISH-ENGLISH
COGNATE AND HOMOGRAPHIC VERBS
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
This chapter describes an online processing study exploring interlingual lexical and
semantic activation of Spanish verbs by Spanish-English and English-Spanish bilinguals.
Form and meaning overlap between Spanish and English were manipulated through an
experimental item set consisting of Chapter 3 normed cognates, homographs, and partial
homographs, as well as control verbs (asustar means to startle or to frighten) and
pseudowords (verbs changed by one letter to create phonologically and orthographically legal
non-verbs of Spanish: comer>cumer). Through a lexical decision task, in which participants
determined if a letter-string was a legitimate verb in Spanish, reaction times (RTs) and error
rates (ERs) were measured and analyzed. The speed and error rate by which participants
recognized words with varying form/meaning overlap between languages were interpreted to
explain how interlingual form and meaning overlap mediate bilingual lexical activation.
Homographs were included as items of near complete form and no meaning overlap. Slower
RTs (inhibition) in the recognition of these words would suggest that form and meaning
mediate bilingual lexical activation, thus slowing the language parser when a disparity of
meaning is found for a word of similar form between languages. Cognates were included
since existing bilingual lexical processing research often has found facilitation effects in tasks
where bilinguals recognized cognate nouns, suggesting that the continuity in form and
84
meaning between languages aids in the lexical access of this word type. The partial
homographic provides a continuum of form/meaning overlap and allows the data in the
online experiment to be analyzed in two ways: first, to determine if lexical processing for
bilinguals is mediated by whether the dominant or subordinate meaning in Spanish is shared
with English and second, to determine if monolinguals show an ambiguity disadvantage for
these types of words. The data of cognates, homographs partial homographs, and control
verbs were compared across three different subject groups: Spanish functional monolinguals,
highly proficient L1 Spanish–L2 English bilinguals who are dominant in Spanish, and highly
proficient L1 English–L2 Spanish bilinguals who are dominant in English. Specifically, the
following research questions were addressed in this study:
1. Is there evidence of interlingual lexical and semantic activation when L1 Spanish–L2
English bilinguals process interlingually ambiguous verbs in an L1 Spanish languagespecific task?
2. Is there a convergence of findings between L1 Spanish bilinguals and Spanish
monolinguals in the processing of ambiguity?
3. Is there evidence of interlingual lexical and semantic activation when L1 English–L2
Spanish bilinguals process ambiguous verbs in an L2 Spanish language-specific task?
Method
Participants
Three group types participated in the experiment: 31 functional Spanish monolingual
psychology students from the University of Granada, Granada, Spain, who received course
85
credit for their participation.13; 16 highly proficient L1 Spanish–L2 English speakers,
dominant in Spanish, mostly from Spain to maintain linguistic variety with monolingual
speakers, and currently living in the United States for graduate school; and 14 highly
proficient L1 English–L2 Spanish speakers dominant in English living in the United States.
Both bilingual groups received payment for their participation in the study.
Various measures were utilized to determine each participant’s language level in the
L2 and whether English or Spanish was the participant’s dominant language: 1) a language
background questionnaire, 2) a Spanish proficiency test in reading and vocabulary usage, 3)
an online Spanish and English naming task of pictures of common objects (English version
was not given to monolingual Spanish speakers), and 4) for bilingual speakers, an English
proficiency exam that tested grammatical knowledge, vocabulary usage, and reading
comprehension.
Subjective proficiency measure: language background questionnaire
The language background questionnaire, the same as used to collect the norming data
of Chapter 3 (Appendices E and F) obtained self-reported information about language usage
and language proficiency. It asked the following information about participants: age, native
language, second languages, place of origin, number of years immersed in an English or
Spanish environment, languages spoken at home, age of acquisition of the L2, length of time
and manner of learning the L2, and self-ratings in both English and Spanish for reading,
writing, speaking, and listening.
13
All participants in the online research were different from those who participated in the norming research of
Chapter 3.
86
Objective proficiency measure: picture naming task
The subjective self-rating data were compared to the data from objective proficiency
measures of: 1) a picture naming task and 2) proficiency tests. In cases where
inconsistencies arose between the subjective self-ratings and the objective proficiency
measures, the objective measures were used to determine proficiency level. All proficiency
measures are found in Appendices X-Z.
The picture naming task was based on 100 of the Snodgrass and Vanderwort (1980)
picture bank of common objects (found in Appendix X) that had been normed more recently
as reliable for imageability and familiarity across speakers of various languages, including
Spanish and English, by Perez and Navalon (2005). Monolinguals named all pictures in
Spanish. The bank of pictures was split into two groups (A and B) for bilinguals. Half of the
participants from each bilingual group named Group A pictures in Spanish and Group B in
English, while the remaining bilinguals named Group B pictures in Spanish and Group A
pictures in English. Bilinguals always named the Spanish picture group first, followed by the
English group so that bilingual participants completed all proficiency and experimental tasks
in Spanish before being asked to call upon their English language skills. This was done in an
effort to create a Spanish-only environment for the key areas of testing.
For the picture naming task, participants sat in front of a Sony Vaio laptop with a 15.4
inch computer screen and viewed pictures generated by the computer program E-prime14.
14
For the technical specifications of the E-prime research program, please see: Schneider, W., Eschman, A., &
Zuccolotto, A. (2002) E-Prime Reference Guide. Pittsburgh:Psychology Software Tools Inc.
Also see Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2001). E-Prime User's Guide. Pittsburgh:Psychology
Software Tools, Inc.
87
Participants were instructed that as pictures appeared on the computer screen, they were to
name the pictures as quickly as possible. Naming latencies were measured from the onset of
the stimulus to the beginning of the naming response by means of the voice key in the EPrime Stimulus Response Box. Because the voice key would trip with any type of nonverbal
utterance, participants were instructed and shown how stuttering, utterance repairs, and
nonverbal sounds (such as ‘uh’) would cause pictures to disappear, thus causing the
elimination of data for such responses. The trial structure of the experiment was the
following. A fixation point (+) appeared on the computer screen for 1 second (1000 ms),
followed by the picture, which disappeared when participants began to name the picture or
after 4 seconds (4000 ms) if the picture was not named. Each trial began automatically.
Because the E-Prime program does not record actual responses, answers were recorded on a
portable mini-recorder as a back up. Naming errors were also written down while
participants proceeded through the task. In the analysis of responses, only those cases in
which participants actually named a picture incorrectly were considered as errors. All
responses were included in the timed response data.
Subjective proficiency measure: proficiency tests
The paper-and-pencil Spanish proficiency test (Appendix Y) was adapted from a
former version of Spain’s DELE proficiency exam (Diplomas de Español como Lengua
Extranjera). Fifty questions were divided into two sections, one that tested vocabulary
knowledge (30 questions) and another that provided a cloze test of reading comprehension
(20 questions). In the vocabulary section, participants selected the appropriate vocabulary
item in a multiple choice format to complete individual sentences. In the reading
88
comprehension portion, a reading selection was provided in which 20 words were missing.
Participants chose among multiple choices to fill in each missing word. Incorrect responses
were scored against the DELE key and high proficiency in Spanish was equated with a total
of 37 to 50 correct responses or 74% accuracy on the combined sections.
The paper-and-pencil English proficiency test (Appendix Z) was adapted from online
samples of the British First Certificate proficiency exam for English. Participants completed
three separate sections that tested grammar, vocabulary knowledge, and reading
comprehension. In the grammar section, participants corrected the one grammar error that
was in each of 13 sentences. In the vocabulary section, participants read two separate
paragraphs in which words had been removed. Participants filled in the missing words by
choosing among multiple choice options. For the reading comprehension section, a reading
was provided for which participants had to answer two global comprehension questions in a
multiple choice format. Advanced proficiency in English was equated to 20 to 27 correct
responses or 74% accuracy on the combined sections.
Proficiency data
The proficiency data for all participant groups in the online study is summarized in
Table 4.1. The group of functionally monolingual Spanish speakers consisted of 31
participants who had an average age of 20 (SD = 1.6) and had studied English on average
since age 10 (SD = 1.5), but only in a school environment. Only two participants spent time
immersed in an English-speaking environment and that time was limited to one month each.
Monolinguals gave an average overall self-rating in Spanish of 9.5 (SD = .5) and in English
of 4.5 (SD = 1.3) on a 10-point scale, with 10 denoting native speaker proficiency and 1
89
denoting minimal L2 skills15. For this group of speakers, the average score on the Spanish
proficiency test was 48 out of 50 (SD = .5). Picture naming RTs averaged 953 ms (SD = 169)
and the accuracy rate for pictures was 93 out of 100 (SD = 1.7).
The Spanish-English bilingual group consisted of 16 highly proficient L1 Spanish–L2
English speakers, dominant in Spanish, mostly from Spain to maintain linguistic variety with
monolinguals, and currently living in the United States for graduate school. These speakers
were recruited through the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana. The average age of
these participants was 27 years (SD = 6). These participants began studying English at an
average age of 12 (SD = 13) and have spent an average 19 months immersed (SD = 25) in an
English-speaking environment. The average overall self-rating in Spanish was 10 (SD = .2)
and in English, 8 (SD = 1). The average score on the Spanish proficiency test was 49 out of
50 (SD = .8) and on the English proficiency test, 21 out of 27 (SD = 3). The picture naming
accuracy was 49 out of 50 (SD = 1) for Spanish and 43 out of 50 (SD = 5) for English.
Picture naming RTs for Spanish and English were 980 ms (SD = 250) and 1181 ms (SD =
202), respectively. All measures were compared using an independent T-test and each
measure between Spanish and English was significant (p<.02) showing that the Spanish for
this group was the dominant language.
The English-Spanish bilingual group included 14 L1 English–L2 Spanish speakers
dominant in English and living in the United States. The participants were recruited through
the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Most were graduate students and university
instructors of Spanish. L1 English-L2 Spanish bilinguals had an average age of 27 (SD = 9),
15
Although the Spanish monolinguals for each experiment indicate some knowledge of English skills in the
language background questionnaire, their skills were limited to English exposure through school and did not transfer
to proficiency skills for communication in English.
90
had studied Spanish on average since age 14 (SD = 2), and had lived on average 12 months
abroad (SD = 8) immersed in a Spanish-speaking country. These participants gave an overall
average self-rating in English of 10 (SD = .3) and in Spanish of 8 (SD = 1). The average
score on the proficiency tests was 25 out of 27 (SD = 3) for English and 45/50 (SD = 1) for
Spanish. Picture naming accuracy was 48 out of 50 for English (SD = 1) and 42 out of 50 for
Spanish (SD = 4). Naming RTs for English and Spanish were 971 ms (SD=178) and 1152
ms (SD=264), respectively. All measures were compared using an independent T-test and
each measure between Spanish and English was significant (p<.02) showing that English for
this group was the dominant language.
91
Table 4.1 Proficiency for bilinguals in experiment.
TASK
SPANISH
MONOL
L1 S-L2 E
L1 E-L2 S
BILING
BILING
# PARTICIPANTS IN STUDY
31
16
14
AVG. AGE
20
27
27
Reading
5
8
10
Writing
5
7
10
Oral
4
7
10
Listening
4
8
10
Avg. Total
4.5
8
10
Reading
10
10
8
Writing
9
10
7
Oral
9
10
8
Listening
10
10
8
Avg. Total
9.5
10
8
AVG. RT
--
1181 ms
971 ms
ACCURACY
--
43/50
48/50
AVG. RT
953 ms
980 ms
1152 ms
ACCURACY
93/100
49/50
42/50
ENGLISH
--
21/27
25/27
SPANISH
48/50
49/50
45/50
AVG. AGE OF L2 ONSET
10
12
14
AVG. # MONTHS IMMERSED IN L2
--
19
12
PROFICIENCY ENGLISH
SELF RATING
(1-10 SCALE)
SPANISH
PICTURE
NAMING
ENGLISH
SPANISH
LANGUAGE TEST
92
Materials
Participants saw 253 items in the lexical decision task consisting of 129 verbs and 124
pseudoverbs. Of the 129 words, 19 each of cognates, homographs, partial homographs, and
noncognate controls were selected for analysis (total of 76 verbs for analysis). The remainder
of the verbs served as fillers. Control verbs share no form overlap with English and have only
one translation equivalency to English (e.g., asustar means to startle or to frighten). Two
Spanish-English bilinguals and one English-Spanish bilingual reviewed the list of controls
against dictionary definitions to ensure that the list of controls were words of a single
meaning in each language. The 19 noncognate control verbs were matched on average for
frequency (using the Alameda and Cuetos frequency dictionary), number of syllables, and
number of letters within Spanish to the other verb conditions. The 124 pseudowords were
created by changing an existing Spanish verb by one letter (comer >> cumer), while still
following the legal orthographic and phonological rules of Spanish. Letter changes only
occurred in the first or second syllables of Spanish verbs and never in the verb infinitive
ending (-ar, -er, -ir), thus making the pseudowords effective enough so that participants had
to pay attention to each word in deciding whether an item was a word of Spanish. The list of
target items is found in Appendix AA, control verbs in Appendix BB, and pseudowords in
Appendix CC.
Two questionnaires were included as posttests during experimental sessions: a verb
familiarity questionnaire (Appendix DD) and a verb synonym questionnaire (same as
Appendix J). The verb familiarity questionnaire listed all verbs included in experiments and
participants indicated if there were any verbs with which they were not familiar. These verbs
were excluded from any statistical analyses. The verb synonym questionnaire required that
93
participants rate the strength of synonymous relationships of verb pairs from the experiments
in order to have an off-line measure of how participants defined experimental verbs.
Design
The overall design of the experiment was a 4 x 3 factorial design whereby
independent variables of four item types (cognates, controls, homographs, partial
homographs) were compared between three groups (Spanish monolinguals, L1 Spanish-L2
English bilinguals, L1 English-L2 Spanish bilinguals). Dependent variables were RTs and
ERs. The statistical measure was a within- and between-subjects, repeated measures
ANOVA whereby subjects were tested under all conditions. An alpha level of .05 was used
for all statistical tests. Post hoc, the means of partial homographs were broken down to see
how meaning overlap (whether the dominant or subordinate Spanish meaning was shared
with English) influenced RTs. Figure 4.1 shows the overall research design of the
experiments.
Figure 4.1 Experimental design
Independent variable: Item Type
A. Interlingual homographic verbs
1. Homographs (overlap in form, no overlap in meaning between English-Spanish)
2. Partial homographs (2 meanings in Spanish: 1 meaning shared with English; 1 meaning not shared
with English)
B. Cognates
1. All cognates overlap in form and meaning; only one meaning for each verb
C. Controls
1. All control verbs: no overlap in form, 1 meaning translation from Spanish to English
2. All control verbs: controlled for frequency, word length by letters, word length by syllables to
homographs and cognates
Independent variable: Group Type
A. Functional monolinguals of Spanish
B. L1 Spanish-L2 English bilinguals
C. L2 Spanish-L1 English bilinguals
Dependent variable
A. Response times (RTs)
B. Error rates (ERs)
94
Procedure
Participants arrived for the experiment individually and completed the following tasks
in this order: 1) the lexical decision task, 2) vocabulary familiarity questionnaire, 3) the verb
synonym questionnaire, 4) the naming task in Spanish (and English for bilingual participants)
5) the adapted DELE Spanish proficiency test, 6) the adapted First Certificate English
proficiency test (bilingual participants only), and 7) the language background questionnaire.
The experimental session took approximately 1 hour and 15 minutes. Participants worked
through all materials without a break.
The lexical decision task
Subjects sat in front of a Sony Vaio laptop with a 15.4 inch computer screen to
complete the lexical decision task. Letter strings were displayed on the screen using the
program E-prime. All subjects received instructions (and all communication) for the study in
Spanish. For each experiment, subjects viewed 14 practice letter strings in order to
familiarize themselves with the task. For each practice and target trial, a fixation point
preceded the target string and remained on the screen until participants called up the target
item by pressing the spacebar. The target string appeared on the screen and disappeared
when subjects responded by pressing the keys ‘m’ and ‘c’ labeled ‘yes’ and ‘no’ respectively
to indicate if the string formed a word of Spanish. Participants received accuracy feedback in
Spanish on the screen immediately following each response to tell them if the response was
correct, incorrect, or if no answer was detected. The feedback encouraged participants to
keep focused on the task and to discover if they were using incorrect keys for answers in
order to correct the mechanics of the task. The actual task lasted approximately 10 minutes.
95
Halfway through the task, the computer screen provided a message to participants allowing
them to take a moment to rest if they wished. When ready to continue, participants pressed
the space bar to continue. All participants saw all test items in randomized order.
Results
Incorrect responses were excluded from data analysis. In addition, in the case of
bilinguals, individual RTs for unknown verbs as marked on the verb familiarity posttest were
removed from the data analysis. Interestingly, during the process of removing these items, it
was noted that about half of these data were already missing because the participant had
responded incorrectly during the online task as to whether the verb was a legitimate verb of
Spanish. In all, 10 individual response times were removed from the data.
Table 4.2 shows the distribution of mean RTs and ERs for the four experimental
conditions separately for the three groups of participants, as well as the differential between
condition and control items. The average mean RTs for nonwords for monolinguals were
826.70, for L1 Spanish-L2 English bilinguals, 799.07 ms, and for L1 English-L2 Spanish,
821.28 ms.
96
Table 4.2 Distribution of mean RTs and ERs across conditions and groups
Verb
Cognates
Monolinguals
L1 English-L2 Spanish
RT
SD
ER
Dif
RT
SD
ER
Dif
RT
SD
ER
Dif
737
103
(6%
)
+2/(+1%
)
740
77
(5%
)
+6(+2%)
707
*
72
(5%)
-31/(1%)
-5/(+3%)
751
83
(5%
)
+17/(+2
%)
739
64
(7%)
+1/(+1%
)
+24/(+1
%)
732
65
(4%
)
-2/(+1%)
740
93
(15
%)
+2/(+9%
)
77
(3%
)
--
738
75
(6%)
--
Homograp
hs
730
93
(8%
)
Partial
Homograp
hs
759
*
102
(6%
)
92
(5%
)
Controls
L1 Spanish-L2 English
735
--
734
*p<.05
Overall, the ANOVA analyses on RTs revealed a main effect of verb type significant
by subjects, (F (6, 174) = 1.6, p<.05); and by items, (F (3,75)=7.17, p<.05). In the breakdown of
subject analysis, for monolinguals, comparisons between cognates, controls, and homographs
were nonsignificant. However, comparisons of partial homographs (dual meaning verbs in
Spanish) to cognates, controls, and homographs were significant in each case. For partial
homographs and cognates, (F (1,30) = 4.5, p=.04). For partial homographs and controls, (F
(1,30) = 7.1, p=.041). For partial homographs and homographs, (F (1,30) = 5.9, p=.02). For L1
Spanish-L2 English bilinguals, no comparisons were significant across item types in the
subject analysis, p > .6. For L1 English-L2 Spanish bilinguals, only cognates showed a
significant effect from all other verbs types. For the cognate and control comparison, (F
(3,45)=3.34, p<.05). Graph 4.1 shows the average mean RTs of verb types for each subject
group while Graph 4.2 shows the average mean RTs by verb type.
97
Graph 4.1 Averagee Mean RTs in ms by grroup type
770
759
760
75
51
RTs in ms
RTs in ms
750
740
737
7
740
35
73
730
740 738
739 7
732 734
730
720
707
710
700
690
680
cognate
L1E‐L2S
L1S‐L2E
Mono
homo
ograph
paartial homograp
ph
control
Graph 4.2. Averag
ge Mean RT
Ts in ms by ittem type
770
7
759
760
RTs in ms
750
740
751
0
737 740
710
732
730
730
720
740
739
738
735 734 7
707
700
690
680
cognaate
hom
mograph
Mono
L1S‐L2E
98
partial homograph
L1E‐L2S
control
Discussion
The first important finding is that monolinguals showed an inhibition effect for partial
homographs. These are the verbs that have two meanings in Spanish. Although the
meanings for this data were not rated per se as to whether they were polysemous or
ambiguous meanings within Spanish, they were normed between languages to have one
shared, similar meaning and one unshared meaning. The fact that one meaning is unshared
between languages makes it unlikely that the verb meanings within Spanish are polysemous
since polysemous verbs share one basic core meaning with varied usages. This inhibitory
effect for within language ambiguity replicates the findings of Rodd et al. (2002).
Second, a strong cognate facilitation effect emerged for L1 English–L2 Spanish
bilinguals. This effect replicates bilingual priming lexical decision findings (e.g., De Groot
and Nas, 1991; Gerard & Scarborough, 1989) and naming data in the L2 (e.g., Costa et al.,
2000). The fact that no cognate effects were found in L1 Spanish–L2 English bilinguals is
not necessarily surprising given that the naming data of Costa et al. showed a decreased
naming effect for bilinguals when naming in their dominant language (a 48 ms effect for
naming in the L2 versus a 23 ms effect for naming in the L1). These bilinguals, however, do
not seem to be sensitive to the form and meaning disparity of the homograph or partial
homograph conditions.
From the data, it is clear that Spanish monolinguals and L1 Spanish-L2 English
bilinguals do not converge completely in the way they process verb types. Although the
response patterns are similar for both groups for cognates (737 ms for monolinguals; 740 ms
for bilinguals) and controls (735 ms for monolinguals; 734 for bilinguals), they diverge when
99
it comes to homographs (730 ms for monolinguals; 751 for bilinguals) and partial
homographs (759 ms for monolinguals; 732 for bilinguals). Inhibition is found for
monolinguals where ambiguity occurs within Spanish. This inhibition disappears when
bilinguals process the same verbs, presumably because of the interaction with additional
interlingual meanings being mapped onto the verb forms. Because there are dominance
measures for meaning from off -line data, it can be determined whether dominant or
subordinate Spanish meanings of partial homographs overlap with English. Partial
homographs then can be separated into two groups: those that share their dominant Spanish
meaning with English and those that share their subordinate Spanish meanings with English.
The RTs of these two partial homograph groups can be compared to appropriate control verbs
to see if there is a difference in the average mean RTs for all subject types, in particular for
bilinguals. Because just 19 verbs are being broken down into two groups, only the means
will be presented and discussed. Graphs 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5 show this breakdown.
For monolinguals (Graph 4.3), the breakdown of dominant and subordinate meanings
as shared with English in comparison to equal controls should be irrelevant. In fact, the
means replicate the larger mean findings: in both cases, the ambiguous verbs are responded
to more slowly. Mean RT for dominant Spanish meaning shared with English is 775 ms,
dominant control is 759 ms. Mean RT for subordinate Spanish meaning shared with English
is 751 as compared to its control, 731.
100
Graph 4.3 Monolingual breakdown of ambiguous verbs, comparing Spanish dominant or
subordinate meaning shared with English
780
770
760
750
740
730
720
710
Dominant shared
Dom controls
Subordinate
shared
Sub controls
For L1 Spanish-L2 English bilinguals, a pattern of facilitation emerges for those
partial homographs whose dominant meaning is shared with English. The mean RT for
dominant shared verbs is 727 ms compared to 750 ms for dominant shared controls. This
facilitation effect is lost when the subordinate Spanish meaning is shared with English,
substituting it with the slightest trend toward inhibition (722 ms for subordinate meaning
verbs shared with English compared to 719 ms for controls). These data is found in Graph
4.4.
101
Graph 4.4 L1 Spaanish-2 Engliish bilinguall breakdownn of partial hoomographs, comparing
w Englishh
dominnant or suborrdinate meanning shared with
The pattern
n of results is nearly idenntical for L1 English – L2
L Spanish bilinguals.
b
T
The
mean RT
R for partiaal homograpphs whose doominant Spaanish meaninng is shared with
w Englishh is
733 ms compared to 751 ms foor their contrrols. Again,, a facilitatioon effect seem
ms to appearr
for thiss type of inteerlingual meeaning overlaap, which thhen disappeaars when the subordinate
Spanissh meaning is
i shared witth English. L1
L English-L
L2 Spanish bilinguals
b
shhow 748 ms for
suborddinate meaniing verbs as compared too 737 ms forr their controol. These meeans can be
seen inn Graph 4.5.
102
Graph 4.5. L1 Eng
glish-L2 Spaanish bilinguual breakdow
wn of partiall homographhs, comparing
dominnant or suborrdinate meanning shared with
w Englishh
The monollingual findinng in this ressearch that replicates
r
thee Rodd et. all.(2002, 20044)
findinggs for ambig
guity legitim
mizes the breaakdown of thhe partial hoomograph daata for
bilinguuals. Becausse the monollingual data provide the notion that the
t lexical processor
p
handlees ambiguity
y in a speciall way (with inhibition),
i
t
then
perhapss the way in which
w
interlinngual meanings map ontto a single siimilar form are
a key to unnderstandingg bilingual
lexicall organizatio
on and processing. By brreaking dow
wn the partiall homographh data, one can
see thaat the null results for parrtial homograaphs for bothh bilingual groups
g
actuaally may be the
t
result of
o cancelled
d effects. Whhen the Spannish dominannt meaning of
o a partial homograph
h
is
sharedd with Englissh, both bilinngual types seem
s
to show
w facilitationn as compareed to controlls.
