FALSE RECOGNITION DRIVEN BY MEANING AND FORM: THE DYNAMICS OF
BILINGUAL MEMORY REPRESENTATIONS
by
Marisol Parra
A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of
The Charles E. Schmidt College of Science
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Florida Atlantic University
Boca Raton, FL
August 2013
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to thank my advisers, Dr. Hoff and Dr. Kersten, for their
immense knowledge, for their continuous guidance and advice, and for the materials and
facilities provided to carry out my research work. Thank you Dr. Hoff and Dr. Kersten,
this dissertation would have not been possible without your invaluable support and help
during this whole process.
In addition, I would like to thank the members of my doctoral committee, Dr.
Bjorklund, Dr. Rosselli, and Dr. Morris. Their thoughtful and insightful comments have
helped me to make this work more complete.
Thank you to my mother, Lili, my father, Jesus, and my brothers, Antonio and
Arley, for their endless love and encouragement, and for always being there for me.
Thank you dad for continually watching over me from heaven.
Thank you to Chad who has loved me and has supported me in every possible
way to see the completion of my dissertation.
Lastly, I would like to thank God for giving me the wisdom, health, strength and
perseverance to finish my dissertation.
iii
ABSTRACT
Author:
Marisol Parra
Title:
False Recognition Driven by Meaning and Form: The Dynamics
of Bilingual Memory Representations
Institution:
Florida Atlantic University
Dissertation Advisors: Dr. Erika Hoff and Dr. Alan Kersten
Degree:
Doctor of Philosophy
Year:
2013
Activation of the representations of the two languages in bilingual memory has
been shown to affect recognition during initial word comprehension (e.g., Dijkstra & Van
Heuven, 2002). This study investigated whether the activation of semantic (i.e., meaning)
and lexical (i.e., form) representations of words in a bilingual’s two languages affects
word recognition after the first stages of word comprehension. False recognition of words
in one language that were similar in meaning and/or form to words studied in the other
language was an indication of these effects. This study further investigated whether false
recognition based on meaning and/or form is modulated by bilingual language
proficiency. English dominant and Spanish dominant Spanish-English bilingual adults
performed a recognition task. They studied lists of words in English and in Spanish.
Immediately after this, they completed a yes/no recognition test that included words in
iv
both languages. For each word, they decided whether they had seen the same word in the
same language at study. Words at recognition were studied words, nonstudied words
similar in meaning, in meaning and form, or only in form to studied words, and
nonstudied words not related in meaning or form to studied words. Results showed that
participants falsely recognized words similar in meaning and/or form to studied words
more frequently than words that were unrelated to studied words. This was evidence that
activation of the two languages at initial comprehension affects subsequent word
recognition. Regarding language proficiency, participants showed a trend to falsely
recognize words that were similar in meaning to studied words more frequently in their
more proficient than in their less proficient language. This is consistent with the
assumption that bilinguals are more likely to directly access meaning in their more than
in their less proficient language. In addition, Spanish dominant bilinguals were less likely
to falsely recognize words that were similar only in orthographic form to studied words
when they studied words in English than when they studied words in Spanish. This
finding is consistent with the idea that bilinguals create more distinct orthographic
representations of studied words in the language that is less frequent and familiar for
them.
v
FALSE RECOGNITION DRIVEN BY MEANING AND FORM: THE DYNAMICS OF
BILINGUAL MEMORY REPRESENTATIONS
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................viii
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................1
Bilingual Memory and Bilingual Word Recognition.....................................................2
Bilingual Word Recognition after Initial Comprehension.............................................3
False Recognition Driven by Orthographic Similarities................................................5
False Recognition Driven by Semantic Similarities: False Recognition for the
Critical Lures in Monolinguals and Bilinguals..............................................................5
Cross-Language False Recognition Driven by Semantic and/or Orthographic
Similarities.....................................................................................................................9
Influences of Language Proficiency..... ......................................................................10
Effects of Language Proficiency on False Recognition...............................................15
The Present Study .......................................................................................................16
Predictions of the present study.............................................................................17
Method ..............................................................................................................................21
Participants ..................................................................................................................21
Design .........................................................................................................................24
Materials .....................................................................................................................24
Procedures ...................................................................................................................27
vi
Data Analysis Plan.......................................................................................................28
Results ...............................................................................................................................31
False Recognition Driven by Semantic and/or Orthographic Similarities across
Languages....................................................................................................................31
Language Proficiency Effects on False Recognition...................................................32
False recognition for the critical lure across languages.........................................33
False recognition for the critical lure in the same language..................................33
False recognition for cognates...............................................................................34
False recognition for translation equivalents.........................................................35
False recognition for interlingual homographs......................................................35
Mechanism Underlying False Recognition for the Critical Lure: FTT or
Activation-Monitoring Framework..............................................................................36
Discussion .........................................................................................................................39
References .........................................................................................................................66
vii
TABLES
Table 1. Mean Years English and Spanish Dominant Bilinguals Spent in a Country
and School Where the Language, English or Spanish, was Spoken .................52
Table 2. Mean Proficiency Ratings in Speaking, Reading and Understanding in English
and Spanish for English and Spanish Dominant Bilinguals .............................53
Table 3. Mean Age When Acquisition and Fluency and Reading and Reading Fluency
in English and Spanish Began for English and Spanish Dominant Bilinguals...54
Table 4. Mean Years Spanish and English Dominant Bilinguals Spent in a Family
Environment Where Spanish or English was Spoken ........................................55
Table 5. Mean Ratings of Exposure to English and Spanish through Family
Interactions in English Dominant and Spanish Dominant Bilinguals ..............55
Table 6. Critical Lures with English and Spanish DRM Lists Words..............................56
Table 7. Critical Lures Used in Different Versions of the Recognition Test...................57
Table 8. English and Spanish List Words and their Corresponding Cognates ................58
Table 9. English and Spanish List Words and their Translation Equivalents..................59
Table 10. English and Spanish List Words and their Corresponding Intelingual
Homographs......................................................................................................60
Table 11. English and Spanish Unrelated Words Included in the Recognition Test.........61
Table 12. English and Spanish List Words Included in the Recognition Test..................61
Table 13. Mean Recognition Proportion for List Words, Critical Lures, Cognates,
viii
Translation Equivalents, Interlingual Homographs and Unrelated Words in
English and Spanish Dominant Bilinguals .......................................................62
Table 14. Mean False Recognition Proportion for Critical Lures When Words are
Studied in English and Recognized in Spanish and Studied in Spanish and
Recognized in English in English and Spanish Dominant Bilinguals...............62
Table 15. Mean False Recognition Proportion for Critical Lures When Words are Studied
in English and Recognized in English and Studied in Spanish and Recognized
in Spanish in English and Spanish Dominant Bilinguals...................................63
Table 16. Mean False Recognition Proportion for Cognates When Words are Studied
in English and Recognized in Spanish and Studied in Spanish and
Recognized in English in English and Spanish Dominant Bilinguals...............63
Table 17. Mean False Recognition Proportion for Translation Equivalents When
Words are Studied in English and Recognized in Spanish and Studied in
Spanish and Recognized in English in English and Spanish Dominant
Bilinguals ..........................................................................................................64
Table 18. Mean False Recognition Proportion for Critical Lures When Words are
Studied in English and Recognized in English and Studied in English and
Recognized in Spanish in English and Spanish Dominant Bilinguals...............64
Table 19. Mean False Recognition Proportion for Critical Lures When Words are
Studied in Spanish and Recognized in Spanish and Studied in Spanish and
Recognized in English in English and Spanish Dominant Bilinguals..............65
ix
INTRODUCTION
Bilingualism is more and more common in our world today. In response to this
condition, in recent years we have witnessed an increasing research interest in the minds
of bilingual individuals, resulting in a better understanding of the cognitive aspects of
bilingualism, in particular of bilingual memory. We have learned that the linguistic
representations of the two languages are active when bilinguals are using one language
and that the two languages interact in complex ways. In addition, we learned that the
representations of the two languages and their interactions change as a function of
variables, such as relative exposure to the two languages, age of second language
acquisition, and language proficiency. It is not clear, however, what are the consequences
of the parallel activation of the two languages after the first stages of word
comprehension. Furthermore, we do not completely understand the influences that
variables associated with the bilingual’s learning history, such as language proficiency;
have on the representation of and the interaction between the two languages. This study
aims to improve our understanding of the dynamics of bilingual memory representations
by determining the effects of the initial activation of both languages on subsequent word
recognition, and the influences of language proficiency on the interaction between the
two languages. Particularly, the present study addresses the questions of whether the
activation of orthographic and semantic representations of bilinguals’ two languages
during the first stages of word comprehension affects subsequent word recognition, and
whether bilingual language proficiency modulates these effects.
1
Bilingual Memory and Bilingual Word Recognition
A bilingual has mental representations of the meanings (i.e., semantic
representations) and orthographic forms (i.e., lexical representations) of words in both
languages. A great deal of evidence supports the view that the representation of the
meanings of the two languages is shared (see a review in Francis, 1999). There is also
evidence that when bilinguals see a word in one of their languages that is similar in
meaning and form (i.e., cognate) or only in form (i.e., interlingual homograph) to a word
in the other language, lexical representations of both languages are automatically
activated, which suggests that lexica of the two languages are integrated (e.g., Dijkstra,
Miwa, Brummelhuis, Sapelli, & Baayen, 2010; Dijkstra & Van Heuven, 2002; Van
Heuven, Dijkstra, & Grainger, 1998).
Parallel activation of the two languages manifests in faster or slower recognition.
For instance, Dijkstra et al. (2010) showed that bilingual participants were faster to
decide whether a word presented in one of their languages was a word or not when the
word was a cognate of a word in the other language. In contrast, Dijkstra, Timmermans,
and Schriefers (2000) demonstrated that bilinguals took more time to decide whether a
word was a word in one or in the other language when the word was an interlingual
homograph of a word in the other language.
The BIA (Bilingual Interactive Activation model, Van Heuven et al., 1998), a
model of bilingual word recognition, proposes that a visually presented word activates in
parallel orthographic representations of the two languages in an integrated lexicon.
Levels of activation would depend on the degree of orthographic similarity. The BIA+,
an extension of BIA, additionally argues that the activated orthographic representation
2
would subsequently activate corresponding semantic and phonological representations in
both languages. Consequently, recognition decisions would be based on the activation of
orthographic, phonological, and semantic representations. Recognition decisions would
also be influenced by extra-linguistic variables, such as participants’ expectations
(Dijkstra & Van Heuven, 2002).
What happens after the initial stages of comprehension when recognition
decisions are made with respect to words that are similar in meaning and/or orthographic
form to words that were previously studied in the other language? Would activation of
the meaning that the two languages share and parallel activation of the lexica of the two
languages affect later recognition?
Bilingual Word Recognition after Initial Comprehension
Recognition that occurs after bilinguals have studied lists of words in their two
languages and decided whether a word presented in one language is the same or not as a
word previously studied in the same or the other language is more complex than
recognition that takes place during the initial stages of comprehension (i.e., immediately
after bilinguals see a word). It involves the interaction of processes taking place at both
encoding (i.e., study phase) and recognition (i.e., recognition test phase), and entails
greater decisional processes.
