The Case of Different Scripts:
Cross-Linguistic Effects in Japanese-English
Bilingual Word Recognition

Koji Miwa, Patrick Bolger

Ton Dijkstra

Harald Baayen

Radboud University Nijmegen

University of Alberta

ML7, Windsor, Canada
July 2, 2010!

BIA+ Model

Task/Decision System

Dijkstra & van Heuven (2002)

Identification System*+&,-')#./)0+1/2'03#

40+&+5+13#

COFFEEKOFFIE!"#%&'()#!$#

coffee!

/kh!fi/!"#/k!fi/!$#"#

The Case of Different Scripts
Can BIA+ Model be generalized to bilinguals’ recognition ofL2 words for languages with different scripts?

EnglishcoffeeJapaneseコーヒー#

BIA+ Model

Task/Decision System

Dijkstra & van Heuven (2002)

Identification System*+&,-')#./)0+1/2'03#

40+&+5+13#

COFFEE!"#%&'()#?

コーヒー!
coffee!

!$#/k!fi/!"#/ko:hi:/!$#$#

The goals of this study•! Do Japanese words become co-activated withoutcross-linguistic orthographic similarity?

•! Does competition between English target words andJapanese words occur at a later stage? (Diagnostic: English
Word Frequency * Japanese Word Frequency)•! Does a cross-language phonological similarity effect arise
early? (Diagnostic: Phonological Similarity rating)•! Does a cross-language translation (semantic) equivalence
matter? (Diagnostic: Translation Equivalence rating)%Method: LDT with eye-tracking
Participants•! 19 Japanese-English
late-bilingual readers•! 19 native English monolingual
readers (control group)
Materials•! 250 English simplex words•! 200 English-derived nonwords&Predictors
Bilingual-specific predictors•! Japanese Word Frequency
Loanword word frequency in Japanese•! Phonological Similarity
rated cross-language phonological similarity•! Translation Equivalencebased on rated translation similarity in meaning
Predictors of the English target words•! English Word Frequency
Control predictors•! Trial and Previous RT'

Distributions of Fixations•! Single fixations were rare, and the majority of words were
scanned by two fixations by English monolingual readers.

•! Mode was 3 fixations for Japanese-English bilinguals.

Fixation Counts

Fixation Counts(L1*L2 Word Frequency Effect•! The competition between L1 and L2 frequencies did not appear

English Word Frequency

Japanese Word Frequency

2nd Fixation Duration (ms)nsJapanese Word Frequency

1st Fixation Duration (ms)at the 1st fixation but appeared at the 2nd fixation, as predicted.

English Word Frequency)

L1*L2 Word Frequency Effect•! Response latencies, too, reflected the competition between

RT (ms)212 ms47 ms

English Word Frequency

Japanese Word Frequency

L2 target word frequency and L1 Japanese word frequency.

!*Phonological Similarity Effect•! Very early Phonological Similarity effect, as predicted.
•! Phonological Similarity effects were modulated by

Phonological Similarity

Japanese Word Frequency

2nd Fixation Duration (ms)

1st Fixation Duration (ms)Japanese Word Frequency

Japanese Word Frequency at both 1st and 2nd fixations.

Phonological Similarity!!

Phonological Similarity Effect•! Overall, larger cross-language Phonological Similarity

RT (ms)led to shorter response latencies.

37 ms

Phonological Similarity!"

Translation Equivalence Effect•! Cross-language Translation Equivalence did not contributens

Equivalent

Not EquivalentTranslation Equivalence

2nd Fixation Duration (ms)

1st Fixation Duration (ms)to the 1st fixation but shortened the 2nd fixation duration.

11 ms

Equivalent

Not EquivalentTranslation Equivalence!#Translation Equivalence Effect•! Cross-language Translation Equivalence facilitated responses(particularly noticeable when Previous RT was long).

Previous RTRT (ms)34 msEquivalent

Not EquivalentTranslation Equivalence!$

BIA+ Model

Task/Decision System

Dijkstra & van Heuven (2002)

Identification System*+&,-')#./)0+1/2'03#

40+&+5+13#

COFFEE

コーヒー!"#%&'()#!$#

coffee!

/k!fi/!"#/ko:hi:/
!$#

!%#

Summary•! Japanese words become co-activated without cross-linguistic
orthographic similarity:•! Competition between English target words and Japanesewords occurs late. (English word frequency *Japanese word frequency at 2nd fixation)•! A cross-language Phonological Similarity effect arises
early.

•! A cross-language Translation Equivalence effectarises late.
!&Phonological Similarity Effect•! Overall, larger cross-language Phonological Similarity

RT (ms)led to shorter response latencies.

37 ms

Phonological Similarity!'

Consideration of Response Criteria:
Phonological Similarity Effect•! Phonological Similarity facilitated responses as theTrialRT (ms)experiment went by (a more important as a response criterion).

56 ms

Phonological Similarity!(

L1*L2 Word Frequency Effect•! The competition between L1 and L2 frequencies did not appear

English Word Frequency

Japanese Word Frequency

2nd Fixation Duration (ms)nsJapanese Word Frequency

1st Fixation Duration (ms)at the 1st fixation but appeared at the 2nd fixation, as predicted.

English Word Frequency!)

Consideration of Response Criteria
L1*L2 Word Frequency Effect•! The magnitude of the late English Word Frequency *Japanese Word Frequency became smaller, as theEnglish Word Frequency

Trial = later

Japanese Word Frequency

2nd Fixation Duration (ms)Trial = earlier

Japanese Word Frequency

2nd Fixation Duration (ms)experiment went by (Japanese words as a response criterion).

English Word Frequency "*Phonological Similarity Effect in Detail•! Very early Phonological Similarity effect, as predicted.
•! Phonological Similarity effects were modulated by

Phonological Similarity

Japanese Word Frequency

2nd Fixation Duration (ms)

1st Fixation Duration (ms)Japanese Word Frequency

Japanese Word Frequency at both 1st and 2nd fixations.

Phonological Similarity"!

Fixation Counts""