This pattern of results now mirrrors those of
o L1 Englishh-L2 Spanish bilinguals when
e
for monolinguaals in processsing partial
processsing cognatees. Becausee inhibition emerged
homoggraphs, one can
c assume the
t bilinguall lexical proccessor also slows
s
when it
i encounterss
ambiguuity, enough
h for form/m
meaning overrlap betweenn languages to
t affect andd facilitate thhe
103
processing of verbs whose dominant meaning is shared with English. The trend in results
changes when the subordinate Spanish meaning is shared with English. In this case, the
interlingual meanings combine to create two strong meanings for a partial homograph in the
bilingual mind. The pattern of facilitation is lost and replaced with a pattern that begins to
imitate how monolinguals process ambiguity. Competition occurs between the strong
meanings and slows the lexical processor in the recognition of such words.
The partial homographs as broken into groups were not tested statistically because the
experiment was not designed to test this finding. But by recognizing that how meanings
overlap between languages could affect processing, a much larger finding emerges in this
research. The most important finding is not that the bilingual processor is nonselective when
operating in one language, nor that ambiguity produces inhibition for monolinguals. Rather,
it is that these findings converge to suggest that the lexical processor utilizes a single
mechanism to attach meaning to form: competition for distinct meanings and facilitation
when meaning overlaps. In this way, the findings inform both bodies of literature on lexical
processing (monolingual and bilingual) and must be included in any model of lexical
organization and processing, monolingual or bilingual.
104
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The current chapter revisits the major theoretical questions that motivated this research
project and discusses the relevance of its findings for current models of bilingual lexical
processing. Specifically, the research project sought to determine whether the bilingual lexical
processor is language nonselective when only one of a bilingual’s languages is required for the
completion of a task. Three questions were asked:
1. Is there evidence of interlingual lexical and semantic activation when L1 Spanish –L2
English bilinguals process verbs in an L1 Spanish language-specific task?
2. Is there a convergence of findings between L1 Spanish bilinguals and Spanish
monolinguals?
3. Is there evidence of interlingual lexical and semantic activation when L1 English –L2
Spanish bilinguals process verbs in an L2 Spanish language-specific task?
These questions were asked because of existing gaps in the bilingual lexical processing
research. In the bilingual literature, when two languages are presented at once, the bilingual
parser automatically activates multiple meanings of words that are ambiguous across languages,
a phenomenon referred to as nonselective bilingual lexical processing. What is not as clear from
research data, however, is if the bilingual parser truly is nonselective under language-specific
conditions. Research has shown that words overlapping in form and meaning (cognates) tend to
produce a facilitation effect in lexical access, presumably because these words share lexical and
semantic features in the lexicon, which speed up lexical activation. These data are limited to
lexical decision tasks in the L2. Naming data have shown that cognate naming in the L1 or the
L2 produces a facilitative cognate effect, but the effect is much greater when participants name
in the L2, the less dominant language (e.g., Costa, Caramazza, and Sebastian-Galles, 2000).
105
Words that overlap in form but not meaning (interlingual homographs), have produced mixed
results when framed in terms of whether the nontarget language has been activated as a whole.
While some research has shown inhibition for such words when homographs are presented in an
L1 context (Dijkstra, Van Jaarsveld, and Ten Brinke, 1998, Experiment 1), a null effect has been
found when homographs are presented in the L2 (De Groot et al., 2000, Experiment 2).
Researchers have tried to explain creatively why nonselectivity can be found sometimes for
homographs, but not other times. One suggestion is that because homographs in these studies
are of exact orthography between languages, a neutral language strategy may be driving lexical
decisions (De Groot et al., 2000, Experiment 2). That is, participants may simply see a form like
red (meaning the color adjective in English and the noun net in Spanish) and respond that it is a
word—in any lexicon available.
One way to eliminate any language neutral strategy in bilingual lexical processing is to
utilize an item type that provides cues of language specificity. The current research did that
through the use of interlingual homographic verbs in the project design. Because of the nature of
language-specific verb infinitives and conjugations, exact orthographic verb homographs are not
found between languages (e.g., decidir/decide). In addition, verbs can restrict and extend
research to a new grammatical class. Previous research has conflated word class, as seen in the
red example (Spanish noun sharing form with an English adjective). This restriction of word
class can also tap into the fact that verbs are more abstract in their meanings than other word
classes (particularly nouns), are often difficult to depict visually, and are likely to show a
continuum of meaning overlap between languages. This continuum of meaning overlap between
languages can allow researchers to tease apart how form and meaning interact in bilingual lexical
representation and processing.
106
In order to discover whether the bilingual lexicon is nonselective in language-specific
conditions, extensive norming of verbs took place to produce a list of interlingual cognates,
homographs/partial homographs between Spanish and English. Noncognate control verbs and
pseudowords were established and all item types were presented in a traditional lexical decision
task in which all items were presented in isolation. Participants decided whether letter strings
constituted a verb of Spanish. Response times (RTs) and error rates (ERs) of cognates,
homographs, partial homographs, and control verbs were compared across three different subject
groups: Functional monolinguals of Spanish, highly proficient L1 Spanish–L2 English
bilinguals who are dominant in Spanish, and highly proficient L1 English–L2 Spanish bilinguals
who are dominant in English.
SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS
Verb norming
In order to carry out the desired online research, extensive norming of Spanish verbs was
required due to the fact that the existing body of bilingual research has not utilized specifically
verbs in lexical processing tasks. In fact, no norming of Spanish verbs previously existed that
yielded a list of potential experimental items classified as verb cognates and homographs with
English. Hence, the norming goals were the following: 1) to establish a list of cognate and
homograph verbs with English and 2) to identify verb synonyms in Spanish conveying the
meaning(s) of these cognates and homographs. Both goals were achieved and a list of verb 69
cognates and 75 homographs/partial homographs and their synonyms was established.
Most interesting and potentially most useful for future research was the emergence of
solidly-normed, partial homograph verbs between Spanish and English. This group of
107
experimental items provides the opportunity to tease apart form and meaning overlap/disparity
between languages so that rather than operating on an ‘either/or’ basis when asking how
interlingual form and meaning charge bilingual lexical activation, researchers can utilize partial
overlap of meaning and form in the continuum of factors. This has many implications for
research, not the least of which is the overall question of language ambiguity—both within and
between languages. By norming verbs that share form/meaning in some degree between
Spanish and English and by establishing a list of reliable synonyms to best express the meaning
of those verbs, bilingual language processing research can look at processing questions much in
the order of the great body of research conducted on ambiguity in monolinguals that has
established what meanings are activated when processing language, how long these meanings
remain available to the language processor, and how context might influence (or not) the
activation of interlingual meaning in bilinguals (e.g., Azuma and Van Orden, 1997; Borowsky
and Masson, 1996; Millis and Button, 1989; Rodd, Gaskell and Marslen-Wilson, 2002; Simpson
and Burgess, 1985; Swinney, 1979).
In the current research project, a selection of the normed verbs was utilized to ask
whether the bilingual lexical processor is language nonselective when only one of a bilingual’s
languages is required for the completion of a task. The results of the lexical decision in which
monolinguals and Spanish-English/English-Spanish bilinguals were asked to identify cognates,
homographs, and partial homographs as compared to control verbs are reviewed.
108
Lexical decision task
Monolinguals
In identifying verbs, monolinguals showed no difference in RT and ER data for cognates,
homographs, and controls (737, 730, 735 ms respectively). This result was expected since these
item labels are irrelevant to monolinguals and only represent bilingual item characteristics.
However, when monolinguals processed partial homographs, a significant inhibition result
emerged (759 ms). While the label of ‘partial homograph’ is still arbitrary for monolinguals, this
item group consists of verbs that are ambiguous within Spanish. The data for monolinguals
produced an extremely important finding. When monolinguals encounter ambiguous words,
they are slowed in their reaction to these words. This finding is in keeping with the research by
Rodd, Gaskell, and Marslen-Wilson (2002, modeled in 2004). In the Rodd et al. research, words
that are truly ambiguous (their meanings are very different—e.g., bark) were separated from
polysemous words, or words with one core meaning expressed in multiple senses or contexts
(e.g., twist). The result was that ambiguous words are processed more slowly than polysemous
words. Presumably, lexical activation for ambiguous words is slowed due to the competition of
two very different meanings mapped onto the same form. If words are polysemous, lexical
access is speeded because multiple senses of the same core meaning combine to facilitate lexical
recognition.
The Rodd et al. finding (2002, modeled in 2004) was new in the literature on ambiguity
processing because for the first time, the researchers intuited a distinction between polysemy and
ambiguity in terms of lexical processing and so teased apart the two item types. An extensive
body of previous research had conflated these word types to produce repeatedly a result of
109
facilitation for ‘ambiguity’ (e.g., Rubenstein, Garfield, and Milikan, 1970; Jastrzembski, 1981;
Borowsky and Masson, 1996). In fact, computational lexical models were created to creatively
account for this ‘ambiguity advantage’ as labeled in the research, because the processing
advantage went against what most models could best accommodate: a notion that ambiguity
should slow the lexical processor because of competing meanings attached to a single lexical
form.
The Rodd et al. (2002) finding impacted, then, the way that lexical organization was
viewed within the body of monolingual lexicon research. In attaching meaning to lexical form,
the mental lexicon distinguishes between words with a single core meaning expressed through
various contexts or senses. Rodd et al. (2004) produce a model in which these polysemous
words create a lexical representation that differs in structure from that of ambiguous words.
Whereas words with several senses of a single core meaning create a larger, more shallow store
to encompass the senses, words with few and distinct meanings create narrow and deep meaning
stores that ultimately compete when their shared lexical form is called upon for access. This
notion of lexical structures says that the competition of the distinct meaning stores will delay
recognition of ambiguous words, while the narrow and broad store of multiple yet similar senses
of a single meaning will in fact facilitate the recognition of polysemous words.
The fact the at the current research replicates this now labeled ambiguity disadvantage
finding is particularly important because it 1) supports the lexical structure presented by Rodd et
al. (2002, 2004) and 2) provides the key to interpreting the bilingual data in this study.
110
Bilinguals
In lexical recognition, L1 English-L2 Spanish bilinguals do not seem to show sensitivity
to homograph, partial homograph or control verbs (739, 740, 738 ms respectively), but do show
a facilitation effect for cognates (707 ms). L1 Spanish-L2 English bilinguals do not at first
appear to show any sensitivity to verb type as expressed through RTs for cognates, homographs,
partial homographs, or control verbs (740, 751, 734, 732 ms respectively). None of the
differences are statistically significant. However, the pattern of results is distinctive from the
monolingual counterpart to suggest that there is not, in fact, a convergence of results between
Spanish monolinguals and L1 Spanish bilinguals. Or is there? In fact, a pattern of results much
like that of monolinguals in processing ambiguous items emerges for L1 Spanish bilinguals
when the partial homographs are broken down into two types: those whose dominant Spanish
meaning is shared with English and those whose subordinate meaning is shared with English.
Now one can see that the null results for partial homographs for both bilingual groups actually
may be the result of cancelled effects. When the dominant meaning of a partial homograph is
shared with English, both bilingual types seem to show facilitation as compared to controls. This
pattern of results now mirrors those of L1 English-L2 Spanish bilinguals when processing
cognates. Perhaps, then, the modeling notions put forth by Rodd et al. (2004) can transfer to
how words of similar form and meaning between languages are structured within the bilingual
lexicon: as words that create shallow, broad lexical stores to allow for facilitation in recognition.
Because inhibition emerged for monolinguals in processing partial homographs, one can
assume the lexical processor has been slowed enough for form/meaning overlap between
languages to affect and facilitate the processing of verbs whose dominant meaning is shared with
English. The trend in results changes when the subordinate Spanish meaning is shared with
111
English. In this case, the interlingual meanings combine to create two strong meanings for a
partial homograph in the bilingual mind. The pattern of facilitation is lost and replaced with a
pattern that begins to imitate how monolinguals process ambiguity. Competition occurs between
the strong meanings and slows the lexical processor in the recognition of such words.
The partial homographs as broken into groups were not tested statistically because the
experiment was not designed to test this finding. But by recognizing that how meanings overlap
between languages could affect processing, a much larger finding emerges in this research: that
there is a single mechanism utilized by the mental lexicon to establish form and meaning
connections. When the meanings attached to a single lexical form are similar in nature, a broad
lexical store is created, shallow in nature, and quickly activated so that there is a processing
advantage for words of this type (polysemous words in one language, cognates for bilinguals).
When very distinct meanings are attached to a similar lexical form, these meanings are separated
in lexical memory so that they compete and delay recognition of these words. The next section
will consider current bilingual models to see if this notion is encompassed by any existing model
of the bilingual lexicon.
Bilingual lexical activation: models
The research findings here support a theory of language non-selectivity for bilinguals,
even when only one language is called upon for the completion of a task. At least one study
supports these findings, the study by Menenti and Indefrey (2006) on interlingual phonological
overlap that was described in Chapter 2. The Menenti and Indefrey study tested the effects of L2
Dutch phonology on L1 German lexical activation via a primed lexical decision task. L1
German-L2 low proficiency Dutch bilinguals were presented with primes in Dutch (e.g., trein)
112
that whenn translated to German, (zug—pronoounced tsu:kk) rhymed wiith the Dutchh target (boeek).
Results showed
s
that for pairs in which
w
the Duutch prime’ss translation to the L1 German rhym
med
with the L2
L target, RTs
R were fastter than conttrol conditionns. Dutch monolingual
m
speakers shoowed
no such effects.
e
Thiss phonologiccal evidence of non-selecctivity mirroors the findinng of the L1
English-L
L2 Spanish bilinguals
b
inn the current study, who showed faciilitation in reecognizing L2
L
Spanish verbs
v
that arre cognates between
b
Spaanish and Ennglish. L1 Sppanish-L2 English
bilingualls, however, did not show
w evidence of
o facilitationn in recognizzing L1 verbbs that are
cognates to English.
T
These
finding
gs might first be explaineed by the general notionns of the Krooll and Stewaart
(1994) Hierarchical
H
Bilingual
B
Moodel (see Figgure 5.1 beloow). In this model, the learning
l
of an
a L2
is first traained throug
gh form (orthhographic) liinks to the L1.
L The L1, in turn, linkss form to
semantic concepts. Slowly,
S
as ann L2 learner becomes more proficiennt, direct linkks are
established between L2 form andd the conceptual store. In this modell of bilinguaal lexical
organizattion, the L2 is dependennt upon form similarity with
w the L1 too make initiaal semantic
connectioons, whereass the L1 is not dependennt upon the L2
L to make form-meanin
fo
ng connectionns.
Figure 5..1 Hierarchiccal Bilinguall Model (froom Kroll & Stewart,
S
1994).
113
The Hierarchical Bilingual Model can explain the asymmetry in cognate processing for
bilingual type by suggesting that L1 English-L2 Spanish bilinguals have very strong L1-L2 form
connections that in turn facilitate recognition of those words of similar form and meaning
between languages. The L1 Spanish-L2 English bilinguals would not be affected in the same
way by the form/meaning overlap of cognates because they do not depend upon the L2 to
process their L1. However, the model doesn’t say anything specific about the word storage
structure, so can’t speak to the ambiguity data in this study.
The Bilingual Interactive Activation + Model (BIA+), proposed by Dijkstra and Van
Heuven, 2002, is a model that is detailed in the nuances of bilingual lexical representation and
processing. First, the model can explain the asymmetry in processing cognates for bilingual
type. As explained in Chapter 1, the model works like this. As a letter string is fed into the
model, orthographic and phonological features of a word interact with and activate words of
similar orthography and phonology in parallel, which in turn interact with word semantics. For
example, rosa in Spanish can activate its translation rose, which in turn can activate hose or
other feature-similar words. Information is fed in a bidirectional manner through the system; so
as orthography>phonology>semantics activate potential word candidates in a feedforward
process, semantics>phonology>orthography provide feedback activation until all lexical and
semantic matches take place and the appropriate lexical candidate is selected. A final language
identification node contributes to the activation process by interpreting language-specific cues
and identifying the language to which a word belongs. An extra component controls how task
and decision demands can affect the word identification process (See Figure 5.2).
114
Figure 5..2 The BIA+
+ model for bilingual
b
woord recognitioon (Dijkstra & VanHeuvven, 2002)
T BIA+ mo
The
odel organizzes individuaal language word
w
banks separately
s
w
within
the meental
lexicon, with
w interlin
ngual links att the levels of
o orthographhy, phonologgy, and semantics. The
model asssumes lateraal activation between lannguages at thhese levels so that they innhibit or
facilitate each other based
b
on botttom-up (forrm) and top-ddown (semantic) overlapp or lack thereof.
When it comes
c
to ind
dividual worrd types (coggnates, homoographs), thee model has not been speecific
as to how
w to accomm
modate these special typees of words. Should theyy be consideered as separrate
representtations withiin each languuage? Or shhould they deepart from thhe lateral acttivation/
individuaal language bank
b
store annd share a siingle word node?
n
In thee case of coggnates, if theyy
were to share
s
a singlee store, thenn all bilinguaals should show facilitatiion when reccognizing theese
115
types of words. This only occurred in the data for L1 English-L2 Spanish bilinguals operating in
the L2. L1 Spanish-L2 English bilinguals did not show a cognate facilitation effect. This
asymmetry must be accounted for.
An important assumption to the model is timing: bilinguals will always process their first
language more quickly than their second language. If this is true, then one can argue that L1
English bilinguals process their second language ‘slowly enough’ to allow the activation of the
first language and to benefit from the form/meaning overlap found in cognate verbs. L1 Spanish
bilinguals, however, may benefit from the language node element to guide the processor to
operate in Spanish. Once language has been specified, the bilingual recognizes verbs in the
native language so quickly that there isn’t time for the second language to be activated in order
for the processor to benefit from form/meaning overlap between languages.
The timing mechanism might also explain the partial homograph results for bilinguals.
Because we know from monolingual data that ambiguity slows the lexical processor, L1
Spanish-L2 English bilinguals could be slowed enough when encountering ambiguous words
from the L1 to allow the overlap of form and meaning with the L2 lexicon either to inhibit or
facilitate lexical access based on whether the L2 meaning overlap coincides with the dominant or
subordinate L1 meaning. When the dominant L1 meaning is shared with the L2, there is
facilitation since the principle meaning boosts activation. When the subordinate L1 meaning is
shared with the L2, there is inhibition because the two meanings have been raised to a threshold
of lateral competition and thus inhibition in recognition. For the L1 English-L2 Spanish
bilinguals, the same argument would apply. Because these bilinguals are operating in the L2,
they are already slowed in their processing so as to allow the L1 to influence L2 processing.
When the L1 meaning is shared with the dominant L2 meaning, facilitation occurs. When the L1
116
meaning is shared with the subordinate L2 meaning, competition of meanings and hence
inhibition in word recognition would occur. The BIA+ model, then, would encourage separate
language single word nodes for lexical items with lateral inhibition or facilitation.
It’s important to ask, however, whether the modeling notions put forth for ambiguity and
polysemy by Rodd et al. (2004) could be applied to a bilingual lexical model. When learning an
L2, words of similar form do attach lexically (by form) and semantically to the L1, thus creating
a broad lexical store for such items within the L2 lexicon, separate from the L1. For example,
the word decidir would build its L2 node based on the information that similar L1 form and
meaning exist (decide). This would be similar to creating a broad lexical store in the L2 for
cognates as is found for polysemous words in monolinguals. This doesn’t necessarily mean that
the L1 needs to be changed in its representation of the cognate in the L1 (decidir). This node is
already well established in the lexicon and there’s nothing new or different to attach to the form
in the L1 in order to change its single node representation. For partial homographs in either
bilingual, the L2 nodes could be built to encompass again the similar L1 form, however this
time, meaning disparity is involved. In the same way that ambiguous words create distinct and
competing meaning nodes attached to a single form, so might the L2 be established by attaching
its meaning to one of the L1 meanings. If the L2 meaning is attached to the dominant meaning
of the L1, then a broad store is created for that particular meaning so that when the lexical
representation is activated, this broad store facilitates activation, overriding any competition a
subordinate meaning would provide. When the L2 attaches to a subordinate L1 meaning, it
actually boosts that meaning so that both the dominant and subordinate L1 meanings compete.
Because the L1 form is being challenged by the L2 meaning, the L1 representations for the
partial homographs just might be changed. Whereas with L2 cognates, there was nothing ‘new’
117
for the L1 to worry about, with partial homographs there is something ‘new’ that could change
the representation of the L1.
FUTURE RESEARCH
The project described here lays the groundwork for a line of research that has the
potential to impact greatly theories of bilingual lexical processing. First, the project is unique in
that by conducting research with verbs, it gets away from looking at bilingual lexical processing
in ways that have yielded inconclusive results and/or encouraged nonselective activation by
nature of design. These approaches have involved tasks that present items in both languages,
tasks that rely on cognates and homographs of exact orthography between languages (e.g., red,
piano), tasks that have looked at form/meaning overlap in an ‘all or nothing’ fashion: either
meaning overlaps or it doesn’t, and tasks that rely on simple, short nouns or words of varied
categories between languages (e.g., red is an adjective in English but a noun (net) in Spanish).
Through the extensive norming of verbs in this research and the initial results from the
online processing research, the most important word type to emerge to investigate bilingual
lexical processing is the partial homograph. By establishing that the bilingual lexical processor
is nonselective when operating in one language, research can now focus on the more global
question of whether the language processor treats two languages as it does ambiguity within one
language. More research is needed in which partial homographs are the sole focus and are
manipulated in ways that ambiguity has been manipulated within the body of literature on
monolingual language processing. Research can now extend to how partial homographs are
processed when primed semantically (with single words or by sentence context). Research can
be designed to mirror the series of studies on ambiguity conducted by researchers such as
118
Swinney (1979), Simpson (1981), and Simpson and Burgess (1985). A time line of activation of
interlingual meanings for partial homographs should be established to see how meaning overlap
between languages affects processing within sentence context.
If, through this suggested body of continued research, bilingual lexical processing
emerges as a type of lexical ambiguity, then a model of processing can be designed to encompass
this more global notion of the mental lexicon.
119
REFERENCES
Alamedo, J.R. and Cuetos, F. (1995). iccionario de frecuencias de las unidades linguísticas de
castellano. Oviedo. Servicio de Publicaciones. Oviedo.
Altarriba, J., & Mathis, K. (1997). Conceptual and lexical development in second
language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 550-568.
Altarriba, J., Kroll, J., Sholl, A., Rayner, K. (1996). The influence of lexical and
conceptual constraints on reading mixed-language sentences: Evidence from eye fixations and
naming times. Memory & Cognition, 24, 477-492.
Altenberg, E. & Cairns, H. (1983). The effects of phonotactic constraints on lexical
processing in bilingual and monolingual subjects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior, 22, 174-188.
Andrews, S. (1997). The effect of orthographic similarity on lexical retrieval: Resolving
neighborhood conflicts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 439-461.
Azuma, T. & Van Orden, 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.
Bates, E. & MacWhinney, B. (1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar. In E. Wanner & L.
Gleitman (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 173-218). NewYork:
Cambidge University Press.
Beauvillain, C., & Grainger, J. (1987). Accessing interlexical homographs: Somelimitations of a
language-selective access. Journal of Memory and Language, 26,
658-672.
Berent, I., & Van Orden, G. C. (2000). Homophone dominance modulates the phoneme-masking
effect. Scientific Studies of Reading, 42, 133-167.
[ACL] [IF=1.604
Bijeljac-Babic, R., Biardeau, A., & Grainger, J. (1997). Masked orthographic priming in
bilingual word recognition. Memory & Cognition, 25, 447-457.
Boland, J. (1993). The role of verb argument structure in sentence processing: Distinguishing
between syntactic and semantic effects. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 133-152.
Boland, J. (1997). The relationship between syntactic and semantic processes in sentence
comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 423-484.
Boland, J., & Tannenhaus, M. (1991). The role of lexical representations in sentence processing.
In G. B. Simpson (Ed.), Understanding Word and Sentence (pp. 331-336). North Holland:
Elsevier Science Publishers.
120
Borowsky, R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1996). Semantic ambiguity in word identification. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 63-85.
Brysbaert, M. Bilingual visual word recognition: evidence from masked phonological priming.
In S Kinoshita & J. Lupker, J. (Eds.) Masked priming: state of the art (pp. 323-360). NY, NY:
Psychology Press.
Carroll, S. (1992). On cognates. Second Language Research, 8, 93-119.
Carreiras, M., Perea, M., & Grainger, J. (1997). Effects of orthographic neighborhood in
visual word recognition: Cross-task comparisons. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 23, 857-871.
Chen, H. C. (1990). Lexical processing in a non-native language: Effects of language
proficiency and learning strategy. Memory & Cognition, 18, 2769-288.
Chen, H. C. & Leung, Y. S. (1989). Patterns of lexical processing in a non-native language.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 15, 316-325.
Christoffels, I.K., Firk, C., & Schiller, N.O. (2007). Language control in bilingual language
switching: An event-related brain potential study. Brain Research 1147, 192-208.
Coltheart, M., Davelaar, E., Jonasson, J., and Bessner, D. (1977). Access to the internal
lexicon. In: S. Dornic (Ed.). Attention and Performance VI (pp. 535-555). Academic Press, New
York.
Costa, A., Caramazza, A., & Sebastián-Gallés, N, (2000). The cognate facilitation effect:
Implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory and Cognition, 26, 1283-1296.
Davis, C., Kim, J., & Sánchez-Casas, R. Masked priming across languages: an insight into
bilingual lexical processing. In S Kinoshita & J. Lupker (Eds.), Masked priming: state of the art
(pp. 309-322). NY, NY: Psychology Press.
De Groot, A. M. B. (1992). Bilingual lexical representation: A closer look at conceptual
representations. In R. Frost & L. Katz (Eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology, and
meaning (pp. 389-412). Amsterdam: North Holland.
De Groot, A. M. B. (1993). Word-type effects in bilingual processing tasks: Support for a mixed
representational system. In R. Schreuder & B. Weltens (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon (27-51).
John Benjamins: Amsterdam-Philadelphia.
De Groot, A. M. B., Delmar, P., & Lupker, S. (2000). The processing of interlexical
homographs in translation recognition and lexical decision: Support for nonselective access to
bilingual memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A, 397-428.
121
De Groot, A. M. B., & Keijzer, R. (2000). What is hard to learn is easy to forget: The roles of
word concreteness, cognate status, and word frequency in foreign-language vocabulary learning
and forgetting. Language Learning, 50, 1-56.
De Groot, A. M. B., & Nas, G. (1991). Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates in
compound bilinguals. Journal of Memory & Language, 30, 91-123.
Dell, G., & O'Seaghdha, P. (1992). Stages of lexical access in language production. Cognition,
42, 287-314.
Diccionario Práctico Larousse Sinónimos/Antónimos. (1986). Ediciones Larousse, Marsella,
México.
Dijkstra, T. (2005). Bilingual visual word recognition and lexical access. In J. Kroll & A. M. B
De Groot (Eds.), The Handbook of Bilingualism (179-201). Oxford University Press: New
York.
Dijkstra, T., De Bruijn, E., Schriefers, H., Ten Brinke, S. (2000). More on interlingual
homograph recognition: language intermixing versus explicitness of instruction. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 3, 69-78.
Dijkstra, T.; Grainger, J.; VanHeuven, W. J. B. (1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual
homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 496-518.
Dijkstra, A. & Van Heuven, W.J.B. (1998). The BIA-model and bilingual word recognition. In J.
Grainger & A. Jacobs (Eds.), Localist Connectionist Approaches to Human Cognition (pp 189225). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dijkstra, A., & 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.
Dijkstra, A., Van Jaarsveld, H., & Ten Brinke, S. (1998). Interlingual homograph recognition:
effects of task demands and language intermixing. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition, 1, 5166.
Dong,Y., Gui, S., MacWhinney, B. (2005). Shared and separate meanings in the bilingual
mental lexicon. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 8, 221-238.
Double Day Roget's Thesaurus in Dictionary Form. (1987). Doubleday, NY, NY.
Dufour, R., & Kroll, J. (1995). Matching words to concepts in two languages: A test of the
concept mediation model of bilingual representation. Memory & Cognition, 23, 166-180.
Duyck, W., Van Assche, E., Drieghe, D., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2007). Visual word
recognition by bilinguals in a sentence context: Evidence for nonselective lexical
access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
33, 663-679.
122
Elston-Guttler, K. (2000). An enquiry into cross-language differences in lexical–conceptual
relationships and their effect on L2 lexical processing. Unpublished Dissertation, University of
Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (1991). How is verb information used during syntactic parsing?
In G. B. Simpson (Ed.). Understanding word and sentence (pp. 305-330). North Holland:
Elsevier.
Forster, K., Mohan, K., & Hector, J. (2003). The mechanics of masked priming. In S Kinoshita
& J. Lupker, J. (Eds.) Masked priming: state of the art (pp. 3-37). NY, NY: Psychology Press.
Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and
performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 559-586). Hilldale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Frazier, L. & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence
comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive
Psychology, 14, 178-210.
Friel, B. & Kennison, S. (2001). Identifying German-English cognates, false cognates, and noncognates: methodological issues and descriptive norms. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition
(4), 249-274.
Frenck-Mestre, C. & Prince, P. (1997). Second language autonomy. Journal of Memory and
Language, 37, 481-501.
Frost, R. The robustness of phonological effects in fast priming. In S Kinoshita & J.
Lupker, J. (Eds.) Masked priming: state of the art (pp. 173-191). NY, NY: Psychology Press.
Garnsey, S., Pearlmutter, N., Myrs, E., Lotocky, M. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and
plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and
Language, 37, 58-93.
Gerard, L. D., & Scarborough, D. L. (1989). Language-specific lexical access of homographs by
bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 15, 305-315.
Gollan, T. H., Forster, K. I., & Frost, R. (1997). Translation priming with different scripts:
Masked priming with cognates and noncognates in Hebrew-English bilinguals. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 1122-1139.
Gorrell, P. (1991). Subcategorization and sentence processing. In R. C. Berwick et. al.,
(Eds.), Principle-Based Parsing: Computation and Psycholinguistics (pp. 279-300). The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
Grainger, J. (1993). Visual word recognition in bilinguals. . In R. Schreuder & B. Weltens
(Eds.), The Bilingual Lexicon (pp. 11-26). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
123
Green, D. W. (1993). Towards a model of L2 comprehension and production. In R. Schreuder &
B. Weltens (Eds.), The Bilingual Lexicon (pp. 249-277). Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Grimshaw, J. (1994). Lexical reconciliation. In L. Gleitman and B. Landau (Eds.), The
acquistion of the lexicon (pp. 411-430). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Grosjean, F. (1997). Processing mixed languages: issues, findings, and models. In A. M. B. De
Groot & J. F. Kroll (Eds.). Tutorials in Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Perspectives (pp. 225254). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Grosjean, F. (1998). Studying bilinguals: methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition 1, 131-149.
Grosjean, F. (2000). The bilingual’s language modes. In J. Nicol (Ed.), One mind, Two
Languages: Bilingual language processing. (pp 1-22). UK: Blackwell.
Haigh, C. A., & Jared, D. (2004). [Effects of visual similarity on homophone
effects in lexical decision]. Unpublished raw data.
Haigh, C. A., & Jared, D. (2007). The activation of phonological representations by bilinguals
while reading silently: Evidence from interlingual homophones. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,33, 623-644.
Hamel, B. (1998). Comprehensive Bilingual Dictionary of Spanish False Cognates. Bilingual
Book Press, Los Angeles, CA.
Harper Collins Spanish Unabridged Dictionary, Sixth Edition. (2000). Harper Collins, NY, NY.
Hino, Y., & Lupker, S. J. (1996). Effects of polysemy in lexical decision and naming: An
alternative to lexical access accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 22, 1331–1356.
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jacobs, A. (2007). Segmental Production in bilingual speech: A psycholinguistic approach.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Juffs, A. (1996a). Learnability and the lexicon. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Juffs, A. (1996b). Semantics-syntax correspondences in second language acquisition.
Second Lanugage Research, 12, 177-221.
Juffs, A. (1998). Some effects of first language argument structure and morphosyntax
on second language sentence processing. Second Language Research, 14, 406-424.
124
Keatley, C., Spinks, J., & De Gelder, B. (1994). Assymetrical semantic facilitation between
languages. Memory & Cognition, 22, 70-84.
Klepousniotou, E. (2002). The processing of lexical ambiguity: Homonymy and polysemy in the
mental lexicon. Brain and Language 81, 205-223.
Kroll, J. (1993). Accessing conceptual representation for words in a second language. In R.
Schreuder & B. Weltons (Eds.). The bilingual lexicon (pp. 53-81). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Kroll, J. & Dussias, P. E. (2004). The comprehension of words and sentences in two languages.
In T. Bhatia & W. Ritchie (Eds.), The Handbook of Bilingualism (pp. 169-200). MA:
Blackwell Publishing.
Kroll, J., & De Groot, A. M. B. (1997). Lexical and conceptual memory in the bilingual. In A.
M. B. de Groot & J. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in Bilingualism (pp. 169-199). New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kroll, J. & 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.
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation.
Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1994). A preliminary analysis of causative verbs in
English. In L. Gleitman and B. Landau (Eds.), The acquisition of the lexicon (pp. 35-77).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity at the syntax semantics
interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Li, X., Shu, H, Liu, Y., and Li, P. (2006). Mental Representation of Verb Meaning:
Behavioral and Electrophysiological Evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18,
1774-1787.
MacWhinney, B. (1987). The Competition Model. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.),
Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 249-308). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
MacWhinney, B. (2005). A unified model of language acquisition. In J. F. Kroll & A.M. B. de
Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 49-67). New York:
Oxford University Press.
MacWhinney, B. (2007). A unified model. In Ellis, N. & Robinson, P. Handbook of Cognitive
Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition, Lawrence Erlbaum Press.
125
Masson, M. & Bodner, J. (2003). Toward a unified account of masked and long-term repetition
priming. In S Kinoshita & J. Lupker, J. (Eds.) Masked priming: state of the art (pp. 57-94). NY,
NY: Psychology Press.
McClelland, J. & Rumelhart, D. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in
letter perception. Part I: An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375-405.
Meara, P. (1993). The bilingual lexicon and the teaching of vocabulary. In R. Schreuder & B.
Weltens (Eds.), The Bilingual Lexicon (pp. 279-297). Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Menenti , L. , & Indefrey , P . (2006). L2-L1 word associations in bilinguals: Direct evidence .
Nijmegen CNS , 1 , 17-24 .
Millis, M. & Button, S. (1989). The effect of polysemy on lexical decision time: now you see it,
now you don't. Memory & Cognition , 17, 141-147.
Miriam-Webster Online Dictionary. http://www.m-w.com/
Nas, G. (1983). Visual word recognition in bilinguals: Evidence for a cooperation between
visual and sound based codes during access to a common lexical store. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 526-534.
Nash, R. (1997). NTC's Dictionary of Spanish Cognates. NTC Publishing Group, Chicago, IL.
Onifer, W. & Swinney, D. (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence
comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory & Cognition, 9,
225-236.
O'Seaghda, P. (1991). A perspective on sentence context research. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.).
Understanding Word and Sentence. North-Holland: Elsevier.
Perez, M. & Navalon, C. (2005). Objective-AoA norms for 175 names in Spanish:
Relationships with other psycholinguistic variables, estimated AoA, and data from other
languages. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17, 1-28.
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pinker, S. (1994). How could a child use verb syntax to learn verb semantics? In L.
Gleitman and B. Landau (Eds.), The acquisition of the lexicon (pp. 377-410). Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
126
Potter, M. C., & So, K. F., Eckardt, B. V., & Feldman, L. B. (1984). Lexical and conceptual
representation in beginning and proficient bilinguals. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal
Behavior, 23, 23-38.
Prado, M. (1993). NTC's Dictionary of Spanish False Cognates. NTC Publishing Group,
Chicago, IL.
Rodd, J., Gaskell, M.G. & Marslen-Wilson, W.D. (2002). Making sense out of ambiguity:
Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 245-266.
Rosen, S. (1996). Events and verb classification. Linguistics 34, 191-223.
Sanchez-Casas, R. M., Davis, C. W. & García-Albea, J. E. (1992). Bilingual lexical processing:
exploring the cognate/non-cognate distinction. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,4,
293-310.
Scarborogh, D. L., Gerard, L. D., & Cortese, C. (1984). Independence of lexical access in
bilingual word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 84-99.
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2001). E-Prime User's Guide.
Pittsburgh:Psychology Software Tools, Inc.
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002) E-Prime Reference Guide.
Pittsburgh:Psychology Software Tools Inc.
Schwanenflugel, P. & Shoben, E. (1985). The influence of sentence constraint on the scope of
facilitation for upcoming words. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 232-252.
Schwartz, A. & Kroll, J. (2006). Bilingual lexical activation in sentence context. Journal of
Memory and Language, 55, 197-212.
Sears, C. R., Hino, Y., & Lupker, S. J. (1995). Neighborhood size and neighborhood frequency
effects in word recognition. Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and
performance, 21, 876-900.
Shapiro, L., Nagel, H. N., & Levine, B. (1993). Preferences for a verb's complements and their
use in sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 96-114.
Sholl, A., Sankaranarayanan, A., & Kroll, J. (1995). Transfer between picture naming and
translation: A test of asymmetries in bilingual memory. Psychological Science, 6, 45-49.
Sears, C. R., Hino, Y., & Lupker, S. J. (1995). Neighborhood size and neighborhood
frequency effects in word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception
& Performance, 21, 876-900.
127
Simpson, G. (1981). Meaning dominance and semantic context in the processing of lexical
ambiguity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 120-136.
Simpson, G. & Burgess, C. (1985). Activation and selection processes in the recognition of
ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
11, 28-39.
Stone, G., Vanhoy, M., & Van Orden, G. (1997). Perception is a two-way street: Feedforward
and Feedback Phonology in Visual Word Recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 36,
337-359.
Schwartz, A. (2003). The nature of cross-language lexical activation in sentence context: A
pscyholinguistic analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA.
Schwartz, A. I. & Kroll, J. F. (2006). Bilingual lexical activation in sentence context. Journal of
Memory and Language, 55, 197–212.
Schwartz, A. I., Kroll, J. F. & Diaz, M. (2007). Reading words in Spanish and English: Mapping
orthography to phonology in two languages. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 106–129.
Schwartz, A. I., & Areas de Luz Fontes, A. (2008). Cross-language mediated
priming: Effects of context and lexical relationship. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11,
95–110.
Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name
agreement, familiarity and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Learning & Memory, 6, 174-215.
Stone, G. O., Vanhoy, M., & Van Orden, G. C. (1997). Perception is a two-way street:
Feedforward and feedback phonology in visual word recognition. Journal of Memory and
Language, 36, 337-359.
Sunderman, G. & Kroll, J. (2006). First language activation during second language lexical
processing: An Investigation of Lexical Form, Meaning, and Grammatical Class. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 28, 387-422.
Swanson, A. P. & Dussias, P. E. (2003, April). The processing of interlingual homograpic verbs
by Spanish-English bilinguals. Paper at the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism,
Arizona State University.
Swanson, A. P. & Dussias, P. E. (2004, July). Lexical processing of interlingual homographic
verbs by Spanish-English bilinguals. Poster at the 4th International Conference on the Mental
Lexicon.
128
Swanson, A. P. (2005, Mar.). Meaning dominance as a modulator for non-selectivity in bilingual
lexical access. Paper at the 5th International Symposium on Bilingualism, University of
Barcelona, Spain, March 2005.
Swanson, A. P., Dussias, P. E., & Foote, R. K. (2005, Oct.). The role of meaning and form in
lexical access for early and late bilinguals. Poster at the Rovereto Workshop on Bilingualism:
Functional and Neural Perspectives, University of Trento, Revereto, Italy.
Swanson, A. P. (2005, Nov.). The role of meaning and form in lexical access for SpanishEnglish bilinguals. Paper at the Workshop on Language Processing at the joint meeting of the
Hispanic Linguistics Symposium and the Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and
Portuguese as First and Second Languages, The Pennsylvania State University, State College,
PA.
Swanson, A. P. & Dussias, P. E. (2006, Oct.). Semantic ambiguity in the lexical access of verbs:
how data from monolinguals and bilinguals inform a general model of the mental lexicon. Paper
at the 5th International Conference on the Mental Lexicon, Montreal, Canada.
Swinney, D. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of
context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 120-136.
Tabossi, P., Colombo, L., Job, R. (1987). Accessing lexical ambiguity: Effects of context and
dominance. Psychological Research, 49, 161-167.
Tanenhaus, M. K., & Lucas, M. M.(1987). Context effects in lexical processing. Cognition, 25,
213-234.
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Kello, C. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence
processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 528-553.
Van Assche, E., Duyck, W., Hartsuiker, R. & Diependaele, K. (2009). Does bilingualism change
native-language reading? Cognate effects in a sentence context. Psychological Science, 20, 923927.
VanAssche, E. (2009). Bilingual word recognition in a sentence context. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium.
Van Hell, J. G. (2002). Bilingual word recognition beyond orthography: On meaning, linguistic
context, and individual differences. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 209-212.
Van Hell, J. G., & De Groot, A. M. B. (1998). Conceptual representation in bilingual memory:
Effects of concreteness and cognate status in word association. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 1, 193-211.
129
Van Heuven, W., Dijkstra, A., & Grainger, J. (1998). Orthographic neighborhood effects in
bilingual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 458-483.
Weinreich, U. (1953, reprint 1963). Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. The Hague:
Mouton.
West, R. & Stanovich, K. (1986). Robust effects of syntactic structure on visual word
processing. Memory & Cognition, 14, 104-112.
Wright, B. & Garrett, M. (1984). Lexical decision in sentences: Effects of syntactic structure.
Memory & Cognition, 12, 31-45.
130
APPENDIX A: PHASE I DATA: HOMOGRAPH SELECTION.
verb
Spanish dictionary definition*
Frequency**
DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS, FREQUENCY.
Verb in
English of
closest
similar form
acostar
VT: to put to bed
2
accost
to approach
aggressively
acusar
VT: 1. to accuse, charge; 2. to show
4
accuse
to charge with fault or
offense
admirar
VT: 1. to admire, esteem; 2. to
contemplate; 3. to astonish, amaze
13
admire
to regard highly, marvel
at
alterar
VT: 1. to modify; 2. to spoil, rot; 3.
to upset (emotionally); 4. to disturb
the peace; 5. to lie
23
alter
to modify
alternar
VT, VI: to vary; VI: to socialize
6
alternate
to occur by turns, vary
amasar
VT: 1. to knead or mix; 2. to amass,
collect; 3. to massage; 4. to cook
2
amass
to accumulate, gather
aplicar
VT: 1. to put on; 2. to put into
practice, use; 3. to devote oneself,
dedicate
apply
to put to use, to have
relevance, to make
request or appeal,
30
English dictionary
definition***
aprobar
VT: 1. to pass (a law) or approve; 2.
to pass (a test)
6
approve
to have favorable
opinion, to accept
formally
armar
VT: 1. to arm (arsenal); 2. to
assemble, put together (e.g.,
furniture); 3. to organize
15
arm
to equip
asistir
VI: to attend, go; VT: 1. to help, 2.
to wait on
52
assist
to give support, aid
131
assume
to take up or to take on;
to receive; to pretend to
have; to suppose; to
take over
37
attend
to pay attention to; to
look after, to
accompany, go be
present at
VT: 1. to tell, notify; 2. to call
(taxi); 3. to warn
22
advise
to counsel, to warn, to
recommend, to inform
VT: to fortify, protect, armour-plate
0
blind
to make unable to see
asumir
VT: 1. to take on; 2. to accept; 3. to
adopt; 4. to acquire; 5. asumir que:
to assume, suppose that
atender
VT: 1. to look after, deal with, help;
2. to see, receive (person); 3. to
serve client; 4. to pay attention; 5.
to answer telephone
avisar
blindar
30
cancelar
VT: 1. to cancel, close; 2. to pay off
debt
3
cancel
to annul, to destroy, to
offset, to omit or delete,
to remove (math), to
deface (stamp)
chocar
VI: 1. to crash; 2. to clash; VT: 1.
to shock, surprise 2. to clink
(glasses)
12
choke
to constrict breathing
concurrir
VT: 1. to attend; pack with people
2. to take part; 3. to meet, converge
concur
to act together, to
approve, to coincide, to
agree
conducir
VT: 1. to drive; 2. to carry; 3. to
manage, direct
conduct
to guide or lead, to act
as a channel for, to act
in a particular manner
contar
VT: 1. to count (numbers); 2. to tell;
3. to have the age of; 4. to include;
5. to keep in mind; VI: 1. to count
numbers; 2. to tell; 3. to be worth;
4. to count on; 5. to include; 6. to
have
148
count
to number, to consider
as, to have value
contestar
VT: 1. to answer, reply; 2. to
answer, talk back; VI: 1. to answer;
2. to protest (politically)
148
contest
to dispute, challenge
date
to determine or record
date of, show age of, to
go out with
datar
1
39
VT: to give the date
4
132
desvestir
VT: to undress
2
divest
to rid of something, to
take away
discutir
VT, VI: 1. to debate, discuss; 2. to
question, challenge or argue about
49
discuss
to talk about, to argue,
to debate
divertir
VT: 1. to make laugh; 2. to entertain
4
divert
to deviate or deflect
devise
to conceive of, imagine,
plan, invent
double
to increase, make double
in amount, to bend or
fold, to turn sharply
divisar
VT: to make out, distinguish, see
3
doblar
VT: 1. to fold; 2. to turn (corner); 3.
to increase, double; 4. to duplicate;
5. to dub (movies); 6. to double
over; 7. to lap (race)
13
editar
VT: 1. to publish; 2. to correct
4
edit
to correct or make copy
ready
embarazar
VT: 1. to hamper, hinder; 2. to
make pregnant
2
embarrass
to cause self-conscious
distress
enrollar
VT: 1. to roll up; 2. to be attracted;
3. to get involved w, sthg, sb
0
enroll
to register for
estampar
VT: 1. to stamp, print, engrave; 2.
to hit
1
stamp
to imprint, to cut with a
stamp or die, to pound
or crush
esposar
VT: to handcuff
1
espouse
to marry person or cause
estrechar
VT: 1. to narrow, to take in (width);
2. to tighten or strengthen; 3. to hug;
4. to obligate; 5. to press hard
6
stretch
to extend, to reach out
experimentar
VT: 1. to test, try out; 2. to
experience, go through
22
experiment
to test, try out
34
fabricate
to invent, lie; to
construct, manufacture
18
fault
to err, to find error in
fabricar
VT: 1. to manufacture; 2. to lie
VI: 1. to be lacking; 2. to be
missing;
faltar
3. to miss an event; 4. to remain (to
be done); 5. to be at the point of; 6.
to offend; 7. to default payment
133
fumar
VT: to smoke tobacco
65
fume
to emit fumes, to be
angry
guardar
VT: 1. to keep, put, save; 2. to
guard, protect
53
guard
to preserve, protect; to
defend
inscribir
VT: 1. to inscribe (etch); 2. to
enroll, put on list
4
inscribe
to write, engrave
intentar
VT: to try or attempt
89
intend
to mean; to plan
introducir
VT: 1. to insert; 2. to begin
40
introduce
to lead or bring in; to
present someone
formally; to place or
insert
mimar
VT: to spoil (child), pamper
1
mime
to mimic
molestar
VT, VI: 1. to bother, annoy; 2. to
disturb; 3. to upset.
molest
to annoy or disturb; to
make sexual advance
pasar
VI: 1. to happen; 2. to move (by or
through); 3. to enter; 4. to achieve,
to become; 5. to go by, pass in time
VT: 1. to give, hand to; 2. to go
through; 3. to strain; 4. to smuggle;
5. to overlook
420
pass
to move; to die; to
render judgment; to
happen or occur; to
throw; to go across; to
undergo; to let time go
pretender
VT: 1. to aspire to be; 2. to claim
25
pretend
to fake; to feign or make
believe
probar
VT: 1. to prove, show; 2. to test; 3.
to taste; 4. to try on clothes
37
probe
to search or explore; to
enter
quitar
VT: to remove, take away, subtract
25
quit
to depart
11
realizar
VT: to achieve, carry out
83
realize
to accomplish; to gain;
to think
recordar
VT: 1. to remember; 2. to remind
166
record
to put in writing; to tape
(music, etc.)
