are phonological representations in bilinguals language ... › ~frenck › pdfs ›...
TRANSCRIPT
Are phonological representations in bilinguals language
specific? An ERP study on interlingual homophones.
Journal: Psychophysiology
Manuscript ID: PsyP-2010-0391
mstype: Full-length report
Date Submitted by the
Author: 27-Dec-2010
Complete List of Authors: Carrasco-Ortiz, Haydee; Aix-Marseille University, Laboratoire de Parole et Langage Midgley, Katherine; Tufts University, Psychology Department; Aix-Marseille University, Laboratoire de Psychologie Cognitive Frenck-Mestre, Cheryl; Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Laboratoire de Parole et Langage; Aix-Marseille University
Keywords: Cognition < Content, Language/Speech < Content, Normal Volunteers < Groups Studied, EEG/ERP < Measures Used
Psychophysiology
Psychophysiology
1
Are phonological representations in bilinguals language specific? An ERP study
on interlingual homophones.
Haydee Carrasco-Ortiz1, Katherine J. Midgley1, 2, Cheryl Frenck-Mestre1,3
1Aix-Marseille University, France
2Tufts University, USA
3Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
Address for correspondence:
Haydee Carrasco-Ortiz
Aix-Marseille University
Laboratoire de Parole et Langage
5 avenue Pasteur
13604 Aix-en-Provence, FRANCE
Tel. +33 442953746
Fax : +33 442953788
Page 1 of 30
Psychophysiology
Psychophysiology
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
2
Abstract
Event-related potentials (ERPs) served to investigate whether phonological representations
from both the first (L1) and second (L2) language of bilinguals are activated during silent
reading of L2 words. French-English late bilinguals and control monolingual English
speakers read Interlingual homophones (e.g., pool in English which has substantial
phonological overlap with the French word “poule”, meaning ‘chicken’) and matched control
words. Results showed a reduction in N400 amplitude in response to interlingual homophones
in comparison to control words for bilinguals, but not for English monolinguals. The reduced
N400 response to homophones in bilinguals suggests facilitation of word recognition. These
results suggest parallel activation of both L1 and L2 phonological representations when
reading silently in the L2. These findings point to a language nonspecific model for bilinguals
at the phonological level of representation.
Keywords: Bilingualism, Visual word recognition, Phonology, ERPs, Interlingual
homophones.
Page 2 of 30
Psychophysiology
Psychophysiology
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
3
INTRODUCTION
One line of research in bilingualism has focused on how bilinguals represent words
from two distinctive language systems and whether or not lexical representations in one
language activate those of the other language. The majority of current models of bilingual
word recognition are framed in an interactive language system, in which words are processed
on the basis of their orthographic, semantic and phonological similarity across languages
(Dijkstra & Van Heuven, 1998, 2002; but also see Kroll & Stewart, 1994). Indeed, there is
relatively widespread agreement that orthographic, semantic and phonological codes all play a
role in bilingual word processing. However, it is less clear how and when these lexical codes
become active and how the nature of this activation varies as a function of the consistency
across a bilingual’s two languages. The present study is focused on determining the extent to
which phonological codes become active across languages and influence bilingual word
recognition. More specifically, we examined whether words with a high degree of
phonological overlap across languages influence visual lexical processing when reading
silently in the L2 alone.
Research on bilingual visual word recognition has predominantly focused on
orthographic processes. Indeed, numerous empirical studies have shown that bilingual word
recognition can be strongly influenced by orthographic overlap, both within and across
languages (Van Heuven, Dijkstra, & Grainger, 1998; Dijkstra, Timmermans & Schriefers,
2000; Midgley, Holcomb & Grainger, 2009). Fewer studies have investigated the role of
phonological codes in bilingual word recognition (Brysbaert, Van Dyck & Van de Poel, 1999;
Dijkstra, Grainger & Van Heuven, 1999; Doctor and Klein, 1992; Duyck, 2005; Haigh and
Jared, 2007; Lemhofer and Dijkstra, 2004). Those that have, have suggested that word
Page 3 of 30
Psychophysiology
Psychophysiology
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
4
recognition is largely affected by phonological overlap across languages. However, the nature
of these cross-linguistic effects is not entirely clear; the behavioral data obtained in previous
research involving single word paradigms has presented contradictory evidence (Dijkstra et
al.,1999; Haigh and Jared, 2007; Lemhofer and Dijkstra, 2004). Whether phonological
overlap across languages facilitates lexical identification in L2 or instead inhibits recognition
due to the activation of competing interlingual phonological codes is still an open question.
The aim of the current study was to present electrophysiological data as a means to determine
the impact of cross-linguistic phonological codes on bilingual word processing.