According to the activation-monitoring framework (Roediger, Watson,
McDermott, & Gallo, 2001), recognition decisions (i.e., the probability of correctly
recognizing words presented at study, or falsely recognizing words that were not
presented at study) are influenced by the levels of activation generated at both encoding
and recognition, and by source monitoring occurring at recognition, and in some tasks, at
3
encoding as well. Source monitoring refers to the decisions regarding the origin of a
particular memory (Johnson, Hashtroudi, & Lindsay, 1993). At study, a visually
presented word would activate identical and overlapping orthographic representations
within and between languages as well as their associated semantic representations (as the
BIA proposes). Presented words would also activate semantically related words in the
semantic network (Collins & Loftus, 1975) that the two languages share. At recognition,
an activated memory representation would be evaluated and attributed to a particular
source based on the memory characteristics (e.g., form and meaning), on how unique
these characteristics are, and on decision criteria (e.g., the level of activation or
perceptual detail required to attribute a memory to a particular source). Therefore, the
accuracy of recognition would depend on factors, such as how distinctive the
representation of the orthographic form of studied words is (Gallo, McDermott, Percer &
Roediger, 2001). The more distinctive the orthographic representations of studied words
are the less the probability of false recognition. It would also depend on the similarity
between words at recognition and words at study. The more similar a non-presented item
is in orthographic form or meaning to a presented item, the lower the likelihood of
attributing it to the correct source.
As mentioned, activation of semantic and lexical representations during initial
recognition shows in slower or faster recognition of words that overlap in meaning and
orthography or only in orthography across languages. In recognition decisions that take
place after initial comprehension, the effects of initial activation of lexical and semantic
representations in both languages should materialize in false recognition of words in one
4
language that are similar in meaning and/or form to words that were presented at study in
the same or in the other language.
False Recognition Driven by Orthographic Similarities
Would the initial activation of orthographic representations in both languages
result in subsequent false recognition of nonstudied words that are similar in orthographic
form to previously presented words?
Studies with monolinguals demonstrate that when study and recognition take
place in the same language, orthographic similarity produces false recognition (e.g.,
Lambert, Chang & Ling, 2001; Raser, 1972; Wallace, Stewart, Shaffer & Wilson, 1998).
The greater the similarity between words at study and at recognition, the greater the
probability of false recognition (Lambert et al., 2001; Raser, 1972). The presence of false
recognition based on orthographic similarity in cross-language conditions, when words
are studied in one language and recognized in the other language, has not been explored.
False Recognition Driven by Semantic Similarities: False Recognition for Critical
Lures in Monolinguals and Bilinguals
The Deese- Roediger- McDermott (Deese, 1959; Roediger& McDermott, 1995),
DRM paradigm, has been used to study false recognition (or recall) resulting from
semantic similarity. A list of words (e.g., bed, rest, awake, tired, dream, wake, snooze,
etc.) that is semantically associated to a nonpresented word (e.g., sleep), the critical lure,
is presented at the study phase. At recognition (or recall), the critical lure is recognized
(or recalled) as well as studied words, and more than nonstudied words (Roediger &
McDermott, 1995). This finding has been replicated in English (e.g., Roediger et al.,
5
2001), and in other languages including Spanish (e.g., Alonso, Fernández, Diez, & Beato,
2004) and Japanese (e.g., Kawasaki-Miyaji & Yama, 2006).
The activation-monitoring framework (Roediger, et al., 2001) has been used to
explain false recognition (and false recall) for the critical lure in the DRM. According to
this view, at study, words in a DRM list activate unconsciously (Collins & Loftus, 1975;
Seamon, Luo, & Gallo, 1998) or consciously (McDermott, 1997) their common semantic
associate, the critical lure. That is, the critical lure would receive the combined activation
of the list words. A strongly activated critical lure would be lexically (i.e.,
orthographically and phonologically) and semantically encoded (McDermott, 1997). At
recognition, a critical lure that took on the orthographic and phonological features of
studied words might be mistaken as a presented word, and would be as likely to be
recognized as any of the studied words in the DRM list.
The Fuzzy Trace Theory, FTT (Brainerd & Reyna, 2002) provides an alternative
interpretation for the false recognition of the critical lure in the DRM (e.g., Payne, Elie,
Blackwell & Neuschatz, 1996). When exposed to a list of words at encoding, two
independent memory traces are developed; verbatim traces of the form (e.g.,
orthography) of each of the words, and a gist trace of the semantic (i.e., meaning) content
of the list. List words would leave verbatim and gist traces. However, critical lures would
leave only gist traces. At recognition, critical lures cue the retrieval of the gist trace
which would support false recognition for these items.
The FTT makes two additional assumptions. It claims that false recognition for
the critical lure can be reduced to the extent that verbatim traces are available and can be
retrieved at recognition. The FTT additionally contends that orthographic similarity
6
between words at recognition and words at study should prevent false recognition for
nonpresented items that are orthographically similar to presented items. At recognition,
words similar in orthographic form to studied words would cue verbatim traces of these
studied items. If the word is not identical in form to the retrieved verbatim traces, it
would be rejected. This assumption contradicts the idea that orthographic similarity
would support false recognition.
Some studies have used an adapted version of the DRM paradigm for bilingual
populations, in which bilinguals study DRM list words in one of their languages and
recognize them in the same or in the other language, in order to investigate bilingual
memory and cross-language influences on recognition (e.g., Cabeza, & Lennartson, 2005;
Kawasaki-Miyaji, Inoue & Yama, 2003; Marmolejo, Diliberto-Malacuso, & Altarriba,
2009; Sahlin, Harding, & Seamon, 2005). These studies have demonstrated that
activation of semantic representations at study results in subsequent false recognition for
critical lures when bilinguals study words in one of their languages and recognize them in
the other, which supports a view of shared semantic representations in bilingual memory.
The use of the bilingual version of the DRM has also served to investigate the
cognitive mechanisms underlying false recognition for the critical lure: activationmonitoring (Roediger, et al, 2001) or retrieval of the gist traces (Brainerd & Reyna,
2002). These perspectives make contrasting predictions regarding the false recognition
proportion for the critical lure when words are studied and recognized in the same
languages relative to when they are studied and recognized in different languages. In the
activation-monitoring perspective, the form of the critical lure might be consciously
activated (McDermott, 1997) in the language in which the list words are studied. Within
7
the same language (i.e., studying and recognizing words in the same language) false
recognition would be supported by both semantic and orthographic information. Across
languages (i.e., words studied in one language and recognized in the other language),
only semantic information would support false recognition. Available orthographic
information of words that were studied in one language would serve to reject the critical
lure in the other language. Thus, according to the activation-monitoring framework, the
false recognition proportion for the critical lure would be greater within than across
languages.
In the FTT the critical lure forms only gist traces. If bilinguals share semantic
representations, the proportion of false recognition for the critical lure should be the same
within and across languages. The common semantic representations would be activated
regardless of the language at encoding. However, the FTT also posits that verbatim traces
reduce false recognition. The critical lure does not leave verbatim traces but list words do
leave verbatim traces. At recognition, the critical lure would cue the common meaning of
its semantic associates, the list words. Its orthographic form would also cue the
orthographic forms of the list words themselves if words are recognized in the same
language in which words were studied. That is, verbatim traces of list words would be
more readily available when critical lures are recognized in the same language in which
words were studied. Thus, according to the FTT, false recognition for critical lures should
be greater across than within languages.
No conclusive evidence has been provided as to whether false recognition for the
critical lure is greater within or across languages. Sahlin et al. (2001) found greater false
recognition proportion for the critical lure when words were studied and recognized in
8
the same language than when they were studied in one language and recognized in the
other, Marmolejo et al. (2009) found the reverse, and Cabeza and Lennartson (2005) did
not find differences (although bilinguals tended to falsely recognize critical lures more
frequently within the same language). The contradictory results may be associated to
methodological differences among the studies. For instance, unlike the other two studies,
in Marmolejo et al.’s study a recall test was administered before the recognition test, and
a match between the language at study and the language at recognition was not required
for positive recognition.
The studies with monolinguals and bilinguals described above show that
activation of meaning at initial recognition results in false recognition for words that are
similar in meaning to presented words in both the same and the other language. The
cross-language effects of activating meaning combined with orthography on subsequent
word recognition of words similar in meaning and form to presented words have not been
investigated.
Cross-Language False Recognition Driven by Semantic and/or Orthographic
Similarities
As detailed above, there is evidence that automatic activation of orthographic
representations affects subsequent recognition when monolinguals study and recognize
words in the same language, and that activation of semantic representations affects
subsequent recognition when bilinguals study and recognize words in the same language
as well as when they study words in one language and recognize them in different
languages. The present study extends previous research by investigating whether initial
activation of orthographic representations of both languages affects subsequent
9
recognition of words that are orthographically similar (i.e., interlingual homographs) to
studied words when words are studied and recognized in different languages. Moreover,
it examines whether initial activation of meaning and of meaning combined with
orthographic form affects recognition of words similar in meaning (critical lures and
translation equivalents), and in meaning and orthographic form (cognates), respectively,
to presented words in cross-language conditions (and in within language conditions in the
case of critical lures). Cross-language false recognition based in meaning and/or in form
would support a view of shared semantic representations and integrated lexica in
bilingual memory.
Influences of Language Proficiency
In addition to examining the presence of false recognition resulting from semantic
and/or lexical similarity, the present study investigates whether language proficiency
modulates false recognition when bilinguals study words in one language and recognize
them in the same or the other language. False recognition in cross-language conditions
would be the result not only of the initial activation of lexical and semantic
representations but also of a bilingual’s ability to access meaning in both languages and
to create distinct lexical representations of studied words. These factors, as detailed
below, depend on relative language proficiency.
The revised hierarchical model (RHM, Kroll & Stewart, 1994) focuses on
changes in the bilingual memory structure that occur over time as a consequence of
increased skills in the second language, or greater second language proficiency. It
postulates that lexica across languages are separate but connected by associative links.
There are also associative links between lexical and semantic representations within
10
languages. The strength of the links depends on language proficiency. At early stages of
second language learning, the links between lexical and semantic representation are
stronger within the first (L1) than within the second language (L2) because semantic
representations (i.e., meanings) cannot be directly accessed in L2. Across languages, the
lexical link from L2 to L1 is stronger than the lexical link from L1 to L2. The reason for
this is that access to semantic representation in L2 is done via translations from L2 into
L1. Repeated translation from L2 into L1 results in stronger links in this direction of
translation. Over time and with increased L2 proficiency the links between lexical and
semantic representations in L2 will be strengthened and the lexical L2-L1 link will be
weakened. That is, early in L2 acquisition, bilinguals would not access meaning in L2. In
order to understand meanings, they would exploit the L2-L1 lexical connection, or the
translation equivalent of L2. However, with increased skills in their L2, they would be
able to directly understand the meanings in L2 and would rely less on the L2 translation
equivalents.
Sunderman and Kroll (2006) used a translation recognition task to test the
predictions of the RHM. English native speakers who were more or less proficient in
Spanish decided whether pairs of words were translation equivalents of each other. A
Spanish (L2) word was immediately followed by an English (L1) word. Correct
translations and distractors were included. Distractors were words in English similar in
orthographic form to the Spanish word (lexical neighbors), words in English similar in
form to the translation equivalent of the Spanish word (translation neighbors), or words in
English similar in meaning to the Spanish word (meaning-related neighbors). Less
proficient bilinguals, relative to more proficient bilinguals, suffered interference (i.e.,
11
slower reaction times in recognition decisions) from translation neighbors. This supports
the RHM’s prediction that only less proficient bilinguals were relying on the translation
equivalent of L2 to access meaning. Another finding was that both more and less
proficient bilinguals suffered interference from lexical distractors. This finding suggests
that, regardless of language proficiency, a visually presented word automatically activates
words that are similar in orthographic form in both languages, which support the
predictions of the BIA model. Finally, both less and more proficient bilinguals
experienced interference from meaning-related distractors. This finding argues against
the RHM assertion that less proficient bilinguals are not sensitive to L2 meaning.
