![]() ![]() Thierry and Wu ( 2007) used this paradigm for the first time to investigate whether translation equivalents are accessed in a purely monolingual context. Additional evidence for non-selective lexical access comes from recent studies using a hidden translation repetition priming paradigm. These findings support the idea of non-selective lexical access (e.g., Dijkstra & van Heuven, 2002 van Heuven & Dijkstra, 1998), which assumes that bilinguals activate both languages when processing words presented in one of their two languages. This priming effect also occurs when the two languages do not share the same writing system (e.g., Hebrew-English: Gollan, Forster, & Frost, 1997 Japanese-English: Hoshino, Midgley, Holcomb, & Grainger, 2010 Chinese-English: Wang & Forster, 2010). Even though the masked prime is not visible to bilinguals, the recognition of a target word is facilitated by its translation-equivalent non-cognate prime (e.g., Duñabeitia, Dimitropoulou, Uribe-Etxebarria, Laka, & Carreiras, 2010 Duñabeitia, Perea, & Carreiras, 2010 Geyer, Holcomb, Midgley, & Grainger, 2011 Grainger & Frenck-Mestre, 1998 Midgley, Holcomb, & Grainger, 2009). A classic example of the impact of translation equivalents on bilingual language processing is the translation priming effect observed in masked priming experiments. Translation equivalents have been used extensively to investigate bilingual language processing. The translation norms are made available in a database together with lexical information about the words, which will be a useful resource for researchers investigating Chinese-English bilingual language processing. Finally, correlations between the word frequencies of English words and their Chinese dominant translations were higher for translation-unambiguous pairs than for translation-ambiguous pairs. In addition, mixed-effects modelling showed that word frequency, concreteness and English language proficiency were all significant predictors of whether or not a dominant translation was provided. Furthermore, an interaction between these predictors revealed that the number of translations was more affected by word frequency for more concrete words than for less concrete words. Importantly, regression analyses showed that the number of Chinese translations was predicted by word frequency and concreteness. Although the significant correlations were not strong, results revealed that English word frequency was positively correlated with the number of alternative translations, whereas English word concreteness was negatively correlated with the number of translations. The relationship between translation ambiguity and word frequency, concreteness and language proficiency was investigated. The results revealed that 71 % of the English words received more than one correct translation indicating the large amount of translation ambiguity when translating from English to Chinese. Chinese-English bilinguals (N = 28) were asked to provide the first Chinese translation that came to mind for 1,429 English words. We present Chinese translation norms for 1,429 English words. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |