首页> 外文OA文献 >Towards a distributed connectionist account of cognates and interlingual homographs: evidence from semantic relatedness tasks
【2h】

Towards a distributed connectionist account of cognates and interlingual homographs: evidence from semantic relatedness tasks

机译:迈向同源和白时间同情的分布式连接人叙述:来自语义相关性任务的证据

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Background Current models of how bilinguals process cognates (e.g., “wolf”, which has the same meaning in Dutch and English) and interlingual homographs (e.g., “angel”, meaning “insect’s sting” in Dutch) are based primarily on data from lexical decision tasks. A major drawback of such tasks is that it is difficult—if not impossible—to separate processes that occur during decision making (e.g., response competition) from processes that take place in the lexicon (e.g., lateral inhibition). Instead, we conducted two English semantic relatedness judgement experiments. Methods In Experiment 1, highly proficient Dutch–English bilinguals (N = 29) and English monolinguals (N = 30) judged the semantic relatedness of word pairs that included a cognate (e.g., “wolf”–“howl”; n = 50), an interlingual homograph (e.g., “angel”–“heaven”; n = 50) or an English control word (e.g., “carrot”–“vegetable”; n = 50). In Experiment 2, another group of highly proficient Dutch–English bilinguals (N = 101) read sentences in Dutch that contained one of those cognates, interlingual homographs or the Dutch translation of one of the English control words (e.g., “wortel” for “carrot”) approximately 15 minutes prior to completing the English semantic relatedness task. Results In Experiment 1, there was an interlingual homograph inhibition effect of 39 ms only for the bilinguals, but no evidence for a cognate facilitation effect. Experiment 2 replicated these findings and also revealed that cross-lingual long-term priming had an opposite effect on the cognates and interlingual homographs: recent experience with a cognate in Dutch speeded processing of those items 15 minutes later in English but slowed processing of interlingual homographs. However, these priming effects were smaller than previously observed using a lexical decision task. Conclusion After comparing our results to studies in both the bilingual and monolingual domain, we argue that bilinguals appear to process cognates and interlingual homographs as monolinguals process polysemes and homonyms, respectively. In the monolingual domain, processing of such words is best modelled using distributed connectionist frameworks. We conclude that it is necessary to explore the viability of such a model for the bilingual case. Data, scripts, materials and pre-registrations. Experiment 1: http://www.osf.io/ndb7p; Experiment 2: http://www.osf.io/2at49.
机译:背景技术如何模型如何在荷兰语和英语中具有相同含义的双语过程(例如,“狼”(例如,“天使”),这意味着“荷兰语”中的“昆虫”)主要基于来自词汇的数据决策任务。这种任务的主要缺点是,如果不是不可能 - 从词汇(例如,横向抑制)中的过程中的决策(例如,反应竞争)期间发生的过程是困难的。相反,我们进行了两个英语语义相关性判断实验。实验1中的方法,高度熟练的荷兰语 - 英语双语(n = 29)和英语单声道(n = 30)判断出包括同源的词对的语义相关性(例如,“狼” - “嚎叫”; n = 50) ,一个间歇性同类(例如,天使“ - ”天堂“; n = 50)或英语控制字(例如,”胡萝卜“ - ”蔬菜“; n = 50)。在实验2中,另一组高度熟练的荷兰语 - 英语双语(n = 101)读取荷兰语中的句子,其中包含其中一种的一个同源,间歇性同情或荷兰语的英语控制词(例如,“Wortel”的荷兰语翻译胡萝卜“)在完成英语语义相关性任务之前大约15分钟。结果在实验1中,仅针对双语的间歇性同情抑制效应为39毫秒,但没有证据证实促进效果。实验2复制了这些发现,并且还揭示了交叉舌长的长期引发对同源和间歇性同情的影响:最近在荷兰人的同源经验,在英语中以后的15分钟加速了这些物品,而是减缓了间歇性的杂交处理。然而,这些引发效果比使用词汇决策任务小于先前观察到的。结论无论是双语和单语域我们的研究结果进行比较研究后,我们认为,双语出现过程同源和语形异义词的单语者分别处理多义词和同音。在单格式域中,使用分布式连接框架最佳建模这些单词的处理。我们得出结论,有必要探索这种模型为双语案例的可行性。数据,脚本,材料和预注册。实验1:http://www.osf.io/ndb7p;实验2:http://www.osf.io/2at49。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号