c
1.Introduction1 1.1. Theroleofcognatesinvocabularydevelopment
ficantsourcesof
TheParasiticHypothesis,formulatedtoaccountforearlystagesofvocabularydevelopmentinsecondlanguagelearners,claimsthatoninitialexposure toaword,learnersautomaticallyexploitexistinglexicalmaterialintheL1 orL2inordertoestablishaninitialmemoryrepresentation.Atthelevelof phonologicalandorthographicform,itisclaimedthatsignificantoverlaps withexistingforms,i.e.cognates,areautomaticallydetectedandnewforms aresubordinatelyconnectedtotheminthementallexicon.Inthestudyreportedhere,EnglishnonwordsoverlappingwithrealwordsinSpanish(pseudocognates),togetherwithnoncognatenonwords,werepresentedtoSpanishspeakinglearnersofEnglishinawordfamiliaritytask.Participantsreported significantlyhigherlevelsoffamiliaritywiththepseudocognatesandshowed greaterconsistencyinprovidingtranslationsforthem.Theseresults,together withmeasuresofthedegreeofoverlapbetweennonwordstimuliandtranslations,wereinterpretedasevidencefortheautomaticuseofcognatesinearly wordlearning.
first
CHRISTOPHERJ.HALL IRAL 40(2002),69ñ870019042X/2002/040-069 WalterdeGruyter Abstract
ThefacilitatingroleofcognatesintheL2vocabularylearningprocesshaslong beenrecognized(cf.Sweet1972[1899]).Cognatesarewordsintwoormore languageswhichsharephonologicaland/ororthographicform,andnormally (butnotnecessarily)arealsorelatedsemantically.Ringbom(1987:41)makes thecommonsenseobservationthatì[w]henbothphonologicalandsemantic similarityworktogether,theeffectislikethatofamagnetattractinganew wordtobestoredinthelearnerísmentallexiconwhenhemeetsitforthe timeî.Inthisway,cognateshavebeenrecognizedassigni positivetransfer(Ringbom1987;Odlin1989;Nation1990).Notsurprisingly, thesameauthorshavepointedoutthatphonologicalsimilarity
without (suffi
Theautomaticcognateformassumption:Evidencefor theparasiticmodelofvocabularydevelopment
Morerecentresearchontheeffectsofphonologicalandconceptualaspects ofwordsinbilingualprocessinghasfoundthatpurelyformalsimilaritybetweenwordcompetitorscaninfluenceperformanceonlexicaldecisionand translationrecognitiontasks(e.g.,Dijkstraetal.1998;Talamasetal.1999). Talamasetal.(1999),followingKrollandStewartís(1994)asymmetricmodel oflexicalrepresentationandprocessinginbilinguals,con bilingualsaremoreaffectedbyformalsimilaritythanmorebalancedbilinguals:ìForless fluentindividuals,whoarelikelytohavegreateruncertainty
firmthatless fluent
Inresearchbyexperimentalpsycholinguistsonthementallexiconsofbilinguals,ontheotherhand,animpressiveamountofdatahasbeengathered (cf.ChenandLeung1989;Jin1990;S·nchezCasasetal.1992;deGroot andNas1991;deGroot1992,1993;KrollandStewart1994).Thesedata suggestthatphonologicalandsemanticcognatesaremorecloselyassociated thannoncognatetranslationequivalents,butthatpurelyphonologicalcognates (falsecognates) appeartobehavelikenoncognatesonanumberofpsycholinguistictasks,suchascuedtranslation,wordandpicturenaming,andpriming usingtranslation,repetitionandsemanticassociates.
fauxamis),will
70 ChristopherJ.Hall cient)semanticoverlap,inthefamiliarcasesoffalsecognates( leadtonegativetransfer(or interference
).
abouttheirL2knowledgethanmore fluentindividuals,anysignificantactivationofshared[formal]featuresmaypresentsufficientevidencetorespondpositivelythatthepairofwordsaretranslationequivalents,regardlessofwhether ornotthatissoî(1999:56).Dijkstraetal.(1998)showthatfully fluent bilingualsalsodemonstratefalsecognateinterferenceeffects(frominterlingualhomographssuchas room, Eng.ëroomí,Dutchëcreamí)whenperforming thelexicaldecisiontaskinbilingualmode(i.e.,whenlanguageinputismixed betweenL1andL2). Dijkstraandhiscolleagueshavealsoshownthattheneighbourhooddensity ofaword,i.e.thenumberoflexicalneighboursdiffferingminimallyfromitin orthographyineitherL1orL2,willaffectrecognitionandtranslationlatencies (GraingerandDijkstra1992;VanHeuvenetal.1998). Traitors (L1words withmoreneighboursinL2thaninL1)areslowertorecognize,andprovoke
Verylittleexperimentalworkhasbeenconductedbyappliedlinguistson theeffectsofcognatesinvocabularylearning(althoughcf.ArdandHomburg 1983).Therehavebeenrelativelymoredatafromnaturalisticstudies (e.g.,Ringbom1987;HolmesandRamos1993;alsostudiesdiscussedinHatch andBrown1995andSingleton1999),aswellasfromwordassociationtasks (e.g.,Meara1984),alldemonstratingthesigni thedevelopmentandorganizationoftheL2mentallexicon.Generalresearch onorthographicandphonologicalaspectsofforeignlanguagevocabularydevelopmentandprocessingremains,however,sparse,whileworkontop-down strategieshasdominatedtheliterature(Koda1997).