Other studies have shown that less proficient bilinguals can directly access
meanings in L2 without using links to L1 (e.g., Altarriba & Mathis, 1997). Furthermore,
Thierry & Wu, 2007 provided ERP evidence that proficient bilinguals may also access
the translation equivalents of L2 when comprehending words in L2. In their study,
proficient Chinese-English bilinguals decided whether a pair of English words (English
was their L2) were related in meaning or not. Participants did not see Chinese words.
However, some of the English words shared characters with their translation equivalents
in Chinese. The ERP pattern was different when this was the case relative to when not.
This was interpreted as evidence that the L1 lexical representations were activated while
processing L2 words. That is, higher L2 proficiency did not diminish the reliance on the
translation equivalent of L2.
Recently, the proponents of the RHM model provided some clarifications
regarding the model and acknowledged that it had to be revised in order to accommodate
these contradictory findings (Kroll, Van Hell, Tokowicz, & Green, 2010). In the first
12
place, they contend, the model admits the possibility that some words can access meaning
directly in L2. Even though this is more likely for bilinguals who are highly proficient in
L2, in less proficient bilinguals, the link between words and semantic representations in
L2 is weak, but not non-existent. In addition, it is emphasized that the model is primarily
a model of language production, not a model of language recognition like the BIA model.
The consequences of the parallel activation of the two languages would be different for
recognition tasks than for production tasks. In recognition tasks, a visually presented
word would activate word forms initially and meanings subsequently. In production
tasks, meanings are accessed first and then the word forms. It would be easier for words
to access meanings in recognition than for meanings to access word forms in production.
Consequently, it would be more likely for less proficient bilinguals to access meaning in
L2 when engaging in language recognition than in language production tasks.
Lastly, using behavioral and ERP measures when proficient bilinguals were
involved in a translation recognition task, the proponents of the RHM replicated the
finding that bilinguals who are highly proficient in L2 access the translation equivalents
of L2 when processing information in the direction of translation L2-L1 (Gou, Misra,
Tam & Kroll, 2012). Participants in their study were proficient Chinese-English
bilinguals who decided whether a Chinese word was a translation equivalent of a
previously presented English word. Behavioral data showed that their decisions were less
accurate and slower when distractor words were lexically similar to the correct Chinese
translations than when not. This suggests that participants were activating L2 translation
equivalents (i.e., L1 word forms). The ERP data additionally revealed that this was the
case when the stimulus onset asynchrony between the pair of words was long (i.e., 75013
ms), but not when it was short (i.e., 300-ms). This was taken as an indication that the
activation of the L1 lexical representations takes place after the activation of the
meanings of L2 words. That is, participants accessed meaning in L2 early in the
processing of information and only accessed the translation equivalent when they had
enough time. It is not clear why proficient bilinguals activated the translation equivalents.
Gou and colleagues advanced the hypothesis that through activation of the L1 word,
bilinguals could access the rich semantic network associated with L1. The role of the L1
word form would, then, be different for more and less proficient bilinguals. The
translation equivalent of L2 (i.e., the L1 word form) would provide semantic feedback to
the former group, and access to meaning to the latter group.
Taking together the findings of the studies presented above two conclusions can
be drawn. First, bilinguals are more likely to access meaning in their more proficient
language than in the less proficient language. However, it is possible for bilinguals to
directly access meaning in L2, especially if they have high L2 proficiency levels and/or
they are performing a recognition task. Second, when bilinguals are presented with a
word in one language, they automatically activate not only words in the other language
similar to it in orthography, but also the translation equivalent of that word when that
word is presented in L2. The latter situation is more likely for less proficient bilinguals
than for more proficient bilinguals. However, more proficient bilinguals might activate
the translation equivalent of presented L2 words if enough time is provided (Gou et al.,
2012).
Language proficiency influences not only the access to meaning but also how well
bilinguals encode word forms in their less proficient relative to their more proficient
14
language. For instance, Francis and Gutiérrez (2012) found that unbalanced SpanishEnglish bilinguals (i.e., half were English dominant and the other half Spanish dominant)
were more accurate and faster in recognizing words that they studied in their less
proficient language than in their more proficient language. They argued that words in L2
are less familiar, and have occurred less frequently in a bilingual’s life than words in L1.
Since L2 words are associated with fewer pre-experimental episodes, they should be
more orthographically distinct and subsequently recognized better than L1 words.
The assumptions of the RHM and Francis and Gutiérrez (2012) inform our
predictions regarding the influences of language proficiency on false recognition for
words similar in form and/or meaning to studied words. False recognition for words in
one language that are related in meaning to presented words in the other language would
depend on the bilingual’s ability to access the meaning in the language in which they
study words. According to the RHM, bilinguals are more likely to access meaning in their
more proficient language. That is, false recognition based on meaning should be more
likely in the more proficient than in the less proficient language. Furthermore, false
recognition for words in one language that are orthographically similar to words in the
other language would depend on the bilingual’s ability to form distinct orthographic
representations of list words. According to Francis and Gutiérrez, (2012) bilinguals form
more distinct orthographic representations in their less proficient language. Thus, false
recognition based on orthographic similarities would be more likely in the more
proficient language.
Effects of Language Proficiency on False Recognition
The use of the bilingual version of the DRM paradigm allows the possibility of
15
exploring whether language proficiency modulates false recognition for words in one
language that are similar in meaning and/or orthography to words studied in the other
language. Studies that have used this paradigm have focused on false recognition for the
critical lure, which is based on meaning and involves the ability to access semantic
representations. These studies did not report differences in false recognition for the
critical lure between the two cross-languages conditions (i.e., words studied and
recognized in different languages: L1-L2 and L2-L1). However, in the within language
conditions(i.e., words studied and recognized in the same language: L1-L1 and L2-L2),
they showed more false recognition in the more proficient than in the less proficient
language (Kawasaki-Miyaji, et al., 2003; Marmolejo et al, 2009; Sahlin et al., 2005). In
the present study, I used the DRM paradigm to investigate whether language proficiency
modulates false recognition for words similar in meaning (i.e., critical lures and
translation equivalents), similar in meaning and orthographic form (i.e., cognates) and
similar only in orthographic form to studied words (i.e., interlingual homographs).
The Present Study
This study investigated whether initial activation of semantic and lexical
representations of a bilingual’s two languages results in cross-language false recognition
of words that are semantically and/or orthographically related to studied words. In
addition, it examined whether false recognition based on semantic and/or lexical
similarity depends on language proficiency.
I used the bilingual version of the DRM paradigm. Spanish-English bilinguals
studied lists of words in English and in Spanish. They were to pay attention to both the
language in which a word was presented and its form. Next, participants received a
16
yes/no recognition test that included English and Spanish words, and decided, for each
word, whether they had seen the same word in the same language at study. The
recognition test was composed of studied words (i.e., list words), unrelated words (i.e.,
words that were not similar in meaning or orthographic form to studied words), critical
lures, cognates of presented words, and nonidentical interlingual homographs of
presented words. False recognition was assumed to occur if the false recognition
proportion for words that were similar in meaning and/or in orthographic form to studied
words was greater than the false recognition proportion for unrelated words.
Participants in this study were Spanish-English bilinguals. Half of them were
dominant in English and the other half in Spanish. Bilingual proficiency was assessed
using a language proficiency questionnaire and receptive vocabulary tests in both
languages.
Although not the main purpose of this study, the use of the bilingual version of
the DRM allowed for also examining the mechanisms underlying false recognition for the
critical lure: activation monitoring or cueing of the gist trace.
Predictions of the present study.
1. It was predicted that false recognition based on meaning and/or form would
cross languages. That is, bilinguals should falsely recognize a greater proportion of words
that were similar in meaning (i.e., critical lures, translation equivalents), in meaning and
form (i.e., cognates), and only in form (i.e., interlingual homographs) to studied words
than of words that were not related in meaning or form to studied words (i.e., unrelated
words). In line with the assumptions of BIA, a visually presented word would activate
orthographic representations in both languages. It would also activate semantic
17
representations that the two languages share in the semantic network (Collin and Loftus,
1975). According to the activation-monitoring theory, these activated representations are
examined at recognition. The similarity in meaning and/or form between words at study
and at recognition would drive false recognition for activated but non-presented words.
2. It was also predicted that the order of recognition proportion from greatest to
least would be as follows: list words, critical lures, cognates, translation equivalents, and
interlingual homographs. Bilinguals were expected to recognize list words better than the
other item types because list words were actually presented. In addition, they were
predicted to falsely recognize critical lures more frequently than the other item types,
because the semantic representation of the critical lure is strongly activated. It would
receive the combined activation of its associates, the list words. In contrast, the semantic
representation of cognates and translation equivalents would receive activation from a
single word, their counterpart in the other language. Lastly, bilinguals were predicted to
falsely recognize cognates more frequently than translation equivalents and interlingual
homographs because false recognition for cognates would be based on both similarities in
meaning and form while false recognition for translation equivalents and interlingual
homographs would be based only on meaning or only on word form, respectively.
3. Regarding language proficiency, it was predicted that it would modulate false
recognition as follows:
o In cross-language conditions, false recognition for words that are similar
in meaning to studied words (i.e., critical lures, cognates and translation
equivalents) was predicted to be greater when bilinguals study the words
in the language in which they were more proficient, Spanish for Spanish
18
dominant bilinguals and English for English dominant bilinguals. In the
same sense, when bilinguals study and recognize words in the same
language, they were predicted to show greater false recognition for the
critical lure in the more proficient than in the less proficient language. As
the RHM postulates, bilinguals would be more likely to access meanings
directly in their more than in their less proficient language.
o False recognition for words that are similar only in orthography (i.e.,
interlingual homographs) to studied words was also predicted to be greater
in the more than in the less proficient language. Words studied in the less
proficient language would be more orthographically distinct than words
studied in the more proficient language (Francis & Gutierrez, 2012),
which should reduce false recognition in the less relative to the more
proficient language.
4. In relation to the mechanism underlying false recognition for the critical lure in
the DRM paradigm, more false recognition within the same than across languages
would support the activation-monitoring perspective. In contrast, no difference or
more false recognition across than within language would be consistent with the
FTT.
In the activation-monitoring framework, the meaning and the word form (in the
language in which list words are studied) of the critical lure are activated at study.
False recognition for the critical lure when words are studied and recognized in
the same language would be supported by meaning and form. When words are
studied and recognized in different languages, only the meaning would support
19
false recognition, the word form would reject it. Thus, false recognition for the
critical lure would be greater in the same than across languages.
In the FTT, false recognition within and between languages would be supported
by meaning. However, orthographic information that rejects the critical lure
would be more available in the same than across languages. Thus, false
recognition for the critical lure would be greater across than within languages.
20
METHOD
Participants
Data was collected from 77 participants. However, data from 11 participants were
discarded because participants did not complete the second part of the study (5 cases), the
software did not save the data from the experiment (3 cases), participants were given
incomplete questionnaires in the first part of the experiment (2 cases), or participants
reported learning disabilities (1 case). The final dataset thus included data from 66
participants. They were Spanish-English bilingual students from Florida Atlantic
University (12 males and 54 females) without language or learning disabilities who
received course credit for taking part in this study. Their ages ranged from 18 to 43.9 (M=
23.9, SD = 6.13).
Fifty five participants (83.3%) were born in Spanish speaking countries, and 11
(16.7%) in the United States. For 63 (95.5%) Spanish was the native language, and for
three (4.5%) English was the native language. All participants had lived in the U.S. for at
least 4 years. At the time of the study, they were living and studying in South Florida and
were exposed to and used both English and Spanish on a regular basis. On average, they
were exposed 59.6% of the time to English and 41% of the time to Spanish.
Participants were classified into Spanish dominant (n=33) and English dominant
(n=33) according to their bilingual learning history and their performance in the English
and Spanish versions of a standardized vocabulary test. Information about the English
21
and Spanish learning history of the participants was collected through the Language
Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEPQ) developed by Marian, Blumenfeld,
and Kaushanskaya (2007). The questionnaire includes questions about language
dominance, age of arrival in the U.S., exposure to English and Spanish in different
contexts, and age of acquisition and fluency in English and Spanish. It also includes selfratings of proficiency in understanding, reading and speaking in English and Spanish.
Twenty eight participants (84.8%) that were included in the Spanish dominant group
considered themselves as dominant in Spanish, and 32 participants that were included in
the English dominant group (97%) considered themselves as dominant in English. The
English dominant group arrived in the US at an earlier age (M = 3.33, SD = 3.30) than the
Spanish dominant group (M = 14.6, SD = 5.70), t(62) = 9.65, p < .001(using a two-tailed
test). In addition, the English dominant group spent more years in an English speaking
country, and in an English speaking school than did the Spanish dominant group, and the
Spanish dominant group spent more years in a Spanish speaking country and school than
did the English dominant group (see Table 1). On a 10-point scale, Spanish dominant
bilinguals rated themselves as more proficient in speaking, reading and understanding in
Spanish than in English, and English dominant bilinguals rated themselves as more
proficient in speaking, reading and understanding in English than in Spanish (see Table
2). The standardized receptive vocabulary tests administered were the Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition, PPVT-4, (Dunn & Dunn, 2007), and its Spanish
Version, Test de Vocabulario en Imágenes Peabody, TVIP (Dunn, Padilla, Lugo, &
Dunn, 1986). In these tests participants are presented with a number of words (the
number depending on the age of the participants). For each word, sets of 4 pictures are
22
shown and participants point at the picture that best represents the meaning of that word.
Spanish dominant bilinguals did better (M = 116.12, SD = 4.44) than English dominant
bilinguals (M = 105.82, SD = 13.20) in the Spanish version of the PPVT, t(39.16) = 4.25,
p < .001 (using a two-tailed test). In contrast, English dominant bilinguals did better (M =
199.55, SD = 11.19) than Spanish dominant bilinguals (M = 193.36, SD = 12.20) in the
English version of the PPVT, t(64) = -2.15, p =.036 (using a two-tailed test).
Even though the Spanish dominant bilinguals were more proficient in Spanish
than in English, and English dominant bilinguals were more proficient in English than in
Spanish, English dominant bilinguals may have been more proficient in Spanish than
Spanish dominant bilinguals were in English. This is because English dominant
bilinguals received more exposure to Spanish than did Spanish dominant bilinguals to
English. The English and Spanish dominant bilinguals did not differ in the age at which
they started acquiring and being fluent in Spanish (remember that most participants were
native speakers of Spanish), and the age at which they started reading in Spanish. It was
early in life before the age of 7. In contrast, Spanish dominant bilinguals started acquiring
and being fluent in English, and started reading in English and being fluent in English
reading later (after the age of 10) than did English dominant bilinguals (see Table 3). In
addition, English dominant bilinguals spent more years in a family environment where
Spanish was spoken than in one where English was spoken, t(31) = -3.73, p = .001 (using
a two-tailed test). The same was true for Spanish dominant bilinguals t(32) = -7.13, p ≤
.001. English and Spanish dominant bilinguals did not differ in the number of years spent
in a family in which Spanish was spoken. However, Spanish dominant bilinguals spent
fewer years than English dominant bilinguals in a family where English was spoken
23
t(49.32) = -3.94, p ≤ .001 (see Table 4). Lastly, at the time of the test, according to selfratings, English dominant bilinguals were more exposed to Spanish than to English
through family interactions, t(31) = -3.72, p = .001, using a two-tailed test. The same
held true for Spanish dominant bilinguals, t(32)= -7.12, p ≤ .001, using a two-tailed test.
No difference was found between Spanish and English dominant bilinguals concerning
their exposure to Spanish from family interactions, but Spanish dominant bilinguals were
less exposed to English through their families than English dominant bilinguals, t(63) = 3.08, p = .001, using a two-tailed test (see Table 5). In conclusion, since English
dominant bilinguals learned and had been exposed to both English and Spanish from a
very young age while Spanish dominant bilinguals learned their less proficient language
later, and had been exposed to it less, differences in Spanish and English proficiencies are
greater in Spanish dominant bilinguals than in English dominant bilinguals.
Design
This study used a mixed within-subjects between-subjects design. The withinsubjects variable for some analyses was item type (critical lure, interlingual cognate,
interlingual homograph, translation equivalent, list words and unrelated word), for other
analyses it was language at study and language at recognition (English-English, SpanishSpanish, English-Spanish, Spanish-English). The between-subjects variable was language
proficiency (Spanish dominance vs. English dominance). The dependent variable was the
proportion of items that were falsely recognized (or correctly recognized in the case of
the list words).
Materials
24
The present study employed the Deese-Roediger-McDermott, DRM, false
recognition paradigm (Deese, 1959; Roediger & McDermott, 1995). Six 12–item DRM
lists in English and six 12-item DRM lists in Spanish were used (See Table 6). Four of
the English DRM lists (foot, trash, window, and high) were developed by Stadler,
Roediger, and McDermott (1999). The other two English DRM lists and the six Spanish
DRM lists were developed by Marmolejo, et al. (2009). The Spanish and English DRM
lists developed by Marmolejo et al. (2009) were adapted from the English DRM lists
developed by Stadler et al. (1999). The Spanish DRM lists were translations of those
lists.
The English DRM lists developed by Stadler and colleagues were originally
composed of 15 items. The English and Spanish DRM lists developed by Marmolejo and
colleagues are composed of 12 words. Three words were excluded from Sadler et al.’s
lists in order to match the number of items in these lists with the number of items in
Marmolejo et al.’s lists. The words that were removed were the last 3 words of each list.
The only exception was the DRM list high. Cognates of two of the last three words of this
list were included in the recognition test. These list words were not discarded. Instead,
two items preceding them were removed. No modifications were made to the Spanish
DRM lists, save that in the DRM list enojo (i.e., anger) the adjective calmado (calm) was
substituted for its noun version calma. The cognate calm was included in the recognition
test. The substitution avoided recognition decisions based on the saliency of studied
words (i.e., length).
Words in the English and Spanish DRM lists were semantically associated to a
nonstudied word, the critical lure. The items in each list were organized in order of
25
associative strength with respect to the critical lure with the strongest associate at the
beginning and the weakest associate at the end of the list. They were presented in this
order (the order shown for each list in Table 6). English and Spanish DRM lists were
presented in an alternating pattern. Half of the participants were presented with an
English list first, and the other half with a Spanish list first.
A 120- item yes/no recognition test was created. It was composed of the 12
critical lures, 6 in English (3 from DRM lists studied in English, and 3 from DRM lists
studied in Spanish), and 6 in Spanish (3 from DRM lists studied in Spanish, and 3 from
DRM lists studied in English). Critical lures were counterbalanced. The critical lures that
were presented in English for half of the participants were presented in Spanish for the
other half. In the same vein, the critical lures that were presented in Spanish for half of
the participants were presented in English for the other half. Because half of the
participants studied the first DRM list in English and the other half in Spanish, 4 versions
of the recognition test were created. Versions 1 and 3 were administered to participants
who studied the first DRM in English. Versions 2 and 4 were administered to participants
who studied first the DRM list in Spanish (see Table 7). Versions 2 and 4 included the
critical lures included in versions 1 and 3 but in the other language.
The four versions of the recognition test also contained 18 cognates. Nine were
cognates of list words studied in English, and 9 were cognates of list words studied in
Spanish (see Table 8). There were also 18 translation equivalents. Nine were translation
equivalents of words studied in English and 9 were translation equivalents of words
studied in Spanish (see Table 9). There were 18 nonidentical interlingual homographs.
Nine were interlingual homographs of words studied in English, and 9 were interlingual
26
homographs of words studied in Spanish (see Table 10). There were 18 unrelated words
from DRM lists not included in the present study. Nine were in English, and 9 were in
Spanish (see Table 11). Finally, there were 36 list words. Eighteen list words were
studied in English and 18 list words were studied in Spanish (see Table 12). These items
were the same in the four versions of the recognition test. Cognates and interlingual
homographs were not identical to studied words. Most of them differed orthographically
in 1, 2, or 3 letters from studied words. In addition, most of them were of the same length
or 1 or 2 letters longer or shorter than studied words.
The list words included in the recognition test as well as the list words from
which the translation equivalents originated were selected at random. The list words from
which cognates and nonidentical interlingual homographs originated were not selected at
random. Cognates and interlingual homographs derived from list words that were similar
in meaning and form or only in orthographic form to words in the other language. The
order of the items included in the recognition test was randomized.
Procedures
This study involved two sessions. During the first session participants completed,
first, the Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEPQ) and after this, the
two versions of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, PPVT. Half of the participants
received the English version of the PPVT first and the other half received the Spanish
version of the PPVT first. The questionnaire and tests were administered on an individual
basis and their administration took about 1 hour.
One week after the first session, the second session took place. The second
session consisted of the study phase and the recognition test phase. Both phases were
27
administered via computer (including the instructions to complete each phase) and
participants completed them individually.
During the study phase participants were presented with 6 English and 6 Spanish
12-word DRM lists. That is, they viewed 72 English and 72 Spanish words. Half of the
participants in each language proficiency group were presented with an English DRM list
first, and the other half with a Spanish DRM list first. Lists were presented in an
alternating pattern either English-Spanish or Spanish-English. List words were presented
one at a time on a computer screen for two seconds each. Participants were asked to
remember the list words and the language in which the list words were presented.
Immediately after the study phase, participants completed a 120-word yes/no
recognition test. Words were presented one at a time on a computer screen. Participants
pressed one key if they had seen previously (during the study phase) the word in the same
language, and a different key if not. There was no time limit for the recognition test.
Participants took approximately 15 minutes to complete the study and recognition test
phases.
Data Analysis Plan
In the present study, it was predicted that bilinguals would falsely recognize a
greater proportion of words that were similar in meaning and/ or form to studied words
than of unrelated words, and that the order of false recognition (and correct recognition
for the list words) from greatest to least would be: list words, critical lures, cognates,
translation equivalents and interlingual homographs, and unrelated words. To test these
predictions, a 2X6 mixed factor ANOVA with language proficiency (English dominance
vs. Spanish dominance) as the between-subjects factor and item type (list words, critical
28
lure, cognate, translation equivalent, interlingual homograph, and unrelated word) as the
within-subjects factor, was performed with recognition proportion (i.e., the proportion of
“yes” responses, correct or incorrect) as the dependent variable.