To address the question of phonological processing during bilingual visual word
recognition, investigators have relied on interlingual homophones. An interlingual
homophone is a lexical letter string, the pronunciation of which is much alike in the
bilingual’s two languages but does not have the same spelling or meaning in the two (e.g.
pool in English and “poule” in French, which means chicken). The unique characteristics of
interlingual homophones enable one to examine the effect of phonology independent of
semantic overlap and over and above purely orthographic overlap. Evidence of between-
language phonological interference comes from studies conducted by Dijkstra et al. (1999)
and Doctor and Klein (1992). These authors found that bilinguals processed visually
presented interlingual homophones more slowly than matched control words in a lexical
decision task. These results suggest that bilinguals activated phonological representations of
both languages. Dijkstra et al. (1999) explained this interlingual homophonic effect as the
result of competition between the two phonological representations of homophones in the
target and the nontarget language. Indeed, although similar, the phonological realization of
interlingual homophones is never identical in the two languages. Inhibition is observed due to
competition between non-identical phonological representations activated by the target letter
Page 4 of 30
Psychophysiology
Psychophysiology
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
5
string. According to this explanation, competition between phonological forms may provoke
inhibition of the non-target language resulting in an increase in reaction time when
responding to interlingual homophones.
The inhibitory results in bilinguals replicate the homophonic effects observed in
monolinguals (Ferrand & Grainger, 2003; Pexman, Lupker, & Jared 2001), where French and
English native speakers responded more slowly to intralingual homophones compared to
control words. According to Pexman et al. (2001) this effect is due to feedback from
phonological representations to orthographic representations; the phonological representation
of a homophone activates two orthographic representations and engenders competition at the
orthographic level. Not all bilingual studies of interlingual homphones have reported
inhibition, however. Lemhofer and Dijkstra (2004) reported that bilingual participants
responded faster and more accurately to interlingual homophones compared to control words,
thus revealing facilitation rather than inhibition of interlingual homophones. This finding is
all the more intriguing as the authors used the same stimuli as Dijkstra et al. (1999).
Lemhofer and Dijkstra (2004) concluded from this variability across studies that further
investigation is required to clarify the role of phonological overlap in bilingual word
recognition.
Further experimental data with respect to the activation of phonological
representations in bilinguals were obtained by Haigh and Jared (2007). French-English
bilinguals performed an English lexical decision task to single words under monolingual
conditions, which is purported to be the most stringent test of interlingual activation
(Grosjean, 2001). The critical stimuli were interlingual homophones and their matched
English control words. It is important to note that the selected interlingual homophones were
low in frequency in English, the language of the list, but high in frequency in French--the
Page 5 of 30
Psychophysiology
Psychophysiology
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
6
bilinguals L1--to maximize the possibility of observing an interlingual homophone effect as
suggested by Pexman et al. (2001). Results showed that participants responded more quickly
and more accurately to interlingual homophones (Experiment 1) than they did to control
words. However, the addition of pseudohomophones to the stimulus list (Experiment 2),
which has been found to discourage the use of phonology and enhance the use of orthography
in making word/nonword decisions, annulled the effect for response times although the
interlingual homophone facilitation persisted in the error data. In general, these results replicat
those found by Lemhofer and Dijkstra (2004). Consequently, the findings were interpreted as
a facilitatory interlingual homophone effect in contrast to the inhibitory effect reported by
Dijkstra et al. (1999) and Doctor and Klein, (1992).
In light of these opposing results, Haigh and Jared (2007) pointed out that the absence
of a monolingual control group in the study reported by Doctor and Klein, (1992) precludes
determining whether the interlingual homophone effect they obtained was the result of
differences between control and experimental words or that of the specific processes
regarding interlingual homophones. In addition, the fact that the monolingual control group in
Dijkstra et al. (1999) made significantly more errors on the interlingual homophones than on
control words suggests that other factors may account for the differences observed between
the experimental and control stimuli. According to Haigh and Jared (2007), the stimuli used
by Dijkstra et al., (1999) and Lemhofer and Dijkstra (2004) did not produce a reliable
interlingual homophone effect given the high frequency of the homophones presented in their
studies. Indeed, Pexman et al. (2001) found that intralingual homophone effects are most
likely to be observed when presented homophones are low in frequency compared to their
high-frequency homophone mates. The orthographic patterns for high frequency counterparts,
Page 6 of 30
Psychophysiology
Psychophysiology
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
7
even though not actually presented, would be activated as much as the orthographic patterns
for low frequency words, resulting in competition at the lexical level.
Based on a distributed connectionist framework (Harm & Seidenberg, 2005;
Seidenberg & McClelland, 1989), Haigh and Jared (2007) accounted for the facilitatory
interlingual homophone effect as a result of the rapid activation of the phonological
representation of the English word given its phonological overlap with a high frequency word
in French, which was the native language of the bilingual participants. Competition between
English and French orthographic representations should not arise due to the small amount of
feedback from the phonological representations activated by the English word to the
orthographic representations of French words. In the case that phonological representations of
English words did activate orthographic representations of French words, little competition
should arise between orthographic representations of English and French words because of
their orthographic dissimilarity.
The Bilingual Interactive Activation model (BIA+) proposed by Dijkstra and van
Heuven (2002) is able to account for this facilitatory interlingual homophone effect as well, as
indeed underlined by Haigh and Jared (2007). The BIA+ model posits the existence of a
single phonological lexicon with two independent phonological nodes for words in each
language. In the case of French–English bilinguals, the English lexical phonological node
might be rapidly activated for an English interlingual homophone because of its association to
the French lexical phonological node, especially when the French mate is higher in frequency.