reflejar
VT: 1. to reflect, show, convey
(light, image); 2. to reflect, describe,
convey
reflect
to mirror; to deflect; to
cast as a result; to show
134
12
register
to enroll; to enter
officially; to make note;
to perceive
75
regress
to go back or revert
remover
VT: 1. to turn over, dig up; 2. to
stir; 3. to remove, take out
10
remove
to take out; to eliminate
replicar
VT: 1. to answer; 2. to argue
3
replicate
to repeat or duplicate
restar
VT: to subtract (math); VI: to
remain
5
rest
to sleep; to bring end to
(law case)
resumir
VT: to summarize
13
resume
to return to; to begin
again
retirar
VT: 1. to withdraw, 2. to retire,
pension from job
18
retire
to withdraw or retreat; to
recede; to withdraw
from career
revolver
VT: 1. to stir; 2. to look through; 3.
to dig up; 4. to mess up; 5. to
investigate; 6. to wrap up
6
revolve
to rotate; to ponder
sacar
VT: 1. to take out; 2. to stick out; 3.
to obtain; 4. to take (photo)
120
sack
to tackle; to dismiss; to
put into bag
registrar
VT: 1. to look for; 2. to record; 3. to
enroll
regresar
VT: to return
salvar
VT: to save from danger
48
save
to rescue; to reserve or
accumulate; to maintain
or preserve; to avoid
solicitar
VT: 1. to ask for, apply for job; 2.
to pursue
3
solicit
to petition; to entice or
lure; to proposition
soportar
VT: 1. to withstand (weight); 2. to
put up with
65
support
to bear; to advocate; to
assist; to maintain
(costs); to comfort; to
hold up (physically)
suceder
VI: to happen; VI, VT: to follow in
succession
47
succeed
to follow after; to
achieve
suspend
to debar (from school);
to defer or cancel; to
hang
suspender
VT: 1. to hang up; 2. to interrupt; 3.
to fail (class)
135
8
tirar
VT: 1. to throw; 2. to pull down,
knock over; 3. to drop; 4. to throw
away; 5. to waste; 6. to fire gun
38
136
tire
to exhaust; to wear out;
to bore
APPENDIX B: PHASE I DATA: COGNATE SELECTION.
verb
Frequency**
DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS, FREQUENCY
Spanish dictionary definition*
English
translation
English dictionary
definitions***
abortar
VI: to miscarry, to have an abortion;
VT: to abort (plan)
325
abort
to miscarry; to
terminate
acompañar
VT, VI: 1. to go with, accompany;
2. to stay with, be company; 3. to
occur at the same time; 4. to work
well together
23
accompany
to go with as company;
to be in association
activar
VT: to activate, expedite
1
activate
to start up
adapt
to adjust; to
accommodate
adaptar
VT: to accommodate, to adjust
8
adorar
VT: to adore, worship
29
adore
to worship or honor; to
regard with devotion;
to revere; to be fond of
adquirir
VT: 1. to purchase, acquire
(comprar); 2. to gain (conseguir); 3.
to take on, adopt (adoptar)
43
acquire
to obtain
afectar
VT: 1. to affect, 2. to sadden, 3. to
feign, pretend
19
affect
to influence
afirmar
VT: 1. to make secure, strengthen
(reforzar); 2. to assert, declare
58
affirm
validate; confirm;
assert
analizar
VT: to analyze
49
analyze
to study; think through
anticipar
VT: 1. to bring forward in time; 2. to
pay in advance; 3. to anticipate; look
forward to; 4. to foresee
6
anticipate
to expect; to foresee; to
look forward to
aprehender
VT: 1. to apprehend, detain; 2. to
understand, conceive, think
3
apprehend
to seize; to arrest; to
perceive or understand
137
ascender
VI: 1. to climb up, ascend; 2. to rise
(temperature); 3. to be promoted to;
4. to amount to (quantity); VT: to
promote someone
14
ascend
to move up; to rise; to
succeed
asignar
VT: to assign, allocate, appoint
3
assign
to transfer; to appoint;
to ascribe
asociar
VT: 1. to associate, connect; 2. to
take into partnership; 3. to unite,
pool together
6
associate
to join as partner; to
combine; to unite; to
bring together
beneficiar
VT: to benefit
0
benefit
to be useful
calcular
VT: 1. to calculate (math); 2. to
estimate, think; 3. to figure out, work
out
31
calculate
to estimate; to intend;
to figure out, think
calmar
VT: 1. to relax, calm down; 2. to
relieve, soothe (pain, thirst)
6
calm
to make quiet
30
celebrate
to honor or mark
occasion
classify
to sort; assign to
category
VT: 1. to celebrate; 2. to take place;
celebrar
3. to delight; 4. to praise; 5. to
perform (ceremony)
clasificar
VT: to clasify, to sort
12
coleccionar
VT, VI: to collect
7
comparar
VT: to compare
collect
to bring together, gather
compare
to liken
VT: 1. to announce, inform; 2. to
connect (telephone); 3. to transmit;
comunicar
4. to connect together (physical
space)
14
communicate
to transmit thought,
feeling; to reveal, make
known
confesar
VT, VI: to confess, admit
22
confess
to tell; to acknowledge;
to profess
consentir
VT: 1. to allow, to tolerate; 2. to
stand, bear (as in weight); 3. to spoil;
VI: to agree to do sthg
5
consent
to give approval; to agree
138
considerar
VT: 1. to reflect upon, consider; 2.
to keep in mind; 3. to believe
102
consider
to regard; to suppose, to
think carefully; to
deliberate;
consumir
VT: 1. to consume, eat, buy; 2. to
use; 3. to take up; 4. to destroy
12
consume
to destroy; to squander,
spend; to use up; to
devour; to engross
continuar
VT, VI: to continue
40
continue
to maintain; to endure; to
stay
cooperar
VI: to cooperate
3
cooperate
to work together
coordinar
VT, VI: to coordinate
4
coordinate
to harmonize; to put
together
copiar
VT: 1. to reproduce; 2. to take down
dictation; 3. to cheat
9
copy
to imitate; to mimic; to
duplicate
criticar
VT: to criticize; VI: to gossip
13
criticize
to find fault; to evaluate
decidir
VT, VI: to decide
38
decide
to make final choice; to
conclude
declare
to make known; to
affirm; to show
59
define
to determine; to
demarcate; to
characterize, distinguish
VT: to proclaim; 2. to declare,
consider; 3. to announce, state
(manifestar); 4. to declare at
customs;
declarar
definir
5. to bid; VI: 1. to testify
18
VT: 1. to define; 2. to describe; 3. to
make sharp (lines); 4. to establish
VT: 1. to prove; 2. to show (teach);
demostrar
3. to show, demonstrate (emotion)
69
demonstrate
to show; to prove
depender
VI: 1. 'maybe', 'it depends'; 2. to
depend on, need sb, sth; 3. to be
accountable to (depender de); 4. to
correspond to someone (depender de
algn)
7
depend
to be contingent; to be
undecided; to rely
desertar
VI: to desert, abandon
3
desert
to leave; to abandon
139
detectar
VT: to detect
26
detect
to discover; to determine
divorciar
VT: to divorce
1
divorce
to separate
documentar
VT: to document
1
document
to provide supporting
information
eliminar
VT: to eliminate, to get rid of
22
eliminate
to remove, get rid of
funcionar
VI: 1. to work, run, operate; 2. to
work out; be useful, successful
38
function
to serve as; to operate or
work
identificar
VT: 1. to recognize; 2. to equate,
associate
33
identify
to establish identity
imitar
VT: 1. to imitate, copy; 2. to mimic,
make fun of; 3. to seem like,
simulate
29
imitate
to mimic, copy; to
reproduce
insultar
VT: to insult
4
insult
to damage or hurt, treat
with insolence
inventar
VT: to invent, devise
29
invent
to create; to fabricate
investigar
VT: 1. to investigate, verify; 2. to do
research; 3. to check out
31
investigate
to observe or study
invitar
VT: 1. to invite, to buy; 2. to call on
to do; 3. to entice
12
invite
to entice; to welcome
limitar
VT: to limit, restrict; VI: to border
(geography)
4
limit
to restrict bounds; to
curtail or reduce
memorizar
VT: to memorize
4
memorize
to learn by heart
mencionar
VT: to mention
29
mention
to refer to
observar
VT: 1. to watch, contemplate; 2. to
notice; 3. to abide by
82
observe
to practice; to notice or
watch carefully; to
celebrate
ocupar
VT: 1. to take up space; 2. to hold
(position); 3. to occupy, control; 4. to
live in; 5. to use time; 6. to employ
42
occupy
to engage; to take up
(space, time); to fill role
ocurrir
VI: to happen
68
occur
to happen; to come to
mind
140
ofender
VT: to offend, insult
4
offend
to violate law; to cause
discomfort, hurt
percibir
VT: to perceive, to notice
44
perceive
to attain awareness or
understanding; to see
permitir
VT: to allow, permit
52
permit
to consent; to authorize
practicar
VT: 1. to practice, work on; 2. to
practice profession
27
practice
to carry out; to train; to
pursue profession
preparar
VT: 1. to make, prepare; 2. to
organize; 3. to teach; 4. to study for
43
prepare
to make ready
producir
VT: 1. to produce; 2. to cause; 3. to
yield
70
produce
to yield; to make happen
satisfacer
VT: 1. to make happy; 2. to
compensate or meet (requirements);
3. to make good
satisfy
to please; to appease; to
conform to
141
22
APPEN
NDIX C: PA
ARTICIPA
ANT CONSE
ENT FORM
M IN SPANIISH
UNIVERSITY OF ILL
LINOIS
AT URBAN
NA-CHAMP
PAIGN
ment of Span
nish, Italian
n and Portugguese
Departm
4080 Forreign Languaages Buildinng, MC – 1766
707 Soutth Mathews Avenue
A
Urbana, IL
I 61801
FORMULA
ARIO DE INF
FORMACIÓN Y CONSENTIIMIENTO PAR
RA EL PROCESAMIENTO
O DEL LENGU
UAJE
ESPAŇOL
L
Se le invitaa a participar de
d forma volunttaria en un trabbajo de investiggación que tienne como objetivo descubrir loos
procesos siignificados quee se asocian coon ciertos verboos en español. Si consiente en
e participar enn el presente esstudio,
se le pediráá llenar un perffile de idiomass y tomar una prueba
p
corta accerca del uso deel lenguaje y preferencia de
vocabulario.
Este estudiio se durará aproximadamentte 30 minutos. Su participaciión en este estuudio es compleetamente volunntaria.
La presente investigación
n no implica rieesgo alguno paara su persona. Usted está enn su derecho dee retirar su
consentimiiento, de suspeender su particiipación en estaa investigación o de rehusarasse a contesta cuualquier pregunnta
cuando asíí lo desee, sin que
q esto conlleve pena algunaa o pérdida de los beneficios a los cuales tieene derecho.
Su particippación en este investigación
i
e completamennte confidenciaal. Solamente el investigador principal tenddrá
es
acceso a laa información referente
r
a su iddentidad. Cuaalquier publicacción o exposiciión de los resultados de este
trabajo úniicamente incluiirá informaciónn concernientee al desempeñoo del grupo en general.
g
Para asegurar
a
que suu
participación quedará en la más estrictaa confidencialiddad, sus datos no
n serán identiificados por cóódigos y serán
nador protegidoo al cual tendráá acceso sólo el
e investigador principal.
almacenaddos en un orden
Se le invitaa preguntar sob
bre este estudioo antes, durantee, o después dee su participaciión. Debido all hecho de que unas
respuetas pueden
p
afectar la validez de los resultados de
d este estudio,, no se las daráán hasta el fin de
d su participacción.
Si le occurre cualquier preegunta, usted puede
p
ponerse en
e contacto conn Amy Swansoon por correo electrónico:
e
[email protected].
Certifico que
q he leído y entendido
e
la información anteerior. Acepto participar
p
de foorma voluntariaa en este proyeecto.
Se me ha ofrecido
o
una co
opia firmada deel presente form
mulario de connsentimiento.
Escriba su nombre en letrras mayúsculass: _________________________________________________
_____________
____________________________________________________
Firma: _______________
142
Fecha: ________________________________________________________________________
Para obtener mayor información sobre sus derechos de participante, usted puede ponerse en contacto con la
secretaria ejecutiva en la oficina de UIUC Institutional Review Board (417 Swanlund Building, teléfono: 217-3332670).
143
APPE
ENDIX D: PARTICIP
PANT CON
NSENT FOR
RM TRANS
SLATED TO
O ENGLISH
H
UN
NIVERSIT
TY OF IL
LLINOIS
AT URBA
ANA-CHAMP
PAIGN
Departm
ment of Span
nish, Italian
n and Portugguese
4080 Forreign Languaages Buildinng, MC – 1766
707 Soutth Mathews Avenue
A
Urbana, IL
I 61801
INFORM
MED CONSEN
NT FORM FO
OR SPANISH
H LANGUAGE
E USAGE STU
UDY
You are invited to volunttarily participatte in a researchh study whose objective is to discover the meanings
m
assocciated
bs. If you conssent to participate in the preseent study, you will fill out a language
l
with certain Spanish verb
background questionnaire and a short questionnaire
q
reegarding languuage usage and vocabulary prreference.
oximately 30 minutes.
m
Participation in this study is strictlyy voluntary. There
T
are no rissks or
This study will last appro
discomfortts expected as a result of yourr participation.. You are free to withdraw permission, stopp participation in the
study, or reefuse to answer any question whenever youu desire withouut any penalty or
o loss of beneffits to which yoou are
entitled.
c
O
Only
the princiiple investigatoor will have acccess
Your particcipation in thiss investigation is completely confidential.
to the inforrmation regard
ding your identiity. Any publiication or preseentation of the results of this study only willl
include genneral group perrformance resuults. To insuree that your participation will remain
r
in the strictest
confidentiaality, your dataa will be codedd and kept in a protected
p
compputer to which only the princciple investigattor has
access.
uestions about this
t study befoore, during, or after
a
your partiicipation. Giveen that some
You are invited to ask qu
m
affect the validity of the results of this study, those annswers will not be given untiil the end of thee
answers might
study. If you
y have any qu
uestions, you may
m contact Am
my Swanson by
b e-mail:
[email protected].
I certify that I have read and
a understandd the information above. I aggree to voluntarily participatee in this projectt. I
have been offered a signeed copy of this consent form.
Write yourr name in capittal letters: ________________________________________________
Sign: _________________
________________________________________________________
144
Date: __________________________________________________________________To obtain better
information concerning your rights as a participant, you may contact the Executive Secretary in the office of the
UIUC Institutional Review Board (417 Swanlund Building, 217-333-2670).
145
APPENDIX E: LANGUAGE BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE IN SPANISH
Cuestionario
Este cuestionario se diseñó para entender su experiencia en aprender un segundo idioma. Favor de contestar en una
manera completa y gracias por su participación. Si usted necesita más espacio para contestar las preguntas,
favor de pedir más papel y escribir el número de la pregunta al lado de la respuesta.
1. Nombre ___________________________________
2. Sexo: M / F
3. Edad (en años) ______ 4. Lugar de nacimiento: ciudad___________________ país
_______________________
5. Profesión _________________________________________
6. Lengua native ____________________________________
7. Vive usted en los Estados Unidos?
Sí
No
Número de años en los Estados Unidos ______
Número de años en el sistema escolar estadounidense ______
8.) ¿Tiene usted problemas con la vista o el oído, sean corregidos o no? ¿Cuáles son?
9.) ¿Es usted bilingüe?
sí
no
Si usted ha hablado más de una lengua desde su niñez/nacimiento,
describe las situaciones en que se utilizaba cada lengua.
10.) ¿Cuál de las siguientes lenguas se considera su segunda lengua?
inglés
español otra: ________________ no tengo otra lengua
11.) Si usted ha vivido en o visitado otro país donde se habla otra lengua que su lengua native, indique a
continuación el nombre del país(es), el número de meses de su estancia en ese país, las lenguas que utilizó
usted allí, y las lenguas habladas a usted (aunque usted no las habló).
Nombre del país
# de meses en el país
Lengua(s) utilizada(s)
12.) Indique a continuación en forma de una lista todas las lenguas que habla usted. Ponga las lenguas en orden de
la que habla con más fluidez hasta la que habla con menos fluidez. Indique también la edad en que empezó usted a
aprender la lengua, y el contexto en el cual aprendió la lengua. Por ejemplo, “español, nacimiento, casa”. Incluya
todos las lenguas a las cuales usted ha sido expuesto, aunque no ha tenido lecciones formales en esas lenguas o no
sabe usted ni leer, escribir, or comunicar en esas lenguas.
No se olvide de incluir su lengua nativa.
Lengua
Edad en años.
Contexto del aprendizaje
13.) ¿Cuáles son las lenguas que se hablaban en casa y por quién(es)?
14.) ¿Cuántos años ha estudiado usted su segunda lengua? Indique también las situaciones en que ha tenidos
experiencia con la lengua (i.e., la escuela, con amigos, al extranjero, etc.)
Número de años:
Situaciones:
146
15.) Califique su habilidad de leer en inglés. (1= no habilidad, 10= nivel de hablante nativo)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
no habilidad
9
10
nivel de hablante nativo
16.) Califique su habilidad de leer en español. (1= no habilidad, 10= nivel de hablante nativo)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
no habilidad
9
10
nivel de hablante nativo
17.) Califique su habilidad de escribir en inglés. (1= no habilidad, 10= nivel de hablante nativo)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
no habilidad
9
10
nivel de hablante nativo
18.) Califique su habilidad de leer en español. (1= no habilidad, 10= nivel de hablante nativo)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
no habilidad
9
10
nivel de hablante nativo
19.) Califique su habilidad de conversar en inglés. (1= no habilidad, 10= nivel de hablante nativo)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
no habilidad
9
10
nivel de hablante nativo
20.) Califique su habilidad de conversar en español. (1= no habilidad, 10= nivel de hablante nativo)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
no habilidad
9
10
nivel de hablante nativo
21.) Califique su habilidad de entender el inglés hablado. (1= no habilidad, 10= nivel de hablante nativo)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
no habilidad
9
10
nivel de hablante nativo
22.) Califique su habilidad de entender el español hablado. (1= no habilidad, 10= nivel de hablante nativo)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
no habilidad
9
10
nivel de hablante nativo
23.) ¿Hay otros aspectos de su profile de lengua sobre los cuales usted quiere comentar?
Escriba esa información aquí.
147
APPENDIX F: LANGUAGE BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE IN ENGLISH
Language History Questionnaire
This questionnaire is designed to give us a better understanding of your experience learning a second language.
We ask that you be as accurate and thorough as possible when answering the following questions and thank you for
your participation in this study. If at any time, you need more space to write, please feel free to use an extra sheet
of paper. Please put the question number beside your responses.
1. Name_____________________________
2. Sex: M / F
3. Age (in years) ______ 4. Place of birth: city ___________________________
state/country___________________________________
5. Profession __________________________________
6. Native language _____________________________
7. Do you live in the US? Yes
no
Years spent in the U.S. ______ Years spent in U.S. schools ______
8.) Do you have any known visual or hearing problems (corrected or
uncorrected)?
9.) What is your first language (i.e., language first spoken)? If more than one, please briefly describe the
situations in which each language was used.
10.) Which language do you consider your second language (please circle: English or Spanish)?
11.) If you have ever lived in or visited a country where languages other than your native language are spoken,
please indicate below the name of the country(countries), the duration of your stay in number of months, and
which languages you used while you were in the country (please indicate if you were spoken to in
a language other than your first language, even if you never actually spoke that language).
Country visited
# Months there
Language(s) used
12.) List below, from most fluent to least fluent, all of the languages you know.
Also specify the age in years at which you began to learn the language and the
context in which you learned it. For example, "English, birth, home". Include all
languages to which you have been exposed, although you may never have had
formal training in them and may not be able to read, speak or write them.
Please remember to list your native language.
Language
Age in yrs.
Learning Situation
148
13.) What languages were spoken in your home while you were a child and by whom?
14.) How many years have you studied your second language? Please indicate the setting(s) in which you have had
experience with the language (i.e., classroom, with friends, foreign country...)
Number of years:
Setting(s):
15.) What Spanish courses have you taken in the past or are currently taking?
**For the next eight questions, please circle the number of your response:**
16.) Please rate your English reading proficiency on a ten-point scale. (1= not literate, 10= very literate)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
not literate
9
10
very literate
17.) Please rate your Spanish reading proficiency on a ten-point scale. (1= not literate, 10= very literate)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
not literate
9
10
very literate
18.) Please rate your English writing proficiency on a ten-point scale. (1= not literate, 10= very literate)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
not literate
9
10
very literate
19.) Please rate your Spanish writing proficiency on a ten-point scale. (1= not literate, 10= very literate)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
not literate
9
10
very literate
20.) Please rate your English conversational fluency on a ten-point scale. (1= not fluent, 10= very fluent)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
not literate
9
10
very literate
21.) Please rate your Spanish conversational fluency on a ten-point scale.
(1= not fluent, 10= very fluent)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
not literate
9
10
very literate
149
22.) Please rate your English speech comprehension ability on a ten-point scale.
(1= unable to understand conversation, 10= perfectly able to understand conversation)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
not literate
9
10
very literate
23.) Please rate your Spanish speech comprehension ability on a ten-point scale.
(1= unable to understand conversation, 10= perfectly able to understand
conversation)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
not literate
9
very literate
24.) Have you ever been immersed in your second language culture?
(please circle one)
10
yes
no
25.) Is there anything else about your language background that you would like
to comment on? Please feel free to make comments about things which were not
covered on this questionnaire.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!
150
APPENDIX G: SYNONYM-SOLICITATION TASK FOR HOMOGRAPHS
Por favor, indique si usted tiene familiaridad con los verbos a continuación. Luego, para cada
verbo con el cual usted tiene familiaridad, escriba un verbo de sinónimo para cada significado en
que puede pensar. Indique con la escala de dificultad si le fue fácil o difícil pensar en cada
significado/sinónimo.
Verbo
Tiene usted
familiaridad
con este
verbo?
andar
1. admirar
2. amasar
3. alternar
4. alterar
5. aprobar
6. armar
7. cancelar
8. contar
9. discutir
10. doblar
11.experimentar
12. inscribir
13. pasar
14. acusar
15. asistir
16. soportar
17. suspender
18. retirar
19. avisar
20. conducir
21. registrar
22. suceder
23. aplicar
24. atender
25. datar
26. realizar
27. reflejar
28. salvar
29. introducir
30. solicitar
31. acostar
32. asumir
33. blindar
34. concurrir
sí/no
Significado
1
Escala de
dificultad
4=fácil;
1=difícil
Significado 2
Escala de
dificultad
4=fácil;
1=difícil
caminar
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
funcionar
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
151
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Significado
3
Escala de
dificultad
4=fácil;
1=difícil
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
contestar
chocar
desvestir
diverter
divisar
embarazar
enroller
esposar
estrechar
fabricar
faltar
fumar
intentar
mimar
molestar
pretender
probar
quitar
recordar
regresar
replicar
resumir
restar
revolver
sacar
remover
tirar
guardar
editar
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
152
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
APPENDIX H: SYNONYM-SOLICITATION TASK FOR COGNATES
153
154
APPENDIX I: SYNONYM-CLARIFICATION TASK
155
156
157
APPENDIX J: SYNONYM-RATING TASK FOR HOMOGRAPHS, SPANISH
Nombre:
Para cada verbo a continuación, indica 1) el (los) significados más común(es) para tí y 2) hasta qué punto el
significado es sinónimo del verbo (1= no son sinónimos, 10 = son sinónimos fuertes). Si ves que te falta un
significado muy común, puedes escribir cualquier otro significado que asocies con la palabra.