ficantroleofformalsimilarityin
1.2. TheParasiticStrategyofvocabularydevelopment
Inaddition,studiesonlexicalproductionandcomprehensionerrorsinaforeignlanguageconsistentlyrevealpatternsofformalorganizationinandbetweenthenativeandforeignlanguagelexicons.Eckeísworkontip-of-thetonguerecallstagesinsecondandthirdlanguagelearners(Ecke1996,1997; EckeandGarrett1998)showsclearlythatinterlexicalin ofphonologicalandorthographicformplaysacrucialroleinlearnersíextendedwordsearches.InastudyofcognaterelianceinreadingcomprehensionbyBrazilianlearnersofEnglish,HolmesandRamos(1993)reportlexical misidentificationonthebasisofformalsimilaritywithotherwordsintheL1 andL2(e.g.,L2 poll interpretedasL1 polo ëcity,centralpointíandL2 swing takenasL2 swim). Laufer(1989,1997)discussestheissueintermsofthephenomenonof deceptivetransparency,in whichreadersmisidentifyawordonthebasisofits formalsimilaritywithexistingwordsintheL1andL2,listingfalsecognates (suchasEng. tramp takenasHebrew tremp ëliftí)andidentifyingaclassof errorwhichshecalls synforms, which,accordingtoherstudies,arethelargest categoryofdeceptivelytransparentwords.Synforms(malapropisms inthe monolingualliterature)arelexicalmis-hitsselectedduetoformalresemblance withotherL2forms(suchas price for prize and cute for acute).Lauferargues thatsynformsareidentifiedbecauseofinsecureknowledgeofthetargetform orofbothtargetanderrorforms.InastudyofFrenchEFLlearnersíerrors, Granger(citedinJames1998:149)foundthatover34%oflexicalerrorswere duetotheuseoffalsecognates,i.e.,L2wordswithpartialformandmeaning overlapwithL1translationequivalents.
fluenceatthelevel
Theevidencesummarizedhere,muchofitcollectedinstudieswhichtapautomatic,non-attentionalprocesses,stronglysuggeststhatsimilarformfeatures intheL1andL2areautomaticallydetectedandexploitedintheestablishment ofmemorytracesfornewL2words.Thefollowingsectionsketchesamodel ofvocabularydevelopmentthattakessuchsimilaritydetectionandexploitation astheprincipalmotorwhichdrivesearlywordlearning.
Theautomaticcognateformassumption 71 moreerrors,than patriots (L1wordswithmoreneighboursinL1thanL2).Van Heuvenetal.(1998:474)concludethatì[s]timulusitemsautomaticallyactivateorthographicallysimilarwordsinboththetargetlanguageandtheother languageofthebilingualparticipantî.
OnthebasisofaseriesofstudiesonforeignlanguageerrorsinL2andL3,Hall (1992,1996,1997;HallandSchultz1994)andEckeandHall(1998,2000) havearguedthatvocabularydevelopmentmayusefullybeviewedasaproblem ofpattern-matchingandassimilationwithcurrentlexicalknowledge,atleast attheonsetofthewordlearningprocess.Thispsycholinguisticapproachhas
72 ChristopherJ.Hall motivatedthepostulationofa ParasiticStrategy ofvocabularydevelopment: a seriesofautomatic,unconsciouscognitivestagesthatanemerginglexical entryishypothesizedtoundergoafterthelearner firstencountersanunknown word. AccordingtotheParasiticStrategy,thekeytolearningthewordis firstto establishaformrepresentation,i.e.,constructamemorytraceofthepronunciationand/orspelling,andthentomaketherightconnectionswithexisting lexicalandconceptualknowledge.Thestrategyclaimsthatafterregistering theform,learnerswillimmediatelyidentifyatranslationequivalent,should onebeavailable,throughoverttranslationintoL1,byanL1orL2definition, bysomeicon(e.g.,apictureormime),contextualcues,orbywhateverother medium.Thisisbecausewhenlanguageinputisreceived,itistheimmediate andinevitableresponsibilityofthelanguagefacultyinthemind/braintodeal withit,whetheritisfromtheL1ortheL2.Thecentralpurposeofthelanguage facultyis,Iassume,toassignformstomeanings,andmeaningstoforms,using anyandalllinguisticresourcesavailable. We witnessthisassumptionoftranslationequivalenceinlearnererrors,for examplewhereanL2formisusederroneouslyinthesyntacticframeofa semanticallyequivalentL1lexicalentry.HallandSchultz(1994)collected lexicalerrorsfrom125compositionswrittenbyMexicanlearnersofEnglish atthebeginnerlevel,inwhichthemajorityofexamplesofincorrectsyntactic deploymentcouldbetracedtothegrammaticalbehaviouroftranslationequivalents(74%ofthe104errorsdetected).Examplesinclude(1a),onthebasis of(1b): (1)a. Itwouldlikeyou. (produced) b. Te you-object gustaría it-would-please ëYouwouldlikeit.í(intendedmeaning) Here,theEnglishverb like isrightlytakenasthemostappropriatetranslation equivalentoftheSpanishverb gustar. Theproblemisthatthetwoverbsbehave differentlywithregardtotheirsyntacticdeployment.Bothverbsselectthe samethematicrolesasarguments,but(simplifyingslightly), like placesthe experiencerinsubject(preverbal)positionandthethemeinobject(postverbal) position,whereasSpanish gustar doestheopposite(followingthepatternof Eng. please).2 We canrepresentthisphenomenonschematicallyusingdiagramsthatfollow theconventionsofHallís(1992)ìTriadModelî,accordingtowhichentriesin thementallexiconarebuiltfrompairsoflinguisticrepresentations(phonological/orthographicformandsyntacticframe)connectedwithnonlinguistic conceptualrepresentations(cf.thelexeme/lemma/conceptdistinctionofLevelt (e.g.,Levelt1989;Leveltetal.1999)andKrollísdistributedlexical/conceptual
Theautomaticcognateformassumption 73 FORMFRAME gustar like ëlikeí CONCEPT L1 LEXICALENTRY L2 LEXICALENTRY V, <T>___<E> Figure1. Noncognatetranslationequivalent featuremodelofthebilinguallexicon(KrollanddeGroot1997).Hence,in Figure1,theL2form like isconnectedinsubordinatefashiontotheframe representationoftheL1lexicalentry(where T E representstheappropriatethematicgrid):3 AccordingtotheParasiticStrategy,thenormalpatternforlearnersinthe earlystagesofacquisitionwillbetoconnectnovelL2wordstotheframe representation(lemma)ofatranslationequivalent(leadingtoerrorssuchas [1a]). Formalcognates,however,asitemssharingsomecriterialamountofphonologicaland/ororthographicform,mightleadautomaticallytoevenmoreeconomicalrepresentation-buildingandretention,whethertheconceptidentified isthecorrectoneornot(orevenifnoconceptisidentifiedatall).Theidentificationofcognates,bothtrueandfalse,constitutesaformofcross-linguistic influence(Ringbom1987;HatchandBrown1995).Truecognates(forexampleEng. rose andSp. rosa) arelexicalitemswhicharecommontoL1andL2, despitesuperficialphonologicalororthographicdifferences,asaresultofeithersharedlexicalinheritancefromacommonancestorlanguage,orthrough inter-languageborrowing.Intruecognates,aformísmeaningequivalencehas beenmaintained,historically,betweenL1andL2,whereasinfalsecognates eitherthemeaningshavediverged(e.g.,Sp. actual ëcurrentíandEng. actual, fromLat. actualis ëactive,practicalí)ortheitemsareactuallyunconnected historically(e.g.,Sp. tuna ëpricklypearíandEng. tuna). Thelearnerísidentificationofacognate(whichmayturnouttobetrueor false),isrepresentedinthemodelasadirectconnectionattheformrepresentationlevel,asdiagrammedintheexampleofthetruecognateinFigure2,where
rosa differsonlyin
rose.