In contrast, English control words would need to await for sufficient activation of the English
lexical phonological node to be recognized, resulting in a delay for control words compared to
interlingual homophones. Yet another possibility to explain this facilitatory effect by the
Page 7 of 30
Psychophysiology
Psychophysiology
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
8
BIA+ model is the existence of excitatory connections between phonological representations
in each language.
Strong phonological effects in bilingual visual word recognition have also been
reported in a variety of priming paradigms (Brysbaert, et al., 1999; Duyck, 2005; Duyck,
Diependaele, Drieghe & Brybaert, 2004; Kim & Davis, 2003; Van Wijnendaele & Brysbaert,
2002). Some of these studies have argued that bilingual lexical access implies the pre-lexical
and automatic phonological coding of visually presented words, which has been demonstrated
in monolinguals (Berent & Perfetti, 1995; Grainger & Ferrand, 1996; Van Orden, 1987; for a
recent discussion of this debate, see Harm & Seidenberg, 2005). Most of the evidence
supporting this assumption comes from the masked phonological priming paradigm under
cross-lingual prime-target conditions. Using this paradigm, Brysbaert et al. (1999)
investigated whether the phonological and orthographic representations of both languages
were activated during bilingual visual word recognition. Results showed a homophonic effect
whereby Dutch-French bilinguals identified L2 target words (e.g. nez “nose”) faster following
L1 homophonic word primes (e.g. nee “no”) than following L1 graphemic control primes
(e.g. nek “neck”). Hence, bilinguals applied two different sets of grapheme-phoneme
correspondences, which suggests that both sets of correspondences are activated
simultaneously and interact with one another. This homophonic effect was also replicated
with nonword primes, which strongly argues for pre-lexical phonological coding. Other
studies have further evidenced automatic phonological coding of L1 words during L2 word
processing (Duyck et al., 2004; Kim & Davis, 2003).
Although all previous studies have shown evidence for the mediation of phonological
representations of both languages during L2 word recognition, a more consistent pattern of
data is needed to evaluate the role of phonological overlap across languages in bilingual
Page 8 of 30
Psychophysiology
Psychophysiology
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
9
lexical representation. Furthermore, it is important to note that all the results presented so far
in the literature involving interlingual homophones were obtained in tasks that required an
explicit behavioral response to the homophone. In the current study, the measure of interest is
event-related brain potentials (ERPs), which provide a continuous account of brain activity in
response to the presentation of a stimulus. In particular, we were interested in possible
modulations of the N400 response. From seminal work we know that modulation of the N400
amplitude is associated with the ease with which a word is integrated into a predetermined
context (Kutas and Hillard, 1980, 1984). The N400 is also sensitive to meaning integration
during single word processing (Holcomb, 1993). It is also hypothesized to index the ease of
accessing features of the long-term memory representation associated with a lexical item
(Kutas, Ferdemeire, 2000; Ferdemeire & Kutas, 1999). Under this assumption, any factor that
facilitates lexical access should reduce the N400 amplitude, as indeed attested by numerous
studies reported in the literature. Frequent and well known words are integrated faster and
produce smaller N400 amplitudes than less frequent words (Rugg, 1990; Van Petten & Kutas,
1990; see Lau, Phllips & Poeppel, 2008, for a recent discussion of the functional significance
of the N400 and the cortical areas underlying it). Last, in relation to other measures, the N400
has been found to be less sensitive to strategic or decision-related factors that frequently
influence reaction times (Holcomb, Grainger, O’Rourke, 2002; Kounios & Holcomb, 1992).
Of particular relevance for the current study is the observation that the N400
amplitude is directly proportional to the effort required to integrate the orthographic,
phonological and semantic knowledge relative to a word (Holcomb, 1993). Indeed, words
with large numbers of orthographic neighbors in both L1 and L2 have been found to generate
greater N400 amplitudes (Holcomb, et al., 2002; Midgley, Holcomb, van Heuven & Grainger,
2008). This increase in the N400 amplitude is hypothesized to occur because lexical stimuli
Page 9 of 30
Psychophysiology
Psychophysiology
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
10
activate not only their own representations but those of their orthographic neighbors as well,
resulting in an effort to inhibit the semantic information associated with these words. On the
other hand, reduced N400 amplitudes have been observed in response to cognates, that is
words with an almost complete cross-linguistic orthographic and semantic overlap (Midgley,
Holcomb & Grainger, in press). This reduced negativity has been interpreted as facilitation
due to a greater ease in mapping form onto meaning in single word recognition.