Ejemplos:A. Si para ‘escribir’ el único significado que le puedes asignar es el de ‘anotar’ y para tí es un
sinónimo muy fuerte, lo escoges y le asignas un número alto. Si no ves ninguna relación entre ‘escribir’ y
‘pensar’, le asignas ‘1’ a ‘pensar’.
escribir
anotar
1234567
pensar
1234567
________
1234567
B. Si para ‘tomar’ los significados relacionados son los de ‘beber’ y ‘agarrar’, escoges los dos significados y
les asignas un número apropiado.
tomar
beber
1234567
agarrar
1234567
________
1234567
C. Si para ‘abrazar’ usas mucho el significado de ‘enlazar’ pero también el de ‘adoptar’, y ‘adoptar’ no se
encuentra, escribe ‘adoptar’ en el espacio de blanco. Luego, indica hasta qué punto los significados son
sinónimos.
abrazar
acortar
enlazar
______
1234567
1234567
1234567
VERBO
SIGNIFICADO
1
acostar
2
replicar
dormir
atacar
_____________
repetir
contestar
_____________
158
ESCALA
DE
RELACION
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
experimentar investigar
sentir
_____________
fortificar
blindar
cegar
_____________
ocurrir
pasar
atravesar
aprobar
_____________
estrangular
chocar
colisionar
_____________
aumentar
doblar
plegar
_____________
manejar
conducir
transmitir
dirigir
_____________
cambiar
divertir
disfrutar
_____________
mezclar
revolver
girar
_____________
observar
divisar
desarrollar
_____________
consentir
aprobar
superar
_____________
rescatar
salvar
ahorrar
_____________
inscribir
enrollar
liar
_____________
extender
estrechar
encoger
_____________
chocar
estampar
imprimir
_____________
159
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
17
embarazar
18
contestar
19
mimar
20
molestar
21
quitar
22
restar
23
resumir
24
suceder
25
admirar
26
tirar
27
recordar
28
remover
29
desvestir
30
amasar
31
guardar
avergonzar
preñar
_____________
debatir
responder
_____________
acariciar
imitar
_____________
fastidiar
violar
_____________
sacar
abandonar
_____________
sustraer
relajarse
_____________
continuar
sintetizar
_____________
triunfar
ocurrir
_____________
estimar
asombrar
_____________
lanzar
cansar
_____________
memorizar
grabar
_____________
agitar
quitar
_____________
desnudar
retirar
_____________
mezclar
acumular
_____________
conservar
proteger
_____________
160
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
32
atender
33
avisar
34
datar
35
discutir
36
asistir
37
esposar
38
contar
39
retirar
40
suspender
41
editar
42
pretender
43
inscribir
44
aplicar
45
armar
presenciar
escuchar
_____________
advertir
recomendar
_____________
fechar
salir
_____________
dialogar
disputar
_____________
presenciar
ayudar
_____________
casar
atar
_____________
enumerar
relatar
_____________
apartar
sacar
jubilarse
_____________
fracasar
interrumpir
colgar
_____________
publicar
corregir
_____________
intentar
fingir
_____________
apuntar
matricular
_____________
poner
solicitar
_____________
equipar
organizar
_____________
161
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
46
intentar
47
soportar
48
importar
49
enviar
50
grabar
51
demandar
52
entretener
53
gratificar
54
invertir
55
introducir
56
fabricar
57
abortar
58
realizar
59
reflejar
60
fumar
tratar
planear
_____________
aguantar
mantener
_____________
interesar
adquirir
_____________
mandar
querer
_____________
tomar
registrar
_____________
exigir
litigar
_____________
divertir
retrasarse
_____________
pagar
agradar
_____________
alterar
gastar
_____________
meter
presentar
_____________
producir
mentir
_____________
matar
terminar
_____________
entender
ejecutar
_____________
contemplar
mostrar
_____________
rabiar
aspirar
_____________
162
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
61
marchar
62
ventilar
63
exponer
64
relatar
65
consentir
andar
funcionar
_____________
airear
divulgar
_____________
revelar
explicar
_____________
relacionarse
contar
_____________
malcriar
permitir
_____________
163
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
APPENDIX K: SYNONYM-RATING TASK FOR COGNATES, SPANISH
164
165
166
APPENDIX L: SYNONYM-RATING TASK FOR HOMOGRAPHS, ENGLISH
For each verb in bold below, indicate 1) the most common meanings of each for you and 2) to what degree
each meaning is a synonym of the verb in bold, assigning a value between 1 and 7 (1 = not a synonym, 7=a
strong synonym). Note: If you find that a meaning you use is not presented, write it in the blank and
include it in the values you assign.
Examples:A. If for you, ‘to make notes’ is the only meaning or synonym you can choose for ‘to
write’ and it is a strong synonym, then you give it a high number. Si you don’t see any
relationship of ‘synonym’ between ‘to think’ and ‘to write’, then you assign a ‘1’ to ‘to think’.
to write
to make notes
1234567
to think
1234567
________
1234567
B. If for ‘to embrace’, you use the meaning ‘to hug’, but also the meaning ‘to adopt’ as in ‘to adopt or
embrace an idea’, then you write it in the blank. Then you indicate to what degree the meanings are
synonyms.
to embrace
to shorten
to hug
to adopt
1
VERB
to accost
2
to replicate
3
to
experiment
4
to blind
5
to pass
6
to choke
1234567
1234567
1234567
MEANING
to sleep
to attack
_____________
to repeat
to answer
_____________
to investigate
POINTS
1234 567
1234 567
1234 567
1234 567
1234 567
1234 567
1234 567
to feel
_____________
to fortify
to take away sight
_____________
to occur or
happen
to travel across or
by
to achieve (in a
class, on a test)
_____________
to strangle
to collide
_____________
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
167
567
567
567
567
567
567
1234 567
1234 567
1234
1234
1234
1234
567
567
567
567
7
to double
8
to conduct
9
to divert
10
to revolve
11
to devise
12
to approve
13
to sabe
14
to enroll
15
to stretch
16
to stamp
17
to
embarrass
18
to contest
19
to mime
20
to molest
21
to quit
22
to rest
23
to resume
to make larger
to fold
_____________
to drive
to transmitir
to direct
_____________
to change
to enjoy
_____________
to mix
to rotate
_____________
to observe
to develop
_____________
to consent
to achieve in, to
pass
_____________
to rescue
to keep money
_____________
to register
to join together
_____________
to extend
to shrink
_____________
to crash
to print
_____________
to bring shame
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
to impregnate
_____________
to argue
to respond
_____________
to carress
imitate
_____________
to bother
to rape
_____________
to take out
to abandon
_____________
to substract
to relax
_____________
to continue
to synthesize
_____________
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
168
24
to sucede
25
to admire
26
to tire
27
to record
28
to remove
29
to divest
30
to amass
31
to guard
32
to attend
33
to advise
34
to date
35
to discuss
36
to assist
37
to espouse
38
to count
39
to retire
40
to suspend
to triumph
to occur
_____________
to hold in high
esteem
to surprise
_____________
to throw
to exhaust
_____________
to memorize
to save on cd,
record, tape
_____________
to stir
to take away
_____________
to get nude
to withdraw
_____________
to mix
to accumulate
_____________
to conserve
to protect
_____________
to be present
to listen
_____________
to warn
to recommend
_____________
to give day,
month, year
to go out
_____________
to dialogue
to argue
_____________
to be present
to help
_____________
to marry
to tie up
_____________
to number
to tell
_____________
to withdraw
to quit working
forever
_____________
to fail
to interrupt
to hang
_____________
169
1234
1234
1234
1234
567
567
567
567
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
567
567
567
567
567
41
to edit
42
to pretend
43
to inscribe
44
to apply
45
to arm
46
to intend
47
to support
48
to import
49
to envy
50
to grab
51
to demand
52
to entertain
53
to gratify
54
to invert
55
to introduce
56
to fabricate
57
to abort
to publish
to correct
_____________
to intend
to fake
_____________
to write down
to register in
classes
_____________
to put on
to solicit
to utilize
_____________
to equip
to organize
_____________
to try
to plan
_____________
to put up with
to maintain
_____________
to be of interest
to acquire
_____________
to send
to want
_____________
to take
to register
_____________
to require of
to litigate
_____________
to bring fun
to delay
_____________
to pay
to thank
_____________
to alter
to spend
_____________
to put into
to present
someone
_____________
to produce
to lie
_____________
to kill
to terminate
_____________
170
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
58
to realice
59
to reflect
60
to fume
61
to march
62
Ventílate
63
Expose
64
Relate
65
Consent
to understand
to execute, carry
out
_____________
to contemplate
to show
_____________
to get angry
to breathe in
_____________
to walk
to decide
to function
_____________
to air
to divulge
_____________
to reveal
to explain
_____________
to get along with
to tell a story
_____________
to spoil
to permit
_____________
171
1234 567
1234 567
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
567
APPENDIX M: SYNONYM-RATING TASK FOR COGNATES, ENGLISH
For each of the verbs below, indicate 1) the most typical meaning(s) for you and 2) to what point the
meaning(s) you choose are synonyms with the verb in bold (1=not synonyms, 7= strong synonyms). If you see
that a meaning you use is not present, write in the space provided and then rate its relationship to the verb.
Examples: A. If for ‘to write’ the only meaning you can choose is that of ‘to make notes’, then you choose it
and assign it with an appropriate number. If you don’t see any relationship between ‘to write’ and ‘to think’ as
direct synonyms, then you assign a ‘1’ to ‘to think’.
to write
to make notes
to think
______________
1234567
1234567
1234567
B. If for ‘embrace’, you often use the meaning ‘to hug’, but also ‘to adopt’ as in ‘to embrace or adopt an idea’,
then write ‘to adopt’ in the blank and assign a number to each verb.
to embrace
to shorten
to hug
________
1
2
3
1234567
1234567
1234567
VERB
MEANING
SCALE OF
RELATIONSHIP
to adapt
to adjust
1234567
to choose
1234567
_____________
1234567
to acquire
1234567
to withdraw
1234567
_____________
1234567
to resolve
1234567
to acclaim
1234567
_____________
1234567
to adopt
to aplaud
172
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
to ascend
to calm
to consent
to consider
to depend
to desert
to insult
to reclaim
1234567
to go up; rise
1234567
_____________
1234567
to make
tranquil
1234567
to make fun of
1234567
_____________
1234567
to advise
1234567
to permit
1234567
_____________
1234567
to value
1234567
to establish
1234567
to have an
opinion about
1234567
_____________
1234567
to need
1234567
to focus
1234567
_____________
1234567
to abandon
1234567
to help
1234567
_____________
1234567
to offend
1234567
to frame
1234567
_____________
1234567
173
11
13
14
15
16
18
to limit
to detest
to adorn
to control
to invent
to document
to tell a fable
1234567
to restrict
1234567
_____________
1234567
to hate
1234567
to brush
1234567
_____________
1234567
to take off
1234567
to decorate
1234567
_____________
1234567
to watch over,
guard
1234567
to direct
1234567
to share
1234567
_____________
1234567
to create
1234567
to lie
1234567
to confuse
1234567
_____________
1234567
to subliminate
1234567
to register
1234567
_____________
1234567
174
19
20
21
22
23
24
to occur
to assign
to permit
to affirm
to acquire
to affect
to follow
1234567
to happen
1234567
to add
1234567
_____________
1234567
to give
1234567
to breathe
1234567
_____________
1234567
to consent
1234567
to get up or
raise up
1234567
to tolerate
1234567
_____________
1234567
to agree
1234567
to say
1234567
_____________
1234567
to obtain
1234567
to look over
1234567
_____________
1234567
to influence
1234567
to withdraw
1234567
_____________
1234567
175
25
26
27
28
29
30
to associate
to anticipate
to analize
to calculate
to celebrate
to persist
to relate
1234567
to exhibit
1234567
to bind or unite
1234567
_____________
1234567
to foresee
1234567
to taste
1234567
_____________
1234567
to recover
1234567
to examine
1234567
_____________
1234567
to count
1234567
to hand in
1234567
_____________
1234567
to feast, party
1234567
to sustain
1234567
_____________
1234567
to contine
1234567
to tolerate
1234567
to take off
1234567
_____________
1234567
176
32
to collect
to group
together
1234567
to move
1234567
_____________
1234567
1234567
33
34
35
36
37
to classify
to consume
to continue
to coordinate
to copy
to distrust
1234567
to bring order
1234567
_____________
1234567
to spend
1234567
to share
1234567
to take
1234567
_____________
1234567
to walk across
1234567
to pursue
1234567
_____________
1234567
to unfold
1234567
to organize
1234567
_____________
1234567
to imitate
1234567
to walk
1234567
_____________
1234567
177
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
to decide
to declare
to divorce
to identify
to imitate
to confess
to
communicate
to elect
1234567
to determine
1234567
to choose
1234567
_____________
1234567
to reject
1234567
to confess
1234567
_____________
1234567
to signal
1234567
to separate
1234567
_____________
1234567
to recognize
1234567
to worry, be
preoccupied
1234567
_____________
1234567
to copy
1234567
to greet
1234567
_____________
1234567
to declare
1234567
to breathe
1234567
_____________
1234567
to verify
1234567
to talk
1234567
_____________
1234567
178
45
46
47
48
49
50
to adore
to benefit
to investigate
to memorize
to mention
to offend
to join
1234567
to love
1234567
to admire
1234567
_____________
1234567
to testify
1234567
to favor
1234567
_____________
1234567
to study
1234567
to experiment
1234567
to approve
1234567
_____________
1234567
to remember
1234567
to give advice
1234567
_____________
1234567
to confuse
1234567
to comment
1234567
_____________
1234567
to review
1234567
to insult
1234567
_____________
1234567
179
51
52
53
54
55
56
to observe
ocupar
to invite
to function
to identify
to eliminate
to notice
1234567
to contemplate
1234567
to look at
1234567
to listen to
1234567
_____________
1234567
to be
1234567
to dedicate
1234567
to teach
1234567
_____________
1234567
to reveal
1234567
to lodge
1234567
_____________
1234567
to work
1234567
to serve
1234567
_____________
1234567
to recognize
1234567
to worry
1234567
_____________
1234567
to erase
1234567
to have
nightfall arrive
1234567
_____________
1234567
180
57
58
59
60
61
62
to decide
to practice
to perceive
to abandon
to inform
to calculate
to determine
1234567
to choose
1234567
to sin
1234567
_____________
1234567
to put up with
1234567
to rehearse
1234567
to do
1234567
_____________
1234567
to detect
1234567
to turn on
1234567
_____________
1234567
to leave
1234567
to prove, verify
1234567
_____________
1234567
to investigate
1234567
to notify
1234567
to incur
1234567
_____________
1234567
to turn in
1234567
to reflect
1234567
to suppose
1234567
to compute
1234567
_____________
1234567
181
63
64
65
66
67
68
to activate
to protest
to plan
to pardon
to exist
to visit
to turn on
1234567
to bore
1234567
to function
1234567
_____________
1234567
to predict
1234567
to reject
1234567
to complain
1234567
_____________
1234567
to ruin
1234567
to project
1234567
_____________
1234567
to absolve
1234567
to exhibit,
display
1234567
_____________
1234567
to live
1234567
to walk
1234567
_____________
1234567
to see
1234567
to confuse
1234567
to travel
1234567
_____________
1234567
182
69
70
71
72
73
to invent
to ventilate
to prepare
to explore
to form
to help
1234567
to lie
1234567
to create
1234567
_____________
1234567
to divulge
1234567
to provide
oxygen
1234567
to examine
1234567
_____________
1234567
to plan
1234567
to teach
1234567
to elaborate
1234567
_____________
1234567
to study
1234567
to travel
1234567
to classify
1234567
_____________
1234567
to establish
1234567
to educate
1234567
to isolate
1234567
____________
1234567
183
74
75
76
77
to reveal
to respect
to dictate
to coordinate
to go up
1234567
to declare
1234567
to discover
1234567
____________
1234567
to honor
1234567
to bake
1234567
to obey
1234567
____________
1234567
to decide
1234567
to turn
1234567
to obligate
1234567
____________
1234567
to relate
1234567
to combine
1234567
to organize
1234567
____________
1234567
184
APPENDIX N: FORM-SIMILARITY RATING TASK
Name:
Number:
Please use the scale below to rate the degree to which you think the Spanish and English verbs
look alike in each verb pair below.
Keep in mind that the verbs will never look exactly alike because Spanish verbs have verb
endings (-ar, -ir, -er) that are different from English. You can, however, make a form similarity
judgement based on the rest of the verb.
Examples for using the scale
5: You see the complete English verb form in the Spanish verb:
conform
conformar
1234567
1: You see very little to no similarity between the two verbs in the pair.
suspect
sospechar
1234567
VERB
VERBO
SCALE
1
accost
acostar
1234567
2
replicate
replicar
1234567
3
experiment
experimentar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4
blind
blindar
1234567
5
pass
pasar
1234567
6
choke
chocar
1234567
7
double
doblar
1234567
8
conduct
conducir
1234567
185
9
divert
divertir
1234567
10
revolve
revolver
1234567
11
devise
divisar
1234567
12
approve
aprobar
1234567
13
save
salvar
1234567
14
enroll
enrollar
1234567
15
stretch
estrechar
1234567
16
stamp
estampar
1234567
17
embarrass
embarazar
1234567
18
contest
contestar
1234567
19
mime
mimar
1234567
20
molest
molestar
1234567
21
quit
quitar
1234567
22
rest
restar
1234567
23
accuse
acusar
1234567
24
resume
resumir
1234567
25
succede
suceder
1234567
26
admire
admirar
1234567
27
tire
tirar
1234567
28
alter
alterar
1234567
29
record
recordar
1234567
30
remove
remover
1234567
31
divest
desvestir
1234567
186
32
amass
amasar
1234567
33
guard
guardar
1234567
34
attend
atender
1234567
35
advise
avisar
1234567
36
date
datar
1234567
37
discuss
discutir
1234567
38
register
registrar
1234567
39
assist
asistir
1234567
40
espouse
esposar
1234567
41
count
contar
1234567
42
retire
retirar
1234567
43
suspend
suspender
1234567
44
edit
editar
1234567
45
pretend
pretender
1234567
46
inscribe
inscribir
1234567
47
apply
aplicar
1234567
48
arm
armar
1234567
49
intend
intender
1234567
50
support
soportar
1234567
51
import
importar
1234567
52
envy
enviar
1234567
53
grab
grabar
1234567
54
admit
admitir
1234567
187
55
demand
demandar
1234567
56
entertain
entretener
1234567
57
gratify
gratificar
1234567
58
invert
invertir
1234567
59
introduce
introducir
1234567
60
fabricate
fabricar
1234567
61
abort
abortar
1234567
62
realize
realizar
1234567
63
reflect
reflejar
1234567
64
fume
fumar
1234567
65
march
marchar
1234567
66
adapt
adaptar
1234567
67
adopt
adoptar
1234567
67
applaud
aplaudir
1234567
68
ascend
ascender
1234567
69
calm
calmar
1234567
70
consent
consentir
1234567
71
depend
depender
1234567
72
desert
desertar
1234567
73
insult
insultar
1234567
74
limit
limitar
1234567
75
detest
detestar
1234567
76
adorn
adornar
1234567
188
77
control
controlar
1234567
78
invent
inventar
1234567
79
document
documentar
1234567
80
occur
ocurrir
1234567
81
assign
asignar
1234567
82
permit
permitir
1234567
83
affirm
afirmar
1234567
84
declare
declarar
1234567
85
divorce
divorciar
1234567
86
identify
identificar
1234567
87
immitate
imitar
1234567
88
confess
confesar
1234567
89
communicate comunicar
1234567
90
anticipate
anticipar
1234567
91
adore
adorar
1234567
92
benefit
beneficiar
1234567
93
investigate
investigar
1234567
94
memorize
memorizar
1234567
95
mention
mencionar
1234567
96
offend
ofender
1234567
97
observe
observar
1234567
98
occupy
ocupar
1234567
99
acquire
adquirir
1234567
189
100 affect
afectar
1234567
101 associate
asociar
1234567
102 anticipate
anticipar
1234567
103 analyze
analizar
1234567
104 calculate
calcular
1234567
105 celebrate
celebrar
1234567
106 persist
persisitir
1234567
107 collect
coleccionar
1234567
108 classify
clasificar
1234567
109 consume
consumir
1234567
110 continue
continuar
1234567
111 coordinate
coordinar
1234567
112 copy
copiar
1234567
113 decide
decidir
1234567
114 invite
invitar
1234567
115 function
funcionar
1234567
116 identify
identificar
1234567
117 eliminate
eliminar
1234567
118 practice
practicar
1234567
119 perceive
percibir
1234567
120 abandon
abandonar
1234567
121 inform
informar
1234567
122 calculate
calcular
1234567
190
123 activate
activar
1234567
124 protest
protestar
1234567
125 plan
planear
1234567
126 pardon
perdonar
1234567
127 exist
existir
1234567
128 visit
visitar
1234567
129 invent
inventar
1234567
130 ventilate
ventilar
1234567
131 prepare
preparar
1234567
132 explore
explorar
1234567
133 form
formar
1234567
134 reveal
revelar
1234567
135 respect
respetar
1234567
136 dictate
dictar
1234567
137 coordinate
coordinar
1234567
191
APPENDIX O: HOMOGRAPH DATA, SYNONYM-SOLICITATION TASK
This is the homograph data set for the synonym-solicitation task as described in Chapter
3. It may be found in appendixo.pdf.
192
APPENDIX P: COGNATE DATA, SYNONYM-SOLICITATION TASK
100
encender,
animar,
enchufar
100
acomodar,
aceptar,
transform
ar
100
querer,
venerar,
idolatrar,
amar
100
asegurar,
verificar,
confirmar
100
investigar,
estudiar,
explorar
100
dar,
designar,
colocar,
clasificar
activar
C
(activate)
adaptar
C
(adapt)
to activate,
get going
to adjust, to
accommod
ate
adorar
C
(adore)
afirmar
C
(affirm)
to adore,
worship
to ensure,
to verify, to
accept
analizar
C
(analyze)
to analyze
asignar
C
(assign)
to assign
193
best synonyms
%
meaning 3
best synonym
examples
%
meaning 2
best synonym
examples
%
meaning 1
verb
Cognate Type
Summary of Phase II data: synonym-solicitation task for potential cognates, Spanish
monolinguals (N=39).
100
favorecer,
ganar,
mejorar
100
organizar,
categoriza
r
100
juntar,
reunir,
acumular
100
diferencia
r, asociar,
sopesar
to confess,
admit
100
declarar,
decir,
admitir
to continue
100
seguir,
mantener
to
cooperate
100
ayudar,
colaborar
100
organizar,
facilitar,
dirigir
100
elegir,
selecciona
r, escoger
100
necesitar,
subordina
r
100
abandonar
, huir,
dejar
beneficiar
C
(benefit)
to benefit
clasificar
C
(classify)
to classify
colecciona
r
C
(collect)
to collect
comparar
C
(compare)
to compare
confesar
C
(confess)
continuar
C
(continue)
cooperar
C
(cooperate
)
coordinar
C
(coordinat
e)
to
coordinate,
organize
decidir
C
(decide)
to decide
depender
C
(depend)
to need
deserter
C
(desert)
to flee,
abandon
194
100
percibir,
hallar,
descubrir,
localizar
100
separar,
romper,
desunir
100
informar,
demostrar
,
investigar,
papelear
to
eliminate
100
extermina
r, abolir,
destruir,
borrar
to offend,
criticize
100
ofenderr,
criticar
to
memorize
100
aprender,
recorder
to mention
100
decir,
nombrar,
pronuncia
r
to happen
100
pasar,
suceder
to insult
100
insultar,
maltratar
detectar
C
(detect)
to detect
divorciar
C
(divorce)
to divorce,
separate
document
ar
C
(document
)
to
document
eliminar
C
(eliminate
)
insultar
C
(insult)
memorizar
C
(memorize
)
mencionar
C
(mention)
ocurrir
C
(ocurr)
ofender
C
(offend)
195
100
notar,
notar,
sentir
100
dejar,
consentir,
aceptar,
tolerar
99
tranquiliz
ar, relajar,
callar,
consolar
98
reconocer,
conocer,
señalar
percibir
C
(perceive)
to notice
permitir
C
(permit)
to permit,
allow
calmar
C
(calm)
to calm, to
relax
1
aliviar
to
associate
2
asociar
98
ensayar,
repetir,
ejercitar
to work
2
trabajar
94
copiar,
plagiar,
emular
to make
fun of,
mimic
4
burlar,
pantomim
ar
94
crear,
innovar,
descubrir,
imaginar
to lie
5
mentir
identificar
C
(identify)
to
recognize
practicar
C
(practice)
to practice,
repeat
imitar
C
(imitate)
to imitate,
copy
inventar
C
(invent)
to create
196
to seem like
2
parecer
92
subir,
elevar,
levanter
to
improve
or better
(oneself)
; to make
progress
7
mejorar,
progresar,
avanzar,
prosperar
90
dialogar,
hablar,
decir
to
transmit
5
transmitir
90
comer,
tomar,
gastar
to use up
10
89
crear,
generar,
fabricar
to yield
10
realizar
to make
happy
89
alegrar,
contentar,
agradar
to meet
(requirements)
11
cumplir,
realizar
to limit,
restrict
87
restringir,
acotar
to border
11
fronteriza
r, bordear
to end, to
stop
85
parar,
interrumpi
r, cancelar
to kill
14
matar
to criticize
84
opinar,
insultar
to gossip
16
cotillear,
chismosar
81
pagar,
celebrar,
convidar
to call on
19
llamar,
decir
ascender
C
(ascend)
to rise up,
lift up
comunicar
C
(communi
cate)
consumir
C
(consume)
to
announce,
say
to
consume,
eat, buy
producir
C
(produce)
to produce
satisfacer
C
(satisfy)
(limit)
abortar
C
(abort)
criticar
C
(criticize)
invitar
C
(invite)
to invite,
pay
197
5
conectar,
contactar
2
causar,
determina
r
acabar,
utilizar
limitar
C
to connect, to contact
to cause
funcionar
C
(function)
to work,
run,
operate
80
activar,
trabajar,
marchar
to show, to
teach
71
enseñar,
mostrar
to go (out)
with
70
to work
out/to be
useful
20
servir,
usar
to prove
29
comproba
r, probar,
verificar
to show (emotion)
ir, seguir,
pasear
to work
together
20
juntar,
asociar
to be with
70
hacer,
cocinar
to
organize
23
organizar,
arreglar
study
7
enseñar,
educar or
practicar
69
decir,
hablar,
anunciar
to
confess
23
confesar
to proclaim, announce
8
proclamar
, anunciar
festejar
to
delight
21
manifesta
r, hacer,
congregar
to take place
9
alegrar,
diverter
37
relacionar
,
emparejar
to relate together, to pair
up
38
alterar,
modificar,
influir
demostrar
C
(demonstr
ate)
acompaña
r
C
(accompa
ny)
preparar
C
(prepare)
declarar
C
(declare)
to teach or to practice/
to make,
prepare
to
announce,
say
celebrar
C
(celebrate)
to celebrate
65
to
associate
people/
asociar
C
(associate)
to unite,
join
63
unir,
juntar
make
partner
62
doler,
sufrir,
sentir
to affect,
change
afectar
C
(affect)
10
to sadden,
hurt, feel
198
estar
62
reproducir
, duplicar,
imitar
to cheat
to
apprehend,
catch
60
coger,
captar,
adquirir
to foresee
59
preveer,
adivinar
56
llenar,
atender,
hacer
copiar
C
(copy)
to copy,
duplicate
31
plagiar,
calcar
to write
to
understa
nd/know
30
saber,
conocer,
entender
*Participants show
confusion with ‘aprender’:
to learn/to know.
to bring
forward
34
adelantar,
avanzar
to live
(place)
41
habitar,
permanec
er/occupy
position
54
mirar,
contempla
r
to see,
notice
46
ver,
percibir
49
creer,
reconocer,
opinar
to
consider,
think
about
39
pensar,
reflexiona
r
to keep in mind
48
pensar,
analizar
to
calculate
math
44
contar,
operar,
enumerar
to work out
48
estudiar,
analizar,
experimentar
to investigate
, look for
42
buscar,
document
ar,
explorar
significar
to
describe
33
describir,
explicar
7
Escribir
36
estar,
sitiar,
sentarse
12
tener en
cuenta,
entender
7
resolver
aprehende
r
*
(apprehen
d)
anticipar
C
(anticipate
)
ocupar
C
(occupy)
observar
C
(observe)
to occupy
time
to observe,
contemplat
e
considerar
C
(consider)
to believe
calcular
C
(calculate)
to think
about
investigar
C
(investigat
e)
to study,
research
to occupy space
definir
C
(define)
to define
42
199
to make sharp, delineate
25
delimitar,
limitar,
acortar
adquirir
C
(adquire)
to obtain
41
conseguir,
obtener,
coger
to
purchase
31
200
comprar
to assume, adopt
28
asumir,
tomar
APPENDIX Q: HOMOGRAPH DATA, SYNONYM-CLARIFICATION TASK
Meaning 5
Meaning 4
Meaning 3
Meaning 2
Meaning 1
Norming Phase II. Synonym-clarification task for homographs. Spanish monolinguals (N=37).