Figure2. Cognatetranslationequivalent (ignoringminordetailssuchasvowelquality)theL1word theadditionofa finalvowelfromtheL2form
Giventhisinterlexicalconnection(showninFigure2asdottedlinesrepresentingredundancyconnectionsfromtheL2formtotheL1orthographic representation),retentionoftheL2form(i.e.,therepresentationísachievement ofpermanenceinlexicalmemory)shouldrequirelesseffort,sincemuchofthe formisalreadyinplaceinthe(robust)L1lexicon.
figurationsbecausetheyare tryingtomaximizetheuseofalreadyestablishedlanguagestructure,i.e.,entriesintheL1mentallexicon.Inotherwords,theyareexploitingtheL1lexiconinparasiticfashion.WeshouldnotbesurprisedthatL2learnersexecute
A logicalconsequenceofthisprocessis,however,thestudentísconstructionoffalsecognates.Wedistinguishherebetweentwotypesoffalsecognate:(i)truefalsecognates,and(ii)indirectcognates,representingpointson a continuumratherthanpoles.(HolmesandRamos(1993)identifyaìcline ofëcognatenessíîandGranger(1996,citedinJames1998:148)makesa similardistinctionbetweenìtotallydeceptiveîandìpartiallydeceptiveîcognates).AtruefalsecognatewouldbeEng.
library usedfor Sp. librería ëbookshopí,insteadofforSp. biblioteca. Herethesemanticoverlapisclear:bothconceptsinvolveabuildingcontainingshelvesfromwhich clientstakeawayoneormorebooks(inthesecondcase,theyleavemoney anddonotbringthebooksback).InFigure3andFigure4theseexamplesare schematized,showingboththelearnererror(viathedottedlineredundancy connections)andthetargetconfiguration(fromL2formtoL1syntacticframe representation,viathesubordinateconnectionrepresentedherebyadashed line).
74 ChristopherJ.Hall rosa N ---e ëroseí
Inessence,learnerscreatesuchnon-targetcon
tuna forSp. tuna ëpricklypearí(the SpanishtranslationofEng. tuna isëat˙ní).Anindirectcognate,ontheother hand,sharessomecriterialamountofsalientfeaturesinconceptualmemory,of whichthelearnermaybeconsciouslyaware,forexampleEng.
Theautomaticcognateformassumption 75 at˙n N N ëtunaí tuna ëpricklypearí Figure3. Truefalsecognate N bibliotecaN ----a-y libre rÌa ëlibraryí ëbookshopí Figure4. Indirectcognate
Naturally,theaccountofthevocabularydevelopmentprocessgivenbythe ParasiticStrategycanonlybepartial,since,asSingleton(1999)andothers havepointedout,thereismuchmoretolearningwordsthanregisteringtheir formandconnectingthemwithrepresentationsintheL1mentallexicon.Clearly,formswhichremainunconnectedwithappropriatesyntactic,semantic,collocationalandsocioculturalfeaturesfortheL2willfossilizeasinterlanguage phenomena.Nevertheless,eventhoughtheprocessisnotuniquelyform-driven, evenatthebeginningstages(cf.Talamasetal.1999),patentlyalllearnersmust establishsomememoryrepresentationofaphonologicaland/ororthographic formtowhichtheothercharacteristicsofwordshipmaybeanchored.Ifthe learnerísnativelanguageaffordsstorageandaccesscuesforanL2wordform, intheshapeofacognate,thenitseemsprobablethatthelanguagefacultywill trytodetectandexploitthesecues.
2.1. Designandhypotheses
themosteconomicalstrategyintheiracquisitionofvocabulary.Theparasitic natureofL2vocabularylearningandrepresentationisinfullaccordwithgeneralprinciplesgoverningthenatureofmentalrepresentationandprocessing, suchaseconomy(Martinet1964;Lightfoot1979;Haiman1983),leasteffort (Zipf1949;Slobin1977;Chomsky1991)andaccommodation(PiagetandInhelder1969).Insteadofconstructinganentirelynewknowledgestoreforthe L2,learnersutilizethestoretheyhavealreadyinplace.Insteadofduplicating information,attheformlevelwithcognatesandattheframelevelwithgrammaticalequivalents,theylistitonlyonceandattachnewL2formstoexisting representations.
2.Theexperiment Inthestudyreportedhere,oneaspectoftheParasiticStrategywassubjected toscrutiny:theautomaticuseofformcognatesintheconstructionofarepresentationforanewL2word,andtheconsequentassumptionthattheyare truecognates,independentlyofwhetherevidenceisavailabletosuggestthat theysharesemanticcontent.Asimpleexperimentwasconductedtocon ordisconfirmthispredictionofthestrategy.
Spanish-speakinglearnersofEnglishasaforeignlanguageparticipatedina wordfamiliarityreporttask,wherethewordlistpresentedincludeditems whichwereformalcognateswithwordformsintheL1.Inordertoisolateform fromconfoundingvariablesintroducedbysemanticandsyntacticfactors,the experimentalstimuliwereallnonwords,someoverlappinginformwithreal L1wordforms(pseudocognates),othersnot(noncognates).Foreachitem, participantswereinstructedtorecordwhethertheyhadseenitbefore,andto provideawordintheL1whichtheyjudgedmightbeclosesttoitinmeaning.