Herein we investigated whether bilinguals activate phonological representations from
both of their languages when reading silently in their L2. Stimulus materials were interlingual
homophones that had different spelling and meanings in English and French (e.g., pool/poule
which means ‘chicken’ in French) and were lower in frequency in English than their French
counterparts. Electrical brain activity was recorded while English monolinguals and French-
English bilinguals read these interlingual homophones in an entirely English language
context. Participants read a list of words for meaning and were asked to make decisions about
probes from a specific semantic category which encouraged them to process words at the
semantic level of representation (Bueno & Frenck-Mestre, 2008). Based on previous
behavioral data (Dijkstra et al., 1999; Doctor and Klein, 1992; Haigh and Jared, 2007;
Lemhofer and Dijkstra, 2004), we predicted a variation in the N400 amplitude in response to
interlingual homophones in comparison to control words (e.g. pool/pink), specifically for our
French-English bilingual participants. Any variation in the N400 amplitude for experimental
and control stimuli would suggest that both English and French phonological representations
were activated when reading in English. Consequently, English monolinguals should not
show any variation in the N400 amplitude with respect to the same stimuli. This type of
pattern will be interpreted as a confirmation of an interlingual homophone effect in bilinguals.
Moreover, the N400 amplitude differences should shed light on the controversy about the
Page 10 of 30
Psychophysiology
Psychophysiology
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
11
facilitatory or inhibitory effect of interlingual homophones. Larger N400 amplitudes should
be observed if an inhibitory effect takes place while processing interlingual homophones
compared to control words. In contrast, facilitation may reduce the N400 amplitude in
response to interlingual homophones compared to control words.
METHODS
Participants
Fourteen native English speakers (7 female) aged 18-22 years (mean age 19,1 years)
and 14 French L1 - English L2 speakers (3 female) aged 22-31 years (mean age 24 years)
participated in the experiment. All were undergraduate students at an American university and
received monetary compensation for their participation. Native English speakers reported
having no previous learning of or exposure to French. French L1 - English L2 late bilinguals
had learned English at school from the age of roughly 11 years and had, on average, 13 years
of experience with the English language. All were following a university curriculum in the
English language and were living in the United States at the time of participation. Their mean
self-rating of reading experience with the English language (on a scale from 1 to 7) was 5.8
(SD=.8). All participants reported to be right handed and had normal or corrected-to-normal
vision with no history of neurological insult or language disability.
Stimulus materials
Experimental stimuli included 48 English-French interlingual homophones and their
matched English control words. Interlingual homophones were monosyllabic English words
that were orthographically distinct from their homophonic French counterparts. English
homophones (e.g., pool) ranged in length from 3 to 5 letters (mean = 3.81) and in log
frequency from 0.48 to 3.29 (mean = 1.68 log frequency according to Wordgen data base,
Page 11 of 30
Psychophysiology
Psychophysiology
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
12
Duyck, Desmet, Verbeke, & Brysbaert, 2004). These English homophones tended to be lower
in written frequency than their French counterparts (e.g. poule) (t(94)= 1.87 p=.07) which
ranged in length from 2 to 6 letters (mean = 4.31) and in log frequency from 0.87 to 2.69
(mean = 1.98 log frequency according to Wordgen, 2004 data base). Control words were
monosyllabic English words (e.g. pink) that did not share the same phonology as the
interlingual homophones, but shared the same number of letters by using position-specific
coding, with the English homophones (e.g. pool) (mean, = 48% of orthographic overlap) and
with the French homophone counterparts (e.g. poule) (mean = 42% of orthographic overlap).
Orthographic overlap was calculated by using the application MatchCalculator, written by
Colin Davis. Control words were between three and five letters long (mean= 3.81) and
ranged in log frequency from 0.48 to 3.37 (mean = 1.67 log frequency according to Wordgen,
2004 data base). The mean number of neighbors for English homophones was 11.16
(range=1-23) and 11.12 (range=2-21) for control words. These means were not significantly
different (t(94)=0.06, p=.88). In addition, 144 filler words and 36 probes related to city and
country names were selected that matched the experimental words with respect to length and
frequency. For the resulting set of 276 items, each participant saw the same stimuli but in a
different random order of presentation.
Procedure
Participants were seated comfortably in a soundproof room. Words were displayed
visually one at the time on a computer screen in white uppercase letters on a black
background. Participants were asked to read the words for meaning and to perform a go/no-go
semantic categorization task in which they were instructed to press a button whenever they
saw a city or country name. Stimulus trials were presented for 500 ms followed by a 1000 ms
blank-screen (1500 ms inter-stimulus interval). After a set of 8 to 12 trials, a stimulus
Page 12 of 30
Psychophysiology
Psychophysiology
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
13
indicated that it was permissible to move or blink the eyes. This prompt remained on the
screen for 1500 ms followed by 500 ms of blank screen. Before the next trial appeared, a
fixation cross was presented for 1000 ms.
The experiment started with a short practice list to familiarize participants with the
experimental procedure. Oral and written instructions were given in English before the
practice trials and the experimenter did not speak French with the French-English bilinguals
to avoid activation of this language prior to the experiment. There were two pauses during the
experiment, the length of which was determined by the participants. The entire procedure
lasted approximately 40 minutes.