Numbers indicate the number of participant who ranked each synonym as Meanings 1, 2, 3, 4, or
5 of the target verb.
Verb
Synonym
Translation
Total
acostar
suspirar
to breathe
to put to bed
tumbar
to put to bed
marchar
to march
0
volucrar
to involve
0
abordar
to approach
0
0
36
36
no answer
0
not familiar
1
acusar
visitar
to visit
0
to accuse; to show
lavar
to wash
0
implicar
to implicate
mostrar
to show
tomar
to take
37
37
6
6
0
no answer
0
not familiar
2
admirar
adorar
to adore
31
6
37
to admire; be
astonished
suponer
to suppose
asombrar
to be astonished
discutir
to argue/discuss
1
1
2
necesitar
to need
1
1
2
0
6
14
20
no answer
0
not familiar
0
201
alterar
escoger
to choose
to change/alter; to
ruin
vivir
to live
cambiar
to change
estropear
volver
2
3
5
0
34
1
35
to ruin
11
11
to return
10
10
no answer
1
not familiar
1
alternar
variar
to vary
33
1
to vary; to mingle, go
out
codearse
to mingle
2
7
beber
to drink
1
1
dedicar
to dedicate
calibrar
to calibrate
34
1
10
1
3
0
9
1
10
no answer
0
not familiar
1
amasar
querer
0
to accumulate; to mix
or knead
acumular
to accumulate
adivinar
to guess
mezclar
to mix
portarse
to behave
7
11
18
0
27
6
33
0
no answer
1
not familiar
2
aplicar
dar
to give
7
10
1
18
to apply; to put on
poner
to put
24
4
1
29
solicitar
to solicit
4
4
1
9
rezar
to pray
0
freir
to fry
0
no answer
2
not familiar
0
202
aprobar
morder
to bite
to approve; to pass ( a
class)
acariciar
to caress
superar
to pass (a class)
lograr
consentir
1
1
30
4
2
36
to achieve
5
26
5
36
to allow
2
5
2
9
no answer
0
not familiar
0
equipar
to equip, arm; to
organize
14
7
2
23
montar
to set up
13
7
2
22
organizar
to organize
3
9
4
16
anunciar
to announce
1
solicitar
to solicit
armar
to arm, equip; to
organize
0
1
0
no answer
2
not familiar
3
asistir
preparar
to prepare
1
to attend; to help
cocinar
to cook
viajar
to travel
presenciar
to be present
ayudar
to help
1
0
3
3
37
37
10
1
11
no answer
1
not familiar
0
asumir
ofrecer
to offer
0
to accept; to take on
manchar
to stain
0
enseñar
to teach
aceptar
to accept
suponer
to suppose
1
36
1
36
10
10
no answer
0
not familiar
1
203
atender
reir
to laugh
1
1
to help; to listen/pay
attention
comenzar
to begin
escuchar
to listen
25
5
30
servir
to serve
5
3
8
presenciar
to be present
5
13
0
3
21
no answer
1
not familiar
0
avisar
empujar
to push
0
to warn; to
inform/advise
sentar
to sit
0
dormir
to sleep
0
advertir
to warn
33
2
35
aconsejar
to advise
2
27
29
no answer
1
not familiar
1
blindar
tirar
to throw
1
1
to fortify
matar
to kill
1
1
fortificar
to fortify
25
25
cegar
to blind
3
3
preocupar
to preoccupy
1
1
no answer
1
not familiar
9
cancelar
cortar
to cut
1
5
5
11
to cancel; to annul; to
pay off (bill)
dar
to give
0
usar
to use
0
anular
to annul
36
liquidar
to pay off (bill)
23
36
4
27
no answer
0
not familiar
0
204
chocar
creer
to believe
0
to crash
decir
to say
0
colisionar
to crash
sorprender
to surprise
7
7
asfixiar
to asfixiate
1
1
35
35
no answer
0
not familiar
2
conducir
engordar
to get fat
0
to conduct; to drive
(car); to lead
manejar
to drive
21
11
32
transportar
to transport
14
14
28
salir
to go out
sentir
to feel
2
2
0
no answer
2
not familiar
0
ntar
caluclar
to calculate
16
10
26
to tell; to count
relatar
to tell
20
7
27
fusilar
to shoot
forzar
to force
rogar
to beg
0
1
1
0
no answer
1
not familiar
0
consentir
pedir
to ask for
0
to consent
permitir
to allow
vender
to sell
graduarse
to graduate
roncar
to snore
36
36
0
1
1
0
no answer
1
not familiar
0
205
contestar
rebatir
to refute
to answer; to refute
responder
to respond
devolver
datar
2
13
2
1
18
33
2
1
36
to return
1
8
8
17
juzgar
to judge
1
dar
to give
1
0
no answer
0
not familiar
0
dirigir
to direct
fechar
to give calendar
date
cerrar
to close
salir
to go out
construir
to construct
to give calendar date
0
30
30
1
1
0
1
1
no answer
0
not familiar
6
desvestir
desnudar
to undress
35
1
36
to undress
despojar
to strip
2
24
26
pedir
to ask for
0
ordenar
to order
0
soñar
to dream
0
no answer
0
not familiar
0
206
discutir
pensar
to think
1
to discuss; to argue
dialogar
to dialogue/talk
caminar
to walk
0
levantar
to raise up
0
disputar
to dispute/to argue
16
20
1
13
12
2
29
1
33
no answer
1
not familiar
0
divertir
dedicar
to dedicate
to enjoy
gozar
to enjoy
mostrar
to show
desviar
to detour
planear
to plan
2
1
3
35
2
37
1
1
0
1
2
3
no answer
1
not familiar
0
divisar
marcar
to mark
3
to discern; to see
danzar
to dance
capturar
to capture
1
1
planear
to plan
1
1
observar
to observe
34
2
3
0
2
2
4
36
no answer
0
not familiar
1
doblar
dedicar
to dedicate
1
1
to iron; to fold; to
double
escuchar
to listen
1
1
plegar
to iron
aumentar
to increase
1
correr
to run
2
33
33
6
7
2
no answer
0
not familiar
1
207
editar
corregir
to correct
1
1
to publish
publicar
to publish
importar
to import
desconectar
to disconnect
0
frustrar
to frustrate
0
33
33
2
2
no answer
0
not familiar
4
embarazar
preñar
to impregnate
30
2
32
to impregnate
avergonzar
to embarrass
5
7
12
incluir
to include
0
aburrir
to bore
0
pecar
to sin
0
no answer
0
not familiar
2
enrollar
acelerar
to accelerate
0
to roll up; to join
ajuntar
to join
liar
to roll up
(cigarrette)
matricular
to register
0
atestiguar
to testify
0
1
35
7
8
35
no answer
0
not familiar
1
esposar
pescar
to fish
0
to handcuff
casar
to marry
16
7
23
atar
to tie up
19
7
26
desconfiar
not to trust
acumular
to accumulate
0
1
1
no answer
0
not familiar
2
208
estampar
imprimir
to print
to stamp/imprint; to
crash
limpiar
to clean
impresionar
to impress
chocar
to crash
hallarse
to find
12
11
23
0
6
1
1
8
17
4
21
1
1
no answer
0
not familiar
2
estrechar
cruzar
to cross
2
4
to tighten; to narrow
producir
to produce
0
gritar
to shout
0
apretar
to tighten
extender
to lengthen
32
1
1
1
6
33
1
3
no answer
0
not familiar
2
experimentar
asustar
to scare
0
to experiment; to
experience
investigar
to investigate
probar
to prove; to try
ganar
to earn
sentir
to feel
29
3
6
19
32
1
26
0
2
2
4
no answer
1
not familiar
1
fabricar
buscar
to look for
0
to produce
prestar
to lend
0
producir
to produce
mentir
to lie
0
acampar
to camp
0
35
35
no answer
0
not familiar
2
209
fumar
rabiar
to be furious
to smoke (cigarrettes)
humear
to produce smoke
encontrar
to encounter
aspirar
to breathe, to
aspire
afrentar
to confront
0
22
5
27
0
10
13
23
0
no answer
2
not familiar
2
guardar
congelar
to freeze
0
to keep; to protect
conservar
to conserve
proteger
to protect
descansar
to rest
seleccionar
to select
34
2
36
2
19
21
0
1
1
2
no answer
1
not familiar
0
inscribir
verificar
to verify
2
to register/to
matriculate; to
write/to inscribe
llamar
to call
matricular
to matriculate
escribir
to write
mandar
to order
2
0
37
37
9
9
1
1
no answer
0
not familiar
2
210
intentar
censurar
to censure
to try
mutilarse
to mutilate
tratar
to try
citar
to cite
planear
to plan
1
1
0
34
3
1
1
36
1
1
9
12
no answer
0
not familiar
0
introducir
nombrar
to name
1
1
2
to insert; to introduce
to sthg
meter
to put
30
3
33
presentar
to present
4
4
volver
to return
0
conectar
to connect
0
1
9
no answer
1
not familiar
1
mimar
acariciar
to caress
35
35
to spoil (child)
planchar
to iron
0
pintar
to paint
0
pegar
to glue, to hit
0
imitar
to imitate
2
2
no answer
0
not familiar
0
molestar
doler
to hurt
to bother
violar
to violate
funcionar
to function
fastidiar
to bother
grapar
to staple
4
16
2
20
4
6
0
31
1
1
33
0
no answer
0
not familiar
2
211
pasar
andar
to walk
5
10
1
16
to pass; to walk; to
occur
atravesar
to cross (a street)
25
7
2
34
ocurrir
to occur
5
7
2
14
engañar
to deceive, mislead
0
comprar
to buy
0
no answer
0
not familiar
2
conocer
to meet, to be
familiar
6
1
aspirar
to aspire, to
breathe
21
2
23
fingir
to pretend
2
1
3
hablar
to speak
3
2
5
separar
to separate
pretender
1
8
to aspire/to try to be
0
no answer
1
not familiar
4
quitar
sacar
to remove
24
to remove
favorecer
to favor
dejar
to leave
4
parar
to stop
3
cambiar
to change
3
4
28
0
4
2
10
3
4
7
no answer
2
not familiar
2
realizar
ejecutar
to execute
to make happen
entender
to understand
mezclar
to mix
morir
to die
0
perder
to lose
0
recordar
37
37
1
1
2
2
2
no answer
0
not familiar
0
Detener
to detain
1
212
1
2
to remember
matricular
to register
0
molestar
to bother
0
grabar
to record (music),
to engrave
memorizar
to memorize
2
20
22
34
1
35
no answer
0
not familiar
0
reflejar
comunicar
to communicate
2
9
11
to reflect
parar
to stop
mostrar
to show
32
1
33
reflexionar
to reflect
1
2
3
coser
to sew
0
0
no answer
0
not familiar
2
registrar
anotar
to jot/write down
24
5
29
to register; to search;
to record
matricular
to register
10
14
24
guiar
to guide
brindar
to toast (drinks)
0
falsificar
to falsify
0
1
1
2
no answer
2
not familiar
1
213
remover
agitar
to shake/agitate
28
6
34
to stir
flotar
to float
batir
to beat (stir)
quitar
to remove
0
sorprender
to surprise
0
0
8
20
28
no answer
0
not familiar
1
replicar
duplicar
to duplicate
to reply/to retort
contestar
to answer
sustituir
to substitute
avergonzar
to shame
asegurar
to assure
7
6
13
23
1
23
3
1
5
1
2
2
1
1
5
no answer
0
not familiar
1
restar
sentir
to feel
to remain; to subtract
quedar
to remain
perseguir
to pursue
sustraer
to subtract
descansar
to rest
0
1
3
4
0
31
1
32
0
no answer
1
not familiar
3
resumir
obedecer
to obey
0
to summarize
oir
to hear
0
sintetizar
to synthesize
35
apartar
to pull away
1
continuar
to continue
35
4
5
0
no answer
0
not familiar
1
214
jubilarse
to retire (from
work)
mezclar
to mix
26
4
30
girar
to spin
3
6
9
querer
to love; to want
sufrir
to suffer
revolver
0
to stir
0
1
1
no answer
3
not familiar
4
salvar
rescatar
to rescue
36
to rescue
pelear
to fight
lanzar
to throw
guardar
to guard; to keep
ahorrar
to save money
36
0
7
1
1
1
8
2
2
4
no answer
0
not familiar
1
solicitar
nacer
to be born
to request
empezar
to begin
pedir
to ask for
buscar
to look for
abrir
to open
0
1
1
37
37
9
9
0
no answer
0
not familiar
0
soportar
averiguar
to ascertain
1
1
to bear (weight); to
put up with
coordinar
to coordinate
sostener
to sustain
3
rebatir
to refute
1
1
aguantar
to put up with
3
37
0
34
15
18
no answer
0
not familiar
0
215
suceder
masticar
to chew
0
to happen; to succeed
(in succession)
ir
to go
ocurrir
to occur
triunfar
to triumph
encantar
to be enchanted
1
1
2
31
2
33
1
1
0
no answer
2
not familiar
2
suspender
formar
to form
1
1
to hang; to suspend; to
fail
colgar
to hang
3
3
6
fracasar
to fail
29
3
32
innovar
to innovate
0
encontrar
to find
0
no answer
3
not familiar
2
tirar
concentrar
to concentrate
0
to throw
aprender
to learn
0
lanzar
to throw
cansar
to tire
0
limitar
to limit
0
35
35
no answer
1
not familiar
0
216
APPENDIX R: COGNATE DATA, SYNONYM-CLARIFICATION TASK
Meaning 5
Meaning 4
Meaning 3
Meaning 2
Verb
Meaning 1
Norming Phase II. Synonym clarification task for cognates. Spanish monolinguals (N=37).
Numbers indicate the number of participants who ranked each synonym as Meanings 1, 2, 3, 4,
or 5 of the target verb.
Synonym
Translation
abortar
interrumpir
to interrupt
to end,
interrupt
leer
to read
0
crecer
to grow
0
matar
to kill
7
decidir
to decide
1
25
3
Total
28
12
19
2
3
no answer
0
not familiar
4
acompañar
mentir
to lie
to accompany
suspender
to suspend
juntar
to join together
avanzar
apoyar
0
17
6
to advance
1
4
to support
16
23
2
7
16
no answer
2
not familiar
1
activar
destruir
to destruct
0
to activate
encender
to turn on
enterarse
to find out
0
generalizar
to generalize
0
funcionar
to function
31
5
2
19
33
24
no answer
0
not familiar
1
217
adaptar
ajustar
to adjust
33
1
34
to adapt
abordar
to approach
1
1
2
manejar
to drive
2
1
3
sacar
to take out
1
1
enchufar
to plug in
2
3
5
no answer
0
not familiar
1
adoptar
felicitar
to congratulate
1
1
to adopt
respirar
to breathe
0
bajar
to lower
0
adquirir
to acquire
esperar
to hope
33
1
34
1
4
5
no answer
2
not familiar
1
adorar
estimar
to esteem
13
to adore
obtener
to obtain
1
querer
to love; to want
proceder
to proceed
0
gastar
to spend
0
22
9
22
1
9
31
no answer
1
not familiar
1
adornar
decorar
to decorate
36
36
to adorn
detener
to detain
0
ahogar
to drown
0
escoger
to choose
adivinar
to guess
5
5
0
no answer
1
not familiar
0
218
adquirir
comparar
to compare
2
1
3
to acquire
pedir
to ask for
3
4
1
8
encargar
to entrust
2
5
1
8
conseguir
to obtain
28
1
2
31
indicar
to indicate
0
no answer
1
not familiar
0
afectar
estar
to be
to affect
influir
to influence
mentir
to lie
atreverser
to dare
cesar
to stop
1
1
2
33
1
34
1
1
1
1
0
no answer
0
not familiar
2
afirmar
gozar
to enjoy
0
to affirm
decir
to say
5
10
tolerar
to tolerate
2
3
5
adelantar
to go forward
1
1
asentir
to agree
1
30
29
3
18
no answer
1
not familiar
0
analizar
examinar
to examine
to analyze
mejorar
to improve
prometir
to promise
desarrollar
to develop
avanzar
to advance
37
37
1
1
2
0
11
11
1
1
2
no answer
0
not familiar
0
219
anticipar
dirigir
to direct
to anticipate
prever
to predict
finalizar
to finalize
pasear
to stroll
narrar
to narrate
0
34
34
0
1
1
1
1
no answer
2
not familiar
0
aplaudir
corregir
to correct
0
to applaud
llevar
to carry
0
alcanzar
to achieve
aclamar
to acclaim
organizar
to organize
1
35
1
35
0
no answer
2
not familiar
0
aprehender
sospechar
to suspect
1
1
to apprehend
alquilar
to rent
1
1
entender
to understand
capturar
to capture
ofrecer
to offer
14
1
15
7
5
12
0
no answer
5
not familiar
9
ascender
pensar
to think
1
to rise
criar
to raise
0
ensordecer
to deafen
0
llover
to rain
0
subir
to rise
37
1
37
no answer
0
not familiar
0
220
asignar
analizar
to analyze
to assign
detectar
to detect
honrar
to honor
gozar
to enjoy
dar
to give
4
4
2
2
4
2
2
4
0
31
1
32
no answer
1
not familiar
1
asociar
instalar
to install
2
2
to associate
valer
to value
1
1
ligar
to link
32
32
combatir
to combat
0
inspirar
to inspire
0
no answer
1
not familiar
1
beneficiar
costar
to cost
0
to benefit
estudiar
to study
0
inscribir
to inscribe; to enroll
0
favorecer
to favor
ignorar
to ignore
36
36
0
no answer
0
not familiar
1
calcular
racionalizar
to rationalize
10
to calculate
cortar
to stop; to cut
escoger
to choose
adivinar
to guess
7
contar
to count
19
6
1
1
1
1
1
17
1
8
19
no answer
1
not familiar
0
221
calmar
besar
to kiss
1
to calm
tranquilizar
to calm
34
entrar
to enter
medir
to measure
pesar
to weigh
2
3
34
0
1
1
2
0
no answer
0
not familiar
1
celebrar
escribir
to write
to celebrate
festejar
to celebrate
montar
to assemble
bajar
to lower
ocultar
to hide
0
36
1
37
5
5
0
1
1
no answer
0
not familiar
0
clasificar
aumentar
to increase
0
to classify
ordenar
to order/organize
bordar
to border
0
defender
to defend
0
cantar
to sing
0
36
36
no answer
0
not familiar
1
coleccionar
atender
to help
0
to collect
marchar
to march
0
reunir
to assemble
interrumpir
to interrupt
0
decir
to say
0
36
36
no answer
0
not familiar
1
222
comunicar
conservar
to conserve
1
to
communicate
colocar
to place; to talk
1
celebrar
to celebrate
intentar
to try
hablar
to talk
1
1
2
0
2
2
36
36
no answer
1
not familiar
0
confesar
predecir
to predict
2
2
to confess
almorzar
to have lunch
0
conducir
to drive
0
declarar
to declare
verificar
to see
36
36
0
no answer
0
not familiar
1
considerar
anular
to annul
to consider
divorciar
to divorce
valorar
to value
suspirar
to breathe
opinar
to have an opinion
0
1
26
1
6
32
0
9
15
24
no answer
1
not familiar
0
consumir
elevar
to elevate
to consume
permanecer
to remain
cuidar
to care for
gastar
to spend
tomar
to take
1
1
1
1
1
1
26
5
31
9
8
17
no answer
1
not familiar
0
223
continuar
oponer
to oppose
to continue
durar
to last
seguir
to follow
formar
to form
negar
to deny
0
8
14
22
29
3
32
2
2
0
no answer
0
not familiar
0
controlar
dirigir
to direct
to control
asociar
to associate
prestar
to lend
vigilar
to watch
ensuciar
to get dirty
13
12
25
1
1
0
23
5
28
0
no answer
0
not familiar
1
cooperar
compartir
to share
8
6
to cooperate
ayudar
to help
26
4
elaborar
to elaborate
acabar
to finish
0
firmar
to sign
0
1
2
16
30
1
2
no answer
2
not familiar
1
coordinar
organizar
to organize
28
3
31
to coordinate
imprimir
to print
dirigir
to direct
insultar
to insult
0
ignorar
to ignore
0
0
7
17
24
no answer
0
not familiar
2
224
copiar
imitar
to imitate
36
36
to copy
merecer
to deserve
0
gastar
to spend
0
obedecer
to obey
0
llorar
to cry
0
no answer
0
not familiar
1
decidir
escapar
to escape
to decide
determinar
to determine
fluir
to flow
elegir
to elect
funcionar
to function
12
1
1
10
22
0
25
8
33
1
1
no answer
0
not familiar
0
declarar
contaminar
to contaminate
0
to declare
crear
to create
0
identificar
to identify
3
7
10
confesar
to confess
33
1
34
acostumbrar
to be in habit of
0
no answer
0
not familiar
1
definir
descansar
to rest
to define
especificar
to specify
limitar
to limit
diseñar
to design
0
31
31
10
1
4
10
1
6
no answer
4
not familiar
1
225
demostrar
enseñar
to teach
to show
lograr
to achieve
romper
to break
manifestar
to state; to show
tener
to have
24
24
2
2
0
9
15
1
25
1
1
no answer
1
not familiar
1
depender
solicitar
to solicit
1
to depend
necesitar
to need
31
arreglar
to give
respirar
to breathe
suceder
to happen
1
2
31
0
1
1
2
0
no answer
3
not familiar
2
desertar
abandonar
to abandon
30
30
to desert
pasar
to go by
7
7
aprobar
to pass
3
3
situar
to situate
abordar
to approach
1
1
0
no answer
0
not familiar
6
detectar
tejer
to knit
to detect
atrapar
to trap
percibir
to perceive
destacar
to stress; to
emphasize
desear
to desire
0
1
5
34
1
1
7
34
5
5
1
2
no answer
0
not familiar
1
226
detestar
iniciar
to initiate
0
to detest
preferir
to prefer
1
2
3
echar
to throw
1
6
7
odiar
to hate
fregar
to scrub
31
31
0
no answer
3
not familiar
1
divorciar
mantener
to maintain
to divorce
separar
to separate
querer
to love; to want
cumplir
to carry out
apreciar
to appreciate
0
34
1
35
0
1
1
0
no answer
0
not familiar
1
documentar
ordenar
to order
to document
informar
to inform
poner
to put
probar
to prove
numerar
to number
2
30
1
3
2
32
0
4
5
9
2
1
3
no answer
0
not familiar
3
eliminar
vestirse
to dress
0
to eliminate
nadar
to swim
1
borrar
to erase
26
4
matar
to kill
3
9
tirar
to throw
6
8
1
30
5
17
14
no answer
0
not familiar
1
227
funcionar
trabajar
to work
20
5
1
26
to function
servir
to serve
16
4
jugar
to play
mirar
to look
0
dedicar
to dedicate
0
1
1
21
1
2
no answer
1
not familiar
0
identificar
generar
to generate
0
to identify
dedicar
to dedicate
1
1
reconocer
to recognize
36
36
enunciar
to enunciate
arreglar
to fix
4
4
0
no answer
0
not familiar
0
imitar
decorar
to decorate
0
to imitate
enojarse
to get angry
0
alegrar
to make glad
copiar
to copy
alejar
to move a distance
1
1
2
34
34
0
no answer
1
not familiar
1
insultar
perseguir
to pursecute
to insult
ofender
to offend
girar
to spin
analizar
to analyze
fracasar
to fail
0
34
34
1
1
1
1
4
4
no answer
1
not familiar
2
228
inventar
crear
to create
to invent
convencer
34
1
35
to convince
3
3
ubicar
to locate
1
1
preguntar
to ask
mentir
to lie
0
2
2
1
5
no answer
0
not familiar
0
investigar
suponer
to suppose
to investigate
sostener
to sustain
enriquecer
to enrich
estimar
to esteem
experimentar
to experiment
1
3
1
5
2
1
3
3
3
1
7
1
2
1
31
1
1
5
32
no answer
0
not familiar
1
invitar
hospedar
to lodge
28
to invite
cocinar
to cook
superar
to achieve
producir
to produce
1
donar
to donate
5
2
30
2
2
0
1
3
8
no answer
3
not familiar
0
limitar
restringir
to restrict
36
36
to limit
penetrar
to penetrate
0
dedicar
to dedicate
0
aclarar
to clarify
brillar
to shine
1
1
0
no answer
0
not familiar
1
229
memorizar
recordar
to remember
to memorize
terminar
to end
examinar
to examine
pronunciar
to pronounce
pescar
to fish
36
36
0
1
3
4
1
1
0
no answer
0
not familiar
0
mencionar
verificar
to verify
to mention
comentar
to comment
continuar
to continue
molestar
to bother
esquiar
to ski
1
5
34
1
7
34
1
1
0
1
1
no answer
1
not familiar
0
observar
felicitar
to congratulate
0
to observe
comprender
to understand
contemplar
to contemplate
avergonzar
to shame
0
suicidarse
to commit suicide
0
2
37
2
37
no answer
0
not familiar
0
ocupar
dedicar
to dedicate
to occupy
nacer
to be born
prolongar
to prolong
transportar
to transport
estar
to be
10
5
15
0
1
1
24
1
1
2
26
no answer
1
not familiar
1
230
ocurrir
llenar
to fill
36
36
to occur
suceder
to happen
tratar
to try
0
invertir
to invest
0
constituir
to constitute
0
4
4
no answer
1
not familiar
0
ofender
casar
to marry
0
to offend
insultar
to insult
robar
to rob
donar
to donate
0
ocupar
to occupy
0
36
36
3
3
no answer
0
not familiar
1
percibir
amar
to love
0
to perceive
notar
to notice
8
24
detectar
to detect
28
5
purificar
to purify
0
acariciar
to caress
0
32
1
34
no answer
0
not familiar
1
permitir
localizar
to localize
0
to permit
lamentar
to lament
0
tolerar
to tolerate
18
12
30
consentir
to consent
18
12
30
preferir
to prefer
1
1
no answer
1
not familiar
0
231
persistir
comentar
to comment
to persist
continuar
to continue
clarificar
to clarify
restar
to remain; to
subtract
cancelar
to cancel
0
33
33
1
1
0
1
1
no answer
0
not familiar
3
practicar
ensayar
to practice
31
3
to practice
marcar
to mark
hacer
to do
humillar
to humiliate
0
estropear
to ruin
0
1
6
16
34
1
2
22
no answer
0
not familiar
0
232
APPENDIX S: SUMMARY OF HOMOGRAPH DATA,
SYNONYM-CLARIFICATION TASK
Summary of potential homograph synonym meanings from the synonym-clarification task.