76 ChristopherJ.Hall
firm
3.Themeannumberofparticipantsrespondingwiththemostfavouredtranslationperitemacrossparticipantswillbehigherforpseudocognatesthan fornoncognates.
1.Themeannumberofparticipantsreportinghavingseenthewordbeforewill behigherforpseudocognatesthanfornoncognates.
Hypothesis1reflectstheassumptionoftheParasiticStrategythatparticipants willautomaticallyactivateanystoredformintheL1whichsigni cantlyoverlapswiththeL2word,andthuswillbemorelikelytoreportfamiliaritywith it.Hypotheses2and3respondtothepredictionoftheParasiticStrategythat similarformwillbetakenautomaticallyasatokenofsimilarmeaning(asin thecaseoffalsecognates),andthereforethatthepseudocognateswillconstrainparticipantsítranslationguessesmorethanthenoncognates,bothacross responses(Hypothesis2)andacrossparticipants(Hypothesis3).Finally,Hypothesis4affirmstheessentialcorollarythatwhatconstrainstranslationword selectionis,precisely,overlapofform.
4.Thedegreeofoverlapbetweennonwordandsuggestedtranslationwillbe greaterforpseudocognatesthanfornoncognates.
2.ThemeannumberofpossibleL1translationsgivenacrossparticipantsper itemwillbelowerforpseudocognatesthanfornoncognates.
FollowingthepredictionsoftheParasiticHypothesis,thefollowinghypotheseswereformulated:
2.2. Participants Ninety-five nativeSpanish-speakinguniversitystudentsparticipatedintheexperiment.AllwereenrolledinsectionsofanintermediateEnglishforAcademicPurposescourse.Theyreceivedextracoursecreditfortheirparticipation.
pseudocognates
fi
2.3. Materials A setofEnglishnonwords(orthographicallyandphonologicallywell-formed but non-occuringwords)wasconstructed.Todetecttheroleofformoverlap withtheL1(Spanish),halfofthenonwordsweredesignedsothattheyhad cognatesinSpanish(henceforthcalled ).Forexample,oneof theEnglishpseudocognatesconstructedwas (cognatewithSpanish es-
Unlikenonworduseintaskssuchaslexicaldecision(whereparticipantsmake speededdecisionsastowhetherastimulusisanexistingwordinthelanguage ornot),herethenonwordstimulishouldhavethesamestatusasunknownreal L2words.Thisisbecause(a)participantshavelimitedknowledgeofEnglish vocabularyand(b)theyarerequiredonlytojudgefamiliaritywiththestimuli, ratherthanassesstheirstatusaswords.Thus,theyhavenoreasontobelieve thatstimuliwillbeanythingotherthanexistingwordsofthelanguage.
*stribe
Theautomaticcognateformassumption 77
78 ChristopherJ.Hall tribo ëstirrupí);anotherwas *campanary (cognatewithSpanish campanario ëbelltowerí).Theotherhalfofthenonwordsetwerenon-cognates,i.e.,evincingnoformoverlapwithSpanishwords,suchas *plude and *thrimble (see Appendix). Fifteenpseudocognatesand fifteennoncognatesweredesignedandrandomlydistributedamong60realEnglishwords,halfofwhichwerecognatesand halfnot.Thecompletelistof90itemswascontrolledforthefollowingvariables: ◦ Frequency: Thenonwordshavezerofrequency,soinordertoprovideabalancedlistandavoiddemoralizingparticipants,themajorityofrealwords usedwereofhighfrequency,asweretheirtranslationsinSpanish.Fortyof thesixtyrealEnglishwordsused,togetherwiththeirSpanishequivalents, occurredinthe first1000mostfrequentwordsinEatonís(1940)crosslinguisticfrequencylist.TheothertwentyEnglishwordsandtheirSpanish equivalentsweretakenfromthesixthorsevenththousandwordsintheEaton list.Ofthe fifteenpseudocognates,sixhadSpanishcognatesfromthe first thousandwordsinthelist,whilenineweretakenfromthesixthorseventh 1000words. ◦ Length:An attemptwasmadetoprovideafairspreadofwordlengths,reflectingthekindofdistributionthesestudentswouldhavebeenexposedto, but erringonthesideofsimplicity(fewersyllables),inordernottomake thelistappeartoooffputting.Ofthenonwords, five weremonosyllabic, five bisyllabicand five polysyllabic.Ofthesixtyrealwords,thirtyweremonosyllabic,twentybisyllabic,andtenpolysyllabic. ◦ Morphologicalcomplexity:In ordertoreflecttherealityofEnglishand Spanishvocabulary,thepolysyllabicpseudocognatesandnoncognatesall usedtransparentsuffixes whichwerecognatewiththeirSpanishcounterparts (e.g.,Eng.pseudocognate*sper-ance versusSpanish esper-anza ëhopeí;and noncognate*onter-ize usingcognatesuffix-ize, Sp.-izar ).Mono-andbisyllabicnonwordsweremorphologicallysimple(exceptforoneprefixed form inboththepseudo-andnoncognatebisyllables).Only five oftherealwords hadatransparentaffix. ◦ Cognatestatus: Theprincipalcriteriontodeterminecognatestatusforboth realandnonwordswasthatthepairmustshareatleasttwo-thirdsoftheir form,innumberofletters,withoutthesubstitution,epenthesis,metathesis oromissionofanyletter.4 Theonlyexceptionsadmitted,inaccordwith English-Spanishcomparativenorms,werethesubstitutionof s for z,or ñ for n; theepenthesisof e before s atwordonset;ortheomissionofrepeated consonantsinthecaseofEnglishgemination.Exhaustivesearchesofthe DiccionariodelaLenguaEspañola (1984)and TheShorterOxfordEnglish Dictionary (1973),andconsultationwithtwopanelsofthreenativespeakers, ensuredthatthenoncognateswereinfactsuch.