EEG recording
Electrophysiological data were recorded from 29 tin electrodes attached to an elastic
cap (Electro-cap International). Eye-related artifacts (vertical and horizontal eye movements)
were monitored using two additional electrodes, placed below the left eye and at the outer
canthus of the right eye. All electrodes were referenced to an electrode placed over the left
mastoid. The 32 channels of electrophysiological data were amplified using an SA
Instruments Bio-amplifier system with 6db cutoffs set at .01 and 40Hz. The output of the bio-
amplifier was continuously digitized at 200 Hz throughout the experiment. Epochs began 100
ms prior to stimulus onset and continued 1500 ms thereafter. Average ERPs were calculated
off-line from trials free of artifact (14% of critical trials were rejected overall, with no
difference between experimental conditions or participant groups).
Data Analyses
Mean ERP amplitudes were time-locked to target onset, preceded by a 100 ms pre-
stimulus baseline. The mean amplitudes for ERPs associated with homophones and control
Page 13 of 30
Psychophysiology
Psychophysiology
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
14
words were calculated per participant in a 400 – 600 ms time window to capture any typical
N400 effect. ANOVAS were performed on mean amplitudes with Group (native English
speakers vs. French L1– English L2 speakers) as a between participant factor and Target
(homophone vs. control) as a repeated measure.
Topographical analyses were based on the 29 channel electrode montage divided into
seven separate parasagittal columns along the antero-posterior axis of the head (see Fig. 1 for
the location of electrodes). The midline electrodes and those for the first lateral columns (C1)
on the left and right hemisphere were grouped for analysis with 3 levels of Electrode for each,
while the other two pairs of lateral columns (C2 and C3) were analyzed separately.
Hemisphere (left vs. right) was included as a factor in the two lateral analyses, with four or
five levels of Electrode.
Insert Figure 1 about here
RESULTS
Behavioral results
The analysis of behavioral data for semantic categorization task revealed a mean
percentage of accuracy of 90% (SD=2.94) for monolingual English speakers and 87%
(SD=3.14) for French-English speakers. Participants thus completed the task accurately,
which necessitated activating semantic memory. Recall, nonetheless, that participants
responded only to probe stimuli not to critical words, for which ERP data was recorded.
Electrophysiological results
Interlingual Homophone Effect
Page 14 of 30
Psychophysiology
Psychophysiology
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
15
Grand averages elicited by interlingual homophones and control words are plotted as
waveforms for a sample of electrodes in Figure 2 for monolingual English speakers and in
Figure 3 for French-English bilinguals. Visual inspection revealed a clear N400 response to
lexical items in both groups of participants. Plotted in Fig. 4 are the voltage maps resulting
from subtracting ERPs recorded to control words from ERPs recorded to interlingual
homophones. These plots reveal the spatial distribution of ERPs in response to critical words
for the monolingual and bilingual groups. Visual inspection revealed the presence of a
reduced N400 response, occurring around 400 ms and persisting until 600 ms, for
homophones in comparison to control targets at central and bilateral parietal sites for French-
English bilinguals but not for monolinguals.
Insert Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4 about here
Statistical analyses revealed no reliable differences across conditions in the first 400
ms following critical word onset. Differences were observed, however, in the traditional N400
epoch as a function of critical words.
In the 400-600 time window, a trend for the effect of Homophone was observed at
central electrodes (F(1, 30)= 3.41, p=.07, MSe = 12.63) with no interaction as a function of
Site (midline and c1). An interaction between Homophone and Group was significant at
midline and c1 (F(1, 30)= 4.24, p=.05, MSe = 12.63) which was not modified by Site or
Electrode (F<1, for all sites). No further significant main effects or interactions were found at
either c2 or c3. To better characterize the effect of the Homophone, follow-up analyses were
carried out in each Group. These analyses revealed a main effect of Homophone for French-
Page 15 of 30
Psychophysiology
Psychophysiology
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
16
English bilinguals at midline and c1 (F(1, 15)=7.36, p<.01, MSe = 13.10), which was
modified by Site and Electrode (F(4, 60)=3.43, p<.01, MSe = .10) due to a larger effect at
midline (p<.001) than at c1 (p<.02). At lateral sites, the Homophone effect approached
significance only at c2, F(1, 15)= 3.47, p=.08, MSe = 3.47). In contrast, the monolingual
group showed no significant main effect of Homophone or interactions at any site (F<1, for
all sites).
In summary, these data suggest that interlingual homophones elicited an N400 effect
with a typical centro-parietal distribution for all participants. In the French-English bilingual
group specifically, the N400 effect was reduced for homophones in comparison to control
words, suggesting a privileged status for these words.
DISCUSSION
The present ERP study examined whether bilinguals activate phonological
representations of both of their languages when reading silently in their second language alone.
French-English bilinguals and English monolinguals read interlingual homophones and matched
control words while performing a semantic categorization task. Results showed different patterns
of ERPs elicited by the interlingual homophones for the two groups. Whereas monolinguals
presented no variation in N400 amplitude as a function of the type of word presented, bilinguals
showed a reduced N400 amplitude in response to interlingual homophones compared to control
words. The fact that modulation of the N400, as a function of word status, was limited to
bilinguals underlines the fact that this effect cannot be attributed to any properties of the stimulus
words in English apart from the phonological overlap with French words. Indeed, our results
clearly indicate that bilinguals’ cortical response to words in their second language was
influenced by the phonological overlap of these words in their first language. Moreover, this was
true even though the bilinguals read words exclusively in their L2. Overall, this finding provides
Page 16 of 30
Psychophysiology
Psychophysiology
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
17
further evidence that phonological representations of both languages are activated when
bilinguals read silently in their second language.