Spanish monolinguals (N=37).
Verb
Type
VERB
P
Meaning Meaning Meaning
1
2
3
TOTAL
SYNONYM
lograr (achieve)
aprobar
(approve)
P
soportar
(support)
P
admirar (admire)
P
5
28
5
38
superar (pass test)
30
4
2
36
consentir (agree)
(E)
2
5
2
9
aguantar (put up
with)
35
3
0
38
sostener (hold up)
(E)
3
15
0
18
adorar (adore) (E)
31
6
0
37
6
14
0
20
37
0
0
37
0
9
0
9
implicar (imply)
(E)
37
0
0
37
mostrar (show)
0
6
0
6
asombrar
(surprise)
matricular
(matriculate)
escribir (write)
inscribir(inscribe) (E)
P
acusar (accuse)
233
P
presenciar
(present)
asistir (assist)
P
realizar (realize)
*
solicitar (solicit)
37
0
0
37
ayudar (help) (E)
0
10
1
11
ejecutar (execute)
(E)
37
0
0
37
entender
(understand) (E)
0
1
0
1
pedir (ask for) (E)
37
0
0
37
buscar (look for)
0
9
0
9
*Synonyms not subtle enough to get at the Spanish meaning of ‘to apply for a position’,
which is distinct from English.
H
gozar (enjoy)
divertir(divert)
P
cancelar (cancel)
P
35
2
0
37
0
0
0
0
anular (annul) (E)
36
0
0
36
liquidar
(liquidate/pay
off)
23
4
0
27
1
5
5
11
36
0
0
36
guardar (keep)
(E)
0
7
1
8
ahorrar (save
money)(E)
0
2
2
4
desviar (divert)
(E)
cortar (cut)
rescatar (rescue)
(E)
salvar (save)
234
H
tumbar (go to
bed)
acostar (accost)
*
consentir
(consent)
36
0
0
36
abordar (accost)
(E)
0
0
0
0
permitir (permit)
(E)
36
0
0
0
mimar (spoil)
(not included)
*homographic meaning of ‘mimar’ inadvertently omitted, unable to determine if partial
homograph.
*
aceptar (accept)
asumir (assume)
suponer
(suppose)
36
0
0
36
0
10
0
10
*Some participants indicating ‘suponer’ as 2nd meaning, which would make this a cognate to
English.
P
responder
(respond)
contestar
(contest)
*
33
2
1
36
rebatir (refute)
2
13
2
17
devolver (return)
1
8
8
17
35
1
0
36
2
24
0
26
desnudar
(undress)
despojar (strip)
desvestir
retirar (withdraw)
(divest)
not included
/
*Omitted ‘retirar’/’to withdraw’; homographic meaning with English was not established.
235
H
observar
(observe)
divisar (devise)
H*
planear (plan) (E)
tratar (try)
intentar (intend)
planear (plan) (E)
34
2
0
36
1
1
2
4
34
1
1
36
3
9
0
12
*not strong enough synonym to clearly say that ‘intend’ (expressed by planear) is a used
Spanish meaning.
P
conservar
(conserve)
guardar (guard)
P
alterar (alter)
P*
avisar (advise)
34
2
0
36
proteger (protect)
(E)
2
19
0
21
cambiar (change)
(E)
34
1
0
35
estropear (ruin)
0
11
0
11
volver (return)
0
10
0
10
advertir (warn)
33
2
0
35
2
27
0
29
aconsejar (advise)
(E)
*This is a partial homograph in the sense that the principle meaning in Spanish is ‘to warn’,
while the principle meaning in English is ‘to advise’. However, the verb carries both
meanings in each language.
H
colisionar
(collide)
chocar (choke)
35
0
0
35
sorprender
(surprise) (E)
0
7
0
7
asfixiar (E)
0
1
0
1
236
H
enrollar (enroll)
H
fabricar
(fabricate)
H
mimar (mime)
*
liar (wrap up)
35
0
0
35
ajuntar (join)
1
7
0
7
matricular
(matriculate) (E)
0
0
0
0
35
0
0
35
mentir (lie) (E)
0
0
0
0
acariciar (spoil)
35
0
0
35
imitar (imitate)
(E)
2
0
0
2
34
1
0
35
2
20
0
22
producir
(produce) (E)
memorizar
(memorize)
recordar (record)
grabar (record)
(E)
*Participants are accepting ‘grabar’, which is meant to tap the meaning of ‘to record music’
in English, a meaning that shouldn’t be shared with Spanish. Synonyms either aren’t subtle
enough to distinguish between languages or Spanish is adopting this usage of ‘recordar’ based
on the infiltration of the U.S. music industry.
H
sintetizar
(synthesize)
resumir (resume)
H
tirar (tire)
35
0
0
35
apartar (remove)
1
4
0
5
continuar
(continue) (E)
0
0
0
0
lanzar (throw)
35
0
0
35
0
0
0
0
cansar (tire) (E)
237
P
alternar
(alternate)
*
pasar (pass)*
variar (vary) (E)
33
1
0
34
codearse/beber
(mingle/drink)
3
8
1
11
atravesar (cross)
(E)
25
7
2
34
andar (walk) (E)
5
10
1
16
ocurrir (happen)
(E)
5
7
2
14
aprobar (pass
class) (E) (not
included)
/
*This verb has many overlapping meanings with English; the meaning of ‘to pass a class’ in
English, but not in Spanish, was omitted so homograph was not established.
H
remover
(remove)
P*
discutir (discuss)
agitar (agitate)
28
6
0
34
batir (beat/stir)
8
20
0
28
quitar (remove)
(E)
0
0
0
0
disputar (dispute)
20
12
1
33
dialogar (talk )
(E)
16
13
0
29
*This verb shares both meaning with English, but is a partial homograph in the sense that
‘disputar’ is the 1st meaning for this verb whereas ‘dialogar’ is the 1st meaning for the verb in
English.
P
doblar (double)
plegar (fold)
33
0
0
33
aumentar
(increase) (E)
1
6
0
7
238
P
retirar (retire)
H
apartar (remove)
28
5
0
33
jubilarse (retire
work) (E)
8
24
0
32
ocurrir (occur)
31
2
0
33
1
0
0
1
mostrar (show)
32
1
0
33
comunicar
(communicate)
2
9
0
11
reflexionar
(reflect/think) (E)
1
2
0
3
30
3
0
33
4
4
1
9
triunfar
(triumph/succeed)
suceder (succeed) (E)
P
reflejar (reflect)
H*
meter (put)
introducir
(introduce)
presentar
(present) (E)
*The synonym ‘presentar’ may be ambiguous here. While both languages have the meaning
of ‘to present’ in the sense of to introduce something new to a situation, in Spanish
‘presentar’ also means ‘to introduce a person’. It is that meaning of ‘introduce’ in English
that does not overlap with Spanish.
H
apretar (tighten)
estrechar
(stretch)
H
32
1
0
33
cruzar (cross)
2
4
0
6
extender (extend)
(E)
1
1
1
3
31
1
1
33
doler (hurt)
4
16
0
20
violar (rape) (E)
0
2
4
6
fastidiar (bore)
molestar (molest)
239
H
editar (edit)
P*
experimentar
(experiment)
publicar (publish)
33
0
0
33
corregir (correct)
(E)
0
1
0
1
investigar
(investigate) (E)
29
3
0
32
probar (try)
6
19
1
26
sentir (feel)
0
2
2
4
*Uncertain if the meaning of ‘to experience’ in Spanish was tapped through ‘probar’ or
‘sentir’.
P
suspender
(suspend)
P
conducir
(conduct)
P
embarazar
(embarrass)
H
fracasar (fail)
29
3
0
32
3
3
0
6
manejar (drive)
21
11
0
32
transportar
(transport) (E)
14
14
0
28
preñar
(impregnate)
30
2
0
32
avergonzar
(shame) (E)
5
7
0
12
31
1
0
32
quedar (remain)
1
3
0
4
descansar (rest)
(E)
0
0
0
0
27
6
0
31
7
11
0
18
colgar (hang) (E)
sustraer (subtract)
restar (rest)
H
mezclar (mix)
amasar (amass)
acumular
(accumulate) (E)
240
*
escuchar (listen)
(E)
atender (attend)
25
5
0
30
presenciar (be
present) (E)
5
13
3
21
servir (serve) (E)
5
3
0
8
*Partipants weren’t expected to give the meaning ‘presenciar’ or ‘to be present’ as this is the
homographic meaning with English. This verb seems a cognate to English.
H
fechar (give
date/time)
datar (date)
P
registrar
(register)
*
aplicar (apply)
30
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
anotar (write
down)
24
5
0
29
matricular
(matriculate) (E)
10
14
1
25
poner (put)
24
4
1
29
dar (give)
7
10
1
18
solicitar (solicit)
(E)
4
4
1
9
salir (go out) (E)
*The synonym ‘solicitar’ is not subtle enough to get at the meaning of ‘to apply for a job’.
Makes ‘aplicar’ seem like a cognate.
P*
revolver
(revolve)
mezclar (mix)
26
3
0
29
girar (revolve)
(E)
4
6
0
10
*Participants weren’t expected to give the meaning of ‘girar’ or ‘to revolve’. Expected this to
be a homograph.
241
H
quitar (quit)
P
contar (count)
H
fumar (fume)
P*
sacar (remove)
24
4
0
28
dejar (leave) E
4
4
2
9
cambiar (change)
3
4
0
7
parar (stop) (E)
0
3
0
3
relatar (tell story)
20
7
0
27
calcular
(calculate) (E)
16
10
0
26
humear (be
smoky)
22
5
0
27
aspirar (breathe)
10
13
0
23
rabiar (be angry)
(E)
0
0
0
0
19
7
0
26
16
7
0
23
atar (tie up)
esposar (espouse) casar (marry) (E)
*Participants again gave ‘to marry’ as a synonym for ‘esposar’. While ‘esposo/a’ do exist
meaning ‘husband/wife’, ‘esposar’ is not normally used as ‘casar’ or ‘to marry’.
H
blindar (blind)
P
armar (arm)
fortificar (fortify)
25
0
0
25
cegar (blind) (E)
0
0
0
0
equipar (equip)
(E)
14
7
2
23
montar
(assemble)
13
7
2
22
organizar
(organize)
3
9
4
16
242
H*
pretender
(pretend)
aspirar (aspire)
21
2
0
23
conocer (know)
6
1
1
8
fingir (pretend)
(E)
2
1
0
3
*Not enough Spanish speakers gave fingir as synonyn; hence categorizing this verb as
homograph.
P
contestar
(answer)
replicar
(replicate)
P
estampar (stamp)
23
0
0
23
duplicar
(duplicate) (E)
7
6
0
13
asegurar (assure)
2
2
1
5
sustituir
(substitute)
1
3
1
5
imprimir (print)
(E)
12
11
0
23
chocar (crash)
17
4
0
21
6
1
1
8
impresionar
(impress)
243
APPENDIX T: SUMMARY OF COGNATE DATA,
SYNONYM-CLARIFICATION TASK
Summary of potential cognate synonym meanings from the synonym-clarification task. Spanish
monolinguals (N=37).
Verb
Type VERB
SYNONYM
Meaning Meaning Meaning
1
2
3
TOTAL
interrumpir
(interrupt)
25
3
0
38
C
abortar (abort)
matar (kill)
7
12
0
19
C
ascender
(ascend)
subir (rise)
37
0
0
37
C
analizar
(analyze)
examinar
(examine)
37
0
0
37
C
celebrar
(celebrate)
festejar
(party,
celebrate)
36
1
0
37
C
observar
(observe)
contemplar
(contemplate)
37
0
0
37
limitar (limit)
restringir
(restrict)
36
0
0
36
C
ocurrir (occur)
suceder
(occur)
36
0
0
36
C
adornar
(adorn)
decorar
(decorate)
36
0
0
36
C
beneficiar
(benefit)
favorecer
(favor)
36
0
0
36
C
244
C
clasificar
(classify)
ordenar
(order)
36
0
0
36
C
coleccionar
(collect)
reunir
(reunite)
36
0
0
36
C
comunicar
hablar
(communicate) (speak)
36
0
0
36
C
confesar
(confess)
declarar
(declare)
36
0
0
36
C
copiar (copy)
imitar
(imitate)
36
0
0
36
C
ofender
(offend)
insultar
(insult)
36
0
0
36
C
identificar
(identify)
reconocer
(recognize)
36
0
0
36
C
memorizar
(memorize)
recordar
(remember)
36
0
0
36
C
aplaudir
(applaud)
aclamar
(acclaim)
35
0
0
35
crear (create)
34
1
C
inventar
(invent)
2
2
1
5
C
ajustar
adaptar (adapt) (adjust)
33
1
0
34
C
adoptar
(adopt)
adquirir
(acquire)
33
1
0
34
calmar (calm)
tranquilizar
(calm)
34
0
0
34
C
mentir (lie)
245
35
C
detectar
(detect)
percibir
(perceive)
34
0
0
34
C
insultar
(insult)
ofender
(offend)
34
0
0
34
detectar
(detect)
28
5
1
34
8
24
0
32
ensayar
(practice)
31
3
0
34
hacer (do)
6
16
0
22
prever
(foresee)
34
0
0
34
confesar
(confess)
33
1
0
34
C
declarar
(declare)
identificar
(identify)
3
7
0
10
C
divorciar
(divorce)
separar
(separate)
34
0
0
34
C
imitar
(imitate)
copiar (copy)
34
0
0
34
C
mencionar
(mention)
comentar
(comment)
34
0
0
34
C
persistir
(persist)
continuar
(continue)
33
0
0
33
C
percibir
(perceive)
C
practicar
(practice)
C
anticipar
(anticipate)
notar (notice)
246
encender
(light, start)
31
2
0
33
5
19
0
26
elegir (elect)
25
8
0
33
C
decidir
(decide)
determinar
(determine)
12
10
0
22
C
asignar
(assign)
dar (give)
31
1
0
32
valorar
(value)
26
6
0
32
9
15
0
24
C
activar
(activate)
funcionar
(function)
C
considerar
(consider)
opinar (have
opinion)
C
asociar
(associate)
ligar (join)
32
0
0
32
C
documentar
(document)
informar
(inform)
30
2
0
32
C
investigar
(investigate)
experimentar
(experiment)
31
0
1
32
C
depender
(depend)
necesitar
(need)
31
0
0
31
C
detestar
(detest)
odiar (hate)
31
0
0
31
querer (love)
22
9
0
31
estimar
(esteem)
13
9
0
22
C
adorar (adore)
247
C
C
C
C
C
adquirir
(acquire)
consumir
(consume)
continuar
(continue)
coordinar
(coordinate)
definir
(define)
conseguir
(obtain)
28
1
2
31
gastar
(spend)
26
5
0
31
9
8
0
17
29
3
0
31
durar (last)
8
14
0
22
organizar
(organize)
28
3
0
31
7
17
0
24
31
0
0
31
0
10
0
10
29
1
0
30
decir (say)
5
10
3
18
adivinar
(guess)
7
1
0
8
tolerar
(tolerate)
18
12
0
30
consentir
(consent)
18
12
0
30
tomar (take)
seguir
(follow)
dirigir
(direct)
especificar
(specify)
limitar (limit)
asentir
(agree)
C
C
afirmar
(affirm)
permitir
(permit)
248
ayudar (help)
C
cooperar
(cooperate)
C
eliminar
(eliminate)
C
C
C
C
C
C
invitar (invite)
desertar
(desert)
controlar
(control)
funcionar
(function)
ocupar
(occupy)
demostrar
(demonstrate)
26
4
0
30
8
6
2
16
26
4
0
30
3
9
5
17
hospedar
(lodge)
28
2
0
30
abandonar
(abandon)
30
compartir
(share)
borrar (erase)
matar (kill)
pasar (pass)
30
7
7
vigilar
(watch)
23
5
0
28
dirigir
(direct)
13
12
0
25
trabajar
(work)
20
5
1
26
servir (serve)
16
4
1
11
estar (be)
24
2
0
26
dedicar
(dedicate)
10
5
0
15
manifestar
(manifest)
9
15
1
25
24
0
0
24
enseñar
(teach)
249
C
C
acompañar
(accompany)
calcular
(calculate)
aprehender
C
(apprehend)
juntar (join)
17
6
0
21
apoyar
(support)
16
0
0
16
avanzar
(advance)
1
4
2
7
contar
(count)
19
0
0
19
racionalizar
(rationalize)
10
6
1
17
entender
(understand)
14
1
0
15
7
5
0
12
capturar
(capture)
250
APPENDIX U: HOMOGRAPH DATA, SYNONYM-RATING TASK
Phase III: Data from synonym-rating task, homographs compared for both Spanish and English
data. Spanish monolinguals (N=25) and English monolinguals (N=19) rated on a scale of 1 (no
synonym relationship) to 7 (strongest synonym relationship. Ratings are rounded to the nearest
tenth.
Verb
Type
H
P
Spanish verb
acostar
admirar
Spanish
synonym
*
amasar
aplicar
Definition of
English similar
form
dormir
5.5
1
to sleep
atacar
1
5.2
to attack
3.5
to violate or rape
to hold in high
esteem
not included
estimar
4.4
6.8
asombrar
4.3
1
6
1.7
to mix
acumular
2.4
6.3
to accumulate
poner
5.7
4.8
to put on
solicitar
2.5
1.3
to solicit
5.2
to utilize
mezclar
P
Avg rating
Spanish
Avg
rating
English
not included
to surprise
Translation
of Spanish
verb to most
similar
English form
to accost
to admire
to amass
to apply
*synonyms not subtle enough to tease apart differences between languages.
aprobar
P
P
armar
consentir
4.7
6.4
to consent
superar
6.3
2.2
to achieve in; to
pass
equipar
5.8
6.3
to equip
organizar
2.8
1.6
to organize
251
to approve
to arm
presenciar
P
P*
asistir
atender
6.5
1.5
to be present
4
6.8
to help
presenciar
3.3
6.8
to be present
escuchar
6.2
2
ayudar
to listen
to assist
to attend
*Partial homograph in that dominant meanings are swtiched between languages.
P*
avisar
advertir
6.5
4.2
to warn
recomendar
3.3
6.4
to recommend
to advise
*Partial homograph in that dominant meanings are swtiched between languages.
fortificar
H
H
P
P
P
P
blindar
chocar
conducir
consentir
contar
contestar
5.8
1.1
to fortify
cegar
1.5
6.9
to take away
sight
estrangular
1.7
6.4
to strangle
colisionar
6.6
1
manejar
5.6
2.6
to drive
transmitir
2.7
3.5
to transmit
dirigir
6
6.3
to direct
malcriar
5
1.3
to spoil
permitir
6.4
6.8
to permit
enumerar
6.4
6.4
to enumerate
(number)
relatar
5.3
1.9
to tell
to collide
debatar
3.8
6.8
to argue; go
against
responder
6.8
2.7
to respond
252
to blind
to choke
to conduct
consent
to count
to contest
P
*
datar
demandar
fechar
6.7
6.1
to give day,
month, year
salir
1.3
5.8
to go out
exigir
5.8
6.1
to require of
litigar
2.6
2.5
to litigate
desnudar
6.8
1.5
to get nude
retirar
2.6
5.5
to withdraw
dialogar
3.4
6.3
to dialogue
disputar
6.3
3.9
to argue
to date
to demand
*Synonyms suggest cognate status.
H
P*
desvestir
discutir
to divest
to discuss
*Partial homograph in that dominant meanings are swtiched between languages.
H
H
P*
divertir
divisar
doblar
cambiar
1.5
5.9
to change
disfrutar
6.6
1.1
to enjoy
observar
6.1
1.2
to observe
desarrollar
1.3
6.7
to develop
aumentar
3.5
5.8
to make larger
plegar
6.2
3.2
to fold
1.6
to turn
not included
to divert
to devise
to double
*Partial homograph in that dominant meanings are swtiched between languages.
