1887
Volume 18, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1871-1340
  • E-ISSN: 1871-1375
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Cognates, words that are similar in form and meaning across two languages, form compelling test cases for bilingual access and representation. Overwhelmingly, cognate pairs are subjectively selected in a categorical either- or manner, often with criteria and modality unspecified. Yet the few studies that take a more nuanced approach, selecting cognate pairs along a continuum of overlap, show interesting, albeit somewhat divergent results. This study compares three measures that quantify cognateness continuously to obtain modality-specific cognate scores for the same set of Norwegian-English word-translation pairs: (1) Researcher Intuitions – bilingual researchers rate the degree of overlap between the paired words, (2) Levenshtein Distance – an algorithm that computes overlap between word pairs, and (3) Translation Elicitation – English-speaking monolinguals guess what Norwegian words mean. Results demonstrate that cognateness can be ranked on a continuum and reveal measure and modality-specific effects. Orthographic presentation yields higher cognateness status than auditory presentation overall. Though all three measures intercorrelated moderately to highly, Researcher Intuitions demonstrated a bimodal distribution, yielding scores on the high and low end of the spectrum, consistent with the common categorical approach in the field. Levenshtein Distance would be preferred for fine-grained distinctions along the continuum of form overlap.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ml.22018.str
2023-07-24
2024-05-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Acheson, D. J., Ganushchak, L. Y., Christoffels, I. K., & Hagoort, P.
    (2012) Conflict monitoring in speech production: Physiological evidence from bilingual picture naming. Brain and Language, 123(2), 131–136. 10.1016/j.bandl.2012.08.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2012.08.008 [Google Scholar]
  2. Allen, D. B., & Conklin, K.
    (2013) Cross-linguistic similarity and task demands in Japanese-English bilingual processing. PLOS ONE, 8(8), e72631. 10.1371/journal.pone.0072631
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0072631 [Google Scholar]
  3. Amengual, M.
    (2012) Interlingual influence in bilingual speech: Cognate status effect in a continuum of bilingualism*. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(3), 517–530. 10.1017/S1366728911000460
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728911000460 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2016) Cross-linguistic influence in the bilingual mental lexicon: Evidence of cognate effects in the phonetic production and processing of a vowel contrast. Frontiers in Psychology, 71. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00617
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00617 [Google Scholar]
  5. Anthony, J. J. R., & Blumenfeld, H. K.
    (2019) Language dominance predicts cognate effects and inhibitory control in young adult bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(5), 1068–1084. 10.1017/S1366728918001013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728918001013 [Google Scholar]
  6. Antón-Méndez, I., & Gollan, T. H.
    (2010) Not just semantics: Strong frequency and weak cognate effects on semantic association in bilinguals. Memory & Cognition, 38(6), 723–739. 10.3758/MC.38.6.723
    https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.6.723 [Google Scholar]
  7. Boada, R., Sánchez-Casas, R., Gavilán, J. M., García-Albea, J. E., & Tokowicz, N.
    (2013) Effect of multiple translations and cognate status on translation recognition performance of balanced bilinguals*. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(1), 183–197. 10.1017/S1366728912000223
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728912000223 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bammesberger, A.
    (1992) The Place of English in Germanic and Indo-European. InHogg, R. M. (Ed.). The Cambridge History of the English Language I: The Beginnings to 1066. Cambridge University Press. pp. 26–66. 10.1017/CHOL9780521264747.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521264747.003 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bett, S.
    (2002) The number of phonemes in English. Journal of the Simplified Spelling Society, 30(1), 8–12.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Borleffs, E., Maassen, B. A. M., Lyytinen, H., & Zwarts, F.
    (2019) Cracking the code: The impact of orthographic transparency and morphological-syllabic complexity on reading and developmental dyslexia. Frontiers in Psychology, 91. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02534. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02534
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02534 [Google Scholar]
  11. Brenders, P., van Hell, J. G., & Dijkstra, T.
    (2011) Word recognition in child second language learners: Evidence from cognates and false friends. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109(4), 383–396. 10.1016/j.jecp.2011.03.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.03.012 [Google Scholar]
  12. Broersma, M., Carter, D., & Acheson, D. J.
    (2016) Cognate costs in bilingual speech production: Evidence from language switching. Frontiers in Psychology, 71. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01461
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01461 [Google Scholar]
  13. Broersma, M., Carter, D., Donnelly, K., & Konopka, A.
    (2020) Triggered codeswitching: Lexical processing and conversational dynamics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(2), 295–308. 10.1017/S1366728919000014
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728919000014 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bultena, S., Dijkstra, T., & van Hell, J. G.