It was also hypothesized that false recognition for critical lures, cognates,
translation equivalents, and interlingual homographs would be greater in the more
proficient than in the less proficient language. A number of 2 X 2 mixed-factor ANOVAs
were used to test these hypotheses, with false recognition proportion for a particular item
type (critical lures, cognates, translation equivalents, or interlingual homographs) as the
dependent variable, language proficiency (English dominance vs. Spanish dominance) as
the between-subjects factor and language at study and at recognition (English-Spanish vs.
Spanish-English) as the within-subjects factor.
In the within-language condition, when bilinguals study and recognize words in
the same language, it was predicted that false recognition for critical lures would be
greater in the more proficient than in the less proficient language. To examine this
prediction, the false recognition proportion for the critical lure was entered into a 2X2
mixed factors ANOVA with language proficiency (English dominance vs. Spanish
dominance) as the between subjects factor and language at recognition and test (English
vs. Spanish) as the within-subjects factor.
Finally, in order to see whether false recognition proportion for the critical lure
was greater when study and recognition take place in the same language than in different
languages (which would support the activation-monitoring framework) or the reverse
(which would support the FTT), two 2X2 mixed factor ANOVAs were performed with
false recognition proportion for the critical lure as the dependent variable, language
29
proficiency (English dominance vs. Spanish dominance) as the between-subjects variable
and language at study and language at recognition (English-English vs. English-Spanish)
as the within-subjects variable for one analysis. For the other analysis, the within-subjects
variable was language at study and language at recognition (Spanish-Spanish vs. SpanishEnglish).
30
RESULTS
False Recognition Driven by Semantic and/or Orthographic Similarities across
Languages
In the present study, it was predicted that automatic activation of semantic and
lexical representations within and between languages when bilinguals study a word in
one language results in subsequent false recognition for words that are related in meaning
and/or orthographic form to the studied word. It is assumed that false recognition occurs
when items that are related in meaning and/or orthography to studied words are more
likely to be falsely recognized than words that are unrelated to studied words. In order to
test this prediction, the mean recognition proportions of list words, critical lures,
cognates, translation equivalents, and unrelated words were entered into a mixed factor
ANOVA with language proficiency (Spanish dominance vs. English dominance) as the
between-subjects factor and item type (critical lure, interlingual cognate, translation
equivalent, interlingual homograph, list word, and unrelated word) as the within-subjects
factor. Note that the mean recognition proportion for critical lures, cognates, translation
equivalents, and interlingual homographs totalized recognition for items in English and
Spanish (that were studied in Spanish and English respectively). Furthermore, the
recognition proportion for list words totalized items recognized in English (and studied in
English) and recognized in Spanish (and studied in Spanish). The Mauchly’s test of
sphericity showed that the data violated the assumption of sphericity, χ²(14) = 57.36, p <
31 .001. Therefore, the Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity were used (ε = .73).
Analysis with the Greenhouse-Geisser correction revealed a main effect for item type,
F(3.65, 233.44) = 127.83, p < .001, p =.67, that was not moderated by language
proficiency F(3.65, 233.44) = .130, p = .963, p =.002. There was also no main effect for
language proficiency, F(1,64) = 2.53, p = .117, p =.038. Post-hoc tests using the
Bonferroni correction showed that bilinguals falsely recognized a greater proportion of
critical lures, cognates, and translation equivalents than of unrelated words (ps < .001).
There was also a trend that approached significance for bilinguals to falsely recognize
interlingual homographs more frequently than unrelated words (p=.057). These findings
support the hypothesis that false recognition occurs for words in one language that are
related in meaning and/or orthographic form to words studied in the other language.
It was also predicted that the order of false recognition (or correct recognition for
list words) from greatest to least would be: list words, critical lures, cognates, translation
equivalents, interlingual homographs, and unrelated words (see means and standard
deviations in Table 13). The post-hoc tests showed that bilinguals more frequently
recognized list words than the other word types (ps < .001). In addition, relative to other
items that were nonstudied, bilinguals falsely recognized a greater proportion of critical
lures (ps ≤ .001). Lastly, bilinguals falsely recognized cognates more frequently than
interlingual homographs (p < .001) and translation equivalents, but this effect did not
reach significance for translation equivalents (p = .757).
Language Proficiency Effects on False Recognition
Regarding language proficiency, it was predicted that bilinguals would falsely
recognize more critical lures, cognates, translation equivalents and interlingual
32 homographs in their more proficient than in their less proficient language. In order to test
these hypotheses, a number of ANOVA tests were performed. The results of these
analyses are presented below for each of the item types.
False recognition for the critical lure across languages.
A 2 (language proficiency: English dominance vs. Spanish dominance) X 2
(language at study and language at recognition: English-Spanish vs. Spanish-English)
mixed factor ANOVA with false recognition proportion for the critical lure as the
dependent variable showed that the main effects for language at study and language at
recognition, F(1,64) = 2.82, p =.098, p = .042, and language proficiency (F(1,64) = .25,
p = 0.62, p = .004) as well as the interaction, F(1,64) = 2.86, p =.096, p = .043, only
approached significance. Post-hoc power analyses showed that the observed power for
the interaction effect was only .39, and thus a larger sample size may be necessary to
detect this effect. English dominant bilinguals falsely recognized a greater proportion of
critical lures when critical lures were studied in English and recognized in Spanish than
the reverse, a tendency that approached significance with a t test, t (32) = 2.03, p = .051.
This was not the case for Spanish dominant bilinguals. (see means and standard
deviations in Table 14).
False recognition for the critical lure in the same language.
The false recognition proportions for the critical lure when words were studied
and recognized in the same language, English-English and Spanish-Spanish, were entered
into a 2 X 2 mixed factor ANOVA with language proficiency (English dominance vs.
Spanish dominance) as the between-subjects factor and language at study and at
recognition (English-English vs. Spanish-Spanish) as the within-subjects factor. The
33
main effect for language at study and at recognition, F(1,64) = .094, p = .76, p =.001,
the interaction, F(1,64) = .550, p = .461, p =.009, and the main effect for language
proficiency, F(1,64) = 1.787, p = .186, p = .027, were nonsignificant (see means and
standard deviations in Table 15). Retrospective power for these effects was low (the
observed power for the interaction was .11), suggesting that even if there were effects of
language at study and at recognition, language proficiency, and/or an interaction of these
two variables on false recognition of the critical lure, a much larger sample would be
needed to detect these effects.
False recognition for cognates.
A 2 (language proficiency: English dominance vs. Spanish dominance) X 2
(language at study and language at recognition: English-Spanish vs. Spanish-English)
mixed factor ANOVA was performed with false recognition for cognates as the
dependent variable. The main effect for language at study and language at recognition,
F(1,64) = .15, p = .699, p = .002, the main effect for language proficiency, F(1,64) =
1.37, p =.24, p = .021, and the interaction, F(1,64) = 2.34, p =.131, p= .035, were all
nonsignificant. Retrospective power for these effects was low (the observed power for the
interaction was .33), again suggesting that a larger sample would be needed to detect any
significant effects. The trends, however, were the predicted direction. English dominant
bilinguals tended to falsely recognize more cognates when words were studied in English
and recognized in Spanish than the reverse, and Spanish dominant bilinguals tended to
falsely recognize more cognates when words were studied in Spanish and recognized in
English than the reverse (Table 16 shows means and standard deviations).
34
False recognition for translation equivalents.
A 2 (language proficiency: English dominance vs. Spanish dominance) X 2
(language at study and language at recognition: English-Spanish vs. Spanish-English)
mixed factor ANOVA with false recognition for translation equivalents as the dependent
variable was conducted. The test revealed a significant main effect for language at study
and language at recognition, F(1, 64) = 4.05, p =.048, p =.060. The interaction, F(1,64)
= .42, p = .519, p = .007, and the main effect for language proficiency were nonsignificant, F(1,64) = .755, p = .388, p = .012. Retrospective power for the interaction
was again low (.09), indicating that a much larger sample would be needed to detect a
significant interaction. Bilinguals were more likely to falsely recognize translation
equivalents when words were studied in English and recognized in Spanish (M =.32, SE
= .032) than the reverse (M =.26, SE = .026). (Table 17 shows means and standard
deviations). This difference approached significance for English dominant bilinguals,
t(32) = 1.82, p = .078 (using a two-tailed test), but it was nonsignificant for Spanish
dominant bilinguals. As expected, English dominant bilinguals tended to falsely
recognize a greater proportion of translation equivalents in their more than in their less
proficient language. However, Spanish dominant bilinguals did not show differences
between these conditions.
False recognition for interlingual homographs.
A 2 (language proficiency: English dominance vs. Spanish dominance) X 2
(language at study and language at recognition: English-Spanish vs. Spanish-English)
mixed factor ANOVA with false recognition proportion for interlingual homographs as
the dependent variable revealed a marginally significant main effect for language at study
35
and language at recognition, F(1,64) = 3.65, p = .06, p =.054, and a marginally
significant interaction, F(1,64) = 3.09, p = .08, p =.046. The main effect for language
proficiency was nonsignificant, F(1,64) = 2.41, p = ..125, p =.036. Spanish dominant
bilinguals falsely recognized more interlingual homographs when they studied the words
in Spanish and recognized them in English (M = .24, SD = .19) than the reverse (M = .14,
SD = .19). For English dominant bilinguals, the proportions of falsely recognized
interlingual homographs when they studied the words in Spanish and recognized them in
English (M = .27, SD = .24) and when they studied the words in English and recognized
them in Spanish (M = .27, SD = .27) did not differ. These results partially supported our
predictions.
Mechanism Underlying False Recognition for the Critical Lure: FTT or ActivationMonitoring Framework
The predictions of the activation/monitoring framework and the FTT regarding
the mechanisms underlying false recognition for critical lures were examined. According
to the former, the false recognition proportion for critical lures would be greater when
words are encoded and recognized in the same language than in different languages. In
contrast, for the latter, false recognition for the critical lures would be greater when words
are studied in one language and recognized in a different language than when they are
studied and recognized in the same languages.
Following Sahlin et al. (2005), the same language condition English-English was
compared with the cross-language condition English-Spanish, and the same language
condition Spanish-Spanish was compared with the cross-language condition SpanishEnglish. The analyses are described below.
36
A 2 (language at study and language at recognition: English-English vs. EnglishSpanish) X 2 (language proficiency: English dominance vs. Spanish dominance) mixed
factor ANOVA was performed. Language at study and language at recognition was the
within-subjects variable and language proficiency was the between-subjects variable. The
dependent variable was the false recognition proportion for critical lures. The main effect
for language condition was significant, F(1, 64) = 8.41, p = .005, p = .116. The
interaction was nonsignificant, F(1, 64) = .000, p = .997, p = .000. The critical lure was
more falsely recognized when words were studied and recognized in the same language,
English M =.59, SE = .04) than when they were studied in English and recognized in
Spanish (M =.44, SE = .04) (see means and standard deviations in Table 18). The main
effect for language proficiency was marginally significant, F(1, 64) = 3.35, p = .072,
p=.050. English dominant bilinguals falsely recognized more critical lures (M =.58, SE
= .04) than Spanish dominant bilinguals (M =.45, SE = .04) when words were studied in
English
The mean false recognition proportion for critical lures was also analyzed using a
2 (language at study and language at recognition: Spanish-Spanish vs. Spanish-English)
X 2 (language proficiency: English dominance vs. Spanish dominance) mixed factor
ANOVA. The main effect for language at study and language at recognition was
significant, F(1,64) = 20.50, p < .001, p = .243. The main effect for language
proficiency, F(1, 64) = .007, p = .936, p= .000, and the interaction, F(1, 64) = 1.35, p =
.250, p = .021, were nonsignificant. More critical lures were falsely recognized when
words were studied and recognized in the same language, Spanish-Spanish (M = .57, SE
37
= .04) than in different languages, Spanish-English (M = .35, SD = .04) (see means and
standard deviations in Table 19).