H
P
H
editar
embarazar
enrollar
publicar
6.4
1.8
to publish
corregir
2.2
6.7
to correct
avergonzar
4.6
7
preñar
6.5
1.1
to impregnate
inscribir
1.4
6.4
to register
liar
6.5
1.9
to join together
253
to edit
to bring shame
to embarrass
to enroll
P
H
P
P
H
P
P
P*
entretener
enviar
esposar
estampar
estrechar
experimentar
exponer
fabricar
divertir
6.3
5.6
to bring fun
retrasarse
3.5
1.7
to delay
mandar
6.8
1.2
to send
querer
1.4
6.7
to want; desire
casar
5.2
4.6
to marry
atar
5.5
2.9
to tie up
chocar
5.8
1.7
to crash
imprimir
4.5
5.1
to print
extender
1.9
6.8
to extend
encoger
5.9
1
investigar
5.9
5.8
to investigate
sentir
3.1
1.1
to feel
revelar
4.5
6.7
to reveal
explicar
6.3
2.7
to explain
producir
6.7
4.5
to produce
mentir
1.3
5.7
to lie
to shrink
to entertain
to envy
to espouse
to stamp
to stretch
to experiment
expose
to fabricate
*Partial homograph in the sense that two meanings exist in English, but only one in Spanish.
rabiar
aspirar
H
H
P
fumar
grabar
gratificar
1.6
5.5
to get angry
5
2.7
to breath in
2.2
to smoke
tobacco
no
equivalent
tomar
2.2
6.6
to take
registrar
6.3
1.7
to register
pagar
5.4
1.9
to pay
agradar
5.2
5.4
to thank
254
to fume
to grab
to gratify
P*
guardar
conservar
6.6
3.1
to conserve
proteger
4.8
6.8
to protect
to guard
*Partial homograph in that dominant meanings are swtiched between languages.
P
P
P*
importar
inscribir
intentar
interesar
6.2
1.2
to be of interest
adquirir
2.9
5.2
to acquire
apuntar
6.3
6.6
to write down
matricular
5.6
1.6
to register in
classes
tratar
5.9
4
planear
3.5
5.7
to import
to inscribe
to try
to plan
to intend
*Results not expected; seems to be partial homograph in that dominant meanings are switched
between languages.
P*
introducir
meter
6.4
2.5
to put into
presentar
3.6
6.7
to present
someone
to introduce
*Partial homograph in that dominant meanings are swtiched between languages.
P
P
H
H
invertir
marchar
mimar
molestar
alterar
3.9
4.5
to alter
gastar
5
1.6
to spend
andar
5.7
5.6
to walk
funcionar
5.2
1.4
to function
acariciar
5.9
1.2
to caress
imitar
1.6
6.8
to imitate
fastidiar
6.7
3.8
to bother
violar
2.4
5.9
to rape
255
to invert
to march
to mime
to molest
*
pasar
ocurrir
5.7
3.4
to occur or
happen
atravesar
5.7
5.8
to travel across
or by
4.2
5.7
to achieve (in a
class; test)
intentar
6.4
1.4
to intend
fingir
2.1
6.6
to fake
sacar
4.8
1.7
to take out
abandonar
2.7
6.5
to abandon
entender
2.2
6.2
to understand
2.7
to execute, carry
out
aprobar
to pass
*Synonyms suggest cognate status.
H
H
P*
pretender
quitar
realizar
ejecutar
6.7
to pretend
to quit
to realize
*Partial homograph in that dominant meanings are swtiched between languages.
memorizar
P*
recordar
grabar
6.3
3.5
3.2
to memorize
6.4
to save on cd,
record, tape
to record
*Partial homograph in that dominant meanings are swtiched between languages.
P*
reflejar
contemplar
4.4
6.3
to contemplate
mostrar
6.2
3.2
to show
to reflect
*Partial homograph in that dominant meanings are swtiched between languages.
*
registrar
not included
3.1
to matriculate in
classes
not included
5.9
to write down;
sign in
*registrar was left off the Spanish questionnaire.
256
to register
P
H
P
H
H
*
relatar
remover
replicar
restar
resumir
retirar
relacionarse
1.6
4.7
to get along with
contar
6.6
4.2
to tell a story
agitar
6.6
1.2
to stir
quitar
1.5
6.7
to take away
repetir
3.8
6.1
to repeat
contestar
5.2
1.2
to answer
sustraer
6.1
1.3
to subtract
relajarse
1.6
6.8
to relax
continuar
1.5
6.9
to continue
sintetizar
6.8
1
apartar
6.4
5.4
sacar
4.1
to take out (not
included)
4.7
6.1
to quit working
forever
mezclar
6.4
1.5
to mix
girar
2.5
6.9
to rotate around
rescatar
6.7
6.1
to rescue
ahorrar
1.9
6
aguantar
6.7
2.8
to put up with
mantener
4.5
5.2
to maintain
triunfar
1.5
6.7
to triumph
ocurrir
6.9
1.8
to occur
jubilarse
to synthesize
Relate
to remove
to replicate
to rest
to resume
to withdraw
to retire
*Synonyms suggest cognate status.
H
P
P
H
revolver
salvar
soportar
Suceder
257
to keep money
to revolve
to save
to support
to succeed
P
H
P
Suspender
Tirar
Ventilar
fracasar
5.5
1.6
to fail
interrumpir
4.7
4.6
to interrupt
colgar
3.1
4.7
to hang
lanzar
6.7
1
to throw
cansar
1.5
6.7
to exhaust
airear
6.8
6.1
to aerate (air)
divulgar
3.8
1.9
to ventilate
258
to suspend
to tire
ventilate
APPENDIX V: COGNATE DATA, SYNONYM-RATING TASK
Phase III: Data from synonym-rating task, cognates compared for both Spanish and English
data. Spanish monolinguals (N=29) and English monolinguals (N=19) rated on a scale of 1 (no
synonym relationship) to 7 (strongest synonym relationship. Ratings are rounded to the nearest
tenth.
Verb
Type
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Spanish
verb
abandonar
abortar
activar
adaptar
adoptar
adorar
adornar
adquirir
Synonym
Avg rating
Spanish
Avg rating
English
Synonym
dejar
5.9
6.4
to leave
comprobar
1.3
1.2
to prove
matar
4.8
3.5
to kill
terminar
4.6
6.4
to terminate
encender
5.1
6.1
to turn on
aburrir
1.1
1.3
to bore
funcionar
4.3
2.4
to function
ajustar
5.3
6.4
adjust
elogiar
1.3
1
praise
adquirir
5.4
5.4
acquire
apartar
1.2
1.2
withdraw
adjuntar
1.3
1.1
to join
querer
5.4
5.6
to love
estimar
4.8
6.3
to admire
desterrar
1.1
1.1
to dethrone
decorar
6.5
5.9
to decorate
conseguir
5.8
6.8
to obtain
recorrer
1.3
1
259
to tour
English
verb
to abandon
to abort
to activate
to adapt
to adopt
to adore
to adorn
to acquire
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
afectar
afirmar
analizar
anticipar
aplaudir
ascender
asignar
asociar
beneficiar
influir
5.9
6.8
to influence
retirar
1.2
1.1
to withdraw
asentir
6.3
6.3
to agree
decir
2.8
1.9
to say
recuperar
1.3
1.1
to recover
examinar
6.3
6.6
to examine
prever
6.3
6.4
to foresee
saborear
1.3
1.3
to taste
remediar
1.4
1.1
resolve
aclamar
5.5
6.6
acclaim
reclamar
1.5
1.6
reclaim
6
6.9
to go up; rise
dar
5.6
5.4
to give
alentar
1.5
1
relacionar
6.4
6.6
to relate
exhibir
1.4
1.2
to exhibit
ligar
4.5
2.9
to unite
3.7
to go out
together
subir
salir
not rated
to give moral
support
atestiguar
1.4
1.4
to testify
favorecer
6.3
4.9
to favor
260
to affect
to affirm
to analyze
to anticipate
to applaud
to ascend
to assign
to associate
to benefit
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
calcular
calmar
celebrar
clasificar
coleccionar
comunicar
confesar
considerar
contar
5.4
5.9
to count
entregar
1.2
1.2
to hand in
reflexionar
3.1
1.4
to reflect
suponer
1.9
1.4
to suppose
computar
5.5
6.4
to compute
tranquilizar
6.7
6.8
to make
tranquil
burlar
1.1
1.1
to make fun
of
festejar
6.5
6.3
to feast,
party
sostener
1.2
1.3
to sustain
desconfiar
1.2
1.1
to distrust
ordenar
5.8
6.7
to organize
reunir
5.7
6.2
to group
together
trasladarse
1.1
1.2
to move
verificar
2.6
1.6
to verify
hablar
5.3
6.4
to talk
declarar
5.7
6
to declare
respirar
1.7
1
to breathe
valorar
4.8
2.5
establecer
2.1
not rated
opinar
4.3
5.3
261
to calculate
to calm
to celebrate
to classify
to collect
to
communicate
to confess
to value
to have an
opinon about
to consider
C
C
C
C
C
consumir
continuar
controlar
coordinar
copiar
gastar
5.8
3
repartir
1.6
1.1
to give away
tomar
3.5
6.2
to drink or
eat
atravesar
1.7
1.8
to walk
across
seguir
6.3
4.8
to pursue
vigilar
5.4
3.5
to watch
over; guard
dirigir
3.8
5.8
to direct
desplegar
1.8
1.4
to unfold
organizar
5.8
6
imitar
5.8
6.8
caminar
1.5
1
not rated
4.6
5.4
2.
4
5.9
to determine
escoger
5.7
5.9
to choose
rechazar
1.3
1.1
to reject
confesar
5.8
5.7
to confess
necesitar
4.8
6.4
to need
enfocar
1.3
1.5
to focus
abandonar
5.8
6.9
to abandon
socorrer
1.4
1
to help
odiar
6.1
6.7
to hate
cepillar
1.2
1.1
to brush
plagiar
elegir
determinar
C
C
C
C
C
decidir
declarar
depender
desertar
detestar
to spend
262
to organize
to consume
to continue
to control
to coordinate
to imitate
to walk
to plagiarize
to copy
to elect
to decide
to declare
to depend
to desert
to detest
C
C
C
dictar
divorciar
documentar
decir
3.3
5.1
to say
torcer
1.3
1.2
to twist
obligar
4.6
2.9
to obligate
señalizar
1.5
1.1
to signal
separar
5.8
6.7
to separate
subliminar
1.7
1.9
to
subliminate
registrar
4.3
4.8
to register
6
5.4
to erase
to have
nightfall
arrive
borrar
C
C
eliminar
existir
anochecer
1.1
1.2
vivir
5.7
6
caminar
1.3
1.7
to walk
estudiar
3.3
4.8
to study
4
4.8
to travel
clarificar
2.2
1.3
to classify
establecer
3.4
5.8
to establish
educar
4.7
1.4
to educate
aislar
1.4
1.2
to isolate
viajar
C
C*
explorar
formar
to dictate
to divorce
to document
to eliminate
to live
to exist
to explore
to form
*Could be a homograph; the synonym ‘educar’ isn’t carried over to English here.
C
C
funcionar
identificar
trabajar
3.1
5.5
to work
servir
4.2
3.6
to serve
reconocer
6.3
6.5
to recognize
1
to worry; be
preoccupied
preocuparse
1.1
263
to function
to identify
copiar
C
imitar
6
6.8
to copy
1.1
1
to greet
3
1.5
to
investigate
notificar
5.5
6.4
to notify
incurrir
2.3
1.8
to incurr
ofender
6.3
7
to offend
enmarcar
1.5
1.9
to frame
crear
5.8
6.9
to create
mentir
2.2
1.8
to lie
estudiar
4.6
5.4
to study
experimentar
5.9
5.1
to
experiment
aprovechar
1.8
revelar
1.3
1.1
to reveal
5
3.1
to lodge
fabular
1.2
1
to tell a story
restringir
6.7
7
to restrict
acordarse
5.8
6.6
to remember
to give
advice
saludar
investigar
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
informar
insultar
inventar
investigar
invitar
limitar
memorizar
mencionar
observar
hospedar
not included
aconsejar
1.4
1.1
confundir
1.6
1
comentar
5.8
6.2
to comment
notar
3.3
6.1
to notice
1.6
to
contemplate
contemplar
5.8
264
to imitate
to inform
to insult
to invent
to investigate
to invite
to limit
to memorize
to confuse
to mention
to observe
C
C
C
C
C
C
ocupar
ocurrir
ofender
percibir
perdonar
permitir
estar
3.6
2.8
to be
dedicar
3.3
1.3
to dedicate
enseñar
1.5
1
to teach
suceder
6.3
1.6
to follow
pasar
4.7
6.9
to happen
repasar
1.2
1
insultar
6.1
6.8
to insult
detectar
5.9
5.5
to detect
encender
1.3
1.6
to turn on
absolver
6.2
5.7
to absolve
exponer
1.2
1.3
to exhibit
consentir
6.3
6.5
to consent
levantar
1.1
1
tolerar
5.2
3.6
to tolerate
continuar
5.9
6.3
to continue
2
2.4
to tolerate
desterrar
1.2
1
to take off
arruinar
1.3
1.1
to ruin
proyectar
5.7
3.9
to project
aguantar
1
1.4
to put up
with
ensayar
6.2
6.3
to rehearse
hacer
4.1
3.5
to do
tolerar
C
C
C
persistir
planear
practicar
265
to occupy
to occur
to review
to offend
to perceive
to pardon
to get up or
raise up
to permit
to persist
to plan
to practice
C
C
C
C
preparar
protestar
respetar
revelar
planear
4.6
6.4
to plan
enseñar
2.3
1.7
to teach
elaborar
5.5
1.3
to elaborate
predecir
1.5
1
rechazar
3.7
4.8
to reject
quejarse
6
4.7
to complain
honrar
4.5
6.1
to honor
hornear
1.1
1.3
to bake
obedecer
3.7
2.9
to obey
subir
1.5
1
declarar
4.9
4.1
to declare
descubrir
4.8
3.7
to discover
4
3.5
to see
confundir
1.3
1.2
to confuse
viajar
4.6
5.3
to travel
ver
C
visitar
266
to prepare
to predict
to protest
to respect
to go up
to reveal
to visit
APPENDIX W: FORM SIMILARITY DATA
Data from form-similarity rating task, homographs and cognates. English monolinguals (N=19) rated on a scale of 1
(little to no form similarity) to 7 (strongest form similarity).
intentar
6.368421
Spanish
verb
Rating of
form
similarity
intend
English
verb
inform
informar
6.368421
experiment
experimentar
6.736842
depend
depender
6.333333
revolve
revolver
6.736842
detest
detestar
6.333333
record
recordar
6.631579
adorn
adornar
6.333333
document
documentar
6.611111
suspend
suspender
6.315789
remove
remover
6.578947
abort
abortar
6.315789
control
controlar
6.555556
abandon
abandonar
6.315789
divert
divertir
6.526316
adapt
adaptar
6.277778
demand
demandar
6.526316
quit
quitar
6.263158
protest
protestar
6.526316
adopt
adoptar
6.222222
invent
inventar
6.526316
desert
desertar
6.222222
guard
guardar
6.473684
invent
inventar
6.222222
pretend
pretender
6.473684
alter
alterar
6.210526
limit
limitar
6.444444
admit
admitir
6.210526
import
importar
6.421053
exist
existir
6.210526
visit
visitar
6.421053
rest
restar
6.157895
insult
insultar
6.388889
observe
observar
6.157895
blind
blindar
6.368421
explore
explorar
6.157895
enroll
enrollar
6.368421
ascend
ascender
6.111111
contest
contestar
6.368421
declare
declarar
6.111111
molest
molestar
6.368421
calm
calmar
6.055556
edit
editar
6.368421
267
accost
acostar
6.052632
divorce
divorciar
5.722222
invert
invertir
6.052632
amass
amasar
5.684211
calculate
calcular
6.052632
persist
persisitir
5.684211
form
formar
6.052632
invite
invitar
5.684211
realize
realizar
6
respect
respetar
5.684211
march
marchar
6
coordinate
coordinar
5.684211
consent
consentir
6
affirm
afirmar
5.666667
memorize
memorizar
6
identify
identificar
5.666667
prepare
preparar
6
dictate
dictar
5.631579
grab
grabar
5.947368
celebrate
celebrar
5.578947
continue
continuar
5.947368
attend
atender
5.526316
practice
practicar
5.947368
introduce
introducir
5.526316
activate
activar
5.947368
offend
ofender
5.526316
permit
permitir
5.944444
consume
consumir
5.526316
admire
admirar
5.894737
occur
ocurrir
5.388889
register
registrar
5.894737
confess
confesar
5.388889
inscribe
inscribir
5.894737
pass
pasar
5.368421
eliminate
eliminar
5.894737
accuse
acusar
5.368421
calculate
calcular
5.842105
resume
resumir
5.368421
decide
decidir
5.842105
analyze
analizar
5.368421
ventilate
ventilar
5.842105
benefit
beneficiar
5.315789
replicate
replicar
5.789474
fume
fumar
5.277778
adore
adorar
5.789474
applaud
aplaudir
5.277778
anticipate
anticipar
5.789474
assign
asignar
5.277778
identify
identificar
5.789474
investigate
investigar
5.736842
coordinate
coordinar
5.736842
function
funcionar
5.736842
268
mime
mimar
5.263158
stamp
estampar
4.473684
retire
retirar
5.263158
devise
divisar
4.368421
fabricate
fabricar
5.210526
divest
desvestir
4.368421
tire
tirar
5.157895
associate
asociar
4.368421
arm
armar
5.157895
stretch
estrechar
4.315789
gratify
gratificar
5.052632
espouse
esposar
4.263158
anticipate
anticipar
5.052632
mention
mencionar
4.105263
date
datar
4.947368
choke
chocar
3.947368
communicate
communicar
4.947368
acquire
adquirir
3.894737
occupy
ocupar
4.947368
apply
aplicar
3.842105
classify
clasificar
4.947368
reflect
reflejar
3.833333
conduct
conducir
4.894737
discuss
discutir
3.789474
reveal
revelar
4.894737
pardon
perdonar
3.736842
assist
asistir
4.842105
advise
avisar
3.684211
copy
copiar
4.842105
count
contar
3.526316
succede
suceder
4.736842
support
soportar
3.526316
plan
planear
4.684211
perceive
percibir
3.526316
envy
enviar
4.631579
entertain
entretener
3.473684
embarrass
embarazar
4.578947
collect
coleccionar
3.368421
double
doblar
4.526316
save
salvar
3.052632
affect
afectar
4.526316
approve
aprobar
2.789474
immitate
imitar
4.5
269
APPENDIX X: PICTURE BANK
This is the picture bank for the proficiency naming task as described in Chapter 4 and
may be found in picturebank.pdf.
270
APPENDIX Y: SPANISH PROFICIENCY TEST
271
272
273
APPENDIX Z: ENGLISH PROFICIENCY TEST
274
275
APPENDIX AA: TARGET VERB LIST
VERB TYPE
VERB
FREQUENCY
SYLLABLE
LENGTH
NO. OF
LETTERS
cognate
adoptar
29
3
7
cognate
adornar
5
3
7
cognate
afectar
19
3
7
cognate
anticipar
6
4
9
cognate
aplaudir
10
3
8
cognate
ascender
14
3
8
cognate
calmar
6
2
6
cognate
celebrar
30
3
8
cognate
comunicar
14
4
9
cognate
detectar
26
3
8
cognate
eliminar
22
4
8
cognate
existir
59
3
7
cognate
formar
57
2
6
cognate
identificar
33
5
11
cognate
informar
11
3
8
cognate
insultar
4
3
8
cognate
limitar
4
3
7
cognate
mencionar
29
3
9
cognate
perdonar
17
3
8
mean
20.78
3.1
7.8
sd
16.23
0.68
1.16
276
control
ahogar
6
3
6
control
apagar
16
3
6
control
asustar
11
3
7
control
bañar
2
2
5
control
cazar
18
2
5
control
cenar
46
2
5
control
anochecer
35
4
9
control
cosechar
2
3
8
control
descansar
53
3
9
control
encerrar
5
3
8
control
enfocar
8
3
7
control
elogiar
19
3
7
control
levantar
68
3
8
control
luchar
39
2
6
control
ubicar
5
3
6
control
oler
17
2
4
control
rezar
27
2
5
control
traducir
11
3
8
control
cuidar
40
2
6
mean
22.5
2.68
6.5
19.236064
0.582393
1.464991
sd
277
homograph
chocar
12
2
6
homograph
divertir
4
3
8
homograph
divisar
3
3
7
homograph
enrollar
0
3
9
homograph
enviar
20
2
6
homograph
estrechar
6
3
9
homograph
fabricar
34
3
8
homograph
fumar
65
2
5
homograph
grabar
5
2
6
homograph
intentar
89
3
9
homograph
mimar
1
2
5
homograph
molestar
11
3
8
homograph
pretender
25
3
9
homograph
quitar
25
2
6
homograph
remover
10
3
7
homograph
restar
5
2
6
homograph
resumir
13
3
7
homograph
revolver
6
3
8
homograph
tirar
38
2
5
19.57
2.57
7
23.3
0.5
1.43
mean
sd
278
partial homograph
admirar
13
3
7
partial homograph
amasar
2
3
6
partial homograph
aprobar
6
3
7
partial homograph
asistir
52
3
7
partial homograph
atender
37
3
7
partial homograph
discutir
49
3
8
partial homograph
doblar
13
2
6
partial homograph
entretener
7
4
10
partial homograph
esposar
1
3
7
partial homograph
estampar
1
3
8
partial homograph
experimentar
22
5
12
partial homograph
exponer
19
3
7
partial homograph
gratificar
0
4
10
partial homograph
guardar
53
2
7
partial homograph
importar
4
3
8
partial homograph
invertir
7
3
8
partial homograph
marchar
25
2
7
partial homograph
replicar
3
3
8
partial homograph
soportar
65
3
8
mean
19.94
3
7.7
sd
20.97
0.67
1.5
279
APPENDIX BB: CONTROL VERB LIST
Control verb
ahogar
añadir
anochecer
apagar
asustar
bañar
burlar
buscar
caminar
cazar
cenar
cocer
cosechar
cuidar
descansar
elogiar
empezar
encerrar
enfocar
escuchar
festejar
fusilar
levantar
llorar
luchar
mudar
nutrir
oler
peligrar
rezar
socorrer
traducir
ubicar
Frequency
6
70
35
16
11
2
6
189
69
18
46
4
2
40
53
19
132
5
8
98
1
46
68
115
39
8
1
17
2
27
4
11
5
No. of syllables
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
4
3
3
280
No. of letters
6
6
9
6
7
5
6
6
7
5
5
5
9
6
9
8
7
8
7
8
8
7
8
5
6
5
6
4
8
5
8
8
6
Translation
to drown
to add
to get dark
to turn out/off
to scare
to bathe
to make fun of
to look for
to walk
to hunt
to eat supper
to sew
to harvest
to care for
to rest
to praise
to begin
to enclose
to focus
to listen to
to celebrate
to shoot
to raise
to cry
to fight
to move
to nourish
to smell
to endanger
to pray
to ask for help
to translate
to locate
APPENDIX CC: PSEUDOWORD LIST
pocer
complucar
abrizar
mosder
carregir
ofruger
olvudar
padar
pertir
pinsar
pursistir
peldonar
predenir
pruncipiar
plivar
pruceder
prodeter
prolestar
propeer
ricoger
rugalar
riferir
grometir
rupetir
siber
samar
sujurrar
taldar
tusar
timblar
tumer
totar
terdinar
trapscender
trenspriar
voajar
vogilar
vusitar
vorar
vovir
hinrar
esporar
elforzar
elcapar
ensuñar
enpedar
ranar
conmenir
constotuir
restionar
acenazar
alostumbrar
adurrir
furtalecer
fencionar
frogar
gopernar
inlervenir
rocuperar
lostimar
limentar
lonzar
quibrar
quodar
redomendar
plovenir
ripartir
sunar
sompatizar
tistificar
vostir
sorvir
montener
mirchar
modiar
promocar
sognificar
dentruir
dosvelar
renraer
iler
croar
cominar
soicidar
lenzar
marir
281
loquidar
lostar
vovir
vopar
samer
tobar
sadir
jausar
docedir
doplar
curregir
duminar
dontar
chojar
famar
monejar
pisarar
fronar
detir
crizar
manimar
tomblar
pacer
vigir
anispar
palir
tefer
lligar
madear
rovisar
paler
encuntrar
septar
panecer
pafar
pamar
pabear
pemir
pelecer
APPENDIX DD: VERB FAMILIARITY TASK
282
283