    (2014) Cognate effects in sentence context depend on word class, L2 proficiency, and task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 67(6), 1214–1241. 10.1080/17470218.2013.853090
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.853090 [Google Scholar]
  15. Carrasco-Ortiz, H., Amengual, M., & Gries, S. T.
    (2021) Cross-language effects of phonological and orthographic similarity in cognate word recognition: The role of language dominance. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 11(3), 389–417. 10.1075/lab.18095.car
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.18095.car [Google Scholar]
  16. Comesaña, M., Ferré, P., Romero, J., Guasch, M., Soares, A. P., & García-Chico, T.
    (2015) Facilitative effect of cognate words vanishes when reducing the orthographic overlap: The role of stimuli list composition. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(3), 614–635. 10.1037/xlm0000065
    https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000065 [Google Scholar]
  17. Comesaña, M., Sánchez-Casas, R., Soares, A. P., Pinheiro, A. P., Rauber, A., Frade, S., & Fraga, I.
    (2012) The interplay of phonology and orthography in visual cognate word recognition: An ERP study. Neuroscience Letters, 529(1), 75–79. 10.1016/j.neulet.2012.09.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2012.09.010 [Google Scholar]
  18. Cop, U., Dirix, N., Van Assche, E., Drieghe, D., & Duyck, W.
    (2017) Reading a book in one or two languages? An eye movement study of cognate facilitation in L1 and L2 reading. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(4), 747–769. 10.1017/S1366728916000213
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000213 [Google Scholar]
  19. Cristoffanini, P., Kirsner, K., & Milech, D.
    (1986) Bilingual lexical representation: The status of Spanish-English cognates. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38(3), 367–393. 10.1080/14640748608401604
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748608401604 [Google Scholar]
  20. Davis, C., Sánchez-Casas, R., García-Albea, J. E., Guasch, M., Molero, M., & Ferré, P.
    (2010) Masked translation priming: Varying language experience and word type with Spanish–English bilinguals*. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(2), 137–155. 10.1017/S1366728909990393
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728909990393 [Google Scholar]
  21. Dijkstra, T., Miwa, K., Brummelhuis, B., Sappelli, M., & Baayen, H.
    (2010) How cross-language similarity and task demands affect cognate recognition. Journal of Memory and language, 62(3), 284–301. 10.1016/j.jml.2009.12.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  22. Dijkstra, T., Hell, J. G. V., & Brenders, P.
    (2015) Sentence context effects in bilingual word recognition: Cognate status, sentence language, and semantic constraint*. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(4), 597–613. 10.1017/S1366728914000388
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728914000388 [Google Scholar]
  23. Duñabeitia, J. A., Ivaz, L., & Casaponsa, A.
    (2016) Developmental changes associated with cross-language similarity in bilingual children. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28(1), 16–31. 10.1080/20445911.2015.1086773
    https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2015.1086773 [Google Scholar]
  24. Duyck, W., Van Assche, E., Drieghe, D., & Hartsuiker, R. J.
    (2007) Visual word recognition by bilinguals in a sentence context: evidence for nonselective lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(4), 663.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Ferré, P., Sánchez-Casas, R., Comesaña, M., & Demestre, J.
    (2017) Masked translation priming with cognates and noncognates: Is there an effect of words’ concreteness?*. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(4), 770–78210.1017/S1366728916000262
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000262 [Google Scholar]
  26. Friel, B. M., & Kennison, S. M.
    (2001) Identifying German–English cognates, false cognates, and non-cognates: Methodological issues and descriptive norms. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(03). 10.1017/S1366728901000438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728901000438 [Google Scholar]
  27. Gerard, L. D., & Scarborough, D. L.
    (1989) Language-specific lexical access of homographs by bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition, 15(2), 305.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Grasso, S. M., Peña, E. D., Bedore, L. M., Hixon, J. G., & Griffin, Z. M.
