W ORD R ECOGNITION
4.3 Visual Lexical Decision
4.3.3 Associative Priming
4.3.3.3 Unmasked Associative Priming from L2−L1 (Experiment 3B)
times to nonwords showed that the participants took significantly longer to respond to nonwords (930ms) than to words (825 ms).
Table 4.28 Mean RT (ms) and Percentage of Errors for Cognate and Non-Cognate Targets Primed by Associatively Related and by Unrelated Control Primes for All Three Bilingual Groups in Experiment 3A
Cognate Status/Bilingual Group
Cognate Non-cognate
Early Late high Late low Early Late high Late low Prime Type RT
(Error %)
RT (Error %)
RT (Error %)
RT (Error %)
RT (Error %)
RT (Error %) Associative 903
(18.4)
781 (8.1)
702 (9.6)
882 (7.2)
780 (2.4)
732 (5.8)
Control 948
(6.6)
740 (5.3)
642 (6.7)
881 (3.6)
722 (4.8)
635 (5.3)
Priming 45 −41 −60 −1 −58 −97
4.3.3.2.3 Discussion
The overall results of Experiment 3A demonstrated significant associative priming effect only for the cognate targets in case of the Early High Proficient group. This finding indicates that associative priming effect was modulated by the cognate status of the word as well the age of acquisition of the bilinguals.
4.3.3.3.1 Method
Participants.
The participant of Experiment 3A took part in this experiment.Stimuli.
The stimuli used were the same as those used in the Experiment 3A. The number and order of the word pairs were also identical to those used in Experiment 3A.Procedure.
The experiment was conducted in the same manner as in Experiment 3A.4.3.3.3.2 Results
A mixed-effects analysis was run on the reaction time data and error data after removing the outliers, following the criterion followed in the above experiments.
The mean reaction times and percentage of errors on the stimulus words are shown in Table 4.29. Analysis on the reaction time did not reveal a main effect of Prime Type [F < 1]. The reaction time of targets preceded by associative primes (866 ms) and by control primes (852 ms) were similar. The main effect of Cognate Status approached significance [F(1,154) = 10.371, p = .002]. Cognates (886 ms) were responded to slowly than non-cognates (832 ms), indicating the absence of cognate facilitation effect. The main effect of Bilingual Group was also significant [F(2,45)
= 13.011, p = .000]. The Prime Type and Bilingual Group interaction approached significance [F(2,7188) = 17.452, p = .000]. Small priming effects of 4 ms and 6 ms were found for only Early High Proficient and Late High Proficient bilinguals respectively in the cognate condition. The Cognate Status and Bilingual Group interaction also approached significance [F(2,7188) = 4.482, p = .000]. Finally, the three-way interaction between Prime Type, Cognate Status and Bilingual Group also reached significance [F(2,7188) = 14.499, p = .000].
Table 4.29 Mean RTs (ms) and Percentage of Errors for Cognate and Non-Cognate Targets Primed by Associatively Related and by Unrelated Control Primes in Experiment 3B
Cognate Status
Overall Cognate Non-cognate
Prime Type RT (Error %) RT (Error %) RT (Error %) Cognate effect
Associative 866 (6.25) 884 (8.6) 848 (4.2) −36
Control 852 (5.6) 888 (8.6) 816 (2.9) −72
Priming −14 4 −32
Planned comparisons performed on the individual priming effects for the three groups of bilinguals revealed significant difference in the reaction times of the three bilingual groups. The mean reaction times and percentage of errors as a function of Prime Type, Cognate Status, and Bilingual Group are presented in Table 4.32.
Similar to Experiment 3A, reaction times of the Early High Proficient bilinguals (957 ms) were significantly longer than the reaction times of the Late High Proficient (762 ms) and Late Low Proficient bilinguals (681 ms). Moreover, although the high proficient bilinguals showed very insignificant priming effect for the cognate targets, no cognate facilitation was observed with any of the Bilingual Groups.
Table 4.30 Mean RTs (ms) and Percentage of Errors for Cognate and Non-Cognate Targets Primed by Associatively Related and by Unrelated Control Primes for All Three Bilingual Groups in Experiment 3B
Cognate Status/Bilingual Group
Cognate Non-cognate
Early Late high Late low Early Late high Late low Prime Type RT
(Error %)
RT (Error %)
RT (Error %)
RT (Error %)
RT (Error %)
RT (Error %) Associative 978
(7.9)
789 (9.3)
707 (11.4)
962 (1.2)
734 (7.2)
699 (12.6)
Control 982
(6.6)
795 (10.7)
689 (13.2)
904 (2.4)
728 (3.6)
632 (10.4)
Priming 4 6 −18 −58 −6 −67
In the mixed-effects analysis on the error data, the main effect of Prime Type did not reach significance [F < 1]. The main effect of Cognate Status was significant [F(1,154) = 11.514, p = .000]. Participants recognized non-cognate targets more accurately than cognate targets. The main effect of Bilingual Group tended towards significance [F(2,45) = 4.047, p = .001].
Fewer errors were observed for the high proficient bilinguals as compared to the low proficient bilinguals. Moreover, the Cognate Status and Bilingual Group interaction also approached significance [F(2,7188) = 5.126, p = .000]. Lastly, comparisons of the nonword data were conducted. Analyses of the mean reaction times to nonwords showed that the participants took significantly longer to respond to nonwords (1001 ms) than to words (857 ms).
4.3.3.3.3 Discussion
Contrary to Experiment 3A, this experiment failed to show significant associative priming effects when the priming direction was from L2−L1. The results indicate that the language of the target has a major impact on the processing of languages, supporting the predictions of the RHM.
4.3.3.3.4 Combined Analysis of Experiment 3A and 3B
To test for differences between translation priming in both directions, we analyzed the data from Experiment 3A and 3B in one design using a mixed-effects analysis. A comparative analysis of the reaction time data revealed a main effect of Target Language Target Language [F(1,14629) = 138.221, p = .000]. Targets in the L2−L1 direction (830 ms) were preceded faster than targets in L1−L2 direction (857 ms).
The interaction between Cognate Status and Target Language approached significance [F(1,14613) = 15.231, p = .000]. The Bilingual Group and Target Language interaction was very significant [F(2,14622) = 112.265, p = .000]. This
interaction is shown in Figure 4.8. The three-way interaction between Prime Type, Bilingual Group and Target Language approached significance [F(2,14605) = 110.497, p = .000]. Finally, another significant three-way interaction was observed between Cognate Status, Bilingual Group and Target Language [F(2,14606) = 21.562, p = .000].
Figure 4.7 Mean RTs (ms) as a function of Bilingual Group and Target Language in Experiment 3A and 3B.