Theautomaticcognateformassumption 79 To avoidordereffects,theninety(randomized)stimuliweredividedintofour blocks,andtheorderofpresentationofblocksdifferedforeachoftheparticipantgroups. 2.4. Procedure Thestimuliwerepresentedvisuallytoparticipantsinsevenintactclassroom groups,averaging13.6ineachgroup.Tenwarm-upitems,realEnglishwords reflectingarangeoffrequenciesofoccurrence,wereaddedatthebeginning ofeachsession,butnotrevealedassuchtoparticipants.Participantssawthe 100itemscentred,inlargelowercasetypeface,onavideomonitor.Eachword appearedforadurationoftwentyseconds,withablankscreenof five secondsbetweeneachword,andatwentyseconddelaybetweeneachofthe five blocks.Afterthewarm-upblock,theexperimenterclarifiedanydoubtsabout theprocedure. Participantswereaskedtoperformtwotasksforeachwordtheysaw:(i) recordwhetherornottheythoughttheyhadseenthewordbefore:and(ii) writedownwhattheythoughtcouldbetheSpanishwordclosestinmeaning totheEnglishwordpresented,eveniftheyhadtoguess.Participantsrecorded theirresponsesonasimpleanswersheetcontainingnumbersandspacesfor writingresponsewords.Theyrecordedfamiliaritywiththewordbycircling thecorrespondingnumber,andunfamiliaritybyplacingacrossoverit.They wrotedowntheSpanishwordclosestinmeaninginthespacenexttothecorrespondingnumber. 2.5. Results Resultswerecollectedfromatotalofninety-five participants.Duetoexperimentererror,datawerelostforoneitemofthepseudocognatecondition.The resultswerecoded,peritempercondition,accordingto five separatecriteria designedtoaddressthehypothesespresentedabove: 1.Numberofparticipantsreportingfamiliaritywitheachword. 2.NumberofdifferentSpanishwordsgivenastranslations,peritem. 3.Numberofparticipantsrespondingwiththemostfrequenttranslationinto Spanish,peritem. 4.a.NumberofparticipantsrespondingwithSpanishtranslationssharingthe sameinitialletterwiththeEnglishword. b. NumberofparticipantsrespondingwithSpanishtranslationssharingthe same firstthreeconsonantsastheEnglishword,inthesameorder. Theoverlapcriteriain(4),ofsharedinitialletterand firstthreeconsonants, wereusedinsteadoftheoriginalcognatecriteria,since,obviously,thenoncognateshadnoL1cognatesbydesign. MeanscoresandpercentagesforeachcriterionaregiveninTables1ñ5.
Meannumberofparticipantsreportingfamiliaritywithstimulus,acrossitems PseudocognateconditionNoncognatecondition Participants38.365.33 [n=95](40.37%)(06.01%)
Table1.
Table5.
Meannumberofparticipantsrespondingwithformssharing first threeconsonantswithstimulus,acrossitems PseudocognateconditionNoncognatecondition Participants74.9317.07 [n=95](78.87%)(19.02%) These five between-conditionscoresweresubjectedtoaseriesof t -teststo verifywhetherthedifferencesweresignificant.All t -testsshowedthatthe differenceswerestatisticallysignificantatatleastp ≤ 0.001(Criterion1: t (13) = 5.821,p ≤ 0.0001;Criterion2: t (13)=7.796,p ≤ 0.0001;Criterion3: t (13) = 6.096,p ≤ 0.0001;Criterion4(a): t (13)=4.284,p ≤ 0.001;Criterion4(b): t (13)=8.945,p ≤ 0.0001). 3.Discussion Participantsconsistentlyreportedthatpseudocognatesweremorefamiliarthan noncognates,eventhoughneithergroupcontainedrealwords.Inaddition,a muchnarrowerrangeoftranslationswasprovidedforpseudocognatesthanfor
Meannumberoftranslationsreportedperitem,acrossparticipants PseudocognateconditionNoncognatecondition Translations14.1441.33 Table3. Meannumberofparticipantsrespondingwiththemostfrequenttranslation, acrossitems PseudocognateconditionNoncognatecondition Participants54.512.6 [n=95](57.37%)(13.76%)
80 ChristopherJ.Hall
Meannumberofparticipantsrespondingwithformssharinginitialletterwith stimulus,acrossitems PseudocognateconditionNoncognatecondition Participants77.5746.33 [n=95](81.65%)(48.73%)
Table2.
Table4.
fi
Theautomaticcognateformassumption 81 noncognates,andthemostfrequenttranslationgivenwasprovidedbyamuch largergroupofparticipantsintheformerconditionthaninthelatter.Ananalysisofthetranslationsprovidedshowsthatthepseudocognateresponsesshared significantlymoreformalfeaturesthanthoseofthenoncognatecondition,thus stronglysuggestingthatthisdifferenceisindeedduetoformsimilarityandnot otherfactors. Theseresultsclearlyshowthat,inlinewiththeresultsfornon-fluentbilingualsyieldedinthestudybyTalamasetal.(1999),intermediateEFLstudents assumethatsharedformindicatessharedmeaning.Inoperationalterms,this impliesthatlearnersaresensitivetoformoverlap,andnotonlythattheyautomaticallyregisterit,butthatthisformalconnectionleadstransitivelytoan assumptionofsemanticoverlap,asshownbythehigherratesoffamiliarityand translationconformityforpseudocognatesasopposedtononcognates.
Laufer(1989)reportssimilarcases,whereoverlappingformsintheL2(synforms)influencewordrecognitionandsubsequentsemanticprocessing.For example,oneparticipantunderstoodsentence(2)belowas(3),byconfusing thewords nurturing with natural, fending with finding, and leaving with living: (2) Thisnurturingbehaviour,thisfendingforfemalesinsteadofleaving themtofendforthemselves,maytakemanydifferentforms. (3) Insteadoflivingnaturallife,naturalbehaviour,femalesandchildren findmanydifferentformsoflife.