The results of these analyses revealed a greater false recognition proportion for
the critical lure when words were studied and recognized in the same language (EnglishEnglish or Spanish Spanish) than in different languages (English-Spanish or Spanish
English), which is consistent with the predictions of the activation monitoring view.
38
DISCUSSION
The present study investigated whether initial activation of semantic and lexical
representations of both languages when bilinguals see words in one of their languages
results in subsequent false recognition of words in their other language that are similar in
meaning and/or orthographic form to studied words. It further examined whether
language proficiency modulates false recognition driven by these semantic and/or lexical
similarities. Finally, it tested the predictions of the FTT and activation-monitoring
framework regarding the mechanisms underlying false recognition for the critical lure.
Spanish-English bilinguals studied words in one of their languages and
recognized words in the other language (and in the same language in the case of critical
lures and list words). Words at recognition were words that bilinguals had previously
studied (list words), nonstudied words associated in meaning to a list of previously
studied words (i.e., critical lures), nonstudied words that were similar in meaning (i.e.,
translation equivalents), in meaning and in orthographic form (i.e., cognates), or only in
orthographic form to studied words (i.e., nonidentical interlingual homographs), and
nonstudied words that were not similar in meaning or form to studied words (i.e.,
unrelated words). The analyses of the items that bilinguals falsely recognized in crosslanguage conditions (i.e., when they studied words in one language and recognized them
in the other language) revealed that false recognition proportions for critical lures,
cognates, translation equivalents and interlingual homographs were significantly greater
39 than the false recognition proportion for unrelated words. In other words, false
recognition for words similar in meaning and/or form to studied words crossed
languages.
Other studies have shown false recognition for the critical lure in cross-language
conditions (Cabeza & Lennartson, 2005; Kawasaki-Miyaji, et al., 2003; Marmolejo,
Diliberto-Malacuso, & Altarriba, 2009; Sahlin, Harding, & Seamon, 2005), and false
recognition for nonidentical interlingual homographs in monolingual conditions, when
monolinguals study and recognize words in their native language (Lambert et al., 2001;
Raser, 1972; Wallace et al., 1998). The present study demonstrates that false recognition
across languages occur not only for critical lures but also for other items that are similar
in meaning to studied words, and for items that are similar in meaning and orthography,
or only in orthography to studied words. Note that false recognition for interlingual
homographs, which is driven only by similarities in orthographic form, occurred in spite
of the fact that list words encouraged encoding of meanings. Words in the DRM lists
included in the present study were semantically associated to one another and to the
nonstudied critical lure (Deese, 1959).
Our finding that bilinguals falsely recognize words that are similar in meaning
and/or in orthographic form to previously studied words in cross-language conditions
supports the assumptions that in bilingual memory semantic representations are shared
(Kroll & Stewart, 1994) and lexica of the two languages are integrated (Van Heuven, et
al., 1998) and is evidence that initial activation of lexical and semantic representations of
bilinguals’ two languages affects subsequent recognition decisions. In terms of the
activation/monitoring framework (Roediger, et al, 2001), when bilinguals study words in
40 one language, semantic and lexical representations of those words and of nonstudied
words that are similar in orthographic form and/or meaning to studied words, are
activated in both of their languages. At recognition, bilinguals evaluate words that were
previously activated (i.e., studied and nonstudied words in both languages). False
recognition decisions should be determined by the similarity in meaning and/or
orthographic form between words at recognition and words at study (i.e., the more
similarity the greater the likehood of false recognition). False recognition should also be
determined by the availability of semantic information at recognition (related to the
semantic associations among the list words and between the list words and the critical
lure), and by the availability of distinct representations of the orthographic form of list
words (i.e., it is less likely to falsely recognize words that are similar to presented words
when distinct orthographic representations are formed of those presented words).
The analyses of the false recognition proportions for the items included in the
present study also showed that bilinguals more frequently recognized list words than the
other items, more frequently falsely recognized critical lures than cognates, translation
equivalents and interlingual homographs, and more frequently falsely recognized
cognates than interlingual homographs. There was a nonsignificant tendency for
bilinguals to falsely recognize cognates more frequently than translation equivalents as
well. These patterns are consistent with our predictions. As compared with the other item
types, list words were better recognized because they were actually studied while the
other items not. In addition, bilinguals were more likely to falsely recognize the critical
lure because its meaning is more strongly activated than the meanings of cognates and
translation equivalents. False recognition for the critical lures, cognates, and translation
41 equivalents is based on the activation of their meanings (and also on the activation of the
form in the case of cognates). The semantic representation of the critical lure would
receive activation from all its semantic associates; the entire DRM list of words
(Roediger et al., 2001). In contrast, semantic representations of cognates and translation
equivalents would receive activation from only one word in the DRM list (its counterpart
in the other language). Finally, bilinguals were more likely to falsely recognize cognates
than translation equivalents and interlingual homographs because both semantic and
orthographic similarities support false recognition for cognates while only semantic
similarity supports false recognition for translation equivalents, and only orthographic
similarity supports false recognition for interlingual homographs.
Note that the differences between cognates and translation equivalents were not
significant. The orthographic similarity (and probably the phonological similarity)
between words at study and their cognates might not be high enough to result in a higher
false recognition proportion for cognates that, in turn, generated a greater difference in
false recognition proportions between cognates and translation equivalents. In this study,
words at study and their corresponding nonidentical cognates were similar in
orthographic form. However, since the cognates included in the recognition test were
cognates of DRM list words, the extent of the orthographic similarity between studied
words and cognates was not controlled. Words at study and their cognates differed in one,
two, or three letters, and shared letters were sometimes not located at the same positions.
The lack of differences between cognates and translation equivalents may also reflect the
greater weight that bilinguals gave to semantic relative to lexical information, when both
were available, in their recognition decisions.
42
In addition to the occurrence of false recognition based on meaning and/or
orthography across languages, the present study examined the role of bilingual language
proficiency. The performance of English dominant and Spanish dominant SpanishEnglish bilinguals was analyzed regarding the proportion of items (i.e., critical lures,
cognates, translation equivalents and interlingual homographs) that they falsely
recognized when they studied words in English and recognized them in Spanish (and in
English for critical lures), and when they studied words in Spanish and recognized them
in English (and in Spanish for critical lures).
The analyses showed that English dominant bilinguals falsely recognized a
greater proportion of critical lures, and translation equivalents (the differences were
marginally significant) when they studied words in their dominant English and
recognized words in Spanish than the reverse. In addition, as compared with Spanish
dominant bilinguals, English dominant bilinguals more frequently falsely recognized
critical lures (the difference was marginally significant) when they studied the words in
English (combining the two language at study and language at recognition conditions:
English-English, and English-Spanish) but not when they studied the words in Spanish
(combining the two language at study and language at recognition conditions: SpanishSpanish, and Spanish-English). These results were expected and are consistent with the
assumption of the RHM that bilinguals are more likely to access meaning directly in the
more proficient language (Kroll & Stewart, 1994). In effect, false recognition of words in
one language that are associated in meaning to words studied in the other language is
driven by bilinguals’ ability to directly access meanings in the language in which words
were studied. If bilinguals are more likely to access meanings directly in their more
43
proficient language, then they should be more likely to falsely recognize words that are
similar in meaning to studied words when they study the words in that language.
The analyses also revealed that English dominant bilinguals did not show
significant differences in the false recognition proportion for cognates when they studied
the words in English and recognized them in Spanish relative to when they studied the
words in Spanish and recognized them in English. The same was true for Spanish
dominant bilinguals. In addition, neither English dominant bilinguals nor Spanish
dominant bilinguals significantly differed in the false recognition proportion for the
critical lure when they studied and recognized the words in their more dominant language
relative to their less dominant language. Finally, Spanish dominant bilinguals did not
differ in the false recognition proportion for translation equivalents when they studied the
words in Spanish and recognized the words in English and the reverse. The
nonsignificant tendencies for both groups regarding the false recognition proportion for
cognates and critical lures were in the expected direction. That is, the false recognition
proportion for these items tended to be greater in the more than in the less proficient
language. Spanish dominant bilinguals, in contrast, showed a nonsignificant tendency for
falsely recognizing a greater proportion of translation equivalents when they studied
words in their less dominant language English, than in their more dominant language,
Spanish.
One reason for the nonsignificant differences in the previous analyses is the low
statistical power of the tests. In fact, post-hoc analyses revealed that the observed power
for the interaction effects was low. This is likely the result of the small sample size of the
groups of bilinguals who participated in the study. The sample size was determined by
44
conducting an a-priori power analysis. Because of the scarce literature on the area, a
conventional small effect of .25 was assumed. It was estimated that a sample size of 72
(36 per group of participants) was required to have enough statistical power to detect
differences. However, the effect sizes were actually smaller, and, as mentioned earlier,
data from some participants were eliminated. A larger number of bilinguals would have
been needed in each of the groups to increase the chances of finding significant
interactions.
The nonsignificant differences may also be the consequence of bilinguals having
high levels of proficiency in their less proficient language, and thus, of having direct
access to meaning in that language. In the present study, Spanish is the native language
for most English dominant bilinguals, and they have been exposed to both English and
Spanish from a very young age. Thus, they should have a high level of proficiency in
Spanish which increases their probability of accessing meaning directly in that language.
Spanish dominant bilinguals are late bilinguals, who have been exposed less to their less
proficient language, English. They are less proficient in their second language than
English dominant bilinguals. However, they should still have high levels of English
proficiency. After all, they have to meet the academic and social demands of living and
studying in an English speaking country. Thus, they should be able to access the meaning
of at least some words directly in their second language. Note also that bilinguals in the
present study were engaged in a recognition task. According to Kroll and colleagues
(2010), it should be easier to directly access meaning in L2 in a recognition task, such as
the one used in the present study, than in a production task.
45
For Spanish dominant bilinguals, the lack of significant differences in the false
recognition proportion for the critical lure when words were studied in English as
compared to when they were studied in Spanish may be associated with the nature of the
Spanish DRM lists used in the present study. Spanish DRM lists were translations of
English DRM lists. Because Spanish DRM lists were based on English rather than
Spanish semantic association norms, they would be less likely to generate the critical lure
than English DRM lists.
The fact that Spanish dominant bilinguals showed a nonsignificant trend to falsely
recognize translation equivalents more frequently when they studied words in their less
proficient language, English, than when they studied words in their more proficient
language, Spanish, may have to do with the activation of translation equivalents of words
that they studied in English. According to Sunderman and Kroll (2006) less proficient
bilinguals are likely to activate translation equivalents of L2 words when they process
words in L2 in order to indirectly access meaning. If this is the case in the present study,
false recognition for translation equivalents of words that Spanish dominant bilinguals
studied in English would be supported not only by semantic but also by orthographic
similarity (as with cognates) while false recognition for translation equivalents of words
they studied in Spanish would be supported only by semantic similarity. It is not likely
that English dominant bilinguals, who are proficient bilinguals, activated the translation
equivalents of L2 words in the present study. The study of Gou et al., (2012) suggests
that proficient bilinguals activate translation equivalents of L2 words after activating their
meaning in order to facilitate recognition. Bilinguals in that study decided whether pair of
words were translation equivalents of each other. The recognition task in the present
46
study required the encoding of the language in which words were studied. Therefore, it
discouraged activation of translation equivalents.