What, exactly, the reduction in N400 amplitude for homophones we observed for our
bilingual participants implies is yet an open question. The first hypothesis, which we indeed
support, is that the phonological overlap between the homophones, presented in the bilinguals’
second language (English), and the not-presented L1 (French) counterparts in fact facilitated
processing. Facilitation may occur when phonological representations of L2 interlingual
homophone members are matched to those of their L1 counterparts. In a recent ERP study on
bilingual lexical processing, Midgley, Holcomb and Grainger (in press) reported a reduced N400
effect to cognates. The authors concluded, in like manner to our current hypothesis, that the
reduced N400 effect reflects a processing advantage for words that share either orthography and
phonology or orthography and meaning across a bilingual’s two languages, as is the case for
cognates. This hypothesis is in line with the assumption that a reduced N400 response reflects
facilitated activation of features of long-term memory representations associated with the lexical
item (Ferdemeire & Kutas, 1999; Kutas & Ferdemeire, 2000). In this light, the processing benefit
we observed for interlingual homophones would be related to the overlap of phonologic features
stored in long-term memory for our bilingual participants. This facilitatory interlingual
homophone effect, revealed here by the bilinguals’ cortical response to these words, is
consistent with results obtained in two previous behavioral studies, which examined processing
via the lexical decision task (Haigh and Jared, 2007; Lemhofer and Dijkstra, 2004). Hence,
contrary to Dijkstra et al. (1999) and Doctor and Klein (1992), our findings underline the ease
with which bilinguals process interlingual homophones.
Nonetheless, a reduction in the N400 effect for homophones cannot be taken as
unequivocal evidence of facilitation due to the activation of multiple word meanings. In fact,
Page 17 of 30
Psychophysiology
Psychophysiology
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
18
based on the results from two recent monolingual ERP studies on the factors that affect lexical
access (Holcomb, Grainger & O’Rourke, 2002; Muller, Duñabeitia & Carreiras, 2010), one
could argue quite the opposite. In these studies, words with a greater number of orthographic
neighbors and/or semantic associates elicited increased N400 amplitudes in relation to words
with few neighbors and/or associates. These results were taken as evidence that the (at least
partial) activation of multiple lexical candidates produces an increase in the N400 response due
to increased lexical-semantic activation in the system. As such, it could be argued that the
reduced N400 amplitude we found for interlingual homophones is difficult to reconcile with the
activation of multiple meanings. Indeed, while our results clearly show that our bilingual
participants were sensitive to the presence of homophones, we cannot attest with certainty that
they fully activated multiple meanings for these words. Further work, currently in progress, is in
order to elucidate this question.
Furthermore, the present results offer evidence of nonselective activation of both
languages in a language specific context. Specifically, this was true at a phonological level, as
demonstrated by the interlingual homophone effect found in the present ERP study and that
reported previously in behavioral studies. In line with this assumption, the BIA+ model posits
that the visual presentation of a word leads to the parallel activation of semantic, orthographic
and phonological representations in both of the bilingual’s languages (Dijkstra & van Heuven,
2002). Thus, the facilitatory interlingual homophone effect may arise from the reciprocal
excitatory connections between the two phonological lexical nodes represented independently
for each member of an interlingual homophone pair. The native-language lexical phonological
node associated with an interlingual homophone might be easily activated, especially when the
L1 mate is a high frequency word, allowing for rapid recognition of the interlingual homophone.
With regard to control words, which have no phonological overlap with the L1, the L2 lexical
Page 18 of 30
Psychophysiology
Psychophysiology
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
19
phonological node would be activated more slowly without the prompt of the L1 homophone,
leading to a decrease in processing fluency for these words in comparison to interlingual
homophones. Haigh and Jared (2007) have furthermore suggested that these facilitatory
interlingual homophone effects should arise when the phonological representations of an L2
word overlaps with that of a known L1 word and little competition is present between the
orthographic representations in the two languages.
Note that the BIA+ model was inspired by connectionist models which postulate the
interactive activation of multiple codes in monolingual word recognition (e.g. McClelland &
Rumelhart, 1981 and Seidenberg & McClelland, 1989). These models posit that lexical
processing involves the interactive computation of orthographic, phonological and semantic
codes. Under this framework, each code (linked to orthography, phonology and semantics) is
represented by a set of units and each unit participates in the representation of many words; all
connections between units are used in processing all words. The processing benefit observed for
interlingual homophones can be explained in terms of increased activation of cross-linguistic
phonological units of these critical words. The cumulative exposure to similar phonological units
in bilingual lexical representations may have strengthened the connections across units, thus
leading to the enhanced processing of interlingual homophones. This is in line with one major
principle implemented in all connectionist models of language processing, which is that
frequency of exposure and learning determines connection strength across units (Seidenberg &
McClelland, 1989). Within this theoretical framework, the computation of interlingual
homophones would be facilitated given the strength of connections built up on the basis of
shared phonological units across a bilingual’s two languages.
While our data clearly show sensitivity to homophone status when our bilingual
participants were reading in their second language, we cannot make claims as concerns what
Page 19 of 30
Psychophysiology
Psychophysiology
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
20
might transpire when reading in the native language. Haigh and Jared (2007) indeed found that
parallel activation of homophones was restricted to second language processing. In other words,
bilinguals could not repress L1 phonological activation when reading in their L2, but the
opposite was indeed possible. Note, nonetheless, that in a masked priming paradigm, as opposed
to single word presentation, Duyck (2005) as well as Van Wijnendaele and Brysbaert (2002)
found that L2 homophonic primes facilitated L1 target processing, thus providing evidence in
favor of a strong language nonselective view on phonological coding in bilinguals.
An underlying fact in the present study is however, that highly fluent bilinguals still
showed parallel phonological activation of their two languages. Thus, on the basis of this
finding, one would predict greater cross-linguistic phonological activation for less proficient
bilinguals who would rely more on phonology when reading in their L2 as stated by Gollan,
Forster and Frost (1997) and Brysbaert et al. (1999) (but also see Duyck et al. 2004).
In conclusion, the results of this study suggest that bilinguals activate phonological
representations of both of their languages when they read silently in their second language. In
addition, the present study provides electrophysiological data that confirm the facilitatory
interlingual homophone effect observed in previous behavioral research (Haigh and Jared, 2007;
Lemhofer & Dijkstra, 2004). Our finding of parallel activation of phonological representations in
bilinguals provides further support to the theories of phonological mediation in visual word
recognition, which can be generalized to bilingual word processing. Finally, our results underline
the need for current and future models of bilingual word recognition to account for the role of
phonological representations during visual word processing.
Page 20 of 30
Psychophysiology
Psychophysiology
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
21
References
Berent, I., & Perfetti, C. A. (1995). A rose is a REEZ: The two-cycles model of phonology assembly
in reading English. Psychological Review, 102, 146–184.
Brysbaert, M., Van Dyck, G., & Van de Poel, M. (1999). Visual word recognition in bilinguals:
Evidence from masked phonological priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 25, 137–148.
Bueno, S., & Frenck-Mestre, C. (2008). The activation of semantic memory: Effects of prime
exposure, prime-target relationship and task demands. Memory & Cognition, 36, 882 - 898.
Debruille, J.B., (1998). Knowledge inhibition and N400: a study with words that look like common
words. Brain and Language, 62, 202–220.
Debruille, J.B., (2007). The N400 potential could index a semantic inhibition. Brain research
reviews, 56, 472–477
Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J., & Van Heuven, W. J. B. (1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual
homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 496–
518.
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, T., & 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
Doctor, E. A., & Klein, D. (1992). Phonological processing in bilingual word recognition. In R. J.
Harris (Ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals (pp. 237–252). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Page 21 of 30
Psychophysiology
Psychophysiology
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
22
Duyck, W. (2005). Translation and associative priming with cross-lingual pseudohomophones:
Evidence for nonselective phonological activation in bilinguals. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 31, 1340–1359.
Duyck, W., Desmet, T., Verbeke, L. P. C., & Brysbaert, M. (2004). Wordgen: A tool for word
selection and nonword generation in Dutch, English, German, and French. Behavior Research
Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36, 488–499.
Duyck, W., Diependaele, K., Drieghe, D., & Brysbaert, M. (2004). The size of the cross-lingual
masked phonological priming effect does not depend on second language proficiency.
Experimental Psychology, 51(2), 1–9.
Ferrand, L., & Grainger, J. (2003). Homophone interference effects in visual word recognition. The
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 56A, 403–
419.
Federmeier, K. D. & Kutas, M. (1999). A Rose by any other name: long-term memory structure and
sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 469-495.
Gollan, T. H., Forster, K. I., & Frost, R. (1997). Translation priming with different scripts: Masked
priming with cognates and noncognates in Hebrew-English bilinguals. Journal of
Experimental Psychology. Learning Memory and Cognition, 23(5), 1122-1139.
Grainger, J., & Ferrand, L. (1996). Masked orthographic and phonological priming in visual word
recognition and naming: Cross-task comparisons. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 623–
647.
Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual’s language modes. In J. Nicol (Ed.), One mind, two languages:
Bilingual language processing (pp. 1–22). Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers.
Haigh, C. & Jared, D. (2007) The activation of phonological representations by bilinguals while
reading silently: evidence from interlingual homophones. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 33(4), 623–644
Page 22 of 30
Psychophysiology
Psychophysiology
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
23
Harm, M. W., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2004). Computing the meanings of words in reading:
cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes. Psychological
Review, 111, 662-720.
Hino, Y., Pexman, P. M. & Lupker, S. J. (2006). Ambiguity and relatedness effects in semantic tasks:
Are they due to semantic coding? Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 247-273.
Holcomb, P. J., Graiger, J., & O’Rourke, T. (2002). An electrophysiological study of the effects of
orthographic neighborhood size on printed word perception. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 14, 938–950.
Holcomb, P.(1988). Automatic and attentional processing: an event-related brain potential analysis of
semantic priming. Brain and Language, 35, 66–85.
Holcomb, P.(1993). Semantic priming and stimulus degradation: implications for the role of the
N400 in language processing. Psychophysiology, 30, 47–61.
Jared, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1991). Does word identification proceed from spelling to sound to
meaning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 358-394.
Kerswell, L., Siakaluk, P. D., Pexman, P. M., Sears, C. R., & Owen, W. J. (2007). Homophone
effects in visual word recognition depend on homophone type and task demands. Canadian
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 322-327.
Kim, J., & Davis, C. (2003). Task effects in masked cross-script translation and phonological
priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 484– 499.
Kounios J. & Holcomb, P.J. (1992). Structure and process in semantic memory: Evidence from
event-related brain potentials and reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology.
General, 121, 459-479.
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.
Page 23 of 30
Psychophysiology
Psychophysiology
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
24
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic
incongruity. Science, 207, 203 –205.
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and
semantic association. Nature, 307, 161 –163.
Kutas, M. & Federmeier, K. D. (2000) Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language
comprehension, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(12), 463-470.
Lau, E., Phillips, C., & Poeppel, D. (2008). A cortical network for semantics: (de)constructing the
N400. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 920-933.
Lemhofer, K., & Dijkstra, T. (2004). Recognizing cognates and interlingual homographs: Effects of
code similarity in language-specific and generalized lexical decision. Memory & Cognition,
32, 533–550.
McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in
letter perception: 1. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375–407.
Midgley, K. J., Holcomb, P. J., & Grainger, J. (2009). Language effects in second language learners
and proficient bilinguals investigated with event-related potentials. Journal of
Neurolinguistics, 22, 281-300.
Midgley, K. J., Holcomb, P. J., & Grainger, J. (in press). Effects of cognate status on word
comprehension in second language learners: an ERP investigation. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience.
Midgley, K. J., Holcomb, P. J., vanHeuven W. J. B., & Grainger, J. (2008). An electrophysiological
investigation of cross-language effects of orthographic neighborhood. Brain Research, 1246,
123-135.
Müller, O., Duñabeitia, J.A., & Carreiras, M. (2010). Orthographic and Associative Neighborhood
Density Effects: What is Shared, What is Different? Psychophysiology, 1 - 12
Page 24 of 30
Psychophysiology
Psychophysiology
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
25
Pexman, P. M., Hino, Y., & Lupker, S. J. (2004). Semantic ambiguity and the process of generating
meaning from print. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
30, 1252-1270.
Pexman, P. M., Lupker, S. J., & Jared, D. (2001). Homophone effects in lexical decision. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 27, 139–156.
Rugg, M.D., (1990). Event-related potentials dissociate repetition effects of high and low frequency
words. Memory and Cognition, 18, 367–379.
Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word
recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523–568.
Van Heuven, W.J.B, Dijkstra, T., & Grainger, J. (1998). Orthographic neighborhood effects in
bilingual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 458-483.
Van Orden, G.C. (1987). A rows is a rose : spelling, sound and reading. Memory and Cognition, 15,
181-198.
Van Petten, C. and Kutas, M. (1990). Interactions between sentence context and word frequency in
event-related brain potentials. Memory and Cognition, 18(4), 380-393.
Van Wijnendaele, I., & Brysbaert, M. (2002). Visual word recognition in bilinguals: Phonological
priming from the second to the first language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 28, 616–627.
Page 25 of 30
Psychophysiology
Psychophysiology
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
26
Figure captions:
Figure 1. Electrode montage and analysis sites.
Figure 2. Grand average wave forms for selected electrodes for English monolingual
particiapnts for interlingual homophones and control words.
Figure 3. Grand average wave forms for selected electrodes for French-English bilingual
particiapnts for interlingual homophones and control words.
Figure 4. Scalp voltage maps for interlingual homophones and control words for English
monolingual (top) and French-English bilingual (bottom) at three time points.
Page 26 of 30
Psychophysiology
Psychophysiology
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Electrode montage and analysis sites.
553x607mm (96 x 96 DPI)
Page 27 of 30
Psychophysiology
Psychophysiology
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Grand average wave forms for selected electrodes for English monolingual particiapnts for interlingual homophones and control words.
903x563mm (96 x 96 DPI)
Page 28 of 30
Psychophysiology
Psychophysiology
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Grand average wave forms for selected electrodes for French-English bilingual particiapnts for interlingual homophones and control words.
927x656mm (96 x 96 DPI)
Page 29 of 30
Psychophysiology
Psychophysiology
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Scalp voltage maps for interlingual homophones and control words for English monolingual (top) and French-English bilingual (bottom) at three time points.
378x334mm (96 x 96 DPI)
Page 30 of 30
Psychophysiology
Psychophysiology
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960