Theseresults,thoughcollectedwitharti cialformsinanartificialenvironment,supportamajorclaimoftheParasiticHypothesis,byshowingthatlearners,onencounteringnovelvocabularyitems(inthiscasenonwords),initially usealreadyexistingforminformationfromthewordstheyknowinorderto confirmorcreatehypothesesaboutwordmeaning.Ofcourse,inthetaskthey wereaskedtoperformhere,independentsemanticinformation(intheform ofcontextsentences,texts,topics,pictures,orrealsituationsoflanguageuse) was notprovided.Earliernaturalisticstudies,however,seemtocon rmthat formfamiliaritycanoverridesuchcues,aphenomenonobservedbyHolmes andRamos(1993:92)intheirstudyofcognateuseinreadingcomprehension, andtermedbythemìrecklessguessingî.
fi
Thesesynformconfusiondataarematchedbysomeoftheresponsesgivenin thepresentstudy.Forexample,thepseudocognate*
gan yieldedfourinstances of pistola ëpistolíandtwoof arma ëweaponí,presumablyduetoitssimilarity (atleastinAmericanEnglishpronunciation)withtheword gun Similarly, thepseudocognate*tard was translatedas duro ëhardí,bytwoparticipants, andthepseudocognate*encendate as fecha ëdateí,byfourparticipants.Such dataconfirmEckeandHallís(1999,2000)claimsthattheParasiticStrategyis essentiallypromiscuouswithregardtothelanguagesourceofpotentialform
fluencethe
Theresultsofthisexperimentareconsistentwithconnectionist,interactive activationmodelsofthelexicon(cf.RumelhartandMcClelland1986),anapproachwhichhasbeenextendedtothebilinguallexicon(e.g.,Dijkstraand Van Heuven1998;KrollanddeGroot1997)andtosecondlanguageacquisition(e.g.,MacWhinney1997;Ellis1998).Connectionismviewsthemind asavastnetworkofsimpleprocessingunits,wherecomplexmentalstates andbehavioursaretheresultofdifferentcon stylesimilartotheneurophysiologicalnetworkofneuronsinthebrain).Ina distributednetwork,maximaleconomyisenvisaged.Forexample,insteadof separatenodestorepresentthewordforms beactivationintheareasofthenetworkrepresentingthesyllablenucleusand coda-it togetherwithactivationofmutually-inhibitingpatternsrepresenting theconsonantalonsets f thenetworkconfiguredforL1lexicalknowledge,andsolittlenewmustbe learntattheformlevel(theredundancyconnectionsusedinFigures2ñ4canbe takenasschematicoversimplificationsofpatternsofactivationofsharedform features,independentofparticularlexicalentries).ActivationofanL1form throughoverlapwiththeformfeaturesofanovelL2wordwillautomatically triggeractivationofthemeaningoftheL1word,viaspreadingactivationfrom lexicaltoconceptuallevelsofthenetwork.ThismuchfallsoutfromconnectionistmodelssuchasDijkstraandcolleaguesíBilingualInteractiveActivation (BIA)modelofwordrecognition(DijkstraandVanHeuven1998).TheParasiticStrategytakesthisfurtherbymakingexplicitthefactthatsuchtransitory activationintheonlinerecognitionprocesscanleadtomorepermanentconnections,whichinfluencetheoutcomesofvocabularyacquisition(forexample, thefossilizationoffalsecognates). Itappears,then,thatinearlywordlearning,forminformationisautomaticallyandunconsciouslyexploited,viapattern-matchingbetweenthecontents ofworkingmemory(thenewform)andlong-termlexicalmemory(theL1and L2mentallexicons).Theconnectionsthusgeneratedleadtotheestablishment oflexicaltriadsofaparasiticnature,wheremostoftheL2entryismadeup ofalreadyexistingL1material.Suchistheautomaticityofthisprocessthata
,
-, k -, l-,etc.Learningwordformsthenbecomes a processofmappingnewinputacrosstheexistingnetworkinasuccessionof cycles,throughwhichconnectionweightsandfacilitatoryorinhibitoryeffects becomesettledindifferentways. ThepresentresultsandtheParasiticStrategyingeneralmaybeinterpreted withinsuchaparalleldistributedframework:recallthatparasiticvocabulary learningmeansestablishingnewformrepresentationsandconnectingthem withexistingunits(accommodatingthemintotheexistingnetwork).With cognates,muchoftheìnewîmaterialisalreadyrepresented,distributedacross
82 ChristopherJ.Hall associatesaccessed,i.e.,thatanyforminL1orL2(orL3)canin processingofanyotherforminL1orL2(orL3)withwhichitoverlaps.
figurationsofthenetwork(ina
bit, sit, fit, kit, lit, etc.,therewould
b-, s-,
UniversidaddelasAméricas-Puebla chris@udlap.mail.mx
Theautomaticcognateformassumption 83 significantnumberofparticipantsinthestudydescribedherereportthatthey arefamiliarwithnonwords,onthebasisoftheextentoftheirformaloverlap withcognatesintheL1. Inappliedlinguisticsandlanguagepedagogy,weoftenunderestimatehow muchlearnersbringtothelearningtask.MattheiandRoeper(1983:86),discussingtheinstinctualnatureofhumanlanguageprocessing,refertangentially totheproblemofsecondlanguagelearning:
parts oftheprocess
Althoughitwouldbeabsurdtocharacterizesecondlanguagelearningasfundamentallyinstinctualinthisway(givenallthatweknowofmaturational, environmental,affective,motivationalandotherfactorswhichdistinguishL1 fromL2development),wewoulddowelltorecognizethat mustbetheresultofautomaticcognitiveprocedures,andthatpsycholinguists canmakeimportantcontributionstoourunderstandingoflanguagelearning (andpossiblytothedevelopmentofmoreeffectiveteachingpractice)byexploringtheconditionsandscopeofsuchprocedures.
Thereadercanaskhimself whetherhethinksthatthekindofknowledge[of language]wehaveanduseeverydaycouldreallybelearnedorifunderstanding languageislikeopeningoneíseyesandseeing.Forlanguagewemustopenour ears,makeconnectionsbetweenwordsandthings,andadjustourgrammarsin someslightways.Therestmaybeallthere.Makingëslightadjustmentsíanda fewëconnectionsbetweenwordsandthingsícanbetakentorefertothespecial characteristicsofeachlanguage.Suchoperationsseemmonumentaltothosein languageclassesortotouriststryingtomakethemselvesunderstoodinaforeign country,buttheymayactuallybequiteminimal.Itislikenoticingthathuman beingsalllookquitedifferentfromeachother;but,inmanyrespects,wealllook exactlythesame.
84 ChristopherJ.Hall Appendix:Itemsusedinthepseudocognateandnoncognateconditions (SpanishcognatesandEnglishtranslationsareprovidedinparenthesesforthe pseudocognates.) PseudocognatesNoncognates stribe(estribo ëstirrupí)pirt mirl(mirlo ëblackbirdí)jiss pulge(pulga ëfleaí)tarm gan(ganar ëwiní)plude tard(tarde ëlateí)rause recort(recortar ëcutí(V))belmer halcone(halcón ëfalconí)purtent gemel(gemelo ëtwiní)extrow entend(entender ëunderstandí)elter bastant(bastante ëenoughí)thrimble campanary(campanario ëbelltowerí)muttlement menesterous(menesteroso ëneedyí)urnimary esperance(esperanza ëhopeí(N))onterize atraverse(atravesar ëcrossí(V))chailerate encendate(encender ëlightí(V))astazance Notes 1.ThisresearchwassupportedbyagrantfromtheUDLAInstituteofResearchand GraduateStudies.Igratefullyacknowledgethegeneroustimeandeffortdedicated tothisprojectbymyresearchassistantMoyaSchultz.IalsothankPeterEckeand twoanonymousreviewersfortheirhelpfulcommentsonthemanuscript. 2.InanearlierstageofEnglish, like alsosharedthissyntacticbehaviour(e.g. Itlikes uswell meaningëWelikeitwellíñfromShakespeareís KingJohn, II.1.533). 3. T = themeand E =experiencer. 4.NeighbourhooddensityandfrequencyintheL1andL2(GraingerandDijkstra 1992;VanHeuvenetal.1998)werenotcalculated.Afutureexperimentmight profitablymanipulatesuchfactors,toassesswhetherdegreeofformaloverlapbeyondasingleformintheL1mightaffectreportedfamiliarity.Tomyknowledge, neighbourhoodeffectshavesofarbeenobservedonlyinonlinewordrecognition taskssuchaslexicaldecision. References Ard,JoshandTacoHomburg(1983).Verificationoflanguagetransfer.In Languagetransferin LanguageLearning, SusanGassandLarrySelinker(eds.),157ñ176.Rowley,MA:Newbury House.
JournalofExperimental Psychology:Learning,MemoryandCognition 18(5):1001ñ1018. (1993).Word-typeeffectsinbilingualprocessingtasks:Supportforamixed-representational system.In TheBilingualLexicon, RobertSchreuderandBertWeltens(eds.),27ñ51.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins. deGroot,AnnetteM.B.andGerardL.J.Nas(1991).Lexicalrepresentationofcognatesand non-cognatesincompoundbilinguals. JournalofMemoryandLanguage 30(1):90ñ123. DiccionariodelaLenguaEspañola (1984).20thEdition.Madrid:RealAcademiaEspaÒola. Dijkstra,TonandWalterJ.B.VanHeuven(1998).TheBIAmodelandbilingualwordrecognition. In LocalistConnectionistApproachestoHumanCognition
,J GraingerandA.Jacobs(eds.), 189ñ225.Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates. Dijkstra,Ton,HenkVanJaarsveldandSjoerdTenBrinke(1998).Interlingualhomographrecognition:Effectsoftaskdemandsandlanguageintermixing. Bilingualism:LanguageandCognition 1 (1):51ñ66. Eaton,HelenS.(1940). SemanticFrequencyListforEnglish,French,German,andSpanish Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress. Ecke,Peter(1996). Cross-languageStudiesofLexicalRetrieval:Tip-of-the-tongueStatesinFirst andForeignLanguages Doctoraldissertation,UniversityofArizona. (1997).Tipofthetonguestatesin firstandforeignlanguages:Similaritiesanddifferencesof lexicalretrievalfailures.In ProceedingsoftheEUROSLA7Conference, 505ñ514.Barcelona: EUROSLA. Ecke,PeterandMerrillGarrett(1998).Lexicalretrievalstagesofmomentarilyinaccessibleforeign languagewords. IlhadoDesterro.SpecialIssueontheCognitiveAspectsofForeign/Second LanguageAcquisition/Learning 35:157ñ183. Ecke,PeterandChristopherJ.Hall(1998).TresnivelesdelarepresentaciÛnmental:Evidencia deerroreslÈxicosenestudiantesdeunterceridioma.
Theautomaticcognateformassumption 85 Chen,Hsuan-ChihandYuen-SumLeung(1989).Patternsoflexicalprocessinginanon-native language. JournalofExperimentalPsychology:Learning,MemoryandCognition 15(2): 316ñ325. Chomsky,Noam(1991).Somenotesoneconomyofderivationandrepresentation.In Principles andParametersinComparativeGrammar, RobertFreidin(ed.),417ñ454.Cambridge,MA: MITPress. deGroot,AnnetteM.B.(1992).Determinantsofwordtranslation.
EstudiosdeLingüísticaAplicada
28: 15ñ26. (2000).LexikalischeFehlerinDeutschalsDrittsprache:TranslexikalischerEinflussauf3 EbenenderMentalenReprasentation. DeutschalsFremdsprache 37(1):30ñ36. Ellis,NicholasC.(1998).Emergentism,connectionismandlanguagelearning. LanguageLearning 48(4):631ñ664. Grainger,JonathanandTonDijkstra(1992).Ontherepresentationanduseoflanguageinformation inbilinguals.In CognitiveProcessinginBilinguals,R.J Harris(ed.),207ñ220.Amsterdam: NorthHolland. Granger,Sylviane(1996).RomancewordsinEnglish:fromhistorytopedagogy.In Words: KVHAAConference36, JanSvartvik(ed.),105ñ121.Stockholm:AlmquistandWiksell. Haiman,John(1983).Iconicandeconomicmotivation. Language 59:781ñ819. Hall,ChristopherJ.(1992).Makingtherightconnections:Vocabularylearningandthemental lexicon.Unpublishedmanuscript,UniversidaddelasAmÈricas,Puebla: ERICDocument ReproductionService No.ED363128. (1996).LaestrategiaparasÌtica:Unmodelopsicoling¸Ìsticodelaprendizajedevocabulario. In LaImaginaciónylaIntelegenciaenelLenguaje:HomenajeaRomanJakobson, Susana CuevasandJulietaHaidar(eds.),229ñ238.MexicoCity:INAH. (1997).Palabrasconcretas,palabrasabstractasyrasgoscategorialesenellÈxicomentalbiling¸e.In VariaLingüísticayLiteraria:50AñosdelCELL,Tomo1.Lingüística, Rebeca
Journalof MemoryandLanguage 33(2):149ñ174. Laufer,Batia(1989).Afactorofdifficultyinvocabularylearning:Deceptivetransparency. AILA Review 6:10ñ20. (1997).Thelexicalplightinsecondlanguagereading.Wordsyoudonítknow,wordsyou thinkyouknow,andwordsyoucanítguess.In SecondLanguageVocabularyAcquisition, JamesCoadyandThomasHuckin(eds.),20ñ34.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Levelt,WillemJ.M.(1989). Speaking.FromIntentiontoArticulation Cambridge,MA:MIT Press. Levelt,WillemJ.M.,ArdiRoelofsandAntjeS.Meyer(1999).Atheoryoflexicalaccessinspeech production. BehavioralandBrainSciences 22(1):1ñ75. Lightfoot,David(1979). PrinciplesofDiachronicSyntax. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. MacWhinney,Brian(1997).SecondlanguageacquisitionandtheCompetitionModel.In Tutorials inBilingualism.PsycholinguisticPerspectives, AnnetteM.B.deGrootandJudithF.Kroll (eds),113ñ142.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates. Martinet,AndrÈ(1964). ElementsofGeneralLinguistics Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress. Matthei,EdwardandThomasRoeper(1983). UnderstandingandProducingSpeech London: Fontana. Meara,Paul(1984).Thestudyoflexisininterlanguage.In Interlanguage,A.Davies,C.Criper andA.P.R.Howatt(eds.),225ñ235.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress. Nation,I.S.Paul(1990). TeachingandLearningVocabulary.New York:NewburyHouse. Odlin,Terence(1989). LanguageTransfer.Cross-linguisticinfluenceinlanguagelearning Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Piaget,JeanandB‰rbelInhelder(1969). ThePsychologyoftheChild. London:Routledgeand KeganPaul. Ringbom,HÂkan(1987). TheRoleoftheFirstLanguageinForeignLanguageLearning Clevedon,PH:MultilingualMatters.
86 ChristopherJ.Hall BarrigaVillanuevaandPedroM.ButrageÒo(eds.),363ñ381.MexicoCity:ElColegiode MÈxico. Hall,ChristopherJ.andMoyaSchultz(1994).Loserroresdemarcosint·ctico:Evidenciadel ModeloParasitariodellÈxicomentalenunsegundoidioma.In MemoriasdelIICongreso NacionaldeLingüística, specialissueof EstudiosenLingüísticaAplicada, 376ñ389.Mexico City:UNAM,INAHandECM. Hatch,EvelynandCherylBrown(1995). Vocabulary,Semantics,andLanguageEducation Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Holmes,JohnandRosindaG.Ramos(1993).Falsefriendsandrecklessguessers.Observingcognaterecognitionstrategies.In SecondLanguageReadingandVocabularyLearning, Thomas Huckin,MargotHaynesandJamesCoady(eds.), 86ñ108.Norwood,NJ:Ablex. James,Carl(1998). ErrorsinLanguageLearningandUse London:Longman. Jin,Young-Sun(1990).Effectsofconcretenessoncross-languagepriminginlexicaldecision. PerceptionandMotorSkills 70:1139ñ1154. Koda,Keiko(1997).OrthographicknowledgeinL2lexicalprocessing.Across-linguisticsperspective.In SecondLanguageVocabularyAcquisition, JamesCoadyandThomasHuckin (eds.),35ñ52.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Kroll,JudithF.andAnnetteM.B.deGroot(1997).LexicalandconceptualmemoryinthebilinNJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates. Kroll,JudithF.andErikaStewart(1994).Categoryinterferenceintranslationandpicturenaming: Evidenceforasymmetricconnectionsbetweenbilingualmemoryrepresentations.
gual:Mappingformtomeaningintwolanguages.In TutorialsinBilingualism.PsycholinguisticPerspectives, AnnetteM.B.deGrootandJudithF.Kroll(eds.),169ñ199.Mahwah,
Languagelearningand thought,J MacNamara(ed.),185ñ214.NewYork:AcademicPress. Sweet,Henry(1972[1899]). ThePracticalStudyofLanguages London:OxfordUniversityPress. Talamas,Adrienne,JudithF.KrollandRobertDufour(1999).Fromformtomeaning:Stagesin theacquisitionofsecond-languagevocabulary.
Theautomaticcognateformassumption 87 Rumelhart,David,JamesL.McClellandandthePDPResearchGroup(1986). ParallelDistributed Processing:ExplorationsintheMicrostructureofCognition, Vol.1, Foundations Cambridge:MITPress. S·nchezCasas,RosaM.,ChristopherW.DavisandJosÈE.GarcÌa-Albea(1992).Bilinguallexical processing:Exploringthecognate/noncognatedistinction.
EuropeanJournalofCognitive Psychology 4:293ñ310. ShorterOxfordEnglishDictionary (1973).Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Singleton,David(1999). ExploringtheSecondLanguageMentalLexicon Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress. Slobin,DanI.(1977).Languagechangeinchildhoodandhistory.In
Bilingualism:LanguageandCognition 2 (1): 45ñ58. Van Heuven,WalterJ.B.,TonDijkstraandJ.Grainger(1998).Orthographicneighbourhood effectsinbilingualwordrecognition. JournalofMemoryandLanguage 39(3):458ñ483. Zipf,GeorgeK.(1949). HumanBehaviorandthePrincipleofLeastEffort. NewYork:AddisonWesley.