In relation to interlingual homographs, the analyses of the present study revealed
that Spanish dominant bilinguals falsely recognized interlingual homographs more
frequently when they studied the words in Spanish and recognized them in English than
when they studied the words in English and recognized them in Spanish. However,
English dominant bilinguals did not significantly differ in the false recognition proportion
for interlingual homographs in these cross- language conditions. The results for Spanish
dominant bilinguals support our predictions and can be interpreted in terms of the claims
of Francis and Gutiérrez (2012). According to these authors, bilinguals create more
distinct orthographic representations of words they study in their L2 than of words they
study in their L1 because words in L2 are less frequent and familiar than words in L1.
Thus, words encoded in L2 should be better recognized than words encoded in L1. In the
context of the present study, false recognition for interlingual homographs is driven by
orthographic similarity. Thus, the probability of false recognition for these items should
depend on how distinct the orthographic representations of studied words are. If words
encoded in L2 are more orthographically distinct than words encoded in L1, then false
recognition for interlingual homographs should be more likely for words studied in L1
than for words studied in L2.
The results for English dominant bilinguals, which seem to contradict our
predictions, can also be interpreted in terms of the assumptions of Francis and Gutierrez
(2012). English dominant bilinguals did not show significant differences in the false
recognition proportion for interlingual homographs when they studied the words in
47
Spanish relative to when they studied the words in English because for them words
studied in Spanish are probably not more distinctive than words studied in English. In the
present study, Spanish dominant bilinguals learned English late in life and had been
exposed less to English than to Spanish. In contrast, English dominant bilinguals were
early bilinguals who had been exposed to Spanish (and to English) from a very young age
(for most of them Spanish was the native language). For them, words they studied in
Spanish should be as frequent and as familiar as words they studied in English.
Consequently, English dominant bilinguals should not benefit as much as Spanish
dominant bilinguals from greater orthographic distinctiveness of words studied in L2
relative to words studied in L1.
Although not the main goal of the present study, the use of the DRM paradigm
allowed us to test the predictions of the FTT and the activation-monitoring framework
regarding the mechanism underlying false recognition for the critical lure. The FTT
predicts greater false recognition proportion for the critical lure when words are studied
and recognized in different languages. In contrast, the activation-monitoring framework
predicts greater false recognition proportion for the critical lure when words are studied
and recognized in the same language. The analyses showed a significantly greater false
recognition proportion for critical lures when bilinguals studied and recognized words in
the same language, English or Spanish, than when they studied the words in one language
and recognized the words in the other language, English-Spanish or Spanish-English,
respectively. These findings support the prediction of the activation- monitoring
framework. Sahlin et al. (2001) also found more false recognition for the critical lure
when the languages at study and test were the same than when they were different.
48
Although Cabeza and Lennartson (2005) did not find differences between these
conditions, the trend of the results was consistent with the results of the present study. In
contrast to these findings, Marmolejo et al. (2009) showed more false recognition for the
critical lure when words were studied and recognized in different languages. Results in
that study may have been influenced by the administration of a recall test before the
recognition test. In addition, in Marmolejo and colleagues’ study, positive recognition did
not require, as in the present study, that the language at test and at recognition were the
same. Participants in that study may have been more likely to encode the words in
semantic than in orthographic terms and their recognition decisions may have been more
influenced by semantic information than by orthographic information.
Why is false recognition for the critical lure more likely when words are studied
and recognized in the same language? According to the activation-monitoring
framework, the critical lure is strongly activated because it receives the combined
activation of its semantic associates, the list words. As a consequence of this, not only its
semantic representations but also its lexical representations are activated (i.e. its
phonological and orthographic features) in the language in which bilinguals studied the
list words. Activated semantic and lexical representations are evaluated at recognition.
False recognition for the critical lure when bilinguals study and recognize words in the
same language should be supported by both semantic and orthographic representations. In
contrast, false recognition for the critical lure when bilinguals study words in one
language and recognize them in the other language should be supported solely by
semantic representations.
This study is not without limitations. One limitation was that, in the case of
49
cognates and interlingual homographs, it was not possible to manipulate the degree of
orthographic similarity between words at study and at recognition because words at
recognition originated from DRM lists words used at study. Greater similarity would
have resulted in stronger false recognition effects (i.e. higher false recognition proportion
for cognates and interlingual homographs). It was also not possible to control for word
frequency. The meanings of high frequency words would be accessed faster than the
meanings of low frequency words. Because false recognition driven by meaning depends
on the ability to directly access meanings, the effects of language proficiency for words
similar in meaning to presented words may be confounded with the effects of word
frequency. Another limitation of the present study was that bilinguals (both more and less
proficient bilinguals) had high levels of second language proficiency which reduced the
chances of finding stronger language proficiency effects. Another factor that reduced the
probabilities of detecting language proficiency effects, as mentioned above, was the small
sample sizes of each group of bilinguals.
Despite these limitations, the present research makes a number of contributions to
our understanding of bilingualism and memory. In addition to enhancing our
understanding of the mechanisms underlying false recognition for the critical lure in the
DRM paradigm, the present study improves our knowledge of the structure and dynamics
of bilingual memory. This research demonstrates that the activation of both languages
affects recognition decisions that take place after initial comprehension. That is,
languages interact, and this interaction is deep and has long-term effects on performance.
It also demonstrates that the interaction of the two languages is not only based on
meaning but also on orthographic form. This suggests that the representations of the word
50
forms are integrated across languages. Finally, it shows that language proficiency
modulates the interaction of the two languages. That is, language proficiency matters.
When analyzing the complex interactions between languages, we should consider the
influences of variables associated with the bilingual’s learning history, such as language
proficiency.
51
Table 1
Mean Years English and Spanish Dominant Bilinguals Spent in a Country and School
Where the Language, English or Spanish, was Spoken (En/Sp Country and En/Sp School)
English
Spanish dominant
t
df
dominant
En country
18.31 (6.98)
10.58 (5.01)
-5.15***
63
En school
15.63 (5.65)
8.45 (4.31)
-5.73***
63
Sp country
4.78 (5.12)
14.39 (6.57)
6.57***
63
Sp school
5.41 (7.08)
10.39 (4.18)
3.45***
50
Note. ***p ≤ .001, two tailed. Standard Deviations are in Parentheses.
52 Table 2
Mean Proficiency Ratings in Speaking, Reading and Understanding in English and
Spanish for English and Spanish Dominant Bilinguals
English dominant
English
Spanish
t
df
Speaking
9.69 (0.60)
8.34 (1.29)
5.88***
28
Reading
9.59 (0.82)
7.90 (1.72)
5.19***
28
Understanding
9.69 (0.81)
9.31 (0.85)
2.49*
28
Spanish dominant
English
Spanish
t
df
Speaking
8.76 (0.94)
9.85 (0.36)
-7.44***
32
Reading
9.00 (1.00)
9.45 (1.00)
-2.09*
32
Understanding
9.24 (0.79)
9.90 (0.29)
-5.20***
32
Note. *p ≤ .05, ***p ≤ .001, two-tailed. A 10-point scale was used, 10 being most
proficient. Standard deviations are in parentheses.
53 Table 3
Mean Age When Acquisition and Fluency and Reading and Reading Fluency (readFl) in
English (En) and Spanish (Sp) Began for English and Spanish Dominant Bilinguals
English Dominant
Spanish Dominant
t
df
En acquisition
4.44 (2.50)
10.55 (4.78)
6.48***
48.60
En fluency
6.61 (2.94)
15.58 (5.85)
7.81***
47.82
En reading
6.35 (2.24)
12.24 (5.23)
5.92***
43.99
En readFl
8.10 (2.36)
15.94 (5.44)
7.47***
42.55
Sp acquisition
.97 (.93)
1.02 (1.09)
.19
61
Sp fluency
3.93 (2.35)
3.88 (1.63)
-.096
58
Sp reading
6.87 (4.02)
5.55 (1.61)
-1.67
37.83
Sp readFl
8.97 (3.88)
7.27 (1.99)
-2.11*
41.58
Note. *p ≤ .05, ***p ≤ .001, two-tailed. Standard deviations are in parentheses.
54
Table 4
Mean Years Spanish and English Dominant Bilinguals Spent in a Family Environment
Where Spanish (Years Sp family) or English (Years En family) was Spoken
Years En family
Years Sp family
English dominant
10.72 (10.60)
21.66 (4.96)
Spanish dominant
2.22 (6.06)
22.45 (6.66)
Table 5
Mean Ratings of Exposure to English (En) and Spanish (Sp) through Family Interactions
in English Dominant and Spanish Dominant Bilinguals
En Exposure
Sp Exposure
English dominant
6.03(2.91)
8.44(2.27)
Spanish dominant
3.76(3.03)
9.18(2.05)
Note. A 10-point scale was used, 10 being most proficient. Standard deviations are in
parentheses. Two tailed tests were used.
55
Table 6
Critical Lures with English and Spanish DRM Lists Words
English DRM lists
WINDOW: door, glass, pane, shade, ledge, sill, house, open, curtain, frame view, breeze
TRASH: garbage, waste, can, refuse, sewage, bag, junk, rubbish, sweep, scraps, pile, dump
HIGH: low, clouds, up, tall, tower, jump, above, building, noon, over, airplane, elevate
NEEDLE: thread, pin, sewing, sharp, point, prick, thimble, thorn, hurt, syringe, cloth, knitting
FOOT: shoe, hand, toe, kick, sandals, soccer, yard, walk, ankle, arm, boot, inch
CHAIR: table, sit, legs, seat, desk, wood, cushion, swivel, stool, rocker, bench, relax
Spanish DRM lists
TAZA (Cup): tarro, plato, medir, posavasos, tapa, asa, café, copa, sopa, mancha, bebida, sorbo
ENOJO (Anger): furioso, miedo, odio, rabia, genio, furia, cólera, contento, pelea, malo, calma,
enfurecerse
RIO (River): agua, corriente, lago, bote, marea, nadar, correr, riachuelo, pez, puente, tortuoso,
profundo
PAN (Bread): mantequilla, alimento, comer, centeno, leche, harina, mermelada, masa, corteza,
rebanada, vino, hogaza.
CIUDAD (City): pueblo, estado, calles, país, Nueva York, aldea, grande, afueras, municipio,
gente, edificio, ruido
AMOR (Love): afecto, beso, dolor, vida, amistad, todo, felicidad, sentimiento, corazón, ternura,
placer, deseo
56
Table 7
Critical Lures Used in Different Versions (1,2,3, and 4) of the Recognition Test
Same Language
Versions 1 & 2
Versions 3 & 4
Different Language
window, high, trash pan,
anger, cup, river, silla,
ciudad, amor
aguja, pie
chair, needle, foot,enojo, taza,
love, city, bread, ventana,
rio
alto, basura
Note. Same Language: Critical lures presented at recognition in the same language in
which words were studied. Different Languages: Critical lures presented not in the
language in which words were studied but in the other language.