    (2018) Cross-linguistic cognate production in Spanish-English bilingual children with and without Specific Language Impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research: JSLHR, 61(3), 619–633. 10.1044/2017_JSLHR‑L‑16‑0421
    https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_JSLHR-L-16-0421 [Google Scholar]
  29. Guasch, M., Ferré, P., & Haro, J.
    (2017) Pupil dilation is sensitive to the cognate status of words: further evidence for non-selectivity in bilingual lexical access. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(1), 49–54. 10.1017/S1366728916000651
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000651 [Google Scholar]
  30. Guediche, S., Baart, M., & Samuel, A. G.
    (2020) Semantic priming effects can be modulated by crosslinguistic interactions during second-language auditory word recognition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(5), 1082–1092. 10.1017/S1366728920000164
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728920000164 [Google Scholar]
  31. Gullifer, J. W., Kroll, J. F., & Dussias, P. E.
    (2013) When language switching has no apparent cost: Lexical access in sentence context. Frontiers in Psychology, 41. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00278
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00278 [Google Scholar]
  32. Higby, E., Donnelly, S., Yoon, J., & Obler, L. K.
    (2020) The effect of second-language vocabulary on word retrieval in the native language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(4), 812–824. 10.1017/S136672891900049X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891900049X [Google Scholar]
  33. Johansson, S., & Graedler, A. L.
    (2005) Anglicisms in Norwegian: When and Where?InG. Anderman & M. Rogers (Eds.), In and Out of English: For Better, for Worse (pp.185–200). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853597893‑015
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853597893-015 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kelley, A., & Kohnert, K.
    (2012) Is there a cognate advantage for typically developing Spanish-speaking English-language learners?Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 43(2), 191–204. 10.1044/0161‑1461(2011/10‑0022)
    https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2011/10-0022) [Google Scholar]
  35. Kheder, S., & Kaan, E.
    (2019) Lexical selection, cross-language interaction, and switch costs in habitually codeswitching bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(3), 569–589. 10.1017/S1366728918000500
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728918000500 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kohnert, K., Windsor, J., & Miller, R.
    (2004) Crossing borders: Recognition of Spanish words by English-speaking children with and without language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25(4), 543–564. 10.1017/S0142716404001262
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716404001262 [Google Scholar]
  37. Kootstra, G. J., Hell, J. G. V., & Dijkstra, T.
    (2012) Priming of code-switches in sentences: The role of lexical repetition, cognates, and language proficiency*. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(4), 797–819. 10.1017/S136672891100068X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891100068X [Google Scholar]
  38. Kristoffersen, G.
    (2000) The phonology of Norwegian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp.xvi + 366.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 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(2), 149–174. 10.1006/jmla.1994.1008
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1008 [Google Scholar]
  40. Lauro, J., & Schwartz, A. I.
    (2019) Cognate effects on anaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(3), 381–396. 10.1037/xlm0000601
    https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000601 [Google Scholar]
  41. Levenshtein, V. I.
    (1966) Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady, 10(8), 707–710. [Russian original (1965) in Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR, 163 (4), 845–848.].
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Li, C., & Gollan, T. H.
    (2018a) Cognates interfere with language selection but enhance monitoring in connected speech. Memory & Cognition, 46(6), 923–939. 10.3758/s13421‑018‑0812‑x
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-018-0812-x [Google Scholar]
  43. (2018b) Cognates facilitate switches and then confusion: Contrasting effects of cascade versus feedback on language selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(6), 974–991. 10.1037/xlm0000497
    https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000497 [Google Scholar]
  44. Marian, V., & Spivey, M.
    (2003) Competing activation in bilingual language processing: Within-and between-language competition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6(2), 97–115. 10.1017/S1366728903001068
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728903001068 [Google Scholar]
  45. Midgley, K. J., Holcomb, P. J., & Grainger, J.
    (2011) Effects of cognate status on word comprehension in second language learners: An ERP investigation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(7), 1634–1647. 10.1162/jocn.2010.21463
    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21463 [Google Scholar]
  46. Moen, I., Simonsen, H. G., & Hide, Ø.
    (2021) Norsk fonetikk i et klinisk perspektiv. Novus forlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Mulder, K., Dijkstra, T., & Baayen, R. H.
    (2015) Cross-language activation of morphological relatives in cognates: The role of orthographic overlap and task-related processing. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 91. 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00016
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00016 [Google Scholar]
  48. Muylle, M., Assche, E. V., & Hartsuiker, R. J.
    (2022) Comparing the cognate effect in spoken and written second language word production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 25(1), 93–107. 10.1017/S1366728921000444
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728921000444 [Google Scholar]
  49. Muscalu, L. M., & Smiley, P. A.
    (2019) The illusory benefit of cognates: Lexical facilitation followed by sublexical interference in a word typing task. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(4), 848–865. 10.1017/S1366728918000792
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728918000792 [Google Scholar]
  50. Olive, J. P., Greenwood, A., & Coleman, J.
    (1993) Acoustics of American English Speech: A Dynamic Approach. Springer, New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Paradis, M., & Libben, G.
    (1987) The Assessment of Bilingual Aphasia. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Peeters, D., Dijkstra, T., & Grainger, J.
    (2013) The representation and processing of identical cognates by late bilinguals: RT and ERP effects. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(4), 315–332. 10.1016/j.jml.2012.12.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  53. Pérez, A. M., Peña, E. D., & Bedore, L. M.
    (2010) Cognates facilitate word recognition in young Spanish-English bilinguals’ test performance. Early Childhood Services (San Diego, Calif.), 4(1), 55–67.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Poort, E. D., & Rodd, J. M.
    (2017) The cognate facilitation effect in bilingual lexical decision is influenced by stimulus list composition. Acta Psychologica, 1801, 52–63. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.08.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.08.008 [Google Scholar]
  55. Pureza, R., Soares, A. P., & Comesaña, M.
    (2016) Cognate status, syllable position and word length on bilingual Tip-Of-the-Tongue states induction and resolution*. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(3), 533–549. 10.1017/S1366728915000206
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728915000206 [Google Scholar]
  56. Schepens, J., Dijkstra, T., & Grootjen, F.
    (2012) Distributions of cognates in Europe as based on Levenshtein distance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(1), 157–166. 10.1017/S1366728910000623
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728910000623 [Google Scholar]
  57. Schepens, J., Dijkstra, T., Grootjen, F., & van Heuven, W. J. B.
    (2013) Cross-language distributions of high frequency and phonetically similar cognates. PLoS ONE, 8(5). 10.1371/journal.pone.0063006
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0063006 [Google Scholar]
  58. Schröter, P., & Schroeder, S.
    (2016) Orthographic processing in balanced bilingual children: Cross-language evidence from cognates and false friends. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1411, 239–246. 10.1016/j.jecp.2015.09.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  59. Sheng, L., Lam, B. P. W., Cruz, D., & Fulton, A.
    (2016) A robust demonstration of the cognate facilitation effect in first-language and second-language naming. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1411, 229–238. 10.1016/j.jecp.2015.09.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.09.007 [Google Scholar]
  60. Starreveld, P. A., Groot, A. M. B. D., Rossmark, B. M. M., & Hell, J. G. V.
    (2014) Parallel language activation during word processing in bilinguals: Evidence from word production in sentence context*. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(2), 258–276. 10.1017/S1366728913000308
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728913000308 [Google Scholar]
  61. Sudarshan, A., & Baum, S. R.
    (2019) Bilingual lexical access: A dynamic operation modulated by word-status and individual differences in inhibitory control. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(3), 537–554. 10.1017/S1366728918000111
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728918000111 [Google Scholar]
  62. Taylor, I.
    (1976) Similarity between French and English words – a factor to be considered in bilingual language behavior?Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5(1), 85–94. 10.1007/BF01067950
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067950 [Google Scholar]
  63. Tessel, C. A., Levy, E. S., Gitterman, M., & Shafer, V. L.
    (2018) Neurophysiological indices of the effect of cognates on vowel perception in late Spanish-English bilinguals. Journal of Phonetics, 681, 117–137. 10.1016/j.wocn.2018.03.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2018.03.004 [Google Scholar]
  64. Titone, D., Libben, M., Mercier, J., Whitford, V., & Pivneva, I.
    (2011) Bilingual lexical access during L1 sentence reading: The effects of L2 knowledge, semantic constraint, and L1–L2 intermixing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(6), 1412–1431. 10.1037/a0024492
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024492 [Google Scholar]
  65. Van Assche, E., Drieghe, D., Duyck, W., Welvaert, M., & Hartsuiker, R. J.
    (2011) The influence of semantic constraints on bilingual word recognition during sentence reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 64(1), 88–107. 10.1016/j.jml.2010.08.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.08.006 [Google Scholar]
  66. Van Assche, E., Duyck, W., & Brysbaert, M.
    (2013) Verb processing by bilinguals in sentence contexts: The effect of cognate status and verb tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(2), 237–259. 10.1017/S0272263112000873
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000873 [Google Scholar]
  67. Vanlangendonck, F., Peeters, D., Rueschemeyer, S.-A., & Dijkstra, T.
    (2020) Mixing the stimulus list in bilingual lexical decision turns cognate facilitation effects into mirrored inhibition effects. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(4), 836–844. 10.1017/S1366728919000531
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728919000531 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ml.22018.str
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ml.22018.str
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cognates; false friends; Levenshtein; multilingualism; translation
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error