57
Table 8
English and Spanish List Words and their Corresponding Cognates
English List Words
Cognates
Curtain
Cortina
Breeze
Brisa
Airplane
Aeroplano
Elevate
Elevar
Pile
Pila
Sandals
Sandalias
Yard
Yarda
Point
Punta
Relax
Relajar
Spanish List Words
Cognates
Furia
Fury
Profundo
Profound
Calma
Calm
Sopa
Soup
Mermelada
Marmalade
Estado
State
Bote
Boat
Lago
Lake
Deseo
Desire
58
Table 9
English and Spanish List Words and their Translation Equivalents
English List Words
Translation Equivalents
dump
basurero
sharp
punzante
open
abrir
bench
banca
jump
salto
inch
pulgada
syringe
jeringa
seat
asiento
hand
mano
Spanish List Words
Translation equivalents
ruido
noise
harina
flour
miedo
fear
medir
measuring
corazón
heart
calles
streets
puente
bridge
centeno
rye
agua
water
59
Table 10
English and Spanish List Words and their Corresponding Intelingual Homographs
English List Words
Interlingual Homographs
Pane
Peine (comb)
Hurt
Hurto (theft)
Tall
Tallo (stem)
Door
Dorar (to brown)
Table
Tabla (plank, board)
Garbage
Garbanzo (Chickpea)
Ankle
Ancla (anchor)
Arm
Arma (weapon)
Pin
Pino (tree)
Spanish List Words
Interlingual Homographs
Malo (wicked, or harmful)
Male
Tapa (lid)
Tape
Sorbo (sip)
Sober
Pez (fish)
Peace
Grande (big)
Ground
Gente (people)
Gentle
Amistad (friendship)
Amidst
Alimento (food)
Ailment
Marea (tide)
Mare
60
Table 11
English and Spanish Unrelated Words Included in the Recognition Test
English Unrelated Words
Spanish Unrelated Words
far, coal, ugly, resilient, beef, hunt, leader,
reloj (clock), gatito (kitten), vals (waltz),
marker, eraser
perezoso (lazy), húmedo (wet, humid),
bolsillo (pocket), ajedrez (chess), duro
(hard), años (years)
Note. English translations of Spanish words are in parentheses.
Table 12
English and Spanish List Words Included in the Recognition Test
Englis List Words
Spanish List Words
tower, shade, sewage, thimble, frame, low,
riachuelo, vino, rabia, municipio, país,
rocker, shoe, wood, swivel, walk, up,
Nueva York, correr, genio, enfurecerse,
prick, kick, can, sweep, glass, cloth
posavasos, beso, corteza, tortuoso, copa,
hogaza, mancha,todo,dolor.
61
Table 13
Mean Recognition Proportion for List Words (LW), Critical Lures (CL), Cognates (IC),
Translation Equivalents (TE), Interlingual Homographs (IH) and Unrelated Words(UW)
in English and Spanish Dominant Bilinguals(EnD and SpD)
LW
CL
IC
TE
IH
UW
Total
EnD
.72(.17)
.46(.25)
.35(.24)
.31(.21)
.27(.22)
.21(.16)
.40(.03)
SpD
.68(.16)
.44(.29)
.29(.18)
.27(.20)
.20(.16)
.15(.15)
.34(.03)
Total
.70(.02)
.45(.03)
.32(.03)
.29(.03)
.23(.02)
.18(.02)
Note. Standard deviations (standard errors for the estimated marginal means) are in
parentheses.
Table 14
Mean False Recognition Proportion for Critical Lures When Words are Studied in
English and Recognized in Spanish (En-Sp) and Studied in Spanish and Recognized in
English (Sp-En) in English and Spanish Dominant Bilinguals (EnD and SpD)
En-Sp
Sp-En
Total
EnD
.50(.35)
.32(.31)
.41(.04)
SpD
.38(.30)
.38(.35)
.38(.04)
Total
.44(.04)
.35(.04)
Note. Standard deviations (standard errors for the marginal means) are in parentheses.
62
Table 15
Mean False Recognition Proportion for Critical Lures When Words are Studied in
English and Recognized in English (En-En) and Studied in Spanish and Recognized in
Spanish (Sp-Sp) in English and Spanish Dominant Bilinguals (EnD and SpD)
En-En
Sp-Sp
Total
EnD
.65(.34)
.60(.31)
.62(.04)
SpD
.52(.33)
.55(.31)
.54(.04)
Total
.59(.04)
.57(.04)
Note. Standard deviations (standard errors for the marginal means) are in parentheses.
Table 16
Mean False Recognition Proportion for Cognates When Words are Studied in English
and Recognized in Spanish (En-Sp) and Studied in Spanish and Recognized in English
(Sp-En) in English and Spanish Dominant Bilinguals (EnD and SpD)
En-Sp
Sp-En
Total
EnD
.37(.25)
.34(.26)
.35(.04)
SpD
.26(.20)
.32(.23)
.29(.04)
Total
.32(.03)
.33(.03)
Note. Standard deviations (standard errors for the marginal means) are in parentheses.
63
Table 17
Mean False Recognition Proportion for Translation Equivalents When Words are
Studied in English and Recognized in Spanish (En-Sp) and Studied in Spanish and
Recognized in English (Sp-En) in English and Spanish Dominant Bilinguals (EnD and
SpD)
En-Sp
Sp-En
Total
EnD
.35 (.25)
.27 (.25)
.31(04)
SpD
.29 (.27)
.24 (.16)
.27(04)
Total
.32 (.03)
.26 (.03)
Note. Standard deviations (standard errors for the marginal means) are in parentheses.
Table 18
Mean False Recognition Proportion for Critical Lures When Words are Studied in
English and Recognized in English (En-En) and Studied in English and Recognized in
Spanish (En-Sp) in English and Spanish Dominant Bilinguals (EnD and SpD)
En-En
En-Sp
Total
EnD
.65(.34)
.50(.35)
.58(.05)
SpD
.52(.33)
.38(.30)
.45(.05)
Total
.59(.04)
.44(.04)
Note. Standard deviations (standard errors for the marginal means) are in parentheses.
64
Table 19
Mean False Recognition Proportion for Critical Lures When Words are Studied in
Spanish and Recognized in Spanish (Sp-Sp) and Studied in Spanish and Recognized in
English (Sp-En) in English and Spanish Dominant Bilinguals (EnD and SpD)
Sp-Sp
Sp-En
Total
EnD
.60(.30)
.32(.30)
.46(.04)
SpD
.55(.31)
.38(.35)
.47(.04)
Total
.57(.04)
.35(.04)
Note. Standard deviations (standard errors for the marginal means) are in parentheses.
65
REFERENCES
Alonso, M. A., Fernández, A., Diez, E. & Beato, M. S. (2004). False recall and false
recognition norms for 55 word lists in Castilian. Psicothema, 16, 3, 357-362.
Altarriba, J., & Mathis, K.M. (1997). Conceptual and lexical development in second
language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 550-568.
Brainerd, C.J., & Reyna, V.F. (2002). Fuzzy trace theory and false memory. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 164-169.
Cabeza, R., & Lennartson, E.R. (2005). False memory across languages: Implicit
associative response vs. fuzzy trace views. Memory, 13, 1-5.
Collins, A.M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic
memory. Psychological Review, 82, 407-428.
Deese, J. (1959). On the prediction of occurrence of particular verbal intrusions in
immediate recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 17-22.
Dijkstra, T., Miwa, K., Brummelhuis, B., Sapelli, M., & Baaye, H. (2010). How crosslanguage similarity and task demands affect cognate recognition. Journal of
Memory and Language, 62, 284-301.
66 Dijkstra, T., Timmermans, M., & Schriefers, H. (2000). On being blinded by your other
language: Effects of task demands on interlingual homograph recognition.
Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 445-464.
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.
Dunn, L.M., & Dunn, D.M. (2007). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (4th ed.).
Minneapolis, MN: NCS Pearson.
Dunn, L.M., Padilla, E.R., Lugo, D.E., & Dunn, L.M. (1986). Test de Vocabulario en
Imágenes Peabody. San Antonio, TX: NCS Pearson.
Francis, W.S. (1999). Cognitive integration of language and memory in bilinguals:
Semantic representation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 193-222.
Francis, W. S., & Gutiérrez, M. (2012). Bilingual recognition memory: Stronger
performance but weaker levels-of-processing effects in the less fluent language.
Memory & Cognition, 40, 496-503. doi: 0.3758/s13421-011-0163-3
Gallo,D. A.,McDermott, K. B., Percer, J. M., & Roediger,H. L., III. (2001). Modality
effects in false recall and false recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 339-353.
Guo, T., Misra, M., Tam, J. W., & Kroll, J. F. (2012). On the time course of accessing
meaning in a second language: An electrophysiological and behavioral
67
investigation of translation recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Advance online publication. doi:
10.1037/a0028076
Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring.
Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3-28.
Kawasaki-Miyaji, Y., & Inoue, T., & Yama, H. (2003). Cross-linguistic false
recognition: How do Japanese-dominant bilinguals process two languages:
Japanese and English? Psychologia, 46, 255-267.
Kawasaki-Mijayi, Y., & Yama, H. (2006). The difference between implicit and explicit
associative processes at study in creating false memory in the DRM paradigm.
Memory, 14, 68-78.
Kroll, J.F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming:
Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations.
Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149-174.
Kroll, J. F., van Hell, J. G., Tokowicz, N., & Green, D. W. (2010). The revised
hierarchical model: A critical review and assessment. Bilingualism: Language
and Cognition, 13, 373-381. doi:10.1017/S136672891000009X
Lambert, B.L., Chang, K.Y., & Lin, S.J. (2001). Effect of orthographic and phonological
similarity on false recognition of drug names. Social Science and Medicine, 52,
1843-1857.
68
Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H.K., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The language experience
and proficiency questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in
bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 50, 940-967.
Marmolejo, G., Diliberto-Malacuso, K.A., Altarriba, J. (2009). False memory in
bilinguals: Does switching languages increase false memories? American Journal
of Psychology, 122, 1-16.
McDermott, K.B. (1997). Priming on perceptual implicit memory tests can be achieved
through presentation of associates. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 582-586.
Payne,D.G.,Elie,C. J.,Blackwell,J.M.,& Neuschatz, J. S. (1996). Memory
illusions:Recalling, recognizing,and recollecting events that never occurred.
Journal of Memory & Language, 35, 261-285.
Raser, G. (1972). False recognition as a function of encoding dimension and lag. Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 93, 333–337.
Roediger, H. L. III., & McDermott, K.B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering
words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory and Cognition, 21, 803-814.
Roediger, H.L., Watson, J.M., McDermott, K.B., & Gallo, D.A. (2001). Factors that
determine false recall: A multiple regression analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and
Review, 8, 385-407.
69
Sahlin, B. H., Harding, M.G., & Seamon, J.G. (2005). When do false memories cross
language boundaries in English-Spanish bilinguals? Memory and Cognition, 33,
1414-1421.
Seamon, J. G., Luo, C. R., & Gallo, D. A. (1998). Creating false memories of words with
or without recognition of list items: Evidence for nonconscious processes.
Psychological Science, 9, 20–26.
Stadler, M. A., Roediger III, H. L. & McDermott, K. B. (1999). Norms for word lists that
create false memories. Memory & Cognition, 27, 494-500.
Sunderman, G., & Kroll, J. F. (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.
Thierry, G., & Wu, Y. J. (2007). Brain potentials reveal unconscious translation during
foreign language comprehension. Proceeding of National Academy of Sciences,
104, 12530-12535.
Van Heuven, W. J. B., Dijkstra, A., & Grainger, J. (1998). Orthographic neighborhood
effects in bilingual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 458–
483.
Wallace, W. P., Stewart, M. T., Shaffer, T. R., & Wilson, J. A. (1998). Are false
recognitions influenced by prerecognition processing? Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 299–315.
70